Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 138 (Monday, August 20, 2018)

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 138 (Monday, August 20, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5707-S5713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6157, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and
for other purposes.

Pending:

Shelby amendment No. 3695, in the nature of a substitute.
McConnell (for Shelby) amendment No. 3699 (to amendment No.
3695), of a perfecting nature.

[[Page S5708]]

McConnell (for Menendez/Murkowski) amendment No. 3705 (to
amendment No. 3695), to provide funding for the Firefighter
Cancer Registry Act of 2018.
McConnell (for Fischer) amendment No. 3706 (to amendment
No. 3695), to appropriate an additional $10,000,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for POW/MIA
identification within the Defense Personnel Accounting
Agency, and to provide an offset.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know that Senator Shelby has spoken
before and is going to speak again. I also know we are coming up on the
time for some votes. Let me speak in my capacity as vice chairman of
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Today, as you know, the Senate begins consideration of the Defense
and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
minibus appropriations bill. This will actually be the third
appropriations package brought to the Senate floor this year. Once we
complete action, the Senate will have passed 9 of the 12 committee-
reported appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2019. It is certainly
much faster than has been done in years.
I want to thank Chairman Shelby for his commitment to a bipartisan
process. That and the fact we have been friends for decades have made
this progress possible. I also want to thank Senators Blunt, Murray,
and Durbin for their work on these bills--again, a bipartisan effort. I
think the bipartisan progress is due to the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell-
Schumer commitment to move forward on appropriations bills that have
bipartisan support, are at spending levels agreed to in the bipartisan
budget deal, and reject poison pill riders and controversial
authorizing language. The two bills in this package meet this test.

The minibus before us represents 65 percent of all discretionary
spending, but it also demonstrates the importance of the bipartisan
budget agreement reached earlier this year. In this package, we see the
priorities outlined in that agreement made into real policy to improve
the lives of Americans.
It is no secret that the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the resulting
sequestration cuts damaged our military readiness, resulting in
canceled deployments and deferred maintenance.
It was in July of last year, I remind my fellow Senators, that
Secretary Mattis testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee,
and he said that ``for all the heartache caused by the loss of our
troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more to harm
the readiness of our military than sequestration.''
But damage to our military readiness was not the only consequence of
the Budget Control Act. Sequestration has led to schools that fail to
prepare students for a challenging world, a steep decline in Federal
investment for job training and employment services, healthcare crises
left unaddressed, and childcare services eroded.
In fact, when thinking of the defense budget, it was reported in 2017
that 7 out of 10 people--7 out of 10--ages 17 to 24 in America would
not qualify for military service because of reasons related to their
physical health or education. That means that 24 million out of 34
million young adults are ineligible due to obesity and other health
problems or criminal backgrounds or lack of education.
Now, if you want to talk about national security, that strikes at it.
This statistic should make it alarmingly clear that investments in our
domestic priorities, such as healthcare and education, are also
national security investments, and the military agrees with that. That
is why we fought so hard for a budget deal to reverse the cuts on both
defense and nondefense programs.
But now we have reached a bipartisan budget deal, and because of it,
the defense appropriations bill before us gives the men and women of
our Armed Services the resources they need to carry out the missions
effectively and safely. That is a goal that both Republicans and
Democrats have shared throughout this process.
The LHHS bill makes important new investments in healthcare and
education. It increases funding for the National Institutes of Health
by $5 billion over fiscal year 2017 so they can aggressively pursue
cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. It backs our
commitment to increase access to higher education by increasing college
affordability spending by $2.3 billion over fiscal year 2017. By
increasing access to childcare by $3.2 billion over fiscal year 2017,
it supports working families and communities in every part of our
country.
In doing this, we have rejected the President's shortsighted budget
proposals, which would have cut important programs in the LHHS bill by
$12.5 billion from fiscal year 2018 funding level.
Now, we take into consideration our immediate national security
needs, but you can't just stop there, you have to think about the
future of the country. The deep ties that run between defense and
nondefense priorities make it fitting that we take up these two bills
together, and I applaud the chairman for doing that. By combining these
bills into one package, we increase the certainty that they will be
enacted into law on time and will avoid the devastating effect of long-
term continuing resolutions.
I urge our House counterparts, when they come back to Washington, to
commit, as we have, to producing a conference report that contains both
bills so that we can move swiftly toward final passage.
Finally, I wish to highlight the new funding in this bill that helps
our country address the scourge of opioids.
Every Member in this Chamber has seen the toll this epidemic has
taken on their States. In 2017, 72,000 people--a 10-percent increase
over 2016--lost their lives to drug overdoses in the opioid epidemic.
In that 1 year, more lives were lost than in the entirety of the
Vietnam War. Just think of that: 72,000 people in the opioid scourge.
Now, I know Marcelle and I hear frequently from Vermonters recovering
from opioid abuse, but we also hear in the grocery stores, at our
church, or on the streets of Vermont from families talking about a
member who did not recover and talking about their funeral.
Marcelle is a nurse, and I am a former prosecutor.
Some of these tales have brought us to tears because these are men
and women with the same hopes and dreams shared by all Americans. That
is why I say that mothers and fathers see us and say: We want to talk
to you. They have tears streaming from their eyes. We know what we are
going to hear--that they have lost children to this epidemic.
This has touched the lives of every American: Black, White, rich,
poor, urban, and rural. It is an American problem. It affects all of
us. This package represents a second installment in investing in
serious solutions.
We invest $3 billion in new resources over fiscal year 2017 to
address this crisis. This is on top of roughly $500 million in
additional funding contained in other appropriations bills and similar
funding levels in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. But it is because of
the bipartisan budget deal that these new investments will surpass $6
billion over 2 years.
Of course there is more we can do to help those Americans who are
trying to pull themselves out of addiction and turn their lives around
or to keep their children alive, but this is a good start. I think it
is a start the American people can be proud of. It is not a Democratic
plan, and it is not a Republican plan. It is an American plan, and that
should unite us all.
Mr. President, I see my dear friend from Alabama, the distinguished
chairman, on the floor, and I yield to him.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this afternoon, as most of us realize now,
the Senate has begun debate on amendments to the fiscal year 2019
Defense-Labor-HHS appropriations bill. These are the two largest bills
to come out of the Appropriations Committee as a whole. Both of them
together make up a great part of all of the appropriations process and
the numbers.
At the end of last week here, I offered a more detailed outline of
the critical funding of this bill for America's military. So I will not
repeat myself on that. Today, I simply wish to remind my colleagues of
what is at stake with this legislation and our path to success,
hopefully, this week.
First and foremost, our national security is at stake. Earlier this
year, the President signed into law the largest increase in military
spending in 15

[[Page S5709]]

years. This legislation accelerates that increase and provides our men
and women in uniform with the largest pay raise they have seen in
nearly a decade. So the No. 1 thing at stake here is rebuilding our
military and taking care of our troops.
This bill also provides for a wide range of critical domestic
priorities, including education, medical research, and funding to
combat the opioid epidemic. All are very important to America.
Recent history suggests that we face a tall task in passing these
bills on the Senate floor. The Senate has not passed a Labor-HHS
appropriations bill in more than 10 years. It has been even longer
since the President was able to sign a Defense appropriations bill into
law before the end of the fiscal year, which ends September 30.
Why? Because in the past, poison pills have blown up the process or
foreclosed it altogether. I appreciate that one Senator's poison pill
is often another Senator's priority, but I strongly urge my colleagues
today to focus on accomplishing the big picture priorities that I have
underscored here. We know where the fault lines run, and I hope we can
avoid them.
There are reasons to believe that this year will be a different year
and that we will produce a different outcome. First among them, there
is a unified desire to avoid another omnibus spending bill. Second, we
come to the floor this week on the heels of a string of recent
successes in passing appropriation bills. Third, each of the bills in
this package passed the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30-1.
These factors paved the way for the full Senate to consider this
package, and I want to take a minute to thank the leaders on both
sides, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, for agreeing to bring
this bill to the floor.
I also want to thank the vice chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, Senator Leahy, for sticking to the agreement he and I made
to move these bills in a bipartisan manner.
Mr. Vice Chairman, you are here on the floor. We would not be in this
position without your efforts. I want you to know how much I appreciate
that. I want you to know how much I believe that most of the Senate
appreciates that.
I say to my colleagues, we collectively call for regular order in the
appropriations process, and now we have it. I am optimistic that we
will continue to show the American people that we are here to work, and
that means debating and disposing of amendments, passing appropriation
bills, and accomplishing the job they sent us here to do.
I hope my optimism is not misplaced. The stakes are simply too high.
We have a lot to do this week, but we can do it.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Early Voting in Florida

Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, folks are voting today in Florida. As a
matter of fact, they have been voting for some weeks since Florida
started voting by mail, which started a couple of weeks ago. They are
voting in early voting--a period of time of up to 2 weeks prior to the
August 28 primary. They are voting early in these elections. They are
exercising their most fundamental right, which is to vote.
Of course, there is so much at stake for Florida and our country in
this year's elections. Last month, a Federal judge in Florida
overturned a 2014 ban on early voting, and it was a ban on college
campuses. Back in 2014, the legislature passed and the Governor signed
into law a series of restrictions to make it harder to vote instead of
easier. One of them, which was then implemented by the Division of
Elections--secretary of state--was that there could not be a voting
place on a college campus. Well, we have State universities, just as
other States do, that have huge numbers of students. Of course, if you
want to make it easier for students to vote, instead of their having to
go out in the community, it is quite logical to have a place for them
to vote on the campus.
Well, there was an attempt in the past to ban the voting. The
particular case I weighed in on a few years ago was one in which they
were banning voting from the student union building at the University
of Florida in Gainesville--a campus, by the way, that enrolls some tens
of thousands of students. In a scathing opinion, a Federal judge
overturned that ruling, saying that the ban by Florida law was
unconstitutional and that it seemed to put in place a prohibition on a
geographical location for voting as a means by which to hinder younger
voters--specifically, students--from casting their ballots.
Because of the Federal judge's ruling, there will now be an early
voting location on the campus of the University of Florida for the
upcoming general election this coming November. According to press
reports, it doesn't look as though that is going to be the case in all
places around Florida's colleges and universities. We just read a
newspaper report that said that the supervisor of elections in Duval
County--that is Jacksonville--says he might not be able to set up an
early voting location on the campus of the University of Florida in
time for the general election due to logistical and financial concerns.
I hope that the Federal judge's ruling in this case makes very clear
his displeasure about not making it convenient for students to vote by
refusing to set up a precinct on the university campus location. I am
hopeful that the logistical and other issues can be resolved as quickly
as possible and that Florida's universities can host early voting
during the general election.
Early voting is key to ensuring access to the ballot for all voters.
We have found that with early voting and voting by mail, increasingly
larger percentages of the voting electorate are utilizing that
opportunity to vote instead of waiting until the last day, election
day, November 6. Unfortunately, we have seen some efforts in Florida
over the last decade to curb access to early voting, particularly among
young, low-income, and minority voters. We ought to make it easier to
vote, not harder.
I hope that in the multiplicity of universities and colleges all
around Florida, that the supervisors of elections will pay attention to
the Federal judge's ruling and act accordingly.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is August, and the Senate is in
session getting the people's work done. As the majority leader said
last week, the reason we can't afford to take this time off is because
we have so much to do.
Of course, one of the things we could do is agree to an expedited
confirmation of noncontroversial nominations--something our Democratic
friends have not been willing to do to this point. Indeed, they engaged
in unprecedented obstruction of some of President Trump's nominees,
even those who are not controversial. For example, we just confirmed
two Federal appellate court judges in a strong bipartisan manner last
week. These, of course, were both highly distinguished lawyers, and I
am sure they will do a great job on the Fourth Circuit. When we see
nominations get overwhelmingly bipartisan votes, we wonder why we had
to delay these nominations not only for the judiciary but also other
important nominations, such as at the State Department and in other
areas. Frankly, because of the delay, the vacancies impair the ability
of government to be responsive to the needs of the American people. It
is a shame we have seen that kind of mindless obstruction to President
Trump's nominees who, again, are not even controversial.

While we focus sometimes on how divided we are--and I know the
American people sometimes feel like we are unwilling to find common
ground--it is not true that we don't occasionally come together and do
important things. This week marks the continued collaboration between
Republicans and Democrats that started last week when we agreed to
address two important

[[Page S5710]]

funding bills. One is for the Department of Defense, which is my
personal priority, and I know the Presiding Officer would agree with
that. The other involves Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, which I will mention in just a moment.
Working together to do both of these appropriations bills is
something the New York Times described as a bipartisan breakthrough
because, in the past, we lurched from continuing resolution to Omnibus
appropriations bills, much to the frustration of not only our
constituents but many of us in the Senate.
We have seen continuing resolutions underfund our national security,
for example. We have seen gargantuan Omnibus appropriations bills that
basically four Members of Congress negotiate and then present to the
rest of us as a fait accompli, which is obviously a terrible way to
spend the people's money, but I believe we are doing something good
here this week.
These appropriations bills are the two largest of all the
appropriations bills. After we pass them this week, we will have passed
9 of the 12 appropriations bills, which fund 87 percent of
discretionary spending. Doing this with more than a month before the
end of the fiscal year is something we haven't done in a long time. We
are ahead of the House, which usually moves at a fast clip--although,
we are here working, and the House is taking a little time off, I might
add.
I offer my appreciation to Chairman Shelby, chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, and Ranking Member Vice Chairman Leahy, whom
I was just talking to. He was telling me about how pretty the weather
is in Vermont and how much he would like to be there instead of here,
perhaps, after we finish this bill. I told him if he helped us work on
some of this backlog of nominations, maybe that was something we could
discuss.
I would like to congratulate both Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman
Leahy for their good work, on a bipartisan basis, facilitating a smooth
process so far. As I said, there have been seven of them, and the
chairman managed to mark up each prior to the Fourth of July State work
period. They have done a good job of managing the bills on the floor
and avoiding a quagmire--which, if encountered, would only kill the
process.
I would like to highlight a few of the aspects of each appropriations
bill we will be working on this week. In the Defense bill, we will be
including a provision requiring the Department of Defense to issue two
reports to Congress on the implementation of a bill called Fix NICS. To
refresh everybody's memory, this was a piece of legislation we passed
with broad bipartisan support that went to the President. I introduced
it in light of the shooting last fall in Sutherland Springs, TX, that
killed 26 people and wounded about 20 more. The gunman in that case had
been in the Air Force and was discharged, but his criminal convictions
while he served in the Air Force were not uploaded into the relevant
FBI databases. That is how he got his hands on a gun that he was
already legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing and committed
this mayhem and inflicted this misery.
That is why this report from the Department of Defense is so
important. Hopefully, they have remedied this failure to upload
derogatory and disqualifying information for people who cannot legally
purchase or possess firearms. We want to make sure--in light of this
legislative change--that the right changes are being implemented and
that lives will be saved as a consequence.
The Defense bill will also greatly benefit the Nation by providing
additional funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and the V-22
Osprey aircraft, which are both made in Texas. This is important not
only to make sure our warfighters have the most advanced airframes and
aircraft available but also to make sure the jobs that go along with it
are secured as well.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the latest and greatest warplane in
the American arsenal, and we have put, literally, all of our eggs in
that basket. As the saying goes, when you put all your eggs in one
basket, you better take care of that basket. We need to make sure these
Joint Strike Fighters are being produced in a responsible sort of way
and that both of these aircraft are being provided so our warfighters
can have the very best equipment they need in order to do the job we
asked them to do.
This bill also provides $30 billion for local school districts that
provide education to military children. Sometimes this is called impact
aid because our military bases aren't taxed by local school districts
when they are then called upon to provide education to the children of
Active-Duty military or military dependents. It is important the
Federal Government make sure they have the financial resources they
need in order to make that happen. Indeed, $30 million in impact aid
will be provided for local school districts.
Finally, this includes a 2.6-percent increase in military pay and
increases Active-Duty troop levels by more than 7,000. Both of those
are really important. Obviously, in an all-volunteer military, it is
important that we compensate our servicemembers appropriately. This
isn't about the money for them, but we have to make sure they can
provide for their families while they serve our Nation and help keep us
safe.
In terms of troop levels, it is important the troop levels match the
commitments we have made around the world to help stabilize unstable
regions and to provide safety not only for ourselves but for our
friends and allies around the world. Unfortunately, because of
extensive and lengthy commitments we made with a small force, our
Active-Duty servicemembers are likely to be deployed over and over
again, with a lot of stress not only on their families but on the force
effectiveness in general. Both of these are very important--a 2.6-
percent increase in pay for Active-Duty military and increasing troop
levels by about 7,000.
In the second bill we will be passing, in addition to the Defense
appropriations bill, this will fund the Department of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and provide more funds for biomedical facilities to
expand, remodel, and renovate their existing research capabilities that
will benefit a multitude of institutions. Those include the Texas
Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio. We know that in the
healthcare field, nurses are always in short supply. This bill will
also benefit nursing programs, like the one at Texas Tech University,
which will assist veterans in making the transition from military life
to civilian life. Finally, in the education sphere, it will provide
more than $475 million for charter school programs.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Madam President, at the same time, we are continuing our work on the
nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who will succeed Justice Anthony
Kennedy as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. His hearing is
set for the first week of September--September 4. I hope we will move
quickly thereafter to vote on his confirmation.
I have perhaps benefited from my familiarity and my acquaintance with
Judge Kavanaugh, dating back to 2000. Many of our colleagues are just
now meeting him for the first time and becoming acquainted with his
outstanding record as a lawyer for the White House and as a judge.
Late last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee received another
production of documents on Judge Kavanaugh. This batch amounted to
about 64,000 pages. Just so everybody can keep count of all the
documents that are being produced as part of his confirmation hearing,
the committee now has more than 248,000 pages of executive branch
material related to the nominee. The reason I mention that number is
because it really dwarfs the previous record for Judge Gorsuch, which
was roughly 180,000 documents.
The committee was also handed a list of documents that were withheld
on grounds that they are personal records as opposed to government
records under the Presidential Records Act. Chairman Grassley has
appropriately--and I think wisely--asked the National Archives to
review those withheld documents and confirm this determination by
making their own determination as to whether they are responsive or
should be withheld. I think this speaks volumes to the transparency of
the process since day one.
I am particularly grateful to Chairman Grassley for his leadership,
as

[[Page S5711]]

well as for the efficiency and thoroughness the committee has so far
displayed in reviewing the documents. We worked hard to accommodate our
Democratic colleagues' requests all along the way. Let's not forget
that for nearly 2 weeks before issuing the committee's request to the
George W. Bush Presidential Library, Chairman Grassley attempted to
seek a good-faith agreement from the ranking member to jointly request
documents relating to Judge Kavanaugh's legal work at the White House.
These efforts at good-will collaboration, unfortunately, were to no
avail. The chairman received, instead, unprecedented counterproposals
designed to unnecessarily draw out the process.
Although the chairman is right to prioritize review of some of the
documents coming from President George W. Bush's administration, we all
know the best evidence of how Judge Kavanaugh will perform as a member
of the Supreme Court is how he has already performed as a judge during
the last 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He has written
more than 300 opinions during that time. Of course, his work as a judge
is the best lens for how he will evaluate real cases in the future. Our
friends on the other side used to agree with that.
Back during Justice Sotomayor's hearings, they made this identical
comment that her judicial record was far more important than any
comments or speeches she may have made outside of that context. Maybe
belatedly for them, we now agree with them that this is the best
evidence. It is just common sense.
In Judge Kavanaugh's case, reviewing his judicial record, I think
what the record reveals is, he is diligent and thoughtful in his
reasoning. His rulings are clear, impartial, and just.
In the recent questionnaire he returned to the Judiciary Committee--
which is a standard part of the vetting process. Nominees are sent a
questionnaire, and they respond and attach copies of speeches, law
review articles, and other things they have spoken on or written. Judge
Kavanaugh listed what he saw as his most significant cases. I want to
mention a couple of those. I think they are illustrative of the work he
has done not only on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals but the kind of
work he will do as a member of the Supreme Court and his standing in
the Federal Judiciary.
First is a case called Free Enterprise Fund. Judge Kavanaugh found
himself in dissent. In other words, he didn't join the majority
decision, finding that the structure of an independent agency in the
executive branch violated the Constitution. Interestingly, when the
case was appealed thereafter to the Supreme Court, a majority of the
Justices on the Court cited Judge Kavanaugh's dissent in reversing the
panel's decision on the District of Columbia Circuit Court. When the
Supreme Court agrees with a lower court judge and cites that author's
opinion, that is a pretty good sign that he or she deserves to be taken
seriously. In Judge Kavanaugh's case, it didn't just happen once.
Consider a second case, Bluman, which involved a Federal ban on
election contributions made by foreign nationals. Judge Kavanaugh
authored the majority opinion, which rejected the plaintiff's
challenge. When the Supreme Court took the case thereafter, it
unanimously agreed with Judge Kavanaugh. All nine members of the Court
sided with Judge Kavanaugh's position.
In a third case, Wesby, Judge Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion on
a question of qualified immunity afforded to law enforcement officers.
Even though Judge Kavanaugh's views did not win the day in the DC
Circuit, the Supreme Court took the case and reversed the panel
decision and embraced Judge Kavanaugh's position in the end. Once
again, it bears repeating that the decision was unanimous--9 to 0.
Judge Kavanaugh's view was vindicated.

These are just a few of the 307 opinions he authored while he was on
the DC Circuit, and, of course, there are many more. In the coming
weeks, I know the lawyers on the Judiciary Committee, as well as my
colleagues, will have a chance to thoroughly delve into each of them
and then ask the nominee probing questions about them when he testifies
before the committee during the first week of September.
For now, we will continue with the great paper chase, which includes
the largest production of documents ever in the Senate's consideration
of a Supreme Court nominee. Unfortunately, as I have said before, many
of our Democratic colleagues aren't likely to ever be satisfied with
the boxes upon boxes of written materials. It will never be enough. In
some cases, it is because they have already decided to vote no against
the nominee even before having met the nominee or having reviewed any
documents whatsoever.
Emblematic of this phenomenon is one of our colleagues on the Senate
Judiciary Committee who has threatened to sue to obtain even more
records. The problem for that Senator is, on the night Judge Kavanaugh
was nominated by President Trump, he said he had done enough due
diligence to have reached a conclusion on whether the nominee should be
confirmed and had said he would not vote for the nominee. Yet this is
the same Senator who is now saying we ought to file a suit to get more
documents. I think the American people are smart enough to figure out
what is going on. It is gamesmanship, plain and simple.
So my question is, If our colleagues have done enough due diligence
to make a decision to not support the nomination, why do they need more
paper? To what avail? Why should we extend this process that will cost
the taxpayers more money and create a lot of confusion when they have
already made their decision?
Despite these games, the truth is, Judge Kavanaugh is eminently
qualified and well respected by all who know him, and I look forward to
confirming him as Justice Kavanaugh early this fall, following the
Judiciary Committee's hearings during the first week of September.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3705

Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to call on my colleagues
to vote in favor of the Menendez-Murkowski amendment No. 3705, which I
understand we will be shortly voting on on the floor, to provide
implementation funding for the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act. Many of
our colleagues supported the authorizing bill when it was before the
Senate earlier this year, and it was subsequently passed and signed
into law by President Trump.
There are many words that come to mind when we think of
firefighters--``courage,'' ``heroism,'' and ``compassion''--but
tragically there is another word all too often associated with
firefighters, and that word is ``cancer.''
According to the International Association of Firefighters, cancer is
now the leading cause of death among firefighters. We know that
firefighters confront more than smoke and flames while on the job; they
also encounter dangerous fumes and toxins and known carcinogens that
pose serious health risks.
The Firefighter Cancer Registry Act we created is the first ever
national cancer registry for firefighters, and the law directs the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the relationship
between career-long exposure to dangerous fumes and toxins and cancer.
Our Nation's first responders put their lives on the line every day,
whether it was charging into a burning building on September 11 or
fighting wildfires out West today. Every day, our firefighters strive
to protect us. This is the least we can do as a nation to protect them.
I hope all of us can unite in support of this amendment, which will
enable the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to carry out its
mission in the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act.
I thank my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for her stalwart
commitment to this effort, both on the legislation that became law and
in the process of trying to get this appropriation.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Nebraska.

[[Page S5712]]

DPAA Funding Amendment

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bipartisan
amendment with my colleague, the junior Senator from Wisconsin. Our
measure would provide much needed funding for the Defense POW/MIA
Accounting Agency, or the DPAA, so they can continue the important work
of identifying and accounting for our missing servicemembers from
conflicts around the globe.
Tragically, more than 83,000 Americans remain missing from World War
II, the Korean war, the Cold War, and the Vietnam war. Many more remain
unaccounted for as a result of more recent conflicts. The Defense POW/
MIA Accounting Agency is an agency within the Department of Defense
whose mission is to recover personnel listed as prisoners of war or
missing in action. Their core task is to provide the fullest possible
accounting for these personnel to their families and to this Nation.
The value of the work being done by DPAA cannot be overstated. No
matter when an American servicemember goes missing, our commitment to
fully investigating what happened and bringing closure to their family
should never waver.
I am honored to represent one of DPAA's forensic laboratories,
located at Offutt Air Force Base. There, they are currently working to
identify the sailors lost in the sinking of the USS Oklahoma during
World War II and conducting forensic identification of the Tuskegee
Airmen who remain listed as missing in action.
As a result of North Korea's recent agreement with the United States,
DPAA's work has taken on added significance. In July, North Korea
turned over 55 boxes containing the possible remains of DOD personnel
lost during the Korean war, who must now be processed and identified.
On several occasions, North Korean officials have indicated they
possess as many as 200 sets of remains they have recovered over the
years. To this day, there are still 5,300 U.S. military personnel who
remain listed as missing in action and are presumed deceased during the
Korean war, their remains still located in North Korea.
For the families of those lost, this is a long-awaited opportunity to
gain closure and to give their loved ones the respectful, dignified
remembrance they deserve. For that to happen, we must ensure that DPAA
has the resources it needs to conduct the forensic analysis of these
new remains and continue working to locate and account for American
servicemembers. That is why I am offering this amendment, which will
provide $10 million in fully offset funding to allow DPAA to cover this
additional workload. By supporting this amendment, we can ensure that
this influx of new work can be handled without delay and that the
talented men and women of DPAA have the support necessary to continue
this important task.
For the families of those lost in service, it is never too late to
offer closure, and for our heroes in uniform, it is never too late to
remember and to honor their sacrifice.
I thank the junior Senator from Wisconsin, the junior Senator from
Massachusetts, and all of our cosponsors who have aided in this effort.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and
lending our voice to the memory of our missing and fallen
servicemembers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Order of Procedure

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 5:30
votes take place immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote on Amendment No. 3705

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3705.
Mrs. FISCHER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller),
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from
Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe),
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Hoeven) would have voted ``yea''.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

YEAS--85

Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Hirono
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Murkowski
Murphy
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NOT VOTING--15

Bennet
Cruz
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Lee
McCain
Merkley
Moran
Murray
Risch
Schatz
Toomey
Amendment (No. 3705) was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 3706

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3706.
Mr. BLUNT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller),
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from
Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe),
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. Durbin. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necesssarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

YEAS--85

[[Page S5713]]

Sasse
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young

NOT VOTING--15

Bennet
Cruz
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Lee
McCain
Merkley
Moran
Murray
Risch
Schatz
Toomey
The amendment (No. 3706) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Amendment Nos. 3773 and 3703

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number:
Nelson No. 3773, Kennedy No. 3703. I further ask consent that at 12:10
p.m. on Tuesday, August 21, the Senate vote in relation to the
amendments in the order listed and that there be no second-degree
amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for others,
proposes amendments numbered 3773 and 3703.

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 3773

(Purpose: To require a Comptroller General of the United States report
on the implementation of the Military Health System Genesis electronic
health record)

At the appropriate place in title VIII of division A,
insert the following:
Sec. ___. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on a
study, conducted by the Comptroller General for purposes of
the report, on the implementation of the Military Health
System (MHS) Genesis electronic health record at the four
currently active sites.
(b) The report shall include the following:
(1) A description and assessment of the manner in which the
Military Health System Genesis electronic health record is
addressing the concerns raised by the partial Initial
Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) report on the
implementation of the record.
(2) A description and assessment of the performance of
Military Health System Genesis in meeting the demands of the
four currently active sites.
(3) A description and assessment of underlying issues in
connection with the implementation of Military Health System
Genesis.
(4) A description and assessment of any anticipated delays
in the implementation of Military Health System Genesis,
including the effect of such delays on the execution of
funds.
(5) Any other matters in connection with the implementation
of Military Health System Genesis that the Comptroller
General considers appropriate.

amendment no. 3703

(Purpose: To increase funding for the National Suicide Prevention
Lifeline)

At the appropriate place in title II of division B, insert
the following:
Sec. __. (a) There are appropriated under the heading
``Mental Health'' under the heading ``Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services'', in addition to any other amounts
made available under such heading and in order to provide
additional funding for the National Suicide Prevention
Lifeline, $2,802,000.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
total amount appropriated under the heading ``Substance Abuse
Treatment'' under the heading ``Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services'' is hereby reduced by $2,802,000.

____________________