[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 139 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5733-S5741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 6157, which the clerk will now report.
  The senior assistant 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.
       McConnell (for Nelson-Capito) amendment No. 3773 (to 
     amendment No. 3695), to require a Comptroller General of the 
     United States report on the implementation of the Military 
     Health System Genesis electronic health record.
       McConnell (for Kennedy-Reed) amendment No. 3703 (to 
     amendment No. 3695), to increase funding for the National 
     Suicide Prevention Lifeline.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The majority leader is 
recognized.


                               Clean Air

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Obama administration's so-called 
Clean Power Plan offered a typical story from that era, an innocent-
seeming name, a pleasant-sounding objective, but underneath, an 
intrusive regulatory regime built not on effective policy but on far-
left ideology. That is why I am so grateful today that the Trump 
administration is unveiling its plan to pare back this unfair, 
unworkable, and likely illegal policy.
  Remember, the far left tried to push through radical legislation like 
an energy tax through the last Congress. Well, enough of us knew it 
would have hurt American competitiveness, victimized the poor, and done 
little to actually give the American people a cleaner environment, but 
instead of learning from those failures, the Obama administration tried 
to go it alone and impose their radical agenda unilaterally.
  The so-called Clean Power Plan they dreamed up would have had no 
meaningful effect on global emissions. It would, however, have packed 
up middle-class American jobs and sent them right overseas. It would 
have piled a heavier burden onto the most vulnerable families. Lower 
income Americans are hit the hardest when energy costs take off, and 
this plan was projected to yield double-digit percentage increases in 
electricity costs of 40 States, of course, including Kentucky.
  Unfair, ineffective, unaffordable, more than likely illegal. That is 
quite the pedigree.
  That is why I fought the Obama administration's entire War on Coal, 
which was centered around this regulation, tooth and nail. I submitted 
an amicus brief to the courts when this was challenged for exceeding 
the scope and intent of the Clean Air Act. I championed legislation to 
cancel it entirely. On two occasions, I wrote to every Governor in the 
Nation asking them to not be complicit in implementing this outrageous 
overreach until the courts had ruled on its legality.
  My colleagues and I have been at this for quite some time.
  That is why the President's actions today are so encouraging. Today's 
proposed rule is the first step in the process. I look forward to 
engaging in this process as it moves forward toward a better outcome 
for Kentucky and for the entire country.


                             Appropriations

  Madam President, on another matter, the Senate is considering the 
eighth and ninth of 12 appropriations measure for fiscal year 2019. 
They will deliver on most of the important promises we make to the 
American people.
  First and foremost is our promise to defend the Nation and to meet 
our obligation to the brave men and women who do so, to ensure that if 
we send them into battle, they will be prepared and equipped to 
prevail.

[[Page S5734]]

  Secretary Mattis and our Nation's top military commanders have made 
their assessments perfectly clear. Our security and our interests are 
challenged every day across the globe by a wide array of threats, 
whether nation states or terrorist groups. They include the 
destabilizing influences of Iran in the Middle East and Russia in 
Eastern Europe, the challenges we face on the Korean Peninsula, the 
security of our allies, and the stability of international commerce in 
the Pacific. Our leaders have outlined the threats we face and the 
strategies it will take to check them, but they have also explained how 
the past decade's pattern of inconsistent and insufficient funding 
undermined readiness and borrowed from the future. This Congress and 
this President are determined to right the ship.
  Earlier this year, we did away with the arbitrary spending caps that 
had cut our military readiness and modernization. We passed a defense 
bill that authorized the largest year-on-year increases in defense 
spending in 15 years. This week, we have the opportunity to follow 
through by appropriating the necessary resources.
  The Defense appropriations measure before us will support American 
military installations at home and abroad. My fellow Kentuckians and I 
are more than proud to host installations like Fort Campbell, Fort 
Knox, and the Blue Grass Army Depot. This legislation supports the most 
important work that goes on at those facilities and the communities 
that revolve around them.
  Each of my colleagues, I am sure, can offer similar reports of the 
resources directed to military operations in their States.
  Whether they are serving at sea or training with the 101st Airborne 
Division in Kentucky, our Nation's men and women in uniform will 
receive some well-deserved benefits from the legislation we are 
considering today. That includes expanded access to onbase services for 
veterans, billions in new funding for housing, support infrastructure, 
child and health services, and the largest pay raise for our military 
personnel in nearly a decade.
  It is impossible to put a price on the sacrifices warfighters--and 
their families--make in service to our Nation, but it is within our 
power to give them the support they deserve on behalf of a grateful 
nation, and that is precisely what this legislation will do.
  I thank Senator Shelby and Senator Durbin, who led this bill through 
the subcommittee process. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this bipartisan measure when the time comes to pass it.


                            Economic Growth

  Madam President, on one final matter, our servicemembers will not be 
the only Americans who will be receiving well-deserved pay increases. 
As Republicans' pro-opportunity agenda continues to take hold, our 
economy continues to steam ahead, and working families across the 
country are reaping the benefits.
  By now, we are all familiar with the fact that millions of American 
workers have received special bonuses, wage increases, or other new 
benefits from their employers as a direct result of our Nation's new 
Tax Code. We are talking about nationwide employers from AT&T to 
Walmart, and local businesses from Glier's Meats in my home State of 
Kentucky to Stricks Ag in Montana, and New Hudson Facades in 
Pennsylvania. These are, in some cases, the multithousand-dollar 
bonuses that my friends, the Democratic leaders in the House and in the 
Senate, tried to shrug off as ``crumbs''--maybe in New York or San 
Francisco but not much anywhere else.
  Remember, they persuaded every one of our Democratic colleagues to 
vote against tax cuts.
  Well, the Bureau of Labor Statistics recently found the Employment 
Cost Index--that is everything American employers spend on employee 
wages and benefits--has increased 2.8 percent in the last 12 months 
alone. As CNBC reported, that is the strongest year-over-year growth 
since the autumn of 2008.
  So let me say that again. By this measure, on Republicans' watch, 
worker pay and benefits has already logged a faster 12-month growth 
rate than we ever achieved in all of President Obama's time in office.
  It is yet another data point: American workers, job creators, and 
middle-class families are enjoying one of their best economic moments 
in a long time, and it is thanks, in part, to Republicans' economic 
agenda, which is getting Washington's foot off the brake.
  I am proud this week's appropriations bill will give American 
servicemembers a raise. I am also proud our healthy economy is giving a 
raise to millions more Americans, and Republican policies are helping 
to make that happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, pending before the U.S. Senate today are 
two of the biggest appropriations bills we will consider this year. As 
Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, mentioned, they are the 
eighth and ninth bills we will pass.
  One of those bills I have had a direct interest in as the ranking 
Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. We are about to 
break a record. This spending bill for the Department of Defense is one 
of the largest increases we have seen in any given year. This bill is 
$607 billion for day-to-day operations of the Department of Defense and 
another $68 billion for something known as Overseas Contingency 
Operations, which is just another category of spending. This one bill--
one bill of the Department of Defense--comprises 49 percent of all of 
discretionary spending of the Government of the United States of 
America. Almost half of our discretionary budget is going to be spent 
in this bill. Accompanying it is the bill on health and education, 
which is the second largest appropriations bill we consider. So between 
the two of these bills, we are talking about a massive government 
expenditure.
  Let's reflect on that expenditure for a moment.
  There is no replacement for a strong national defense, but we should 
ask ourselves why. Why does it cost the American taxpayer so much to 
defend America?
  The last budget deal, under which we are working here, provided a 
near-record increase for the Department of Defense. Going back almost 
50 years, you can only find two or three other increases comparable. We 
are talking about a massive expenditure and a substantial, historic 
increase in the Department of Defense.
  Why? Because we face enemies in this world. I am not naive about 
that. I believe it. When it comes to superpowers threatening us, at the 
top of the list is Russia, and second on the list is China.
  How much do they spend, when it comes to the defense budgets of those 
two countries--our two hard targets, the most threatening nations when 
it comes to the United States? That is where you have to step back and 
shake your head and say that can't be true. But it is true.
  The Russian defense budget from 2017 to 2018 is $78 billion. Remember 
my earlier figures? We are going to be spending $700 billion, and their 
annual budget is $78 billion.
  How can there be such a disparity? Some people have argued that it is 
because of the accounting methods. It is the fact that Russian soldiers 
are paid dirt wages and ours, thank goodness, are paid just 
compensation and are given benefits. I accept all of that, but it still 
doesn't explain an almost 10-to-1 ratio of spending in the United 
States against spending in Russia.
  What about China? There is another nation that we are worried about 
in terms of our national defense. China is believed to spend about $175 
billion a year, about one-fourth of our total defense spending.
  Here is Russia spending about 10 percent of our defense spending, and 
we are concerned about the threat they pose to the United States and 
our allies. Here is China spending one-fourth of what we do, and we 
worry about their expanded roles in places like the Pacific.
  What is baffling about that comparison is that we spend so much more 
than our major adversaries in the world. Yet many experts testify over 
and over before congressional committees that we are falling behind in 
the development of key technologies--technologies like satellites, 
artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles, and quantum computing.

[[Page S5735]]

  It doesn't stand to reason that the United States of America, with 
all of its strength and all of its innovation and all of its ingenuity, 
is being challenged in the world by countries that are spending a 
fraction of what we spend.
  The conclusion is obvious. Our large increase of military spending 
calls for more accountability on how these funds are being spent. I 
voted for Secretary Mattis. I respect him very much, not only for his 
service to our country as a General in the U.S. Marine Corps but also 
as our Secretary of Defense. Thank goodness he is on the job. I have a 
lot of faith in him, and I believe he has a steady hand in an 
administration where there aren't too many steady hands.
  In March, Secretary Mattis sent a memo to every member of the 
Department of Defense, and here was the title: ``Be Peerless Stewards 
of the Taxpayers' Dollars.'' I have had the opportunity on two or three 
occasions to have direct conversations with Secretary Mattis about my 
concern that we are dramatically increasing American spending over our 
adversaries and still we believe they have a competitive edge or a 
near-competitive edge in many critical areas. Secretary Mattis 
correctly assessed in this report that the Pentagon needs a culture of 
performance and accountability in order to increase the trust and 
confidence that not only Congress but especially the American taxpayer 
places in his team.
  We also have a procurement system--a purchasing system--that sadly 
encourages poor behavior and poor results. I asked Dr. Michael Griffin, 
the top research and development official in the Department of Defense: 
Why do we spend so much more in the United States and continue to fall 
behind?
  He said that many members of the Department of Defense are afraid to 
be the last to say yes to a program that may not succeed. Too many 
decisions are pushed up the bureaucratic ladder to higher levels, which 
strangles these programs in redtape and delays them even more. If 
something goes wrong, failures are the subject of heated congressional 
hearings. We have seen that over and over--from $20,000 toilet seats 
and similar scandals in the past.
  I agree with Dr. Griffin's findings. The Department of Defense needs 
to do so much more to change the culture of accountability at that 
agency. We need to establish a new spirit of transparency. Right now, 
every weapon system--every single one of them--is sold to Congress with 
a rosy scenario: technological breakthroughs at a modest cost. There is 
no difference between the sales pitch on a program that is easy to 
develop and one that is a giant risk.
  The Department of Defense needs to be more upfront and more candid 
with what can go wrong and what will happen if something does go wrong. 
Very often, the contentious hearings that Dr. Griffin spoke about are 
not the result of a failed test but a broken promise.
  While the Pentagon has much work ahead of it to improve its 
accountability, the world does stand still. The Defense appropriations 
bill before the Senate makes major investments and innovation, and 
these are critical to our servicemembers, their families, and to the 
defense of our Nation. In this bill there is $95.1 billion in research 
and development spending. Remember, the total budget is almost $700 
billion, and $95.1 billion goes for R&D. This is the highest level of 
R&D funding in programs in the history of the Department of Defense, 
even when adjusted for inflation, and I support it.
  The increases provided by the committee will include major 
investments in areas that are challenging and promising at the same 
time: artificial intelligence, satellite technologies, and basic 
research. In addition, the bill provides $1.8 billion, just a small 
proportion of the total budget, and that money goes to medical 
research. That is a 5-percent increase over last year's spending. This 
DOD research is just a fraction of what is invested at the National 
Institutes of Health, which I will address in a moment, that resulted 
in breakthroughs ranging from breast cancer treatments to battlefield 
medical care.
  Our soldiers, sailors, marines, members of the Coast Guard, and 
airmen are surviving in battle because of this research at the 
Department of Defense. It is money well spent.
  With all of the valuable investments that are included in this bill, 
I want to especially thank Chairman Richard Shelby, of Alabama, for all 
of his work on this bill. It has been a real joy to work with him. We 
have disagreed on a few things--don't get me wrong--and I am sure we 
will continue to do so, but we have known one another for many years. 
We respect one another, and we are determined that this critical bill 
is going to be part of the success report that comes out of the Senate 
as we break for the Labor Day recess.
  Chairman Shelby has been receptive to many suggestions and comments, 
and I have tried to do the same when he has made some ideas a part of 
his proposal in this bill. I want to commend him for all of his work to 
get the appropriations process on track, not just on this bill but on 
the others as well. We stand a real chance in the Senate of sending 
most appropriations bills to the President before the end of the fiscal 
year the last day of September--a feat that has not been accomplished 
for the defense budget in 10 years.
  To Chairman Shelby's great credit, he understands that moving this 
Defense appropriations bill along also means moving other 
appropriations bills with it. While there may be tough votes coming up, 
we have come a long way to reestablish regular order in the last few 
months, and I am happy to be a part of this bipartisan solution. I hope 
the House will come back soon and join us in this effort. We would love 
to see them again.
  Now, let me say a word about the other appropriations bill that is 
part of our package on the floor. This bill, the Labor-HHS-Education 
bill, includes funding for the National Institutes of Health. For the 
past 6 years, I have made this the focal point of my work here in the 
Senate. I don't take particular credit for the results, but I have done 
my darndest to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
make this a priority, and I am happy to report they have.
  For the fourth year in a row, Congress is on track to provide the 
National Institutes of Health with funding increases of at least 5 
percent in real growth--a $2 billion increase in this bill. In the 
fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
appropriations bill before the Senate, we will help to ensure that our 
Nation's best and brightest medical researchers have the funding they 
need to conduct research on the diseases and conditions that impact 
every single American.
  NIH researchers are currently trying to develop cures for cancer, to 
figure out developments to delay or prevent the threat of Alzheimer's, 
and to help better those living with heart disease or diabetes.
  Between 2010 and 2016, the Food and Drug Administration approved 210 
new drugs in that 6-year period of time for treatments in the United 
States. Every single one of these new drugs was developed with funding 
by the National Institutes of Health.
  I hope, as we move forward to conference with the House on this bill, 
that we can include at least a 5-percent funding increase for the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as other agencies 
that allow America to literally lead the world in medical innovation.
  This bill provides $3.7 billion for the prevention and treatment of 
the scourge of opioid addiction. It will help our Federal agencies to 
respond better to this ongoing public health challenge. It includes 
provisions I requested to help the CDC address the toll of violence in 
the city of Chicago and assist with the Legionnaires' disease outbreak 
in Quincy, IL. It rejects President Trump's efforts to slash the 
Federal-Work Study Program and includes an increase in the maximum Pell 
grant of $100. It includes $5 million for the Open Textbooks Pilot 
Program, helping college students across America with the exploding 
cost of higher education.
  It is a good bill, and I want to commend Senator Patty Murray of 
Washington, the Democrat, and Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, the 
Republican, for crafting the bipartisan fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. I do think we 
should be addressing the skyrocketing drug costs that every single

[[Page S5736]]

American is well aware of. It is something we all talk about, but the 
underlying bill doesn't address it. I filed a bipartisan amendment with 
my friend and colleague from Iowa, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, 
to improve price transparency and direct-to-consumer drug advertising.
  If I ask you whether you have seen any ads for drugs on television 
and you answer no, then, I know automatically that you don't own a 
television because the average American sees a drug advertisement about 
nine times a day.
  Why do the drug companies spend so much money advertising on 
television in the United States? Doesn't every other country do the 
same? No. It turns out that the United States and New Zealand are the 
only two countries that allow pharma, drug companies, to advertise 
their products on television directly to consumers.
  Why would pharma spend $6 billion a year on advertising so many 
different ways for Americans to buy these drugs? Because it is 
profitable. Americans, finally, after the fifth, sixth, seventh, or 
eighth time they have seen it can not only pronounce but even spell 
Xarelto. When they go to the doctor's office, they say: Doctor, maybe I 
need a little different blood thinner; maybe I need Xarelto.
  Xarelto turns out to be the brand name of a very expensive 
prescription drug.
  What about the drug Humira? How many ads have you seen for the drug 
Humira? You can't escape them. It is the most advertised treatment on 
television. Humira was designed to deal with rheumatoid arthritis, a 
very serious illness that many Americans face. Then, they found out 
that Humira might have some value when it comes to something called 
psoriasis. What is psoriasis? It is the red patch on my elbow.
  They said: You know, you ought to consider Humira to deal with 
psoriasis.
  Here is a Humira ad. Here is the one thing they don't disclose about 
Humira on the ad. It costs $5,500 a month. I would like to have perfect 
skin on my elbow--but at a cost of $5,500 per month? Would you think 
twice about asking for this drug from your doctor if you knew that it 
was going to cost this much? Of course you would.
  Senator Grassley and I have a simple amendment. The drug companies 
that want to advertise on television ought to advertise the price of 
their product or treatment as well. Pharma hates this idea like the 
devil hates holy water. The notion of actually disclosing what these 
drugs cost would not only give you a jolt--as you hear $5,500 a month 
for Humira--but it would also dramatize the increases in drug costs 
that we see happening all of the time.
  Senator Grassley and I have an amendment before this Senate that is 
going to call for the disclosure of drug pricing. Don't you think the 
American people deserve this information?
  Guess what. Look at the passenger side behind the driver's seat in 
your car. Look at the window. There is a little disclosure about 
exactly what you should have to pay for that car. But when it comes to 
paying for prescription drugs, pharma doesn't want to tell you. They 
want you to finally face it at the cash register.
  I think Americans have a right to know earlier and more about the 
cost of these prescription drugs. Seventy-six percent of the American 
people, incidentally, agree with that position.
  This amendment is bipartisan and is supported, incidentally, by 76 
percent of Americans, the American Association of Retired Persons, the 
American Medical Association, and--hold on to your hat--President 
Donald Trump supports this provision as well.
  We have an amendment that is bipartisan and is supported by the 
administration, which should be included in this bill, which will move 
us toward price disclosure. I think it is overdue.
  We also need to increase the funding for the Centers for Disease 
Control's work on congenital heart disease, the most common and 
deadliest category of birth defects.
  I will be filing an amendment to increase the funding for this 
program from $4 million to $7 million--a modest amount in a bill of 
billions of dollars but one that would help 2.4 million Americans 
living with congenital heart disease.


                           Student Loan Debt

  Madam President, I also plan to file 2 amendments to help some of the 
44 million Americans who are struggling with student loan debt by 
bringing sanity to the way student loans are treated in bankruptcy.
  Unlike most types of debt, student loans are extremely difficult--
almost impossible--to discharge in bankruptcy. Why? There are two 
reasons. A debtor has to meet a high bar of showing ``undue hardship'' 
in order to get student loans discharged, and the Department of 
Education pays private contracting firms to fight the students tooth 
and nail in court if they try to seek a discharge of their student debt 
because of undue hardship.
  My amendments would bar the use of Federal funds to pay these 
contractors who contest undue hardship claims in bankruptcy court when 
the claims are brought by certain student debtors.
  Listen to the categories of people we have included in this 
amendment, people I think would be deserving of discharge of their 
student debts in bankruptcy court: No. 1, veterans who have been deemed 
unemployable because of a service-connected disability; No. 2, family 
caregivers of veterans or of the elderly or disabled family members; 
No. 3, people receiving Social Security disability whose only income is 
Social Security payments; and No. 4, borrowers who have finished school 
but have spent at least 5 years at a low income of less than $24,000 a 
year.
  Those are four of the categories of people we think deserve a break 
when it comes to student loan debt. I hope my colleagues will join me 
in helping disabled veterans and their caregivers and the others 
included in this amendment.
  A second amendment would focus exclusively on disabled veterans and 
family caregivers.
  Finally, I will file two amendments to protect students from our 
Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. Secretary DeVos is planning to 
repeal or rewrite Obama-era borrower defense and gainful employment 
rules that help students and taxpayers avoid being cheated by for-
profit colleges and universities.
  Do you want to know the story on for-profit colleges and 
universities? You need to know only two numbers: only 9 percent of all 
post-secondary students attend for-profit schools--University of 
Phoenix, DeVry, and similar schools; 9 percent of students go to that 
type of school, yet 33 percent of all student loan defaults are from 
students who attend these for-profit schools. Why--9 percent of the 
students, 33 percent of the student loan defaults? There are two 
reasons. No. 1 is they charge too darn much. They are dramatically more 
expensive than other alternative education at the higher education 
level. Secondly, their diplomas aren't worth the paper they are written 
on. These students learn after they graduate that they can't get a job 
to pay back their student loans.
  So I think in this situation Secretary DeVos is doing exactly the 
wrong thing. She is not holding these schools accountable. She is 
making it tougher for the students who are lured into their traps to 
get relief. I am pleased that many of my colleagues have joined in this 
effort. The Secretary of Education should not roll back important 
protections for students and taxpayers, and the Secretary should not 
eliminate Federal student debt relief for borrowers defrauded by 
predatory for-profit schools like Corinthian and ITT Tech. It is my 
hope that these amendments will be included in the final bill.
  Madam President, once again, the Senate is considering bipartisan 
appropriations bills. These bills may not include everything I want or 
everything other Members want. They are good compromises, which I plan 
to support.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, today, President Trump's nominee for 
the Supreme Court will be making the rounds in the Senate. I will be 
meeting with him this afternoon. Several members of the Judiciary 
Committee will be meeting with him over the course of today and the 
rest of the week, as will some other Members.
  I hope he comes prepared to answer direct questions about his 
writings,

[[Page S5737]]

speeches, opinions, and judicial philosophy. The nominee has weighed in 
on a number of legal issues publicly and in his role as a circuit 
judge. There is little reason why he should be unable to answer direct 
questions about his judicial philosophy, his record, and already 
decided cases.
  I also hope that he is willing to shed some light in the areas in his 
record that remain opaque. The Senate and the public have been able to 
see only a tiny fraction of the nominee's extensive written record 
because, unfortunately, the Republican majority continues to block 
access to the great bulk of these documents. I will ask our 
Republicans: What are they hiding?
  We did make a little progress last night after the Parliamentarian 
ruled that the rules of the Senate allow every Senator to see the 
committee documents. Chairman Grassley graciously agreed that any 
committee member could see them without muss or fuss. So we very much 
appreciate that.
  The next Supreme Court Justice, whether it is Judge Kavanaugh or not, 
will have immense influence over the lives of every American for 
generations to come. Most Americans think this is sort of an abstract 
or political argument. It is not.
  The actual rulings of Kavanaugh will affect just about everyone's 
life in America in very significant and material ways. The next Supreme 
Court Justice may someday determine whether the President must comply 
with a duly issued subpoena. The next Supreme Court Justice may someday 
soon determine whether Americans with preexisting conditions will be 
able to afford healthcare. The next justice someday soon may determine 
just how much States can restrict a woman's constitutionally guaranteed 
right to make her own medical decisions, to say nothing about labor 
rights, civil rights, voting rights, environmental protections, and 
more.
  All of these things, part of the wellspring of America, are affected 
by the Supreme Court's rulings. As we know, Judge Kavanaugh will be a 
crucial vote on just about every one of those issues with the 4-to-4 
division on the court today.
  Judge Kavanaugh, in his meetings with Senators today and the days 
ahead, has a responsibility--a responsibility--not to duck, not to hide 
behind false legal shibboleths or say: Oh, I just can't discuss this; a 
case might come before me. He has a responsibility to inform the Senate 
as to his beliefs and philosophy so that the Senate can conduct its 
constitutional duty to advise and consent.


                               Healthcare

  Madam President, on another matter, it seems that every day we read 
about a new danger to our healthcare system caused by President Trump 
and his party in Congress. Only a few days ago, it was announced that 
the court case that concerns the constitutionality of protections for 
Americans with preexisting conditions, Texas v. United States, will 
begin on September 5.
  Remember, President Trump's Justice Department has refused to defend 
protections for preexisting conditions in court. What an abomination. 
Just about every American has someone in their family--many in their 
immediate family--who has an illness. Someone might have diabetes. 
Someone might have asthma and, God forbid, something worse. Those are 
preexisting conditions. That family will not be able to get health 
insurance. That family risks that their present insurance will expire 
and they will not get anything new.
  This administration is trying to take away that protection so 
important to so many Americans. That is what is happening, so Senators 
Manchin and Casey have introduced a resolution asking the Senate legal 
counsel to step in to defend the law since the administration will not. 
I hope we get a vote on that resolution soon. I don't see how anyone 
couldn't be for it.
  Sadly, the Justice Department's decision to abandon protections for 
preexisting conditions is far from the only example of President 
Trump's repeated sabotage of our healthcare system. Over and over 
again, he has tried to undo the healthcare Americans have without even 
understanding what he is really doing.
  On day one, President Trump issued an Executive order aimed at the 
healthcare law. It was the very first thing he did. He then proposed 
legislation with congressional Republicans to repeal the healthcare 
law, devastate Medicaid, and eliminate protections for tens of millions 
of people with preexisting conditions. That failed, but congressional 
Republicans managed to repeal the coverage requirement in their tax 
bill, of all places, and put nothing in its place, causing unnecessary 
premium increases across the country.
  Americans know, as their premium increases gallop upward, that it is 
Republicans in the Senate and President Trump in the White House who 
have caused this to happen. Now he continues to do that. He has 
expanded the availability of junk insurance plans that bait Americans 
in with lowest rates while providing only the flimsiest of coverage.
  Again, if these junk insurance plans become the law, the rule, the 
mode, so many people will lose their ability to protect themselves when 
they have preexisting conditions.
  These actions by President Trump, aided, abetted, and encouraged by 
congressional Republicans who either agreed with him or failed to 
challenge him meaningfully, have had devastating results for so many 
Americans.
  Premiums have risen by double digits in a bunch of States, the direct 
result of Republican sabotage. And the insurers themselves--they are 
the ones who have raised the rates, but they say: Hey, it is 
Republicans in the House, Senate, and the White House who are causing 
it. Those insurance industries don't tend to favor Democrats, but they 
have to protect themselves and their clients.
  Prescription drug costs continue to rise. After promising tough 
action on prescription drugs, the President and congressional 
Republicans have hardly lifted a finger. The United States is now 
last--dead last--among industrialized nations in maternal mortality. 
The United States is the only industrialized country in the world with 
rising maternal mortality rates. Despite all of our advances in 
genetics, nutrition, and surgery, the United States is getting worse at 
caring for mothers. We should hang our heads in shame about that. We 
should do something about it.
  Come on, Republican colleagues. Your voters are no different from our 
voters and independent voters. They care about good healthcare at an 
affordable cost. Please, do something about it. Join us.
  But instead of grappling with these problems and proposing solutions, 
President Trump and congressional Republicans just launch attack after 
attack after attack on our healthcare system, particularly women's 
health. That worked in the 2016 campaign because they said that they 
had a plan to replace it with something better. No plan--no plan 
emerged. And it is not working for them now. It is just not working for 
them.
  The American people overwhelmingly prefer Democrats to Republicans on 
healthcare, and healthcare is the No. 1 issue in State after State 
after State. So for their own political benefit, Republicans in the 
Senate and in the House ought to wake up--wake up--because the old 
playbook that may have worked in 2014 and 2016 when you weren't in 
charge--it was a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate for part 
of that time--ain't no more. You are in charge, and you put nothing in 
its place--nothing. There is just negativity.
  In poll after poll after poll, the American people say that 
healthcare is the No. 1 issue. They don't want to go back to a time 
before we offered protections for Americans with preexisting 
conditions. They don't want to go back to a time when insurance 
companies charged women and seniors and older Americans more for the 
same exact coverage. They don't want to go back to a time when 
insurance companies could deny maternity care, mental health treatment, 
prescription drug coverage, and more, but that is where President Trump 
and our Republican colleagues want to take us. I say to all those blue-
collar folks who voted for President Trump: He promised you better 
healthcare. Is he delivering it? Go look at your bills. Go look at 
healthcare. If he is not, maybe you will help bring some change to 
Washington--real change--so that your

[[Page S5738]]

healthcare costs will be lower and your healthcare will improve.

  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. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the Senate has developed a bad habit. 
That bad habit is treating Presidential nominees as innocent until 
nominated. I hope to see better behavior during the next few weeks as 
the Senate begins hearings on President Trump's nomination of Judge 
Kavanaugh to be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead of treating 
Judge Kavanaugh as someone recently released from San Quentin prison, I 
hope we treat him with dignity and respect so Americans can better 
understand his temperament, his intelligence, and his character. That 
is what we should want to know about a Presidential nominee for the 
Supreme Court.
  The current rudeness is a recent phenomenon. Historically, Senators 
have recognized that bipartisan approval of qualified nominees helps 
improve the esteem of the Court. It confirms its impartiality. It 
strengthens it as an institution. For example, conservative Justice 
Antonin Scalia was confirmed unanimously by this body even though he 
was perhaps the most conservative Justice on the Court. On the other 
hand, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed with only three votes 
against her even though she may arguably be the most liberal Justice on 
the Court. Both were obviously well qualified, of good character, high 
intelligence, and good demeanor, and therefore the Senate--unanimously 
in one case and with only three ``no'' votes in the other case--
confirmed the President's nominees.
  More recently, half the Democratic Senators voted to confirm 
President Bush's nominee Chief Justice John Roberts. In 2014, I voted 
to confirm President Obama's nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, not because I 
agreed with her but because I thought she was obviously well qualified 
for the position.
  Some Senators insist that Judge Kavanaugh should tell them how he 
might decide a case. That reminds me of a story from Senator Howard 
Baker, the former majority leader of the U.S. Senate, who was a 
practicing lawyer in the mountains. He said he was once before a 
mountain judge who told the lawyers right before the case: ``Boys, just 
give me a little bit on the law. I had a telephone call last night, and 
I pretty well know the facts.'' Judges aren't supposed to decide a case 
in advance. That is why we have judges--to create an impartial judicial 
system.
  Justice Ginsburg said during her confirmation that she would give 
``no hints, no forecasts, no previews'' of what her legal views might 
be if she were to be confirmed. This rule is now known as the Ginsburg 
rule. Justices are supposed to follow the law and decide cases when the 
cases are presented, not before Justices are confirmed or while they 
are being confirmed.
  Of course, a Justice's opinions and decisions can be surprising. That 
has been true throughout the history of the Supreme Court. President 
Franklin D. Roosevelt was often surprised by Justice Felix Frankfurter. 
Justice Scalia once ruled that a government ban on flag-burning 
violated the First Amendment. Scalia also said that ``the judge who 
always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.''
  In 2006, I voted for Judge Kavanaugh when he was President George W. 
Bush's nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit.
  Last month, I attended President Trump's nomination of Judge 
Kavanaugh at the White House. It is said that you only get one chance 
to make a first impression, and Judge Kavanaugh certainly took 
advantage of his one opportunity that night.
  I was again impressed with Judge Kavanaugh when I visited with him in 
my office a few weeks ago. We discussed federalism, how to strengthen 
the Supreme Court as an institution, and other matters. Never once did 
I ask him how he might vote on a particular case.

  I will not announce how I will vote on his nomination until the 
hearings are complete. Some Democratic Senators have already announced 
their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh. I wonder, why have a hearing? Why 
ask for more records to examine if you have already decided how you are 
going to vote?
  During my 8 years as Governor of Tennessee, I appointed probably 50 
judges. In doing so, I looked for the same qualities I will look for in 
considering the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh: intelligence, character, 
temperament, respect for the law, and respect for those who come before 
the Court. I did not ask one applicant to be a Tennessee judge, of that 
entire 50, how he or she might rule on abortion or immigration or 
taxation. And political party membership was far down my list of 
considerations when I had the job, as the chief executive of a State, 
of appointing judges.
  I hope the Senate will return to the practice of inquiring diligently 
about the qualifications of a nominee, about intelligence, about 
character, about temperament, and get away from this bad habit of 
treating Presidential nominees for the Supreme Court as if they had 
just been released from San Quentin and as if they were innocent until 
nominated.
  I thank the President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. 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. 3829

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment aimed at 
helping to ensure the integrity of the budget enforcement process in 
future years. Before I do so, I would like to again acknowledge the 
hard work the Appropriations Committee has put into the fiscal year 
2019 spending bills.
  We have made significant progress so far this year, particularly 
considering that this is the first Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education appropriations bill to be brought to the Senate floor for 
amendment in nearly 11 years. I commend the committee and its leaders 
for their efforts and the spirit of cooperation that has made this feat 
possible.
  As it stands now, this appropriations bill is subject to a point of 
order under section 314 of S. Con. Res. 70, the fiscal year 2009 budget 
resolution authored by former Democratic Senator and Budget Committee 
chairman Kent Conrad. That point of order aims to prevent mandatory 
spending increases on appropriations bills. My amendment remedies this 
violation while maintaining the proposed increase to the maximum award.
  The amendment I am offering relates to the budgetary effects of the 
substitute amendment's proposed increase to the maximum discretionary 
Pell Grant award for the award year 2019-2020.
  If anybody has been able to follow that so far, you ought to be on 
the Budget Committee. Now I am going to give a lot more detail that 
will be equally as difficult, because it needs to be a part of the 
record to show why we need the amendment that I am talking about in 
order to avoid a point of order and to get the increase for this year 
that is being requested.
  As former chairman of the HELP Committee, I understand how important 
Pell Grants are in making college more affordable and accessible, 
especially for students from my home State of Wyoming. That is why I 
want to be very clear that my amendment would not cut Pell Grant 
funding for the 2019-2020 award year or prevent future increases in the 
maximum annual award. My amendment simply deals with how we account for 
such increases in the Federal ledger.
  First, a little background may be helpful on the Pell Grant program, 
which has one of the most complicated funding profiles in the entire 
Federal budget. The Pell Grant program is funded by a mix of annual 
discretionary appropriations, a so-called mandatory add-on award, and a 
permanent mandatory funding stream. My

[[Page S5739]]

amendment deals with the interaction between the discretionary and the 
mandatory add-on funding streams.
  Each year, the Appropriations Committee includes a provision in the 
Department of Education spending bill specifying the maximum 
discretionary Pell Grant award for the upcoming award year. The 
substitute amendment would increase that maximum award for the award 
year 2019-2020 by $100 to $5,135. CBO estimates that this change, which 
follows a $175 increase to the maximum award provided in fiscal year 
2018, will increase mandatory spending on the add-on by $39 million in 
fiscal year 2019. It is pretty complicated. There are a lot of dollars, 
a lot of different places.
  Even though the substitute specifies the maximum discretionary award 
is $5,135 for award year 2019-2020, under scoring rules--that is how we 
keep track of how much money we are going to owe--the CBO has to assume 
this maximum award extends through 2028. That means the $39 million 
annual mandatory cost of this provision also extends through 2028, 
giving it a 10-year score of $390 million. The substitute amendment 
includes an offset for the $39 million cost in the first year but 
leaves the remaining $351 million in mandatory spending scored to the 
fiscal year 2019 bill unpaid for. Again, under scoring rules, once that 
$350 million in estimated future spending is incorporated into the 
baseline, it will not be subject to budget enforcement in future years 
and will never need to be paid for. That is a problem we face regularly 
around here, and this is the problem my amendment aims to address.
  My amendment would maintain the maximum discretionary award for 2019-
2020 to $5,135, preserving the $100 increase proposed by the 
Appropriations Committee, while it would prevent the estimated $351 
million increase in estimated future year spending from being rolled 
into the baseline where it could escape enforcement or even notice in 
future years. It would require Congress to offset future mandatory 
spending increases just as the substitute amendment would do for the 
first year. If we can do it now, we should be able to do it in the 
future.
  Let me repeat. My amendment would not reduce the maximum Pell grant 
for the 2019-2020 award year or prevent future increases to the maximum 
award. In fact, it would maintain the proposed increase to the maximum 
Pell grant for the 2019-2020 award year.
  Let me repeat. As it now stands, this appropriations bill is subject 
to a point of order under section 314 of S. Con. Res. 70 of the fiscal 
year 2009 budget resolution, which was authored by former Democratic 
Senator and Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and passed. That 
point of order aims to prevent mandatory spending increases on 
appropriations bills. My amendment remedies this violation while 
maintaining the proposed increase to the maximum award.
  This is just a good-government amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it. Let's not be spending into the future until we know where 
the money is coming from. Let's go ahead and make the award for this 
year, and let's find a way to pay for it next year.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this is the first time in 11 years that the 
chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Subcommittee has had a chance to stand on the floor and present a bill. 
It is a subcommittee that I am honored to chair. As a subcommittee 
member, I am honored to get to serve on that committee with the 
Presiding Officer. It is a subcommittee that is led on the other side 
by Senator Murray from Washington, the ranking member on this 
committee.
  This is not a bill that either Senator Murray nor I would have 
drafted on our own, but our job was not to draft a bill that I thought 
was the perfect bill for me to vote for or the perfect way for all of 
these agencies to be run. There is a reason that this bill has not been 
on the floor in 11 years. It is big. It is complex. It can be 
contentious. But Senator Shelby, the chairman of the full committee, 
and Senator Leahy, the lead Democrat on the full committee, have made 
an incredible, good-faith effort to come to the floor with a bill that 
focuses on how we spend the money.
  There is not much new in this bill about all of the things we could 
try to determine about social policy and about issues that all of us 
feel strongly about, but there are other committees whose principal job 
is to do that. Our committee's principal job is to decide how we 
establish the priorities for the country and how we spend the money.
  Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer have also both had to agree 
that if we are going to get these appropriations bills on the floor, if 
we are going to have all of the Members of the Senate--for the first 
time, in the case of this bill--get a chance to debate this bill for 
the first time in 11 years, that is not going to happen if we try to 
have a big authorizing bill and a big appropriating bill all wrapped 
into one.
  I see the ranking member has come to the floor right after I praised 
him and Senator Shelby for the unique leadership they have had that has 
allowed us to get this bill on the floor.
  This bill deals with everything from medical research to home energy 
assistance, to employment opportunities, training programs, and Pell 
grants for people who are trying to go to college who don't have the 
resources that would allow them to do that otherwise. It is the largest 
of the nondefense discretionary bills. About 30 percent of all of the 
nondefense spending is in this one bill.
  We take that bill and add it to the defense spending bill, and 
suddenly we are looking at roughly 62 percent of all of the spending of 
the Federal Government. That still sounds like a pretty big bill, but 
it is the first time in the case of the Labor, Health, Human Services, 
and Education Subcommittee--and then we have that unique add-on, ``and 
Related Agencies,'' just to get the footprint even a little bigger--in 
over a decade that Members have been able to come to the floor and say: 
No, we would like you to spend the money here rather than here.
  By the way, as the Presiding Officer understands, to do that, that 
Member also has to say: Here is where we are going to take the money 
from to pay for it.
  So it is not just on the floor and you get to make up all of the 
spending you want to that those of us on the appropriating committee 
didn't have a chance to do. There is still a finite amount of money.
  So for the Presiding Officer's amendment, the Kennedy amendment, 
which will be offered right after we finish this morning's discussion 
and go to votes, he had to come up with an amount of money to pay for 
that.
  I am fully supportive of the amendment that he and Senator Reed came 
up with to deal with the pressing issue of suicide prevention and the 
disturbing suicide rates. In my State of Missouri, suicide rates have 
increased by 36 percent above where they were in the year 2000--a 36-
percent increase. Too many of those are our veterans. Too many of those 
are people who serve on the frontlines of homeland security, police, 
and veterans. All of that is something we need to look at. Here is the 
Presiding Officer's opportunity, which he took, to say: No, I think 
there is a better way to spend some of this money than how the 
committee spends it. That is what we missed for the last 11 years, when 
69 of the Senators didn't have any say as to what the 31 of us who 
serve on the Appropriations Committee need to debate and talk about.
  So we now bring this bill to the floor. There were 6,164 ideas that 
came to Senator Murray and me--6,164 Member requests of ideas as to how 
this could be the best possible bill. I think most of those are 
reflected in what we did.
  In this bill, we talk about fighting the opioid epidemic. We talk 
about promoting college affordability, strengthening the workforce, and 
having people better prepared for the jobs that are out there to be 
filled than they would otherwise see.
  Now, both sides would approach drafting this bill differently. We 
would both start out with some significantly different sets of 
priorities. We have

[[Page S5740]]

been able to reach an agreement that neither of us would have drafted 
on our own, but that is not the job that we were given. We have been 
able to present a bipartisan bill to the full committee and have that 
bill referred out of the full committee with 30 ``yes'' votes and 1 
``no'' vote, and now we are bringing that bill to the Senate floor.
  It represents a compromise on both sides. It represents taking a step 
back on issues that authorize on both sides, which we can deal with at 
a later time. I certainly appreciate not just the leadership of Senator 
Leahy and the leadership of Senator Shelby but also the leadership of 
Senator Murray in helping to determine what those priorities would be 
and should be.
  I see Senator Leahy is standing on the floor, and I am glad to yield 
to him for a comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I just wanted to applaud what the Senator 
from Missouri just said. He has had a lot of experience in the other 
body and here in the Senate. He and I have been here since a time when 
we actually voted on these bills and got them done.
  I note that he has been a tremendous help in getting us this far. For 
Senator Murray, because of a very necessary absence, I will manage her 
part of this bill when it is up. She has worked very hard on it. As the 
Senator from Missouri just said, regarding the vote we had in the 
Appropriations Committee, keep in mind that appropriations goes across 
the political spectrum of both parties, and we reported this bill out 
of the committee with broad bipartisan support. I commend Senator 
Shelby too.
  We are opposed to authorizing legislation on the right or the left, 
unless there is total agreement with everybody, because we want to get 
these bills done. We still have to go to conference with the House when 
they come back in a few weeks. We want to have a solid vote here.
  So I thank the Senator from Missouri for the work he has done. We are 
getting somewhere, and as someone who has been here for a long time, I 
am rather happy to see that.
  I yield the floor.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his 
leadership. Again, this is the first time in over a decade for the 69 
people who aren't on the Appropriations Committee to get to come to the 
floor and offer amendments and think about what this bill does.
  Let's talk about some of the things it does. We worked really hard 
over the last 4 years to do the kinds of things we ought to do in 
healthcare research. This bill, for the first time, reaches a long-held 
goal of the national plan to address Alzheimer's disease, of getting 
those annual research dollars up over $2 billion--in fact, $2.34 
billion, exceeding what had been a long-term goal. The goal should not 
be how much money we spend. It should be finding a way to solve this 
problem. This is a significant increase over last year. It quadruples 
where we were 4 years ago. We spent 277 billion tax dollars a year on 
Alzheimer's and dementia-related care. A lot more private money is 
spent than that--three times that amount in private money--and there is 
lost work as caregivers step back to help people with these terrible 
diseases of dementia and Alzheimer's. But here is $277 billion. So this 
bill does about 1 percent of that in research to try to solve a problem 
that taxpayers are overwhelmed by. It is a problem that by 2050, if we 
don't find a solution, we will be spending about twice today's defense 
budget on Alzheimer's care, twice today's defense budget--$1.1 trillion 
of today's dollars being spent on Alzheimer's care if we don't do what 
we need to. This is the only leading cause of death that doesn't have a 
treatment, doesn't have a cure, doesn't have a way to prevent it, and, 
obviously, the right kind of discovery, the right kind of medical 
advancement that can change the lives of millions of American families 
now and in the future if we do this.

  I am pleased to see we are making that investment. I am also pleased 
to see that after a 12-year period, when there wasn't any increase in 
healthcare research spending at all, we continue to find money, in many 
cases by eliminating programs that weren't working, to where we had a 
30-percent increase in NIH funding over the last 4 years. What a 4 
years to be doing that--understanding the things we know now about the 
human genome, understanding how each of us is different than all the 
rest of us and that, in fact, each of us has a different capacity to 
fight disease than any other person does. If you can figure out how to 
maximize that, such as things like immunotherapy in cancer, where many 
cancers that 5 years ago were largely untreatable--and if they were 
treatable, they were treatable with radiation and chemotherapy--are now 
treatable by just simply figuring out how, in your own system, you can 
maximize your ability to fight back. That is the NIH healthcare 
research kind of victory we need to now continue to find out why it 
works on some cancers and why it doesn't work on others.
  This kind of research and commitment to NIH not only helps 
individuals and helps families but, frankly, at a time when healthcare 
is dramatically changing, has the ability to help our economy. The 
economy that figures out new ways to be in this healthcare fight is 
also going to be the economy that has the job opportunities and the 
transformational opportunities to be part of that.
  Not only are we looking at healthcare research, but we are also 
looking at research as it relates to the opioid epidemic. The opioid 
cost to the economy is now anticipated to be about $500 billion a year 
in lost work time and other costs related to the opioid epidemic.
  This bill provides a significant, targeted opioid funding. This is 
the fourth year in a row we have increased our funding. Again, this is 
only the second time we have had any more money to do it with. We have 
had to look at programs that weren't working and cut, reduce, and 
combine those programs to fight back on the opioid epidemic, which is 
now, and for a couple of years has been, the No. 1 cause of accidental 
death in the United States. It is the No. 1 accidental cause of death 
in my State of Missouri. The 73,000 people who died last year with 
overdoses exceed the number of people who died in car accidents, which 
for decades had been the No. 1 cause of accidental deaths until opioids 
replaced it.
  We have $1.5 billion available for State opioid response grants. 
Understanding that every State is different, and frankly the more 
things we try to do in different ways, the more likely we are to find 
the things that work. We have that.
  There is more money for community health centers to expand behavioral 
health and substance abuse disorder services. There is an increase in 
the ability to improve surveillance and prevention efforts in the 
illicit drug space or the drug abuse space, more money to research pain 
management. Part of the NIH money, at half a billion dollars, is 
designed to find more ways to research for better pain management and 
better ways to, if you have become addicted to drugs and opioids 
specifically, end that addiction in an effective way. There is more 
money for the hardest hit rural communities. Some of our Members have 
advocated strongly for a drug problem that is more of a rural drug 
problem on a per capita basis than it is an urban drug problem.
  There is more money for children and families who are put at risk by 
opioids. I saw a news report just this week focusing on kids being 
raised by their grandparents because their parents wound up with an 
opioid addiction problem that drove their life in a way their children 
were not only in danger and ignored but had to go somewhere else.
  This bill prioritizes education programs through a student's life, 
focusing on programs that provide the most flexibility for States and 
communities that meet the needs of families, children, and their 
workforce in their State.
  There are increases for Head Start, increases for title I support for 
low-income schools to help them meet academic challenges. There is more 
money to meet the goal the Federal Government set decades ago, where 
individuals with disabilities are assisted within the school context, 
as the Federal Government determined they had to be, but the Federal 
Government has been wanting and coming up with the money that was 
committed to do that

[[Page S5741]]

decades ago. We continue to make steps in the right direction there, 
and I think there are substantial steps in this bill.
  There is flexible spending so schools can look at more science, math, 
and STEM education, more computer science education, and more ability 
for schools to take some of their funds and look at school safety. 
Nobody wants to see kids go to school in an environment that is not as 
safe as we can possibly make it. This allows more flexibility for local 
administrators and local school boards to decide how they are going to 
meet that school safety need.
  We looked at impact aid, charter schools, and programs that create 
both competition and fairness in a way I think people we work for will 
like.
  This bill maintains the significant investments made last year on 
college access. The best way to minimize college debt is to get done, 
finish. Year-round Pell is something we returned to after several years 
of having only the normal traditional school year Pell. Year-round Pell 
is maintained in this as part of our Federal commitment to have people 
going to school. If you are an adult going back to school, if you are 
somebody who is a first-time college attender in your family, if, for 
whatever reason, you are paying for your own school, the most likely 
way to get done is don't interrupt a pattern that is working. This bill 
allows that to continue.
  We also do things that I think better prepare our workforce for the 
workplace. It is a bill to look forward to working with Members to see 
how it can be improved, just like the amendment we will be voting on 
soon that deals with suicide prevention in ways Senator Kennedy and 
Senator Reed have suggested, and I support.
  With that, I will conclude my remarks.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided in the usual form, prior to the vote on the Kennedy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BLUNT. I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3773

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment No. 3773.
  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 Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. 
Murray), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     McCain
     Murray
     Schatz
     Toomey
     Udall
  The amendment (No. 3733) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3703

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to the vote.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my amendment No. 3703 is pretty 
straightforward. It would increase funding for the National Suicide 
Prevention Lifeline by an additional $2.8 million.
  It is a bipartisan amendment. It is fully offset. It is not adding 
money to the budget. I think it will do a great deal to make sure that 
anyone battling depression knows there is someone out there who is 
listening. Our National Suicide Prevention Hotline, as you know, 
supports the national network of local crisis centers. To date, they 
have answered more than 10 million calls from people in distress, and 
they estimate that over the next 4 years, they will take 12 million 
calls. We underfund them. It is embarrassing how much we underfund 
them.
  Again, this will add an additional $2.8 million to their budget, and 
it is fully offset.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. REED. I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time is yielded back.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Under the previous order, the question now occurs on amendment No. 
3703.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. 
Murray), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     McCain
     Murray
     Schatz
     Toomey
     Udall
  The amendment (No. 3703) was agreed to.

                          ____________________