Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 139 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)

[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

NOT VOTING--5

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

____________________