Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 155 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 155 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6198-S6208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND
EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--CONFERENCE REPORT

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

A conference report to accompany H.R. 6157, an act making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant Democratic leader.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I think it is important for us at this
moment to reflect on a little Senate history. This goes back to the
year 1991, 27 years ago. It was a chapter in the history of the Senate
and the Senate Judiciary Committee that many people who lived through
it either as observers or participants will never forget. It refers to
the hearings for the approval of the nomination of Clarence Thomas to
the Supreme Court.
Let me read to you a summary of what occurred.

[[Page S6199]]

After Anita Hill alleged that Judge Clarence Thomas had sexually
harassed her, the full Senate on October 8, 1991, agreed by unanimous
consent to delay a vote on Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court
until October 15.
Let me underline that. The full Senate agreed by unanimous consent to
delay the vote after the allegations surfaced.
Three days later, beginning on October 11, the Senate Judiciary
Committee held public hearings over the course of 3 days, enabling
Clarence Thomas, Anita Hill, and other witnesses to testify in an
opening setting. Two days after the hearings ended, on October 15, the
Senate then voted on Thomas' nomination.
However, we have learned subsequently that this process was rushed to
a point where information came out after the hearings that, in fact,
several other women had made similar allegations.
Having said that, according to press reports from 1991, Anita Hill
faxed her four-page statement, making the allegations to the Judiciary
Committee on September 23, 1991. Then the Senate Judiciary Committee
chairman, Joe Biden, in turn, passed that information on to the White
House and the FBI.
On the same day that this letter was faxed to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, on September 23, 1991, White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray
ordered the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's allegations. The FBI spent
2 days investigating the allegations, including conducting interviews
with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, and completed its report on
September 25, 1991.
I recount that history because it is remarkable in light of what we
have witnessed with the allegations of Dr. Ford. First, the Senate, by
unanimous consent--Democrats and Republicans--once that allegation
surfaced by Anita Hill, voted to delay the vote on Thomas's nomination.
Secondly, when the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Joe Biden,
turned over the allegation, on the very day it was received at the
White House, the White House Counsel, C. Boyden Gray, ordered an
investigation by the FBI.
Apparently, at that moment in history, Democrats and Republicans in
the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee and in the White House at
least wanted to maintain an open mind as to whether there was truth to
the allegations and ordered an FBI investigation.
Contrast that with what we are going through here. Contrast that with
the fact that many, including the majority leader, who just spoke, have
already presumed that any allegations by Dr. Ford should not be taken
seriously and, as he said over and over again, that Judge Kavanaugh
deserves the benefit of the doubt in this circumstance--or more.
That is a departure from where we were 27 years ago when a credible
allegation appeared and both sides stepped back and said: Investigate
it. Call them both before the Judiciary Committee. Let's hear their
testimony before we make a decision.
In many cases since Dr. Ford's allegations have come forward,
Republicans have prejudged this and dismissed it as political.
Let me say a word about my friend and the ranking Democrat in the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein. Senator Feinstein
faced a choice that none of us would want to deal with. I think she did
it responsibly. She received, through a Member of Congress, a letter
making the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, but it was clear in
that letter that the woman making the allegations did not want her
identity disclosed. The woman claimed to have been victimized by Brett
Kavanaugh, and she did not want her name made public. What was Senator
Feinstein to do at that point--ignore her request, make it public to
the embarrassment of her and her family?
Senator Feinstein did not believe that is what she should have done,
and she didn't. She continued to work with Dr. Ford. She reached out to
her personally. She discussed the matter with her attorney. When I hear
statements on the floor from the Senate majority leader that suggest
there was a leaking to the press, I don't know where he is pointing his
finger, but he shouldn't point it at Senator Feinstein. She is an
honorable person, and she is a person who is sensitive to the reality
of a victim and the fact that some of them are afraid to step forward
and tell their story publicly. I think that is what occurred here.
The time came when the story did leak to some credible--or maybe not
credible; I don't know, I couldn't characterize them--but some
publication known as the Intercept. It started to make the rounds. At
that point, things started changing. It changed for the committee.
Senate Judiciary Democrats met last week, talked it over, and said that
we believe we should refer what we have, redacted, to the Federal
Bureau of Investigations. We did. Then it was sent to the White House.
We did that unanimously. Then, of course, the decision was made over
the weekend by Dr. Ford that she was willing to go public. I don't
think that was an easy decision for her. Clearly, it wasn't, because
for weeks she made it clear to Senator Feinstein and others that she
didn't want her identity disclosed. It is understandable. Look at the
attacks she has faced already and what she is likely to face in the
future. It is a reality of sexual harassment and sexual assault that
victims are reluctant to speak for fear of what will happen to them and
their family as a result of it.
Now we have the situation where we do not have an investigation of
Dr. Ford's allegations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This
morning, the Senate Judiciary Democrats are making a plea to the
President, as well as to the Republicans, to initiate the very FBI
investigation that is necessary, certainly of Brett Kavanaugh's
comments, as well as Dr. Ford's comments about this episode. I think,
at a minimum, that should be done.
What has been said by the majority leader this morning, and I quote
him: ``So little order and so little sensitivity''--I think Senator
Feinstein from the start showed sensitivity to the reality of the
victims of sexual assault. I applaud her for that. I think it was a
humane approach, a sensible and rational approach on her part to work
with Dr. Ford to the point where she was willing to speak publicly
about it. Sensitivity, you know, goes in both directions, both to the
Kavanaugh family, as well as to the Ford family in this circumstance.
In terms of order, it is difficult to judge when a person is willing
to make a decision. Obviously, after 6 weeks, Dr. Ford made the
decision that she would go public. That was not a timetable established
by Senator Feinstein for anyone else. It was one she had to come to
grips with in her own mind from her personal point of view and her
family's point of view.
It is ironic that just a few weeks ago we had a hearing before the
Senate Judiciary Committee on this issue. I hope my Republican
colleagues will think about that hearing and some of the things that
were said. I hope they will treat Dr. Ford's allegations with the
seriousness and dignity that survivors of sexual assault deserve.
Chairman Chuck Grassley, who is my friend, made a statement during
that committee hearing on June 13. It was a hearing about the sexual
harassment perpetrated by a Federal judge, Alex Kozinski. Chuck
Grassley was addressing victims who spoke out against Judge Kozinski's
harassment. This is what he said:

Speaking out against powerful federal judges in a system
that doesn't always protect victims takes tremendous courage.
But because of your bravery--

Referring to these witnesses--

we can hopefully begin to make real, significant changes to
these power imbalances that allow harassment to thrive.

I think I have a dual responsibility in serving on the Senate
Judiciary Committee: a responsibility to fairness when it comes to the
allegations made by Dr. Ford and responsibility, when it comes to
fairness, to Brett Kavanaugh in this circumstance as well. That means
that I am not allowed, in my own mind, to prejudge this and to say
automatically that Dr. Ford is right or automatically Judge Kavanaugh
is right.
What I need, what the American people need, are the facts. We should
harken back to what occurred before with President Bush and C. Boyden
Gray, his counsel, when they ordered an investigation by the FBI. That
should occur now. If we are going to have a hearing on Monday, we
should walk into that hearing after an investigation, which at least
involves Brett

[[Page S6200]]

Kavanaugh being interviewed and at least involves Dr. Ford being
interviewed and at least involves Mark Judge, the person who has been
identified as an eyewitness to this occurrence being interviewed as
well. There could be other relevant witnesses. I will leave it up to
the FBI and their investigation to come to that conclusion.
Let's get the facts before the American people. Let's understand the
seriousness of this responsibility. A lifetime appointment to the
highest Court in the land is what is at stake here, as well as attacks
on the credibility of an alleged sexual assault victim and others who
are watching this carefully in light of their own life experiences.
I hope we meet that responsibility, but we will never meet it if
Senators continue to come to the floor and prejudge the facts before
any investigation, before any testimony by either of these individuals.
If we are truly going to meet our responsibility to advise and consent
under the Constitution, it is time for us to step back, put our
Democratic and Republican clothes at the door, and stand together in
judgment of an important issue that affects the future of this country
and future of the Supreme Court.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Water Resources Development Act

Mr. NELSON. Madam President, over the past few weeks, I have been
meeting with residents and business owners in South Florida who are
continuing to experience the health impacts and the financial troubles
as a result of the persistent algae blooms which are on the east coast
of Florida. On the west coast, those algae blooms that are going down
the Caloosahatchee River are supercharging the red tide bacteria in the
gulf, and the profound ecological effect is that of dead sea life
literally littering the beaches. The smell is pungent, and it is
irritating.
I am here to urge my colleagues to support the Water Resources
Development Act--what we refer to as the WRDA bill--because it contains
the authorization for an important reservoir project that could help
alleviate some of the discharges.
When discharges come out of the big lake, Lake Okeechobee, that are
already combined with local runoff and discharges of nutrient-laden
water into the waters and lakes of Florida--particularly the
Caloosahatchee on the west coast and the St. Lucie on the east coast--
then all of that nutrient-laden water is like throwing fertilizer into
water. Since algae is already in the water, if you throw fertilizer
into it, the algae is going to grow. The algae grows, and it turns into
this green gunk. It absorbs all of the oxygen in the water, and it
becomes a dead waterway. The fish can't live because the oxygen is not
there.
There are important things in this Water Resources Development Act,
particularly an in-excess-of-10,000-acre reservoir that is going to be
authorized south of Lake Okeechobee, which would allow for the flow of
some of those discharges.
Last week, the House and the Senate committees of jurisdiction
resolved their differences in conference negotiations and reached an
agreement that passed in the House by a voice vote. We are going to
have the WRDA bill come up in the Senate. We should take it up and pass
this bill immediately so it can go to the White House for signature and
become law so we can get to work on the reservoir that will be south of
Lake Okeechobee.
The reservoir is particularly important and timely right now because
of this algae crisis in Florida. It is also a critical piece of our
broader Everglades restoration effort. We need additional storage so we
can move water gradually from Lake Okeechobee, clean it up, and send it
south to the areas of the Everglades that are starved for freshwater.
One of the true champions of Everglades restoration, Nat Reed, passed
away earlier this summer. I expressed remarks on the floor of the
Senate about what he meant to our State and to our country and its
environment. I note, today, that I am filing legislation with my
colleague Senator Rubio to formally rename the Hobe Sound National
Wildlife Refuge after Nathaniel Reed.
When we all learned the sad news in July that Nat had passed away,
there were conversations about the most fitting tribute and what it
might be. Naming this particular refuge after Nat Reed makes sense
because the refuge wouldn't be there without his family.
In 1967, Nat's father, Joseph Reed, established the Reed Wilderness
Seashore Sanctuary on the northern end of Jupiter Island and had it
designated as a national landmark. In 1969, he gave Florida Audubon the
piece of land that today is the island portion of the Hobe Sound
National Wildlife Refuge. Today, the refuge provides habitat for dozens
of threatened and endangered species. In fact, this stretch of beach is
one of the most productive sea turtle nesting areas in the entire
Southeastern United States. So it is fitting that we rename the Hobe
Sound National Refuge, which Nat Reed's father started, after this
great American environmentalist.
I urge my colleagues to pass Senator Rubio's and my bill, to take it
up and pass it very soon to honor Nat Reed's legacy. I urge the
majority leader to call up the WRDA bill for a vote immediately so we
can get on with this new reservoir project and many other projects that
are in the water bill.
I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is
recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, let me thank the Senator from
Florida for his steadfast actions in the Senate for many years
protecting Florida's waterways, which are not only a treasure to
Floridians but to all of us in America. He deserves to be congratulated
on that.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Madam President, last night, in the wake of extremely serious and
troubling allegations about Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh,
Chairman Grassley announced he would hold a hearing of the Judiciary
Committee next Monday to examine the allegations. I want to salute the
six Republican Members who I believe changed Senator Grassley's mind
and Leader McConnell's mind. Their first instinct was, of course, to
rush it through, have this ridiculous phone call with Republican staff
and both of the now witnesses. That made no sense. But because a good
number of our Republican friends said there ought to be a hearing and
testimony, Senator Grassley and Senator McConnell backed off the
position of no hearings, and we will have one.
It is a good thing that we will have hearings, and they have to be
done right. There must be an agreement on witnesses, and the FBI should
be given time to reopen its background check investigation into Judge
Kavanaugh to speak to any potential witnesses or other relevant
individuals and update its analysis. That way, Senators will have the
necessary information and expert analysis at their disposal at the
hearing, making it much less likely that it will devolve into a he
said, she said affair.
Many say: Well, they have done background check investigations
several times on Judge Kavanaugh. That is true, but none of those
background investigations brought up this specific incident that
Professor Ford says happened. I believe that it did. Because the FBI
didn't know of these allegations before, reopening the background
investigation into these specific allegations, interviewing Judge
Kavanaugh, Professor Ford, Mr. Judge, and all other relevant witnesses,
is necessary.
We have two diametrically opposed stories. In my view, Professor Ford
is telling the truth. But if you don't want the hearing to be just a he
said, she said affair, an independent investigation--a background
check--by the FBI is essential.
This is not a criminal investigation. It has nothing to do with the
statute of limitations. It is simply what the FBI does for all
witnesses. When there are new and troubling allegations that emerge,
there is nothing wrong--in fact, it is fundamentally right to reopen
the background investigation so

[[Page S6201]]

that the FBI can query the witnesses involved, more so now than ever
because there are two diametrically opposed stories. It will make the
hearing far more valuable because once the Members see what the
witnesses have said to the FBI, they will be able to ask much better
questions, and they will be able to get at the truth. I think every
American wants the truth--Democrat, Republican, liberal, or
conservative. Instead, there is still an instinct from Leader McConnell
and Chairman Grassley to rush these things through.
The hearings must be done right, not rushed, fair to both sides,
respectful to both parties, and as dignified as possible under the
circumstances. Senators and witnesses need time to prepare testimony,
and Senators who are not on the committee need time to review and
consider that testimony once given. There must not be a hearing on
Monday and then a possible vote on the nominee a day or two after.
This morning, Chairman Grassley said there would be only two
witnesses. That is simply inadequate, unfair, wrong, and a desire not
to get at the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The minority has
always been able to request a number of witnesses to provide context
and expert opinion to the committee.
In this case, it certainly makes sense for one witness to be Mr. Mark
Judge, who was named in the Washington Post as present during the event
in question. How could we want to get at the truth and not have Mr.
Judge come to the hearing and be asked questions? If the majority will
not call him as a witness--as they should if they are really interested
in getting the whole truth--the minority must be able to do so. The
minority has always had a right to call witnesses.
But the bigger issue is that the committee must be able to call more
than two witnesses in total. We must not repeat the mistake of the
Anita Hill hearings. They were rushed and were a debacle. Do we want to
repeat that mistake? We cannot let these hearings be even more rushed
than the Anita Hill hearings.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so hypocritical.
Leader McConnell delayed the nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the
seat of the late Justice Scalia. Leader McConnell delayed the filling
of Justice Scalia's seat for 10 months, and now they are saying we
can't take an additional 2 weeks to get to the truth of a very serious
allegation? What hypocrisy. What a 180-degree turn, depending on who is
charge and who is making the nomination. What a shame in this Senate.
Let's not rush the hearings. Let's not repeat the mistake that was
made in the Anita Hill hearings. Let's call all of the relevant
witnesses, not just two selected by Chairman Grassley, who didn't want
to call the hearing to begin with. Let's do this fair and full and
right, and whatever the outcome, the American people will at least
think this Senate took a fair shot at getting to the truth.
One additional point, Madam President. Much of the focus these past
few days has been on the nature of the allegations themselves, but
there is another focus that is equally important, and that is Judge
Kavanaugh's credibility.
Dr. Ford has made an exceptionally specific allegation, one she made
years ago--I think 6 years ago--to a family therapist, long before
Judge Kavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court. She volunteered to
take a lie detector test, which she passed. Judge Kavanaugh, meanwhile,
has ``categorically and unequivocally'' denied the entire story. There
is no wiggle room in that denial. He didn't say he didn't remember. It
is a whole and complete denial. Someone is not telling the truth.
Someone is not telling the truth.
Now, here is what President Trump said about sexual assault
allegations, quoted in Bob Woodward's book:

You've got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these
women. If you admit to anything and any culpability, then
you're dead. . . . You've got to be strong. You've got to be
aggressive. You've got to push back hard. You've got to deny
anything that's said about you. Never admit.

So the question looms, Is Judge Kavanaugh taking a page from
President Trump's playbook? Are the people advising Judge Kavanaugh
telling him to follow President Trump's dishonest strategy? We don't
know the answer, but it is certainly an important question.
If the facts of Dr. Ford's allegations prove to be true, as bad as
they are, they bring up a second point that is equally damning--that
the nominee is not credible. I can't understand why, but there are some
who say: Well, it happened 40 years ago; we should ignore it. These are
not typical things that happened to people 40 years ago; these
allegations are very serious stuff. But even if people want to dismiss
it--and I hope they will not--there is the issue of credibility.
It wouldn't be the first time questions were raised about the judge's
credibility. Facing a confirmation vote for the DC Circuit in 2004,
Brett Kavanaugh told Senator Feinstein that the White House didn't know
about any potential judicial nominees' views on abortion in the vast
majority of cases. Recently released emails show that wasn't entirely
accurate. Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly denied knowledge of the Bush
administration's policy on detention and interrogation, but recently
released emails show that wasn't accurate. Judge Kavanaugh denied
working on the controversial nomination of Judge William Pryor, but
recently released emails show that wasn't accurate either.
In the case of Dr. Ford's allegations, the Senate and the American
people must ask themselves, once again: Is Judge Kavanaugh's complete
denial credible? Both can't be true. What Dr. Ford is saying and what
Judge Kavanaugh is saying cannot be true. That is why we need hearings,
that is why we need a bunch of witnesses, and that is why we need the
FBI to continue its investigation--because there is an issue of
credibility here. When you are nominating someone to the highest Court
in the land, their credibility should be unimpeachable.

Mueller Investigation

Mr. President, now on another matter, last night, President Trump
ordered the declassification of documents related to an ongoing
investigation into his own campaign and administration, which seems to
be a transparent attempt to give his legal team a sneak peek at the
government's investigative materials against this campaign. Just on its
face alone, the action by President Trump is an abuse of power and a
direct slap in the face of the rule of law and even more troubling
because President Trump regularly abuses power.
Even more troubling, law enforcement officials have informed Congress
that some of the disclosures will put at risk the most sensitive
sources and methods of our Nation's law enforcement and intelligence
professionals. There are thousands of Americans risking their lives as
informants in our intelligence services. If they can be exposed on the
whim of a President for political purposes, what does that say to them?
What does that say to future recruits, to the CIA, to the NSA, and so
many of these other agencies that are so important to our national
security?
It is a disgrace that the President did it. I have to say, it is an
equal disgrace that our Republican leadership in the House lets a small
band of House renegades, led by Chairman Nunes of the Intelligence
Committee, help undermine our intelligence agencies and the brave men
and women who risk their lives for us for his political purpose.
It is just like the infamous memo prepared by Representative Nunes
and the fake wiretapping scam. President Trump and a handful of his
water carriers in the House are willing to go to any length to cherry-
pick, distort, and invent materials to discredit the Mueller
investigation, even when our national security and the safety of the
millions of Americans protected by the men and women in our
intelligence agencies are on the line.
This latest disclosure by President Trump is a blatant abuse of
power. It is the action of a dictator in a banana republic. It is not
politics as usual. It is not just Democrats and Republicans bandying
things about. It has never really happened before. It will make America
less safe.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Missouri.

H.R. 6157

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, today we are about to mark a milestone.
Maybe it wouldn't be a milestone for any

[[Page S6202]]

other group except for the U.S. Congress; that milestone is getting a
significant part of our work done on time.
This will be the first time in 22 years that we have passed the
Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill before the start of
the fiscal year. Just a few days ago was the first time in 11 years
this bill has even been debated on the Senate floor. So we are heading
in a good direction.
This is a bipartisan agreement. It isn't exactly the bill that I
would prefer; it isn't exactly what my ranking member Senator Murray
would like to have done here. But working with our House colleagues and
with Senator Shelby and Senator Leahy, we have actually done the job
this year that the appropriating committee is supposed to do, which is
to appropriate the money--to decide how to spend the people's money
that we have been entrusted with.
For instance, this bill funds things like the opioid bill that 99
Senators voted for yesterday. It is one thing to vote on a bill that
says: Here is what we ought to do. It is another thing to then actually
do it. Most of the things we voted on yesterday will not happen unless
we decide to fund the things we said we wanted to do.
This is one of the most difficult bills to negotiate. It is 30
percent of all nondefense spending. It is, interestingly, combined this
year with the defense bill. So you have the No. 1 priority of the
Federal Government--to defend the country--as part of the bill, which
is 50 percent of all the discretionary spending, and then another 12
percent or so with the Labor-HHS bill. Sixty-two percent of all of the
spending the government will do that we have a choice in--that is not
mandatory spending--happens in the bill the Senate is voting on today.
There is a lot of push and pull in this bill. In fact, our committee
got 6,164 requests from Senators during committee negotiations about
things they cared for in this bill. There were 31 amendments that were
offered in the debate on the bill on the floor.
Today's bill, I think, reflects the priorities of both sides of the
Capitol and both sides of the aisle. We fulfilled the commitments the
leaders made in the February budget agreement to keep the extraneous
issues off these bills that fund the government. It also fulfills the
President's demand that he doesn't want any more omnibus spending
bills. He wants these bills in small packages that we can debate and he
can look at.
It invests in national priorities, like fighting the opioid epidemic,
expanding medical research, promoting college affordability, and
strengthening our workforce. This bill accomplishes a huge goal that I,
Senator Murray, Senator Durbin, Senator Alexander, and others have had
for several years now, which is to get back, fully committed, to health
research funding, the NIH grant process that to a great extent had gone
into a stagnant, no-growth mode for over a decade.
This bill looks at things like Alzheimer's. We are spending well over
$200 billion a year in tax dollars for Alzheimer's and dementia care.
Now we will spend 1 percent of that in a way that will try to find a
solution. If we don't find a solution, the tax dollars spent on
Alzheimer's disease alone are anticipated to increase to the size of
twice today's defense budget by 2050. Twice what we are spending today
to defend the country is what we will be spending to deal with
Alzheimer's if we don't find more ways than we know now to diagnose and
delay onset. If you could delay onset by 5 years, you would cut that
number by 46 percent.
So there is a focus on research--whether it is Alzheimer's,
immunotherapy for cancer, or CRISPR technology. Young researchers are
back in the business of getting grants that encourage them to stay in
research. That is an important part of this bill.
Things we are doing with opioids--again, yesterday was about what we
want to do; today is about whether or not we are willing to do it. This
continues that commitment. The Council of Economic Advisers says that
the cost of opioids is more than $500 billion a year in lost work,
family trauma, other health matters that occur, and loss of life.
The No. 1 cause of accidental death in America today is drug
overdose. This bill provides $3.8 billion toward targeted opioid
funding and represents the fourth year we have increased opioid
treatment, prevention, and recovery programs. One of those programs is
$1.5 billion that would be divided among the States to see what they
can do in their State. Again, it is not only the No. 1 accidental cause
of death in America; it is the No. 1 accidental cause of death in most
States in the country today.
We have $200 million for community health centers to expand
behavioral health and substance abuse disorders. If you don't have a
behavioral health problem before you get addicted to opioids and other
drugs, you certainly have one after. We increase funding to improve
surveillance and prevention in all 50 States.
There are extra dollars for research at NIH in pain management to try
to figure out a better way to manage pain without the addictive impacts
of opioids. We have a set-aside for the hardest hit rural communities.
On a per capita basis, rural America is much more dramatically impacted
by this opioid epidemic than urban America is.
There is money here for services for children at risk--children who
have to be taken out of the home they are in and helped and assisted
back to some normal environment where a kid can grow up.
We have money to help people in schools to be ready to learn and to
be prepared for careers and training. Certainly, the apprenticeship
programs are programs that Senator Murray has advocated effectively
for, both in this bill and on the floor. The bill includes an increase
for Head Start--again, getting kids ready to go to school--more title I
money to support students in low-income schools and help them meet
challenging State economic or academic standards.
There is an increase for the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, so students with disabilities have more Federal encouragement,
even though more of that burden is still borne locally than was ever
thought possible when the IDEA was passed.
There is more funding for academic enrichment grants and charter
schools, impact aid for dedicated, evidence-based STEM education
programs, and for career and technical programs.
I will say that in the 4 years we have worked on this committee
together, we do have a little more funding this year than we had in
previous years, but we continued to move in all of those directions the
first 2 years, and we did that by eliminating programs and combining
programs that weren't working. So this bill still reflects hard
choices--things that allow people to get to college, to stay in
college, returning to year-round Pell grants and increasing the maximum
Pell grants.
As I said earlier, I believe, for the first time ever, it is on the
floor with the defense bill. It is something our leaders on both sides
of the aisle thought we might be able to do. It was, frankly, by a lot
of standards, a pretty bold experiment. But I believe the vote today is
likely to show it is an experiment that really makes a lot of sense.
So I am certainly urging my colleagues to support this bill today,
and I thank Senator Murray and others who have worked so hard to make
this happen.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Blunt and
echo his comments this morning. I come to the floor to urge our
colleagues to support this conference report.
I do thank Chairman Shelby, Vice Chairman Leahy, Chairman
Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Lowey, as well as Leaders McConnell
and Schumer. Because of their hard work and leadership, we have been
able to work together across the aisle and pass bills under regular
order in a way that we have been unable to do for many years.
I also want to again thank my partners on the LHHS part of this
bill--Senator Blunt, Representative Cole, and Representative DeLauro--
and I want to recognize the effort of the staffs on both sides of the
aisle who worked extremely hard over the summer. Thank you to all who
have brought us this far.
I am very proud that we were able to negotiate and pass our bill
through our

[[Page S6203]]

committees and the Senate floor of Congress--something that has not
been done here on the Senate side for over a decade--and that we were
able to work together to get this conference report done. I believe
this was possible because we rejected partisanship and poison pill
riders and worked together to make strong investments in families,
patients, students, children, workers, and our middle class.
Our bill builds on the strong work we have done to increase access to
child care and early learning. It includes targeted funding to address
the opioid epidemic, especially in underserved areas, and significant
new resources to address the truly alarming issue of maternal
mortality. Senator Blunt just went through much of what is in this
bill, so I will not repeat that but will just echo that we have done
much in this bill for a lot of our families. I am proud of the work we
have been able to do.
I do want to note, I was disappointed that we were unable to include
language clarifying that the Department of Education can't allow title
IV funding to be used to arm teachers and put more guns into our
schools. I believe Congress was clear when we passed the bipartisan
Every Student Succeeds Act; that is not what the funds are intended
for. I was heartened to hear many Republicans on our committee agree. I
had hoped we could clarify this further for Secretary DeVos in our
bill, and I do want Senators to know that I will keep working with
Democrats and Republicans to keep the pressure on her to do the right
thing.
The conference report we will be voting on today is a product of hard
work and a commitment to bipartisanship. I am really glad we are taking
this next step and moving it closer to becoming law.
Again, I thank Chairman Shelby, Senator Durbin, Representative
Granger, and Representative Visclosky for their work and leadership on
the defense side of this bill. I encourage all of our colleagues to
vote in support of this conference report.
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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Appropriations Process

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I want to speak on the appropriations
process. I am pleased we are moving forward, and in a few short minutes
we will have a couple of additional votes in regard to appropriations
bills.
I want to acknowledge the recent success we have had in moving our
appropriations process forward. One would think we would easily be able
to meet our legislative mandate. The law says we should pass a budget
by April 15 of every year and then follow that with 12 appropriations
bills that fill in the spaces in that budget. That turned out to be
much more complicated, difficult, and politically challenging than I
would have hoped.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I want this to work, but
as a representative of taxpayers in Kansas and across the country, I
need the appropriations process to work. It is the place we establish
priorities. Spend more money here, less money here, no money here--
those are important decisions that need to be made every year. It is
also the opportunity we have to send messages and directives to the
administration. By the administration, I mean Cabinet Secretaries,
Bureau Chiefs, and Agency heads.
The power of the purse string is an important tool for Congress under
article I of the U.S. Constitution to direct how taxpayer dollars are
spent in the United States. It is a cause of mine to see that the
appropriations process works so we can establish those priorities but
also so we can have input into any administration's intentions to
establish rules and regulations, develop new policies. The power of the
purse string should be exhibited by Congress in a way that allows us,
on behalf of the citizens of this country, to have input into what goes
on in any administration.
We are doing much better than we have been for a long time. This has
been a year of success. The Senate Appropriations Committee has passed
all 12 bills from the Appropriations Committee, and we will today pass
several more on the Senate floor. The goal would be, in my view should
be, that we complete all 12 bills hopefully before the end of the
fiscal year, which ends on September 30, but more likely between now
and the end of November or early December.
We have had significant guidance certainly from the majority and
minority leaders of the U.S. Senate, but especially with the help of
Richard Shelby, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the
vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from
Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in avoiding the usual contentious issues in our
appropriations bills that then cause this deadlock to occur with no
result, no capability of moving appropriations bills. Way too often,
the end result has been what be we call a CR, a continuing resolution,
that funds the Federal Government next year at the same level as it
does last year, as it was funded in the previous year, or ultimately it
can end up in an omnibus spending bill in which all the spending is
combined. The opportunity for us as members of the Appropriations
Committee but equally or more importantly Members of the U.S. Senate
and the U.S. House of Representatives to have input into those spending
items is greatly diminished, and the amount of knowledge of what one
can have about what is in that appropriations bill when it covers
everything and results in trillions of dollars of spending is pretty
limited.
The President was correct in his admonition, his desire, to see that
we get spending bills done and avoid another Omnibus appropriations
bill. I want to thank both sets of leadership--the full Senate
leadership and the Appropriations Committee leadership--for their
efforts to get us back to what we around here call regular order, and I
am pleased to see we are moving solidly in that direction.
I applaud these developments, but I continue to believe that all 12
appropriations bills should continue to be worked on and should be
pursued toward a final conclusion between now and the end of the fiscal
year or certainly between now and December 7, a date that is
established in the legislation we are soon to vote on.
We should not simply kick the can. That proverbial can has been
kicked down a long road for a long time, and those 12 appropriations
measures should be completed. We should work quickly among ourselves,
with a sense of cooperation and for a desired outcome, to see that our
work is done.

Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations

Mr. President, of those 12 appropriations bills, I have the privilege
of working with the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, the vice
chairman of that committee. I serve as the chairman of the subcommittee
called CJS. Again in our words, the C, J, and S stand for Commerce,
Justice, and Science. We are on the floor today--in particular, Senator
Shaheen and I--to encourage that bill not be left behind and that it,
too, be considered on the Senate floor as it has come out of the
Appropriations Committee on a vote of 30 to 1. I suppose you can say it
could be slightly more unanimous than that if it had been 31 to 0, but
there is broad support--Republicans and Democrats--for the legislation
we have crafted that deals with very important issues for the citizens
of our Nation.
I want to make certain the message is delivered that we stand ready
to work with our House colleagues and with the administration to see
that the Commerce-Justice-Science bill ultimately passes the Senate and
the House and is signed into law by the President.
In particular, I also would raise four bills that have been packaged
together after having had their approval by the U.S. Senate Committee
on Appropriations. There are four subcommittee bills that are awaiting
final resolution. It sounds like, from everything I can understand,
with a modest level of cooperation, those bills could also be
completed, and those bills are: Interior, Transportation, Financial
Services, and Agriculture. Again, without exception, all of them are
important to Kansans and important to the country.
We have come extremely far, and we are so close. Please do not let
this

[[Page S6204]]

process get bogged down and prevent those four bills from being
considered and also the legislation Senator Shaheen and I are here to
support, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill.
I do recognize, within our bill, there are contentious issues. We
worked together--Senator Shaheen and I--to resolve those differences.
We have worked with our Republican and Democratic colleagues on our
subcommittee and on the full committee to reach a resolution that was
satisfactory broadly--again, a 30-to-1 vote.
It is important, having come this far, that we don't stop now, and we
are here to again express our willingness to work in every way possible
with House colleagues to make certain these bills are fully considered
and passed.
These bills are important. They are important for what, in our case,
CJS includes. As we look at crime statistics today in this country, one
would think we would be focused on what resources our law enforcement
officials need, and CJS--the J stands for justice--funds law
enforcement and funds the Federal aspect of enforcement of our laws in
this country, and this funding is the partnership that works with local
and State law enforcement officials to combat increasing crime.
This bill involves national security in so many ways, and economic
development is so important, particularly to a State like mine, which
is rural. While the national statistics suggest that the economy is
increasing and that job growth is occurring, it is less likely to see
that in my home State of Kansas. We need to make certain that we devote
the necessary attention and resources toward job creation and so-called
economic development.
Scientific research and space exploration are awfully important and
are included in the appropriate way at an appropriate level, and,
certainly, there is an agreed-upon level of funding in support of those
programs.
In light of this administration's aggressive trade agenda, the CJS
bill provides increased funding for several of the Federal agencies
involved in promoting U.S. trade and our products abroad and in
enforcing trade. As we engage in the trade policies that we are
currently engaged in, we ought to be doing everything we can to export
around the world, and the CJS appropriations bill highlights and
prioritizes that.
Our subcommittee, in fact, has held two hearings recently, one with
Ambassador Lighthizer and then one with the agencies within the
Department of Commerce that are responsible for trade issues.
Whether or not you agree with this administration's use of tariffs
and its general direction on trade, I would think, perhaps without
exception, my colleagues would agree that resources are needed to help
to implement a transparent and expeditious exclusion process for U.S.
stakeholders--our businesses here in the United States--to ensure that
they are not unfairly impacted by retaliatory actions.
The CJS bill includes important funding which allows businesses,
manufacturers, and farmers to continue exporting, promoting, and
procuring their products abroad.
Additionally, one would think that at this point in time, it is
probably nothing that we think about easily, but if we think about the
point in time where we are in the calendar, the census is approaching
in 2020, the decennial census. The Census Bureau is entering a critical
stage of development, and as it prepares for the 2020 census, the
funding in this bill--the CJS bill for fiscal year 2019--allows the
census to prepare to execute its constitutional responsibilities.
Data from the census is so important. It needs to be accurate and
correct because it facilitates the distribution, for example, of
billions in Federal funding for grants supporting States, counties, and
municipalities determined upon the population of those communities.
Congressional reapportionment will occur using that census data.
There are so many reasons that we want to make certain the dollars and
the resources are available, and this bill addresses those priorities.
Furthermore, the Senate CJS bill maintains strong support for science
and innovation by crafting a balanced space program within NASA, and it
contains increased funding for the National Science Foundation and for
NOAA.
The Senate CJS bill includes funding for the NOAA satellite and data
imagery programs, which support the National Weather Service's ability
to timely issue warnings in advance of severe weather. It is
demonstrated by the agency's continued response to Hurricane Florence's
assault on the Carolinas and severe flooding throughout the east coast.
This data and information accumulated and distributed by NOAA helps
to keep Americans safe. It also provides valuable information to
members of our ag community at home, where we experience the opposite
of floods--droughts--and other intense storms.
The bill supports Federal law enforcement, as I indicated, providing
grant funding for State and local and Tribal enforcement and other
governmental entities--all to protect the citizens of their community.
We have had a transparent product and have worked in a bipartisan
manner to accommodate Members' priorities that address the needs of the
Nation and the needs of our constituents at home.
I again urge the Senate not to walk away from this opportunity to
complete its work, to establish priorities, and to give directions to
those agencies within the jurisdiction of this appropriations bill.
I hope we will consider CJS on the floor quickly and send a final
product to the President.
I am going to yield the floor in just a moment to the vice chairman
of our subcommittee, but let me take this opportunity to express my
gratitude to her, Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire. She and I only
knew each other tangentially before I arrived as the new chairman of
the subcommittee a few months earlier this year, and I want to
compliment her and express my gratitude for the manner in which she has
treated me and the respect that we have developed, in my view, for each
other and our constituencies and our work. We bring ideas to the table,
we sort them out, and we work hard to accomplish an end result. I don't
think any of us came to the Senate for the purpose of just having our
name on the door or perhaps a nice office. We came here to accomplish
good work on behalf of the American people. This appropriations bill is
an example of that. It needs to be concluded, and it would only be in
the position that it is because of the character, the abilities, the
intellect, and the capabilities of my colleague from New Hampshire,
Senator Shaheen.
I yield the floor to her.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague
and chairman, Senator Moran, for his very kind remarks and for his
leadership on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
As he says, it has been a great partnership this year. It has
involved give and take. We both have compromised. Neither of us has
gotten everything we wanted for the appropriations, for the committee,
for our States, or for the country, but I think we made a commitment
that I think has been shared by the Appropriations Committee as a whole
that we were going to get back to regular order of passing these
appropriations bills, of funding the government on a reasonable
timetable that people could count on. That is what this bill
represents, and I applaud Senator Moran and all of the staff, the
majority and the minority staff, who have worked with us to get this
done.
I also want to congratulate, as you did, Senator Moran, Chairman
Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy on moving all 12 appropriation bills out
of committee in a bipartisan manner. Nine of those bills have passed
the Senate by now. Three are already on the President's desk, and the
Senate today will pass a conference report with two more of those bills
and a continuing funding resolution. We expect that those bills will
become law before the end of the fiscal year on September 30.
This is the first time since I have been in the Senate--I started in
2009--when we will actually see the bills that were passed out of the
Appropriations Committee. We have seen them taken up on the floor, and
we are going to see them pass and get signed into law by the President.

[[Page S6205]]

Now, unfortunately, for the work that we have done on CJS, the CR
that we are going to be acting on today includes the funding for the
departments and agencies in the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, among
others, but like Senator Moran, I believe that passing the short-term
CR today should not keep us from working to pass full-year funding for
CJS. That is why we are here on the floor today urging that the Senate
continue to take up and pass the CJS appropriations bill. I am sure
that is what Chairman Shelby would support and what Vice Chairman Leahy
would also support if they joined us on the floor.
If you have any doubts about why what is in the CJS bill is so
important and why we should take it up, all you have to do is turn on
the TV or have watched the television coverage over the last 4 days of
Hurricane Florence as it has hit the Carolina coast. It has caused
devastation. It has caused deadly flooding. I know that we all
empathize and support the people of the Carolinas with what they are
dealing with with Hurricane Florence, but we have been able to predict
the course of that hurricane because of the National Weather Service
hurricane forecasters. They got a lot right about Florence's track, and
the forecasters didn't do it alone. They need models to track wind
intensity, to track storm surge, to track the direction of hurricanes,
and we need researchers who are constantly working to improve those
models and to make the forecasts more accurate. Those predictions rely
on satellite imagery. They rely on direct measurements from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and hurricane hunter
aircraft, and all of those programs and initiatives are funded in the
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. That is why we need to
make sure the whole bill actually gets passed and signed into law
ultimately.
The other thing that is in the CJS bill that I think all of us share
in the importance of in a bipartisan way is the support that it
provides to address the opioid epidemic. This is an issue that is
particularly important to us in New Hampshire, where we have the second
highest overdose death rate from opioids in the country, but it is
important to the entire country because from 2015 to 2017, the number
of deaths from drug overdoses has risen nearly 40 percent, from 52,000
in 2015 to 72,000 in 2017. That rise was driven in large part by
continuing increases in deaths from synthetic opioids, such as
fentanyl, as well as heroin. Of those 72,000 overdose deaths, 30,000
are estimated to be from fentanyl.
Last year, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that 21 million
Americans have a substance use disorder. That is far more people than
are affected by cancer, but only 1 in 10 is receiving any kind of
treatment. That is one of the things that is so important in this CJS
bill, because it would provide funding to State and local governments
and organizations working on the frontlines, for law enforcement, for
treatment and recovery, and for those resources that help our
communities deal with the opioid and fentanyl crisis.
The bill also continues the COPS anti-heroin task force grant
program, despite efforts by the administration to discontinue that very
effective law enforcement program. I want to enact the whole CJS bill
into law because I don't want to lose these critical increases in
funding that are going to support people in New Hampshire and across
the country who are dealing with substance use disorders.
Senator Moran mentioned trade and what is in this bill that is
related to trade. Our subcommittee has held two hearings on the
administration's trade policies in the last month or so, and I think it
is fair to say that at these hearings there has been bipartisan concern
about the impact of the administration's tariffs on manufacturers, on
farmers, and on small businesses. I am hearing from small businesses in
New Hampshire about what they are seeing as the result of these
tariffs.
While I don't support those tariffs, I think it is important that we
make sure that the Department of Commerce has the resources that are
included in our bill to quickly and fairly evaluate and decide on
American manufacturers' requests for exemption from those tariffs so
that we can continue to promote American exports abroad.
Also, to keep the American economy going strong, the bill supports
strong investments in research and development at the National Science
Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and
especially at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Again, my colleague mentioned NASA and the breakthroughs that we are
seeing at NASA that are helping to drive innovation. This scientific
innovation creates new discoveries that lead to new industries and to
new American jobs. That is good for this country, and we need to make
sure that the funding that is in this bill actually gets passed out of
the Senate and the Congress before we get to the next appropriations
process for 2020.
Instead, today, what we are going to do is to vote to put the
agencies that are funded by CJS on autopilot until December through a
continuing resolution. They will spend the same amount on programs and
initiatives on the same items with no adjustment under the CR. We know
that businesses don't operate this way, families don't operate this
way, and the U.S. Government shouldn't operate this way.

Senator Moran and I are going to continue to argue that we need to
pass this bill. I would urge the leaders here in the Senate and our
leaders on the Appropriations Committee to bring the full bill to the
floor. Let's have a robust debate. Let's pass the fiscal year 2019
Commerce-Justice-Science bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am a Republican because I am a
conservative. I am a conservative because I believe the Constitution
and the ideals that it asserts on behalf of the American people are
worth protecting, worth defending, even when they are untimely, even
when they are unpopular, and especially for the vulnerable, for the
marginalized, and for the forgotten among us.
Equal rights, equal opportunity, equal justice under the law, equal
dignity under God--we fail as Americans when we violate these ideals,
when we neglect them to whatever degree, when we exclude some number of
our neighbors from their God-given share of our common inheritance,
when we declare in the interest of expedience and in defiance of our
own national creed that some people somehow are less equal than others.
Such was the cruelty of our Nation through our laws, long-visited on
African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants, and ethnic minorities,
on women, on the disabled, and on religious minorities, including
religious minorities like my own forebears as members of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Happily, this is no longer the case. Happily, all of these groups--
who, taken together, comprise the vast majority of all Americans--were
at different times in our history affirmatively brought under the
protection of our laws. This work of inclusion, of expanding the circle
of legal and constitutional protection, was not a natural, organic,
spontaneous, evolutionary process; it was the product of hard work--the
work of vigilant citizens, activists, and lawmakers who affirmatively,
aggressively, painstakingly advanced the cause of justice at every
opportunity, even against the entrenched forces of the political status
quo.
Republicans in this Congress have undertaken such efforts on behalf
of certain priorities--in particular, the tax relief and spending
increases that are poised to yield a budget deficit of nearly $1
trillion this year.
But no such legislative progress has been achieved advancing the
right to life nor the plight of those denied it. For the second
straight year of unified Republican governance--unified pro-life
governance--Congress's annual spending bills will include no new
reforms protecting unborn children or getting Federal taxpayers out of
the abortion business.
The House version of this Health and Human Services spending bill
included multiple reforms. It denied taxpayer funds to the largest
abortion provider in the country, Planned Parenthood. It eliminated
title X family planning grants, which cross-subsidize abortion
providers. It prohibited Federal funding of research on aborted fetal
tissue.

[[Page S6206]]

It included the Conscience Protection Act protecting pro-life people
and groups from funding discrimination. None of these modest,
commonsense spending reforms survived the House-Senate negotiations--
none of them. None was made a priority by the people empowered to set
the priorities.
The authors of this bill defend their $1.3 trillion compromise. And
of course, this being Washington, I know, as is always the case, that
in this case, it could always be worse. But before this bill passes
with an overwhelming bipartisan supermajority as its base of support--
despite it being mostly unread by its supporters--someone ought to
speak up for the Americans whom this legislation conspicuously leaves
behind.
The best measure of any government or any policy or proposal can be
measured according to its impact on the least among us. Too often
today, Washington acts as though ``the least among us'' refers to our
most vulnerable incumbents rather than our most vulnerable
constituents. This $1.3 trillion spending bill exemplifies that very
confusion and fails that very test. Under this bill, neither the unborn
nor taxpayers are any more protected from the abortion industry than
they were under President Obama and a unified Democratic Congress.
I understand that fighting on contentious issues comes with a cost. I
understand that it is not easy. But other things come with a cost too.
It is not just this that comes with a cost--so, too, does not fighting
on them, especially in the rare moments when we could win.
This bill represents a significant opportunity missed--and missed at
a time when we can't be sure how many more we will be given going
forward, how many more opportunities like this one we might have.
Some causes are worth fighting for, even in defeat--the God-given
equal rights and the dignity of all human beings paramount among them.
The arc of history may, as I hope, bend toward life, but only if we
bend it. I oppose this legislation, but I do so neither in anger nor in
sadness; rather, I do so in hope, looking forward to another bill,
another time in the not-too-distant future, one that stands up for
those Americans who asked nothing more than the chance to one day stand
up for themselves.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues,
particularly Leaders McConnell and Schumer and Vice Chairman Leahy for
their help in moving this package. The conference report before the
Senate accelerates the rebuilding of America's military and provides
our men and women in uniform with the largest pay increase in nearly a
decade. It also increases NIH's budget by $2 billion and provides
critical resources to combat the opioid epidemic. And, it contains no
poison pill riders.
On the whole, the conference report tracks very closely with the
Senate version of this package, which passed by a vote of 85 to 7. I
hope it will receive the same level of support today and urge my
colleagues to vote yes.
If this conference report is signed into law next week when the House
returns, we will have funded 75 percent of the Federal Government
before the end of the fiscal year. And it will be the first time in a
decade that our military will not be operating under a continuing
resolution at the beginning of a new fiscal year.
What a remarkable turn of events from just 6 months ago, when the
entire government was funded in one omnibus spending package--6 months
behind schedule.
I think it is important to give the President some credit here for
the progress we are making. He has been adamant about the need to
rebuild our military and fund the government in a deliberate manner.
Not only do I agree with him, but I believe most Americans agree with
him, and with this package we are taking an important step in that
direction.
I say to my colleagues, this is the most significant step we have
taken yet, but we still have work to do. This conference report
contains a continuing resolution to account for the appropriations
bills not yet signed into law. I want to stress that my colleagues
should not read this as a sign that we have reached an impasse with the
House on the remaining bills in conference. To the contrary, we are
very close to an agreement on four additional bills: Interior,
Financial Services, Transportation, and Agriculture. While we still
have differences to resolve on each of the bills, none of them are
insurmountable, in my judgement.
So we will continue to work diligently and hopefully return to the
floor soon with yet another conference report in hand.
In closing, I want to thank my colleagues once again for their help
on this conference report. This is a big deal. Let's keep working
together to accomplish even more.
Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes and briefly explain to
the Senate where we are on appropriations, where we have come from, and
where we hope to go.
Thanks to the work of my colleague on the Appropriations Committee--
and many others but especially Senator Leahy--we have hung together, as
the Presiding Officer knows, to make the Appropriations Committee work
again. It hasn't worked by regular order in years and years. But today,
if we pass this minibus dealing with Defense and HHS, that will be 74.9
percent of all appropriations money in these five bills, including the
three we passed and the two we hope to pass in a few minutes. It is 75
percent, if you want to round it up, that we have pending.
As the Presiding Officer knows, we have another minibus consisting of
four bills, and if we are able to move those bills, and we hope we
will--dealing with the House now--that will be 87 percent of the whole
appropriations.
We know that is progress, but it didn't happen by itself; it happened
because people worked together. We worked to bring regular order.
Back in the spring, I talked to Senator Leahy about bringing the
Appropriations Committee back to where it used to be, and he said:
Let's work together to do it. The only way we can do it is to do it
together. I talked to Senator McConnell, Senator Schumer, and Senator
Durbin. I talked to everybody, including the Presiding Officer and
everybody on our committee.
We made great progress, and I want to again thank the people--
starting with Senator Leahy, Senator McConnell, Senator Schumer, and
Senator Durbin--who really helped this come about. I want to take a
second to thank some of the staff of the Defense Subcommittee, headed
by Brian Potts and Eric Raven, along with Senators Durbin, Blunt, and
Murray, for their work on these bills that are imminent here today.
This is a good start for us. We are not there yet, but we are getting
there. If we keep on the road and keep the trains running, we are going
to make the Appropriations Committee work again.
Thank you very much.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Defense
appropriations bill will soon pass the Senate and be sent to the
President's desk. This is a massive spending bill--$675 billion--and it
has been 10 years since one was enacted on schedule. Passing
appropriations bills on time is about being good stewards of the
taxpayer's money.
When appropriations bills are not signed into law on schedule,
government programs are put on autopilot, known as a continuing
resolution, or CR. CRs create financial headaches, including
inefficiency, waste, and unnecessary additional spending. Last year,
the Navy estimated that due to CRs, it has wasted $4 billion since
2011--$4 billion. That is enough money to buy 18 F-35s or two new
destroyers or 3,000 Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Thanks to good work on
both sides of the aisle, we are looking at real savings in every part
of the Pentagon just by getting our work done on time.
I am proud of many things in this Defense appropriations bill,
including how this bill prioritizes research by including $94.9 billion
for defense R&D, a record level for the Defense Department. GPS, the
internet, and satellites are all examples of how Federal innovation
research dollars have changed the world. On a bipartisan basis, we are
building on previous year's investments, and I am confident that we
will see similar breakthroughs.
In addition, for the fifth year in a row, this bill increases defense
medical

[[Page S6207]]

research funding by 5 percent real growth for a total of $2.4 billion
in defense medical research for fiscal year 2019. Defense medical
research is making breakthroughs in a wide range of fields, from trauma
medicine to breast cancer treatments. We have all heard of the quick-
clotting tools that paramedics use around the country to stop bleeding
in gunshot victims; that was a defense medical research breakthrough.
Just this past year, researchers discovered a treatment to speed
healing of combat-infected wounds and regrow the skin around them more
effectively. Others proved that a particular medical assessment tool
can accurately assess potentially suicidal behavior. I encourage
everyone to go to the Army's medical research website and read the list
yourself--a long list--of worthwhile uses of these funds.
The defense bill is paired with the Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education bill this year, which includes another $2 billion funding
increase for medical research at the National Institutes of Health.
This will be the fourth year in a row that Congress has provided the
NIH with at least a 5-percent budget increase. Every NIH institute and
center will see their budgets increase, but there are also noteworthy
increases for Alzheimer's disease and cancer research.
I wish we could have given the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention a bigger increase, but I am pleased with what we were able
to accomplish here, including the continued investment--with an
additional $5 million in fiscal year 2019--for the Open Textbooks Pilot
to help save college students money on textbook costs.
I am, however, disappointed that this bill does not include the
bipartisan Durbin-Grassley-King amendment, which would have helped
ensure that pharmaceutical companies disclose the cost of their drugs
television advertising. Our amendment passed the Senate unanimously. It
is supported by President Trump, HHS Secretary Azar, the AARP, the
American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, 76
percent of Americans, and many others. House Republicans--apparently
more indebted to Big Pharma than their constituents--prevented this
commonsense proposal from being included in the final bill, but I will
not stop fighting.
In conclusion, the outcome of much of this bill shows what we can
accomplish when Democrats and Republicans work together. I want to
thank my partner and chairman, Senator Shelby, as well as the ranking
member, Senator Leahy.
But our work is only half done. There remain seven other
appropriations bills that remain in limbo, dealing with foreign aid,
agriculture, and even border security. The Senate will have to make an
important choice very soon: either we work together to wrap up the
appropriations process or we head back to Washington gridlock and
wasteful stalemates.
I urge the Republican leader to look at what we have accomplished in
these bills, working together, and use that as a model for finishing
our work in the coming weeks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator
from Alabama. Before I start, I should note that we have votes
scheduled for 12 noon, and I may go a little bit over that, so I ask
unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my whole statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama and I have been
friends for decades. Our wives have been friends, as the Presiding
Officer knows. We have different political philosophies, but we join
together in wanting to make the Senate work the way it should work and
the way it used to work. We have done that in these appropriations
bills. It means that the Senator from Alabama has had to decline some
things in this bill that he might have liked otherwise, but I have had
to do the same. That is why we are here today.
The two bills in the package before us--the Defense bill and the
Labor-HHS-Education bill--are a product of hard work and bipartisan
cooperation. I am pleased that those of us working together have been
able to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills. It
goes way beyond the procedures, way beyond working together.
These bills make important investments not only in our national
security but also in the future of our country for us, our children,
and our grandchildren. They demonstrate the importance of the
bipartisan budget agreement we reached earlier this year.
The Labor-HHS-Education bill makes new investments in healthcare and
education. We increase funding for the National Institutes of Health,
the jewel that we have here in this country. We invest in working
families by improving access to childcare and promoting college
affordability. We provide new resources to combat the opioid epidemic--
something that hits every single State represented in this body. The
Defense bill provides critical resources to support our men and women
in uniform and their families and invest in national security.
I am glad we do not have controversial poison pill riders on either
the right or the left in here. What we did is we did our job. We
focused on what we should be doing--making responsible, thoughtful
decisions on how to fund these Federal agencies. We left controversial
policy issues out of it. If people want to have debates on those, then
bring up separate bills and debate them up or down.
We have a continuing resolution to keep Federal agencies up and
running through December 7. That is to make sure we don't face a
government shutdown in the event we don't finish our work on the
remaining bills. We never want to fund the government by continuing
resolution; that is inefficient and actually wastes money. That is why
Chairman Shelby and I have worked so hard to get the appropriations
process back on track. We have more work to do. We are still in
conference on a four-bill minibus. We should finish that work and send
it to the President's desk before the start of the fiscal year so we
won't have a CR on those agencies.
This will be a far more effective, cost-saving, efficient way of
doing things, and it can be done. In fact, I think the chairman would
agree we are very close to an agreement. Most of the funding issues
have been resolved. We do have some controversial poison pill riders.
We shouldn't delay this package over unrelated policy matters that have
no place on must-pass spending bills. Get the poison pills out and pass
the bills.
There are four bills--the Interior bill, the Financial Services bill,
the Agriculture bill, and the Transportation-HUD bill. These are
programs that are important to the American people. They should not be
frozen at fiscal year 2018 funding levels--not even for a few months.
The rest of them are so close. Look at the Agriculture bill. It
provides critical support for our farmers all over the country and
rural communities through investments in rural development and housing,
agriculture research, and clean water programs. Every State in this
Nation has rural communities--and I think of especially my own State of
Vermont--and farm economies that benefit from these programs. They
shouldn't have to operate under a CR.
The Financial Services bill supports regulatory agencies that the
American people rely on to protect them from unfair, unsafe, or
fraudulent business practices. We should fund these agencies in a
responsible way, not put them on autopilot.
I am also pushing to include cost-of-living adjustments for Federal
civilian workers in the final bill. That is not provided for under the
CR. Failure to pass this bill on time and with a cost-of-living
adjustment included will mean 2.1 million Federal workers will not see
a pay raise, including doctors and nurses serving our veterans and FEMA
employees responding to Federal disasters.
The Interior bill is important. It means our children and
grandchildren will enjoy clean air and clean water. It supports
important conservation programs, including funding for our national
parks. It also provides funding for fire suppression. We just had a
fire season that has been one of the worst in recent memory.

[[Page S6208]]

Finally, we are close to a deal on the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development bill. I hope we can finish negotiations on this bill
this week. This is our Nation's infrastructure bill. I worked very
closely with Senator Shelby on this. We want to rebuild our crumbling
bridges and roads. We want to invest in our communities and create jobs
for thousands of workers across this country.
Funding the government is one of Congress's basic responsibilities. I
would urge my friends in the other body to do what Senator Shelby and I
have done. Drop poison pill riders so that we can send this bill to the
President before October 1. We can do it. I realize we need 60 votes in
the Senate. We don't have poison pill riders, so that should be easy to
do. We can get 9 of the 12 bills across the finish line by October 1.
I am pleased we are going to be voting on the Defense and Labor-HHS
package today. I thank Chairman Shelby and the chair and ranking
members of the subcommittees, Senators Blunt, Murray, and Durbin, and
the staff of the Appropriations Committee. We never could have done
this without the hard work of both the Democratic staff and the
Republican staff.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the names of all those staff members.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Charles Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Jessica Berry, Jay
Tilton, Jean Kwon, Erik Raven, Alex Keenan, David Gillies,
Brigid Houton, John Lucio, Andy Vanlandingham, Mark Laisch,
Lisa Bernhardt, Kelly Brown, Catie Finley, Teri Curtin,
Shannon Hines, Jonathan Graffeo, David Adkins, Mary Collins
Atkinson, Brian Potts, Laura Friedel.
Mike Clementi, Colleen Gaydos, Katy Hagan, Chris Hall, Hanz
Heinrichs, Kate Kaufer, Jacqui Russell, Will Todd, Carlos
Elias, Michael Gentile, Ashley Palmer, Jeff Reczek, Courtney
Bradford, Robert Putnam, Christy Greene, Jenny Winkler, Clint
Trocchio, George Castro, Hong Nguyen, Valerie Hutton, Elmer
Barnes, Penny Myles, Karin Thames.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I think we are ready to vote.

____________________