Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this Saturday marks the 1-year anniversary of Hurricane Harvey making landfall on the Texas gulf coast. What began as a wave in the Atlantic in early August of last year morphed into a tropical disturbance and then strengthened into a full-blown hurricane, category 4.

This is not your average hurricane by any means, dropping a few buckets of rain, maybe soaking through floorboards or tearing off a shingle or two on a roof. This was a juggernaut. First it crashed into the San Jose Island off the coast of Rockport, with wind gusts measured as high as 145 miles an hour. It is hard to know what that means until you see it up close and personal, or so I am told.

Two days after landfall, I saw the wreckage firsthand with Mayor C.J. Wax and Governor Greg Abbott. On Broadway and North Austin Streets in Rockport, you could smell the natural gas in the air. Storefronts had been leveled. Windows had been shattered. Power lines had fallen to the ground. Entire boats lay upside down on the side of the road, their sails torn to shreds. Roughly 94 percent of the homes in Rockport were damaged, and 30 percent were destroyed outright.

Keep in mind, this was just the small town of Rockport. This was only the beginning. Port Arthur, Beaumont, Victoria, Houston, and many other communities soon faced the brunt of this terrible storm. Harvey was relentless, dropping more than 60 inches of rain over the course of several days in some of those places.

Unlike many hurricanes, it parked itself and stayed put after making landfall. Trapped between two high-pressure systems with nowhere to go, the storm went on to shatter records. Some people called it a storm that comes only once every 1,000 years. Others dubbed it the most extreme rain event in U.S. history.

For people who don't live on the gulf coast of Texas, who didn't see the shelters firsthand, as I did with my friend and colleague Senator Cruz at the NRG Center in Houston, it is really hard to imagine what it looked and felt like--all the closed roads, flooded homes, and exhausted faces of people praying for life to return to normal.

Over in Friendswood, which is right outside of Houston, I helped out what is known as Texas Rubicon, a terrific nonprofit made up of military veterans. We removed sheetrock and

hauled debris off a resident's yard. I remember having to wear a protective mask and gloves because of the contamination, but it was also in the context of intense heat and mosquitoes and the mud. All of this was just a small taste of what those in the community had to endure for days on end.

Then there were folks like Amy, a single mother in Houston. This is a scene of her house after the hurricane. You can see on August 22, 2018, a very nice suburban neighborhood, and this was her house or what is left of her house and the interior of her house after the hurricane hit.

I think these pictures speak to the resiliency of the Texans I got to know in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. Their attitude was, well, we have been dealt a major setback, but there is no use crying about it. We have to dig ourselves out of this mess. And that is exactly what they did, with the help of tens of thousands of volunteers, donors, philanthropists, business leaders, and Good Samaritans across the country.

We are grateful to the many rescuers, people like Dan LeBlanc from Port Arthur, Doug Barnes from Dallas, and Robert Bode for managing evacuations at the Cypress Glen Nursing Home, which was no easy task.

Here is a picture of those three gentlemen and the great work they did at the Cypress Glen Nursing Home.

These three had no special expertise in search and rescue, but they saved close to 100 patients, some of whom were bedridden and required special boats that could power their life support systems.

Then there were the bakers at El Bolillo in Houston, who provided bread to flood victims.

Then there was a man we have come to know in Houston as Mattress Mack, who opened his showroom for the displaced.

There was Officer Steve Perez, a 34-year veteran of the Houston Police Department, who paid the ultimate sacrifice during rescue efforts. After the storm hit, he knew the conditions were dangerous, but he insisted on doing his part to help save those he was sworn to protect and defend. He said simply: ``We've got work to do.'' We remember Officer Perez today and always. And we remember all of those courageous first responders who swung into action.

The outpouring of Texans helping their neighbors over and over again reminded me of a saying I heard years ago at another natural disaster, that being a Texan doesn't describe where you are from, it describes who your family is.

During those tough days and long nights that followed, people were hurting after losing so much, not only their homes but schools that their kids attended, schools like Aloe Elementary in Victoria, which I visited with Principal Hurley and Dr. Jaklich, the district superintendent.

In the wake of all this devastation, they and many others were wondering what was being done to recover and rebuild. The short answer is: a lot. First came the initial response. Unlike Noah, we didn't have an ark, but we had 104 boats courtesy of the U.S. Coast Guard, which rescued more than 11,000 people.

FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--had prepositioned supplies before the storm and worked to coordinate temporary housing after it hit. Led by Administrator Brock Long, FEMA did a good job.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency worked to restore drinking water. The Department of Energy worked to restore power. The Small Business Administration approved disaster loans. The National Flood Insurance Program expedited claims. Gradually, ports reopened, schools and roads started to as well. And Governor Abbott immediately formed the Commission to Rebuild Texas and wisely appointed a great Texan, John Sharp, to chair it.

Following the emergency response, our job here in Washington was just beginning. In the weeks and months following landfall, Congress passed three separate aid bills totaling $147 billion. Of course, this wasn't just for Hurricane Harvey, it was for the wildfires out West and the hurricanes in Puerto Rico and Florida as well as Texas.

We also passed a new law allowing Texans to receive tax deductions for hurricane-related expenses and successfully encouraged FEMA to reverse a policy that prevented houses of worship from accessing disaster relief funds. Afterward, we codified this change into law.

Meanwhile, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to use $5 billion of the disaster funds to help homeowners rebuild through the Community Development Block Grant Program. These resources will help pay for buyouts, the construction of rental property, and reimbursements for repairs incurred in the wake of the storm. Once HUD finalizes an additional $5 billion, those funds will flow to Texas for mitigation purposes.

Of course, there isn't much sense in rebuilding without ensuring the region can withstand another major weather event in the future. That is why we made sure that the third disaster aid bill, a response to multiple hurricanes and wildfires across the country, designated roughly half of the relevant U.S. Army Corps of Engineer construction funds for Texas-specific projects.

The Corps, of course, is a Federal entity primarily responsible for flood mitigation, and after Harvey laid bare just how vulnerable the Houston region truly is, its expertise became an increasingly valuable asset.

Thanks to the Corps, as well as State and local partners, as well as our colleagues here in Congress, some of the most pressing infrastructure improvements are underway. Across more than 4,000 square miles between Sabine Pass and Galveston Bay, a series of storm surge and flood protection measures will update levy systems, and in some cases, construct new ones.

In places like Clear Creek and Brays Bayou, meanwhile, the funds will be used to widen channels, construct detention basins replace bridges, and renovate dams.

Importantly, these projects include cost-share requirements reflecting the partnership between Texas, local officials, and the Trump administration to rebuild. Instead of a single infrastructure project, the result will be a new, multilayered system of improvements to address our most acute vulnerabilities.

At the same time, the long-term planning with the Texas General Land Office, as well as the Governor's office and the entire Texas delegation continues.

Adding to these efforts is the Corps' ongoing Coastal Texas Study, which Congress has funded and which will provide a comprehensive strategy for flood mitigation, which is the necessary next step toward coastal protection because this is not the last hurricane that will hit the gulf coast of Texas or the huge economic engine known as Houston.

I am confident that having the smartest minds study our coast will ultimately result in recommendations that Congress can then authorize. Once that happens, and in coordination with State legislative and local officials, who, let's not forget, play a very large role, will fight to ensure our coastal communities flourish and are protected for generations to come.

We have to face the facts: Harvey was an unthinkable catastrophe, one of a kind. I can't believe it has already been a year. But for some down there, though, I am sure it feels like a whole lot longer than that.

It is my privilege to serve the people of the great State of Texas, and as part of my job, I have unfortunately had the occasion to see plenty of heartache and tragedy over the years. Few disasters, however, have impacted so many Texans and in such a devastating way as Hurricane Harvey. Over the last year, working together, Texans have begun to heal and rebuild, but the job isn't finished, so I pledge my efforts to work to ensure our State remains protected, and I appreciate the work and support of all of our colleagues as we have met this terrible disaster with an appropriate Federal response.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, the Paul amendment is a germane amendment. It should be taken up and passed with a majority vote in the U.S. Senate.

This counterproposal asks that a 60-vote threshold be set for the Paul amendment, which, obviously, would make it much less likely to actually pass. What I think makes a whole lot more sense is to have a vote on the Paul amendment as a stand-alone to defund Planned Parenthood with a majority vote of 50, but I believe that the Manchin amendment has problems as well.

Firstly, this Manchin amendment inserts itself into pending litigation in Federal court, which is being led by my home State of Texas, by intervening as a party only a few weeks prior to there being oral arguments. This is a role that is generally reserved for the executive branch, and I believe that the legislature--the Senate-- should exercise caution and deference to the constitutional role of other branches before injecting itself into a contested lawsuit at a late hour.

Secondly, the Manchin amendment asserts that the Senate should defend all provisions of the Affordable Care Act. While that may be the position of the senior Senator from West Virginia, I have a number of concerns and objections to ObamaCare which are well-known, as do so many of my Republican colleagues. There are many problematic and possibly illegal provisions of ObamaCare that should not be defended by this body, as the Manchin amendment would urge.

Finally, I strongly believe in protecting Americans who have preexisting conditions and in ensuring they have access to affordable healthcare. Our friends across the aisle act as if the only way you can protect against preexisting conditions is through ObamaCare. That is demonstrably false. There is a much better and more reasonable way to protect Americans who have preexisting conditions other than to shackle them to ObamaCare. I believe the best way for us to address this is by legislating--by working together and coming up with legislation that will actually solve the problem--rather than by injecting ourselves into ongoing litigation against ObamaCare.

While I am opposed to the extraneous amendment by the senior Senator from West Virginia, I am completely in support of voting on Senator Paul's amendment. Frankly, I am a little confused by his statement that Republicans oppose his amendment when, at this point, I renew the request of the Senator from Kentucky. Yet I ask that it be set at a 50- vote threshold as a germane amendment to the pending legislation.

I object.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, before I talk about what I came here to talk about, let me add my congratulations once again to the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Leahy, and to Senator Collins, both of whom are critical members of the Appropriations Committee. They have gotten us much further than we have gotten in the last 15 years when it comes to the appropriations process.

I am optimistic that we will be able to wrap this up tomorrow. If we do, the Senate will have voted to fund 87 percent of discretionary spending. The last time we sent him an appropriations bill, the President told us: Don't send me another omnibus. He is exactly right. Omnibus appropriations bills are the worst way to do business; maybe close behind that is a continuing resolution.

We are not doing our job if we don't act in a bipartisan way to move these appropriations bills forward, especially since we have agreed to the spending caps.

I would just congratulate all the members of the Appropriations Committee--Chairman Shelby and all of the committee--for their good work.

Army Futures Command

Mr. President, tomorrow I will be heading back home to Austin where, on Friday, I will be attending the activation ceremony for the new Army Futures Command. The establishment of this command, which began operations last month, is the most significant Army reorganization since 1973. Its new headquarters is in the capital of Texas--Austin. It will make that the epicenter of Army technology development.

So what does the Army Futures Command do? How does it fit into the existing organizational structure? Why is it necessary?

Let's start with what it does. It seeks to modernize the Army, period. It will do this by leveraging commercial innovation, science and technology, and delivering them to warfighters in useful, cutting- edge ways. In a world with rapidly evolving threats distinct from others we have faced throughout our Nation's history, the Futures Command could not come at a more pivotal time.

The Army chose Austin because it wanted to be close to a hub of innovation, which Austin certainly is these days. It has roughly 6,500 high-tech companies nestled among what is affectionately referred to as ``Silicon Hills.'' We have Silicon Valley and Silicon Hills.

There are major academic institutions nearby, like the University of Texas in Austin, St. Edward's, Texas State, and Texas A&M, with thousands of students graduating each year with degrees in STEM fields--science, technology, engineering, and math.

It is also worth noting that Austin has become a hub for startup culture and is ground zero when it comes to useful talent, technological ingenuity, and path-breaking ideas that are changing industries, institutions, and what our normal ways of doing things were in the past. What sometimes people refer to as ``disruption''-- certainly, we have seen that.

But Austin, let's not forget, is also a military city. We know Camp Mabry is there, the headquarters of the Texas Army and Air National Guards, and the Texas State Guard. Not far away is the ``Great Place'' called Fort Hood, as well as Joint Base San Antonio to the south.

Those military installations will now be joined by the Army Futures Command in Austin, giving the bustling, live music capital of the world an entirely new brand and reason for attention. If San Antonio, my home town, is ``Military City, USA,'' you might call Austin ``Military Innovation City, USA.''

You might be wondering how the Army Futures Command fits into the existing organizational designs of our military. In short, it complements the Army's three other four-star headquarters: the Forces Command, Training and Doctrine Command, and Army Materiel Command.

The first of those trains and prepares combat-ready soldiers. The second is essentially the Army's architect. It recruits, designs, and builds the Army. And the third sustains the Army by providing the necessary equipment.

Now the new fourth command will modernize the Army by integrating technology as it is developed in research labs and other facilities. When staffed at full capacity, the Austin headquarters will be home to 100 soldiers and 400 Department of the Army civilians. That is just a start.

Leading them will be GEN John Murray, who was nominated and confirmed just 2 nights ago to be the commanding general of the Futures Command. My friend and our colleague, Senator Cruz, said it well. He said: ``Just as Austin is uniquely positioned to ensure the Army succeeds in this new mission, General Murray's long career and dedicated service in uniform makes him the right leader for Army Futures Command.'' I agree wholeheartedly.

General Murray and others will help create cross-functional teams designed to focus on specific things that the Army wants to build or improve--for example, next-generation combat vehicles, soldier lethality, or cloud and network capabilities.

The next question I want to answer is, Why is it necessary? I think the only answer is because our country's future military readiness depends on it. That is why it is necessary. Our ultimate goal here is to increase the Army's lethality against near-peer competitors in the global conflicts that could arise at some point down the road.

So the Army Futures Command is really the hub of modernization efforts for the Army. It takes new concepts from the realm of the abstract, and it puts them to use concretely in the form of real-world technology that the Army can acquire for its own purposes. Then it helps the warfighters implement and use these new tools in the field.

There is a rough consensus in Congress that the Army's acquisition machinery needs to operate faster and more efficiently--certainly, more cost effectively. It is my hope that the many entrepreneurs, the college graduates, and the military reservists collaborating with the Army Futures Command in Austin will provide innovative ideas to help remedy these problems. The Futures Command could reduce redtape, making it easier to make decisions or changes quickly, particularly ones involving the purchase or upgrade of equipment and systems.

In a world still marred by conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, strained by escalating cyber security threats, and threatened by the increased belligerence of China and Russia, the U.S. military must keep pace with evolving technologies in order to maintain our strategic advantage and to maintain the peace.

Modernization is the key to deterring aggression, promoting peace, and projecting American strength around the globe. Secretary of Defense Mattis has made it clear that this ranks among his top priorities.

In closing, let me say that the Army Futures Command is aptly named. When it comes to our national defense, we should always be looking toward the future. It is incredible to think that starting in just under 3 weeks, young people born in the aftermath of 9/11 will be eligible to enlist in the Army with their parents' consent. That is an amazing statistic. That tells you something about the rapid pace of modern life and some of the transitions that are occurring right before our eyes.

These young people born right after the terrible events of 9/11 have grown up in a world that sees new forms of conflict, as well as terrorism, the likes of which the Founders of this great Nation could never have imagined. It is imperative, as brave men and women continue to answer the call to service, even in such harrowing times as ours, that we do our part to give them the tools they need to be successful. The Army's Futures Command, therefore, is most definitely a step in the right direction.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this week marks the continuation of a bipartisan effort to actually do the work we were elected to do.

The New York Times recently published an article that said the Senate got its groove back. I don't know if I would go that far, but certainly we are making some progress when it comes to these important funding bills.

These two appropriation bills are two of the largest ones in the Federal Government. One, of course, is for the Department of Defense which, appropriately, is the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government-- to maintain the peace and keep our Nation safe. The other funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

After we pass these bills this week, which we will, we will have passed 9 of the 12 appropriations bills, which cover 87 percent of discretionary spending.

I might add that when I mention discretionary spending, it is noteworthy that about 70 percent of what the Federal Government spends is not discretionary spending. It is mandatory spending, which is another story in and of itself.

But insofar as the Congress's responsibility to appropriate the funds in discretionary spending, we will have covered about 87 percent of that.

I want to express my gratitude again to Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for their efforts in facilitating such a relatively smooth process on all of our appropriations bills so far. They have done a good job of managing the bills and, even more importantly, of managing the people and preventing this process from devolving into a quagmire, as it occasionally does.

To give you an idea of how difficult this can be, it bears mentioning that it has been 15 years since the Senate last passed the Labor- Health-Education bill in time for the start of the fiscal year. So hats off to Mr. Shelby and Mr. Leahy. As the majority leader, Senator McConnell, said yesterday, these two bills represent big strides toward avoiding another omnibus, which the President said he wanted to do, and appropriating the taxpayers' money the right way.

The funding bills we are working on this week are important, but they are not the only developments worth noting. Remember, recently we heard that in the second quarter of this year--the second 3-month period of this year--our economy grew at an astounding 4.1 percent after years of economic stagnation and wages that never seemed to go up. We were able to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act at the end of last year, which helped provide a needed stimulus to the economy by putting more money into the pockets of the people who earned it. We were successful in lowering rates across the board and doubled the child tax credit and standard deduction.

Over the last 9 months, my constituents in Texas have been writing to me about the effect it has had on their lives. These are men and women like Virginia Davis, a small business owner who said the changes will help keep expenses down and help her company buy new equipment. Then there is Suzan Casey, a widow in New Braunfels, TX, which is north of San Antonio, who is working part time even when facing health issues. She wrote and said that she appreciated our efforts at reforming our outdated Tax Code and that every little bit helps, especially when she has been saving up the money to go visit her grandson in California.

In Texas, our economy has been robust for a long time now. We heard that last month, more than 23,000 jobs were added--the 25th consecutive month of job growth in my home State. In some places, such as Midland in the Permian Basin, which is the center of the universe when it comes to oil and gas production, it seems, the unemployment rate was as low as 2.2 percent. It is hard to find anybody who will work in the Permian Basin, in the

Midland-Odessa area, because the economy is so strong that every able- bodied, willing worker is essentially employed. These are positive signs, although obviously there are stresses and strains that go along with it.

Tax reform and the good economic news are complemented by other legislative victories we have had on behalf of the American people during this Congress.

We funded rebuilding efforts following natural disasters, such as Hurricane Harvey.

We enacted the Fix NICS Act and the STOP School Violence Act to help protect Americans from gun violence.

We delivered real healthcare choices to American veterans with the VA MISSION Act.

We passed occupational licensing reform, as well as banking reform, which helped our small banks, credit unions, and community banks get rid of some of the rules that never should have been applied to them in the first place because they weren't the cause of the huge crisis that led to the great recession just a few short years ago. It wasn't the community banks--it was Wall Street and some of the overreach there-- but community banks in small towns in and around Texas and elsewhere were the collateral damage.

This last year and a half, we fought sex trafficking by passing legislation targeting internet predators, and we have worked hard and I think helped to reduce the rape kit backlog.

We have confirmed a total of 53 judges this Congress, including 26 circuit court judges, 26 district judges, and a Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Mr. President, 2 weeks from today, we will start the confirmation hearing of the next Supreme Court Justice we will consider, and that is Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who has been nominated to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

As I said, his hearing is set for the first week of September, and I hope we will move quickly to vote on his confirmation after the hearing. His confirmation process includes the largest production of documents ever in the Senate's consideration of a Supreme Court nominee. I appreciate Chairman Chuck Grassley's spearheading the effort in such a transparent, efficient, and thorough manner.

To see how a judge will behave once elevated to the Supreme Court, the best evidence of how they will perform their job is how they have performed as a lower court judge, as Judge Kavanaugh has been over the last 12 years in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The best way to find out about his judicial philosophy, his temperament, and how he actually handles cases is to look at how he has done each of those things during the 12 years he has served on the DC Circuit. Yet we have heard some of our colleagues on the other side, including the minority leader and the former Judiciary chairman, Senator Leahy, who actually used to agree with us that the best way to evaluate a nominee--for example, during Justice Sotomayor's hearing--was by looking at their judicial record, but now they have changed their tune.

In Judge Kavanaugh's case, what the rulings show consistently is that he is a diligent and thoughtful judge. His rulings are clear, they are impartial, and he strives to achieve justice in each one.

Yesterday, I mentioned some of the cases in which Judge Kavanaugh's opinions, whether written as part of the majority opinion or the dissent, were vindicated by an adoption of that position and that opinion, essentially, by the Supreme Court on a 9-to-0 basis, but I would like to talk about another couple of arguments that have now started to bubble up.

As I like to say, a false charge unrebutted is sometimes a charge believed, so we have to work hard to remind people that just because someone says something about Judge Kavanaugh's record, it is not necessarily true.

The first claim that has now popped up is that he is somehow an ``anti-worker radical.'' This is a phrase coined by the pundit Paul Krugman of the New York Times. It sounds pretty ugly. I guess it means that the judge is predisposed, when deciding cases, to find against employees and hard-working men and women in favor of management and big business. But the fact is, Judge Kavanaugh's record indicates exactly the opposite.

In one case, a pro se litigant had been terminated after filing a discrimination complaint. Judge Kavanaugh joined the majority in a ruling for the employee, finding that a reasonable jury could have found unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against the plaintiff. That doesn't sound like an anti-worker radical to me.

Judge Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurrence that a racial epithet that may have been used could create a hostile work environment, even if uttered a single time.

In another case, involving a terrible accident involving a trainer of a killer whale at a theme park, Judge Kavanaugh did not simply defer to large corporate interests. In fact, the strict question of liability, which would have implicated State and Federal tort law, was not even before him, nor was the question of whether the work environment at the theme park was unreasonably dangerous. Instead, the question before the court and before Judge Kavanaugh was one of administrative law.

Judge Kavanaugh argued persuasively that a Federal agency had ignored congressional intent when interpreting a statute in self-serving ways to give itself, the Federal agency, authority that Congress had not conferred. He argued that this agency had made arbitrary distinctions between different kinds of sporting and entertainment events and departed from longstanding agency precedent. That actually was the crux of his decision, despite the mischaracterization from some of the critics.

We can count on Judge Kavanaugh to appropriately consider overreach by the administrative state and to enforce the rule of law that protects both corporations and individual workers. I think we have plenty evidence of that.

One additional line of attack is that the judge has somehow been insufficiently protective of Fourth Amendment privacy rights, but one expert at the libertarian Cato Institute who has analyzed the judge's record in detail found that Judge Kavanaugh is a ``big step forward for constitutional liberty.'' Among other things, this expert noted that Judge Kavanaugh had been a leading advocate of interpreting statutes to include robust mens rea protection. In other words, in criminal statutes, before you can be convicted of a crime, you have to have criminal intent. That is mens rea.

Judge Kavanaugh has authored 307 opinions on the DC Circuit and has attracted praise from across the ideological spectrum for the clarity of his thought and expression and the precision of his legal reasoning. He respects the roles and responsibilities that are assigned to the different branches of our government by the Constitution, and he sees the proper role of the judiciary as a narrow one, albeit an important one. It does not make policy. It interprets the law and applies it to individual cases, one at a time, impartially, with no eye toward the outcome or the politics of the case.

The truth is, I believe that after the hearing we will have the week of September 4, the American people will conclude, as I have concluded based on my knowledge of Judge Kavanaugh for the last 18 years, that he is an eminently qualified and well-respected jurist by all those who know him and are familiar with his work. I look forward to confirming him as a Justice early this fall, hopefully in time for the October term of the Supreme Court, the first Monday in October.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, it is August, and the Senate is in session getting the people's work done. As the majority leader said last week, the reason we can't afford to take this time off is because we have so much to do.

Of course, one of the things we could do is agree to an expedited confirmation of noncontroversial nominations--something our Democratic friends have not been willing to do to this point. Indeed, they engaged in unprecedented obstruction of some of President Trump's nominees, even those who are not controversial. For example, we just confirmed two Federal appellate court judges in a strong bipartisan manner last week. These, of course, were both highly distinguished lawyers, and I am sure they will do a great job on the Fourth Circuit. When we see nominations get overwhelmingly bipartisan votes, we wonder why we had to delay these nominations not only for the judiciary but also other important nominations, such as at the State Department and in other areas. Frankly, because of the delay, the vacancies impair the ability of government to be responsive to the needs of the American people. It is a shame we have seen that kind of mindless obstruction to President Trump's nominees who, again, are not even controversial.

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

funding bills. One is for the Department of Defense, which is my personal priority, and I know the Presiding Officer would agree with that. The other involves Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, which I will mention in just a moment.

Working together to do both of these appropriations bills is something the New York Times described as a bipartisan breakthrough because, in the past, we lurched from continuing resolution to Omnibus appropriations bills, much to the frustration of not only our constituents but many of us in the Senate.

We have seen continuing resolutions underfund our national security, for example. We have seen gargantuan Omnibus appropriations bills that basically four Members of Congress negotiate and then present to the rest of us as a fait accompli, which is obviously a terrible way to spend the people's money, but I believe we are doing something good here this week.

These appropriations bills are the two largest of all the appropriations bills. After we pass them this week, we will have passed 9 of the 12 appropriations bills, which fund 87 percent of discretionary spending. Doing this with more than a month before the end of the fiscal year is something we haven't done in a long time. We are ahead of the House, which usually moves at a fast clip--although, we are here working, and the House is taking a little time off, I might add.

I offer my appreciation to Chairman Shelby, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Ranking Member Vice Chairman Leahy, whom I was just talking to. He was telling me about how pretty the weather is in Vermont and how much he would like to be there instead of here, perhaps, after we finish this bill. I told him if he helped us work on some of this backlog of nominations, maybe that was something we could discuss.

I would like to congratulate both Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy for their good work, on a bipartisan basis, facilitating a smooth process so far. As I said, there have been seven of them, and the chairman managed to mark up each prior to the Fourth of July State work period. They have done a good job of managing the bills on the floor and avoiding a quagmire--which, if encountered, would only kill the process.

I would like to highlight a few of the aspects of each appropriations bill we will be working on this week. In the Defense bill, we will be including a provision requiring the Department of Defense to issue two reports to Congress on the implementation of a bill called Fix NICS. To refresh everybody's memory, this was a piece of legislation we passed with broad bipartisan support that went to the President. I introduced it in light of the shooting last fall in Sutherland Springs, TX, that killed 26 people and wounded about 20 more. The gunman in that case had been in the Air Force and was discharged, but his criminal convictions while he served in the Air Force were not uploaded into the relevant FBI databases. That is how he got his hands on a gun that he was already legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing and committed this mayhem and inflicted this misery.

That is why this report from the Department of Defense is so important. Hopefully, they have remedied this failure to upload derogatory and disqualifying information for people who cannot legally purchase or possess firearms. We want to make sure--in light of this legislative change--that the right changes are being implemented and that lives will be saved as a consequence.

The Defense bill will also greatly benefit the Nation by providing additional funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and the V-22 Osprey aircraft, which are both made in Texas. This is important not only to make sure our warfighters have the most advanced airframes and aircraft available but also to make sure the jobs that go along with it are secured as well.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the latest and greatest warplane in the American arsenal, and we have put, literally, all of our eggs in that basket. As the saying goes, when you put all your eggs in one basket, you better take care of that basket. We need to make sure these Joint Strike Fighters are being produced in a responsible sort of way and that both of these aircraft are being provided so our warfighters can have the very best equipment they need in order to do the job we asked them to do.

This bill also provides $30 billion for local school districts that provide education to military children. Sometimes this is called impact aid because our military bases aren't taxed by local school districts when they are then called upon to provide education to the children of Active-Duty military or military dependents. It is important the Federal Government make sure they have the financial resources they need in order to make that happen. Indeed, $30 million in impact aid will be provided for local school districts.

Finally, this includes a 2.6-percent increase in military pay and increases Active-Duty troop levels by more than 7,000. Both of those are really important. Obviously, in an all-volunteer military, it is important that we compensate our servicemembers appropriately. This isn't about the money for them, but we have to make sure they can provide for their families while they serve our Nation and help keep us safe.

In terms of troop levels, it is important the troop levels match the commitments we have made around the world to help stabilize unstable regions and to provide safety not only for ourselves but for our friends and allies around the world. Unfortunately, because of extensive and lengthy commitments we made with a small force, our Active-Duty servicemembers are likely to be deployed over and over again, with a lot of stress not only on their families but on the force effectiveness in general. Both of these are very important--a 2.6- percent increase in pay for Active-Duty military and increasing troop levels by about 7,000.

In the second bill we will be passing, in addition to the Defense appropriations bill, this will fund the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and provide more funds for biomedical facilities to expand, remodel, and renovate their existing research capabilities that will benefit a multitude of institutions. Those include the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio. We know that in the healthcare field, nurses are always in short supply. This bill will also benefit nursing programs, like the one at Texas Tech University, which will assist veterans in making the transition from military life to civilian life. Finally, in the education sphere, it will provide more than $475 million for charter school programs.

Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

Madam President, at the same time, we are continuing our work on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who will succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. His hearing is set for the first week of September--September 4. I hope we will move quickly thereafter to vote on his confirmation.

I have perhaps benefited from my familiarity and my acquaintance with Judge Kavanaugh, dating back to 2000. Many of our colleagues are just now meeting him for the first time and becoming acquainted with his outstanding record as a lawyer for the White House and as a judge.

Late last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee received another production of documents on Judge Kavanaugh. This batch amounted to about 64,000 pages. Just so everybody can keep count of all the documents that are being produced as part of his confirmation hearing, the committee now has more than 248,000 pages of executive branch material related to the nominee. The reason I mention that number is because it really dwarfs the previous record for Judge Gorsuch, which was roughly 180,000 documents.

The committee was also handed a list of documents that were withheld on grounds that they are personal records as opposed to government records under the Presidential Records Act. Chairman Grassley has appropriately--and I think wisely--asked the National Archives to review those withheld documents and confirm this determination by making their own determination as to whether they are responsive or should be withheld. I think this speaks volumes to the transparency of the process since day one.

I am particularly grateful to Chairman Grassley for his leadership, as

well as for the efficiency and thoroughness the committee has so far displayed in reviewing the documents. We worked hard to accommodate our Democratic colleagues' requests all along the way. Let's not forget that for nearly 2 weeks before issuing the committee's request to the George W. Bush Presidential Library, Chairman Grassley attempted to seek a good-faith agreement from the ranking member to jointly request documents relating to Judge Kavanaugh's legal work at the White House. These efforts at good-will collaboration, unfortunately, were to no avail. The chairman received, instead, unprecedented counterproposals designed to unnecessarily draw out the process.

Although the chairman is right to prioritize review of some of the documents coming from President George W. Bush's administration, we all know the best evidence of how Judge Kavanaugh will perform as a member of the Supreme Court is how he has already performed as a judge during the last 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He has written more than 300 opinions during that time. Of course, his work as a judge is the best lens for how he will evaluate real cases in the future. Our friends on the other side used to agree with that.

Back during Justice Sotomayor's hearings, they made this identical comment that her judicial record was far more important than any comments or speeches she may have made outside of that context. Maybe belatedly for them, we now agree with them that this is the best evidence. It is just common sense.

In Judge Kavanaugh's case, reviewing his judicial record, I think what the record reveals is, he is diligent and thoughtful in his reasoning. His rulings are clear, impartial, and just.

In the recent questionnaire he returned to the Judiciary Committee-- which is a standard part of the vetting process. Nominees are sent a questionnaire, and they respond and attach copies of speeches, law review articles, and other things they have spoken on or written. Judge Kavanaugh listed what he saw as his most significant cases. I want to mention a couple of those. I think they are illustrative of the work he has done not only on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals but the kind of work he will do as a member of the Supreme Court and his standing in the Federal Judiciary.

First is a case called Free Enterprise Fund. Judge Kavanaugh found himself in dissent. In other words, he didn't join the majority decision, finding that the structure of an independent agency in the executive branch violated the Constitution. Interestingly, when the case was appealed thereafter to the Supreme Court, a majority of the Justices on the Court cited Judge Kavanaugh's dissent in reversing the panel's decision on the District of Columbia Circuit Court. When the Supreme Court agrees with a lower court judge and cites that author's opinion, that is a pretty good sign that he or she deserves to be taken seriously. In Judge Kavanaugh's case, it didn't just happen once.

Consider a second case, Bluman, which involved a Federal ban on election contributions made by foreign nationals. Judge Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion, which rejected the plaintiff's challenge. When the Supreme Court took the case thereafter, it unanimously agreed with Judge Kavanaugh. All nine members of the Court sided with Judge Kavanaugh's position.

In a third case, Wesby, Judge Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion on a question of qualified immunity afforded to law enforcement officers. Even though Judge Kavanaugh's views did not win the day in the DC Circuit, the Supreme Court took the case and reversed the panel decision and embraced Judge Kavanaugh's position in the end. Once again, it bears repeating that the decision was unanimous--9 to 0. Judge Kavanaugh's view was vindicated.

These are just a few of the 307 opinions he authored while he was on the DC Circuit, and, of course, there are many more. In the coming weeks, I know the lawyers on the Judiciary Committee, as well as my colleagues, will have a chance to thoroughly delve into each of them and then ask the nominee probing questions about them when he testifies before the committee during the first week of September.

For now, we will continue with the great paper chase, which includes the largest production of documents ever in the Senate's consideration of a Supreme Court nominee. Unfortunately, as I have said before, many of our Democratic colleagues aren't likely to ever be satisfied with the boxes upon boxes of written materials. It will never be enough. In some cases, it is because they have already decided to vote no against the nominee even before having met the nominee or having reviewed any documents whatsoever.

Emblematic of this phenomenon is one of our colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee who has threatened to sue to obtain even more records. The problem for that Senator is, on the night Judge Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump, he said he had done enough due diligence to have reached a conclusion on whether the nominee should be confirmed and had said he would not vote for the nominee. Yet this is the same Senator who is now saying we ought to file a suit to get more documents. I think the American people are smart enough to figure out what is going on. It is gamesmanship, plain and simple.

So my question is, If our colleagues have done enough due diligence to make a decision to not support the nomination, why do they need more paper? To what avail? Why should we extend this process that will cost the taxpayers more money and create a lot of confusion when they have already made their decision?

Despite these games, the truth is, Judge Kavanaugh is eminently qualified and well respected by all who know him, and I look forward to confirming him as Justice Kavanaugh early this fall, following the Judiciary Committee's hearings during the first week of September.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Durbin. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necesssarily absent.

Mr. President, today we will confirm two more appellate judges, bringing our total to 26 since the Trump administration began. This has been one of the hallmarks of the President and of our agenda, and it is critically important. So I thank the President, as well as all of our colleagues who have worked so hard to fill these vacancies on our Nation's courts.

There have been many accomplishments this last year and a half, but perhaps the greatest has been the new, energized state of our economy. This is a direct, tangible impact on the quality of life of all Americans. The Declaration of Independence designates, among the unalienable rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I like to think that by getting our foot off the neck of the economy, by repealing unnecessary overregulation, and by cutting taxes and letting people keep more of what they earn, we are pursuing those unalienable rights on behalf of the American people--certainly the pursuit of happiness.

The Labor Department reported earlier this month that unemployment had fallen to 3.9 percent in July, which is close to the 18-year low that was achieved in May of this year. One of the highlights of the jobs report was that high school dropouts and others who struggled during the Obama-era recession are doing significantly better. Their unemployment rate fell to 5.1 percent, the lowest since the government started collecting data on those without a high school diploma. Of course, this is pointed out particularly at a time when labor is in short supply; that is, there are a lot of good-paying jobs for which there are not trained workers who could qualify for those jobs. I think it makes it incumbent on us, at all levels of government--Federal, State, and local--to do more to help train workers so they qualify for these good, well-paying jobs that right now are going unfilled because of a shortage of trained workers. That is one of the imperatives, I believe, of a tight job market caused by a booming economy.

The July report showed that the economy grew by 4.1 percent in the second quarter. That is an incredible number. The economy is literally on fire, and that is a good thing for the American people. All of this positive economic news is complemented by the tax reform package I mentioned a moment ago that we passed last December, which has become perhaps the biggest game changer of all, opening doors and offering new opportunities for American workers.

In order to make the rates of taxation in America competitive globally, we lowered the corporate rate from 35 to 21 percent. This is something that Democrats, like President Obama, as well as Republicans, have supported in the past, recognizing that we were chasing investment overseas and any earnings on investments overseas were not coming back to the United States to be invested here in workers and infrastructure. This was a self-inflicted wound that we have now cured. We also were successful in helping working families by doubling the child tax credit.

One of the tangible benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is that more than 700 companies have used the tax savings to benefit their employees as well as their customers. They have announced pay raises and 401(k) retirement match increases. Utility bills have been cut for seniors and those on fixed incomes, because when investor-owned utilities got their tax rates lowered, they had to lower rates that they charge on utility bills.

This legislation has resulted in bonuses and other benefits for American workers, perhaps too numerous to mention, but it is worth mentioning because, unfortunately, in the fog that represents the news coverage that comes out of Washington, DC, sometimes these tangible benefits are overlooked. It is important for us to demonstrate that we are keeping faith with the American people--the people who sent us here--and we are doing the work of governing in a way that directly and tangibly benefits each of them--something, again, that gets lost in the fog that emanates here in Washington.

But it is not just the economy that deserves mentioning. The judiciary is the third and coequal branch of government. I believe the confirmation of

Federal judges is one of the most important things that we do here in the Senate. It is not something the House of Representatives has any role in. Under the Constitution, it is our responsibility to provide advice and consent on Federal judges, and who gets selected as a Federal judge and the judicial philosophy they have is one of the reasons why I believe President Trump won the election over Hillary Clinton. People understood, based on a list that the President made public before he was elected, the type of people he would be looking at to fill these judicial vacancies--judges who would faithfully interpret the Constitution and would say what the law is, not what their personal policy preferences might be or what they wish the law to be. That is our job, and that is the reason we run for election in the political branches of government--the executive and legislative branches.

Judges were, in the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers, called the least dangerous branch. By that he meant that their job was to figuratively call balls and strikes. In other words, they were not seen as policymakers, or else they never would have given judges lifetime tenure. They are insulated from politics. It is precisely because they are insulated from politics that they should perform the critical but limited role of interpreting the Constitution and laws as written.

Of course, the most notable example of a judicial confirmation we have had during the last year and a half was the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat left by Justice Scalia. But now, on September 4, Chairman Grassley on the Judiciary Committee has announced that we will begin the hearings on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

But it is not just the Supreme Court that is important. It is the courts below the Supreme Court that do the day-to-day work of the Federal judiciary, including the 26 appellate judges that I mentioned earlier. That includes Texans like Don Willett, Jim Ho, and Andy Oldham, all of whom now serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Of course, we should mention the very talented district court judges whom we have confirmed as well--three of them from Texas. Karen Scholer, David Counts, and Fernando Rodriguez are three of those talented district court judges whom we have confirmed.

Overall, we have confirmed more than 50 of President Trump's judicial nominations. Again, I believe this is one of the most important jobs we perform here in the Senate.

Third on my list of accomplishments that I want to talk about today I alluded to a moment ago when I talked about the economy taking off. One of the most important things we have done since we have been here during the Trump administration is repealing overly burdensome, Obama- era regulations through something called the Congressional Review Act. We have used this device 16 times to eliminate agency rules that were sometimes snuck in during the waning hours of the Obama administration.

On top of that, we repealed the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or the IPAB, under ObamaCare. This will allow senior citizens and their families to take better control and greater control of their own healthcare decisions without being subjected to the whims of unelected bureaucrats. Also, we made ObamaCare voluntary by eliminating the individual mandate, which is a tax on middle-income and low-income people who couldn't afford to purchase the ObamaCare policies.

ObamaCare's main problem was that it represented perhaps the most intrusive government mandate into the lives of the American people by saying: You don't have any choices anymore when it comes to your healthcare. You must buy this government-approved healthcare policy, and, by the way, it doesn't make any difference if it has coverage that you don't want or can't afford. You have to buy it. If you don't buy it, we are going to fine you.

We have repealed that tax on low-income and middle-income Americans, and we truly have made healthcare more available by allowing a market to be created where people have choices. Kudos to our Secretary of Labor, Mr. Acosta, who worked with the administration to provide for access to healthcare policies across State lines, and the administration, the Health and Human Services Secretary, recently announced that people can buy policies on an annual basis that are subject to renewal that provide them greater choice and flexibility.

This is part of creating a market, which is the best regulator of all, as opposed to government. People wonder why conservatives believe Big Government is a bad thing sometimes, and it is precisely because when government gets bigger, our freedoms shrink in proportion to that growth in the flow of the Federal Government.

That is pretty important, repealing those regulations and eliminating the individual mandate. The fourth major accomplishment, I believe, is providing relief to America's community and midsized banks and credit unions, which have been hit hardest by some of the one-size-fits-all rulemaking approaches under the Dodd-Frank bill.

Again, one of the problems about legislating and regulating in Washington, DC, is we live in a big and diverse country, and one-size- fits-all doesn't work or, if it does, it often has collateral damage. In this case, while we were aiming at the excesses of Wall Street, small banks and credit unions were the collateral damage. What that meant is, consumers didn't get access to the credit they needed, small businesses didn't get access to the loans they needed in order to start a business or to grow a business.

The next thing I want to mention, in terms of the accomplishments of the last year and a half, has to do with our commitments to servicemembers and our military as well as veterans. We have restored America's defense with the greatest investment in the military in decades, including the largest troop pay raise in nearly 10 years.

If you think about all the things the Federal Government does, not all of them are equal. Some are more important than others. I would put at the top of the list providing for our common defense because it is that defense of our freedom and our liberty and our way of life that makes possible all of the other things we enjoy, the blessings of liberty we enjoy as Americans. Making sure our military is properly funded and that we take care of the troops who wear the uniform of the U.S. military is the most important job of the Federal Government.

Then, it is important to keep our commitment to our veterans when they take off that uniform. We did that this year in passing the VA MISSION Act, which makes significant reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs, strengthening the healthcare and community care options that are available to America's veterans.

We are all aware of some of the scandals in the VA system, where veterans have had to travel hundreds of miles or wait months to get access to care. We have addressed that with the VA MISSION Act, which reinforces Veterans Choice. In other words, if you would rather go see a healthcare provider in your local community, if the wait is too long to be seen at a dedicated VA facility, or, if you have to go too far to get to a VA facility, you can get access to a local healthcare provider in your community, and the VA will pay for it. To me, that is a really important element of our veterans' healthcare system.

Last, but certainly not least, is our sixth achievement of this last year and a half during the Trump administration and Republican majorities in both Houses. We have taken steps to rebuild and protect our local communities. We passed nearly $147 billion in disaster relief for storms like Hurricane Harvey, which devastated Texas 1 year ago this month.

On top of that, we have enacted the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act, which provided resources to fight the rape kit backlog and improve school safety by a bill I sponsored called Fix NICS to make sure people who are illegally disqualified from purchasing or possessing firearms are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and prevented, if possible, from getting access to those firearms.

These are just a handful of ways we are doing what we told the American people we would do if they would entrust us with the great privilege of being stewards of that public trust. We put money back in Americans' pockets. We have rolled back regulations that

have made their lives easier. We strengthened the military. We have given healthcare flexibility to our veterans. We have protected our communities from harm.

Of course, there is more work that needs to be done. Just before the State work period concluded this last week, the Senate voted to proceed to a conference on the farm bill. This bill is of great importance to the people of my State. City dwellers may not fully appreciate it, but according to the 2012 census, agriculture employs one out of every seven working Texans. With 28 million Texans, that is a huge number of farmers and ranchers directly affected by what we do in the farm bill.

What people don't realize, however, is that nutrition programs--not agriculture funding--account for almost 80 percent of the cost of the farm bill. This includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps.

Although I was proud to support the Senate's version of the legislation, I was somewhat disappointed it did not include stronger reforms to some of these nutrition programs, including work requirements for people who are able-bodied or training requirements for people who need additional training or community service for people who can't work or don't want the training but at least provide some service to their local communities.

I appreciate what the House has done to provide for those work requirements in the bill that my friend Chairman Conaway included in the House version. These reforms are not last-minute additions. There was a long, thorough process leading to the introduction of the House farm bill. Chairman Conaway held more than 20 hearings on these nutrition programs, including some during the Congress, and afterward he put together some very commonsense work requirements that were based on broad stakeholder input.

During this record of low unemployment across the Nation, it is not unreasonable to try to use this opportunity, which comes only once every 5 years, to take a look and ensure our Federal dollars are being spent wisely, that able-bodied adults are getting the training they need in order to earn good pay, and that Federal assistance is only used to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

A scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Strain, wrote about this recently. He wrote that the question of ``[w]hether there should be a mandatory work component in public policies designed to assist low-income households is in part a question of . . . economics,'' but it is also moral and philosophical as well.

Whom should we expect to work in our society? Should a healthy person in the prime of their life who doesn't have young children at home be working--yes or no? In other words, does that person owe some share of his or her energy, ability, and intelligence to the rest of society from which we all benefit, including them? Some think it is nobody's business but the individual's whether they work or not and still receive these benefits, but I disagree with that.

When the question involves Federal benefits that are paid for by all taxpayers, whether to work or not is no longer just a private, personal decision. We as a country have decided that part of our social contract with each other will be providing a safety net where needed, and that is important. The flip side is, to benefit from that safety net, there also ought to be certain obligations. In other words, you can't have rights without responsibilities. One of them should be to work, if you are able to do so.

While I wish the members of the conference committee my best as they try to reach consensus on the farm bill, I encourage them to take another look at Chairman Conaway's ideas on work requirements. I hope my colleagues will be willing to revisit this issue in the conference committee on the farm bill.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission.''

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet

during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nomination of David Hale, of New Jersey, to be an Under Secretary of State Political Affairs.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations of Lynda Blanchard, of Alabama, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Slovenia, Dereck J. Hogan, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova, Kathleen Ann Kavalec, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Albania, Philip S. Kosnett, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Kosovo, and Judy Rising Reinke, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Montenegro, all of the Department of State.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Ryan Douglas Nelson, of Idaho, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Richard J. Sullivan, of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, Gary Richard Brown, Diane Gujarati, Eric Ross Komitee, and Rachel P. Kovner, each to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Stephen R. Clark, Sr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, Lewis J. Liman, and Mary Kay Vyskocil, both to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, John M. O'Connor, to be United States District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma, John L. Sinatra, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of New York, Joshua Wolson, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, James W. Carroll, Jr., of Virginia, to be Director of National Drug Control Policy, and Ariana Fajardo Orshan, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, August 16, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human Trafficking and Abuse.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.