John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is August, and the Senate is in session getting the people's work done. As the majority leader said last week, the reason we can't afford to take this time off is because we have so much to do. Of course, one of the things we could do is agree to an expedited confirmation of noncontroversial nominations--something our Democratic friends have not been willing to do to this point. Indeed, they engaged in unprecedented obstruction of some of President Trump's nominees, even those who are not controversial. For example, we just confirmed two Federal appellate court judges in a strong bipartisan manner last week. These, of course, were both highly distinguished lawyers, and I am sure they will do a great job on the Fourth Circuit. When we see nominations get overwhelmingly bipartisan votes, we wonder why we had to delay these nominations not only for the judiciary but also other important nominations, such as at the State Department and in other areas. Frankly, because of the delay, the vacancies impair the ability of government to be responsive to the needs of the American people. It is a shame we have seen that kind of mindless obstruction to President Trump's nominees who, again, are not even controversial. While we focus sometimes on how divided we are--and I know the American people sometimes feel like we are unwilling to find common ground--it is not true that we don't occasionally come together and do important things. This week marks the continued collaboration between Republicans and Democrats that started last week when we agreed to address two important 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.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.'' Mr. Durbin. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necesssarily absent.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. 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.''

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, yesterday marked the sixth anniversary of the kidnapping of a brave young man named Austin Tice. Back in 2012, Austin decided to put his law school studies on hold and spend the summer in Syria as a freelance journalist. He was frustrated with the lack of good information on Syria's civil war--a war that, by some estimates, has claimed more than one-half million lives and displaced millions more, having created a refugee crisis affecting neighboring countries, like Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, and having destabilized the entire region. In spite of the violence and political turmoil and as a strong believer in the freedom of the press, Austin wanted to let his fellow Americans know what was going on in that terrible civil war, which continues to this day. So he didn't wait around for someone else to act; he went to Syria himself, and he reported on the civil war. As with most things he tried, Austin proved to be a very successful journalist. But then, in August of 2012, just days before he was planning to leave Syria, he was taken hostage, and little has been heard from him since. That is why I am again today renewing my call for Austin Tice's immediate release by his captors. Over the last several years, I have had the privilege of meeting with Austin's parents a number of times, Mark and Debra Tice, who have worked tirelessly to locate him and bring him home safely. In fact, I plan to meet with them again this afternoon to bring them up to speed on my most recent conversations with National Security Adviser John Bolton, whom I have asked to meet with the Tices and maintain the continuity between the Obama administration and now the Trump administration when it comes to efforts to return him safely to his family and friends. Of course, his family doesn't know Austin as a journalist, primarily; they don't know him primarily as a decorated Marine Corps veteran, a Houston native, and a seventh-generation Texan, either--all of which he is. They, of course, know him as their friend, their brother, their son. Austin Tice has a family who is waiting for him, missing him, and laboring to find any piece of information that will lead to his whereabouts and return him home safely. Today, on the sixth anniversary, I am here to say that the entire Nation stands behind the Tice family. In solidarity with them, we call for Austin's immediate release by his captors and urge the administration to use all possible means to secure Austin's safe return home. I am thankful to the Trump administration, as I am to the Obama administration, and I have met with them both about Austin's case. I know the former administration of President Obama and the current administration of President Trump share my desire to see Austin come home as soon as possible, but we need to take a step back and realize why people like Austin are taken hostage in the first place. In many parts of the world, authoritarian regimes and criminal nonstate actors see a free press as a threat--an existential threat. They don't want to risk a spotlight exposing human rights abuses, lies, corruption, and graft. They want to inoculate themselves from criticism and bury the truth so it never sees the light of day. In places like Turkey, Syria, China, and elsewhere, journalists are silenced and often jailed, sometimes even killed. We have seen this to the south of our border in Mexico, too, with drug cartels and criminal syndicates that don't like the scrutiny that a free press provides on their illicit activities. According to organizations like Reporters Without Borders, 2017 was perhaps the most dangerous year on record for journalists, and 2018 is not expected to be any different. We need to be aware of this and constantly vigilant to do our part to ensure journalists' safety and the flourishing of freedom of the press everywhere it can possibly exist. So, to Austin's parents, I pledge: I will never give up until we find your son and bring him home safely. This week, we will pass another milestone--6 years--but hope that in the near future, the next milestone will be the day that marks Austin's return to the United States and to his family.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), 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.''

Mr. CORNYN

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

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

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

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

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier this summer I was privileged to be at the White House when President Trump announced his nominee to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court became effective just a couple of days ago. Judge Kavanaugh's nomination continues the streak that we Republicans in the Senate have been on for the last 18 months under the Trump administration. We have set new records. Specifically, we set a record last year for the most circuit court judges confirmed in a President's first year, and we set a new record this year with the recent confirmation of President Trump's 23rd circuit judge, Texan Andy Oldham, who will serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that was 2 weeks ago. Keep in mind that we have already set the record with the most judges confirmed in the President's first 2 years, and we still have 5 months to go. That is unprecedented. That is huge. It speaks volumes about the seriousness with which this administration takes its responsibility to fill vacancies on the Federal judiciary and the efficiency with which this Chamber is carrying out its duty to provide advice and consent. Yesterday, we voted on another outstanding nominee, Britt Grant, for the Eleventh Circuit. To date, the Senate has confirmed 45 Federal judges under President Trump, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, and that includes 24 circuit court or intermediate level judges. But some people don't like to focus on that record of accomplishment so much. They like to dwell on Judge Kavanaugh, the nominee to succeed Anthony Kennedy, exclusively instead. I understand why the Supreme Court vacancy is a very big deal, but it doesn't give license to engage in hysterical attacks. We have seen Judge Kavanaugh called almost every name in the book. We have heard that his confirmation would result in the destruction of the Constitution and that the nominee is your worst nightmare and one who wants to pave the path to tyranny. Well, I just think those sorts of attacks--and hysterical attacks-- undermine the very credibility of the speaker, because anybody who knows anything about Judge Kavanaugh knows that none of that is true. We are not going to be distracted from carrying out the confirmation process in the normal established way through the Judiciary Committee first, led by Chairman Grassley, and, then, once we get to the floor, with a debate and vote to confirm the judge, hopefully, well in advance of the next term of the Supreme Court, which begins the first Monday in October. We know, for example, that Chairman Grassley has already sent a request to the Bush Library to recover many of the records that pertain to the nominee's service when he worked at the White House Counsel's Office. This was a unilateral request, unfortunately, because our Democratic colleagues refused to join us, even after two weeks of negotiations and trying to find a way both sides could agree. This is, unfortunately, another sign of obstruction, which is basically all that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are opposing this nomination have left. Many of the Democrats on the other side have made clear that they really aren't interested in the nominee's qualifications. As I mentioned previously, five of them came out against the nominee before he was even named, in other words, taking the position that the person nominated by President Trump would not be able to earn their support. Fifteen more, after the nominee was named, came out in opposition. So 20 Democrats have already announced their opposition to the nominee without even taking a few moments even to meet with the judge or getting to learn a little more about his record. Unfortunately, the role that so many of our friends across the aisle want the judiciary to play is that they are really interested in judges who basically will be results-oriented. In other words, rather than be impartial umpires and call balls and strikes regardless of who is at bat, what they want is somebody who will put the thumb on the scales of justice and reach a preordained result. But that is not the way judges are supposed to serve under our form of government. Judges don't run for election. They have lifetime tenure. So they are not politically accountable for their decisions at the ballot box like those of us in the political branches of government are. So some of the rhetoric, as I said earlier, is just over the top. One of our colleagues even said that you would be complicit and evil if you supported this nomination. Well, we need to be aware of the double standard that applies. There is a stark contrast between Judge Kavanaugh and the confirmation process of Justice Kagan. This time around, our Democratic colleagues requested every single scrap of paper that made its way across the nominee's desk, even when he did not contribute to the policy or content of those documents. At the time when Justice Kagan was nominated, about 173,000 pages of documents were produced from the time that she worked in the White House Counsel's Office and on the Domestic Policy Council. She and Judge Kavanaugh share in common the fact that they worked in the White House Counsel's Office. But the difference between Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Kagan is that Justice Kagan didn't have any public judicial record at all. Just compare that to Judge Kavanaugh's 12 years of serving on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. He has more than 300 written opinions for Members to review and ascertain what kind of judge he would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court. I am surprised that our Democratic friends are asking for so many documents that are clearly immaterial, because during the nominee's 2006 confirmation hearing for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, our colleagues did not ask for any documents, which they are now demanding, and specifically, those that came across his desk when he served in the important function of White House Staff Secretary. This is, perhaps, a little understood office, but basically it is an administrative position, where Judge Kavanaugh, at the time, as Staff Secretary at the White House, was responsible for making sure that the documents presented to the President for review had been properly vetted and were in good form. That is the responsibility--not to provide input in terms of the policy or the content of those documents. So he really was more or less a traffic cop for the paper flow across the President's desk. As such, those documents would have no bearing whatsoever on the judge's qualifications or experience and are unnecessary to produce for this confirmation process. Just as with Justice Kagan's confirmation, there was a bipartisan understanding in 2006, during Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation, that certain documents are unnecessary and should be off limits. In 2006, Judge Kavanaugh responded to the standard questionnaire for appellate nominees. Our Democratic colleagues didn't complain about that at the time. In fact, at Judge Kavanaugh's hearing in 2006, Senator Feinstein, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, noted that ``without a record either as a trial lawyer or as a judge, it's very difficult for some of us to know what kind of judge you would be and whether you can move away from the partisanship and into that arena of objectivity and fairness.'' But now our friend from California has 12 years of judicial service and more than 300 opinions she and others--all of us--can review to answer the very questions she said she needed to answer. So my question is, why are our colleagues across the aisle suddenly claiming they need every email, every memo, and every Post-it note that went across the nominee's desk? Well, we know the reason is because they cannot attack Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record of objectivity and fairness on the DC Circuit. Instead, they are trying to dig through other people's emails and documents and conduct a government-sponsored, taxpayer-funded fishing expedition through the records of the entire Bush White House. I call this the great paper chase. You have heard us warn that the Democrats' demands for every document from Judge Kavanaugh's time in the White House is nothing more than a stall tactic. Several media reports over the last few days have now confirmed that this is, in fact, their exact strategy. Here is a statement from the San Francisco Chronicle: ``Feinstein, other Senate Dems have plan on Brett Kavanaugh nomination: Stall.'' Their broader, coordinated strategy is to delay and stall, not actually vet, the nominee. So for most of them, it really won't matter that Judge Kavanaugh will have more documents produced before his confirmation than any other nominee in American history; it won't matter that some documents have already been released--for example, from his tenure working for the independent counsel; it won't matter that the process is fully transparent and thorough because they have already made up their minds. To be clear, overwhelmingly, our Democratic colleagues are simply not interested in vetting Judge Kavanaugh because they have already made up their minds to vote against the nomination. I hope the three or four or five Democrats who are still open-minded to confirmation of the judge will encourage their other colleagues to change their approach and to make sure they do what we are required to do under the Constitution once the President has made a nomination like this, and that is to provide advice and consent, not just obstruction and delay and resistance. Many of the excuses they are now giving, particularly with regard to documents, are merely smokescreens for their true goal, which, as we see here in the San Francisco Chronicle, is simply to stall, stall, stall. They have telegraphed this strategy in the press, and they have made it clear that it is their only shot at blocking this mainstream nominee, because the truth is that Judge Kavanaugh is imminently qualified and well respected by all who know him. I believe it is our responsibility to continue to vet the nominee and to continue to encourage Members to meet with him and to continue their review of his record--particularly in the last 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--because I am convinced that if they do that, they will be willing to support the nominee, if they have an open mind and if they haven't already engaged in the political calculation to oppose the nominee no matter what the reason may be. I look forward to confirming the judge early this fall. Chairman Grassley has said he hopes to have a hearing on the nomination and then a vote on the Senate floor in advance of the October term of the Supreme Court. I look forward to helping him keep that schedule and confirming this good man and fine judge to the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last week the House passed an important piece of legislation, the reauthorization of the Perkins Act. It was sent to the President's desk for his signature and, once that happens today, it will become the law of the land. I want to take just a moment to talk about part of it because it has huge implications for my State and the United States. It is called the New HOPE Act, and it builds on other steps we have taken recently to strengthen our Nation's economy. Specifically, it deals with this phenomenon of occupational licensing. State licensing mandates require men and women to pay fees, complete training programs, and pass exams before they can enter certain jobs and professions, but many of these licensing requirements are simply protectionism. They do nothing to protect consumers or ensure the public safety. They simply protect the incumbents' interests and erect large barriers to entry. They make it more difficult for new folks to learn and practice new trades and preserve exclusive access to those who have the means and the time necessary to jump through all the procedural and financial hoops. Existing licensing rules perpetuate the status quo and stifle new talent. Oftentimes, they are totally unnecessary, as you may have gathered from my comments, and certainly burdensome. When that happens, they need to be eliminated. Last year in Austin, I had a chance to meet with people in the cosmetology, heating and ventilation, and other industries, and we talked about how licensing requirements impact their industries, as well as job creation, upward mobility, and public safety. Around that same time, the Institute for Justice ranked Texas licensure requirements as the 17th most burdensome in the country. That is not a statistic I am proud of. So, naturally, we spoke about ways we can reduce the burden on job seekers. That is where the bill I sponsored comes in, the New HOPE Act, which is part of this Perkins reauthorization bill. It provides additional authority to State Governors receiving funds for career and technical education. It gives them discretion to consolidate or eliminate licenses or certifications that provide limited consumer protection or pose an unnecessary and sometimes insurmountable barrier to entry for aspiring men and women seeking to enter certain professions. If you want to be a hairdresser or an eyebrow threader or a roofer or a mortician, we should support you 100 percent. We shouldn't condone the erection of barriers to your entering this profession once you have satisfied the necessary and important qualifications and training. There are certain training steps that are a good idea, and I am not suggesting otherwise, but you shouldn't have to wait for years and waste thousands of dollars in order to get there. That is what this bill is all about. I am grateful to my Democratic cosponsor, the junior Senator from Michigan, as well as the bill's champions over in the House, Representative Walberg and Representative Cuellar. We couldn't have gotten this done without them. I look forward to the President's signature. I know that once it becomes law, it will work to further enhance the positive economic climate that we have seen under this administration, with the jaw-dropping announcement of last Friday that the economy is burning so hot that the gross domestic product has gone up by 4.1 percent in the last quarter alone. There are many steps to turning this economy around. One of the biggest, of course, was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which we passed last year and which has had transformative effects. So I am optimistic that legislation like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will continue to allow getting out of the way of the people who are creating opportunity and growing the economy and wages and take-home pay. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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