Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Missing and Murdered: Confronting the Silent Crisis in Indian Country.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``China's Non-Traditional Espionage Against the United States.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.'' Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed roundtable. Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Implications of China's Presence and Investment in Africa.'' Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``United States Navy and Marine Corps readiness.'' Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, December 12, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``U.S. force posture in the Indo-Pacific Region.'' Subcommittee on National Parks The Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, December 06, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, during this season of Advent, millions of Americans join Christians around the world to celebrate the coming of Jesus Christ. A central tenet of Christianity is born in the belief that Jesus is the Light of the World. On December 25, we celebrate the light, the hope, and the joy our Lord and Savior brings into the world. Today, I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to pay tribute to a servant of Christ who dedicated her life to bring light, hope, and joy to children and families around the world. Her name is Becky Weichhand. Becky blazed a trail of hope and love to spread joy to children, especially those awaiting adoption. To those who knew her best, Becky was an unconditional prayer warrior, who graciously shared love and loyalty to friends and strangers alike. By all accounts, Becky shared uncommon devotion in her advocacy for children, especially those in our Nation's foster care system. Since 2014, Becky served as executive director of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute. Before that, she served as director of policy, where she shined light on the needs of children here in the United States and abroad, including the United Kingdom, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Cambodia, Vietnam, South Korea, and Haiti. Since first joining the corps of dedicated professionals working to help the foster youth community, Becky had a plan. She had a plan for kids who went to bed each night praying for a forever home. She had a plan for young people who were growing up without a mom or dad. She had a plan to connect as many kids as possible with a forever family. Becky worked tirelessly to educate, organize and advocate here on Capitol Hill and at the grassroots. She devoted her life and career to making dreams come true for adoptive parents and their children. Among her priorities and achievements, I know that Becky was committed to growing the Foster Youth Internship Program that connects foster youth and congressional offices. The program provides opportunities for foster youth to work on Capitol Hill. Through this program, foster youth collaborate and bring real-life perspective to the policymaking tables. I have been fortunate to have an intern through this program who worked with my staff to help develop Federal child welfare reforms. They identified more effective ways to serve foster kids, including those who age out of the system. Becky also worked to grow the Angels in Adoption Program. It brings recognition to families who go above and beyond the call to action in their local communities to open their hearts and homes to children awaiting adoption. Shining light on the good deeds and unmet needs of others was her way of bringing light to the world. As a founder and cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth, I would like to turn the spotlight on Becky's good works. She was driven to find a forever family for every child. She was a problem solver brimming with energy. Her advocacy led to important reforms. She believed in miracles. She made every effort to work miracles for children and families. Becky mentored foster youth and paved the way for kids to dream big. She gave them reason to hope that their dreams can come true. I extend my condolences to Becky's family, friends, and loved ones. At age 36, Becky lost a brave battle to cancer. Her legacy will live on and bring joy to countless children and moms and dads where it matters the most: in a forever family united through the blessing of adoption. On Saturday, December 15, a celebration of life will take place at the First Church of God in Becky's hometown of St. Joseph, MI. On this day, her loved ones will celebrate the light, joy, and hope she brought to this world. May the blessings of God's Heavenly embrace welcome Becky into her new forever home for life everlasting.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I raise an important issue for my colleagues that impacts many families in Iowa but also throughout the country. You hear it everywhere. It is about high prescription drug costs. I am not going to address that issue across the board, but I am going to do it in a narrow way for one part of it. One contributing factor that has played a part in how much money the government and taxpayers pay for some drugs is a government program called the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. On Tuesday I introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Wyden of Oregon. The bill, called the Right Rebate Act of 2018, would close a loophole in that program that causes the problem I am addressing. As a condition for participation in the Medicaid Program, drug companies must pay a rebate--or some people might call it a discount-- to the Federal Government and to the various States for the drugs they offer. Generally speaking, the rebate dollar amount is less for a generic drug than for a brand-name drug. The rebate program hasn't worked as designed. Some drug companies have been able to game the system to boost their bottom line, and they do so at taxpayers' expense. Some drug companies have paid smaller rebates to the government. When that happens, that means taxpayers are footing a bigger burden. One example, in particular, highlights the main issues we aim to solve with this legislation. During the Obama administration--it could have been a Republican administration as well--because of the problems in this program, Iowans regularly contacted me by phone, email, and at my annual 99 county meetings about the difficulties they faced paying the rapidly rising prices of EpiPen. EpiPen is an emergency medicine used to treat severe, life-threatening allergic reactions. EpiPen is distributed by a company called Mylan. In 2007 a pack of two EpiPens cost $100. By 2016, the cost of that two-pack of EpiPens exploded to more than $600. That is a very substantial price increase. Nobody is going to argue with that. Many would argue that it is an unjustified price increase, especially considering the gut punch to taxpayers who foot the lions' share of the Medicaid bill for families. They happen to be families in need. I listened to the concerns of my constituents and began an investigation about how the drug rebate program was working. In a nutshell, Mylan had classified the EpiPen as a generic drug in the Medicaid Program, when it should have been classified as a brand drug. That means Mylan misclassified EpiPen, and CMS let it happen. Because of this incorrect classification, Mylan paid a much smaller rebate than it should have. I asked the Health and Human Services inspector general to look into these classification practices. The inspector general found that taxpayers may have overpaid for the EpiPen by as much as $1.3 billion over 10 years because of the incorrect classification. Eventually, Mylan settled a False Claims Act case with the Justice Department for $465 million. Now, don't ask me why the Justice Department didn't go after the other probably $700 million. I don't know, and I haven't found out why, but upon learning of that settlement, I expressed my disappointment that it didn't seem that taxpayers had been made whole. That is quite obvious, right? We shouldn't have had to depend on lawyers and lawsuits to get the taxpayers' money back. This deception should never have happened in the first place. That is common sense. Government Agencies should have, as an initial matter, been responsibly overseeing the programs they are in charge of. Because of insufficient attention to the problem by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services--or CMS, as I have been using--Mylan escaped accountability for a long period of time, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions--eventually billions--of dollars. But it is not just Mylan, and it is not just EpiPen. In a December 2017 report, the inspector general found that 885 drugs may have been potentially misclassified. Specifically, the inspector general found that, from 2012 to 2016, Medicaid may have lost $1.30 billion in rebates for 10 potentially misclassified drugs with the highest total reimbursement. So where do we go from here? It is clear that the law must change to provide clarity. So let's establish clear lines of authority to hold the government bureaucracy and also the private sector accountable. Taxpayers demand and deserve accountability. Simply said, accountability will bring cost savings. The Right Rebate Act, which Senator Wyden and I introduced, will shut down this loophole used by drug companies. This legislation will prevent the misclassification of drugs in the first place and protect taxpayer dollars. It does this by requiring CMS to enforce penalties on drug companies that knowingly misclassify drugs in the Medicaid Program. The legislation also provides remedies for States that are shortchanged by drug companies. It requires an annual report to Congress by CMS to make sure the Agency is doing all it can to protect taxpayer dollars and to keep drug expenditures down. This is commonsense legislation. It would close a loophole used by drug companies to keep prices artificially high--much higher than they should be--and it grants the Secretary of HHS the authority to properly enforce the law. The Right Rebate Act is only one step in the fight against high prescription drug costs, but it is the right step, and there are a lot of other steps that must be taken. I look forward to working with Senator Wyden in the 116th Congress on many issues important to Americans, including the high cost of prescription drugs. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, millions of Americans woke up this morning and started the day with their doses of prescription medications. Their daily regimens are prescribed by their healthcare providers to treat illnesses and to improve the quality of their lives, and for many Americans, prescription medicine extends and saves their lives. Without their prescription medication, millions of Americans would not survive. For so many of our loved ones who have diabetes, high blood pressure, cystic fibrosis, epilepsy, or other chronic healthcare conditions, prescription drugs are a basic necessity for their living. Without pharmaceutical treatment or cures, too many family gatherings at Thanksgiving, which has just passed, arguably, would have had fewer plates at the table this holiday season. As a nation, we are incredibly blessed to live in a country where investment and innovation unlocks cures and treatments. Yet the escalating price of prescription drugs are a consuming concern for too many millions of Americans, even including Iowans who bring up this subject regularly at my county meetings. I have come to the floor of the Senate to address the sticker shock that greets consumers when they pick up their medicine at the pharmacy or open their medical bills after a hospital visit. Rising drug prices that Americans pay out of pocket are gobbling up a bigger share of income. For some people on a fixed income, sky-high drug prices are eating up every spare penny they can scrape together to pay for their prescriptions. It is time we talk turkey to our friends at Big Pharma. I don't make fun of our friends at Big Pharma. I use the word ``friends'' because we all enjoy a longer life and better quality of life because of miracle drugs. As a fiscal conservative who wholeheartedly believes in free enterprise, I don't want the government intruding unnecessarily in the marketplace. The reason millions of Americans benefit from lifesaving drugs in the first place is due largely to capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit that drives innovation and opens new frontiers of modern medicine. I also believe strong intellectual property rights help incentivize companies to invest in research and development so new cures are found for our loved ones. However, government does have a responsibility to keep a check on unfair business practices and to actually rein in anti- competitive behavior that harms consumers and fleeces taxpayers. There is a general agreement that these are constitutional as well as legitimate roles for government. Of course, if you are going to protect the consumers and not fleece taxpayers, this can happen in a number of ways. It happens when brand-name and generic drugmakers game the system to pad their profits at the expense of taxpayers and consumers. It happens when hospitals, middlemen, and providers determine which drugs to prescribe based on its reimbursement and markup from insurers, including public health programs for the military and veterans or the big ones like Medicare and Medicaid. Throughout my public service in the U.S. Senate, I have established a fundamental commitment to transparency. Remember that transparency, particularly in government, brings accountability, but transparency in the private sector will also bring accountability. From whistleblower protections to the public's right to know, sunlight sweeps away wrongdoing, strengthens good government, and helps consumers and taxpayers get the most bang for the buck. I have worked across the aisle to apply this standard to help lower drug prices. It is an issue that resonates loudly and very clearly in every household of America. In fact, Iowans contacted my office a couple of years ago regarding real sticker shock for their EpiPens. The escalating price they were paying for lifesaving anti-allergy medication jumped $600 for a two- pack. On their behalf, I started digging for answers. It turned out that Mylan, the EpiPen distributor, had jacked up the price for over a decade during the Obama administration. In fact, from 2006 through 2016, it rose more than 400 percent. EpiPen is the most widely prescribed epinephrine autoinjector in the United States. Parents, grandparents, daycare providers, and teachers across the country keep their homes, their cars, and their classrooms stocked in case of an emergency. A 400-percent increase--how was Mylan able to accomplish this? It classified EpiPen as a generic drug instead of a brand-name drug in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Simply, that incorrect classification cost the U.S Treasury and States big time by allowing Mylan to pay lower rebates. The watchdog at the Department of Health and Human Services, at my request, found the misclassification may have resulted in the taxpayers and the States overpaying for the drug by as much as $1.3 billion. What is more, a competing pharmaceutical company sued Mylan using the False Claims Act--a whistleblower law I have updated over the years. This anti-fraud tool encourages people to report and expose wrongdoing against the government. In this specific case, this whistleblower exposed fraud against the taxpayers for misusing the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to the tune of $456 million. I would like to share a time-tested lesson I have learned throughout my 30 years of oversight work in the U.S. Senate: When you smell smoke, there is a fire. The EpiPen misclassification may be the tip of the iceberg. As part of my EpiPen oversight, I requested additional misclassification data from the Office of Inspector General at HHS. As of early 2018, the Office of Inspector General identified the names of 10 drugs that accounted for 68 percent of Medicaid reimbursements for potentially misclassified drugs just in the year 2016. The EpiPen and some of its variants are included within the group of 10 drugs, as well as a commonly prescribed antibiotic and a commonly prescribed drug for an underactive thyroid condition. In a nutshell, it appears the same drug companies may be undermining the rebate program by misclassifying commonly prescribed drugs that can be found in medicine cabinets in households all across the United States. That is simply wrong, and I am going to do whatever I can to fix that issue. Recently, the FDA approved the first EpiPen generic. Of course, that is a good step in the right direction. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee and also the last 4 years as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, my sights are set squarely on lowering drug prices without compromising access for innovative cures and treatments delivered by the American pharmaceutical industry. Through oversight and even legislation, I am working to set things right. That includes putting a stop to the shenanigans that manipulate regulatory loopholes and unfairly extend monopolies over certain drugs. This happens when a brand name and a generic drugmaker work in cahoots to delay the lower priced generic's entry into the market. For starters, a bipartisan bill I have with Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota would inject a healthy dose of Midwestern commonsense medicine into Big Pharma with a bill we have that would do away with what we call the pay-for-delay shenanigans. This bill, called Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act, would end sweetheart deals between brand-name and generic drugmakers that end up costing the American consumer and at the same time the U.S. taxpayers an arm and a leg. It would increase access to more affordable generic drugs sooner rather than later because of the pay-for-delay scheme. Specifically, our bill would crack down on anti-competitive payoff schemes that effectively rip off taxpayers and consumers. These so- called reverse agreements delay consumer access to the cheaper generic drug. I am 100 percent certain that our pay-for-delay bill would help lower drug prices for our consumers and save the taxpayers money through Medicare and Medicaid. That is because generic drugs can be up to 90 percent cheaper than brand-name drugs, and that happens to be a tremendous savings. Ending these payoff agreements would gut artificially inflated prices consumers are paying for some prescription drugs. Putting an end to these payoff schemes will end the choke hold they put on the market. By doing so, we can restore timely access for affordable generics to reach the market, boost competition, expand consumer choice, and at the same time lower drug prices. In addition to the pay-for-delay bill that Senator Klobuchar and I have, I am also cosponsor of a bill led by my friend Senator Pat Leahy that would inject another dose of bipartisan common sense into the pharmaceutical industry. We use the acronym CREATES for this legislation, the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples Act. It seeks to stop anti-competitive practices that block lower cost generic drugs from the pharmacy store's shelves. It would help generic companies get the samples they need to manufacture equivalent products. Right now, a common practice by bad actors in the industry prevents potential generic competitors from obtaining the samples they need to test their drugs or blocks them from participating in shared safety protocols. This practice of deny and delay is fueling deficit spending. That is because the tax-paying public shells out a whole lot more money to fill brand name prescriptions for veterans, the elderly, and the disabled, when the cheaper generic drugs would do the same thing. This would save a tremendous amount of money. We have the scoring by the Congressional Budget Office saying that our bill--the CREATES bill-- would result in a $3.8 billion net decrease in the Federal deficit. Improving access to lower cost generic drugs while preserving the incentives for innovation and intellectual property rights ought to be seen by my colleagues as a win-win solution. I hope you will not just take my word for it. More than 80 organizations supported the final passage of the CREATES Act. They would go all the way from the AARP over to the Consumers Union, which tend to be liberal organizations, all the way over to Taxpayers for Common Sense, which I think generally tends to be more conservative. Our CREATES bill was approved in June by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, and has 30 Senate cosponsors. In addition to this legislation, I am also keeping tabs on proposed buyouts and mergers in the pharmaceutical supply chain. Without a doubt, increased market integration will impact consumers and taxpayers. For example, the mergers of Cigna Corporation with Express Scripts Holding Company and the CVS Health Corporation with Aetna may negatively impact consumer choice. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, once completed, these two mergers would result in just four entities controlling 71 percent of all of Medicare Part D enrollees and 86 percent of stand-alone drug plan enrollees. Notwithstanding the consumer benefits of business integration that can include more innovation and cost-saving efficiencies, we can't afford to turn a blind eye to potential negative consequences that consolidation in the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain may have in the marketplace. I will wrap up my remarks today with this message for the American people: President Trump made a promise to the people to lower drug prices. His administration is working to deliver on that promise. Most of the stuff that has gone on so far has been within what the law allows the President, through the Secretary of HHS, to do so that Congress doesn't have to be involved in everything. But Congress can surely give support to this program. The President's blueprint for bringing down prescription drug prices lays out four principles: Boost competition, enhance negotiation, create incentives for lowering list prices, and, lastly, bring down out-of-pocket costs. Last month, he signed the Patient Right to Know Act into law, so he has the help of some new legislation now. I cosponsored this bill by Senator Susan Collins to ban what are called ``gag clauses,'' which keep pricing information from consumers every time they visit the pharmacy counter. The new law prevents health insurance companies from prohibiting pharmacy providers from sharing pricing information with consumers. So now, under the Collins legislation, a pharmacist can alert a customer if their copayment would cost more than paying out-of-pocket, as just an example. This puts a little bit of transparency into the whole process and lets your pharmacist help you as much as he can to save money. But there are rules that some companies have that you can't share that information. So along the lines of also hoping to save the consumer some money--or at least to educate the consumer on pharmacy practices and to have more transparency--Senator Durbin and I pushed for Senate passage of an amendment that supports existing Health and Human Services authority requiring drugmakers to disclose the list price of prescription drugs in direct-to-consumer advertising. It happens that the House of Representatives rejected our amendment. Nonetheless, the Secretary of HHS is moving forward with our concept to improve transparency by requiring companies to include these same drug prices in their direct-to-consumer advertising. Another example of where the President, through the Secretary of HHS, has, under present law, authority to move ahead--we wanted to let the Secretary know, through the Durbin-Grassley amendment, that we wanted to back him up in his efforts. Drug companies are already required to include possible side effects in their TV ads. So isn't it commonsense to add to that list price information to further improve consumer decision making? The more information patients and healthcare providers have to make decisions on costs and outcomes, it seems to me, the better off they are. Finally, I would like to say a word about another commonsense solution to high drug prices. For over 20 years, I have advocated for the safe reimportation of drugs from countries such as Canada. The late Senator McCain, along with Senator Klobuchar, introduced S. 92, the Safe and Affordable Drugs from Canada Act. I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I plan to work to get it enacted into law. In today's marketplace, there is a giant disconnect between consumers and the prices they pay for their prescription medicines. To many of my constituents in Iowa, it is just plain baffling why this can't be done. Americans have come to expect the best medicine when they need it most. We need to improve the marketplace so that it functions properly to lower drug prices and raise the bar on outcomes. Looking ahead, our Republican majority here in the U.S. Senate will keep up the momentum to deliver cost savings to the American people. On my watch, I will continue working across the aisle to lower drug prices, restore competition, and increase transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. I welcome the incoming Democratic House majority to join our efforts in behalf of the American taxpayers and consumers. As Americans count our blessings during this season of Thanksgiving and going into Christmas, we give thanks for the gifts of friends and family who gather together around these celebration tables. I am thankful for good health and the opportunity to serve Iowans. Along these lines, I will do my best to restore competition in the pharmaceutical market and to stop the gravy train that is taking taxpayers for a ride. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here to give thanks. Just a few days ago our country celebrated a national day of Thanksgiving. We celebrated food, fellowship, and freedom with family and friends. By any measure we are a people endowed with an abundance of blessings. As Americans, we have every reason to be grateful to share the prosperity of economic freedom, religious liberty, and self-government. Today, I come to the floor to extend my gratitude for one of the most distinguished public servants ever to serve in the U.S. Senate. It is my distinct privilege to stand here today to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague from Utah, Orrin Hatch. He is a man widely known for his integrity, character, and temperament. He is devoted to his family, his constituents, and his country. With overwhelming support from the good people of Utah, he has served his State and all of America in the U.S. Senate for 42 years. In those four decades of service, he has brought honor, humility, humor, and heart to this institution of the U.S. Senate. He has honed his legislative experience on a broad range of public policies. In fact, none of his peers have led more laws to final passage than my friend Senator Hatch. He has built successful bipartisan coalitions to enact laws that make a difference in the lives of everyday Americans. As former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and currently the senior member there, he is a champion of religious liberty and the rule of law. He is an advocate for entrepreneurship and free enterprise, as well as a champion of intellectual property rights, which includes being the lead Senate sponsor of the Music Modernization Act. He is just old enough to know when laws aren't keeping up with technology. Thanks to his tenacity, the new law will help ensure songwriters, artists, and creators that they will be fairly compensated for their works. Like so many Americans, Senator Hatch is a man of humble beginnings. He embraces the promise of prosperity and opportunity that makes America the beacon of the free world, and that brings me to the basis of my remarks today. From his decades of service and the chairmanship at the helm of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Hatch has shouldered some pretty heavy lifting in the legislative trenches to advance free and fair trade laws to foster economic growth and opportunity. As we all know, America is home to at least 320 million people. That is a fraction of the world's population, and yet America leads the world in economic output. Thanks to an amazing bounty of natural resources and an economic foundation that rewards ingenuity, productivity and creativity, our country, the United States, produces goods and services that consumers around the world want to buy. Senator Hatch and I share a core philosophy: lowering taxes and trade barriers as a winning formula for prosperity. To paraphrase a philosophy that often is attributed to our 35th President, ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' Today, I want to give credit where credit is due. Thanks to Senator Hatch's unflinching leadership and unwavering commitment to advance the principles of free and fair trade, America's formula for prosperity and opportunity stands strong for generations to come. It is virtually impossible to recall any trade policy in recent history that does not have the fingerprints of my esteemed friend Senator Hatch all over those documents. In fact, he led the renewal of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. It paved the way for a robust, transparent review of trade negotiations. Like Senator Hatch, I understand that America needs to speak with one voice on the world stage for effective, lasting trade agreements. We also agree on the constitutional authority of the legislative branch to maintain oversight of these trade agreements. Consultation with Congress is a focal ingredient to ensure that America's workers, job creators, and consumers benefit from the global economy. Senator Hatch also steered through bipartisan, bicameral trade legislation that updated our customs laws. It authorized the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to strengthen travel and trade enforcement at our borders. Passage of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 holds our trading partners accountable. It preserves the twin pillars of America's most important economic assets: innovation and intellectual property. Putting in place effective tools to protect intellectual property and thwart counterfeit and illicit products from infiltrating the supply chain protects all of our consumers, all of our workers, and our job creators. Senator Hatch understands that trade agreements can do more harm than good without proper enforcement. Unfair trade can lead to bad trade. That is bad for America. Tax and trade cheats undermine our economy. Senator Hatch has worked tirelessly throughout his years at the helm of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee to weed out wrongdoers and, at the same time, to sow the seeds of accountability and transparency in our international trade regime. Protecting U.S. patents, copyrights, and trademarks are essential to U.S. innovation, investment, and prosperity in the 21st century. Senator Hatch has also worked to eliminate barriers to trade that helped developing nations create more open economies. His long-term commitment to renew the Generalized System of Preferences helped to lower input costs for U.S. job creators and manufacturers. On Senator Hatch's watch, investment and opportunity have grown around the world. That rising tide includes the African Growth and Opportunity Act and other trade agreements that facilitate economic development and democracy in developing nations. Expanding market access is good for America. As manufacturers and farmers in Iowa tell me time and again, that is the case. They want the opportunity to compete in every market for every sale. Americans want to do business on the world stage and compete on a level playing field. Thanks to Senator Hatch's leadership with the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, we expanded market opportunities in developing countries. Once again, quoting President Kennedy, ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' When things haven't gone according to plan, Senator Hatch has worked effectively to strengthen U.S. trade remedy laws, including updates such as electronic reporting requirements to hold bad actors to account and to protect the health and safety of consumers for imported goods and services. Building on the passage of the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016, Chairman Hatch also led the way to further reduce trade barriers, boost economic benefits, and foster competition for U.S. businesses, our services providers, and our manufacturers. The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2017 untangles the burdensome redtape of interagency petitions and enforcement that can make or break a business due to unfair trade shenanigans. It strengthens transparency and fairness to help American manufacturers and their workers compete for business. In a nutshell, this law helps U.S. businesses simply to stay in business. At the end of the day, all of what I said are things, among others, that fuel the U.S. economy--the opportunity to compete for every sale in every market. Senator Hatch will leave behind a remarkable legacy and a very big gavel. From one public servant to another, Senator Hatch, I am grateful for your service. You have an impeccable record and a long list of achievements that lift the tide for generations to come. Thank you for all you have done for your State, for your country, and for this institution of the Senate. To my dear friend, from the bottom of our hearts, Barbara, my wife, and I are grateful for your friendship and wish you well for the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the people who have called themselves Latvians have been in existence for centuries and centuries, but the nation state that we call Latvia has only existed for 100 years. So I come to the floor to express the fact that on Saturday, the Republic of Latvia celebrates 100 years as a country. As cochair of the Senate Baltic Freedom Caucus, I recognized the centenary of Estonia and Lithuania in February, and I mentioned that I would be back this November to talk about Latvia's 100th anniversary, like I did Estonia and Lithuania back in February. On November 18, 1918, the People's Council of Latvia proclaimed independence. However, the establishment of a separate Latvian state did not come out of the blue. The movement toward an independent Latvia was a process of continuous historical development going back to the Latvian national awakening in the 1850s. At that time, between local German-speaking nobles and the Russian Imperial Government, and divided by the internal political boundaries between the Russian Empire, Latvians did not control their political fate. However, Latvians increasingly began to focus on promoting unity around their distinct language and culture. With the collapse of the tsarist government in Russia, Latvians began to push for a united autonomous territory, although independence did not yet seem feasible. When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia and attempted to consolidate control of Latvia, the time came to declare independence. However, as we Americans know well, declaring independence means being prepared to defend that decision of independence. Much as our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of American independence, the Founding Fathers of Latvia knew they would have to defend their independence with the force of arms. In fact, they had to fight invasions by both Soviets and Germans. If this sounds familiar, it is because it is pretty much the same story I described in February with the Estonian War of Independence. In fact, the Latvians and Estonians coordinated closely and fought side by side. Latvia also received help from Lithuania and Poland. Soviet Russia ultimately signed a peace treaty recognizing the independence and sovereignty of Latvia and renouncing forever all claims to the territory that is now Latvia. Sadly, it wasn't long before the treaty was violated. Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide up their neighbors between them in the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Soviets annexed Latvia and the other Baltics in the lead-up to World War II. Then, of course, Hitler broke his end of the bargain and invaded. At the end of the war, Stalin had taken back the Baltics and made clear he was there to stay. Despite courageous resistance of the Latvian forest brothers for many years while Latvians held out hope of assistance by the United States and the Western allies, Latvia remained occupied by the Soviet Union for the next 50 years after World War II. However, the United States never recognized the legitimacy of the Soviet occupation of Latvia. Throughout the Cold War, we maintained diplomatic relations via Embassy staff who had been accredited to the United States by Latvia before the Soviet occupation. I should note that if anyone is interested in learning more about the Latvian or Baltic history, there are books on the subject written by a professor emeritus at Iowa State University. The professor's name is Andrejs Plakans. After World War II, Latvians who had fled the Soviets or otherwise found themselves outside their country were unable to go home to a country under foreign occupation. The Displaced Persons Act allowed refugees to come to the United States, provided they had a sponsor, and about 700 of them came to my home State of Iowa. There is a Latvian-American community in Iowa to this very day. In fact, the first Latvians to come to the Des Moines area were the family of the current pastor of the Iowa Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church congregation, Leo Pelds. After his family's initial arrangements for a job at a creamery in Birmingham, AL, fell through, they heard that Iowa would be a good choice as the climate would be what they were used to. So that family moved to Des Moines. Other Latvians soon arrived, and they sponsored further Latvians until there were 300 to 400 just in the Des Moines area. The Latvian Society of Iowa was formed in 1950, and the Latvia Lutheran congregation was formed in 1952 after the arrival of the Latvian pastor. Like in other Latvian diaspora communities around the world, cultural events were organized to keep the Latvian culture alive, and a Saturday school was established to teach Latvian language, history, geography, and folk dances. Song festivals have played an important role in the preservation of Latvian culture going back to the national awakening, so naturally there was also a choir. The Latvian Society of Iowa was part of the larger effort of the Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian American communities to keep the plight of the Baltics on the radar of our American political leaders. Then, in 1991, thanks in part to the external pressure from the United States, as well as the courageous efforts of Latvians themselves and others in the Soviet Union demanding their freedom, the ``Evil Empire'' collapsed. Latvia is now back in the family of free democratic European nations, where it belongs. Latvia is a member of NATO in excellent standing, both in terms of meeting its financial commitment of 2 percent of GDP and in terms of its soldiers fighting shoulder to shoulder with Americans and other allies in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Even while Latvia is looking toward a bright future, its large neighbor to the east is ruled by a man who sees the fall of the Soviet Union, including losing Latvia, as, in his words, the ``major geopolitical disaster of the century.'' Those are the words of Vladimir Putin. He appears to be stuck in an old-fashioned way of thinking that assigns smaller countries to the Russian sphere of influence. He bullies neighbors that do not toe the Russian line. In fact, he has even occupied the Ukrainian region of Crimea, which the United States does not recognize, just as we didn't recognize the Soviet occupation of the Baltics. Vladimir Putin resents the fact that Latvia and the other Baltics naturally choose to align with fellow European countries to their west, with which they share a common European history, culture, and outlook. Given their past and current experience dealing with KGB thugs like Putin, the Latvians can provide invaluable insight as we grapple with how to combat Russian disinformation. In fact, it is appropriate that Riga is home to NATO's StratCom Centre of Excellence, which provides analysis and solutions for NATO on strategic communications and countering disinformation. So, as I conclude, I look forward to continuing the strong partnership between Latvia and the United States, and I offer my best wishes to all the Latvians as they celebrate 100 years of Latvian statehood. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to highlight the excellent work being done by the Justice Department under this administration in ensuring an accountable asbestos bankruptcy trust system. In 1994, in response to widespread asbestos litigation in our Nation's courts, Congress created a system of asbestos bankruptcy trusts. The purpose of these trusts is twofold. First, they provide an effective means for victims of asbestos exposure to obtain compensation from the companies they worked for years earlier or whose products caused their injuries. This helps provide some measure of justice for those whose lives have been dramatically impacted by asbestos exposure. At the same time, the companies, who otherwise face crippling liability, obtain a degree of certainty as they emerge from bankruptcy and reenter the stream of commerce. Most importantly, these trusts are designed to ensure that all victims, current and future, have access to compensation for their injuries. If the available funds are depleted unfairly through fraudulent claims, abuse, or mismanagement, it is the future victims, or those whose injuries have yet to manifest, who will feel the impact. Unfortunately, the asbestos bankruptcy trust system has largely lacked any meaningful, independent oversight to ensure that trusts are not deceived into--or willingly engage in--paying erroneous claims to unscrupulous lawyers. For years, I have called out this problem and the need for more sunshine to deter potential abuse. That is why I applaud the Justice Department's recent actions to stand up for victims of asbestos exposure by ensuring an accountable trust system. In a recent letter to 20 State attorneys general who had called for action, the Department forcefully criticized the ``problematic lack of transparency in the operation and oversight of asbestos trusts'' and acknowledged ``alarming evidence'' of ``fraud and mismanagement inside trusts.'' On September 13, 2018, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in a case concerning a proposed asbestos bankruptcy trust in North Carolina. The Department objected to the trust's formation, arguing that the plans failed to include sufficient safeguards to prevent fraud and abuse of the trust funds. The Department further stated that the United States will object to any plan that ``lacks critical provisions to ensure transparency and accountability and to prevent fraudulent claims and mismanagement of the trust funds[.]'' This includes ensuring that trusts comply with any obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute, avoid conflicts of interest, and prevent excessive administrative costs and attorney's fees. Shortly thereafter, on September 26, 2018, the Justice Department's U.S. Trustee Program, for the first time ever, objected to the appointment of a proposed future claimants' representative in a separate asbestos bankruptcy case based on the candidate's apparent conflicts of interest and close ties to lawyers representing current claimants. According to Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio, ``[t]o best protect all victims, those appointed in asbestos cases should be held to the same conflicts prohibitions and standards of independence that are required of other fiduciaries under the Bankruptcy Code.'' I couldn't agree more. Asbestos bankruptcy trusts are created to compensate victims, not to line the pockets of lawyers who file claims or administer the trusts. Fraudsters and poor management cannot be allowed to cheat victims of asbestos-related diseases out of the assistance Congress established for them. So I am pleased to see the Justice Department stepping up and using its existing authority to push back against trust plans that fail to put the victims' interests first. I applaud its commitment to investigate conduct related to asbestos trusts that is illegal under Federal law. It is time the asbestos trust system protects the interests of the victims, as Congress intended. To be sure, however, Congress's job isn't finished. There are commonsense steps we can take to better ensure that the Department has the tools and authority it needs to police against fraud and mismanagement. Earlier this year, I cosponsored S. 2564, the PROTECT Asbestos Victims Act, which would codify needed accountability measures for asbestos trust oversight. This bill, introduced by Senator Tillis, deserves strong bipartisan support. Among other reforms, it strengthens the U.S. Trustee's statutory authority to investigate the administration and operation of trusts. If the U.S. Trustee believes a false claim or demand was paid by the trust, he or she may refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office. It criminalizes a knowingly and fraudulently false claim or representation to a trust. It better ensures that the right people are appointed as future claims representatives, in other words, those who understand that their duty is to future victims, not to their trial lawyer friends. These are commonsense reforms, and I invite all of my colleagues to join in support. In the meantime, I fully expect the Justice Department to keep up its great work in protecting asbestos victims and the American taxpayer by policing against waste, fraud, and mismanagement in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a fallen soldier from Iowa, PFC Matthew A. Cox. Private Cox, of Leon, joined the Iowa National Guard in October 2017 after completing home-schooling. He was a member of the Iowa National Guard's 186th Military Police Company and had deployed to Cuba to support the joint military task force at Guantanamo Bay. Matthew Cox enjoyed participating in the children's ministry at 1st Baptist Church in Urbandale. He was inspired to join the National Guard by his grandfather and enjoyed farming with his grandparents. His family and friends describe him as an outstanding young man, always willing to help others. While in the National Guard, Matthew Cox was awarded the National Defense Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. He died at the age of 19 in a swimming accident. My prayers are with his parents, Jason and Beth Cox, as well as his brother Mark Cox and his grandparents Fred and Linda Cox. Our country owes a debt of gratitude to Matthew Cox and all those who make the choice to serve a cause greater than themselves. His service to our State of Iowa and to the Nation will always be remembered.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on two different subjects. The most important one is the first one: to thank a lot of people who helped me to chair and oversee the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I should have given this speech 72 hours ago, but I was in a hurry to get to the airport. So I am making up for lost time now. As everyone knows, on Saturday the Senate confirmed Judge Brett Kavanaugh as our newest Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I come to the floor to thank the Senate staff who helped to make that confirmation possible. Senators don't always recognize their staff as much as we probably should, but I am proud of the work my staff accomplished over the last 3 months as we considered the nomination of Kavanaugh. They have worked very diligently on this confirmation process of our new Justice, and most of it was behind the scenes. They put in the long, long work hours required, and they did it 7 days a week, if needed. The chairman's team tackled the heavy workload before them, and I am tremendously grateful for all they did to make this nomination a success. First, on my staff, I would like to recognize my Judiciary counsel staff director, Kolan Davis. Kolan's experience and sound judgment keeps me out of a lot of trouble. I value his counsel today, just as I have for the last 33 years that he has been on my staff. By my side right here today is Mike Davis, the Judiciary Committee's chief counsel for nominations and also an Iowan. He graduated from the University of Iowa and Iowa Law. Mike brought the tenacity, diligence, and everything else that was needed to lead Kavanaugh's confirmation. The permanent nomination unit for the Senate Judiciary Committee, working with Mike Davis, includes Lauren Mehler, Steve Kenny, Katharine Willey, and Jessica Vu. Each of them worked incredibly hard. They have worked hard on all nominations of lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary and over a long period of time, not just on Kavanaugh. Their hard work is shown by the record number of judges the Senate has confirmed this Congress. I think the number is 67 so far, besides 2 Supreme Court Justices. I believe there are 41 on the calendar right now. In addition to this team, Andrew Ferguson joined my staff to lead the team of special counsels to specifically assist with the Supreme Court nomination. Andrew led by example with his tireless work ethic and, of course, his legal talent. I also want to thank special counsels Tyler Badgley, Lucas Croslow, Colleen Ernst, Megan McGlynn, and Collin White. This team read every word of Justice Kavanaugh's more than 500,000 pages from his time as an executive branch lawyer, the 307 opinions he authored on the DC Circuit Court, and all other documents relevant to his nomination. Rachel Mitchell was part of this special counsel team, offering her expertise and many years of experience at a time when we needed extra help when we had Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh before our committee for a second set of hearings. Law clerks Tim Rodriguez, Camille Peeples, Abby Hollenstein, Dario Camacho, Elizabeth Donald, Michael Talent, Bob Minchin, Nathan Williams, Sam Adkisson, and Asher Perez had the opportunity to contribute and learn during this nomination. I thank them for their hard work and service here in the Senate, on top of their rigorous education. I thank the intern Jacob Ramer for his contribution as well. Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation process resulted in a record number of pages available to Senators, including questions for the record. This team handled it all. Over the course of my Senate service, I have established a reputation for my oversight work. I am equipped with a permanent staff of experienced investigators. When allegations of sexual assault were brought to my attention on September 13, I was fortunate to have this experienced and highly regarded division of my staff already on the job to help run down every question and allegation we received. I thank DeLisa Lay, Patrick Davis, Josh Flynn-Brown, Katherine Nikas, Daniel Parker, and executive branch detailee Andy Hromyak for their dedication to investigation, oversight, and accountability. I also want to thank my talented communications team: Judiciary Committee communications director Taylor Foy and Judiciary Committee press secretary George Hartmann, as well as Michael Zona, Nicole Tieman, and Alexa Den Herder for their hard work. October 6 will be a memorable date for Taylor, marking both his wedding anniversary and the day Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed. I am thankful for my personal office staff, led by my chief of staff, Jill Kozeny. She has been on my staff for 31 years. I have long appreciated Jill's advice and all of her hard work on my behalf. I am also grateful for Jennifer Heins, who makes a tremendous contribution every day, and every staffer who was part of this confirmation process, including Penne Barton, Zach Schultz, Katelyn Schultz, Josie Wagler, and my State staff, who had to answer a lot of telephone calls over a period of 3 months, just dealing with people for and against the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh. I very much appreciate the rest of my Judiciary Committee staff, including my deputy staff director, Rita Lari, who took care of things while I was on the floor and during the long hours in the hearing. Finally, I appreciate the work of Leader McConnell's staff, most importantly, John Abegg. Religious Freedom in China and Taiwan Mr. President, tomorrow, October 10, is the 107th national day of the Republic of China on Taiwan. I would like to extend my congratulations to the people of Taiwan on this very important occasion and to express my appreciation for the U.S.-Taiwan relations. We were allies in World War II and have been close strategic and economic partners for a very long time. However, as the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan has evolved into a thriving free-market democracy that is today, our relationship has even deepened and strengthened in a way that can only happen when two countries share core values. There are times when the economic or geopolitical interests of the United States are aligned with those of another country that does not fully embrace freedom as we do--whether that freedom is in the marketplace of goods and services or the marketplace of ideas in a democratic context. We can and should seek to engage with countries that do not share our values where it is in our national interest, and we do that. Still, those relationships remain contingent on weighing economic and security costs and benefits. On the other hand, with free-market democracies like Taiwan, there is at the heart of our relationship a very high degree of mutual understanding underpinning all of our interactions. Our shared values mean that our long-term economic and strategic interests are likely to remain aligned. For instance, market economies are more likely to seek mutually beneficial free and fair trade. Democracies tend not to seek hegemony but cooperation. In short, our shared values provide the basis for an enduring and stable bond that can only exist between free people. One of those fundamental values that is dear to my heart is religious freedom. I know my colleagues are aware of the disturbing reports out of the People's Republic of China about the closing and destruction of churches and the burning of Bibles. That is something we in the United States just do not understand how anybody, any country, could take this situation and think: Who is afraid of worshiping God? Well, it seems they have some problem in China. In Xinjiang Province, the Chinese Government has rounded up over 1 million Uighurs and Kazakh Muslims. Tibetan Buddhists and practitioners of Falun Gong have also long had their freedom to practice their beliefs suppressed. This should disturb all free people. Of course, the Communist leaders of China have excuses for their behavior. One of these is the need for sinicization of nonnative religions. In other words, they think religions like Christianity as freely practiced are somehow not compatible with Chinese society. Of course, from our point of view, that is strictly nuts. Just look at Taiwan. It has the same Chinese history, the same Chinese language, the same Chinese culture as mainland China. Yet, on Taiwan, Christians and other religious groups practice their faith freely. No one gives even a second thought to whether this is compatible with their history and tradition because it is a matter of conscience, not a matter of undercutting the government. That is why I don't understand why it is a problem for Beijing. In fact, Taiwan has arguably preserved traditional Chinese cultures better than on the mainland. Chiang Kai-shek was able to rescue and bring to Taiwan some of the most valuable treasures from Chinese history. Of course, these items in Taiwanese society, in general, were spared the horrors of the cultural revolution. Of course, the cultural revolution was when the Communist Party of China destroyed an untold number of historical artifacts as well as cultural and religious sites. Ancient Chinese texts were burned, and there were massive human rights abuses. Some have suggested that recent developments in China are the beginning of a new sort of cultural revolution. I hope not because we know what the results of that were 50 or 60 years ago. Whatever the Communist Chinese Government is thinking, its actions have shattered many illusions. The hope held by many in the United States was that robust engagement with the People's Republic of China on an economic and political level would help it to evolve into a free market democracy. That hope has now dimmed significantly. Things seem to be going quite in the opposite direction. This is a bad sign, then, for U.S.-China relations. If the Chinese leaders would like to correct their current course and improve relations with the United States, just take the example of Taiwan. Just look across the Taiwan Strait for that model: Chinese people, just like they are in Beijing. As the people of Taiwan celebrate their national day, I would like to thank them for their friendship with our great country. The Republic of China on Taiwan continues to be a strong partner in trade, security, and human rights. In fact, I should note that a delegation from Taiwan recently visited my home State of Iowa to increase their purchases of soybeans, and I greatly appreciate that, along with 88,000 Iowa farmers. Finally, I would like to thank Taiwan for being a model of a free and democratic society when it can have a mutually beneficial partnership with the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Colleen Ernst, special counsel on my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, would you inform me of the amount of time I have to speak.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Acting President pro tempore. Madam President, 100 days ago, Justice Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court. Shortly thereafter, on July 9, the President announced the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as the newest Justice. Judge Kavanaugh has spent 25 years of his career in public service. He spent the last 12 years on the DC Circuit--considered the second most important Federal court in the country. His record there has been extremely impressive because the Supreme Court adopted a position advanced in Judge Kavanaugh's opinions no fewer than a dozen times. Judge Kavanaugh is also a pillar of his community and in the legal profession. He serves underprivileged communities, coaches girls' basketball, and is a lector at his church. He has shown a deep commitment to preparing young lawyers for their careers. He has been a law professor at three prestigious law schools and a mentor to dozens of judicial law clerks. This should have been a respectable and dignified confirmation process. In a previous era, this highly qualified nominee would have received unanimous support in the Senate. Before leftwing, outside groups and Democratic leaders had him in their sights, Judge Kavanaugh possessed an impeccable reputation and was held in high esteem by the bench and the bar alike. Even the American Bar Association, which the Democrats say is their gold standard for judges, gave him its unanimous ``well-qualified'' rating. What leftwing groups and their Democratic allies have done to Judge Kavanaugh is nothing short of monstrous. I saw what they did to Robert Bork. I saw what they did to Clarence Thomas. That was nothing compared to what we have witnessed in the last 3 months. The conduct of leftwing, dark money groups and their allies in this body has shamed us all. The fix was in from the very beginning. Before the ink was even dry on the nomination, the minority leader announced he would oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with everything he had. Even before he knew the President's nominee, the minority leader said he was opposed to all 25 well-qualified potential nominees listed by this President. One member of my committee said those who would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh would be ``complicit in evil.'' Another member of the committee revealed the endgame when she suggested that Senate Democrats could hold the vacancy open for 2 years if they defeated Judge Kavanaugh and took control of the Senate in these midterm elections. I oversaw the most transparent confirmation process in Senate history based on the fact of the more than 500,000 pages of judicial writings, publications, and documents from Judge Kavanaugh's executive branch service. This is on top of the 307 judicial opinions he authored. Despite the Democrats' efforts to bury the committee in even more paperwork, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a timely, 4-day hearing on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination last month. Judge Kavanaugh testified for more than 32 hours over the course of 3 days. Judge Kavanaugh showed the Nation exactly why he deserves to be on the Supreme Court-- because of his qualifications. Judge Kavanaugh's antagonizers couldn't land a punch on him during his 3 days of testimony. Even when they made false or misleading arguments, they couldn't touch him. Some of my colleagues accused Judge Kavanaugh of committing perjury. For that false claim, the Washington Post Fact Checker awarded my colleague three Pinocchios. Another colleague claimed Judge Kavanaugh described contraceptives as ``abortion-inducing'' drugs. The video my colleague shared on the internet was doctored to omit the fact that Judge Kavanaugh was describing the plaintiffs' claims in a case that he had decided and not his own views. My colleague was awarded four Pinocchios. Those, of course, are the most Pinocchios you can get. Yet they still had one big card to play, which they had kept way up their sleeves for a month--actually, for 45 days, I think. In July, the ranking member received a letter from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, alleging that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school 36 years ago. Instead of referring Dr. Ford to the FBI or sharing these allegations with her colleagues--either of which would have respected and preserved Dr. Ford's confidentiality and is what Dr. Ford requested--the ranking member referred Dr. Ford to Democratic-activist attorneys who were closely tied to the Clintons. The ranking member shamefully sat on these allegations for nearly 7 weeks, only to reveal them at the eleventh hour, when it appeared that Judge Kavanaugh was headed toward confirmation because he was so qualified. The ranking member had numerous opportunities to raise these allegations with Judge Kavanaugh personally. I will give you six examples. She could have discussed them with Judge Kavanaugh during their private meeting on August 20--a meeting which took place after her staff had sent Dr. Ford to Democratic lawyers--or shared them with 64 of her Senate colleagues who had also met with him individually; the ranking member's staff could have raised them with Judge Kavanaugh during a background investigation followup call in late August; Senators could have asked Judge Kavanaugh about the allegations during his 32 hours of testimony over the course of 3 days; Judiciary Committee members could have asked Judge Kavanaugh about this in the closed session of the hearing, which the ranking member didn't attend. The closed session is the appropriate place to bring up issues about which confidentiality is supposed to be respected, and there were no questions about these allegations among the 1,300 written questions that had been sent to Judge Kavanaugh after the hearing. This amounts to more written questions being submitted to this nominee after a hearing than to all Supreme Court nominees combined. Keeping the July 30 letter secret deprived Senators of having all the facts they needed to have about this nomination. It was not until September 13--July 30 to September 13, nearly 7 weeks after the ranking member received these allegations and on the eve of the confirmation vote--that the ranking member referred them to the FBI. Then, somehow, they were leaked to the press. It was not until those news reports on September 16 that I even learned of Dr. Ford's identity. This is an outrage. The political motives behind the Democrats' actions should be obvious to everyone. Dr. Ford requested the opportunity to tell her story to the Senate Judiciary Committee. After a lot of foot-dragging by Dr. Ford's attorneys, they finally agreed to a public hearing. As promised, I provided a safe, comfortable, and dignified forum for Dr. Ford as well as for Judge Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford was sincere in her testimony, as was Judge Kavanaugh, who emphatically denied the allegations. It is true that confirmation hearings aren't a trial, but trials have rules based on commonsense notions of fairness and due process, not the other way around. It is a fundamental aspect of fairness and a fundamental aspect of due process that the accuser have the burden of proving allegations. Judge Kavanaugh was publicly accused of a crime, and his reputation and livelihood were at stake. So it was only fair that his accuser have the burden of proof. The consensus is, the burden was not met. Ultimately, the existing evidence, including the statements of the three alleged eyewitnesses named by Dr. Ford, refuted Dr. Ford's version of the facts. Our investigative nominations counsel, Rachel Mitchell, who has nearly 25 years of experience in advocating for sexual assault victims and in investigating sex crimes, concluded there was a lack of specificity and simply too many inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's allegations to establish that Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault even under the lowest standard of proof. She concluded: A ``he said, she said'' case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. We have thoroughly investigated Judge Kavanaugh's background. In addition to the prior six FBI full-field background investigations with the interviews of nearly 150 people who have known Judge Kavanaugh his entire life, the committee also separately and thoroughly investigated every credible allegation we received. Our more than 20 committee staff members have worked night and day over the last many weeks in tracking down virtually all leads, and at the request of undecided members, the FBI reopened Judge Kavanaugh's background investigation for another week. The FBI interviewed 10 more people related to the latest credible sexual assault allegations, and the FBI confirmed what the Senate investigators already concluded, which is this: There is nothing in the supplemental FBI background investigation report that we didn't already know. These uncorroborated accusations have been unequivocally and repeatedly rejected by Judge Kavanaugh, and neither the Judiciary Committee nor the FBI could locate any third parties who can attest to any of the allegations. There also is no contemporaneous evidence. This investigation found no hint of misconduct, and the same is true of six prior FBI investigations conducted during Judge Kavanaugh's 25 years of public service. Nothing an investigator, including career FBI special agents, does could ever be good enough to satisfy the Democratic leadership in Washington, who staked out opposition to Judge Kavanaugh before he was even nominated. There is simply no reason, then, to deny Judge Kavanaugh a seat on the Supreme Court on the basis of the evidence presented to us. The Democratic strategy used against Judge Kavanaugh has made one thing clear: They will never be satisfied, no matter how fair and thorough the process is. Thirty-one years after the Senate Democrats' treatment of Robert Bork, their playbook remains the same. For the leftwing, advice and consent has become search and destroy, a demolition derby. I am pleased to support Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation. I am sorry for what the whole family has gone through the last several weeks. We should all admire Kavanaugh's willingness to serve his country, despite the way he has been treated. It would be a travesty if the Senate did not confirm the most qualified nominee in our Nation's history. The multitude of allegations against him have proved to be false. They have also proved that no discussion of his qualifications have shown he wasn't qualified. We had a campaign of distraction from his outstanding qualifications, a campaign of destruction of this fine individual. What we have learned is the resistance that has existed since the day after the November 2016 election is centered right here on Capitol Hill. They have encouraged mob rule. When you hear about things like ``Get in their face; bother people at every restaurant where you can find a Cabinet Member''--these are coming from public servants who ought to set an example of civility in American society, and it has been made worse by what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh. I hope we can say no to mob rule by voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks and those of Senators Schumer and McConnell, all postcloture time be considered expired on this nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come one final time in support of Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to serve as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Democratic leaders did everything in their power to make Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation about anything except his judicial record and his outstanding academic qualifications. The Democratic leaders promised to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation from day one and use every play in the book to accomplish that goal. Even though the Senate had access to more of Judge Kavanaugh's records than we have had for any other Supreme Court nominee, Democratic leaders tried to bury the Judiciary Committee in mountains of irrelevant paperwork. When routine process arguments failed, they resorted to outright character assassination of the judge. Their smear campaign featured baseless allegations of perjury and claims that, as a teenager, he participated in gang rapes of women. I have been around long enough to see ugly leftwing smear campaigns against Supreme Court nominees, but this was beyond the pale--even beyond Judge Thomas and Anita Hill, and I was there. I am encouraged that most of my colleagues had the courage to stand against the politics of personal destruction. Ignored in the media circus that the Democratic leaders created was Judge Kavanaugh's extraordinary record as a judge and also as a citizen. I have said from the day the President announced Judge Kavanaugh's nomination on July 9 that Judge Kavanaugh is quite possibly the most qualified person ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He has spent 25 years of his career at the highest levels of government, including the last 12 years as a judge on the second most important Federal court. Judge Kavanaugh's record on the DC Circuit has been outstandingly remarkable. On a court containing some of the brightest legal minds, Judge Kavanaugh has set himself apart. The Supreme Court, in at least 12 separate cases, adopted positions advanced in Judge Kavanaugh's lower court opinions. As the liberal law professor, Amar, wrote in the New York Times: Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer it. Several of Judge Kavanaugh's most important ideas and arguments . . . have found their way into the Supreme Court opinions. Judge Kavanaugh will not only bring his keen intellect and deep knowledge of the law to the Supreme Court; he will bring some other very important judicial characteristics as well. First among these is a proper understanding of the role of a judge in our constitutional system. He knows that a judge should interpret and apply law as written, not how he wishes it were written. As we all know, it is Congress's job to write the laws, not judges'. He has explained in numerous cases that the fundamental goal of the separation of powers under our constitutional system is the protection of individual liberty. He has interpreted the Constitution according to text, history, and tradition, not his own personal views. That is exactly the type of a person we need on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has also demonstrated judicial independence and courage. In the 2 years after he was appointed to the DC Circuit by President George W. Bush, he ruled against Bush administration agencies on 23 cases. So don't let anybody tell you that he is obligated to President Trump. We can expect that Justice Kavanaugh will be beholden to no one and nothing except the Constitution. Judge Kavanaugh also has a well-earned reputation for collegiality. He has an excellent relationship with all of his colleagues on the DC Circuit, and his judicial record demonstrates the same. Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh was in the majority in 97 percent of the cases that he participated in on that DC Circuit. His Democratic- appointed colleagues were as likely to join majority opinions written by Judge Kavanaugh as his Republican-appointed colleagues were. He will bridge the divide on the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh has also shown a dedication to public service, to mentorship, and to diversity. He spent all but 3 years of his legal career in public service. Judge Kavanaugh is a proven mentor to law students and young lawyers. Judge Kavanaugh has taught courses at Harvard Law School and other top law schools for many years. The Senate Judiciary Committee received a letter in support of his confirmation from these former students. They wrote: We may have differing views on political issues surrounding the confirmation process, but we all agree on one thing: Judge Kavanaugh is a rigorous thinker, a devoted teacher, and a gracious person. Federal judges also play a very important role in mentoring the next generation of lawyers by hiring law clerks. Judge Kavanaugh has clearly taken seriously this mentorship role. His former law clerks submitted a letter to this committee strongly supporting his confirmation. I quote from that letter: It was a tremendous stroke of luck to work for and be mentored by a person of his strength of character, generosity of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law clerks. One of the areas in which Judge Kavanaugh has had a particular impact is in his commitment to diversity. More than half of his law clerks have been female. When confirmed to the Supreme Court, his class of law clerks will be all female--for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh's female law clerks sent the committee a letter, which reads: We know all too well that women in the workplace still face challenges, inequality, and even harassment. Among other things, women do not enjoy a representative share of prestigious clerkships or high-profile legal positions, but this committee and the American public more broadly should be aware of the important work Judge Kavanaugh has done to remedy those disparities. In our view, the judge has been one of the strongest advocates in the Federal judiciary for women lawyers. As I think about history, it leads me to this: The confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh is particularly meaningful to me. Thirty-one years ago, leftwing groups and their Senate allies fired the opening shots in the judicial confirmation wars. They engaged, at that time, in unprecedented character assassinations against President Reagan's nominee, Judge Robert Bork. Since then, they have only escalated this war--slandering several Republican nominees to the Supreme Court and expanding their tactics to lower court nominees. So then, as history tells us, more than three decades later, leftwing groups and their Democratic allies in this body went back to the very same playbook. They tried the very same character assassination tactics against the person nominated to the very same seat that Judge Robert Bork was supposed to fill. They succeeded 31 years ago, but, this time, they failed. So I look forward to voting to confirm Judge Kavanaugh this afternoon and to greeting him as ``Justice Kavanaugh'' the next time I see him. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last night was a great moment for the Senate. We have been able to pass a broad legislative package that will address the opioid epidemic in many ways. As we all know, the opioid crisis is not nearing its end. We are seeing more and more Americans abuse opioid drugs every year. In 2016, there were 64,000 overdose deaths, and this number rose to a staggering 72,000 deaths in 2017. Right now, more than 115 people in the United States die from opioid overdoses every day. In Iowa last year, more than 200 people died from opioid misuse. If there is one thing we have learned, it is that no segment of society has been left untouched. The crisis has affected people all over this country. Communities throughout the United States are desperate for answers. While overcoming this crisis cannot be accomplished overnight, the passage of the Opioid Crisis Response Act is a huge step in the right direction. This legislation is a collection of more than 70 proposals from four different committees here in the Senate, including Judiciary, where I led six different bills through committee. It is important to highlight how well we worked together on both sides of the aisle--and across the aisle--to get to this point. This was a massive bipartisan effort. On behalf of Judiciary, not a single bill passed through committee without wide bipartisan support. The Judiciary Committee contributed six separate bills--each with different sponsors, to this larger piece of legislation. I worked with my Judiciary colleagues to get near-unanimous backing for each of the bills. That takes a lot of time and hard work. It takes some compromise. But we were able to get it done. Several of the bills relate to Drug Enforcement Administration authorities. Those bills will help empower DEA to better identify and stop suspicious orders, gather more information when setting annual quotas for opioids, and facilitate the flow of information among drug manufacturers and distributors to enable better reporting decisions to warn DEA of potential problems. I teamed up with my fellow Iowan, Senator Ernst, to promote higher participation in drug take-back programs so that unused, forgotten opioids don't find their way from the medicine cabinet into unauthorized hands. Another bill successfully reported out of the Judiciary Committee reauthorizes the Office of National Drug Control Policy. ONDCP directs, crafts, and coordinates the drug policy strategy for the entire Nation. Its reauthorization sends a message to other Federal agencies and the country that we will continue to have strong leadership guiding us through this crisis. Yet another bill closes a loophole addressing illegal actors peddling synthetic drugs, allowing law enforcement to better investigate and prosecute cases involving synthetics. Outside of the Judiciary Committee legislation, this bill also includes several priorities of mine, including requiring drug manufacturers to publicly disclose payments made to nurse practitioners and physician assistants, just like doctors; increasing access to substance abuse treatment in rural areas via telehealth; and better data collection to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent helping people who need help and not lining the pockets of crooks who take advantage of common people. While I cosponsored a number of bills in the opioid package, it is important to remember that this legislation is a team effort. The combination of bills from the Judiciary Committee, Commerce Committee, Finance Committee, and the HELP Committee broadly address the multiple facets of the epidemic. As we have learned through several Judiciary Committee hearings, we can't focus on single issues as we combat this drug crisis. Rather, this legislation looks at the epidemic as a whole. From prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, the bill runs the gamut. It contains provisions on transparency in opioid prescribing, family-focused residential treatment options, education on drug abuse for youth, and tools for prosecuting peddlers of synthetic drugs. The Opioid Crisis Response Act addresses the front end of the problem through education and prevention and also tackles the back end through treatment and law enforcement solutions. I would like to recognize my colleagues and thank them for their cooperative spirit and determined efforts to help develop and move this legislation forward. Without reaching across the aisle and working together, we wouldn't be here. In particular, I would like to thank Senator Alexander and his staff for their leadership in making this happen. I am proud of the work we have done so far and look forward to continuing our bipartisan effort. Hopefully, this bill crosses the finish line, and we get the President's signature on a major piece of legislation. We certainly haven't solved all of our drug problems, but I will continue to work hard to look for more ways that Congress can help, but for today, we can take a brief moment to recognize what we have done in passing this bill. It is truly an important step in the right direction. This bill will serve Iowans and all Americans in our continued fight against the opioid crisis.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am writing to recognize a longtime member of my staff, who will shortly retire from public service, after honorably serving me and the people of Iowa for over 35 years. Fred Schuster joined my staff in 1984 as my regional director in Des Moines, IA. He had been president of the Iowa State University student body and a member of ISU's Cardinal Key Honor Society. He had also been president of the College Republicans of Iowa. In 1987, I asked Fred to move to Waterloo and become the regional director. During this time, Fred was elected president of the largest Kiwanis club in North East Iowa and served as its lieutenant governor, covering seven other clubs. He was appointed to the Cedar Falls Library Board and was elected an officer each year he served. He was also selected to be on the North East Iowa regional library board. In 1999, there was a devastating flood in northeast Iowa, the recovery from which resulted in a significant shortage of drywall in the region. Fred worked to get suppliers to provide extra drywall to the Waterloo area stores. One of the companies instead provided two semi loads for free, which was distributed by the Area Agency on Aging to those in greatest need. In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed Fred to be the Region 7 Director for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services covering the States of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Kansas. At its peak, there were over 600 employees at HHS in that region. Fred traveled extensively, visiting with the Governors and State and Federal officials and testified before congressional committees. Fred was ranked overall the best regional director in each of the last 3 years he served. Following Fred's service in the Bush administration, he returned to work as my State business and economic liaison. Part of his responsibilities was to raise funds and plan an ambassadors tour I had been hosting every other year at that time to foster and facilitate greater awareness of Iowa's workforce and exports with those assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Washington from nationals around the world. Iowa's an exporting State with outstanding manufacturing and leading in agriculture commodities. Even though 2009 was a challenging economic time, Fred raised more than enough to cover the cost of the ambassadors' airfare to and from Washington, DC, renting three commercial tour buses, and organized lodging for the diplomats, security detail, and staff. He organized the cultural, educational, manufacturing, and agricultural sites for the ambassadors to visit. In January 2011, I asked Fred to become the regional director in my Cedar Rapids office, the role he presently holds. Fred again took an active role in the recovery from the flood of 2016, visiting the numerous communities and businesses damaged by the floodwaters. Fred Schuster will retire from my office after more than 35 years of service to me and my office, the U.S. Senate, and the people of Iowa, effective September 11, 2018. His honest, thoughtful, helpful, and insightful wisdom and advice have been valuable to me and to everyone with whom he connected. His absence will be a loss to my office, but I am glad that he will have more time to spend with his daughters, granddaughter, and friends, as well as to visit the remaining of the 50 State capitols and Presidential historical sites. I greatly value Fred's friendship and his commitment to public service, and I wish him well.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as a lot of my colleagues, I rise to speak for a short period of time about our deceased colleague, Senator John McCain. I begin my remarks by paying my respect for our colleague and friend, Senator John McCain. A great American has died. Senator McCain represented the people of Arizona and the United States of America with great honor, always holding his ground and sticking to his principles. ``Sticking to his principles'' have been the words used by more colleagues since his death than any other description of him. Senator McCain was tough and tenacious, both as a 32-year Member of the U.S. Senate and also as a member of the U.S. Navy. His grit and determination as a prisoner of war in Vietnam are legendary and ought to be an inspiration. For the rest of his life, he understood from his own experience what it takes to keep a country safe, and he stood up for the security of the United States, and, in turn, that was standing up for the security of the world. He prioritized those in uniform and the veterans who safeguard our Nation. I had tremendous respect for Senator McCain's leadership of the Armed Services Committee and for the many ways he led on the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government: our national defense. Senator McCain and I served in the Senate together since 1986. Even after he became ill last year, Senator McCain's charisma was as strong as ever. At Christmastime, he greeted me with an oft-repeated joke he had since he was a candidate for President and traveling around Iowa. He learned a lot about Iowa, and this greeting was something like: Well, Chuck, I had my glass of ethanol for breakfast. He would often say to me something he learned in Iowa about advertising by the John Deere corporation: Nothing runs like a Deere. Of course, being from Iowa, I liked to hear that sort of greeting, and it was often that he said those things to me. As I stand here today with his Senate desk close at hand and draped in his honor, my wife Barbara and I share our condolences with Cindy McCain and Senator McCain's entire family. Senator McCain sacrificed so much of himself for his country, and we are grateful for his lifetime of service.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise on another matter that I have addressed the Senate on quite frequently lately, and that is about Judge Brett Kavanaugh. One week from today, Brett Kavanaugh will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first day of his confirmation hearing. After reviewing Judge Kavanaugh's very extensive record, I am convinced he is perhaps the most qualified person ever nominated to the Supreme Court. Some of my colleagues on the other side, including all of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, have asked that I delay Judge Kavanaugh's hearing. They have asked me to delay the hearing because of legal issues surrounding some of President Trump's former associates. It is absolutely not clear to me what one has to do with the other. But this is, by my account, at least the third strategy Democratic leaders have used to try to delay Judge Kavanaugh's hearing. Liberal outside groups, if you recall, announced their opposition to every one of the 25 potential nominees before the President made his decision. Those 25 potential nominees were, for the most part, given to the people of the country probably 6 months before the President's election. No other President has told you the types of people he was going to put on the Supreme Court and given you those examples. Some Democrats joined these outside liberal groups, and many others announced their opposition immediately after the nomination. The minority leader, before he even had a chance to meet with Judge Kavanaugh or review Judge Kavanaugh's record, said that he would fight the nomination with everything he has. Democratic leaders' first strategy was to try to argue that the Biden rule, which bars the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices in a Presidential election year, also applies during midterm election years. This was a strange argument to make given that many of those Senators argued in 2016 that the Biden rule didn't even exist for Presidential elections. Fact checkers and outside observers widely rejected their argument. The historical record was clear: The Biden rule has never applied during midterm election years. The second strategy Democratic leaders pursued was to attempt to bury the Judiciary Committee in irrelevant paperwork--mountains of it. I have discussed the issue at length previously, so I will only give you a bottom line. The bottom line is, we have received more pages of documents from Judge Kavanaugh's time as an executive branch lawyer than we did from any previous Supreme Court nominee. In fact, we have already received over 430,000 pages of Judge Kavanaugh's executive branch legal records, which is nearly as many as the last 5 nominees combined. This is on top of the 307 opinions he wrote and hundreds more he joined as a judge on the DC Circuit over the past 12 years. The public already has access right now to every one of those more than 10,000 pages of judicial writings, as well as the nearly 18,000 pages we received in connection with his judicial questionnaire. Those were supplemental to the 110 pages he filled out in the questionnaire. By the way, that happens to be the most robust questionnaire ever issued to a Supreme Court nominee. Democratic leaders now are asking me to delay Judge Kavanaugh's hearing because of some of the President's former associates' legal troubles, but this is just another obvious and opportunistic attempt to push the confirmation process past the midterm elections. After all, both Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer were confirmed while President Clinton was personally under investigation for the Whitewater controversy. In fact, Justice Breyer was confirmed while President Clinton's personal documents were under grand jury subpoena. Moreover, between June 1993 and February 1999--a period during which President Clinton faced significant legal jeopardy--the Senate confirmed 248 district judges and 50 circuit judges for lifetime appointments. It is clear that the Democratic leaders' latest attempt to delay the confirmation is unsupported by law or history. Another reason Democratic leaders have focused on these issues is to divert attention from the great record and abilities of Judge Kavanaugh. They know that Judge Kavanaugh is exactly the type of Justice the American people want because that is what the Constitution calls for--somebody to interpret the law, not to be a superlegislator. Judge Kavanaugh has served for 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--a court many consider to be the second most powerful court in our country. During that time, he authored more than 300 opinions and joined hundreds more. The Supreme Court has in at least a dozen separate cases adopted legal positions advanced by Judge Kavanaugh in his opinions. Historians of the Supreme Court would say that is a very impressive record. Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated that he understands the proper role of a judge. I also would say he sees himself as a judge and not a superlegislator. In numerous opinions and in speeches and publications, Judge Kavanaugh has eloquently expressed that judges must find and apply the law as it is written, not how they wish the law were written. If they followed how they wish the law were written, that would fall into a category where I would say a Judge becomes a superlegislator. Judge Kavanaugh recently said this on that point: ``When courts apply doctrines that allow them to rewrite the laws (in effect), they are encroaching on the legislature's Article I power.'' If you ever wonder why judges shouldn't be superlegislators, that is because they have lifetime appointments. If you don't like what they do, you can't vote them out of office; whereas if the legislating is done by the Congress of the United States and you don't like the laws the Congress passes, you can vote those Members of Congress out of office. Judge Kavanaugh has also argued that judges must apply the same approach to all cases. He said this: ``Like cases should be treated alike by judges of all ideological and philosophical stripes, regardless of the subject matter and regardless of the identity of the parties to that case.'' Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record reveals that he follows his own advice. He decided cases based on his understanding of law as written, not his own personal policy preferences or who the litigant is. In addition to his impeccable qualifications and record of achievement, Judge Kavanaugh has shown a dedication to public service, mentorship, and diversity. He spent all but 3 years of his legal career in public service. He volunteers his time to coach both his daughters' youth basketball teams, and he serves meals to the homeless with Catholic Charities. Judge Kavanaugh is a proven mentor to law students and young lawyers. Judge Kavanaugh has taught courses at Harvard Law School on separation of powers and the modern Supreme Court since 2008. The Senate Judiciary Committee received a letter in support of his confirmation from his former students. They wrote this: We . . . represent a broad spectrum of political and ideological beliefs, as well as perspectives on judicial philosophy. We may have differing views on political issues surrounding the confirmation process, but we all agree on one thing: Judge Kavanaugh is a rigorous thinker, a devoted teacher, and a gracious person. But this letter goes on with other things that are important about Judge Kavanaugh, so I quote again: Both inside and outside the courtroom, Judge Kavanaugh evinced a genuine warmth and interest in his students and their careers. . . . He was exceptionally generous with his time, making himself available to meet with students not only to discuss the class, but also to assist with their scholarly writings or to offer career advice. In many instances, he has continued to provide advice and support long after the class ended by writing letters of recommendation and serving as a valued mentor. In our view, his genuine interest in helping young lawyers demonstrates a deep commitment to the legal community as a whole. That is from students of his of differing political views. Federal judges also play an important role in mentoring the next generation of lawyers. They typically hire four new law clerks each year to help them research and decide cases. A law clerk is like a judge's right arm. A judge's law clerks know the judge better than anyone else. Day in and day out, law clerks work closely with a judge in chambers every day on complex legal issues. Judge Kavanaugh has clearly taken seriously his mentorship role with his clerks. His former law clerks submitted a letter to this committee strongly supporting his confirmation. They wrote: It was a tremendous stroke of luck to work for and be mentored by a person of his strength of character, generosity of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law clerks. . . . He is unfailingly warm and gracious with his colleagues no matter how strongly they disagree about a case, and he is well-liked and respected by judges and lawyers across the ideological spectrum as a result. . . . He always makes time for us, his law clerks. He makes it to every wedding, answers every career question, and gives unflinchingly honest advice. That advice often boils down to the same habits we saw him practice in the chambers every day: Shoot straight, be careful and brave, work as hard as you possibly can, and then work a little harder. That is from his law clerks. One of the areas where Judge Kavanaugh has had a particular impact is his commitment to diversity. More than half of his law clerks have been female. Indeed, during one year, all four of his law clerks were female, which was a first for the DC Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh's female law clerks sent the committee a letter. These law clerks wrote: We know all too well that women in the workplace still face challenges, inequality, and even harassment. Among other things, women do not enjoy a representative share of prestigious clerkships or high-profile legal positions, but this committee and the American public more broadly should be aware of the important work Judge Kavanaugh has done to remedy those disparities. In our view, the Judge has been one of the strongest advocates in the Federal judiciary for women lawyers. Additionally, Judge Kavanaugh has a track record of recruiting and hiring diverse law clerks from the best law schools. It is clear that he cares about expanding opportunities to unrepresented groups in the law. The legal profession should be open to anyone, regardless of where they grew up or where their parents emigrated from. Judge Kavanaugh's clerks reflect this important principle. In sum, Democratic leaders committed 1 month ago to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation. They have thrown a lot against the wall to try to delay his confirmation, but none of it sticks. Judge Kavanaugh will have his hearing next week, and I am looking forward to it. Based upon my review of Judge Kavanaugh's extensive record, it appears that he is extremely qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. He understands the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system, and he has devoted time to serving his community and improving the legal profession. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to a devoted public servant from my home State of Iowa. Congressman Leonard Boswell passed away this month after a long battle with cancer. A decorated military officer, he served 20 years in the U.S. Army, a dozen years in the Iowa Senate, and 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives. That adds up to nearly a half-century in service to the country he so dearly loved and served with honor and distinction. After being drafted into the U.S. Army, Leonard rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel and served two tours of duty as an assault helicopter pilot in Vietnam. His distinguished service in uniform groomed him for political battles on the campaign trail and in public office at the State and Federal level. In civilian life, as well as in both the military and political arenas, Leonard Boswell was an officer and a gentleman. He brought integrity to the campaign trail and to the halls of Congress. Anyone who underestimated Congressman Boswell failed to appreciate the gritty combination of a decorated war veteran and a cattle farmer from southern Iowa. In fact, an armed intruder who broke into the Congressman's farm home in 2011 found out right quick. At age 77, Leonard's instincts to protect his family kicked into overdrive, and he tackled the intruder to the ground. Notwithstanding those instincts, Leonard Boswell was widely known as folksy and plain-spoken. He was Iowa through and through. That included answering the call to help his neighbors and a local grain elevator struggling during the 1980s farm crisis. From there, he threw his hat into the ring for public office. Congressman Boswell's funeral service was last Saturday, and unexpectedly, it became a double ceremony as his beloved wife of 63 years died just hours before the service, 8 days after Congressman Boswell passed. Leonard and Dody's life together was filled with deep faith, love of family and friends, and service, as she taught elementary school for 37 years, mainly in Lamoni. Dody's family rightly described her as spiritual, adventurous, vibrant, with a wonderful sense of humor who lived with love, tenacity, and compassion. Although Congressman Boswell and I were members of two different political parties, we shared many things in common as lifelong Iowans, farmers, octogenarians, and outspoken champions for rural America. On many issues of the day, we had different points of view on how to achieve a particular goal, but at the end of the day, we shared an unequivocal commitment to work on behalf of Iowans, especially farmers and veterans. From farm bills to transportation and infrastructure spending, Leonard and I largely saw eye to eye on legislation that would help Iowans weather the storms of natural disasters or downturns in the farm economy. As members of the Iowa congressional delegation, there is an unspoken understanding that, when it comes to matters important to Iowa, we work all for one and one for all. I recall when Leonard first came to Washington in 1997, he was the only Democrat in the Iowa House delegation. Shortly after his swearing in, Congressman Boswell invited my staff and me to his office to get acquainted. We enjoyed his Iowa hospitality very much and returned the invitation shortly thereafter. After our initial meet-and-greets, it was understood that our doors and lines of communication were always open. We shared a very good working relationship during our service together in Congress. There is one particular piece of legislation that we worked on together in our respective Chambers of Congress. I was the lead Senate Republican cosponsor, and he was the principal author in the House of Representatives. It is called the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act. We named the bill for an Iowan who took his own life in 2005 after returning from duty in Iraq. Our bill was enacted in 2007. It sought to improve mental health services for veterans. Here in the Senate, I will continue working to carry out our shared mission of suicide prevention for servicemembers. As a decorated war veteran and longtime advocate for the veteran community, Congressman Boswell cared deeply about fulfilling the promises made to America's veterans. The law he worked to enact has paved the way for even more resources and programs to get veterans in crisis the help they need. In closing, I salute a widely respected patriot, whom I am proud to call my friend. Leonard leaves behind a legacy of service, civility, and integrity. Barbara and I extend our deepest condolences to the Boswell family as they mourn the loss and celebrate the lives of Leonard and Dody. God bless them both.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am glad to join my friend in this effort because this fits into a lot of things we are trying to accomplish that Congress has done for decades--trying to give consumers information. Remember maybe 40 years ago--I don't think it is 50 years ago--that Congress passed legislation that you had to have a window sticker on cars of the cost of the cars so that consumers wouldn't be bantering back and forth between dealers, not knowing what they were dealing with. You can't buy gas today without going to the filling station with a big sign knowing what it costs. Even the pharmaceutical companies themselves want to educate consumers with these ads. I have always supported the advertising of these pharmaceutical drugs. They want to educate you not only about the value of their drugs but down to the bottom, and then half the ad usually tells you, if you take this drug, what the side effects are going to be, maybe implying that they are even life-threatening or dangerous. That is a very important thing to educate the public about. So all we are trying to do here is to have the consumer get the additional information they need if they want to consider that drug, because everybody ought to want to consider the price, just like you consider the price of a car. I try to buy gas at the cheapest filling station I can because it is just common sense, right? So that is what Senator Durbin is pointing out. This is a Midwestern commonsense approach to educating the consumers. They want you to buy their product, and then they kind of have some question about it: Could you really afford this? A lot of these ads even indicate to the consumer: Well, maybe if you check with the company or check with somebody, you will even get some help buying the drug. So the pharmaceutical companies are already interested in consumer education. We just want them to take it one step further. Part of it is because of the high cost of prescription drugs. We have an opportunity now to do what we all talk about doing--doing something about the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. This is just a very small step in that direction. It directs Health and Human Services to require drug companies to include the list price of these drugs in their TV ads. The drug companies want you to know that there is a drug out there to help you. They want you to know the benefits of the drugs. So why don't they also want you to know about the price of the drug? By not having that information out there, it is simply not a transparent way of doing business. In every other way you want to be transparent. We are just asking you to take one little small step and tell people what it is going to cost--like the price of gasoline, like the price of cars, or if you seem to be worried a little bit about the high cost of the drug, maybe some people can't afford it and you might be criticized for that. You can get help. What we are up against here is a very powerful interest in this town. It happens to be an interest that has made life better and provided longevity for people, for a longer life. So we aren't here to find fault with the pharmaceutical companies. We are here to encourage the pharmaceutical companies to let the public know what they need. Around here it seems to me that we are running up against the big pharmaceutical companies all the time. The CREATES Act came out of my committee 15 to 6. We can't seem to get that up. This amendment is being offered. We know who is fighting this amendment that Durbin and Grassley are sponsoring. It is the same companies. There is a scheme out there that they will keep their patent drug on the market longer if they pay a generic company to keep their drug off the market. We call it ``pay for delay.'' The Klobuchar- Grassley bill doesn't get very far because of these interests. They don't like the fact that they ought to have some competition from the importation of drugs. They don't like it now that the FDA's new Director is moving in the direction of getting generics on the market a little bit sooner, but we are not fighting those things now. What we are trying to do is pretty darn simple. Think of what is behind this now. How often do you get Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin cooperating on the same thing? Not too often. So that is something people ought to take into consideration. We have a very good chairman--a very thorough chairman--Mr. Alexander of the HELP Committee. He is backing this effort and has even had a colloquy on that point. We have Mr. Azar, the Secretary of HHS, who says that this is a good thing to do. Maybe 2 months ago now, President Trump and Secretary Azar had a news conference on the high cost of drugs and what they could do administratively to move that along. Just this very day, Mr. Azar is announcing some regulations going to OMB to move along some of those things that the President was talking about 2 months ago. Everybody gets irritated about Trump's tweets. Do they do any good? Probably, most of the time people don't think they do much good, but he tweeted at about the same time these big pharmaceutical companies announced about a whole bunch of their drugs that they were going to increase their prices by 35 percent and 40 percent, and he tweeted how outrageous that was. A week later a company said: We are not going to go ahead. A week later, another company said they were not going to go ahead. Now, whether other companies have said that, I don't know, but what I am trying to say is you have Chairman Grassley and Chairman Alexander and you have the Secretary of HHS and the President of the United States trying to do something about pharmaceuticals. Here we have just a little simple amendment that we are trying to get on this bill, and we are running into this obstacle that you run into all the time, when all we are trying to do is to educate the consumer the same way the pharmaceutical companies want to educate the consumers. By the way, 76 percent of Americans in a poll support this. I think Senator Durbin did better than I did about the interests, but I will summarize. Doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and the AARP support this amendment. So, really, it is so sensible. It is right in line with what the pharmaceutical companies are trying to do with all of their TV ads to educate the public, with what Congress has tried to do other times to educate the public, with what we are trying to do through some of our education to have transparency in the prices that you pay when you go to the hospital or what we are trying to do through health savings accounts to get the consumer involved to do some shopping to save the consumer some money. That is what this is all about. It is so simple. I can't understand where commonsense stuff--well, this isn't a town for common sense, I guess, but we ought to get some of this commonsense stuff done. So I want to thank Senator Durbin because he led this effort, and I am glad to help him. I say thank you for doing it, and we are going to get this done one way or the other. If we don't get this done on this bill, we will get it done because it is the right thing to do. People, if you try long enough and if you are right, you eventually get something done in this town.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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