September 9, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 143 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5346-S5353]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Kelly Craft, of 
Kentucky, to be Representative of the United States of America to the 
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during her 
tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to 
the United Nations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Iowa Town Meetings

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, during August, I continued my annual 
tradition of holding at least one Q&A in every one of Iowa's 99 
counties. I go to Iowans where they work and live to hear what is on 
their minds so that I can better represent them in the Senate. No 
matter the setting, my citizens of Iowa set the agenda.
  On August 27, with a town meeting in Spencer, IA, I completed the 
39th consecutive year of my annual 99 county meetings. I look forward 
to continuing my dialogue with Iowans throughout the rest of this year, 
just to emphasize that I hold a lot more than just 99 meetings with my 
constituents every year.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Tribute to Dayton Police Officers

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to honor six brave Ohioans--Sergeant 
William C. Knight, Officers Brian Rolfes, David Denlinger, Vincent 
Carter, Ryan Nabel, and Jeremy Campbell.
  Last month, on Sunday, August 4, the people in my State woke up to 
devastating news: A shooter had opened fire overnight--at about 1 
o'clock that Sunday morning--in Dayton. In 31 seconds, a shooter had 
fired 40 bullets. He had taken the lives of 9 Ohioans and had injured 
27 more. This was another senseless tragedy caused by gun violence. As 
awful as it was, it could have been even worse had it not been for the 
bravery and skill of the officers I just mentioned.
  While others ran from danger, these men ran toward it. They stopped 
the shooter within 31 or 32 seconds after the first shot was fired. 
They saved, certainly, dozens of lives as the shooter was about to go 
into a very crowded nightclub. Had they not gotten to him in less than 
a minute, the shooter would have entered the doorway he was headed 
toward of the Dayton institution Ned Peppers, which was filled with 
Ohioans who were out on a Saturday night.
  Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl said: ``Had this individual made it 
through the doorway of Ned Peppers with that level of weaponry, there 
would have been catastrophic injuries and loss of life.'' That didn't 
happen because these dedicated public servants did the job they signed 
up to do--to protect the people they serve.
  Over the past month, as we have mourned those Ohioans we have lost, 
we have also seen the incredible strength and solidarity of the Dayton 
community. People from all over the city have come together to support 
the families of the victims and to support the law enforcement officers 
and officials who threw themselves in harm's way to protect their 
friends and neighbors.
  Chief Biehl reported that the Dayton Police Department has received 
hundreds of emails, social media messages, and thank you cards--all 
from people thanking them for what they have done for this city.
  Dayton has faced so many challenges this year. Each time, these 
officers and the entire department have risen to the occasion. They 
kept the public safe when a KKK group held a hate rally, and they 
helped residents after devastating tornados hit this summer. Now they 
are dealing with this awful gun violence and all kinds of tragedies 
that have fallen on this community.
  I thank my friend Mayor Whaley, who is here in Washington today to 
help honor these officers and who has truly held this community 
together. I think she put it best when she said that Dayton has had, 
``as I like to term it, one hell of a summer, and you all have been on 
the front lines of it.''
  I met these officers at the Miami Valley Hospital 3 days after the 
shooting. The President of the United States was there to honor these 
officers and to see the victims and some of the injured Daytonians who 
were victims of the shooting and to see their families.
  I said to the President that the best way he can honor these police 
officers is to bring the Senate back into session and pass universal 
background checks as 93 percent of the American public supports it and 
as Congress has already passed it overwhelmingly. We could do it in a 
day.
  I thank Sergeant Knight, Officer Rolfes, Officer Denlinger, Officer 
Carter, Officer Nabel, Officer Campbell, and all of the Dayton law 
enforcement for responding far beyond the call of duty in saving the 
lives of so many people in the Miami Valley.
  I thank their families, many of whom are here today. We know how 
families sacrifice alongside law enforcement and servicemembers. Yet so 
often families don't get the recognition they deserve. To the officers 
and their families, we are forever grateful.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Background Checks

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today this Chamber, once referred to as 
the greatest deliberative body, must take action. We have people all 
over the country who want to see action, people who want to see change, 
people who are crying out for their leaders in Washington to do their 
jobs.
  These days, the U.S. Senate has become a place where legislation goes 
to die and the important issues of the day go ignored, in addition to 
inaction--major, major issues, significant issues, like climate change 
and infrastructure and immigration reform.
  Today I will focus on three things that are right before us--three 
bills in the gun legislation area that right now are on the leader's 
desk--and two other areas, election protection and bringing down the 
cost of prescription drugs, where we could literally take action 
immediately.
  I focus on these because they all involve bills that have passed the 
House, and the Senate could literally act today. I focus on these 
because, in all three cases, the timing is urgent.
  I am talking about inaction in the wake of terrible tragedies in 
Dayton and El Paso and in Midland-Odessa, all in just the last month; 
inaction in protecting our elections and making it easier for people to 
vote; inaction in response to serious issues of healthcare costs, 
particularly prescription drug prices.
  First, I will speak about gun safety. Think about the courage--the 
incredible courage--of the people who were in Dayton and in El Paso and 
in Midland-Odessa, of the mom who literally shielded her baby from 
death as she herself perished from gunshot wounds, but she kept that 
baby alive. Or how about the grandpa who died shielding his wife and 
granddaughter or the off-duty soldier who carried children away to 
safety? All of that happened in that store.
  As we approach the anniversary of 9/11, I think also about the first 
responders in all of these mass shootings. Those in Dayton, OH, got 
there in 1 minute--1 minute--but, still, we lost nine people in 30 
seconds. But they were there in 1 minute and saved so many lives. That 
is courage.
  That is the courage of ordinary people doing extraordinary things, 
and I believe in this place of extraordinary power that their courage 
must be matched. The courage must be

[[Page S5347]]

matched to that mom, to that grandpa, to that soldier, to those first 
responders. These are ordinary citizens who stepped up and saved lives. 
It is the least we can do to match their courage.
  The American people can't afford more inaction. But over the past few 
years, to me, it seems we have lost our resolve.
  Today, I implore my colleagues, I implore the Republican leadership 
to find the resolve once again and act with courage just as those men 
and women did in El Paso, in Dayton, in Midland and Odessa and Gilroy 
and Parkland and Newtown and Charleston and Orlando.
  How about all of those families who lose a loved one every single day 
to gun violence in homes, to gun violence on the streets? There are 
1,300 children who die from gunshot wounds each year. That is a 
classroom of kids every single week.
  Yes, we are back today. Congress is back. I believe we should have 
come back sooner. We were in recess for mere hours when the gunman in 
El Paso claimed the lives of 22 people and for only a few hours more 
when the gunman in Dayton claimed 9 lives.
  I was among those who immediately called for the Senate to come back 
from recess so that we could vote on gun safety measures--gun safety 
measures that had passed the House of Representatives with some 
Republican support.
  I said that we should come back for that vote back then on background 
checks. By the way, 9 out of 10 Americans support sensible background 
checks; the majority of hunters support sensible background checks; the 
majority of voters who voted for President Trump support sensible 
background checks.
  I know the history here. As the lead sponsor of the bill to prevent 
perpetrators of domestic violence--perpetrators, people who have been 
convicted of serious domestic violence and stalking--from possessing a 
gun and as a longtime supporter of universal background checks, as well 
as the assault weapon ban and limits on magazines, I was invited to the 
White House right after Parkland, right after all of those kids died in 
that school, and I thought: Well, this is a moment when we can act.

  I was seated across from the President of the United States, and I 
had a piece of paper that I saved, and I wrote down with hash marks how 
many times he said that we should pass the bill for universal 
background checks and stop that gun show loophole. Nine times he said 
it--nine times.
  I was seated next to the Vice President and across from the 
President. I told the President that I come from a proud hunting State 
and that when I look at proposals like this, I say to myself: Do they 
hurt my Uncle Dick in the deer stand? Do they do anything to hurt our 
hunting tradition in our State?
  They don't. That is why the vast majority of hunters support 
universal background checks and a lot of these other measures we talked 
about that day in that conference room in the White House. It was on 
TV, so people can see it. There is a video of it. There is evidence of 
it.
  I thought it was a done deal. But then what happened? The President, 
the next day, met with the NRA, and he folded. He folded, despite the 
fact that on TV in front of the Nation, in front of those kids, those 
surviving kids from Parkland, in front of the families of the kids who 
had died, he made a promise that he didn't keep. That is the history I 
know and I have lived.
  But it doesn't end there. I go back in time. I go back to the saddest 
day in the U.S. Senate for me. That was the morning of the vote on 
background checks. That was years before. That was after the Sandy Hook 
shooting. Those families were there, and I had been working with some 
of the Senators who were leading that bill, and I had to tell those 
parents that morning who had lost their kids--their elementary school-
age kids in that school--that we didn't have enough votes to pass that 
bill.
  I remember one of the moms said to me: You know, I will never forget 
that day. I will never forget the last time I saw my son alive. He had 
severe autism, so he really couldn't speak. But every morning he would 
point at the picture of the school aide, whom he loved so much, who 
would never leave his side. He loved her, and he would point at her 
picture on our refrigerator.
  That is what happened that last day she saw him alive. Then he went 
to school, and then, just a few hours later, she was waiting in that 
firehouse with all of those parents. One by one, those children came 
into that firehouse, and pretty soon, the parents who were left knew 
that they would never see their babies again.
  As she was sobbing in that firehouse, she had this fleeting moment 
where she thought of that school aide, and she knew at that moment that 
the school aide would never leave the side of her little boy.
  When they found them both, shot to death, that school aide had her 
arms around that little boy.
  That mom was in my office that morning, and she had the courage to 
advocate for something she knew wouldn't have saved her kid because of 
the particular circumstances of how that guy got that gun. But what she 
knew about the background checks was that they would save more lives 
than a lot of these other measures. Why? Because the States that have 
them have reduced rates of domestic homicide. Yes, and they help with 
suicide as well.
  It probably would have helped in Midland-Odessa. We don't know all of 
the facts, but what we do know is that one time that guy failed a 
background check, and then somehow he was able to get a gun.
  Those parents had the courage to do that. Then, a few hours later, 
this place didn't have the courage to pass that bill.
  That is the history I have had with this issue, but it goes back even 
further. It goes back to when I was a prosecutor and we had cases all 
the time of everyday gun violence. We had officers killed; we had 
children killed; we had women killed in their homes.
  But the case I most remember actually happened after I left that job, 
and I was in the Senate, and we had a shooting of a police officer in a 
small town. He was just doing his job. He showed up for a domestic 
violence call, which maybe sounds regular to a lot of people but not to 
officers because they know how dangerous those calls are.
  It was a young woman, the victim of domestic violence, 17. The guy 
was in the house, and the officer went to the door, just doing his job. 
He opened the door, and the guy shot him in the head. He was wearing a 
bulletproof vest, but it didn't protect him.
  The widow told me--because I was there for that funeral--the last 
time they had been in that church was for the Nativity play that the 
kids were in. After Christmas, the next time they were in that church, 
she was walking--a widow--down that aisle with her little children, 
with a little toddler in her arms in a blue dress covered with stars.
  That is gun violence. It is not just about one family; it is not just 
about one victim; it is not even just about that police officer and 
that family who will never be the same. It is about our entire 
community. That is my history with this issue.
  So when I come back here and I think of the courage of all of those 
people and all of those survivors and I think about those mass 
shootings and how, one by one, if we had passed these sensible bills, 
we could have prevented some of this from happening, I don't know what 
our excuse is anymore.
  The leader on the Republican side said that ``if the President took a 
position on a bill so that we knew we would actually be making a law 
and not just having serial votes, I would be happy to put it on the 
floor.''
  Then the President said: ``Congress is going to be reporting back to 
me with ideas.''
  The time for ideas is done. The ideas passed in the House of 
Representatives--not all of the ideas that I would like put into law, 
but some really good things got passed that would prevent a lot of 
violence, including the background checks, including closing the 
Charleston loophole, when that White nationalist went into that church 
and gunned down those parishioners only because a background check 
hadn't been completed. It just gives a few more days--that is what that 
bill does--so police officers can do their job and complete the 
background checks.
  How about my bill, which is a bill that is sitting on Leader 
McConnell's

[[Page S5348]]

desk? It closes the boyfriend loophole. What is the status of the law 
right now? Well, if you get convicted of a serious offense of domestic 
violence against your husband or wife--most of the time it is wives--or 
against someone who lives in your house, then you can't go out and get 
an AK-47. You can't go out and get a gun. That is the law right now.
  But if you get convicted of the same crime against a boyfriend or a 
girlfriend--usually a girlfriend--you could go out and get that gun.
  We have had hearing after hearing about this bill. We have had 
hearings because it is so sensible to close that loophole. Why? Because 
half of those domestic homicides involve girlfriends.
  I remember the one we had a few years ago. We heard from the sheriff 
from Racine County in Wisconsin. He described himself as a 
conservative. He said this:

       Dangerous boyfriends can be just as scary as dangerous 
     husbands. They hit just as hard and they fire their guns with 
     the same deadly force.

  That bill is in the Violence Against Women Act right now and is 
sitting on Leader McConnell's desk. That bill passed with 33 Republican 
votes in the House of Representatives. There is absolutely no reason we 
should stop a vote on the entire Violence Against Women Act simply 
because it includes this commonsense provision.
  Those are the three bills right now, soon to be joined by a bill on 
limits on magazines. Why that bill? Because in 30 seconds, nine 
innocent people were killed in Dayton, OH. The cops did everything they 
possibly could. They were there in 1 minute, and still nine people 
died.
  Those are the bills--background checks and closing the loopholes--so 
the cops have time to simply finish their vetting. Why would you want 
to cut off their days at 3? Third, closing the boyfriend loophole to 
help in cases of stalking and domestic violence, and fourth, magazines. 
These are commonsense bills. Would I like to do more with the assault 
weapon ban? Yes, I would. But right now, we could get these done.
  What do we hear instead? We hear this: The President took a position 
on a bill, so then we can wait to see if we can have serial votes, and 
then we put it on the floor.
  The President is saying: Congress is going to report back to me with 
ideas.
  This is a dangerous game of whack-a-mole that has to stop. People are 
dying while leaders are pointing fingers. We could point our fingers 
and vote yes or no, and we could do that today. We ask that those bills 
be called up immediately.
  But it doesn't end there. There are other very important bills we 
should be voting on right now.
  Election security. We know a foreign country invaded our election. We 
know that because we heard it from President Trump's top intelligence 
officials. In fact, Dan Coats, the Director of Intelligence back then, 
said that they were getting bolder. We know that. We know what 
happened. We know they did it in multiple ways. They did it by trying 
to hack into elections and election equipment in all 50 States. We 
found that out. In Illinois, they got as close as the voter files.
  We also know they tried to do it with social media, and there, they 
were more successful. They ran a bunch of ads--paid for them in 
rubles--to try to suppress the vote. I will never forget the one shown 
at our Judiciary hearing, paid for in rubles. It was a Facebook ad that 
went on African-Americans' Facebook pages in swing districts. It was a 
picture of a woman--an innocent woman; they had just taken the face of 
someone from Chicago--and it said: Why wait in line to vote for 
Hillary? You can text your vote. And they gave a number, something like 
86513. That is illegal. That is a crime. If we had known about that ad 
and found the perpetrators, they would have gone to jail. But that kind 
of activity by a foreign country was allowed to run rampant, and when 
the President was asked about it at the G20, standing with Vladimir 
Putin, he made a joke about it, looked at Vladimir Putin, and they 
laughed.
  Do you know what I thought? I thought to myself, hundreds of 
thousands of Americans have lost their lives on the battlefield 
fighting for democracy in our own country and around the world. I 
thought of the four little innocent girls in a church in Birmingham who 
lost their lives in the fight for civil rights, in the fight for 
democracy, in the fight to vote. And he made a joke about it. This 
isn't a joke.
  We have an opportunity. We have several bills on this that I am 
leading, to push for backup paper ballots in the remaining States that 
don't have them and to push for funding for audits and funding to get 
the right election equipment.
  This isn't a joke. It doesn't matter if you are a Republican or a 
Democrat or an Independent; this is about protecting our democracy from 
the invasion of a foreign country. That is why our Founding Fathers 
started this country--because they wanted to be independent and didn't 
want to have foreign influence. It is what we fought for in war after 
war--protecting freedom and democracy.
  This is the new ground for invasions. They didn't do it with 
missiles. They didn't do it with tanks. They are doing it with 
computers, and it is called cyber warfare. We have to be as 
sophisticated in our country as they are when they try to invade it.
  When we tried to call up one of these bills--and Senator Blunt had 
nicely called that hearing in the Rules Committee, of which I am 
ranking member--we got gut-punched--Senator Lankford and I and the 
other authors of the bill, Senator Burr, head of the Intelligence 
Committee, Senator Warner, Senator Harris, Senator Graham--because that 
got stopped by the White House--calls were made--and by the leader. It 
is time to bring back this bill or pass one of the many versions that 
are out there.
  The last area I am going to bring up--and there are many other 
things. I mentioned climate change and immigration reform, but the 
reason I am focusing on these things--gun safety for the obvious 
reason, as well as election security and prescription drugs--is because 
these are bills that have passed the House of Representatives. They are 
something we could do right now.
  What about prescription drugs? It feels like years ago now, but it 
was actually just last January when I went to the State of the Union 
with my guest Nicole Smith-Holt. Nicole's son Alec was 26 years old, a 
restaurant manager in the suburbs of Minneapolis-St. Paul, and he had 
aged off his parents' insurance. Three days short of his payday, this 
hard-working kid--a pretty severe diabetic--wasn't able to afford his 
insulin, so he did what so many diabetics are doing right now because 
of the incredible cost of insulin: He started rationing it. He saved 
it. He took less than he was supposed to take.
  I have talked to seniors who literally keep the injectors with those 
precious drops of insulin so they can use them the next day. When Alec 
tried it, tragically, it didn't work. He died. This should never happen 
in the United States of America, not with as simple a drug as insulin, 
which has been around for nearly a century.
  I brought his mom with me to the State of the Union. She was sitting 
right up there looking down at the President while he claimed--of 
course many times--that he is going to do something about the prices of 
pharmaceuticals.
  I think those who are blocking and slow-walking bipartisan 
legislation to reduce the cost of prescription drugs should give Nicole 
a call. She is smart, she is pretty straightforward, and she is a nice 
person. Listen to her story.
  Healthcare is one-sixth of our economy, and total drug spending 
accounts for over 15 percent of our Nation's healthcare costs, from 
consumers to hospitals and nursing homes.
  Between 2012 and 2016, the price of brand-name prescription drugs 
increased 110 percent. If we don't act now, that number will keep 
increasing as the profit margins for Big Pharma increase hand over 
fist. They have two lobbyists for every Member. For every desk in the 
Senate, pharma has two lobbyists. That is what Nicole looked down on 
when she saw the State of the Union. That number also applies to the 
House of Representatives, where we were that night.
  There are solutions on the table. I think what would make the biggest 
difference, because it involves so many people, would be to pass my 
bill that I have led for years that would harness the negotiating power 
of 43 million seniors and allow Medicare to negotiate to

[[Page S5349]]

bring drug prices down. The VA does it. Medicaid does it. They have 
much less expensive drug prices because negotiation is allowed. I 
figure, with the power of 43 million seniors, we could get pretty good 
deals--43 million seniors--done through Medicare. But right now, it is 
locked in.
  Why would it help people who are not at the age to be on Medicare? It 
helps you because it is the biggest block of drug prices, and once it 
starts going down for Medicare, it will start going down for everyone.
  We can also pass my bill that I worked on for years with Senator 
Grassley to stop big, brand-name companies from paying off other drug 
manufacturers to keep less expensive products off the market.
  Let's think of what that means. What that means is pharma has a drug. 
A lot of times, they have a monopoly. Then someone comes along with 
another version of it that is less expensive. That would be great for 
us, especially when there are three or four competitive drugs. You 
always see those prices go down. Do you know what they do? They 
actually pay the generics to keep the product off the market. The big 
companies then have a monopoly. The new companies bringing the drug in, 
the generic, are fine; they get the money from Big Pharma. The only 
ones who get the short end of the stick are us, the consumers of this 
country. That is why Senator Grassley and I have worked across the 
aisle, and it is time to get that bill passed.
  The third one I would suggest is a bill I first introduced with 
Senator McCain--whom we all miss very much--that would allow Americans 
to bring in less expensive drugs from Canada and other countries as 
well. We know drug prices in Canada are so much less expensive than 
they are in the United States. Some States, like Maine, have tried to 
do this on their own, but they said: No; you have to have a Federal law 
to make this really work. Individuals have tried to do it. Bus tours of 
seniors go up there. We had bipartisan support for this in Minnesota--
former Governor Pawlenty supported changing this bill--but we couldn't 
do it as a State. It really has to be done at the Federal level.
  I am also pleased that Senator Grassley has now stepped into Senator 
McCain's shoes and is carrying this bill for me. He is the chair of the 
Senate Finance Committee. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to 
call this bill up for a vote.
  In conclusion, I started this speech by questioning whether this 
Chamber is even capable of action on big things anymore. I will end by 
asking a question that should be simple: Will the Senate respond to the 
needs of the American people?
  When Americans are shot in cold blood, their bodies littered on the 
floor of a Walmart, will we respond to their needs? Will we respond to 
their families? When their votes are threatened by attacks from a 
foreign country, will we respond to the citizens of this country? Will 
we respond when we know drug prices have gone completely out of control 
and we uniquely could do something about it?
  Today, what this Chamber needs are leaders. Leaders don't hesitate. 
They don't drag their feet or put politics over country. They don't 
block or obstruct progress. If my colleagues don't want to find common 
ground, at least we could show some common sense.
  It is time to live up to the promise of this esteemed body. Inaction 
won't do. The American people can't afford inaction in the wake of 
unprecedented attacks on our elections and our democracy. They can't 
afford inaction when people are actually dying because they can't 
afford common prescription drugs. They can't afford inaction when we 
have people being slaughtered on our streets, going to a festival in 
California, out on a weekend night with friends, going to a movie 
theater, or going shopping for school supplies.
  Historically, this Chamber has done great things. It is one of the 
reasons all of us who got elected to this office decided to do it. Our 
predecessors fought for and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the 
U.S. Senate. This place expanded voting rights the following year. This 
place helped provide a safety net for families, seniors, and kids 
across the country by passing Medicare and Medicaid. Guess what. When 
those things were passed, they weren't totally popular at the time, but 
now they are because they did the right thing. They were leaders. They 
didn't wait. They didn't hesitate. They led. We can and should come 
together and do great things now. That is the America we love. That is 
the America we know. That is the America we can be again.
  I ask that these commonsense measures come up for a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the rol1.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                       Business Before the Senate

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, let me first welcome my colleagues back 
from the August State work period. As usual, it was an opportunity to 
travel in our States and meet with constituents and to hear from them 
about the issues that matter most in their lives.
  These are some of the things I heard: Middle-class families are 
struggling with costs that keep going up while wages barely budge. 
Recent college graduates are saddled with crippling college debt and 
are worried about their future and their ability to buy a home and do 
the things they want for their children. Families and seniors are 
worried about rising healthcare costs, particularly prescription drugs. 
And voters asked if we are doing enough to keep our elections safe from 
foreign interference.
  I spent time talking with educators in Upstate New York about teacher 
shortages, with farmers about the future of agriculture production, 
with homeowners about improving flood insurance policies, and with 
middle-class families about keeping more of their earnings in their 
pockets after the Republicans repealed the State and local tax 
deduction. I heard from New Yorkers in every corner of my State, and 
the overwhelming consensus was that Washington has work to do and has 
to do more to shore up the middle class and those struggling to get 
there.
  Typically, with Congress out of session, the President can spend the 
month of August highlighting issues and building support for laws, 
initiatives, and programs to help working Americans--but not this 
President, not President Trump. As we all could have predicted, he 
spent the month of August sowing discord and division at home, 
comforting our adversaries and alienating our allies abroad, and 
spreading recrimination and self-aggrandizement on Twitter.
  Twenty years ago, if you read what the President had done this 
August, you would say that is fiction. Unfortunately, it is true. 
Although we have become a bit inured to the President's volatility, it 
is hard to recall a President having a more destructive or bizarre 
summer.
  On the world stage, President Trump canceled a planned trip to 
Denmark because they refused to consider selling us Greenland. He 
released a reportedly classified satellite image on Twitter and 
suggested inviting Putin to return to the G7, hoping, of course, that 
he could host the next one at, of all places, his own private resort in 
Florida.
  Here at home, the President called the Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve an enemy, continued to attack the FBI, again falsely claimed he 
won the popular vote, and called Jews who voted for Democrats disloyal.
  On the issue of policy, the President began the month vacillating 
wildly on support for gun safety measures, despite three mass 
shootings, and ended the summer by diverting funds intended for our 
Nation's defense and for our soldiers and their families and taking 
that money away from them for the construction of a border wall that we 
all know he promised Mexico would pay for.
  Of course, we have now spent the past week and a half watching the 
President desperately trying to justify--sometimes with a Sharpie--his 
warning that the State of Alabama lay in Hurricane Dorian's destructive 
path--what a circus.
  This is America. We are so proud of this country. We can't be proud 
of the

[[Page S5350]]

President's actions in the last month--no one can, no matter what your 
politics.
  I say to President Trump: There are real issues facing real 
Americans, and it is our job as their elected representatives--whether 
we be in the executive branch or the legislative branch, whether we be 
Democrats, Independents, or Republicans--to do something to help them, 
but this President seems uninterested or maybe simply incapable.
  As we return to work in Washington, let us aim for progress on the 
issues President Trump ignored during his strange, lost summer: gun 
safety, election security, healthcare, infrastructure, making progress 
on funding the government in order to avoid another government shutdown 
that the President caused and had to back off from last time.
  That is the people's business. Even if the President isn't interested 
in it, it is our job to be. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work, 
and sometimes we have to ignore the President's shenanigans.
  One issue of particular importance looms on this upcoming Senate work 
period, and that is gun safety. In the month of August, more than 50 
Americans were killed in mass shootings, the latest barrage in the 
litany of mass shootings that have become all too routine in our 
country, to say nothing of the American lives lost in everyday gun 
violence in our communities.
  It is on the minds of the American people. I was at the airport, and 
someone I didn't know grabbed my arm and said: Senator, do something 
about gun violence. I lost my nephew to gun violence last year.
  It is on so many people's minds. That is why our first order of 
business in the Senate should be to take action on H.R. 8, the House-
passed Bipartisan Background Checks Act. We must grapple with the stark 
reality that gun violence is becoming an all-too-routine occurrence and 
that we in Congress have both the ability and responsibility to do 
something about it.
  H.R. 8 is the most commonsense way for the Senate to save American 
lives. It is bipartisan. It has already passed the House. As a matter 
of policy, it is absolutely necessary to close the loopholes in our 
background check system in order to make other gun laws effective. We 
can and should pass a very strong red flag law, but what good would a 
red flag law do if someone were adjudicated, unable to have a gun, and 
he could go online and get that gun with no check at all? If you don't 
have background checks, bad people will get guns--felons, spousal 
abusers, those mentally ill, and people who get red flags. So it is 
critical that we pass a universal background check law and close the 
loopholes and that we do everything we can to prevent guns from falling 
into the wrong hands in the first place. Background checks must be the 
base, the foundation we start from, when we talk about gun safety 
legislation.

  Just look at the case of the shooter in Odessa, TX, who reportedly 
failed a background check in 2014 but was able to purchase a firearm 
through a private sale with no background check. This is one of the 
loopholes that the Bipartisan Background Checks Act would close.
  These loopholes were never intended--I was the author of the Brady 
bill back in 1994, when I was a House Member and the chair of the Crime 
Subcommittee. I am proud of it. It saved tens of thousands of lives. 
Back then, there was no internet. When some of the gun advocates here 
said ``Well, exempt gun show loopholes,'' gun shows were simply a place 
to show antique-type guns, like your 1938 Derringer. Now, of course, 
they have become the huge loopholes that felons and other people who 
shouldn't have guns seek to use to get guns. We have to close these 
loopholes. It is not doing anything more to take away the rights of 
legitimate American citizens who want to bear arms--something I believe 
in--than it was when it passed. It is just closing loopholes as time 
has evolved.
  There are two people in Washington who would make this legislation 
pass, which would greatly reduce gun violence: Leader McConnell and 
President Trump. Leader McConnell has the power to make sure this 
legislation passes this body or to make sure that it doesn't pass. It 
is in their hands.
  The Republican leader determines the Senate's business. After the 
shootings in El Paso and Dayton, we demanded that the leader call the 
Senate back into session so that we could respond to the crisis. He 
refused. Maybe he hoped the scenes of violence would fade from the 
minds of the public, and the issue would fizzle out. That certainly has 
not happened, and the Democrats will not let it happen. Unfortunately, 
the increased frequency in mass shootings will not let it happen 
either.
  As Democrats return to Washington, we carry with us the frustration 
of Americans who demand action but have seen far too little. These are 
demands of Democrats and Republicans, people northeast, south, and 
west, men and women, and people from urban areas, suburban areas, and 
rural areas. With their importuning in mind, we will make sure the 
issue of gun safety remains front and center for these next 3 weeks and 
beyond, until meaningful change is achieved.
  By contrast, Leader McConnell did not even mention gun violence in 
his opening remarks today, after promising that we would have a debate 
in the Senate when we returned. We await word from the leader when that 
debate might take place. One thing we do know is that Leader McConnell 
has said that the question of background checks will come down to 
President Trump. ``If the president took a position on a bill,'' Leader 
McConnell said, ``I'd be happy to put it on the floor.'' That is what 
he said. Those are his words.
  If that is the case, the President has a historic opportunity to save 
lives by signaling his support for the House-passed background checks 
bill. So far, he has been all over the lot.
  The President told me he is going to get his ``strongest possible 
bill'' but has not committed to what he might support and then, in 
future days, seemed to have backed off that statement. That is why 
Speaker Pelosi and I sent President Trump a letter today, urging him to 
support H.R. 8, the universal background checks bill, to make his 
position public.
  President Trump can lead his party to do something that the NRA has 
long prevented Republicans from doing by providing these Republicans 
the cover of a Republican President's support.
  President Trump, please read our letter. Support the bipartisan 
universal background checks bill. It is common sense. It is enormously 
popular with the public--93 percent--even popular with Republicans and 
gun owners, and above all, would save American lives.
  Maybe that man at the airport--I don't know his name or where he was 
from--would not have to come up to me and tell me his nephew died of 
gun violence if we had passed some of these laws. The time to act is 
now, before more lives are lost. The pressure is on President Trump and 
Leader McConnell to act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                              August Recap

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I came to the floor, and I heard the 
Democratic leader talking, obviously, about some terrible incidents 
that occurred in El Paso, Dayton, and in Odessa.
  Since we were last in session, we have had two shootings in Texas, 
one in El Paso and one in Odessa. I confess that these are terrible 
tragedies that cause us to first ask the question ``Why'' and then 
cause us to ask the question ``What'': What can and what should we do 
to try to stop incidents like these in the future?
  I will remind the Democratic leader that we actually have a great 
template for bipartisan support for gun safety legislation, which is 
the bill we sent to the President last year called Fix NICS--NICS being 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System that the FBI 
operates.
  For example, if you were convicted of a felony or dishonorably 
discharged from the military or you were subject to a protective order 
or you had been committed as a result of a mental health crisis, under 
existing law, all of these prohibit you from purchasing or possessing a 
firearm. But if the background check system doesn't work, it doesn't 
really count for much.
  I am proud of the fact that we came together on a bipartisan basis 
and

[[Page S5351]]

passed this Fix NICS legislation by overwhelming margins. Anybody who 
is suggesting that we simply haven't done anything has a faulty memory, 
at the very minimum.
  I would also add that we have passed legislation that would enhance 
school safety. One of the problems is that these cowards who commit 
these terrible acts don't go shoot up police stations; they go to the 
soft targets, like the schools. No parent should send their child to 
school wondering whether they are going to be safe from attacks like 
those we have seen occur in places like the Santa Fe school district in 
Texas, so we passed bipartisan legislation to deal with that as best we 
could.
  We also recognize that many of the people who commit these acts are a 
danger to themselves and others because of a mental health crisis. In 
the 21st Century Cures Act--a broad, bipartisan bill--we passed 
legislation that provides for piloting of assisted outpatient 
treatment. The reason that is so important is, if you are dealing with 
an adult--an adult child, an adult spouse, obviously, or a parent--
there is very little you can do to make them follow their doctors' 
orders or get the kind of treatment they need to take their medication. 
But as a result of assisted outpatient treatment orders, a family 
member or law enforcement or mental health professional can petition 
the court for a court order requiring people to comply with their 
doctors' orders to show up for their appointments and to take their 
medication. They have reaped tremendous benefits around the country, 
protecting people from themselves when they are in a mental health 
crisis and protecting other people from potential acts of violence that 
they might commit. It is not true that people who are mentally ill are 
somehow more prone to violence, but, certainly, when they lose control 
of themselves--and when they are in a mental health crisis, they do--
they can be a danger to themselves and others. So this assisted 
outpatient treatment pilot program that we pioneered in the 21st 
Century Cures Act, I think, provides another tool.
  Then we provided law enforcement with additional training. That is 
where the active shooter training came from. It was actually pioneered 
in San Marcos, TX, at Texas State University, where they train law 
enforcement not to sit on the perimeter while the shooting goes on 
inside a building but to attack the shooters where they are.
  Also, we went one step further to make sure not only that we can stop 
the shooter but also that we can actually save lives and keep people 
from bleeding to death by training emergency medical personnel to 
follow the police into an active shooting scene to save lives.
  Part of the problem with discussing this topic is that there is a lot 
of mythology out there. I heard my friend the Democratic leader say: If 
we had just passed another background check system, maybe Dayton or El 
Paso would not have happened. Well, both of those shooters passed a 
background check. Is he suggesting we ought to pass a law just to 
pretend that we are doing something, but it would actually not have a 
positive impact on saving lives?
  That is not what we did in the Fix NICS bill. As you may recall, the 
particular shooter there was disqualified from purchasing firearms, but 
the Air Force had not uploaded his felony conviction for domestic 
violence into the background check system. So when he went in to buy a 
firearm, it didn't catch him. He was able to lie and then buy.
  I am proud to say that as a result of this bipartisan legislation we 
passed, there has been a 400-percent increase in the Federal Government 
providing additional background check information for the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check--the NICS--System.
  I think it is safe to say, as a result of the bipartisan legislation 
we passed, working together, that lives will be saved. That is what we 
ought to be about, not about show boats or political posturing. We 
ought to be about solving the problem.
  Let's get our facts right first. The Democratic leader mentioned 
Odessa. It is true that the shooter in Odessa did have a mental health 
commitment, and he tried to buy a gun through traditional means. He 
failed a background check, so he wasn't successful. While the details 
are still being investigated, it looks as though he purchased the 
firearm from an unlicensed firearm dealer, which is a crime. If the 
dealer sold the firearm to the shooter knowing that he was disqualified 
from purchasing or buying a firearm, that would be another crime. So 
trying to suggest that some sort of additional background check would 
have solved that problem when what the dealer did and what the 
purchaser did were already illegal, I just don't think holds up.
  I look forward to continued discussion and debate on this topic. It 
was on the minds of an awful lot of people as I traveled across my 
State of Texas this August--as we all did during the August work 
period.
  I always benefit from going back home and getting refreshed by the 
thoughts, the ideas, and the aspirations of real people instead of 
living here inside this fantasyland known as Washington, DC. I always 
tell people that Washington is a fascinating place to visit. It is like 
Disneyland, but just remember one thing: It is not real.
  What is real are the people we represent back home and what the 
laboratories of democracy produce, which are the States, including the 
great State of Texas.
  As I travel back home, I also enjoy sharing updates about what we 
have been working on here in Washington and seeing how legislation we 
have passed can actually make a difference back home.
  One example is a program authorized by a bill that I introduced 
called Project Safe Neighborhoods, which is now the law of the land. It 
is a bill I introduced, which is now the law.
  I invited Attorney General Barr to come to Dallas, TX, to hear how 
this initiative has already begun driving down crime rates in a couple 
of our communities in Dallas. This program partners with local, State, 
and Federal law enforcement officials, together with Federal 
prosecutors, to target violent offenders--people who have no legal 
right to possess a firearm and who use firearms routinely--and engage 
with the community and, thus, help create safer neighborhoods.
  It is already having a positive impact in communities across my 
State, and I am eager to see the long-term benefits of this incredible 
program.
  In Austin, I visited the University of Texas during the month of 
August and met with some student veterans who are reaping the benefits 
of a bill we passed this last summer. It is called the Veteran STEM 
Scholarship Improvement Act. STEM stands for science, technology, 
engineering, math. The Veteran STEM Scholarship Improvement Act made a 
seemingly small change to an existing program, which provides extended 
GI bill eligibility for student veterans pursuing STEM degrees.
  Because we made a technical but important change, more students are 
able to continue their education with significantly less financial 
stress.
  President Fenves of the University of Texas system said that instead 
of just three courses that veterans could qualify for using their GI 
bill, they can now qualify for, I think he said, 25. It may have been 
28. There are multiples of what they can qualify for under existing 
law.
  So this small change will make a big difference. I enjoyed hearing 
about their career goals from the students who are using these GI bill 
benefits, and I look forward to seeing all they will accomplish.
  In addition to those meetings and those visits, I attended a ribbon-
cutting at a brandnew VA clinic in San Angelo, TX. I spoke to survivors 
of sexual assault in Grapevine about the need to pass the Debbie Smith 
Act to reauthorize the money we appropriate to help test backlog rape 
kits. I was able to join my friend Congressman Henry Cuellar from 
Laredo, TX, to discuss the future of the USMCA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada 
Trade Agreement, the successor to NAFTA.
  So while it was a busy and productive work period, sadly, it was also 
marked by a number of heartbreaking moments that I alluded to a moment 
ago. On the morning of August 3, a gunman stormed into a Walmart in El 
Paso, TX, killing 22 innocent people and wounding two dozen others. It 
became

[[Page S5352]]

the deadliest mass shooting in the United States this year.
  In a community as tight-knit as El Paso, the devastation was 
immeasurable, and I would note that the shooter traveled from another 
part of the State to El Paso. He was not from El Paso. The 
heartbreaking confusion quickly turned into rage when we learned that 
the shooter was a White supremacist whose crime could only be described 
as domestic terrorism.
  The day after the shooting, I visited El Paso and met with several of 
the victims, as well as the law enforcement officers responding to the 
tragedy. Members of the community created a memorial to honor those who 
lost their lives, and on that first day, it was relatively small, about 
4 feet wide.
  By the time I returned to El Paso with President Trump and the First 
Lady, 3 days later, this 4-foot-wide memorial had grown to hundreds of 
feet wide. The outpouring by the community was overwhelming.
  In the face of tragedy and unthinkable grief, the strength and 
support of the entire community from that memorial to the long line of 
folks waiting to donate blood, to the donations to help the victims was 
truly remarkable.
  As I also indicated at the beginning of my remarks, less than a month 
later, we experienced another shooting. A man went on a shooting 
rampage between Midland and Odessa, killing 7 people and wounding 25 
others. When I visited Odessa this last week, I met Odessa police 
officer James Santana, who was injured in the shooting but fortunately 
is expected to make a full recovery.
  When I asked the police chief in Ector County, which is where Odessa 
is located: What do you think we might be able to do in Washington that 
would help, he said: Well, we just don't have adequate resources to 
deal with people suffering from a mental health crisis. That might be 
one area where you could help.
  I had the pleasure of thanking the men and women in blue, our law 
enforcement officers, for their quick response in Odessa and thanked 
them for the work they do every day.
  By the way, I also had the opportunity to travel to the White House 
this morning. President Trump gave an award to the police officers in 
Dayton, OH, who were able to stop the shooter there. He offered 
certificates of commendation to some of the employees of Walmart who 
helped save lives in the shooting episode there.
  While major events like these are ones that grab the headlines, Texas 
law enforcement officials and officials all over the country are on the 
streets each and every day doing everything they can possibly do to 
keep our communities safe. I think it would just be negligence on our 
part not to continue to thank these men and women and especially those 
who responded to tragedies like El Paso, Midland, and Odessa.
  As our State continues to grieve from this senseless loss of life, 
the questions are, of course, How did this happen? How can we prevent 
it from happening again? Well, I know we are going to try, just as we 
have done in the past, to identify gaps and problems with the law and 
fill those gaps and save lives in the process.
  If I knew how we could pass a law that would prevent people from 
committing crimes, we would pass it unanimously, but, unfortunately, 
that is not the human condition. I have been speaking with my 
constituents as well as colleagues in the Senate over the last few 
weeks about what a legislative solution might look like, and I do 
expect us to have a wide range of debate on the subject in the coming 
days.
  I just spoke to a representative at the White House. They say they 
are putting together a set of proposals to provide the President later 
this week, and we look forward to hearing what the President believes 
these proposals should consist of.
  Again, I think the model we used after the Sutherland Springs 
shooting in 2017 was a pretty good one, where we introduced a bill to 
improve the background check system and to prevent people who should 
not be able to purchase a firearm from doing so. We passed that 
legislation on a broad bipartisan basis. Had that legislation passed 
sooner, it could have prevented the Sutherland Springs gunman from 
acquiring his weapon in the first place. By lying on his background 
check application, knowing, perhaps, that the United States Air Force 
had not uploaded his conviction for domestic violence into the 
background check system, he was able to get away with it.
  These are the kind of reforms I believe we should be looking at--real 
solutions to real problems. We owe it to the American people to focus 
on making changes that will actually work, not show votes and not 
talking points. We ought to be about trying to solve this problem.
  The American people are smart. They can see what is happening up here 
when we resort to the same old tired talking points and are not really 
engaged in trying to find solutions. They see through it, and we owe it 
to them and owe it to ourselves and owe it to people who might 
otherwise become future victims to do everything we can to provide the 
tools to law enforcement to try to prevent as many of these deaths as 
we can.
  In the case of the Fix NICS Act, it was able to become law because it 
had broad support from Republicans and Democrats as well as the 
President. This will guide my approach. Again, I am not interested in 
scoring political points or introducing bills so we can pat ourselves 
on the back and run our next campaign on it. I am actually interested 
in trying to solve the problem and saving lives in the process. That is 
what we did on the Fix NICS Act.
  The leader made it clear that if there is a proposal out there that 
is able meet these same criteria, we will consider it on the floor of 
the Senate. He has asked us to come together and figure out what that 
legislation would look like. While there are certainly differences on 
both sides of the aisle about what we should do, I hope all of us can 
remember we share a common goal of stopping these mass shootings to the 
extent we humanly can.
  Again, if we knew how to pass a law to prevent people from committing 
crimes, we would have already done that. We may not be able to do that, 
but we sure can, I think, make some progress and hopefully save some 
lives in the process.
  There are a lot of discussions about ways to do that, and I am 
hopeful we can reach an agreement soon. We cannot allow these acts of 
violence to somehow become the new normal. As we keep the victims and 
their families and the dedicated law enforcement officers impacted by 
the shooting in our prayers, we owe it to all of them and to ourselves 
to work on a solution to prevent more communities from experiencing 
these types of tragedies.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Kelly Craft, of Kentucky, to be Representative of the 
     United States of America to the Sessions of the General 
     Assembly of the United Nations during her tenure of service 
     as Representative of the United States of America to the 
     United Nations.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, Shelley Moore 
           Capito, Mike Rounds, John Boozman, Thom Tillis, Richard 
           Burr, James E. Risch, David Perdue, Roy Blunt, Kevin 
           Cramer, Roger F. Wicker, Tom Cotton, John Barrasso, 
           Steve Daines, John Thune.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Kelly Craft, of Kentucky, to be the Representative of the 
United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the 
United Nations during her tenure of service as Representative of the 
United States of America to the United Nations, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

[[Page S5353]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), and the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--38

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Alexander
     Booker
     Graham
     Harris
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Sinema
     Tillis
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
38.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Georgia.


                        Tribute to Vince Dooley

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise for a moment to pay tribute to a 
great Georgian and his wife who this past Saturday in Athens, GA, 
before the University of Georgia football game, were honored by naming 
the field at the Sanford Stadium, Dooley Field.
  Vince Dooley coached Georgia to a national championship in 1980 and 
coached Herschel Walker, probably the most famous running back in the 
history of football. He was also a great contributor to the university, 
contributing millions of dollars himself, personally, to see that 
libraries were built. He wrote seven books, including a book on 
flowers, which is the one that all botanists around the world pay 
attention to, and he is an expert historian on the Civil War. He is 
just a great American. He went to Auburn, but he recovered and came to 
Georgia.
  He started coaching at Georgia and did better and better until he got 
us a national championship. This weekend, as our senior past athletic 
director and past coach, we named the field at Georgia after Vince 
Dooley for 25 years of outstanding service to the university and a 
lifetime of service to education.
  May God bless Vince Dooley, Barbara Dooley, and their family. 
Congratulations to the University of Georgia and congratulations to 
Vince.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time on the Craft nomination 
expire at 11:50 a.m. on Tuesday, September 10; further, that if cloture 
is invoked on the Darling nomination, the postcloture time expire at 
2:15 p.m. and if either of these nominations are confirmed, the motions 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; finally, that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, following disposition of the Darling 
nomination, the Senate vote on cloture motions for the Akard, Cabaniss, 
and Byrne nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________