now, cyber security, you've heard a lot about it. certainly the cyber security risk for the f.a.a. is a definite one and we've done stuff in this bill to reduce the cyber security risk to the national air space system and civil aviation and that includes reducing the vulnerability of the in-flight entertainment systems. we've all seen that video where someone with a laptop can take over a car through the in-car entertainment systems. we're concerned about that with regard to airlines, airplanes as well. so this legislation supports the f.a.a. efforts to develop a

threat model to strengthen against that cybersecurity threat. now, what about consumers? this is substantive law that will last far beyond the extension of this bill that extends the f.a.a. authorization through september 30 of next year. don't you get irritated if you pay a baggage fee, say you pay 50 bucks for an extra bag or a heavy bag and all of a sudden it's lost or it's significantly delayed? in this bill, those baggage fees are going to be returned, and we're also going to wire the airlines to have policies that are family friendly. what about a child that desperately needs to sit next to a parent?

save for the goodness of the passengers and the passengers usually respond because they are good people and realize that a child ought to sit close to a parent. we have enshrined that in this bill, and that will become a permanent law. and so for air travel with people with disabilities, we call for a review of the training and practices by airports and airlines and require the department of transportation to accelerate the rule making. finally, i want to say about the potential, and it's an accident waiting to happen, of an unmanned aerial vehicle, in other words, a drone, colliding with an airliner.

we had a report a few months ago on an inbound american airlines into miami. they sighted a drone off the left wing. it's absolutely essential that we keep drones out of the airspace for takeoffs and landings in a busy airfield. and so we have set up in the legislation a pilot program to develop and test technologies to intercept that drone or to shut it down near an airport in order that we don't have what we know would be a catastrophic crash, and it requires the f.a.a. to work with nasa to test and develop a drone traffic

management system. so i want to thank all of our senate colleagues. i want to thank the ranking member and the chairman over in the house as we negotiated the provisions in this bill. that's what we are going to vote on at 1:45, and i would commend the f.a.a. bill, that the senate consider it favorably. mr. president, i yield the floor. i forget to ask u.c. that lauren punto, the committee's detailee from the f.a.a., be allowed the privileges of the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, yesterday i had the privilege of

attending a memorial service for the brave dallas police officers that lost their lives almost a week ago. it was a fitting tribute to these courageous men who fought evil and who made the ultimate sacrifice. there through such a sad and tumultuous time, the brave leadership of mayor mike rollins and police chief brown have been a constant source of inspiration. i have had a number of people stop me in the hallway and said have you seen or heard this police chief down in dallas? i said absolutely. have you seen the sort of leadership and the calming influence that mayor rollins has provided at a time when people are confused, distraught, angry? it's just been very impressive. they have gone above and beyond the call to bring as much comfort to the city as they possibly could. while they have shown the world

what poise under pressure looks like, i just want to say how proud i am of their dedication to the people of dallas and their steady and unwavering hand. the events of last week serve as a terrible reminder that our law enforcement officers face multiple threats in their line of duty every day and that some twisted, deranged individuals will stop at nothing to target them. mayor rawlings was right yesterday when he said that the officers in dallas did nothing wrong. he's absolutely right. they were just doing their job. and here's what i would like to hear a little bit more from our leaders here in washington and around the country about. there is no justification, zero, zip, nada, no justification for violence against police officers. there is none. you can't justify what happened in dallas because of something

that happened in ferguson, in baltimore or some other place around the country. chief brown said that what we need to do is not paint with a broad brush the 99% of police officers that do what they should be doing in a brave and heroic sort of way because of the actions of the 1% or whatever the rogue officer -- rogue individual might be. what he said we need to do is to hold the officers that do misbehave, that don't respect the communities that they're serving, and they cross the line, we need to hold them accountable, and he's exactly right. so what i hope we will hear, as the president talked about yesterday, the importance of having this national discussion about race, about law enforcement. what i hope we hear more of is

some clarity from our national leaders. our police officers in dallas were doing nothing more than keeping order and protecting civilians in peaceful protests. this is the supreme irony here in dallas, is that the people protesting were part of the black lives matter, but who was protecting them? it was the very police officers targeted by this deranged shooter. and actually as president obama acknowledged yesterday, the dallas police department is a national model for how to de-escalate conflicts in communities and work with communities to reduce crime. again, another irony that this terrible tragedy occurred there against that department. so in the aftermath of this great national tragedy, we do need to come together as a country and have some uncomfortable discussions, perhaps. we need to get beyond the

talking points and our comfort zone. but the one thing we need to do absolutely is to come together to show our support for those who get up every morning, put on the badge and walk out the door, not knowing if they'll come home at the end of the day. and we can do that by sending a clear message that america will not tolerate those who seek to kill, those who are dutybound to defend us. we will not stand for it. this should go without saying. now, in the aftermath of the dallas attack, we have another chance to stand up for law enforcement and stand united for policies that better support them. today i introduced legislation with my -- our colleagues from north carolina, senator tillis, and my colleague from texas, senator cruz, called the back the blue act that would do just

that. many folks have seen the hashtag on social media back the blue online. it's a small way for americans to show their solidarity with our law enforcement officials and their families following this tragedy, and that's where this legislation gets its name. the back the blue act would create a new federal crime for killing or attempting to kill a federal judge, a law enforcement officer or someone funded by federal funds, a federally funded public safety officer. under this bill, an offender would be subject to a range of penalties from a minimum of a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for murder, ranging up to the death penalty. i think it's more important than ever for us to make this kind of clear and unequivocal statement about our support for law enforcement. this is the very glue that holds our country together, and without the safety and security

that they provide, none of our other freedoms are really possible. the back the blue act would also create a new crime for assaulting a law enforcement official and create a new law prohibiting the fleeing to avoid punishment for assaulting a law enforcement official. as i said, there is just no excuse, no justification, none whatsoever for attacking the law enforcement officer. most of us learn that growing up from our parents, but apparently some people didn't learn that lesson, and we ought to make clear to those who did not get the memo, who did not learn that lesson that assaulting a law enforcement officer is absolutely beyond the pale. we need to show that we value the lives of our law enforcement and we need to make it absolutely clear that we will hold those who carry out crimes against them accountable. the back to blue act would do that.

the back the blue act would also expedite court proceedings for cases that involved the death of a public safety officer. it would make sure that criminals aren't rewarded for committing a crime by recovering money damages from injuries they sustained while committing a felony or violent crime. it would help strengthen our communities by allowing grant funding to be put toward efforts to foster more trust between police and those around them. this is something i'm particularly proud of that's been happening in dallas under mayor rawlings and chief brown. they make it absolutely clear that the responsibility of the law enforcement official is not to sit in their police car and wait for something to happen, wait for someone to call. they believe in community policing, making sure law enforcement mixes and mingles and interacts with the very people they are supposed to protect, because you know what? frequently, those same people can be the eyes and the ears

that provide essential information to law enforcement so they can prevent criminal acts from occurring in the first place. the final thing i would mention that this legislation would do is it would allow law enforcement officers to carry firearms in federal facilities. now, these are not expansive proposals. they are tailored measures that would better serve the men and women who serve our communities every day. if now is not the time -- yet now is not the time to show our support for law enforcement, when is? with the attention of the nation rivetted on events like those that occurred in dallas, i think it's critically important we take advantage of this opportunity to make this statement of solidarity. yesterday, president obama stressed the need to translate our words and prayers into action. this legislation is responsive to what the president said. it's one thing to offer people our best wishes and our thoughts

and prayers. it's another thing to actually do something about it. this legislation does that. so i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation. we can do more for our police officers and their families, and we can start with the back the blue act. separately, mr. president, on another matter, earlier today, this chamber voted to move the comprehensive addiction and recovery act conference report forward. this legislation has been the work of bipartisanship from the beginning, and it sailed through the senate earlier this year, and now this bicameral agreement authorizes even more resources to combat the epidemic of heroin and prescription pain killer abuse that's tearing families apart across the country. over the last few years, we have heard the stories and we've seen a dangerous trend of heroin and prescription drug abuse. in my state alone, it's estimated that these deaths have

increased by as much as 80% in recent years. so there is no doubt this is a serious issue. this is not just a bipartisan issue. this is a nonpartisan issue. and now is our chance to get something done. i'm grateful for the hard work and the leerm of the junior. a senator: from ohio, senator portman who shepherded this bill from the beginning to where we are today along with senator ayotte of new hampshire, senator blunt from missouri and chairman gassily of the senate judiciary committee. i want to thank all of them for their role in getting this bill across the finish line. so now we need to complete our work and pass it and get it to the president's desk. of course there's a lot more we should be doing for the american people this week. but unfortunately instead of advancing bills that would help prevent birth defects from the zika virus and avert a public health crisis, our democratic colleagues want to talk about

climate change. now, i understand that many of them feel that this is a serious matter and a priority, but what they've been doing is basically beating up on a group of nonprofits and private citizens. no one outside the beltway has ever even heard of. and for what? well, for having the take mairt of exercising their rights under the constitution to free speech and free expression. heaven for bid someone would actually utter any words that somebody across the aisle might disagree with. the answer as we know to speech that you disagree with is more speech. it's not less speech. it's not trying to squash or intimidate or coerce people you disagree with. that's not the america that i know, and that's not what our constitution provides for. so i hope our colleagues will get their priorities straight. this is about preventing birth

defects, devastating birth defects from children infected with the zika virus. we can have our discussion about climate change hopefully without the attempts to intimidating and attack people who express opinions that our colleagues don't agree with. but i would suggest our priorities ought to be a little bit different. it's not just that this is a conscious effort to ignore the most pressing issues facing our country, like fighting the zika virus or funding our troops, for example. they don't even want to have an honest conversation about the policies that they're peddling because they're not interested in a debate. they want to stamp out contrary views. but for all their fanfare about climate change, this is not the most urgent thing we need to do this week. they don't talk about how the policies are advocating what actually stifle free speech and hurt the american economy and

cut jobs. we've had debates and we've had votes in this body about some of these sweeping proposals to deal with the problem that may or may not actually come to pass. there have been other challenges we faced in this country that have been overcome due to the inventiveness and the innovation and the genius of the american people coming up with solutions. so i would hope that our colleagues who have latched on to this as a way to divert opinion or attention, i should say, from the imminent threat of the zika virus and the need to fund our troops, i hope that they would come back into a zo zone, not a logic free zone but a zone in which we can talk about these issues, and instead of trying to score political points with outside groups who are happy to raise money off of this issue, by the way, we need

to get back to reality and back to the work at hand. so quite frankly, it's hard to believe this is where we are with our democratic friends arguing against bills that would help prevent birth defects and our children and arguing against a bill that would support our troops. instead they want to talk about -- not just talk about, they want to grandstand on climate change. i hope they get a reality check soon and stop quibbling over bicameral, bipartisan pieces of legislation. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i'm going to address this morning, mr. president, two issues which the senate finance committee has spent a considerable amount of time on and both of them are examples of how the senate is leaving important work undone on its way

out the door. and i'm going to begin by discussing the opioid bill. now, if there ever was an issue that ought to be unifying in the congress, that ought to bring democrats and republicans together to surmount an important challenge, it ought to be opioid addiction in america. this is a crisis indiscriminate of geography and politics. the reality is opioid addiction is ripping through our communities like wildfire. a recent editorial in one of my home state newspapers captured the urgency, the extreme urgency of the opioid struggle with the addiction, and i quote, "opioids are winning. after months of work, the senate and the house has come up with

an opioid bill." i can give my assessment in a sentence. it is a half measure. the job is far from complete. and certainly nobody ought to be taking victory laps. the reality is this opioid bill leaves on the negotiating table many opportunities to fight and successfully win the battle against opioid addiction. now, a landmark study dealing with opioids came out a few months ago and found that 80% of those who are addicted to painkillers or heroin aren't getting treatment. i want everybody to understand, mr. president, under this bill those waiting lines are not

going to get much shorter. the thousands of babies born each year with an addiction in narcotics, this bill won't be enough to bring that number down, down to zero where everybody knows it ought to be, where there's a moral imperative for actually getting to zero. that's why you're seeing those headlines opioids winning the war. now the package before the senate certainly has the kernels of a meaningful game plan, but in my game plan there's just not enough there there. there are programs being established that could be a big help to those who are struggling to get their lives back on track, but there aren't the tools to deliver on the promise.

senators should know that doing only half the job now means that members are going to be leading with their chins when the appropriations process returns later this year. the reason i say that is here are some of the programs that are going to be bumping up against the uncertainty of the appropriations process. there's a program for pregnant women and new mothers suffering from an opioid use disorder. there's a program to help states take important strides when it comes to monitoring prescription drugs. there's better tracking within the v.a. there's a plan to strengthen the networks of support in american communities that are best equipped to reach out to those who need support in fighting addiction.

physicians and employers and the criminal justice system and more. the bill green lights the national institutes of health putting new energy into the development of safe, nonaddictive affordable drugs and treatments for chronic pain. and the bill establishes a task force and grants for states to construct what i believe could really be a fresh approach to management and opioids, education programs, treatment programs, recovery programs, monitoring, ways to prevent overdoses. getting those proposals off the ground but with the senate on its way out the door, it seems to me that you also have to do more than just leaving the strategy for actually winning against opioid addiction to the uncertainty of the

appropriations process in the fall. now, there are other questions with this bill. i'm very concerned about the provision that gives $75 million in kickbacks to the manufacturers of opioids that are considered under the bill abuse deterrents. i believe it's wrong for the bill which does only half the job for americans struggling with addiction to then turn around and give an unjustified windfall to big drug companies. i offered an amendment to get rid of the windfall and it was real simple, mr. president. i said let's get that money to pregnant women who are enrolled in medicaid, women of limited means who are struggling to fight addiction but the choice was made to give the windfall to the drug companies rather than

to help those vulnerable women trying to get their lives back on track. so example one. no funding for programs that really help women and others who are trying to overcome addiction but give a $75 million windfall to drug companies. that in my view is an imbalance that does not pass the smell test. so the bottom line on opioid legislation is there's an awful lot of heavy lifting to do before anybody ought to think about taking a victory lap. in my state and it pains me to say this, we're fourth worse in the country for abuse of opioids. so i hear from oregonians who go from pills to heroin to tragic endings. i hear about accounts that

nobody could have ever dreamed of, ever dreamed of. i was blessed to be able to go to school on a basketball scholarship. nobody talked about basketball players who had an injury, getting hooked to opioids and having tragic premature endings and opportunities choked off. we didn't hear those stories. you hear them now. and i've heard from doctors and pharmacists about the dangers that drugs pose and the difficulty of treating pain safely. and you hear from community leaders who are trying fresh approaches to reach out to young people. and my sense is every single member of the senate is hearing these kinds of stories. so i want it understood that the opioid addiction crisis is going to keep raging unabated. lives are going to continue to

be lost and families are going to continue to be torn apart until the senate finishes the rest of the job, the rest of the job is still ahead. now, mr. president, i do need to turn to another bit of undone business, and that is the year long obstruction in front of the senate finance committee of a supremely qualified nominee dr. mary wakefield who's the president's choice to be the deputy secretary of health and human services. her nomination has been sitting in purgatory longer than any other such choice in history, and it's for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with her qualifications. and i'm going to talk about what's causing the holdup, but i just want to spend a little bit of time talking about

dr. wakefield and the important role she's been nominated to fill. she's up for the number two spot at health and human services, which would make her the chief operating -- chief operating officer of a department taking on some of our most important health challenges, including opioid addiction. they manage the most important health programs in the country. it's the department on the front lines in the battle against zika. they run the centers for disease control, the food and drug administration, the national institutes of health, child welfare programs, family support programs. it goes on and on. i felt from the outset she was the right person for this job. she's somebody who's seen the american health care system from all sides. she comes from rural america. she comes from north dakota. and she sought out more

opportunities to help individuals by working in policy and managing programs. so she was a nurse and she said, i want to do more and i'm going to be able to do it by learning more about these health policies. so she earned a master's degree and a ph.d. then she served as a legislative assistant and chief of staff in the senate. and she's proven herself most able as the head of the health resources and services administration. almost a textbook case of somebody qualified to do this job. when the finance committee met in february to discuss her nomination, she was winning plaudits from both sides of the aisle. my friend, chairman hatch, said dr. wakefield has a -- quote -- "impressive background, a reputation for being a problem solver." not my words, mr. president,

chairman hatch's words. senator hoeven, who introduced senator wakefield at that hearing, said -- and i quote -- "she is a dedicated public servant and a hardworking health care advocate." and senator hoeven, who we all respect, like senator hatch, made the important point that dr. wakefield is especially an advocate for rural america. she believes that americans deserve access to high-quality health care regardless of their zip code, and she has certainly walked the walk as a nurse and as a practitioner. senator hoeven encouraged the financfinance committee to suppt dr. wakefield's nomination, and i quote, "send her to the full senate for confirmation." unfortunately, this process of moving this highly qualified nominee just has ground to a halt. and there have been kind of two stages of this process.

first, in february, senator grassley indicated that he would put a hold on the nomination on the ground that he and other republican senators had not received adequate responses to the questions that they had raised about planned parenthood. now, these questions had absolutely nothing to do with what dr. wakefield had been involved in. now, senator grassley's questions were answered months ago, but as soon as that was accomplished, there was another objection. in march the republican members of the finance committee sent a letter to the inspector general raising questions about a complaint against the state of california regarding what is the so-called weldon amendment. the amendment prohibits the recipients of appropriated funds from discriminating against health care providers who do not cover abortion services. we were told that the wakefield nomination could not be

considered until those issues with respect to california and the weldon amendment were resolved. now, once again, we're seeing issues raised that have absolutely nothing to do with dr. wake field, a nurse, someone who hails from rural america, who republican senators say is eminently qualified as being held up for matters that had nothing to do with her nomination. she wasn't a subject of the investigation. she didn't work in california. there is a been no allegation she's been involved in any way to the matters being investigated. several weeks ago the office of civil rights concluded their investigation of california and the weldon amendment and concluded the weldon amendment had not been violated, really not implicated, because none of the parties bringing the complaint were even covered by the amendment. so, as a matter of law, no

violation. now, you would normally think that would finally clear the decks. no issues left related to dr. wakefield's nomination. even the issues unrelated to her nomination had been resolved. so you'd think we'd be ready to go, ready to forward the nomination. that has not been the case. my understanding is that on the other side of the aisle, the republican members of the finance committee are still unwilling to favorably report the nomination. so a highly qualified nominee is being needlessly blocked for reasons that -- and i've spent a lot of time digging into this -- for reasons completely unrelated to her qualifications and the position she's been nominated to. and it just seems to me that the people we represent deserve more

when it comes to the consideration of vital nominees, vital nominees like dr. wakefield, and legislation that ought to really shorten those waiting lines for opioid treatment and respond -- respond fully to the challenge of opioid addiction. the congress ought to be doing its job. it ought to be doing more than making political points and passing half measures. and i'll close, mr. president, by way of saying that i think, as much as any member of this body, i've made a commitment to working in a bipartisan way. it is what i want to be the hallmark of my time in public service. and i'll just close by way of

saying that i think both with respect to fighting opioid addiction and making sure that qualified people who've been recommended by senior republicans can actually be considered here, in both instances the congress and the senate owe more to the american people. with that, i yield the floor. mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from m from missouri. mr. blunt: i was interesting to hear my good friend talk about the uncertainty. appropriations process. and frankly, think we could debate no issue that would change the congress more totally than the issue of getting back to the certainty of the appropriations process. for 200 years the principal work of the congress -- the house and the senate -- was to set our national priorities based on how we spent our national trust of

the money given to this government by the people that pay taxes, by the revenue to the government. we've gotten out of the habit of doing that, and frankly -- and one of the reasons we had an authorizing process and have always had that and an appropriating process is that gave the congress the annual ability to look at those programs, see how they were working, see if they were still working, gave the congress the ability to reach out to a program and have that program answer every question, because there was an annual review of how we spent the money. and if there's an incredible indictment over the last seven years, it's that the senate has stopped doing that work. the republican-led appropriations committees the last two years have had all the bills ready for the first time in a long time, ready to do the work, read t -- ready to talk ae

priorities of the country, and maybe more importantly ready for the 30 people that serve on appropriations not to be the only people that get to offer amendments, not to get to be the only people that ask and answer questions, not object the only people -- not to be the only people that get a say in this process. that's why these bills need to be on the floor. what a tragedy this week and last week that the defense appropriations bill, the primary responsibility of the federal government to defend the country, that that bill isn't even allowed to be debated by the minority because they say, we want to see what the final bill would say before we're ready to debate the senate version. there is no government bicameral, two legislative body chart in the world that shows how one group decides what the final bill looks like before the

other body of the congress can allowed to pass a bill. that's just not the way this works. there's a senate bill, there's a house bill. those two bills come together. you know, the country, for good reasons, has forgotten the basic civics of how our democracy works, because the senate, particularly, has been such an obstacle to that democracy working for seven years now. five years we were not able to amend the bills, and that was a reason not to go, it fwa was a d reason not to go forward. and then for two years, we don't want to debate the bills because apparently we don't know what they're going to say before they get to the president's desk. that is not how this process worked. last month, for the first time in seven years, the senate appropriations committee on labor, on health and human services, on education passed a bipartisan bill, came out of the

full committee 29-1. that's a good vote, tbhaw still means that -- but that still means that 70 of the senators haven't gotten a chance to weigh in on twha bill should look like -- on what that bill should look like. the senators who are concerned about whether the opioid bill is going to be funded or not would be less concerned if they knew we were back to the constitutional way of running the government. i was pleased we were able to write that bipartisan bill. certainly senator murray, the leading democrat, didn't get everything she wrantsed in this bill. -- she wanted in this bill. i didn't get the exact -- everything i wanted in this bill. but we were willing to set priorities. one of the priorities i want to talk about for a few minutes today before wree all go home and have a chance to talk about the good things that could happen in the country if we just

will do our job, were unof those priorities would be returning to year-round pell grants. now, pell grants are the grants available to people at -- who, because of their family income or their personal income, qualify for not a student loan but actually a student grant. and until 2008 we had several years to where you could go to school and you could go to school year-round and still have access to those pell grant funds. recently i was in -- at harass s stowe college, i was at ozark technical college at missouri state yiewrveghts i was at three rivers community college at popular bluff talking about what happens if people are able to stay in school once they get in school.

one of the students i talked to at harris stowe, tiara wilson, a 21-year-old senior about to graduate, she needed to get done as soon as she could. and so she decided to take summer classes. but since she didn't have the opportunity for year-round pell, she could only get the pell grant for two semesters instead of the way it was until 2008, she could only get that money for two semesters. so she had to borrow the $3,000 it took her to finish her degree sooner. but the good news is she is going to finish her degree. the bad news for her is she has an additional $3,000 debt that she wouldn't have hsm the joplin globe, the job glyn -- the jopln newspaper shared another story about a student who has gone to

school on grants. his mom and dad run a small business. according to that story, he's always depended on financial aid because his family didn't have the resources to pay tuition, financial aid to pay that tuition. they said, it hang been easy. he had to take classes. when he did take classes in the summer, he had to borrow or out of pocket come up with the $800 to $is,000 that the -- to $1,000 that the pell grant would have covered. the president of the mineral area community college said, when you talk about affordability and accessibility, you're right in the middle of this discussion on what happens if you have access to help year-round as opposed to just two semesters a year. jean merrell doss, who serves as

the dean of college services at that clenl, said 60% of their student body is dependent on pell grants to attend school. you know, as a college student, i went to school as quickly as i could. nobody in my family had graduated from college before. i went three years, three summers. it took 124 credit hours to graduate with a bachelor's degree. i had 124 credit hours. i didn't have an extra hour. i couldn't pay for an extra hour in my view, and i needed to get college behind me or i might not be the first person in my family to graduate from college. in fact, the first teaching job i took at marshfield high school, mr. president -- my grandfather was the january terks had been the janitor when i was growing up at the school that i took my first job as a college graduate at. you know, students like tiara,

students like andy need to have the opportunity that we can give them to go to school and finish school. pell grants benefit about 7.5 million students annually. the maximum two-semester pell grant will be $5,815 in the school year that begins next fall. but $5,815 pays for tuition, fees, books, and every community college in missouri. and we have a big community college system. so for people who have the most economic need, we already have free two years of college in our state, and a couple of our universities you can still get all your tuition, all your books, all your fees paid for with a pell grant. but what's the advantage of being able to stay in school

once you get started to school? if you're the first person in your family to graduate from college, mr. president, you and i are two of the three former university presidents here in the senate, and so we've talked to lots of students who had to have financial aid, had to have help to go. and if you're the first person in your family to graduate from college or you're going back to school, maybe taking a break, didn't go to college, college didn't work out. you're an adult totally responsible for all of your college expenses if you're going to go, staying in school makes a big difference. if you decide you can't go that summer semester because you can't afford the tuition and you get the full-time summer job -- it's real easy for the full-time summer job to turn into i'll do this job one more semester and i'll get back in school in january. and in january it's real easy to think, well, i'll go ahead and

finish my job and save a little more money this year, and i'll get back into school the regular time next fall. and before you know it, life gets in the way, things happen, you intend to continue to go to school and finish and get your degree but it just somehow doesn't happen. those students who want to continue their class work year round should have access to the pell grant help that you'd have if you were a little more flexible and had a little more ability to take a part-time job in the summer, live at home with your mom and dad, do whatever you're doing there, and start back in the fall. year-round pell is not for everybody, but it's expected that an estimated one million students of the 7.7 million students that get pell, one million of them would take advantage of year-round pell, and that includes 20,000 missouri students would take advantage of year-round pell.

they get an average of about $1,650 each to take advantage of that other semester. another semester to catch up, another semester to get ahead, or another semester to just graduate faster. this is something we need to do and should do. i want to speak for just a couple of minutes about the other topic that was just discussed on opioids. clearly there is a problem. about 1,000 missourians every year die from opioid overdoses. in st. louis, alone, deaths related to opioid abuse have increased three times since 2007. an estimated 1.9 million american adults have an opioid use disorder. this is truly a public health crisis. every corner of the nation from major cities to rural

communities, and there is some evidence rural communities have a bigger problem with opioid abuse than in the city. but i was visiting over the 4th of july weekend with some st. louis firefighters who are also in the first responder team, and it's clear that this is something that 10, 15 times every day and more on weekends they're responding to opioid overdose, to overdoses. if you're in a fire department in america today, it also has a first responder unit, you're three times more likely to go to an overdose than you are to go to a fire. the good news is there's treatment. 72% of the missourians that went through the state's opioid treatment program testing negative after -- with any random test. and so there is a solution here. the problem is that only about 10% of the people that have the problem get in the program to solve the problem.

that's why yesterday the bill was passed that i cosponsored that dealt with the idea of opioid abuse. this agreement expands access to evidence-based treatment, recovery services focuses on proven strategies that really strengthens people's ability not to get addicted. and if they are addicted, to figure out how to no longer be addicted. this appropriation that we've -- we've recommended a 93% increase in the money available. one of the issues that senator wyden was concerned about was whether there would be enough money. so between last year and this year we've increased the money by 542%. it takes an unbelievably effective government agency to deal with more than a 542% increase. we're going to continue to watch the bill, to watch the need, to see what to do everything possible to see that the money

is available. the house has ideas here. we do too. first responders are not the people who need to be primarily focused on this job. they need to be there when they need to be there. but we've got to do something that solves this problem. people also, by the way, need a place to go. that's why the excellence in mental health act will have at least 6 and maybe as many as 24 states january 1 treating mental health like all other health, provides that important access point for mental health issues of all kinds and opioid issues that can only be dealt with in that context of overall health involving mental health. mr. president, i hope we will begin to work more openly, more transparently, more committed to solving problems than we are committed to just complaining about problems. and i yield the floor.

mr. blunt: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 3055 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3055, a bill to amend title 38, united states code to provide a dental insurance plan to veterans and survivors and dependents of veterans. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the msure? without objection the committee is discharged. and the senate will proceed. mr. blunt: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. blunt: and, mr. president, i have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate.

they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. poeup duly noted. -- the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, while the senator from missouri is still on the floor, i noted my friend said about being the first member of his family to ga college degree, the leahys came to vermont about 1850's. grandfather was a stone carver and my father was a teenager and had to go to work. i became the first leahy to get a college degree. my sister the second one. and i have to think what the path might have been otherwise. i think one thing we all ought

to agree on, we've got to make it easier for college to be affordable, and there will all kinds of plans and ideas. the kids have to do it if they want. it is so important to be able to compete today, and -- anyway, i was touched by what my friend said, and i appreciate it. mr. president, we have kind of a good news-bad news situation today. the good news, congress is taking a step forward on how to respond to opioid addiction by advancing the comprehensive addiction recovery act, cara, we're leaving behind decades-old

misconceptions about how to confront addiction. this legislation treats opioid addiction as an illness. it combats it as we would any other public health issue. through a commitment to evidence-based prevention, treatment and recovery programs. but the bad news is that our commitment falls short. the conference report promises critical programming, but then it doesn't pay the bill. it doesn't provide the resources necessary. so we should know what we have here. we have a first step, but barely a first step. and if we make the mistake and say, okay, we've done our job and we have failed the countless communities across the country grappling with addiction. we're doing very little to stem this epidemic.

i'm afraid my friends, the republicans, have repeatedly blocked efforts to fund the programs authorized by cara. when the legislation was first considered on the senate floor, republicans opposed senator shaheen's amendment that would provided $600 million in new funding through emergency supplemental appropriations, which is actually a modest amount considering what is needed in this country. and then we had the appropriations process in committee this year. emergency funds to fight this addiction epidemic were denied, and senate republicans kept assuring us there's going to be a time and a place to include real funding. well, last week's conference was such an opportunity.

i along with other democratic conferees identified commonsense and bipartisan efforts that would obligate almost $1 billion in new resources to put the programs in cara to, would. the republicans voted against funding cara. but they also made a new promise. the republicans promised to include $525 million in new funding to combat addiction through the appropriations process. a half a loaf, well, the american people demand that congress keep its promise and provide meaningful funding for cara, not with action that would kill it but real promise.

i'm again joining senators murphy, wyden and shaheen to introduce legislation that would provide money to fund cara. it is fully paid for. it would receive overwhelming bipartisan support. if we're really serious about combatting the epidemic, there is no sense not to pass this. there is no sense not to put our money where our mouth is. because when we fund it, it can make an important difference. we expand prevention efforts. we expand access to treatment and recovery service, authorize a critical public health program. some vermonters tell me they are struggling with addiction but they have had to wait nearly a year to receive treatment. at a clinic in south burlington,

vermont, several have died while waiting. because we wouldn't fund it. several died. but this story is not unique. the bill also includes my provision to support our rural communities by increasing access to overdose reversal drug nalaxone. rural locations have the highest death rates in the country from opioid poisoning. getting this drug into more hands will save lives. two weeks ago on a beautiful vermont evening, a standing-room-only crowd filled a conference room at the green mountain technical and career center for a community meeting on opioid abuse. the event was organized by the

memorial county sheriff archer magoo, a former d.e.a. agent. he's seen the toll of heroin and opioid abuse and what it's done in the rural regions of my state. dr. petty perez, a nearby practical fissioner sursurprised -- practitioner surprised many in the crowd when she addressed the opioid issue from a personal rather than a medical perspective. this doctor told the heart-wrenching story of her addicted daughter's journey. and despite many efforts at treatment, her doctor repeatedly relapsed, eventually winding up homeless on the streets of burlington. her daughter is now two years into recovery and recently became a mother.

the cost of her intensive residential treatment was high. it draind -- it drained the docs retirement savings. but she wouldn't have it any other way. i wonder how much better we would have been if we had prevention clinics in place? i held a hearing in st. albans, vermont. again, standing-room only. i remember a noted pediatrician who spoke being with parents who he did not identify. he said they were well-off. he was telling us about the dangers of opioids and how teenagers can get addicted. they were shocked to hear this.

they said, thank you for telling us about this. we'll watch out for our daughter. he said, i've been treating your daughter for two years. she is he's a an -- she's an addict. you could hear a pin drop in that room. but she was get being treatment and many are not so fortunate. each day throughout our country, 129 people die from drug overdoses. this is not the future we want for our children and our grandchildren or our communities. i was proud to help usher cara through the senate. i will support it today. but i'm greatly disappointed that congress has so far refused to treat this public health crisis as seriously as it did the swine flu or ebola. i would urge all senators, don't go just to formal meetings, just

stand outside your local grocery stores. my wife, a registered nurse, and i often do. just talk with people. walk down the street and talk with people. you're going to find what vermonters know all too well: lives are at stake here, and time is of the essence. it's time for congress to act like it and fully fund cara. when marcel and i go home, we want to say that we are helping because, mr. president, we know some of these families personally. in a little state of only 600,000 people, you tend to know a lot of people. i've seen some of the finest families in our state devastated by this.

mr. president, i'm sure it's the same in your state, in every other state in this country, and we've got to represent the people from our states and help. mr. president, i ask consent my full statement be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. franken: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: i would ask to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: thank you,

mr. president. as our nation confronts what increasingly feels like a weakening of the bond between law enforcement and the communities that they serve, i rise to urge all of my colleagues to examine the relationship between police and communities of color. one year ago i joined the democratic members of the senate judiciary committee in urging our colleagues to convene hearings on this critical issue. the justice department had recently made public the frankly shocking findings of its investigation into the ferguson police department, in which it found that the city engaged in a pattern and practice of constitutional violations. but the judiciary committee, which has jurisdiction over

matters relating to civil liberties and criminal proceedings and entire subcommittees devoted exclusively to matters of crime and to the protection of constitutional rights, held no hearings on the broader issue. no proposals were debated by the full committee, no testimony heard. we had already lost eric garner and michael brown and tamir rice and freddie gray. and rather than honor our obligation to confront this problem head on, rather than engage in difficult conversations about race and about persistence inequality, we allowed these problems to be met with silence.

now it must be said we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave officers who work tirelessly to keep us safe from harm. they put their lives on the line to protect our safety and that of our families every day. but we are doing a disservice to the noble men and women of that profession and to the communities they serve by turning away from unpleasant facts and by refusing to talk about them. that sides of the aisle carries a terrible price. last week a 32-year-old man name philando castile was pulled over for driving with a broken taillight in falcon heights, minnesota. it was the 53rd time he had been pulled over in just a few short years. his girlfriend, diamond, was

beside him. her four-year-old daughter, day anna was in the back seat. we don't know precisely what happened. as philando castile spoke to the officer as he approached the car, we don't know what the two men said to each other but we know how that encounter ended. philando died after suffering multiple gunshot wounds. philando's community, our community in minnesota is devastated. that community involves philando castile's family, his loved ones, his friends. it also includes the staff and the children at the elementary school where philando worked. he knew them all by name. that includes the parents of those children, many of whom began the morning after his death by explaining to their

kids that phil wouldn't be at school anymore. but the impact of philando's death has been felt far beyond those who knew him. in dallas, as people seeking justice for philando and his family gathered in protest, a deeply troubled man murdered five members of a police force that shielded demonstrators from gunfire. and over the weekend, protests in st. paul took a vicious turn as protesters pelted police with rocks and chunks of concrete. such violence does not honor the lives of those we've lost. it does not advance the cause of justice. rather, violence makes it more difficult for our communities to begin the long and difficult

healing process. our communities are in pain from the suburbs of st. paul to downtown dallas, and it is our responsibility as lawmakers to do something about it. we cannot take the steps necessary to confront this challenge if we fear acknowledging that it exists. we cannot solve this problem without coming together as a nation to address and dismantle the systemic racial injustice the that lead to far too many of these deaths and to identify solutions. we cannot solve this problem if we run away from it. but running from it is precisely what this body will do in just a few short days the senate will adjourn for seven weeks, and during that time our communities

will continue to endure anguish and heartache and pain. i hope that every senator uses this time to meet with people who have been touched by these events and to better understand the challenges that we face and they face. and i urge them to join me in working to address them. when asked about her son's death, philando's mother said, all we want is justice. and she deserves nothing less. now, mr. president, i would like to turn to another important issue, the zika virus outbreak and its devastating impact on

families and, i hate to say this, the republican obstructionism that is preventing us from taking meaningful action to address this outbreak. as you know, mr. president, the zika virus is transmitted to people primarily through the bite of an infected mosquito, but it can also be transmitted through sexual contact, through blood transfusions or from mother to child. and while it typically causes no symptoms or mild illness in adults, we know -- we now know that a zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause microencephaly and other severe birth defects. in fact, the world health organization has declared this outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. in some countries, zika virus transmission is so high that

public health officials have asked women to delay their pregnancies. and while other countries are feeling the brunt of this outbreak, zika is also affecting us here at home. so far we have -- there have been over 1,100 people in the continental united states who have been affected by the zika virus while traveling to endemic countries. this includes 320 who are currently pregnant. and we're already seeing local transmission in u.s. territories where 2,500 additional people have been infected. and these are just the confirmed cases, mr. president. the actual number of those infected is likely to be much, much higher. this is why over 140 days ago president obama asked congress

for emergency funds to respond to the zika virus outbreak. his request drawing on the expertise of public health experts sought funds for things like mosquito control, vaccine and drug development, and diagnostics so that more people can get tested and receive their results faster. after weeks of deliberation, the senate eventually reached a bipartisan compromise. although we didn't get all the money we need to fight the virus, we did get $1.1 billion. democrats and republicans in the senate negotiated in good faith and got a bipartisan package that included important provisions to combat the zika virus. that's why 68 members of the united states senate, including 22 republicans, voted for the

senate bill. unfortunately, mr. president, that bipartisan spirit has not prevailed. as it turned out, republicans in the house of representatives delayed and then derailed this funding request. even though the senate passed a bipartisan compromise, house republicans, with support for republican senate negotiators, sent back a partisan package packed with ideological poison pill provisions. these included provisions that deliberately, deliberately blocked funds from going to family planning clinics that take away money from the continuing fight against ebola and even erode provisions of the clean water act. let me explain some of these provisions in more detail.

the bill the house and senate republican negotiators sent back to us limits women's access to contraceptive services. imagine that. at a time when many women have decided to delay their pregnancy out of fear of the zika virus, my republican colleagues are actively working to keep birth control out of reach. such provisions disproportionately harm low-income women who turn to safety net clinics like planned parenthood for birth control and for education on family planning. two weeks ago one of my republican leader colleagues addressed this issue on the floor of the senate, standing next to a photo of a baby girl with microencephaly. he argued that democratic objections to the bill were

fanciful and imagined. fanciful and imagined, and dismissed the idea that planned parenthood was deliberately targeted in this legislation since it was not mentioned by name in the text. but it is actually that contention that is fanciful. because of the way the legislation is crafted, it excludes family planning clinics like planned parenthood from receiving funds, this is particularly harmful in places like puerto rico, where infection rates are rising rapidly in high numbers of uninsured women need access to information about the virus as well as effective birth control. this kind of tactic is deeply counter productive. to combat this virus, we must rely on the strength of our

entire medical system, not sideline the country's most experienced family planning providers. second, republicans have criticized democrats for asking for more money describing our vote against their partisan package as disgraceful. disgraceful. let me describe what's disgraceful, mr. president. this republican bill, unlike any other recent emergency spending bill, actually takes money away from efforts to control ebola outbreaks, which is still active in africa. and in order to pay for zika. i'd like to remind my colleagues that a short time ago ebola ravaged west africa, affecting more than 28,000 people and killing over 11,000, making it

the deadliest ebola outbreak on record. while research is underway, we do not yet have a vaccine against this virus. and ebola is still an active threat. in fact, since the 2014 outbreak, there have been several new clusters of ebola virus due to the virus' persistence in survival. public health experts warn that this virus will return. the question is whether we will be ready. at this juncture it would be irresponsible to cut funding from ebola research, surveillance and public health infrastructure. the republican strategy to fight the zika virus would do just that. may i have another minute and a

half? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. franken: thank you. thank you, mr. president. finally, mr. president -- i was going to say finally anyway. finally, mr. president, the bill even waives perblting requirements when -- permitting requirements when it comes to applying pesticides in bodies of water. this was intended to protect people from toxic substances particularly pregnant women and children and other vulnerable populations, but my colleagues are mischaracterizing objections to this rider. one of my colleagues went to the senate floor recently and accused the democrats of being -- quote -- "more focused on protecting the mosquito than they are on protecting people." that is just absurd, mr. president. to sum up, mr. president, my democratic colleagues and i supported a senate bill to fund the fight against the

devastating disease, and republicans decided to politicize this issue by sending back a conference report that was filled with partisan policy riders. every day that we don't act, this virus continues to spread. and in the meantime the republican leader has not given any indication that he plans to change course. in fact, he says he plans to bring up the same exact partisan bill that was defeated last week. the president has already threatened to veto this bill, so another vote would be useless. i urge my republican colleagues please, please stop playing partisan politics. and let us pass something meaningful to address this crisis. thank you, mr. president, and i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. we are considering at the moment the reauthorization of the federal aviation administration, and i am disappointed by what we are about to do today, although at this point there appears to be no option. but this extension fails to accomplish significant and important reforms in the aviation world, and it's something we were able to do, should have been able to do, almost accomplished, and as a

result of our failure, i will oppose the reauthorization legislation we will vote on in just a few moments. mr. president, three weeks ago, i came to the senate floor to express my concern with what was happening, and my plea and request of our house colleagues was for them to act on the f.a.a. reauthorization bill as the senate sent it to them, the f.a.a. reauthorization act of 2016, which in april passed the united states senate by the unusual vote of 95 votes in favor. broadly supported. i serve on the commerce committee, mr. president, and chairman thune and ranking memberson worked hard with all of us on that committee to see that a wide variety of interests, a wide variety of opportunities were explored for

us to make improvements in the world of aviation. mr. president, the way it works is that we have a piece of legislation that's in effect that will soon expire and we're up against a deadline for that extension, but we knew that, and in fact we went to work early. the senate commerce committee began hearings a long time ago, months ago. we worked hard to find consensus, and we did, and our product came to the senate floor, not just with a simple reauthorization of the federal aviation administration, but with items that were so important to this country's economy, to those who utilize general aviation to communities who care about their local airports and to those in my case in kansas who care about how many jobs we have and can continue to have and how many more we can create as a result

of the manufacturing of aircraft in this country. so we did what we're supposed to do in the united states senate. we worked together. we found solutions. we found compromises. we passed legislation overwhelmingly. unfortunately when it went to the house of representatives, no action was taken in the house, and as i say the clock is ticking, and the f.a.a. will no longer cease to have -- no longer continue to have authority, legal authority to exist. so once again, as has happened in years gone by, we're left with a take it or leave it situation. we either take the house-passed extension or the f.a.a. shuts down. no need for us to be in the position that we're in today. and the extension that we're going to vote on will be missing many, many important provisions

included in the senate-passed bill. my perspective on this certainly is as a kansan, but it matters no matter what state you live in. kansas is an aviation state. general aviation is our state's largest industry and our largestary city is wichita -- largest city is wichita, which is appropriately known as the air capital of the world. kansas aviation workers have supplied three out of every four general aviation aircraft since the wright brothers' first flight at kitty talk, and today some 42,000 kansans make a living manufacturing, operating and servicing the world's highest quality aircraft. so, mr. president, what is the f.a.a. reauthorization, the extension that we are about to vote on have to do with those jobs in kansas, what does it have to do with jobs in this country? if we have a goal that we ought to be working together to

achieve, it would create more opportunities for more americans to have better jobs. we need and we all know it, we need a strong manufacturing sector in this economy, and yet we will fail to take advantage of the opportunity to increase the chances of more manufacturing jobs, more general aviation jobs, more airplane manufacturing jobs in the united states or more jobs for americans, better jobs for americans, more secure jobs for americans because we aren't able to do today, the house was unwilling to include in the extension those things that increase the chances that the aviation industry in our country can better compete with those in a global economy that are competitors. what the manufacturing side of aviation needs, what aviation manufacturers in kansas need is the ability to compete in a global marketplace so that the industry remains our country's number-one net exporter. this requires significant

reforms at the f.a.a., particularly in their certification process, and improvements in the regulatory environment. these provisions that are so helpful were contained not just in the senate-passed bill but also in the original house f.a.a. bill which was approved by the house transportation and infrastructure committee earlier in the spring. so here we have a situation in which the house transportation committee, the senate commerce committee, in fact the full senate approves things that matter greatly to our country, and most importantly to its workers, and yet today we come to the senate with a little or or -- relatively simple extension that ignores those important reforms and improvements. these provisions that are not included in this extension would streamline aircraft certification, significantly improving efficiency and better focus the f.a.a.'s valuable resources someplace else. these reforms would have had a

positive impact upon our economy, on job security and job creation. both the house and senate recognize the importance of this issue and advance nearly identical certification reform language, but as i said for some reason that language no longer appears in this bill. in addition to certification, there is lots of other issues that we agreed upon among members of our committee and among members of the united states senate. overwhelmingly popular bipartisan provisions were included in this bill originally here in the senate but not included now in this simple extension, including things like strengthening our contract tower program which is so important particularly to rural communities. again, while i come from a state in which we manufacture planes, i also represent a state in which general aviation, our pilots and the airports which they utilize are important to communities across my state as we again try to compete in a

global economy. the ability to bring a business customer to a small community that has a manufacturing plant that is dependent upon airport and air services. the language from section 1204 of the senate-passed bill would have significantly reformed the cost-benefit eligibility rules for contract towers. again, this is a way we provide air safety for communities that are small and have small airports. strengthening this program and providing certainty once and for all for the 253 contract towers that handle nearly one-third of our tower operations nationwide. good idea, broadly supported, supported in the house and the transportation committee, supported in the senate and the commerce committee and on the senate floor but not included in today's simple extension. apparently, the reasons these important reforms were excluded was so that they could at a later date be used as a

political bargaining chip. the house held these popular reforms hostage in an attempt to gain leverage and to later promote an effort to privatize our nation's air traffic control system. putting on hold these long overdue, noncontroversial certification reforms, contract tower programs and others, congress is damaging the business aviation industry and the people who work therein. not too long ago, i spoke on this floor, defending general aviation from the obama administration's repeated attempts to end the accelerated depreciation schedule for general aviation aircraft. the proposal came in my view in a clever political sound bite, so-called the corporate jet loophole, but in reality what it would have meant is thousands of

jobs gone, the employment lines longer. the president's proposal would have accomplished nothing for the economy, not even a meaningful increase in tax revenues and only would have hurt 1.2 million americans who make their living building and servicing airplanes. which makes it all the more disappointing. it's one thing for me to come to the senate floor and complain about an obama administration proposal, but today i come to the senate floor to complain about a republican-controlled house that was unable to take advantage of an opportunity to pass a strong long-term reauthorization bill and instead leave us with a simple short-term extension. i, of course, and believe this fully, that the leadership of my commerce committee, chairman thune, ranking member nelson worked so hard at crafting this senate-passed f.a.a. bill.

i'm here in support of their efforts and express my disappointment that their efforts were not rewarded by the house of representatives. i regret that because we did not have a willing partner in the house, we are left with a watered down extension so that we can further entertain other ideas at some other point in time while uncertainty continues, and while that uncertainty continues, the rest of the world can advance their efforts, particularly in airplane manufacturing, while we wait for improvements, efficiencies and modernization in our own. while we wait for congress to do its work, the rest of the world moves on, the potential of taking away jobs from the manufacturing sector here in the united states. americans rightfully can expect, should expect and do expect leadership from their officials here in washington, and at a time when this partisan dysfunction puts us in places in

which we constantly find barriers in the legislative process, it sure seems to me to be a waste that this opportunity to pass meaningful bipartisan reforms and improvements that could have an immediate positive impact on our economy is foregone. we have enough other problems around here in the way this place works. here we had, in my view, a chance to grasp victory for the american people, for its workers and for our economy, and we failed to do it. and in the process and as a result of that failure, the ability of american manufacturers to create jobs is diminished and kansans are more at risk for their futures as a result of our failure to do our jobs. mr. president, i thank you for the opportunity of addressing my colleagues in the united states senate. i express my dissatisfaction and disappointment with the end product, recognizing the

circumstance we now find ourselves in, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i rise to talk about the passage that we're going to be voting on of the f.a.a. authorization, and i thank the senator for being here and talking about aviation in general and aviation manufacturing. he comes from a strong aviation manufacturing state, and so i certainly support many of the things that he said. i certainly support making sure that we continue to streamline our process, and this is one of the things left out in this legislation, so we need to do more on that effort and certainly don't want people demonizing any aspect of aviation because they are all aviation jobs and people don't realize how many aviation jobs we have in the united states of america and the fact that we are still the top when it comes to aviation manufacturing jobs, and

it shouldn't be a sector that we relent on, so we have a lot of work to do. i would add to that list, though, the passage of the export-import bank board members so the export-import bank can be functioning so that we could actually approve aviation sales when we get them done, and this is for smaller aircraft or larger aircraft, it doesn't matter. but if we build the best product, we ought to be able to sell the best product around the globe, and we're still stuck on getting that nominee out of committee, because of someone holding it up, and the fact that they're holding it up means that we will go many, many more months without completing airplane sales. mr. president, i want to talk about some other provisions we are passing today. i'm proud to have worked with the chairman of the committee who i just saw pass here on the floor. i'm sure he's going to speak in a moment and the ranking member on very important aspects of aviation security. first of all, we're doubling the number of terrorist deterrent teams at u.s. airports and ground transportation. now, these t.s.a. inspector

teams as you can see are people who are very involved in making sure that we enhance security at our airports. and this is a very important aspect of this legislation because we saw these tragic events in brussels and istanbul. and we saw that terrorists can attack us not just on an airplane or inside the security perimeter but outside. and so i think this legislation thanks to chairman thune and ranking member nelson are giving us the work force that we need to enhance the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, strengthen the perimeter security, expand training, respond to active shooter attacks, and to make sure that the outer limits of our airport are also secure. so i'm proud that many of these provisions that we passed out of the commerce committee are contained in this legislation, and that it is doubling the number of these t.s.a. viper teams that conduct controls and

make sure that our passengers are secure. these teams consist of a combination of law enforcement, inspectors, explosive specialists, and as i mentioned, the bomb-sniffing dogs which what's so important about those dogs is that they're onef our best deter rents to picking up explosive material and tracking down people and this is what we need to have at our airports. so i want to thank again the chairman thune and ranking member nelson for putting this in. by combining these law enforcement and canine capability, it's providing another layer of security at our airports. we've seen at seatac the use of dogs helping us expedite our security lanes at seatac, the busiest airport now in the country as far as increase in volume. and we need to have more of these dogs outside on the perimeter as well. so this will give us a visible deterrent and help us in

protecting the much needed continuation of air transportation travel. i also want to mention a couple of other things that are in this legislation. the check point of the future and making sure that we are steamlining our security check points. we've been proud to work with the pacific northwest labs in richland-washington where critical work is under way in detecting technologies that is making new detections, and this legislation contains the extension of an important aviation safety item. 136 airports across the country have automated weather equipment, but they need weather observers to make these around-the-clock observations. at spokane international airport this is a vital tool and we're so glad i was able to work with senator moran and others in keeping this on. finally, we addressed the extension of critical upcoming shortage of air traffic controllers by making improvements to the f.a.a. hiring process and creating a path forward like those at the green river college in washington state. so i thank again chairman thune

and ranking member nelson for these inclusions and their work. we obviously have much more work to do to maintain our aviation infrastructure and we'll look forward to getting those done in the very near future. i thank the president and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection? without objection thune mr. president, i rise today too to discuss the air travel benefits that are included in the bipartisan aviation reform agreement that was negotiated with the house of representatives. last week senator bill nelson, the ranging member on the senate commerce committee and i reached accord on a way forward with house transportation infrastructure committee chairman bill schuster and ranking member peter defazio. our agreement presents an opportunity for the senate to break the pattern of short-term extensions for the federal aviation administration that have not included any meaningful reform. the aviation bill that the senate passed by a vote of 95-3

in april was a larger and granted more comprehensive bill than the agreement that came out of our negotiations with the house. it contained provisions that were added by members in the commerce committee and on the senate floor that we remain committed to enacting. nevertheless we knew that certain safety and security reforms just couldn't wait until next year for the process to restart. we looked at the isis attacks in airports in brussels and istanbul as well as the drowning -- or downing i should say of a russian jetliner leaving egypt. we knew that there were meaningful reforms that could help efforts to prevent these kinds of attacks here in america. and so we acted. to address the threat of an insider working at an airport helping terrorist, the aviation reform agreement now before the senate enhances requirements and vetting for airport workers with access to secure areas. it expands the use of random and physical inspections of airport workers in secure areas and requires a are he view of

perimeter security -- review of perimeter security. responding to isis demonstrated interest in far getting unsecure areas of airports, the aviation reform bill includes provisions to enhance the security presence of units that can include canines and other personnel and prescreening airport areas and it increases preparedness for active shooter incidents. because some international airports abroad operating nonstop flights to the united states airports lack the security equipment and expertise of u.s. and other state of the art airports, the bill authorizes t.s.a. to donate unneeded security equipment to foreign airports with direct flights to the united states, permits increased cooperation between u.s. officials and partner nations, and require as new assessment of foreign cargo security programs. this bill which the house passed earlier this week recognizes the long t.s.a. lines aren't only an inconvenience delay for passengers trying to catch flights but they can lead to

large crowds in unsecured airport areas that create a target for terrorists. to address these line, the bill includes the t.s.a. prechecked enhancement act which will help enroll more americans in expedited security screening and reduce waits by vetting more passengers before they arrive to get them through check points quickly. beyond question, safety and security needs drove the effort to finish this 14-month aviation reauthorization. the result i can confidently say ended up being the most significant airport security reform bill in over a decades. our bipartisan, bicameral bill is good legislation that guards against the threat of terrorism, provides stability for the u.s. aviation system, and boosts safety and consumer protections for airline passengers. mr. president, as we prepare for a vote on this important bill, i want to urge my colleagues to support this bill that we carefully crafted over the past several months with our house

counterparts that keeps the american people protected from terrorists, makes air travel safer and more secure, and addresses an issue of importance to all americans. again, mr. president, i want to thank the ranking member on our committee senator nelson, senators ayotte and cantwell, the chair and ranking member on the aviation subcommittee who were very involved in crafting this legislation and of course the great work of our staffs who put in countless hours to get us to where we are today, not only moving the original bill across the senate floor back in april but also in negotiations with the house of representatives to produce a result that i think we can all be proud of and that puts us on a path toward a more safer travel opportunity for people in this country who use our airlines to get to their destinations. so, mr. president, i hope that we'll have a big vote, a bipartisan vote in support of this bipartisan legislation. with that i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president, i would ask for the yeas and nays on the legislation. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the motion. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: