quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator south dakota. nor senator are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. a senator: i would ask that it be eliminated. the presiding officer: without objection. nor senator i rise to speak oneth -- a senator: i rise to speak on the regimenttory reform. also the work we have been done on regulatory oversight, of which i have had the great privilege to chair in the 114th congress. i would -- i would be remiss if i did not also recognize our ranking member from massachusetts, senator markey, for his contribution toss our oversight efforts. mr. rounds: one of my main goals as a marathon is to conduct a thorough and systematic review of the regulatory process, focusing on the impacts of these regulations on citizens and businesses and most importantly

solutions to these problems. we have sought to make certain federal regulations are promulgated in a transparent, open process with adequate public participation. our subcommittee has held hearings in conducting oversight on various aspects of the rule-making process. this includes the adequacy of the sciences the agencies rely on when promulgating regulations, the increasing number of unfunded mandates agencies impose on state and local governments, the impact of lawsuits on the rule-making process and the impacts these regulations have on small businesses, state and local governments and landowners. since i began working in the senate nearly two years ago, it has become increasingly clear that economic growth, american innovation and job creation are being smothered by heavy-handed federal regulations imposed by washington bureaucrats who think they know what's best for american families, states, local governments and businesses. according to the american action forum, since 2009, this

administration has finalized 2,973 regulations at a cost of $862.7 billion as of today, these 7. of these, 179 regulations have come from the environmental protection agency, costing american taxpayers $342.5 billion. now, since writing this speech or beginning to write it about one week ago, ten more regulations have been finalized with five of those coming from the e.p.a. e.p.a. regulations alone make up nearly half of the cost of all the regulations finalized in the last seven years. as chairman of the e.p.w. subcommittee on superfund, waste management and regulatory oversight, it has become clear to me that the e.p.a. is one of the most egregious government agencies in imposing burdensome federal regulations on citizens, states and businesses. we have found a failure to review the most current and important science that the

agency supposedly bases its regulations on. we have found that the sioux ans process utilized by special interest groups leads to a reckless special interest process that does not follow the regulatory process or allow for adequate public participation from those these rules will impact the most. further, the e.p.a. regularly fails to take into account how their regulations will impact states and shows little regard to how the states will use their limited resources to comply with these regulations, thereby issuing rules that impose federal unfunded mandates on states, local and tribal governments. from 2009-2015, the e.p.a. issued a total of 19 rules that contain costly unfunded mandates on state governments. the office of management and budget's 2015 report to congress estimated federal regulations and unfunded mandates cost states, cities and the general public between $57 billion and

$85 billion every single year. state and local governments are then required to enforce these misguided regulations that have been promulgated by washington bureaucrats who lack any understanding of the real-world consequences of their regulations or the unique characteristics of the various states. alarmingly, we have also found that the e.p.a. regularly fails to conduct a thorough and accurate economic analysis which should provide an accurate representation of the costs our regulations will impose on taxpayers and businesses. this leads to grossly inaccurate economic analysis of regulations that affect huge swaths of the u.s. economy and thousands of u.s. businesses and american jobs. a 2014 report from the government accountability office found that on multiple occasions and with major costly regulations, the e.p.a. did not provide the public with an explanation of the economic information behind its decisionmaking despite its obligations to do so. the u.s. supreme court recently

issued the michigan v. paper disoition find -- versus e.p.a. decision. this impacts the ability of our businesses to conduct business on a daily basis, to compete in a competitive global marketplace and employ americans in steady well-paying jobs. notably, small businesses make up 99.7% of the u.s. employer firms, and federal regulations, federal agencies are required by law to examine the impact of their regulations and what it will have on small businesses. throughout our oversight process, we have found that the u.s. small business administration office of advocacy submitted comments to the e.p.a. expressing concerns over a number of recent rule makings such as the waters of the u.s. rule and the e.p.a.'s greenhouse gas regulations. however, the e.p.a. moved forward with these regulations with little to no regard for their impact on the u.s. small

businesses. they are the backbone of the u.s. economy. as a result, rather than creating jobs and growing their business, u.s. small businesses are forced to use limited resources to comply with a myriad of costly and burdensome regulations. this year alone, the sixth circuit court of appeals imposed a nationwide injunction on the waters of the u.s. rule and the supreme court imposed a nationwide stay on the clean power plan. while i applaud these decisions, we should not be forced to rely on the courts to prevent such regulations from taking effect. i am also deeply troubled by the reports that the e.p.a. and the army corps are illegally continuing to implement the waters of the u.s. rule despite the court's nationwide stay. during our subcommittee field hearings in rapid city, south dakota, earlier this year, we heard from several witnesses will the difficulty and confusion landowners are facing with regard to the waters of the u.s. i am concerned that if this continues, it may get to the

point that the property that is subject to these burdensome regulations loses its value. make no mistake, i understand that rules and regulations have a place in society. we all want clean air, clean water and safe chemicals, but there is a better way to achieve this without imposing burdensome regulations. these flaws in the e.p.a.'s rule-making agencies have prevented agencies from making well-informed decisions. even more troubling, the public, state and local governments and the american businesses are prevented from understanding the need, basis for and the real impact of regulations. this regulatory quagmire did not happen oversight. it comes from decades of increased federal bureaucracy, out-of-control spending and federal agencies not being held accountable for their actions. similarly, we will not come to a solution overnight. it will take a serious bipartisan effort to move the ball forward to address this problem. throughout this congress, the goal of our committee has been to unify and lead an effort,

advance meaningful regulatory reform in congress. we must make certain the regulatory process reflects transparency and sound science and is based on a realistic economic foundation and meaningful public participation that considers the multitude of facets of the u.s. economy. with an ally in the white house next year who has committed to reducing burdensome regulations, i plan to continue this effort throughout the next congress and beyond. the success of the united states economy and the creation of american jobs depends on congress making a concerted effort to take back their authority and rein in the rule-making process. mr. president, i thank you and i yield the floor. a senator: would the senator yield? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. politburo inhofe: thank -- mr. : thank you, if you would rescind your request to yield the floor, i would like to share one thought with you. mr. inhofe: first of all, i'm

honored to chair the committee, which you are a subcommittee chairman. what a god send you have been, i have to say to my friend from south dakota. but i was concerned with this last election coming along with what might be happening. i think people were aware of what's happened to our military. they are aware of what's happening to the debt going all the way up from $10.6 trillion to $20 trillion, the largest increase, all the presidents from george washington, george the first. my concern was that people wouldn't realize what an impairment the overregulation had been to our businesses, how we're no longer competitive. and i would say i think you have really struck the note here that it had a lot to do with the awareness of the public. you know how many hearings we had on the clean power plan in our committee and your subcommittee. we actually had ten hearings.

we had three oversight reports. and i have to say this. liberals really, they like overregulation. you know why? this is the question i want to ask you. because generally the people, if you are of a liberal philosophy, you want to have as much control centered here in washington, d.c. however, when you get home and they get complaints about the overregulation of what it's costing them, they say that's not the case now, because i had nothing to do. that was the regulation. boy, that's what we're in the midst of right now. i have a friend who is the head of the oklahoma farm bureau who came to me and he said have you seen this document that we have. this is true in south dakota as well as oklahoma, that the major problem with the farmers in america today are not anything that's found in the bill. it's overregulation primarily of the e.p.a., and you struck a nerve when you said the waters

bill, the waters of the united states. my state is an arid state, but they know full well if the federal government can take away from states that jurisdiction of regulating water, what will happen to our state of oklahoma. so anyway, i -- i would ask my friend, i think a lot of what happened on november 8 has to do with overregulation, and i think that we have really been -- devoted a lot of time to that. i suspect the same thing's true in south dakota. mr. rounds: thank you, senator, for the question. the answer is yes, we have spent a lot of time on it because it is critically a very important item to address because in the united states today, we have spent over $1.9 trillion a year responding to the federal regulatory morass which we have. $1.9 trillion, that's a half a trillion dollars more than what we pay in personal income taxes on april 15. for people that are producers to have to respond not only in terms of the cost of the regulation but in terms of

requesting from a federal agency the ability simply to mold the ditches seems to me to be overreach that most people with common sense and the rest of america don't think is necessary. mr. inhofe: too, i would say the wisdom of the state was brought out, if you stop and think about it, over half of the states had a lawsuit against the clean power plan, that's 29 states. and of course that, i'm sure, had a lot to do with the united states supreme court putting a stay on this. now of course we'll have a different administration, but that was -- i guess maybe we missed the boat on that one. but the regulation has been the problem. people have not been as aware of that as they are with the other problems, and i think that had a lot to do with what happened on november 8 and what's going to happen in the future, particularly in your subcommittee and my committee. mr. rounds: thank you, senator. i appreciate your comments, and i appreciate the facts that you're bringing out here, and this is something that cannot be

done oversight. it has to be done in a business-like manner. but the real challenge here is to listen to those individuals who are impacted and to make reasonable regulations that we all want, to make sure that we have a clean america but also an america that can get back to business again and can employ people, put them back to work and begin building an economy so that we can afford to actually provide for the next generation so they don't have the problems that we see right now with family income down over 6% in just the last nine years. so this this is a part of it. it's a significant part not just in the cost but in the impact, on the impact in our economy as well. thank you, sir. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business and i would ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that our distinguished colleague from colorado, senator bennet, follow me. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. wyden: mr. president, right now this evening hundreds of thousands of vulnerable youngsters across america are living in foster care, separated from family and growing up in a constant struggle instead of in a loving home. for years this body has worked on a bipartisan basis to come up with an alternative. we call it the family first legislation in order to give new hope to our youngsters. i'm particularly grateful to senator bennet because he and i have teamed up on this. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, chairman hatch, kevin brady, the chairman of

the ways and means committee, congressman buchanan, we have had a bipartisan phalanx working for this. and now in the waning moments of this congress, after the legislation passed the house unanimously, after there were hearings in the finance committee, a number of them, and no objections were raised, after we used the process here in the senate called the hotline to see if senators had probz -- problems with this legislation, three indicated they had concerns and we resolved all of them. and yet, it looks like this senate is going to go home and end up continuing a policy that causes so much pain to vulnerable children and their families.

what our bipartisan bill would do would be to say that for the first time, foster care dollars could be used to keep families together instead of ripping them apart. for example, if in a family a parent has bumped up against substance abuse challenges or mental health services or a grandparent or an uncle would like to help out, that's exactly what could be done under our proposal. now, over thanksgiving -- and again i've sort of truncated the description of what happened into just a couple of sentences. over thanksgiving the family first act was included in the 21st century cures package, the legislation passed earlier

today. and all of us -- senator bennet, chairman brady, all of us said together it sure looks like we're on our way. but after having months to come forward to work out concerns -- and i will say the distinguished president of the senate has been kind enough to talk to me about this -- we basically said that if a state is having problems meeting these kinds of opportunities, perhaps that there aren't enough families, well, we just give them more time. in effect, we'd say okay, you made a good-faith effort. we'll give you a bit more time. but still at the last moment there was opposition that swooped in, opposition that really hadn't registered any specific concerns during those years and months in which we worked on this legislation.

and at the 11th hour the family first act was stripped out of the cures package. that's why i voted "no." by dropping family first, the senate basically is sending a message today to the most vulnerable, neglected children in america that it's just fine with us if they just wait a little bit longer. they probably are saying, well, where else do we look for help? by the way, there aren't a lot of places because chairman brady , chairman buchanan, congressman levin, the other part of the capitol did a terrific job, a terrific job coming together. so when those families, those families that have been neglected go looking for somebody else to help, when the house has done its job and the administration is with you, there's only the united states

senate. and i'm curious whether anybody's going to come here tonight, mr. president, and say they're not on the side of the neglected youngsters and families senator bennet and i want to stand up for. so i'm going to just make a couple of additional comments and then turn this over to senator bennet. what the family first act does is it reaches out, reaches out to the families that are struggling with addiction to opioid or other substances. it helps with programs that fight child abuse and neglect. and it also makes it a special priority to set standards, basic standards for foster care facilities and group homes. and i want to emphasize that point just for a moment. some troubled or abused youngsters have been through such severe trauma that they need the help, the kind of help you can only get in a temporary

high-quality treatment facility. they are kids who are struggling with mental illnesses or behavioral problems, young people suffering from addiction, victims of sex trafficking. the support they need is unique. they need access to reliable care in a safe place. but these kinds of placements shouldn't be a destination. they should really be an intervention. and whenever you can make it possible for the kids to have the opportunity to reunite with kin or join a foster or adoptive family. for the first time our bill lays down a road map so that youngsters don't have to face the prospect of growing up in the kinds of struggling circumstances i've described. there would be standards guided by the states and laid out to

protect the kids. they'd raise the bar for group homes and make sure that kids aren't sent away and forgotten. and in effect what the bill does is it turns the system on its head. i think i shared that thought with the distinguished president in the senate. instead of paying $1 for families to be split up, the bill says let's find a way to use that dollar to help the families stay together. let's see if the dollar can keep a youngster safe at home or with kin where he or she is most likely to be healthy and happy and succeed in school. the bill has 28 bipartisan cosponsors in the senate. i also want to thank chairman grassley because he has been in our corner along with senator bennet and chairman hatch month after month after month. colleagues, i hope we can work

this out overnight so that families first can pass. if not tonight, in the morning. it's the right policy for vulnerable kids. it's the right policy for families, the right policy for taxpayers. because what we're doing today isn't helping vulnerable kids and families the way it ought to. 500 organizations -- 500, mr. president, led by the pediatricians, nurse practitioners, the catholic bishops, the children's defense fund, all agree with our basic premise. try to find ways to keep families together and only look for something elsewhere you have those extraordinary circumstances where you need another kind of care. the status quo is not working. and it seems to me we have a choice.

we have a choice tonight and in the morning with 114th congress wrapping up, closing the books, packing up, heading home for the holiday season, let's make sure before that wrap-up is finished, we haven't forgotten vulnerable children and families. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and i note by virtue of unanimous consent that senator bennet has got recognition. he's been an invaluable colleague, a terrific member of the finance committee. i appreciate all his leadership. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: mr. president, thank you, mr. president. i'm going to be brief. i wanted to thank senator wyden, the senator from oregon, the ranking member of the finance committee, for his leadership on this bill. i want to thank, as he did, senator hatch for his leadership on this bill; senator grassley for his leadership on this bill.

as the senator from oregon indicated, this bill has passed unanimously in the house of representatives. the bill passed with 500 groups supporting the bill from every geography in the united states. there are groups from oregon. there are groups from colorado. there are groups in the presiding officer's state who have weighed in on this and said we should have this legislation passed. we have had testimony in the finance committee from people that were foster children, who came to the congress to testify about what had gone wrong in their lives as a result of the system that we have in place today, who still made the time to come here, to advocate on behalf of children all over the country who are situated in this same way they once were. and now because of a disagreement in the senate, this bipartisan bill that passed

the house unanimously, that has almost 30 cosponsors in the united states senate, a bill that was supported universally by the testimony that we had in the finance committee somehow can't get done before we leave for the holidays. that would be a terrible shame, a terrible stain on this senate. tonight there are 50,000 children in colorado that are in foster care. there are over 650,000 children in the united states of america. and what we have heard from them , what we have heard from their advocates, what we have heard from people who serve them, republicans and democrats alike, is that the institutional settings that too many of them are consigned to because of the way the law is written today is not the best

thing for foster children. the families that can support them and that can nurture them when they get the benefit of some help are a far better place for foster children to be than these institutions. when it comes to drug addiction, when it comes to graduation rates from a high school, when it comes to attend ance to college, all of these things are affected by the way the current law exists. mr. president, you may know that half of the cases of foster children in the united states are related one way or another to discourage the opioid addiction that's happening in the united states. this bill allows us to recognize, it allows the people that served the children and the families best to be able to intervene in a way that can keep the families together longer. and what we know from the

testimony in the hearing is that that's the best thing for foster kids. it's the best thing for our states, and it's the best thing for the country. so i join my colleague from oregon in saying we should not go home with this unresolved. we should not go home with the kind of momentum that exists for this bill. inside the congress and much more important than that, outside the congress without having addressed this vulnerable population of people that live in the united states. and it is my fervent hope that we in the senate will find a way to come to our senses and do our job just as the people who came here to testify did their job, expecting that the united states congress would respond to their description of their life experience and what went wrong in a foster care setting that's been established by the united states congress. it's up to us to fix it, and that's what we could do tonight

or tomorrow morning, i hope, at the very latest. with that, mr. president, i thank my colleague from oregon for his leadership on this bill. i thank once again the chairman, the thoughtful chairman of the finance committee, orrin hatch from utah for his leadership on this bill. i hope over the next 12 or 24 hours we find a way to get this through the senate. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, on this pearl harbor day, we should learn the lessons of the past.

and seize new opportunities for america in asia and beyond. the great lesson of pearl harbor, and more broadly world war ii, was america's commitment to utterly defeat our enemies by whatever means necessary. and then, when victory was secure, to bring them back into the community of civilized nations. it was an extraordinary achievement. to think that if on december 7, 1941, i was to tell you that japan would be on december 7, 2016, a staunchly democratic ally, a vital security and economic partner to the united states, you would have said that i was barking mad. but here we are. three quarters of a century later, and the day of infamy has become a day of remembrance, reflection and above all

gratitude, gratitude for that greatest of generations who answered the call to service after pearl harbor, who stood staunchly with our allies, looked the evil axis squarely in the eyes and saved the free world. they are leaving us now, making it all the more important that we assure each and every one of them of our boundless thanks while we still can. and indeed, i would encourage each and every one of us to thank every veteran we know, every veteran we encounter, every man and woman serving this country who risks their lives to keep us safe. we can also find much to be thankful for today as what had seemed unthinkable has come to pass, that a nation that brutally attacked us 75 years ago today can now be a great and

good friend. it is a tribute to both the japanese and the american people that we have been able to not ignore or whitewash the past, but to learn from it, and to come to the understanding that we are so much stronger as allies than as adversaries. as a texan, i am personally appreciative of the fruits of this alliance. we host a range of japanese companies who have invested in our state. with toyota, for example, building its new north american headquarters in plano this year, creating 4,000 new jobs, all in texas. and also this year the lockheed martin plan in fort worth has started to produce the f-35 that japan is purchasing to bolster its defenses against increasing regional aggression from china and north korea.

so against all odds, the attack on pearl harbor has been transformed, and as we face great challenges around the world, and particularly in asia, we can be grateful today to have our japanese friends standing by our side. which is yet another lesson from the post-world war ii era. to be on the lookout, not just for challenges and dangers, but for unexpected opportunities. we might be forgiven as we contend with hostile nations with nuclear capability or intent, nations like north korea or iran, to see a glass half empty and become consumed with fears of another pearl harbor-like attack potentially so much more catastrophic and deadly than the one in 1941. but that would be a mistake as with some of the fortitude our

parents and grandparents showed, we can now count new allies as our partners. not just in japan but also and equally stunningly germany. and the list does not end there. we have israel, which had yet to be born in 1941. not to mention the eastern and central european countries that languished so long under soviet domination but now are helping build enduring democracies, many of which have joined nato. now, that's simply amazing. if i told you even 30 years ago that there would be a czech republic or a republic of poland that would be key nato allies, i would have again been met with well-founded skepticism. but they are. and as we look forward to a new american administration, it is

my hope that we can get off on a much better foot than the last one did in the region when they canceled the missile defense installations intended for those countries, squandering an opportunity to link them more closely to us. and i have to say i am encouraged in this department by the activities of the president-elect, particularly in terms of the congratulatory phone call he received last week from the president of the republic of china, si is anyi. the liberal policy elites were of course shocked and appalled. how, they wondered, could the president-elect have committed such an appalling gaffe? wasn't he aware that we had degraded our relationship with taiwan for more than 35 years and no longer recognized this friendly, prosperous and democratic country as a nation state?

come pounding their consternation was the concern that the people's republic of china might not like it. kem horrer, the chinese might not like it. now, to be fair, given the flaming train wreck that is the obama foreign policy writ large, our relationship with the p.r.c. is by comparison a bright spot. all they've done is throw mr. obama's successor as nobel peace laureate, lou xiabo into prison, constructed 3,000 acres of weaponized artificial islands in the middle of one of the world's busiest shipping lanes and utterly failed to contain north korea while dismantling the last vestiges of freedom in hong kong. even so, i don't think our

president-elect needs to clear his phone calls with beijing. the phone call between president xi and the new american president was in fact an acknowledgements of simple truth that taiwan has become an important friend to the united states even after jimmy carter downgraded them in 1979 in acknowledging the -- quote -- "one china policy" that the elites are so eager to perpetuate. and that's another thing. just because a policy is old doesn't make it sacrosanct. i don't think anyone here can honestly say our relations with the p.r.c. are so fantastic that we shouldn't do anything to rock the boat. i don't think the carter era foreign policy was such a success that we should unquestioningly continue it. and i hope that the president-elect continues to make clear that while he

understands the importance of china and looks forward to a positive relationship with beijing, he's not going to ignore our friends in the region. the call between president xi and the president-elect reminded me of another phone call which took place in september of 2013. at the end of that year's united nations general assembly in new york, while driving to the airport, the new president of the islamic republic of iran assan rouhani took out his cell phone and called president obama. the obama administration was in a tizzy of excitement over mr. rouhani's election as they believed him to be a -- quote unquote -- moderate who would be a good-faith partner in their planned and hoped-for negotiations over iran's nuclear program. but even at this early day the signs were not promising.

despite mr. obama's offers, president rouhani had refused to take a face-to-face meeting at the united nations, opting for a call instead. there were no preconditions placed on this first direct exchange between an iranian and american leader since 1979, such as, say, demanding that the iranians release their american hostages and acknowledging israel's right to exist. steps that would have indicated a fundamental shift in iran's virulent hostility to the united nations -- the united states, rather, and our allies. and suggested we truly were on a new path. and we all know what has happened over the last three years as the obama administration made concession after concession to get a deal, any deal with tehran. even as iranian belligerents and hostility had grown, as they

tested ballistic missiles, violated the joint comprehensive plan of action, detained our citizens and repeatedly threatened to wipe israel off the map, mr. obama has over and over again proffered his hand in friendship, even sending them $1.7 billion in cash as a sweetener. all of which may well result, as i said earlier, in a terrible threat to the united states that could dwarf pearl harbor. but in closing, i want to leave you with a message of hope. our friendship with japan as well as with germany, with israel, the czech republic and poland, those make me hopeful. there is a discreet reason these nations are now aligned allies.

the persistence and resolve of american leadership. leadership to discern moral from immoral, freedom from tyranny, right from wrong, life from death. and then to fight for the right. such leadership has been sorely lacking in the past eight years. yet the past month for its ample reason for hope, quite frankly, i think talking to president xi and not to president rouhani was a material improvement for the national security interest of the united states and it demonstrates renewed resolve to assume once more the mantle of leadership. that's enough to make all of us hopeful. and with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i would ask consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president nrks a moment i'm going to ask -- mr. president, in a moment i'm going to ask unanimous consent to pass the bipartisan families first act to help the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children and their parents stay together and make the biggest improvement in child well their policy in decades and decades in america. right now federal policy says taxpayer money can be used to split families apart and uproot the family home.

with families first, our bipartisan bill and terrific work has been done by so many members on both sides of the aisle. senator bennet was here, gave an eloquent address about how important this is. chairman hatch, chairman grassley, chairman brady. this has been a bipartisan effort for months for a number of members for close to three years. and with our reform, the families first bill, families will finally see that they will get some assistance to stay together and stay together when it's safe to do so. if a parent can get a leg up with some help if they faced a drug addiction or a mental health problem, everybody wins, mr. president, because the

family stays together. if a grandparent can step in, one of the things i'm proudest of, mr. president, is i wrote the kinshi kinship cara law as f the welfare reform when i was a new member of this body. so we know that there are hundreds of thousands of grandparents out there who could step in in these situations or an uncle, and they could get a little bit of help raising a youngster, again keeping the family together. sometimes foster care is life saving. i think all of us have said that from the beginning, but it shouldn't be the only option, and that's what kids who have been in the foster care system came to the senate this week to tell us. it's our job as policymakers to protect the most vulnerable.

these kids don't have a powerful lobby. they don't have deep pockets. it just seems to me as we wrap up this session and everyone here goes back to their namcy and their -- their families and their holidays, it's not in good conscience to turn our backs on foster kids and allow this bipartisan legislation to witter and to -- to wither and to die in the last days of the 114th congress. so in a moment i will make this unanimous consent request. i ask, mr. president, that our colleagues and this standing in the way, standing in the way of providing a new measure of hope for vulnerable kids and their families and that we help lift the weight of this broken status quo, this broken status quo that

falls heaviest on the hundreds of thousands of foster kids living in a quiet struggle every single day. so, mr. president, at this time i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 527, h.r. 5456, that the wyden substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: reserving the right to object. i was wondering if i could direct a question through the chair to the senator from west virginia. i was curious as to whether or not the good senator, my friend and colleague, intends to object to this measure.

i actually think that senator wyden has done good work on this measure. i hope we can get to a point where we can bridge the gap and address some of the concerns of members in states that are concerned without intended consequences. at this time and reasons unrelated to this measure but our inability to get other unanimous consents through, i'm going to have to object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. wide mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i'll be very brief and as i've indicated to our colleague from north carolina and he is new. he is new to the senate, but he really brings a refreshing openness to these debates. and i know this was a new topic for him. he hasn't had a chance to hear a lot about it over the last few years. and he was concerned about what this would mean to a group -- to

group facility, group homes in his state. and i said look, if there's a problem in north carolina in terms of trying to meet these measures, we've said we'll give states more time. we'll give them more flexibility. and i'd just like to point out that there seems to be enormous support across north carolina with respect to this bill because in north carolina, they seem to be saying that they understand that what this legislation is all about, with families first is all about is just getting high quality care for these youngsters. and all the providers, all of the providers would be eligible. it doesn't speak to the type of provider. it's all the providers. so i'm just going to wrap up by a few quotes that came in to the finance committee over the course of this legislation.

north carolina association of county directors of social services. as i understand it it's the association of entities that administered child welfare programs in the state of north -- and the state of north carolina supports the legislation. we have a letter that reads we go on record in supporting the act and respectfully request your support in passing this. the north carolina association of social workers supports the bill. they wrote, and i quote -- "the legislation would strengthen families so that more children could remain safely with their parents and family caregivers and avoid the need for foster care." for the overwhelming majority of children, mr. president, this north carolina group says this legislation could be a life saver. the north carolina pediatrics society writes that the bill is a pivotal opportunity for a major federal policy shift away from placing children in out of

home care and toward keeping families together. congregate care remains one of the options on the continuum. and the bill doesn't impose time limits or restrictions on the use of these settings for children who need them, but the focus is on keeping families together. the only changes this bill makes for congregate care providers is raising the standards for quality so that all children in these settings benefit from the therapeutic value of the best providers of which we have several in north carolina. so the children's home society of north carolina, children's hope alliance, exchange family center, family preservation community services, first north carolina, a number of groups all based -- serving north carolina citizens have come out for this. so i recognize that there has been an objection. it's my intention, mr. president, to keep working through the night, through the

early part of tomorrow. i appreciate that this senator from north carolina has kept an open mind on this. he's indicated in our conversations that he understands that there's a lot of good in this bill and for the reasons that he stated he can't support it tonight, and i gather reasons unrelated to the bill. i look forward to working with him. he has come to the senate fairly recently, but i have found him open and accessible. that's all you can ask of a colleague. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you. i appreciate the comments from the gentleman from oregon. i may be new to the senate but i'm not new to north carolina. i was speaker of the house for four years. i worked with a lot of the agencies that the gentleman from oregon referenced but the fact of the matter is, the first time i heard these agencies supported the bill was about 90 seconds ago. this is not been fully vetted in the senate. it sounds like it has a lot of

merit, but even having said that, this is not why i'm objecting to the bill. i'm objecting at this time in large part because of a number of other objections we're receiving that are not allowing things that would otherwise move through unanimous consent. and, mr. president, on that note, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on help be descrarnlged from further -- discharged from further consideration of senate 2912, the trickett-windler right to try act and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: reserving the right to object. i will continue to object to any unanimous consent on legislation until the c.r. includes a permanent, long-term solution for our miners health care as included in the miners protection act, senate bill 3470. so this is something we've been talking about, working on for two years. it's all we've asked, fulfill

our promise leer as those representatives, the people have given everything. i would have to object for these reasons. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. tillis: mr. president, i appreciate that but we've -- the reason i directed the question about the objection to the gentleman from oregon's motion is that there seems to be maybe selective application of a strategy that the good man from west virginia is trying to do to get a measure passed. mr. president, if i may move on. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 695, senate 3084, the american innovation and competitiveness act. i further ask that the committee reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the gardner amendment substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: reserving the right to object. mr. president, this -- we've heard a lot of talk during the election, since the election about communities like my home town in mansfield, ohio, not far from where the presiding officer grew up, communities that have been ignored by their representatives in washington. a lot of politicians responded during the election, since the election. they pledged to do better. this is our chance to actually show that we made it. the work that senator manchin has done, senator casey, senator warner, senator portman in my state, a republican, simply to take care of these mine workers. senator manchin has been on this floor as i have but he's been on this floor even more times talking about taking care of these mine workers, living up to the promise harry truman made, extending their health insurance. instead the only offer we've had from the majority leader, the one person -- senator tillis is

standing in the way. senator sullivan is not standing in the way. it's one senator, the majority leader for whatever reason he doesn't like the united mine workers union. i don't really care what he thinks about the union. i care about these -- i support the union but i care about these workers. and what they've proposed is a four-month extension which means these workers, these widows, these retired workers got a notice back in the last couple of weeks saying their health care was going -- they were going to lose their health care. we do four month, they'll get another notice in january say -- we're going to make these retired mine workers, we're going to make these widows who saw their husbands die from an accident or die from black lung disease or heart disease, we're going to make these widows every three months get another notice and then say well, we'll extend it for four months. no. we've got to make sure we give them -- we provide -- this isn't giving them. provide them the health

insurance they have earned. it's the right thing to do. it's the moral thing to do. for one u.s. senator who happens to be from kentucky of all places, who happens to also be the majority leader to stand in the way -- senator wyden is in my committee, senator hatch, senator portman, senator toomey. we passed 18-8 a bipartisan bill to move forward on this and do this right. they asked -- senator mcconnell asked us to go through regular order. we have to do this right. yet we're going to send -- we're going to go home for christmas, we're going to go home for the holidays, whoever supports -- whether they celebrate christmas or not, we're going home for the holidays, have fun with our family, these widows, these retired miners, well, not so much with their families because they don't know when their health insurance is going to run out. mr. president, we need to do this. we need to do it right. we need to do it today or tomorrow. we have no business going home before that for these reasons i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. tillis: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina.

mr. tillis: mr. president, i appreciate the comments from the gentleman from ohio. i believe i have my facts correct in that it was the leader who pushed for a patch in the c.r. so i'm not quite sure that i agree with some of the specifics that were put forth by the distinguished gentleman from ohio. mr. president, i would like to move o. i ask unanimous consent th -- that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 654, senate 2763, the holocaust expropriated art recovery act of 2016, with a committee-reported substitute amendment. i further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered, read a third time and passed, and that motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: reserving the right to object. mr. president, i rise today to address a crisis. it faces 16,000 retired coal miners and widows across the country. we made promises.

roughly a thousand of these are in my state. these retirees will lose their health insurance at the end of this year unless congress acts. my colleagues senators manchin and brown and casey and warner have spoken on this topic, and together, along with a larger bipartisan group, we have pushed for months for the passage of the miners protection act. to guarantee pension and health benefits to hundreds of thousands of retirees. we have a responsibility to enact this legislation to ensure the federal government makes good on its promise, its promise to the miners. it wasn't a suggestion. it was a promise. who risked their lives to help our country meet our energy needs. in fact, many of us stood here together in june calling for action before it was too late. well, now it's almost too late. while congress is in a rush to get out of town, those 16,000 retirees are desperate for help.

their health needs are not dependent on our schedule. their desire to be able to stay alive shouldn't be subject to our desire to leave town. they are praying this legislation is enacted so the health insurance is still there next month when they still need it. it's inexcusable. it's beyond disappointing to learn the bill we are set to consider to keep the federal government running includes only a scaled down provision for our miners. rather than guarantee the promised benefit, leadership chose only to include the bare minimum of a four-month extension of health coverage through april without addressing the pension concerns. i have seen leadership. that's not it. i will repeat once again 16,000 mining retirees, 1,000 from indiana, will lose their health coverage in three weeks unless congress acts. for the health and the financial security of thousands of

families, immediate attention is required. kicking the can down the road for four months has never been a solution. enrollment periods for other health plans in this week and next. these retirees are watching us closely, and already are in the process of making painful and costly decisions. this is about life and death for thousands of retirees across the country right now. they are praying we'll stand up and keep our word. we made a promise. the united states made a promise to our citizens, to our coal miners. the provision in the spending bill does not come close to meeting that promise that was made. i urge the senate to act immediately to consider a stronger measure that addresses

this crisis facing thousands of retirees in my state and so many other states across the country. it's not just numbers. these are our citizens. these are the people we represent. these are the people who dug the coal to keep the lights on in this building. their ancestors dug the coal that helped win the war in world war ii. and we made a promise. and here we stand making a decision whether it will be kept or whether it will not. this is about who we are as a country and who we are as senators. do we honor the word of the people before us? do we honor the coal miners with black lung, with broken kneecaps, with broken shoulders, with widows who are wondering if

they're going to be able to make it alone. i will continue to object to any unanimous consent or legislation until the c.r. includes a permanent long-term solution for our miners' health care as included in the miners protection act s. 3470. therefore, mr. president, for these reasons, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president 1234? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: let me direct a question to the gentleman through the chair. at the time the gentleman offered his motion, would the gentleman have objected to that motion, senator wyden's motion? mr. donnelly: i was not here to listen to his question. i was elsewhere. i can't answer your question because i didn't hear what he had to say. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the committee on veterans' affairs be discharged from further consideration of senate 3364, a bill to authorize the secretary of veterans' affairs to carry out a pilot program to accept

donation of facilities and related improvements for use by the department of veterans' affairs, and the senate proceed to immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, reserving the right to object, i would like to explain why we're here and what's really happening so people have a good grasp of things. first of all, the miners protection act. this miners protection act basically goes back to a commitment, a promise and a transaction that we have done in congress in 1946 under president harry truman. it's the krug act. basically, it was saying that from that day forward, we were supposed to take certain amounts of money from all the coal that was mined -- so this is not

public funds. we're not asking for public funds. if we would have done what we were supposed to do and take the money and put that money into a fund for the miners' protection of their health and their pensions. they had nothing before that. and they're the ones that basically give us the energy that -- gave us the energy that we had to win two world wars and become the superpower of the world. and all they have asked for was that. and it wasn't guaranteed by the taxpayers were going to pay. it was going to come from the coal that was mined. now, this same congress comes back 20, 30 years later, and we change the bankruptcy laws to allow companies now to declare bankruptcy to shed their legacy costs. they don't have to pay it no more, so we're caught. every promise we made now, i'm sorry, we don't have the money to pay. so we did step in. we've stepped in a couple of times from 1993, 2006 and congress has basically a history with this piece of legislation. so we're working now to shore it

up. a.m.l. means abandoned mine lands. that's money that goes from every ton of coal into a reclamation fund to take care of any reclamation that's needed from the mining process. and if as you're putting the mines back or putting the environment back and taking care of the environment and putting the land back, that money would be used for that. if there was no -- if there is not much reclamation or if that money accumulates more, then you have a surplus. we've only asked for the surplus. so we were all on the same page, and we have been negotiating back and forth. this is two years ago up until present -- negotiating back and forth up until two weeks ago. two weeks ago we're told -- and i have had honest, up-front negotiations with the majority leader, and he said i just don't

think the pension is going to fly this year. i said i understand that. i'm still going to work my tail off for this thing. i had to tell all the widows and all the people that we represent, 16,300, that were notified in october, you have to give a 90-day notification that you're going to lose your health care benefits. they gave that notification in october for december 31. that happens. i have to tell them now, say we're not going to get the pension this year. we're doing everything we can, but i'm almost positive we're going to get the health care, because i was told that we were in agreement, we were going to get health care. not until two days ago, not until two days ago did i have any ing building that now all of a sudden the house -- i'm not blaming my colleagues here -- the house says oh, i'm sorry. we're only going to do an extension for the c.r. the same extension for the health care. i would -- i know that my colleagues will agree with this. let's say that your aunt or your grandmother or a retired person basically depending on those benefits, they were told in

october. now we're supposed to accept this c.r. coming over with this language that says okay, now let's tell mrs. smith again, we're going to basically say okay, guess what, we gave a senator: four-month extension, but we're going to notify you again in january that you're going to lose it again in april. they don't even have time to work the deductibles to get any insurance, nothing. let me tell you how they were going to pay for it. this is what came from the house. not my colleagues here, but from the house. the house says okay, we're going to take $47 million from the viba transfers. that is money that was basically set aside from other bankruptcies. these are bankruptcies that are going to basically give people that are retired under those bankruptcies at least health care coverage until june. those same people now are going to lose theirs because it's going to take all their money, and they're going to lose theirs in april also. it is almost uncomprehensible that they could give us something like this and think that it's something they could do.

we have got a bipartisan agreement here on this side, and we can't get just the consideration from our colleagues over in the house. so i just -- i can't explain it. i can't go home and explain that we're walking out of here, trying to get out this weekend because everybody wants to go home. well, that's wonderful. the only thing that we have as time certain is december 31, they know they're going to lose everything, their health care benefits. and doubt whether they will ever have their pensions taken care of, but they will lose their health care benefits and we won't stay here because it's too much of an inconvenience. so that's why we're prepared. we're prepared to stay however long it takes. through christmas, fine, through new year's, fine. i'm sure everybody will fold and leave. i want to thank you all and all of my colleagues because y'all have been helping us. i can't -- they have just got to get the message that we're sincere about helping these

people. everybody is standing for the working person. every campaign ad i saw, we're all for the working man, we're all for the working woman. you have got a chance to prove it right now. you've got a chance to show them that i am for you and i respect what you did, what your husband did, what your family's done for the country, and i'm trying to help you. so we're asking for is to give us a permanent long-term solution for the miners health care as included in our miners protection act that we have been working on for so long, senate bill 3470. reluctantly, therefore, for these reasons, i have to object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: objection. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. tillis: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. the gentleman from west virginia i believe is trying to make a compelling argument. i understand he feels very strongly about this. we feel very strongly about a number of these motions that i am going to continue to make and hopefully not get objection.

but, mr. president, i do want to remind the gentleman from west virginia that it was the majority leader who worked to at least get the patch in the c.r., and that like so many things around here, we wish we were working on longer horizons, but that seems to be the challenges we have to deal with, and that we will have to deal with in the waning days of this session. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on judiciary be discharged from further consideration of senate 1831, the preventing animal cruelty and torture act, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the toomey substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from ohio. mr. brown: reserving the right to object. i -- i'm a bit incredulous. i like the senator from north carolina. we sit across from each other in the veterans committee.

we've done at least two or three bills that reached the president's desk signed into law together, but i think my republican friends are kind of missing the point here. that to give the majority leader credit for fixing this when, number one, he wouldn't do it, he wouldn't do it, he wouldn't do it, he wouldn't do it. we have asked him -- senator manchin has asked him for weeks and months and months to take care of the pension and the health insurance and the majority leader refused month after month after month. the majority leader, even though we explained, the majority leader said need to you do several things. need you to follow regular order. we did. we went through the finance committee 18-8. senator hatch, the chairman, helped us. senator wyden, the ranking member, was one of its strongest supporters, joined by senators casey and warner, finance committee members who represent a lot of mine workers. the senate majority leader then said you've got to find a way to

pay for it. we did it. we found a way to pay for it. it comes from the miners, the abandoned mine fund. that was no tax dollars involved in this. the majority leader still wouldn't do anything, so finally senator manchin comes to the floor, i come to the floor, senator casey comes to the floor, senator warner comes to the floor over and over and says we're not going to agree to anything until you take care of these pensioners, until you take care of these miners' widows, and then out of the goodness of the majority leader's heart, he gives them -- he gives us -- forget about us -- he gives these miners, these retired miners and the widows four months. what's four months mean? it means these retired miners and widows got a notice in the last couple of weeks saying their insurance will expire december 31. if we agree to the majority leader's bountiful offer, then they will get another notice in january, february saying it's going to r