will just keep struggling along. >> host: final thought sunny don't think we're looking down or noses at people i think it's a reality of what you have in washington and we as journalists have a responsibility to report to the people. here's the information out there, and you can see how much is being spent on lobbying and use it to inform your vote. ...

[inaudible conversations] the senate will come to order. d the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, we bless your holy name. provide our lawmakers with the

wisdom to obey you completely and receive your guidance. may your guiding presence inspire them so that they can find even in troubles opportunities for joy. lord, remind them of the blessings that come from being challenged, as they learn from experience that the things that test them produce endurance. when their endurance is fully developed, give them the satisfaction of possessing such integrity that their faith will not shrink though pressed by many foes. lord, help our senators to seek

you repeatedly each day with their prayers, fully expecting you to answer their intercession and direct their lives. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the gingrich nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, callista l. gingrich of virginia to be ambassador ex-extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the united states of america to the holy sea. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. if no one yields time, the time will be equally divided.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: is? the presiding officer: is not. mr. mcconnell: madam president, as i discussed with the president and the vice president at our working lunch today, the senate has a full schedule of important work right ahead of us. the senate's fall agenda includes confirming more nominees to the judiciary,

administration and other important positions. and later today we'll resume consideration of another nominee, callista l. gingrich who has been nominated to serve as our ambassador to the vatican. that agenda includes providing continued assistance to communities affected by the recent hurricanes, and we'll process the president's supplemental funding request to do just that. the senate's agenda also includes completing work on the budget resolution and advancing tax reform, two things that are critical to helping our economy finally realize its true potential after the stagnation of the last decade. this budget will be the next step to spurring growth in our economy. it provides a pathway to balance. it reins in federal spending. and it honors our commitments to social security and provides for the national defense. in addition to these important aspects of this budget, it will also provide the legislative tools to advance tax reform.

as i've said before, tax reform is the single most important thing we can do today to get our economy moving again. we think taxes should be lower, simpler, and fairer for middle-class workers so americans can keep more of their hard-earned money in their paychecks. we think taxes should be reformed to end the perverse incentives that help keep american jobs and profits offshore. so it's easier to make and keep american jobs where they belong right here at home. we think it's time to take more money out of washington's pocket and put more money in the pockets of the american middle class. that's why we know it's time for tax reform. the tax reform goals i just mentioned are shared by many, including the president, his team, chairman orrin hatch, and chairman mike enzi. and as i've said, to get

there, we first need to pass the budget before us. i want to thank chairman enzi and the members of the senate budget committee for all of their work, getting us to this point, as we advance that budget on the senate floor this week, senators on both sides of the aisle will have the opportunity to offer their input. i look forward to putting our finances object a better path with this -- on a better path with this budget as i look forward to continuing with the other important initiatives on the senate's fall agenda.

the presiding officer: if no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispepsed with. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. now, madam president, last week, first on the issue of health care, last week, president trump committed two acts of pointless sabotage to our nation's health care system. he signed an executive order that would give insurers more latitude to sell temporary junk plans that are not only incredibly risky to the consumer but undermine the rest of the health care market by drawing healthy americans out of the pool. even worse, president trump decided to stop the cost-sharing program that reduces premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for seven million americans a year.

there is literally no upside to the president's decision to end the cost-sharing program. because of the president's actions, premiums will go up between 20% and 25%, according to c.b.o. just today, in pennsylvania, we saw premiums rise by 30% as a direct result of the president's actions. deductibles and out-of-pocket costs will go up by thousands of dollars. deficits will rise by $194 billion. because the government will have to pay more in subsidies to make up for the lack of cost-sharing. and marketplaces will be less stable because more people will go uninsured. the republican governor of nevada, brian sandoval, may have said it best. quote -- it's going to hurt people. it's going to hurt kids. it's going to hurt families. it's going to hurt individuals. it's going to hurt people with

mental health issues. it's going to hurt veterans. it's going to hurt everybody. that's from republican governor brian sandoval. another point the president should hear. nearly 70% of americans who benefit from these cost-sharing payments live in states that donald trump won in the election. so make no mistake about it, the president's dib rattily undermining our health care system with these two actions. when premiums go up because of this action, the blame will fall on his shoulders. now, there is a way out. the way out of all of this is for congress to aggressively pursue a bipartisan health care bill that will take cost-sharing out of the president's hands by locking in the payments. for many months, democrats have been pushing to stabilize the markets and work towards a bipartisan agreement that would keep premiums down for millions

of americans. senators alexander and murray have been negotiating a package that would include cost-sharing as well as some provisions that republicans want. these negotiations began long before the president's decision to end cost-sharing last week. now, i'm encouraged by the could go in the negotiations, and i'm hopeful we're nearing an agreement that makes clear we have no intention of supporting the president's reckless efforts at sabotage. if president trump is now supportive of an agreement that stabilizes and improves the existing system under the affordable care act, we certainly welcome the change of heart. we have been asking for this for a long time. we hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, realizing the damage that the president has done, will join us in strengthening, not sabotaging, the health care

system. now, a word on the republican tax plan. this week, the republican majority will likely move to pass a budget resolution that includes reconciliation instructions to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion, and amazingly also includes a total of $1.5 trillion in cuts to medicare and medicaid. cut taxes on the wealthy, paid for by cutting medicare and medicaid, how many americans want that? democrat, republican, independent, liberal, conservative. the g.o.p. budget makes it clear as day that republicans will try to pay for a massive tax cut for the wealthy by cutting medicare and medicaid. it's the same formula they used for trumpcare, cutting health care to pay for tax cuts for the

rich. the american people rose up against that plan and it failed. this plan should fail for the same exact reason. and now the white house is out with a new report today, saying that a giant tax cut for big corporations will increase wages for middle-class americans. president trump claims about fake news? well, this is fake math, and it's as bad as any of the so-called fake news the president has complained about. this is a deliberate manipulation of numbers and facts that, quite frankly, is appalling. history shows that tax cuts like these benefit the wealthy and the powerful to the exclusion of the middle class. history shows that corporations will use tax cuts for c.e.o. bonuses, stock buybacks and dividends rather than increasing worker pay or creating new jobs.

in fact, none other than goldman sachs concluded that shareholders, not workers, quote, typically bet the most benefits of tax cuts. this is not a liberal think tank or chuck schumer talking. this is goldman sachs, who represents shareholders, a lot of them. the former employer of the two authors of this plan, gary coen and steve mnuchin, they ought to heed what their former employer says. even they are saying that the tax cuts won't create massive growth or new jobs or higher wages. in fact, another recent report by goldman sachs predicts only the most minor growth effects from this tax cut. not more than .1% or .2%. as the president likes to point out, the stock market is at

record highs, and companies are raking in unprecedented profits, yet wages have remained relatively flat. so the companies are already flush with money. record profits. they're not creating jobs. they're enriching their shareholders and enhancing their c.e.o.'s salaries with stock buybacks. it's proof positive that companies already have the cash reserves but don't use it to boost wages. to assert the opposite, giving corporations and the wealthy a tax cut leads to higher middle-class wages belies the facts and the history and is a blatant attempt to fool americans into thinking the g.o.p. plan would benefit them when in reality it's an assault to the rich. no wonder our republican friends

can't talk about what the plan does -- cut taxes on the wealthy and powerful. they have to hide and say this is job growth. those are make numbers. and i'd like my friends on this side of the aisle to admit that they believe in trickledown economics because that's what their plan is all about. to assert that giving corporations and the wealthy a tax cut is just not true. so rather than helping the biggest corporations avoid paying their fair share, tax reform ought to reward those companies that create jobs and raise wages here at home. similarly, tax reform ought to directly benefit the middle class, but the republican tax plan slashes a key middle-class deduction in the form of state and local deductibility. now, let's talk about vice

president pence. he is visiting buffalo, new york, a city i love in my home state. since vice president pence is traveling to buffalo, i thought i'd share some numbers about how the elimination of state and local deduction affects western new york. in representative collins district which stretches east from buffalo towards rochester, 29% of the residents claim the state and local deduction. they get an average deduction of $12,125. in representative higgins' district in the heart of buffalo, 27% of the residents claim state and local with an average deduction of $12,083. and in representative reed's district south and east of buffalo, 22% of the residents claim state and local deduction with an average deduction of

$11,716. their constituents get clobbered, as do just about all new yorkers, and so many in the rest of the country when you eliminate state and local deductibility, and it affects the middle class and the upper class. the state and local deduction elimination is a dagger to the heart, not just of buffalo but of rochester, syracuse, albany, and all of upstate new york. will vice president pence have the courage to answer questions about this deduction elimination? will he tell middle-class new yorkers that they're going to get a huge tax increase under this bill? when the vice president arrives in buffalo tomorrow, i hope he's

prepared to explain why he wants to tax -- why he wants to hike taxes on thousands of middle-class families in the buffalo area, in the rochester area, in the syracuse area, and the albany area by eliminating the state and local deduction. it hurts the middle class and it hammers the new york economy. businesses, if they don't have this state and local deduction, are not likely to locate in buffalo or rochester or syracuse or albany. and it raises -- and it hurts home owners. make no mistake about it, we get rid of the state and local deduction. volumes of homes will go down. that's why the realtors are so opposed to this elimination. and that's not just true in new york or california or connecticut or new jersey. it's true across the whole country.

and my dear friend, the chairman of the finance committee, state of utah, because of the great charity of his people, so many tithe, 35% of the taxpayers will get a huge, huge increase in their taxes with the elimination of state and local deductibility, so many of them don't use the standard deduction because thoreau charitable, but they are penalized for that charity. -- because thoreau charitable, but they are penalized for that charity. so this will hurt middle-class taxpayers. now, there are some efforts to compromise state and local deductibility. they don't work. some have proposed, okay, let taxpayers take a choice between getting rid of the mortgage deduction and getting rid of the state and local deduction.

that's like saying should i chop off your left hand or should i chop off your right hand, mr. middle-class taxpayer? others have said let's limit it to people, say, below $100,000. that still leaves lots of people at risk, particularly in high-price areas like long island, and doesn't reduce the deficit by much. it's estimated that a large percent of the deficit will still go up. so it makes no sense to eliminate state and local deductibility. vice president pence ought to go to western new york, but instead of just visiting a small business, and we want to lower small business taxes, he should go to a middle-class family in amherst or orchard park and tell them that he's there because he's going to raise their taxes.

finally, i would like to address president trump nominee representative marino. an article in yesterday's "washington post" described his advocacy for a law that may have prevented the d.e.a., the drug enforcement agency, from going after the worst practices of drug distributors. it's a profoundly troubling revelation about the man who was tapped to lead the primary agency in our government that focuses on stopping the opioid crisis. the opioid crisis was, in part, fueled by wholesale drug distributors sending millions of unnecessary pills into communities. as my friend senator manchin pointed out, one company shipped 20 million doses of opioids to pharmacies in his state of west virginia over a five-year

period. that included 11 million doses sent to mingo county, west virginia, population 25,000. 11 million pills to people in a 25,000 county. what "the washington post" revealed yesterday was that representative marino worked to pass a bill in 2016 that made it, quote, virtually impossible for the d.e.a. to freeze suspicious narcotic shipments. confirming representative marino as our nation's drug czar is like putting the wolf in charge of the henhouse. the american people deserve someone totally committed to fighting the opioid crisis, not someone who has labored on

behalf of the drug industry. so tonight i am calling on president trump to withdraw the nomination of representative marino for the on dc p. we can do better. senator manchin has made such a call. he's right. president trump ought to withdraw representative marino's nomination. and the -- if the president presses forward with marino it will be another betrayal in a long line of betrayals on issues near and dear to rural america. the president's tax plan lavishes the wealthy and the big corporation but does little for the working man or woman in rural america. the president promised several months ago to label the opioid crisis a national emergency and

yet he still hasn't done it. he said this afternoon he'll finally do it next week. we'll see. by now the idea that the president is sticking up for the forgotten man and forgotten woman in the forgotten parts of america, rural america, should be dismissed. president trump seems to have forgotten the forgotten parts of america, and his lack of action -- we don't need talk, we need tax -- on the opioid crisis and his nomination of brett marino is another example. i unanimous consent that my additional comments on the wildfires out west be inserted in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, today i want to talk to you about time and how little of it we have to accomplish two incredibly important legislative priorities, one national in scope and potentially historic in impact. the first of those priorities is tax reform. we have a target date on the calendar and now the clock is ticking and we've got to get to work. the budget resolution that we'll consider this week has set

november 13 as our deadline for the finance committee to report a bill. and, of course, the distinguished chairman of the finance committee, senator hatch, is on the floor here, and that's a commitment that think know he takes very seriously. this bill, i hope, will broadly cut taxes on individuals and businesses alike and put more money in the pockets of working families across the country. what i like most about the plan that i've seen so far is that it is bold. we're not trimming a little here and a tiny bit there. we're slashing rates, consolidating brackets, and eliminating credits and deductions. this is not j.v. tax reform. this is tax reform that is serious and based upon our commitment to get the economy growing again. two weeks ago the house approved its version of the resolution and then the senate budget committee reported out its

version. now the senate will consider the committee's resolution in the coming days. why do we need that budget resolution? how is this all going to work? well, these resolutions from each chamber are the first step in passing pro-growth tax reform. they authorize the use of a tool called budget reconciliation. that means when the tax reform legislation is considered, that it can't be stopped by less than a majority of the senate. of course this isn't our first choice. i wish our colleagues across the aisle, our democratic friends, would join us in bipartisan tax reform. but passing a budget resolution quickly in the senate is a must because this is something that we can hold and reserve if our friends across the aisle simply refuse to participate in the process of pro-growth tax

reform. it's a key procedural step because we've got to fundamentally change the tax code before the end of the year. how well our economy does next year, how well -- how many jobs are created, how much investment occurs here in the united states will depend largely on our success of passing pro-growth tax reform this year. the clock is ticking and we've got to act with dispatch and determination. as the president said last week in pennsylvania, we want lower taxes, bigger paychecks, and more jobs for american workers. he's absolutely right. lower taxes, bigger paychecks, more jobs, those are the things we all ought to want, and they are worth the fight. already under this administration we're seeing results. the economy is bouncing back,

unemployment is at a 16-year low, wages are rising, and the stock market is soaring. the slumbering giant, which is the u.s. economy is slowly awakening. our economy reached more than 3.1% growth last quarter. confidence, as the president stressed in pennsylvania, is back when it comes to our economy and our future, but that confidence won't last long if we let this opportunity pass. we've got to find ways to get companies to stay in america, to expand, and to hire in america. we've got to find ways to take the money out of washington's pocket and put it back into the pocket of those who earned the money in the first place, american families. we've got to find ways to simplify the tax code that, let's remember, hits families multiple times each year by taking their earnings, by

stealing their time through compliance and by trying their patience with complexity. each tax return feels like three, and i find it appalling that a majority of taxpayers are forced to pay someone else to do their taxes for them because they simply don't have the time or the expertise to do it themselves. the unified framework released a few weeks ago will help. it calls for collapsing seven separate tax brackets down to three. that's what i call simplification. it expands the zero bracket so that if you are a married couple earning less than $24,000 a year, you will pay zero income taxes. it enhances the child tax credit, it repeals the death tax and special interest tax breaks and reduces the corporate tax

rate to 20% and cuts tax rates for small businesses to the lowest level in more than 80 years, so let's make this happen before times runs out. madam president, the other thing i can't stop thinking about is one that has taken a great toll on my state and my -- in my region of the country, and that's hurricane harvey, the most extreme rain event in the history of the united states. literally 50 inches of rain in five days in the houston area. last week i saw images of texas world speedway, a race car track in college station that's being used as a processing lot. here's a picture of that. at its peak, tens of thousands of cars were parked there awaiting damage assessments by insurance companies. the sea of them filled the entire speedway, as you can see from this chart, and it was

starting to spill over into surrounding areas too. cars in all directions as far as the eye could see. how could hurricane harvey damage so many cars? well, cars these days, the into your ones -- newer ones are basically computers on wheels, and when they get wet in an extreme flooding event like this, they essentially become a total loss like these cars at the texas world speedway. it's an amazing picture. all the cars there, mind you, represent only a tiny percent of the vehicles damaged in the storm. some estimates are as high as half a million personal vehicles damaged, even totaled. the speedway is one of the images that continues to keep me up at night. how are my constituents, these texans, going to get to work? how are they going to take their

kids to school? when will their car and house be ready so they can live in their home? when will their highways andways be fixed? what's being done to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself when year after year many parts of the harris county, houston area is flooded because many of the corps of engineer project has not been started, much less completed, that would have saved many of these homes an cars. last thursday the house passed a $36.5 billion wildfire relief bill. the measure will be sent to the senate and i look forward to debating the supplemental appropriation in the days ahead. it is intended to replenish the

near depleted coffers with $18.7 billion to the disaster relief fund. if we don't do something, fema could run out of money as soon as october 23. it will also address the national flood insurance program by forgiving $16 billion of its debt and then allowing to pay more claims for property owners in texas, florida, puerto rico, and in the virgin islands. nevertheless, i must say i am more than a little bit disappointed by this piece of legislation. i share the frustrations of my governor, governor greg abbott, and members of the houston-area congressional delegation, who have pointed out this bill doesn't come close to filling out the reasonable requests that have been made to rebuild and recover from hurricane harvey. texas needs more and the state

deserves it too after all its gone through. we're not going to throw up our hands and relent. we are going to keep on pushing. i appreciate the assurances from speaker paul ryan and the administration that texas will get what it needs to rebuild homes and businesses lost in the hurricane and the funding that it needs to expand bayous and develop critical flood mitigation projects. governor abbott told me the speaker told him congress will take up the state's recent request as soon as november. i'm grateful to him for that promise, but we don't need any more general statements of support. we're not asking for any more expressions of sympathy. we need specifics and a specific commitment to follow through on

texas' demonstrated need for assistance. i predict that the house bill will not move through the senate until the bill provides the sort of specific commitment we can take to the bank. this isn't just about hurricane harvey either. this is about hurricane irma and hurricane maria. we cannot afford to wait much longer. the texas families that have been out of their homes since hurricane harvey hit can't afford to wait much longer. the people who've lost their mode of transportation as a result of this flood and this hurricane can't afford to wait much longer. the small businesses that have been simply wiped out and who have been denied access to the funds they need in order to restart and rebuild their lives, they cannot afford to wait much longer. the clock is ticking and i'll tirch to work with -- continue

to work with the governor and the texas delegation as well as our friends from florida and others who are hit by other natural disasters to make sure that collectively we present our case to the appropriations committees and to the senate. we're not asking to be treated any better than anybody else after a natural disaster like this, but we sure will not accept being treated worse. and we're going to work together on a bipartisan basis to make sure that's the case. let me just close with a few word tbrs my good -- words from my good friend and colleague from texas, representative henry quail. he's what they call a blue dog democrat, someone i've worked a lot with on border issues in particular. but he's on the house appropriations committee, and he asked whether the hours' most -- house's most recent bill will be the final appropriation to address the losses as a result of hurricane harvey or irma or

maria. no, he said emphatically, we're going to do more and he's absolutely right. i'm here speaking as one senator, i intend to make sure the united states government keeps its commitments to the people in texas, to the people in florida, to the people in puerto rico, to the people in the virgin islands when it comes to assisting them in recovering from this terrible natural disaster. and we're not going to continue to take the promises of the office of management and budget or the administration or our friends in the leadership in the house for that matter that we're going to get to this later. there'sen expression in my part of the country that when somebody asks you when are you going to do something, that the response is minyana.

well, we demand that this problem be dealt with on a timely basis and we're going to keep the feet to the fire of the administration and our friends in the house to make sure they follow up on their commitments to deal with the victims of hurricane harvey, irma, and maria. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senator from florida be granted the floor as soon as i finish. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: madam president, over the weekend "the washington post" ran an article about a piece of legislation i helped negotiate last congress. the bill is entitled the ensuring patient access and effective drug enforcement act and was intended for greater collaboration in the fight against opioid abuse. the post article was sharply critical of this legislation suggesting that it effectively

gutted d.e.a.'s ability to do its job. it also suggested the pharmaceutical industry put one over on congress. i rise today to set the record straight on these allegations and to provide a fuller account of how this legislation passed the senate and became law. first some background. the controlled substance act requires drugbuttors to obtain a, quote, registration, unquote from d.e.a. in order to distribute controlled substance, including prescription drugs. the act further authorizes d.e.a. to suspend a distributor's registration in certain circumstances such as where a distributor has been convicted of the crime involving controlled substances or had a state license suspended. before suspending a registration, d.e.a. must issue a show cause order directing the distributor to explain why its registration should not be suspended.

the court then decides whether d.e.a. has met its burden to suspend the registration. the controlled substances act empowers d.e.a. to bypass this standard process in cases where d.e.a. determines there is, quote, an imminent danger to the public health or safety, unquote. in such cases, d.e.a. can issue an intermediate suspension order that immediately and without prior court process terminates the distributor's ability to distribute prescription drugs. prior to last congress, the controlled substances act did not define what constitutes imminent danger to the public health or safety. this left d.e.a.'s ability to immediately suspend a party's ability to distribute prescription drugs essentially unfettered. such unfettered discretion concern the patient advocacy and drug manufacturing community because an immediate suspension

order cuts off all drugs from a distributor including those intended for legitimate users. a balance is needed to ensure that individuals who need prescription drugs for treatment receive them b but that such drs are not diverted for improper purposes. and so the bill i helped negotiate last congress for the first time defined what constitutes an imminent danger to the public health or safety. in doing so, it created a standard for when d.e.a. may suspend a party's registration to distribute prescription drugs without any prior court process. and that standard is that there must be a, quote, substantial likelihood of an immediate threat, unquote, that death, serious bodily harm, or abuse of a controlled substance will

occur in the absence of an immediate suspension. in both committee and floor statements, i made clear that this standard is intended to cover situations where evidence of diversion indicates there is a substantial likelihood that abuse of a controlled substance or of any controlled substances will occur. "the washington post" article glosses over much of this background. it does not explain that the immediate suspension order is intended to be an extraordinary measure. it does not explain that prior to the bill, d.e.a. had basically cart blanche authority to impose this measure. it does not explain the d.e.a. has other enforcement tools available, including show cause orders, which are supposed to be the agency's standard operating procedure. equally problematic, the article barely even mentions the patient

advocacy concerns that motivated the bill to begin with. i want to quote from a letter that a coalition of patient and health advocacy group sent congress in support of the legislation. quote, federal agencies, law enforcement, pharmaceutical industry participants and prescribers each play a role in working diligently to prevent drug abuse. and diversion. however, it is also imperative that legitimate patients are able to obtain their prescriptions without disrupti disruption. earlier legislation address, both goals by fostering greater collaboration, communication, and transparency between industry stakeholders and regulators leading to more abuse while protecting patients, unquote. the letter was signed by among others the american academy of pain management, the

fibromyalgia and chronic pain support network and a drug free america foundation. i ask unanimous consent, madam president, to enter this letter into the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: "the washington post" article discusses virtually none of this. rather, it boaldly asserts that -- boldly asserts that congress cuttous d.e.a.'s legs from underneath it through a sinister conspiracy of deep pocketed drug companies and their cunning allies in congress. nothing could be further from the truth. to begin with, madam president, i spent 40 years of my life here in the senate fighting the scourge of drug abuse. i stood side by side with ronald reagan in the war on drugs. in 2000 i co. authored a drug addiction treatment act, one of the first ends in congress to address the opioid epidemic. last year i led conference negotiations on the comprehensive addiction recovery

act, a landmark piece of legislation that's making a real difference in the fight against opioid and heroin abuse. currently i'm working on legislation to address opioid addiction in the veteran community. i'm not patsy when it comes to drug abuse, prescription or otherwise. and neither are my colleagues. indeed, forgive me for a moment. let's take senator whitehouse who helped me negotiate the bill with d.e.a. and d.o.j. are we to believe that senator whitehouse, a former rhode island attorney general and former u.s. attorney, a crusader against corporate goods is somehow in the pocket of the drug companies? of course not. the charge is laughable on its face. or how about the fact that this bill passed both houses of congress by unanimous consent? did the entire united states congress decide to shoot its eyes to the true sinister intent

of this legislation? did the senate judiciary committee which approved the about ilby voice vote -- by voice vote decide to look the other way? this is a committee that includes former prosecutors, state attorneys general and u.s. attorneys that at the time included both the current attorney general of the united states and the current senate minority leader. madam president, are we seriously to believe that jeff sessions, the toughest foe of illegal drugs i've ever known in my entire life, sat on his hands while congress eviscerated the d.e.a.'s enforcement authority? no, of course not. to merely state these allegations is to make clear how utterly ridiculous they really are. not one senator, a member of the house opposed this bill. do you know why? because d.e.a., the very agency the bill impacts, the very agency that supposedly can no

longer do its job because of this legislation, agreed to let it go forward. let me be clear. d.e.a. could have stopped this bill. it could have stopped it at any time. in fact, it did stop a previous version in 2014 that had different language. i spent months negotiating with d.e.a. and with d.o.j. until they were at a point where they were comfortable allowing the bill to proceed. if they had asked me to hold the bill or to continue negotiations, i would have done so. i brought the bill to the markup only after d.e.a. and d.o.j. agreed with me on a path forward. anyone who claims that i or anyone else steamrolled d.e.a. and d.o.j. on this bill is either ignorant or willfully misinformed. that brings me to another point that was largely lost in all the

insinuations of "the washington post" article. the language that purportedly eviscerated d.e.a.'s enforcement power, that is the requirement the d.e.a. show a substantial likelihood of an immediate threat before issuing an immediate suspension order, was written by d.e.a. and d.o.j., lawyers and provided the hill staff as a proposed compromise. so let's get this straight. congress took language that d.e.a. and d.o.j. wrote, inserted it in the bill, and now congress is the bad guy? i should note here that other aspects of d.e.a. and d.o.j.'s proposed language changed, that that key phrase substantial likelihood of an immediate threat, the phrase that critics now point to as gutting d.e.a.'s

enforcement authority, came from d.e.a. and d.o.j. and, madam president, lest we forget, president obama signed the bill into law. on the advice of his own d.e.a. administrator. madam president, i think we need to be candid about what's going on here. owns of -- opponents of the current administration are trying to derail the president's nominee to be head of the national drug control policy. represent tom marino, of course, by mischaracterizing and trying to rewrite the history of a bill that he championed. they are being aided in their efforts by a group of former d.e.a. employees who took an extremely hard line against drug companies when they were at the agency and who are upset that d.e.a. chose to pursue a more

collaborative approach after they left. i don't fault these individuals for, or their passion -- or for their passion but i reject the notion there was some sort of sinister conspiracy at play. and i find it unconscionable that critics of the bill and representative marino would flat-out ignore the very real patient concerns that motivated this bill, that motivated my personal involvement with it. you think this bill was a sock to the drug industry? tell that to the fibromyalgia and chronic pain network, to the american academy of pain management, tell that to the american drug-free foundation. if we're going to make this bill a political football and try to use it to sink representative marino's nomination, let's tell the full story. let's be fair. let's at least be honest.

let's not gin up a one-sided narrative based on almost entirely the statements of former officials who disagree with the change in leadership. no matter how you try to spin it, this is not the latest episode of the house of cards. rather, let's be clear that members of this body negotiated this bill in good faith with d.e.a. and d.o.j., the department of justice. let's be clear that d.e.a. and d.o.j. themselves generated the language that critics now claim is so problematic. let's remember that this bill passed by unanimous consent and that every single member of this body and the house of representatives agreed to it. let's remember too that d.e.a. and d.o.j. could have stopped this bill at any time if they had wanted to, but instead chose to allow it to proceed. after all, they stopped an earlier version in 2014 that had

different language. they could have stopped it again. and even after the bill passed congress, they could have advised president obama not to sign on. don't forget the bill bears his signature. let's not pretend that d.e.a., both houses of congress, and the obama white house all somehow wilted under representative marino's nefarious influences. madam president, provocative headlines and clever framing may drive page hits, but this decision should be based on the full story. it should be based on all the facts. a single news article that tells only one side of the story should not derail a nominee who has a long history of fighting illegal drug use and of helping individuals with chronic conditions obtain treatment. let's not ignore the full story

here in the rush toward easy politics. madam president, i yield the floor and thank my colleague from florida. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i want to talk about a matter of life and death. it's happening as we speak in puerto rico. i went there yesterday. i didn't want to have a flyover of the island, but at the invitation of governor rossello rossello, i got into a helicopter so that i could get up into the mountains, into the areas that have been closed because people hadn't been able to get there on the roads. this is what i wanted to see. we've had colleagues come back because of a flight over in a helicopter and say that they

don't see a lot of damage. of course not, because they're flying over parts of towns that most of the structures are done by concrete blocks. but when you get down there on the ground and go into the structure, then you're going to see a different story. first of all, you're going to smell a different story, because the water has accumulated, and now it's turning to mold and mildew. and inhabitable conditions. but when you get up into the mountains, the places that were cut off, that not until a week ago did they have the roads cleared so that people could get up. and as we speak, as of

yesterday, still reconstructing the roads so that people can get on these narrow winding little dirt roads going up through the mountains. so for two and a half weeks communities have been completely cut off like the one that i saw yesterday -- utwatto -- way up in the mountains. i want to show you some pictures, but i want you to realize that today's monday. next wednesday is four weeks since the hurricane has hit. can you imagine going into a state of 3.5 million people, and 85% of the people did not have electricity? or can you imagine going into a state -- and, by the way, these are our fellow american

citizens. they're just in a territory. can you imagine going into a state where 50% a month after the hurricane, 50% of the people do not have potable water? it's an absolute outrage, and i don't think the american people realize what's happening. so let me be your eyes by what i saw yesterday. so, madam president, this is a river bottom in a, in the little town of otwatto. this side of the river is cut off from this side of the river because the one bridge washed

out. if you look at this structure, the question is, how long is this going to last because it is tilting to the left, and any major rush of water down is going to take out this section. i want you to see how creative these people are. it's hard to see at this distance, but this they have erected a cable system coming over to the other side. what they have taken is the basket of a grocery cart, taken the wheels off, taken the handles off. and this is on a pulley where these guys are pulling it over and then they pull it back. this is how people on this side of the river are getting food and water and medicine if they

can't walk across. this is how people are surviving now when this section of the bridge goes -- and it's just a matter of time -- they're going to try to hook up a cable over here at the top of this river bank over to the top of this river bank and do the same kind of pulley. you know, here in the states on the mainland, if something like this happened, the corps of engineers would be there. we'd be rebuilding. the department of transportation would be rebuilding that. ladies and gentlemen of the senate, these are our fellow americans, citizens. and they're going without. all right, let me show you another one.

so this is the bank of another river. by the way, on this bank, let me show you the result. that's what happened. this whole house. right behind here, i'll show you the church in a minute. so i asked the pastor did the people survive. he said one was trapped in the house. they were able to get that person out. the others had already fled. but you can see the force of the extra rain, the water coming down, and houses like that are history. here's that same section of the river with the church in the background, the church survived. i talked to the pastor of the church. here i am having a conversation with the people that live on

this side. i asked the pastor did he lose any parishioners. he did not. on his side of his church, he has a dish. and because he has a generator, he is the only person in this town that has any kind of communication, in this case through the satellite dish for television. everything else is either being run on a generator or else there is no electricity. and as you know, these generators are not powerful enough to run air conditioners. and, therefore, you go through the water accumulates, the mold and mildew starts to accumulate. and all the health effects as a result of that. and so, madam president, does this look like something that we

would have in this country? does this look like something that we would have in this country? or does this look like a third world country? does these images and these photographs, do they bring to mind other caribbean nations that we've seen that have been devastated by earthquakes and hurricanes? think about what happened to haiti. so when people go down and happen to go to san juan, which by the way, 85% of san juan is without power, you see these little pockets. and of course they're trying to get the generators going to the hospitals for the obvious reasons. they need the generators to go

to stations where people are getting their dialysis treatments. that's obvious. but what about the wear and tear on the generators and the replacements? the governor of puerto rico, governor rossello, has a very ambitious schedule. he wants to restore 95% of power by the middle of december. i hope that the governor is right. but what i'm afraid is with the army corps of engineers going through that laborious procedures, which it's been turned over to them to get the electrical grid and structures up and running, i'm afraid it's going to be a lot longer. i asked for estimates on the immediate needs, and especially the rebuilding of the grid.

$4 billion. are we going to be able to get that for them? what are going to be the ultimate needs of puerto rico if, as we just heard, the senator from texas talk about his state and the estimates that you've heard out of texas of being as much as $100 billion. what about the needs of puerto rico? what about the needs of florida? what about the needs of the virgin islands? we've got a supplemental coming up but is that going to take care in the interim up until december the needs of all of those four areas that have been hit hard? if texas is $100 billion, long-term fix for puerto rico may well be $80 billion to $90 billion. and who knows what it's going to be for florida and the virgin

islands. and, therefore, are we in this congress with or without the leadership of the white house going to have the stomach to help our federal fellow american citizens? oh, i'm sure we're going to help texas, and i'm sure -- i certainly hope so, we're going to help my state of florida, but are we willing to help the american citizens in the virgin islands and puerto rico? so it's not a rosy picture when you hear some members of congress come back and say they didn't see a lot of damage. it's people using a pulley that they have jerry rigged across a river to survive with daily

supplies of food and fuel and water, and you can't see that from the air, and if you have no power, you have no water, you have no sewer systems, and what you have is chaos. so a month since hurricane maria hit puerto rico. the hospitals are rationing services while they struggle to get the medicine and the fuel they need to power the generators. the dialysis centers. they're struggling to get the water and fuel that they need to operate. so i, like many, have written in this case to the u.s. department of health and human services to urge the department to do more

to help these dialysis centers obtain the supplies that they need. and so i wanted to come to the floor of the senate, having gotten back very late last night from puerto rico, and tell the senate that more needs to be done, and it's going to have to be done for a very long period of time. we have to do more to ensure the supplies that are reaching the island are getting to those that need them. remember, remember things got piled up in the ports in the first week, and they didn't get out to be distributed. it took what senator rubio and i were saying at the time, it's going to take the united states military, which is uniquely organized and capable of distribution of long logistical lines, and it wasn't until a week later after the hurricane

that the three-star general buchanan was put in charge. i met with him and the head of fema down in the puerto rico area, that head of fema. finally, those supplies are getting out, but this is supplies for survival. so we need to pass a disaster relief package that fully funds puerto rico's recovery. we need to provide puerto rico with the community development block grant money that governor rossello has requested, just like we need the cdbg's for texas and florida and the virgin islands as well, and we need to make puerto rico eligible for

permanent work assistance so that they can start to rebuild their infrastructure immediately. so i want to make something fairly clear. there should absolutely be no ambiguity about what is going on in puerto rico. it isn't rosy. it isn't that you can sit in a comfortable seat in a helicopter looking down from 1,500, 2,000 feet on structures that look like they are intact when, in fact, the reality on the ground below is completely different. and certainly, they didn't go up there and see all those bridges washed out in the mountains. they didn't see people scrambling for food. they didn't see the puerto rican national guard rebuilding that

little narrow dirt road, winding along the banks of that river. they didn't see or walk into the buildings that you would almost be overwhelmed with the smell, the smells particularly of mold and mildew. people have died as a result of this hurricane. people have died because of the lack of supplies and power. our fellow americans are dying, and they desperately need our help. and ladies and gentlemen of the senate, i have seen it with my own eyes on the ground. and i'm here to urge this congress and the administration that we have to act and act for

a very long period of time. our citizens in puerto rico need our help. we have the responsibility to help fellow citizens in need. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered.

the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question occurs on the gingrich nomination. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wish to change their vote? on this nomination the yeas are 70. the nays are 23. the nomination is confirmed. a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the gingrich nomination the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate proceed to consideration of the trachtenberg nomination. the presiding officer: is there objection? the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, joel trachtenberg of virginia to be a principal deputy under secretary. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that following my remarks that senator whitehouse of rhode island be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the addiction epidemic is a national emergency that takes far too many lives and destroys too many families across the country. unfortunately my state in some ways leads the way.

4,000 ohioans died from drug overdoses last year, more than any state in the united states. 4,000 families lost a mother, a father, a daughter, a son, a sister, a brother. we need to treat this epidemic like the public health emergency that it is. we ask the president to proclaim it a public health emergency. he talked about it, still hasn't talked done it -- still hasn't done it. that is why i can't support tom marino to head our drug control policy. fundamentally, i don't want an elected official, politician in that position. i want somebody from law enforcement. congressman marino is a nominee who in his time in congress showed he was too cozy with the drug companies who helped create this epidemic. earlier today president trump responded to reports about congressman marino and said he's looking at those reports very closely. i hope he does. i hope he withdraws that nomination. make no mistake, congressman marino does not want to take us

in the right direction in this fight. instead of investing in treatment i was in town in ohio talking to officer toth and chief gavilier at the austin town police department about the opioid crisis. it's coming up on drug take-back week where on saturday all over the country the d.e.a. is asking police departments to allow people to bring their unused drugs in to get them out of the medicine cabinets. we were talking about much more than that. we were talking about how state government and the federal government simply haven't stepped up the way we should to partner on prevention and education and medication assisted therapy treatment and all the things we should be doing. mr. marino seems to think we can arrest our way out of this problem but that is not what law enforcement officials across this country are saying. detective toth and i didn't talk

about arresting people's children and arresting parents. we talked about how to promote the department of's drug take-back day. addiction isn't a personal problem or character flaw. it's a chronic disease. we need somebody running our drug policy who understands that, not someone who wants to pull patients out of treatment in the middle of an epidemic. and we know what that was about when on this floor just not much more than a month ago only by one vote were we able to preserve the treatment that so many opioid addicted peopled are getting. right now in my state, 200,000 ohioans, 200,000 ohioans are getting opioid treatment because they have insurance under the affordable care act. of course we need the enforcement piece. that's why i've introduced the bipartisan interdict act, why i've worked with senator portman, my colleague on this, to make sure that we have resources to customs and border protection agents to screen packages safely, effectively

and safely before they reach our neighborhood. it's been more than eight weeks since president trump promised a national disaster declaration. we've yet to see a strategy from the white house other than the nominee who thinks you lock people up to defeat the opioid epidemic. we see no strategy from the white house to deal with the epidemic. ohio families can't afford to wait. let me close, mr. president, with this. a few months ago, i was in cincinnati at the talbott house and met with a father who was there with his 30-year-old daughter. he told me his daughter wouldn't be there right now, she wouldn't still be alive if it weren't for medicaid and the treatment for addiction she received because of it. we know what we have to do on the epidemic -- to deal with this epidemic. i ask the president to do the right thing. i ask the senate to do the right thing and move forward. it's the biggest public health emergency in our lifetime. we need people in charge of our drug control policy to treat it that way. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: let me echo the remarks of the distinguished senator from ohio. like ohio, rhode island has a very significant opioid problem, and we came together in this chamber to support the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. i have the privilege of being the principal democratic author of that piece of legislation. senator portman of ohio was the principal republican author of that legislation. we worked for years to set it up, to hold the hearings necessary, to get the information together, to make it work, and when we did, it passed this body with a massive bipartisan expression of support. it makes no sense to nominate somebody to this position who does not understand what we understand, which is that the drug epidemic is at its heart a public health emergency and an

illness. a reversion to law enforcement harshness in dealing with this problem simply will not be effective. and now, if i may, i will turn to my 182nd appearance to remind us of the global crisis of climate change, which has recently come so perilously to our american shores. this recent graphic from noaa shows above-average temperatures in our oceans. the -- anything that's pink is above average. if it's reddish, it's much warmer than average. if it's this real red like here, that's a record. that is a warmest record. so as you can see from 2015, 2016, 2017, the oceans have warmed significantly, and warmer

oceans means stronger storms. it's as simple as that. so in this hurricane season, hurricanes harvey, irma, and maria have all struck the united states. it's the first time ever the u.s. has been hit by three category four atlantic storms in one year. hurricane ophelia, now out in the atlantic, became the tenth consecutive hurricane-strength storm. that ties a record nafs set way back in the 1800 -- a record that was set way back in the 1800's. we have gone more than a century without this kind of a storm. it's a rarity, but it will be less of a rarity because the

ocean warms up and powers up and brings the big storms. those storms destroy businesses and homes. away from the coastline, other aspects of climate change bring an an array of other harms, like longer and fiercer wildlife seasons, as california's experiencing, complete pleated fish stocks like our rhode island fishermen are experiencing, decreased agricultural yields as the midwest is experiencing. acidifying seas as the northwest coast is experiencing. and risks to human health from new disease vectors and hotter heat waves felt across our country. all of these harms carry costs, and together those costs are known as the social cost of carbon pollution. it's the cost to people and to communities of carbon pollution

and climbing. during the obama administration, the social cost of carbon was put by scientists and economists from across the federal government, relying on scientific literature and well-vetted models at around $50 per ton of carbon dioxide. there is a new book out by a number of conservative economists and scientists who look at the climbing problem -- climate change problem and recommend a revenue-neutral, border adjustment carbon fee as the solution, and in that book, the exemplar carbon price also runs about $50 per ton of emitted carbon. so it tracks from the obama administration to conservative analysts as well. that's because this social cost of carbon is well established.

courts over and over have instructed federal agencies to factor the social cost of carbon into their permits and regulations. states are using a social sos of carbon in their policy making. major american corporations even exxonmobil factor a social cost of carbon into their planning and accounting, and the social cost of carbon is at the heart of the international monetary fund's calculation that the fossil fuel industry gets an annual subsidy in the united states of $700 billion. that's billion with a b. now, and the point of this particular speech, a new calculation has emerged. not just of the harm of carbon

pollution, but a calculation of how individual fossil fuel companies have contributed to that harm. this wasn't just some op-ed, nor was it the phony hack science the fossil fuel industry cranks out to propagate climate denial on the talk show circuit. this is a peer-reviewed study published in the scientific journal "climactic change." studies tell us that major fossil fuel producers are responsible for as much as half of the recorded global surface temperature increase. then it dives down into the data for individual companies and demonstrates a method for attributing the real observable effects of climate change to the likes of chevron, exxonmobil,

conocophillips, peabody coal, archcoal and devon energy, among about 50 investor-owned carbon-producing companies. the history here is telling. more than half of all emissions traced to carbon producers from 1880-2010 across a span of 130 years were produced after 1986, just in the last 14 years -- 24 years. when the climate risks of fossil fuel combustion were well established. those were the years when we knew, many of these companies knew the harm of their fossil fuel products, and yet they carried out a decades-long

campaign to deceive the public about the risk of fossil fuel energy production and to bring influence to bear on this institution. these companies knew that their product posed a threat to the global environment. they could have taken steps to reduce emissions. they could have invested in new technologies, in emissions reduction technologies, in renewable energy. they could have communicated honestly with their shareholders and with the public. they chose not to. they chose not to. an infamous decision that kept carbon pollution dumping into the atmosphere where it will affect the chemistry, the physics and the biology of our planet for centuries to come. this is this generation's sad

and sordid legacy. now this study shows that we can trace those harms back to individual companies, to their boards of directors, and to their managers. we can use the emissions data from this study, and using those established social cost to carbon estimates, we can estimate individual corporate accountability. this is new. using the study's emissions data and the social cost of carbon, we can calculate, for instance, the carbon pollution cost for which exxonmobil is accountable. if you do this for 2010, just

that one year's worth, the cost to the rest of us was over $22 billion. for chevron for 2010, it's $14.5 billion. for b.p., $18.8 billion. just for the harm they caused in 2010. what about some of the major coal companies like peabody and arch? pollution attributable to peabody coal had a cost of $17.8 billion, just for 2010. arch coal, $11.7 billion. devon energy, $3 billion. devon, you may remember, is the company whose lobbying letter to

e.p.a. scott pruitt put on his official oklahoma attorney general letterhead. in the masquerade of officials' duty on behalf of special interests that is still his hallmark now that he is at e.p.a. if we add all this up, we are looking at $88 billion in attributable damages, attributable to exxonmobil, chevron, b.p., peabody, arch, and devon. $88 billion just for 2010. that is a one-year cost we all bear for allowing these polluters to pollute our air and

oceans for free, which is what we allowed them to do. that's why the i.m.f. said the subsidy was $700 billion. as nature has so powerfully shown us this year, taxpayers, communities, and local businesses, especially those in vulnerable coastal areas, bear the cost of the irresponsible choices these big polluters made. this is the cost these companies transferred to us. by spending millions of dollars deceiving the public about climate science and using millions more in political spending to block sensible limits on carbon emissions. spend millions to dodge billions.

and we let them get away with it. perhaps judges and juries will be less manipulatable. after all, one of the reasons the founding fathers set up an independent judiciary and independent juries is that the political branches can be captured. the founders were experienced politicians. they had seen that the political branches of government can be captured by special interests, what the founders would have called factions. just as we now are captured by this fossil fuel industry here in congress.

the average number of billion-dollar weather disasters is about five per year. that's the average. any given year about five over the long term. well, here we are, and it is only october, and 2017 has already seen $15 billion weather disasters -- 15 of them so far this year. but the real multibillion-dollar disaster is a captured congress. we actually have a remedy right before us that ought to be, i believe, a bipartisan remedy, a carbon fee, like the one senator schatz and i introduced, our

american opportunity carbon free act. virtually every republican who has thought the climate change problem through to a solution comes to the same place. they all come to the same place. put a price on carbon emissions, let the market work, avoid what is called the negative externallality of the carbon polluters not having to pay for their harm, make the economics correct by virtually everybody's economic principles and take the revenue that is collected from that price on carbon and return it all to the american people, a

border adjustable revenue neutral carbon fee. former secretaries baker, schultz, and paulson, -- return ckleshouse, and whitman, former presidential economic advisers, author laffer, and douglas holtz-eakin support a carbon adjustable fee. to put the cost into the price of the product the way economics 101 suggests it should be, to avoid giving this industry that massive, massive subsidy, -- that's where the republicans who

thought this through want us to be. on my side, yes. but here in congress, are we there yet? we just won't do it. we just won't do it because the shadow of the fossil fuel industry of millions of dollars in deception and political muscle power falls too darkly on this supposedly august institution. mr. president, i yield the floor, and if no one else seeks it -- do you want a quorum call? i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings

under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the senate proceed to executive calendar number 164. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, office of special counsel henry kerner of california to be special counsel. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the senate vote on the nomination, if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. is there any further debate? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the legislative session and be in a period of morning business be senators permitted to speak therein for 10 minutes.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate armed services committee be discharged from s. res. 99 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 99, recognizing the 11 african american american soldiers who were massacred during the battle of the bulge in december of 1944. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged, and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 292 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: senate resolution 292, condemning the brutal and senseless attack at a country music festival in las vegas, nevada and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. con. res. 26 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate con. res. 26 use of ee mast manslaughter pacing -- emancipation call and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration

of calendar number 218, s. 705. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 218, s. 705, a bill to amend the national child protection act of 1993 and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported amendments be withdrawn, the hatch substitute be considered and agreed to and the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 695 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 695, an act to amend the national protection act of 1993 and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged, the senate will proceed to the measure.

mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the hatch substitute amendment at the desk be considered agreed to, the title amendment be aid greed to -- agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., tuesday october 17, further, following the pledge -- prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. following leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session and proceed to the trachtenberg nomination and that the senate adjourn from 12:30 until 2:15. until 2:15.

the senate confirming the nation today of calista gingrich to represent the us as ambassador to the vatican. tomorrow they take up the nomination of david trachtenberg, principal deputy undersecretary of this. as always, live coverage of the senate when it gavels in back in c-span2. >> live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, we are live in jefferson, missouri for the next up on the c-span bus to the capital to work with missouri secretary of state jay ashcroft talking about his decision to turn over state voter information to the president motor commission, as well as the new voter id law. the future of the affordable care act former new york lieutenant governor and president thompson porter, betty mccoy. also with us to talk about his

group's effort to limit government surveillance under the intelligence surveillance act. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal five at 7:00 a.m. eastern on tuesday morning. during the discussion. >> it's always been identified as a war over slavery. believe me, no soldier on either side gave a damn about slaves. they were fighting for other reasons entirely in their minds. southerners thought they were fighting for the american revolution and northerners thought they were fighting to keep the union together. that held true throughout the whole war except for some people who were absolute wrong on both sides. >> the video library has been a free resource for politics, congress and washington public affairs. whether it happened 30 years ago for 30 minutes ago, find it in c-span's video library at c-span .org, c-span where history

unfold daily. next we bring you oral argument in a supreme court case with detention. for individuals facing deportation. after being detained for three years of the defendant alejandra rodriguez filed a class action lawsuit challenging federal detention statutes. the court will determine whether these individuals have the right to appear before a judge to make their case for release. >> we will hear argument next in case 16424, class uses the united states. >> may it please the court. a defendant comes to the plea bargaining table with certain rights in hand. this includes a statutory right to appeal a conviction. the government can seize that in his written plea agreement petitioner did not waive his right to appeal his conviction