he vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 92, the

nays are 4. three fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mr. wicker: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that alley mcdonald, an intern in mr. sullivan's office be granted floor privileges until the end of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: i have two requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. and i rise today to comment about the economy, but i -- i want to observe that i'm proudly wearing a searsucker suit today. i will mention to my colleagues that senators have worn seersuckers for years on the

senate floor. this is officially seersucker thursday in the senate, a tradition that was begun by my predecessor, the former majority leader trent lott of mississippi, and it has been carried on up until today by the senior senator from louisiana, senator cassidy. it's a time for us -- those of us who choose to humble ourselves and call attention to ourselves at the same time to have a little fun in the bipartisan manner and recall the days of old before there was air conditioning and before we worried so much about how we looked. so, thank you to senator cassidy for getting a bipartisan group together to have a little fun and remember the days of old when a lot of folks wore seersucker. and, you know, we ought to be

smiling today, mr. president, because the economy is doing so well. the economy is strong and getting stronger. we have one million more jobs in america than we had six months ago. last month we added a quarter of a million jobs in just one month. we have a 3.8% unemployment rate, an excellent, excellent report, the lowest in 18 years. and so i'm glad to rise this afternoon and -- and say a word or two on the occasion of the 500th day of the trump administration and of a republican congress. and we seem to be doing things right. i hope the american people are recognizing that, mr. president. the may jobs report was full of good news.

beside the 3.8% unemployment rate, which i already mentioned, the number of long-term unemployed, those out of work for 27 weeks or longer, has dropped, wages are on the rise. these are markers of a strong, energized economy. let me quote the "wall street journal" and "the new york times". the wall street general ran an editorial -- "wall street journal" ran an editorial called the rising job tide and how job reports are better over the last year and a half. there are three million more full-time workers than we had before this administration job began. more than two million jobs added and these jobs are occupied by americans between the ages of 25 and 34.

the editorial concludes, quote, in the last year business confidence has improved, investment is increasing, and workers are reaping the benefits, unquote. mr. president, that is a american workers who are reaping the benefits, and i'm pleased to rise this afternoon and agree with "the wall street journal." i also want to give a shoutout to "the new york times" which is something i haven't made a habit of doing here on the senate floor. but "the new york times" said that they have run out of words to describe how good this economy is. so there's -- there's widespread acknowledgment of this, and i think it's -- it's a result of the things that this congress has been trying to do, the things that this administration has been trying to do and succeeding in doing, in putting policies in place that are

designed to create jobs and make it easier on job creators, and they are having a powerful impact. so i'm proud of things that we have done, like the historic tax cuts, lower taxes. this has meant that middle-class families have more money to live the lives they want to live. this is meant that -- has meant that job creators are not losing out to foreign competition. this has meant that we ushered in bonuses for some four million americans. minimum wages are going up from company to company, energy bills are lower. speaking of energy, we're producing a lot more energy now, and i'm proud to have been part of that. i'm proud to have been part of the vote that allowed us to explore energy in this very small part of alaska called the alaska arctic national wildlife refuge, something our diseased

colleague steven stood for and worked for tirelessly when he was alive and when he was a member of this body. support for our troops has increased and for our veterans. after years of defense sequestration which secretary mattis said harmed our national security really more than an enemy could have done and the military is finally getting the money it needs to be prepared. this means a modernized force, it means a statutory recognition that we're going to get to a 355 ship fleet that can respond to complex challenges around the world. and it also means that just recently we passed the v.a. mission act and that allows us to continue to improve options and health care choices for our veterans. we rolled back one of the major

problems that existed with obamacare. we didn't get it all done, but we did roll back the individual mandate, that law required free americans to buy a product or pay a big tax whether they wanted or not. we were able to do that as part of the tax cut legislation, and i'm proud that we took this penalty off the backs of hardworking middle-class americans. we rolled back a ton of regulations. we used the congressional review act -- we started doing that on january 20, 2017, the first day of the trump administration. we passed 16 congressional review act regulations, put them on the president's desk that first day to repeal harmful, burdensome, well-intended, but job-killing regulations that had come forward in the last days of

the obama administration. we passed the economic growth regulatory relief and consumer protection act to provide relief for our small businesses, for our community banks so we're not treating them like some new york bank or some of the largest banks in the country. we freed up the small banks to have a little more ability to loan money to job creators, to small business people seeking to borrow funds and expand their workforce, to allow families to get a loan just a little bit easier with a little bit less regulation so that they can lead the kind of lives that they have wanted to. we passed legislation to fied opioid -- opioid a -- fight opioid abuse. we're not through in that regard. we still have a problem. and if it were easy, we would have solved it a long time ago, but we're tackling that, and we

are accomplishing good things and getting good results. this is a great economy. "the new york times" says so, "the wall street journal" says so. i think middle america says so when we are back at home going from county to county having our town meetings and speaking t our constituents. we're -- we're determined to bear down this summer. we canceled the august break, and i congratulate the leadership on doing that because we've got a lot of things yet to do. we've got a defense bill to pass and we're on it now and we're going to be on it hopefully with amendments an meaningful improvements next week. additionally we're going to pass a farm bill. we're going to pass an f.a.a. reauthorization, we're going to pass legislation strengthening our water infrastructure and for the first time in a long time

our -- our fervent belief is that we can get back to the practice of passing our spending bills in regular order and avoiding this last-minute end of the year omnibus process which nobody on either side of the aisle likes unless you're the one or two people in the bill writing those bills, which the president has -- has correctly denounced and which the american people do not understand. so we're going to get back to regular order, take these imils one, two, or three at a time and put them through the regular process like we're supposed to do. in addition to that, mr. president, i hope we have an opportunity to confirm -- to continue confirming conservative judges at the rate that we have. over one-eighth of the circuit court of appeals now are -- is

comprised of new conservative judges appointed by president trump and confirmed by the senate in the last year and a half. so i'm proud of this 500-day process. i'm proud of our accomplishments. i'm proud to give this interim report and to say that we need to resolve to keep it up and build on this great record that's given us the lowest unemployment rate in decades and the most americans working ever in the history of our republic. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.

:

k.k.k. k.k.k. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: mr. president, i rise to address on two separate topics. let me begin with national seersucker day. senator wicker started it by speaking about earlier about seersucker day. it is a bipartisan tradition to celebrate an american tradition, an american tradition is that started in new orleans and anyone who's been in new orleans in july and august can understand why you would like it a lightweight summer suit. and i was asked today by a reporter, why would you continue seersucker tradition? i'm thinking, wait a second. why wouldn't you wear a

lightweight suit on a summer's day as opposed to a wool suit? and it just makes sense, but sometimes such sense is in short supply here in washington, d.c. on the other hand, it is something in which both parties, folks from all regions of our country, participate in. and, again, it started in new orleans when joseph haspel developed seersucker. so it is a lightweight suit. it is, if you will, a lighthearted tradition. but it is one that celebrates an aspect of our country and how something in one part of our country can be adopted by folks elsewhere to the benefit of all. so, mr. president, once again, i want to say happy seersucker day to everyone. and if they wish to join my office in wearing seersucker every thursday through the summer, you can similarly be comfortable on a hot summer's day here in washington, d.c. next, mr. president, i request

consent that my following remarks appear in a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: mr. president, let me now address something which is on the top most of americans' minds, which is the high cost of health care. and it is important for our country, for our states, it is important for families signature around their kitchen table -- sitting around their kitchen table. we have to lower health care costs. we have to do something about the high price of medicines. just some examples of the importance of this issue. the medicare actuaries just this week issued -- just issued a report that the medicare trust fund, that trust fund which pays the benefits for the senior citizen on medicare going to see her physician, going to the hospital, pays the hospital, that trust fund will effectively be exhausted in eight years. eight years, mr. president. the medicare trust fund that we've all been paying into will

be exhausted. in part, that is related to the high cost of medicine, the high cost of drugs. we must do something about that. and it's not just those on medicare. it's also those in the individual market. in louisiana, if you're 60 years old old with a people and you are area not getting a tzu through obamacare, you want to go into the individual market, your policy plus deductible and co-pay can be up to $50,000 a year. after-tax clarks mr. president. so think about this. you're making $150,000, b insurance with deductible and co-pay, pharmaceutical costed, et cetera is about $50,000 before your insurance kicks in. "the washington post" thought i was exaggerating. they went down and interviewed somebody in louisiana. oh, he's right. it really could cost you about $50,000. the high cost of drugs impacts

the medicare trust fund, it impacts the trust fund. if you look at state budget after state budget struggling to make ends meet, a major expense which has grown over time is medicaid. and state dozen all sorts of machinations nard'd no -- in order to decrease the state's cost of the program. dose spiel all the tricks that state did, still medicaid gobbles up in order and more of -- gobbles up more and more of a state's budget. one of the reasons why college tuitions have risen so much and along with it the amount of money that college students have to borrow to get through state universities is that the amount of state general fund dollars going for state university support has declined, as medicaid expenditures have risen. so whether it is medicare, medicaid, or the individual family, risings health care

costs are significant. one more thing. from 200 to 2014, if you look at middle-income families, the amount they've had to spend on health care has risen by 25%, even the though the amount they've spent on other things has fallen. so, mr. president, we have to decrease the cost of -- we have to decrease the cost of drugs and the cost of health care. now, we did have a bill earlier this year in a had been negotiated between senator alexander, senator murray, senator collins, and senator nelson -- two democrats, two republicans -- that would have lowered premiums for those in the individual market and done many other things. for example, there was the federal reinsurance program that could have lowered premiums by as much as 40%, i'm told, in terms of this year. if you're go ting your sticker shock in a few months or right now as with regards your next insurance premiums are going to be, this would have lowered that increase dramatically. for those getting short-term,

limited duration policies, it would have put guardrails on those policies to make sure that they were good policies. it would have helped young people get back into an insurance market they have been priced out of it. it would have given states flexibility how to implement various programs, again with the goal to lower insurance costs. it was a bipartisan bill. by the way, whenever i hear one of my democratic colleagues stand up and say, we've got to do something about health care, i then ask, why did you object and oppose to a bipartisan bill you helped negotiate that would have lowered premiums? and you can see it. it's not me saying t it is actually the democratic party that stood up and said on the procedural motion to proceed, can we notify a vote on this bill that got up and said, no -- no, we do not want this bill, which will lower premiums for the american people.

now, this is -- what i'm saying is not opinion. it can be found on youtube, on c-span. a bipartisan bill they helped negotiate, they subsequently objected to preferring that the american people pay higher premiums, i suppose, so that to talk about.e a campaign issue so whenever one of my democratic colleagues gets up and talks about the high cost of health care, it begs the question, why did you oppose the bipartisan bill that would have lowered premiums this year? that's a question the american people should be asking. on the other hand, i am personally working on this. we just put out an eight-page -- excuse me, an eight-page white paper on what we as a nation can do to lower health care costs, to decrease the cost of medications. several things in there. one is to afor-profit the bipartisan legislation -- one is to adopt the bipartisan legislation that we thought we had agreement on but that was subsequently opposed by those who had negotiated the

bipartisan agreement on the democratic side. secondly is price transparency. can you imagine this -- if you go and get an x-ray that your doctor orders or go to buy a medicine, that you would actually know the price of that medicine or the price of that x-ray before you go in? and if the surprise too high be able to comparatively shop and go someplace in which it was less expensive? we do it for jeans. we do it for cell phones. we do it for cars. we should be able to do it for health care. now, by ÷ the way, you may know i'm a physician, spent 30 years in the health care system. this can happen and it does ham. i'm told by a g.i. friend of mine in north carolina that blue cross north carolina will publish what the cost of a colons on pi is for someone so he is at a lower cost, higher quality provider, he has folks coming as far as 50 miles away for his colonoscopy to his

facility because folks look online and it's lower cost and the quality is great. so it can work. one other way it works we ask that you ban gag clauses. some pharmacy benefit managers will tell the pharmacist that he or she cannot tell the patient that it's cheaper to pay cash for their prescription than to pay their insurance copay. the pharmacist could tell them but the pharmacist is not allowed to because if the pharmacist tells them they would save money by paying cash instead of going through their insurance, the pharmacist would lose that contract with that pharmacy benefit manager. that is wrong. the patient should have the power and if the patient has the power, we lower drug costs, we lower health care costs. mr. president, we have many other ideas in this paper and we invite people to go to the website cassidy.senate.gov to see this. we like feedback and we hope eventually it can be bipartisan. but in the meantime, mr. president, we'll continue to

work as will my republican colleagues on how we can lower costs of medicine, lower the cost of drugs, and make it easier for those families sitting around the kitchen table to be able to meet their bills. mr. president, thank you and i yield the floor. and, mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

brown are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, earlier this year the commerce department found the chinese

telecommunications giant z.t.e. guilt of persistently and willfully violating u.s. sanctions laws on north korea and iran. consistently -- persistently, willfully violating u.s. sanctions laws on north korea and iran. that's a pretty serious offense for a large company to commit. it found the company repeatedly then lied about it and went to great length to cover it up. in response, as we should, across party lines, our government took action. we put a series of strict export action prohibitions on z.t.e. in mid-april this year. we did what we should, a large international company, happened to be chinese in this case, broke the law, broke a serious law about sanctions. then lied about what it did so we took action. so, mr. president, it's pretty galling to learn that early this morning, the commerce department

announced yet another agreement with this chinese telecommunications giant to enable it to interact with u.s. companies. so they committed that kind of offense. then they lied about that kind of offense. and now we're saying it's okay. you can come back into our country. you can do business with us. what gives here? we can't allow a chinese company or a company anywhere -- i'm not picking on china in this case. but china is a country we've had deficientty with, that is -- have difficulty with, that is habitually breaking international trade laws and has trouble with the truth like some people in the white house have. we have allowed this chinese company to violate u.s. law time and time again, to lie about it time and time and time again, and get away with it? by turning a blind eye to z.t.e.'s blatant violations, the trump administration's putting chinese jobs ahead of american jobs, putting chinese national

interests over america's national security. why in the world would we do that? z.t.e. is a chinese company best known for making cheap smartphones, mostly sold in developing countries, though also sells them here. that's important. it makes a -- it means a company that knowingly, knowingly breaks u.s. laws could have control over information people have on their phones. so it's bad enough that we send a message, okay, you broke the law. that's bad enough. then you lied about it. you broke serious international law, sanctions laws that protect our national security in part and protect the world from these countries, these countries like north korea and iran which are bad actors. you broke the law by helping them and breaking sanctions laws. then you lied about it. that's bad enough. now we're -- now we're not only penalizing them, we're giving them advantage when these companies could have control over information people have on their phones. so this isn't a company that

makes cars that cheated. this is a company that makes telecommunications equipment that can be used in an insidious sort of way against our own people. this could have real national security implications if that information is abused. and as we've seen with recent revelations about facebook, giving chinese telecom giants access to its data, private firms are not always careful on how they manage people's private lives and private date ta. the administration's -- data. the administration's new agreement with z.t.e. reportedly emerged from direct discussions with president trump and the president of china. i can't even imagine what those discussions must have been. when you think about what the president of china had to defend, what his company -- his country did, what his company did and yet the president of the united states was willing to say, oh, we'll forgive t. we're not worried. we love you. we love you country. even though it's -- even though it's prioritizing chinese jobs

over american job, prioritizing chinese national security interests over american national security interests. in a nutshell, americans national security must not be used in a bargaining chip in negotiations. i don't know if the president talking to the president of china said okay, we'll do this for you and you'll do this for us. but whatever you do this for us, i don't know if it means the president's business or the president personally or us means american national interests. mr. president, i've not seen any american national interest that's getting favored in this whole transaction. but trading american sanctions enforcement to promote jobs in china is a bad deal for american workers and a really, really bad deal for security for all americans. let's look at how we got here. last year in march z.t.e. agreed to a combined civil and criminal penalty and for tat turf $1.-- for tat turf $1.2 billion after illegally shipping

telecommunications equipment to iran and korea in direct violation of u.s. sanctions law, they made false statements and obstructed justice. i'm not a lawyer, mr. president, but that is -- i understand it's really easy to understand that's serious stuff. shipping communications equipment to iran and north korea, two really bad actors on the world scene, two countries that virtually everybody in -- on this senate floor has spoken out against it at one time or another, it violated u.s. sanctions laws, laws that this senate passed close to unanimously. they made false statements. they obstruct justice and then the commerce department determined that z.t.e. then lied about its crimes. i mean, how do you get more serious than that? commerce secretary ross said recently, the commerce secretary appointed by the president and secretary ross, i know him well, i liked some of the things he's done, particularly in cleveland, he said z.t.e. made false statements to the u.s. government when they originally were caught, put on the entity list, made fault statements during the reprieve it was

given, made false statements against during prohibition. at least the company is consistent they lie during that part of the process and then they lied during that part of the process and lied during that part of the process. we know that about this company's charter -- character. these fault statements covered up the fact that z.t.e. paid full bonuses to employees that engaged in illegal conduct and failed to issue letters of reprimand. they break the law. they lie and lie and lie and lie. then they give bonuses to the executives that lie. i mean, how much more do you -- how much more -- how much more can this company grind the americans' faces in the dirt as they lie and cheat and steal and then the american president in a face-to-face meeting with china says it's okay, we don't mind? i speak for the american people. do it again. it fundamentally says if you grind america's face in this muck after all that china has

done, this company has done to american national interests and then you grind their face in this muck and then you say -- then you say we're not going to punish you, it pretty much says hey, you're free to do it again. secretary ross, another quote from him, z.t.e. misled the department of defense of commerce instead of reprimanding z.t.e. staff and senior management. z.t.e. rewarded them. this egregious behavior cannot be ignored. the president's secretary of commerce has said we can't ignore it. said they cheated. they broke the law. they lied. they lied again. they lied again. they rewarded these lies. they gave bonuses to those would lied. they never reprimanded them. that's what the president's secretary of commerce is saying. then the president said, it's okay. it's okay. we don't mind. we'll get something else for this. that's why this spring after ross' comments, the department of commerce issued a law enforcement decision imposing a broaden nile of export privileges on z.t.e. for its

repeated rye laitions of -- violations of u.s. sanctions. these laws are law enforcement action. any changes in them should be decided independently. but, mr. president, that ain't happening here. the president's overruling a law enforcement decision as he criticizes the f.b.i. almost daily, the president is overruling a law enforcement decision made in the interest of american national security in part by people appointed to those to those offices by the president of the united states. he did nts just appoint the f.b.i. director. he didn't just appoint his -- select his vice president. he appointed mr. ross as secretary of commerce. the secretary of commerce is saying fundamentally, mr. president, don't do this. this company needs to be punished. the president again, he overrules a law enforcement decision made in the interest of american national security all in order to save jobs, to save jobs. okay. at least that's a reason. but, mr. president, the problem with that is the jobs saved are in china.

they're not in mansfield, ohio. they're not in cleveland, ohio. they're not in shreveport, louisiana, the presiding officer's home state. they're not in -- they're not in toledo, ohio. think about that the administration looks the other way for a company that broke the law, that threatened national security, and it's doing it to protect jobs in the communist china and the people's republic of china. defies all logic. can you imagine china saying, you know, i think we're going -- we're going to hurt our national security so we can put more jobs in akron, ohio. we're going to compromise our workers' interest so we can put more jobs in zanesville, ohio. we're going -- it's okay that china is going to get a little hurt so we can get some more jobs in chillocothe, ohio. i don't think they think that way. they do everything in their power, steal our technology, undermine our industries. they put our companies out of business. then we do this.

the only person i know that wants to do it is the president of the united states. the secretary of commerce doesn't like this decision. i'm sure the f.b.i. doesn't like this decision. viet to meet a republican or democratic senator that says that a boy. undermine our national interest. protect chinese jobs over jobs in harrisburg or ann arbor or jobs in madison, wisconsin, or jobs in atlanta, georgia. america's policies towards gentleman might be an interesting idea to put america first, that our policies towards china should put our country first. that's what china does in reverse. that's why congress needs to push back on this decision by the president and address it as directly as soon as possible. the national defense authorization act offers a chance to do that. secretary of -- senator van hollen inserted language into the cfius bill which received overwhelming support from both parties when we marked it up in the banking committee two weeks ago. that legislation is now in this defense bill. with the settlement agreement announced by commerce, that

legislation will require some change, some tweaking to make sure it covers what the administration's already done and at the same time prevent the president from moving forward with this agreement. senators cotton, a conservative republican, and van hollen, a progressive democrat, and senator crapo, the chairman of the banking committee, a republican, i as a democrat, the ranking member of the banking committee, we pressed for an amendment that would do that. this bipartisan amendment would send a clear signal to the white house and more importantly a clear signal to the world that we don't agree with that behavior. it would send a clear signal that congress disapproves of this most recent agreement that, mr. president, just inexplicably -- i have heard, unless the president has some personal reason for doing this, unless it makes the president's business more profitable, unless it puts money in the pocket of his family or himself -- and i'm not accusing him here, because i just don't know, mr. president. i can't figure out what all this means, why you would side with

chinese workers over american workers, why you would side with chinese national security over our domestic security, i can't figure out why you would unroll, unspool a decision by your own cabinet member to punish this company for breaking the law once, twice, three times against -- with iran and north korea; lying about it once, twice, three times, giving rewards to those company officials that broke the law and then lied about it. i can't understand -- i can't think of any other explanation why a president of the united states, unless it is in his own personal interest, personal financial interest, why he would possibly make a decision like that. this bipartisan amendment would send a clear signal that congress disapproves of that. i urge my colleagues to support the van hollen-cotton amendment. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, it's thursday, and as you know because you preside a lot on thursday, that means it's the afternoon in which i get to talk about someone in my state who's doing a great job for the state and oftentimes for the country, somebody who's really making a difference. and as you know and the pages know, i like to refer to this person as the alaskan of the

week. it's one of my favorite parts of the week here in the senate, being able to talk about someone who's made a real difference. right now in alaska where i give this speech every week, i like to talk about what's going on in alaska. it's certainly the most beautiful state. it's the biggest state, we all know that, in the country. and the state's fully in bloom. its tourists are flocking north by the tens of thousands to view the wildlife and the glaciers and the mountains. they'll eat our delicious seafood, take in amazing views, do hikes, have an adventure. by the way, i want to make sure everybody's watching in the gallery, on tv or c-span. you've got to come up to alaska. you'll have the trip of a lifetime, guaranteed. guaranteed. come on up. but what's truly impressive about my state is the people who live there and the sense of the community that we have there.

now, alaska isn't always the easiest place to live in. it's a little bit far from the lower 48. the weather can be extreme. but as a result, the people in the communities bond and they work together. particularly in some of our more remote communities. we're like one big community in alaska, even though the state's so big. and every community, every community in america, let alone alaska, needs to be able to share reliable, credible information. now, mr. president, on that topic, there's been quite a lot of, i would say negative attention paid to the media. the national media in particular, these past few years. some of it merited. nobody's perfect, right? but the vital role, the vital role of local journalism and how

that plays in different communities across our country hasn't really been talked about nearly enough, because we all know this, and in many ways we all benefit from it, there are thousands of local reporters working hard in our country day in, day out, doing great fact-finding stories and working hard. and i believe we should all be saluting them when they're doing this important work. so that's what we're doing today. i'd like to introduce ed showenfeld, a reporter in alaska, who is our alaskan of the week, who has been rebelieably reporting the news from -- reliably reporting the news from southeast alaska for 37 years, and who just recently took a well-earned retirement. 37 years.

well done, ed. you are our alaskan of the week. so let me talk a little bit about ed. he hitchhiked to fairbanks when he was 20 years old for a little trip, and as so many do, he promised himself that when he had the opportunity, he would come back to alaska. that opportunity came enemy 1979 when the program director position opened up at the tv station ktoo in juneau, alaska. now, alaska public radio was and still is renowned across the country for its local reporting and for its crucial link to rural communities who need that reporting throughout our state, and need it badly. and interestingly, i think because of the challenges that it presents to reporters, some

of national public radio's most famous reporters, nationally npr's most famous reporters have cut their teeth in alaska. some have heard of elizabeth arnold and corey flintoff, they both got their start in alaska. public radio is where alaskans get their news about the weather, about whale hunts, about bear attacks, about births, deaths, crimes, baptisms , you name it, that's where we get our information. and in the smaller communities, this information can be critical because the public radio stations across alaska work

cooperatively, they pretty much keep it local. from ktoo ed went to the empire, the big paper in juneau. and for the last 15 years he's been one of the voices of southeast alaska on coast alaska, be a public broadcasting consortium of 500 communities. his nickname is dean of the douglas press corps. this is a big of -- a bit of a joke, not toward him, but what douglas means. douglas is an island of about 300 people. but as the juneau paper put it, ed has earned the status as the dean of the press corps, and that status became because of the dozens and dozens of reporters he has trained and mentored throughout the years. and that's a great legacy.

but, of course, he also takes his work very seriously. he's done plenty of light-hearted features about ee questions triians, exploring caves in the largest national forest in the country, but there are also deeper dives as you would expect. he has won investigation journalism award about corruption related to a state contract. he covered our important businesses extensively, and there's nobody who has done more digging into an issue that i and my fellow alaskans care deeply about, particularly in the southeast, and that is the transboundary mining issue. mining waste that comes from canada into alaska's waters. ed is focused on that more than any other reporter. it's an issue, as i mentioned, many of us take seriously.

transboundary mining is complex. ed traveled through canada and alaska, to the communities impacted by this pollution. he has spoken to everyone, community leaders, fishermen, government officials, environmentalists, mining companies, tourism businesses. and what he ultimately came to on this subject are concerns about this pollution are legitimate, but unlike some are saying, not all mines are bad, certainly not in alaska, we have a number of mines. certainly some are trying to do the right thing. it's more complicated than what the critics often say, says ed. that's how it is with had most -- with most stories and that's why we need good reporters. mr. president, many issues are complicated and we can get so frustrated with the simplistic he said, she said reporting that

we hear on the news today, but good reporters, as we know, dig much deeper. they cut through the propaganda. they lay out all the facts and facets of an issue, and in many ways they let us decide. they recognize the people who are listening are intelligent and they try and help us figure out the importance of some of these big issues. these are the kind of reporters that need in every community. these are the kind of reporters that i think are critical for our democracy. so now ed will spend more time with his wife, also a former reporter, betsy, and his two daughters, elizabeth an maggie. i'm -- and maggie. i'm sure to see him hang up his dean's robe. i know his colleagues are sad, but there will be others that will follow in his footsteps, young, eager reporters who want to report to the community the

facts and, of course, there is no better place to do that than alaska. so, ed, thanks for all of your work, 37 years of hard work for our state, and congratulations on being our alaskan of the week. your voice will be missed. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following remark appear in a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr.sullivan: mr. president, as you know right now we are debating on the senate floor the national defense authorization act, and i want to congratulate senator inhofe, my good friend from oklahoma, and the chairman -- acting chairman of the armed services committee. i also certainly want to congratulate senator mccain, who we're all praying for who is struggling with some health issues right now who is the chairman of the armed services, and senator jack reed of rhode

island, the ranking member on the armed services committee, for the great work they have done shepherding this important piece of legislation through the committee process and now we have it on the floor and now we're debating it. it's certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation that we bring to the senate floor every year over 50 years without missing one year we have moved the ndaa bill, which authorizes funding and policies for the men and women in our military through the senate floor. so there's a bunch of things in this bill that are very important for our troops, for the national defense of our nation. and, by the way, it's a very bipartisan bill, just like it was last year. so we're going to be discussing this for the next week and hopefully people watching back home or here in washington will get a sense of just how important this legislation is, but what i wanted to do this

afternoon, mr. president, is talk about two provisions that my team and i authored in this bill -- two provisions that are very important as the president of the united states and his team had to -- head to singapore for the summit that the world is watching with the dictator of north korea, kim jong-un. i wanted to highlight two key sections because what they are meant to do is strengthen the president's hand and the leverage of the united states as the leaders of our country move into these negotiations with a very unpredictable dictator who, in my view, we can't trust a lot -- can't trust at all. but nevertheless what we're trying to do is bolster the president's hand in these negotiations, and we're all

cautiously optimistic that something positive can come out of this summit. so what are these two provisions, mr. president? the first deals with strength beingening america's missile -- strengthening america's missile defense and the military forces on the korean peninsula. what i would like to do first is talk about the missile defense provisions in the ndaa this year. now, as this chart shows, kim jong-un has dramatically increased testing for north korea's missile program and nuclear program. if you look at what happened under his grandfather and his father, kim jong-il, the current leader of north korea has

dramatically increased both the testing intercontinental ballistic missles and nuclear weapons. now, fortunately, and i think thamerican people want this, we've seen this threat coming -- a number of us have seen this threat coming. so that's why in last year's national defense authorization act, we had a bill, my office authored it, but we had many, many cosponsors, democrats and republicans, to significantly enhance our nation's missile defense. that passed in the ndaa. it was fully funded by the end of the year, almost $5 billion, to increase missile defense for our nation, and what it did, it increased capacity, building new fields of missiles that could shoot down any incoming missiles. it increased capability, that

would mean accelerating technology for multiple warheads to increase our ability to shoot down any incoming missile, and it required much more testing by the missile defense agency so we can perfect the regional and homeland missile defenses that we have here in the united states. big progress. it's already happening, and, of cows, that's really, really important given the threat that we now face as a country. now, mr. president, as alaska's senator, i'm proud of the fact that a lot -- actually most of our nation's missile defense is located in the great state of alaska. and this is simply physics. this is physics and location, location, location. if there's going to be a threat

either from iran or north korea or anywhere else with regard to the united states of america, that threat is almost always going to fly over alaska. so we have our radar systems there, we have long-range discrimination radar there, we have the missile fields protecting every city from new york to l.a. to miami all based in the great state of alaska. so what are we doing this year? well, we have an entire new section in the ndaa builds on what we did last year to dramatically increase our nation's missile defense even more because you can never be too sure on this. this is an insurance policy that's going to protect every city in america. so this year in the current ndaa that we're debating right now, the big issues here with regard to missile defense is that this bill calls for the development

and deployment of space-based sensors. it mandates these within the next couple of years. it's krit kavment it also pro moments -- critical. it also promotes a more intricate missile defense and defends us against hypersonic threats, and importantly, mr. president, in terms of missile defense, this bill focuses on our allies, working together with our allies in korea, in japan, and in other places in europe to share these missile defense capabilities so we, as our allies, have a much more robust system. let me just talk briefly upon the really important issue of space-based sensors. every expert that has testified in front of the armed services committee, whether the current

director of the missile defense agency, general grieves, whether the four-star general in charge of extra tinlic command, -- strategic command, general heighten, or whether the former director, admiral searing, have saul said -- have all said space-based sensors are critical. the time is now. what does that mean? what does that do? well, we have different systems in different parts of the country -- or different parts of the world. in south korea, we have the thaad system, and we also have the asian system on our shore and in our ships, and back home, we have the home-based system, and that is mostly based in alaska. what a space-based sensor program does is integrate all of these systems and it