those departments include interior, treasury, agriculture, housing and transportation. senators are working to reach agreement on amendments and bill managers are hoping to send the bill to the house by the end of the week. in the live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. will . the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god, our hope for years to come, we offer you our thanksgiving. thank you for your steadfast love that sustains us every hour. thank you for your faithfulness that allows us to dwell in peace. lord, we are grateful for the joy we receive

by observing the works of your hands, finding pleasure in the beauty of the sunrise and the glory of the sunset. today, use our senators for the glory of your name. guide and direct them that they may mount up with wings like eagles, running without weariness and walking without fainting. guide them with the light of your truth. lord of all, to you we raise this, our prayer of grateful praise. we pray in your bountiful name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the 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: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 26, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable thom tillis, a senator from the state of north carolina, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to

talk this morning about the president's well qualified nominee for the supreme court. a number of us have already met with judge kavanaugh. more senators from both sides of the aisle have meetings scheduled. by all accounts, including my own, he's a fair and thoughtful jurist with a brilliant legal mind. but some senators have a different view than their colleagues, different from the experts. here's how the junior senator from new jersey characterized this nomination with the senior senator from massachusetts right beside him and here's what he said, mr. president. we're walking through the valley of the shadow of death. you're either complicit in the evil, you're either contributing to the wrong, or you're fighting against it. this, mr. president, from a member of the judiciary

committee. he hasn't even met with judge kavanaugh, hasn't heard a word of testimony, and he's citing scripture? scripture? to proclaim that this nominee is pure evil of biblical proportions? he's claiming that the senators and the american people who have an open mind on this nomination are complicit, complicit in the evil? this is truly outrageous and not a single democrat has come forward to condemn what he had to say. our friends on the left are locked in this bizarre, bizarre competition to wear out the volume knob and outdo each other with this angry, angry nonsense. before the president even selected judge kavanaugh, the junior senator from california,

another member of the judiciary committee, declared that whoever he nominated would bring about, quote -- now listen to this -- a destruction of the u.s. constitution. she'd made up her mind before any hearings, any testimony before there was even a nominee, in fact. less than 24 hours after judge kavanaugh was announced, the senior senator from connecticut followed suit. he said, judge kavanaugh is your worst nightmare. your worst nightmare. another member of the judiciary committee. so for those keeping score at home, democrats want you to believe judge kavanaugh is your worst nightmare, will put the american people in the valley of the shadow of death, and dry the constitution all by himself.

oh, and don't forget, anyone who doesn't agree with them is complicit in evil. who do they expect to believe this stuff? here's another quote. this is a nominee who wants to pave the path to tyranny. pave the path to tyranny. that was our colleague, the junior senator from oregon, at a rally with far-left special interests. here's another quote. the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of americans for decades to come. that was one of the former democratic governor of virginia who actually used to chair the democratic national committee. now, mr. president, it's hard to

keep a straight face when you hear this hysteria. and really can't keep a straight face at all when our democratic colleagues say these things. and then turn around and insist they need extra time, they need extra time, extra information, extra documents in order to make up their minds? do the people making these comments sound like they're open minded? do they sound persuadable? the democratic leader has insisted that judge kavanaugh's long and extensive judicial record isn't enough and democrats need to see practically every scrap of paper from the bush white house before they can decide.

about two weeks ago when the ink was barely dry on judge kavanaugh's nomination, he himself told a national television audience -- this is the democratic leader -- i will oppose him with everything i've got. doesn't sound undecided to me. doesn't sound like a guy who needs documents to make up his mind. so let's be clear about what this is all about. judge kavanaugh has been a judge for over a decade. he's written over 300 opinions. he just produced over 6,000 pages of documents as part of his questionnaire. and many more documents will be produced in the coming weeks. in fact, it's likely that more documents will be produced with respect to his nomination than any supreme court nomination in our entire history. but it's becoming pretty clear that none of this will really

matter. i'm sorry to say that for most senate democrats, i'm afraid it would not matter if there were a million pages of documents or ten million or a hundred million. it wouldn't make any difference. no matter how many documents are produced, many of our democratic colleagues are making it abundantly clear they're never going to support this nominee, never. never. so the complaint about documents is not about assessing his record in an open minded, fair, and dispassionate way. it's all about the desire to obstruct and delay. the american people will give this demagoguery and these delaying tactics the short shrift they deserve. now, on another matter, mr. president, later today, vice president pence will visit wheeling, west virginia to discuss republicans' pro-growth

agenda. for the better part of a decade, the people of west virginia heard a lot of talk from washington. during the 2008 presidential campaign, then-senator biden told a crowd in charleston, west virginia that he supported the coal industry and democrats policies would help west virginia's economy. this is about jobs, he said. but the obama-biden administration turned out to be a crash course in the difference between rhetoric and results. across the entire private sector, fewer west virginians were employed the day president obama left office than on the day he was sworn in. according to the bureau of labor statistics, the state's manufacturing workforce shrunk by more than 13% from 2009 through 2016. and its mining and logging workforce collapsed by 37%. so let's be clear. public policy is not the only factor at work in our economy.

but there's no denying that washington can make life harder for job creators or make it easier and the obama economy was a tough pill to swallow. tax hikes, burdensome regulation s, their policies cut against the rhetoric. and the outcome was disappointing. that was then. this is now. when vice president pence lands in west virginia today, he will be able to share a different story. he'll be able to say that thanks in part to regulatory relief and generational tax reform, the number of americans saying now is a good time, good time to find a quality job hit a 17-year high just two months ago. he will be able to say west virginia's unemployment rate has been lower every month since this unified republican government than it was any month, any month of the obama presidency. it's the american people who are achieving all this.

republicans are just happy that our policies are help creating the conditions for workers and job creators to thrive. now, finally, mr. president, this week the senate has continued our regular appropriations process. we're considering four important funding measures that will account for about an eighth of discretionary spending. this bill will keep resources flowing to a long list of key government functions. we're talking about everything from food safety inspections to antidrug enforcement to child nutrition to the forest service. it tends to a number of specific policy programs we have in common like rebuilding america's infrastructure and to fight against opioid abuse. my constituents in kentucky will benefit from new funding for rural development grants and loans and more resources to fight everything from illegal

drugs to invasive species like asian carp. communities in every single state will win because of this work. so i want to express gratitude to members on both sides of the aisle, our subcommittee chairs who helped shape the bills in this minibus, senators murkowski, collins, and lankford. all of our colleagues on the appropriations committee and their fearless leaders, shelby and vice chairman leahy for keeping this process bipartisan and for keeping it moving. and senator murkowski once more for her work managing this legislation here on the floor. i'm proud of the regular appropriations process we are rebuilding together. i'm proud that we've been able to process several amendments and hope we can continue to process even more. but i'm especially proud of the good things this legislation will do for families and communities nationwide.

mr. president, i understand there are two bills at the desk due a second reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 184, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. h.r. 1201, an act to amend section 5000-a of the internal revenue code of 1986 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bills on the calendar under provision of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. a senator: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. and under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 6147 which the clerk will report. the clerk: an act making appropriations for the department of the interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania.

mr. casey: thank you, madam president. before i get to my remarks, i would ask unanimous consent that rachel cohen of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i'm proud to be here this morning to talk about a legislative matter that's taken many years to come to fruition. we were able to work together in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize the carl d. perkins career and technical education act and make important updates that will support high quality programs, foster innovation and improve access for all students. and i'm very proud to be joined by senator enzi who worked for years on this issue. i'll say more about senator enzi in a moment. but perkins c.t. effort, c.t.e. standing for career and technical education is critical

to creating jobs and growing wages and assuring workers of the tools to outcompete anyone in the world. this will empower states and local districts to create programs that provide better outcome for all students, educators, and our economy. since the last reauthorization in 2006 -- you heard that right -- 2006, there have been significant changes to both technology and our economy, and we have a growing skills gap. in pennsylvania, for example, jobs requiring some post-secondary education and training but not a b.a. account for 54% of pennsylvania's labor market. however, only 43% of workers in the state are trained to fill these jobs. this bipartisan legislation will help to close the skills gap by allowing programs to better align -- align with industry

need, ensuring that programs serve as a pipeline to the high-skill, high-wage, or in demand jobs of today and also the jobs of tomorrow. in addition, this legislation creates more alignment with federal laws like the workforce innovation and opportunity act known around here with the acronym wioa which deals with our workforce. better alignment as well with the higher education act and also better alignment as well with the every student succeeds act which was the elementary ely second der education law. all of that will help to ensure that our education and workforce programs indeed work together. similarly, this legislation improves collaboration between secondary schools, institutions of higher education, employers

and other community partners. it increases stakeholder engagement and ensures we have a workforce to support high quality programs by increasing recruitment of and improving professional development for c.t.e., career and technical education educators. i'm particularly proud of provisions in this bill that will promote equity and ensure that all students, including the students with disabilities, have access to high quality programs. also pleased that provisions in the bill will allow for more career and technical education exploration in both middle and secondary grades, exposing students to different career and academic pathways early gives them more options and opportunities to succeed. we've come together and passed a strong bill that is responsive to the needs of our communities and will help students, will help programs and industries

across pennsylvania and across our nation to thrive. i look forward to continuing to work on these issues, but now that the house has also passed this legislation, we're looking forward to having the president sign it into law. and i want to say how much i appreciate the work that was done over many years by senator enzi and his staff working with my staff and working with me and the direct involvement of both the chairman of the health, education, labor, and pensions committee, chairman alexander, as well as ranking member patty murray. we're grateful for their direct help in getting this legislation through the senate and with that i will yield the floor to my colleague from wyoming. mr. enzi: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i want to begin by thanking my friend from pennsylvania, senator casey, for

his commitment both to the students who will benefit from this reauthorization of the carl d. perkins career and technical education act and to the bipartisanship that helped us to reach this point. i also want to thank chairman alexander and ranking member murray for prioritizing the effort to reauthorize perkins c.t.e. their recognition of the importance of this work was key to getting past an impasse that only a few months ago looked unlikely to break. senator casey and i have had a lot of hours working together to come up with a bill that would make a difference to people who want to work with their hands, to people who want to work with computers. i have a favorite book that talks about from cowboys to coal miners, the people who get their hands dirty every day to provide what you need. this is a segment of the economy that we really need, and i know

that if you need an electrician or you need a plumber, you want them right away and you want them trained. and that's what this bill emphasizes and provides for. i do need to thank the administration and ivanka trump kushner in particular for putting the spotlight on this c.t.e. and work force development generally, with a laser-like focus on strengthening the economy. the president and his administration have rightly recognized that a strong and prosperous economy requires a skilled and ready workforce. this combined bipartisan effort resulted in the senate unanimously passing its amendment to the house's own bipartisan bill. we did it by voice vote. that's as bipartisan as it gets around here. now the house has taken that bill and approved of the changes that were made which we

coordinated with them during all the time that we were negotiating, and they have taken the same action. so that pill -- bill is now on the way to the president who emphasized that we needed to do it. now, passing this reauthorization is particularly important to wyoming where one-sixth of the school districts have chosen not to participate in the perkins c.t.e. because the compliance and reporting burdens were too heavy to justify the funds that they would receive. that changes with this bill. for years, states have been leading the effort to tackle the national work force skills gap and ensure that they and our country at large have a workforce that's capable of meeting the challenges of an increasingly dynamic competitive and global economy. unfortunately, states have been meeting these challenges under a program that was last authorized in 2006. by modernizing perkins c.t.e.,

we're taking the important step of better aligning the primary federal career and technical education program with the workforce innovation and opportunity act and the every student succeeds act. we like these all to work together, and these are all achievements that have been done this year because far from working independently, these programs are pieces of the largest -- the largest and larger workforce development puzzle. and because it can be hard to know what programs to provide when you don't know which ones are needed, this legislation also promoted collaboration between the stakeholders so that the local businesses are brought to the table to communicate their needs to states and local educators as strategies and programs are developed. you know, we want people hired after they get training, so the training needs to be for the jobs that are going to be available. crucially by enabling the

limited funds provided by this program to be more effectively spent on education and less on complying with federal reporting requirements, this legislation will better reflect that the investment made by the federal government into career and technical education represents pennies on the dollar when compared to the investment of the money and effort made at the state and local levels. this bill takes the important step of providing states with greater authority to determine the levels at which they will be held accountable under this program. however, as states continue to compete for investment, for accountability, they will ultimately come in the form of employers who will vote with their feet and their capital, hiring people. ask any businessperson what their biggest challenge is, and they will likely tell you it's finding workers with the right skills and knowledge to fill their open jobs. states and communities that recognize this need and rise to the challenge of preparing their

residents for those jobs are the ones that will succeed in this economy. these improvements, along with many others included in this bill, underscore why passage of this legislation has long been a priority for so many people, and it's only appropriate that one of the clearest displays of bipartisanship of the 115th congress would be in support of our workforce and the students preparing to join it. i once again want to thank my friend, senator casey, for his support in this effort, and i will also express my disappointment in how little publicity there has been. if there is a controversy, if people are cursing each other or making unusual comments, that makes the paper. but to actually do something, to actually get something done, to get it done in a bipartisan way, people working together virtual ly unanimously, they say well, that must have been too easy. if it was easy, we wouldn't have been working on it since 2006,

but we got it done and it's on its way to the president and i'm proud of it. again, i thank senator casey for his superb effort in reaching agreement on this. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. coons: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: madam president, i just wanted to briefly add my personal thanks to the senators from wyoming and pennsylvania who just spoke. their work on getting this bipartisan solution to the perkins c.t.e. reauthorization is nothing short of admirable. i have worked with the senator from florida, senator rubio, for seven years on an education

demonstration program called the american dream accounts. both of these terrific senators were gracious in including it in this bill. this is a bill that is going to make possible programs all over this country that smooths and clears the pathway towards meaningful employment for young americans. i wish more people knew about this kind of work, this kind of effort that these two senators have made to move forward the sort of bipartisan, responsible solutions to the real problems facing americans that we need, and i just want to take one moment and thank them both for their tireless work to achieve this good result today. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president, are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, madam president, both parties used to agree that the thorough review of the supreme court's nominee's record was essential to fulfilling the constitutional advise and consent obligations on senators. when elena kagan was nominated eight years ago, even though democrats were in the majority and republicans were in the minority, chairman leahy joined with republicans to request all of elena kagan's records from her time in the white house. now the shoe is on the other

foot, we're in the minority, they are in the majority. but rather than applying the previous bipartisan standard, the republican majority is refusing to join with democrats in requesting brett kavanaugh's complete record. at issue is brett kavanaugh's time as staff secretary in the bush white house. republicans argue we don't need to see the papers from that part of his career. democrats argue we most certainly do. republicans are being hypocritical and sophistic. in both cases, we said we need all the important papers. why? we need a complete record of who the nominee is. now they are saying well, counsel is okay but staff secretary isn't and kagan wasn't a staff secretary. so what? so what? the relevant standard is all the records. no matter what jobs they had. and the republicans are trying to come up with the difference

for reasons that people are asking why. are they hiding something? is kavanaugh hiding something? what did he do when he was staff secretary that he doesn't want the american public to see? the republicans say that the job of staff secretary wasn't so important, merely a paper pusher. the senate doesn't need to say anything from the period, they say, because the job was unimportant. and the second they say his years as a judge should preclude him from having to provide paperwork from earlier work as a top white house official. the republicans keep moving the goalpost back. they keep changing the standard to suit their needs to accomplish their goal. a hard-right, anti-middle class, antichoice, antihealth care goal. that's their goal. can't accomplish it here, can't accomplish it in the house, can't even accomplish it with president trump because those are elected branches of

government and the public pushes back. with judges they can. so they keep moving the goalpost and changing the rules time and time again. their arguments don't withstand scrutiny. let's take the first one. the job of staff secretary wasn't so important. that's a laugher. brett kavanaugh himself has said that, quote, my three years as staff secretary for president bush were the most interesting and in many ways among the most instructive. if he feels they are most instructive, why shouldn't the american people see what instructed him? by his own account, during his time in the white house and as staff secretary, judge kavanaugh attended meetings with world leaders from the pope to vladimir putin. he participated, quote, in the process of putting legislation together, unquote. and he talked to the president of the united states about how he should pick someone for the supreme court. in fact, judge kavanaugh said his time as staff secretary made

him, quote, a better interpreter of statutes. so over and over again, judge kavanaugh has said this is an important position. and it critically informed who he is as a judge and who he will be, should he be confirmed -- i hope he isn't -- to the supreme court. so the argument the republicans have that staff secretary isn't an important job is virtually laughable and a cover-up for their fear of letting all the records out. the second argument we are hearing is that it's gratuitous and unreasonable to ask for documents from brett kavanaugh's career before he became a judge. well, we got amnesia on the other side. nine years ago when this body was considering the nomination of sonia sotomayor to the supreme court, senate republicans on the judiciary committee requested all the paperwork from her tenure at the puerto rican legal defense and education fund.

sotomayor was a judge for 15 years, three longer than judge kavanaugh. still republicans just nine years ago said they needed minutes from the board meetings that justice sotomayor attended as far back as 29 years before her confirmation hearing. here's what senator sessions said in 2009. quote, puerto rican legal defense fund documents may provide insight into sotomayor's judicial approach. the american people have a right to know this important information about president obama's nominee. guess what? senator leahy, then-chairman, joined sessions in requesting those documents. democrats have been very open about their nominees, our nominees. we let the full records come out. we're not afraid of who they are, but when the republicans get in charge, they come up with all of these elliptical,

sophistic and fundamentally hypocritical arguments about why this record shouldn't be made available or that record. we never heard those from democrats. it's just unfair. so when my friends from the other side say we don't need all of kavanaugh's documents because white house staff secretary isn't an important job, we would ask them isn't it a more important job than being part of the puerto rican defense fund where you demanded records? of course it is. of course it is. it seems each time democrats demonstrate that our request is 100% consistent with the senate's bipartisan precedence, we hear some new, strange, contorted rationalizations from senate republicans as to why a new partisan approach is called for now and why the senate should avert its gaze from judge kavanaugh's work as one of the most senior officials in the white house. republicans keep moving the goalposts in what i can only

characterize as a flimsy and transparent attempt to mask their own hypocrisy. so, again, the obvious, obvious looming question, what are republicans trying to hide in judge kavanaugh's record? what don't they want the public to see? why are they making such hypocrites of themselves in coming up with these arguments that while they were in the minority and president obama nominated people they should get all the records but not now? if there's nothing to hide for judge kavanaugh, then let the sunlight shine. let the records come out. my republican friends seem to think that some democrats have announced their opposition to judge kavanaugh, and that means the full senate doesn't deserve to have access to his full -- to his records. frankly, it's rich to hear this from the republican leader. people are rolling their eyes.

he refused to consider any nominee by president obama. it didn't matter who it was -- mere hours after we received the news of justice khaliah's death. -- justice scalia's death. it was one of the most shameful hours in the senate's history. it is going to go down in history as one of the low points in the senate and senator. mr. mcconnell: will have to -- -- and senator mcconological have to bear that. mr. schumer: this is not about democrats. this is no about individual senators and how they might vote. it is about the american people. we have an open government. that's because the american people deserve a chance to hear the full record, make their judgments, and let their elected representatives know -- now, before a nomination is voted on and in november. when elena kagan's documents were requested by the senate,

they were almost immediately posted online for everyone to see, and they're still there. you can look them up. this isn't about how some of my democratic colleagues may vote on judge kavanaugh. this is about hiding critical information, about a supreme court nominee from pentagon american people. so, madam president, this is simple. since democrats are following a bipartisan precedent, senate republicans are not. republicans are playing a partisan game in hopes of withholding and hiding relevant information from the senate and the public. and i'd make one final plea to my colleagues on the other side who seem to think the whole thing is just a political game. there's nothing deep or sincere about the foundation of this republic. this is not a game. this is a nomination for a lifetime appointment to a seat on the supreme court of the united states. it's one of the most important votes any of us will ever cast.

the american people expect and deserve that the senate take its constitutional duty seriously. i hope our republican colleagues will stop their partisan, self-serving games and let the senate do its job. now, on health care, a week ago the senate defeated a partisan attempt by president trump and republicans to repeal -- a year ago this week, rather, the senate defeated a partisan attempt by president trump and senate republicans to repeal the health care law. since that ignominious defeat where john mccain tooked such courage appeared looked so much better than my colleagues across the aisle and what they're doing now, the republicans have sabotaged our health care system, raising costs on american families, driving up premiums, reducing the quality of care. for what reason?

there seems to be hardly any reason than political spite. president trump is an expert at political spite. we all know that. but our republican colleagues just march blithefully behind him. both of them hate the affordable care act so much, they're willing to take a torch to our health care system, even though it hurts millions of average americans. now the trump administration is trying to gut protections for americans with preexisting conditions through the courts. the administration has directed the justice department not to defend the constitutionality of preexisting conditions and at the same time is pushing judge kavanaugh on the bench. remember, president trump said his, quote, judicial appointments would do the right thing, unlike judge roberts on health care, unquote. make no mistake about it, america. judge kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court puts the future of protections for

preexisting conditions in the spotlight. i'd like ever republican senator to go home and defend that. go home and defend that they want to repeal protections for preexisting conditions, go home and defend that they want to put on the bench a nominee who's likely to do so because president trump said so. in a recent kaiser poll, voters ranked continuing preexisting conditions as the most important health care issue in the upcoming campaign. by 58-27, voters said that since president trump and congressional republicans have made changes in the law, they're now responsible for any problems with our health care system moving forward. almost a year since the republican health care bill went down, those numbers should be a stark warning to my republican colleagues. the american people do not want endless political sabotage. they want lower costs, better quality, more stability, and, above all, they want to keep the protections for americans with

preexisting conditions. republicans go down the road of sabotage at their own peril. i'd urge my colleagues instead to join democrats in defending preexisting conditions in court. as senator manchin, senator casey, who is he a. been such a leader on health care, who we'll hear from in a minute, and other democrats have asked us to do. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i rise for two purposes today, and i'll start with an anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. this is the 28th anniversary of that landmark legislation. former senator tom harkin, who served the people of iowa for more than three decades, if you include house and senate service, and who was a champion for people with disabilities, and i think that's an understatement -- for many years

he was "the" champion -- senator harkin used to say that the americans with disabilities act was the last great civil rights law of the 20th century. the passage of what we know as the a.d.a. helped to bring into focus a picture that started to develop really 150 years ago with the ratification of the 14th amendment. that great amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law for all. the passage of the americans with disabilities act confirmed that people with disabilities are included in that guarantee of the 14th amendment. i think it's important to review the goals of the a.d. a. we've probably last track of those goals with the passage of time. they need to be repeated. the first goal is equal opportunity. the second goal is independent living.

the third is full participation. and the fourth is economic self-sufficiency. that's what we want to achieve for people with disabilities. equal opportunity, independent living, full participation, and economic self-sufficiency. the goals are not achievable, of course, without great support. to achieve those goals, we need actions from governments, actions from businesses, actions from schools and universities, and indeed actions from every sector of our society. we need actions that promote and protect the dream that is at the core of the a.d.a. the a.d.a. affirmed rights outlined in the 14th amendment. despite those guarantees, this past year we've seen

substantial, and i would argue in many instances very cruel efforts that threaten equality for people with disabilities. earlier this year we saw that the house of representatives passed a bill that would have gutted title 3 of the a.d.a., making public access an afterthought for people with disabilities. here in the senate with many of our colleagues joiningings to, we stopped that effort. and if they try it again, we have to stop them from doing it. but these threats continue. in the past couple weeks we heard officials of this administration claim that segregation and institutionalization with regard to those who have a disability should be acceptable for these americans with disabilities. the law of our land, the americans with disabilities act,

in the 1999 supreme court olmstead, say otherwise. they say that the values and policy of the united states are for the inclusion -- the inclusion -- of people with disabilities. that statute and that supreme court decision does not say -- or they do not say that the united states supports segregation, isolation, and institutionalization of people with disabilities. i hope the administration will further clarify what their position is because it is contrary to law, but it's also an insult to our values. it seems that on many days in the last year and a half, if not longer, the republican majority both here in the senate and in the house has been focused on three objectives when this comes to health care -- rip away,

decimate, and sabotage. ripping away protections like those for preexisting conditions in the affordable care act, decimating the medicaid program, and sabotaging our health care system, actions by the administration that some republicans have now interfered with. so you have an administration that on a daily and weekly basis and over many months now have sabotaged our system, sabotaged the individual market and sabotaged people's ability to get health care. so we're going to continue to fight against that, and one of the biggest fights we're going to have is on medicaid. medicaid in pennsylvania affects more than two million people. it has an impact, because of the health care benefit it provides, on 40% of the children of my state. 50% of the people with disabilities and more than 60% of folks trying to get into

nursing homes. so when it comes to medicaid, i'm going to fight until the end of the earth to protect it, not to sit down and have nice discussion about it but to protect it. and if they want to take it on, we're going to continue to fight against them, no matter how how long it takes, no matter how long or how hard that fight is we're going to fight it. despite the progress we've made with the americans with disabilities act, and a lot of other progress in the interim, we still have a ways to go for the promise and dream that many americans with disabilities have had. we need further action, further legislation, further work in a bipartisan manner. and i hope that will be the case on two of of my bills. let me outline them quickly. number one, i just introduced the disability employment incentive act, which encourages businesses to hire more people

with disabilities. the disability workforce is robust, creative, reliable, loyal, and productive. we need more people -- more people -- with disabilities in competitive, integrated employment to strengthen our economy and to enhance the capacity of our businesses. the second bill i have is to protect people with disabilities and their families so we've introduced the office of disability policy act. as sabotage continues to occur by the administration, we need accurate, nonpartisan information about proposals that could harm people with disabilities and the infrastructure that makes it possible for them to participate in our society. we have a responsibility to know when a law that is being proposed or an action by an administration will benefit or adversely affect 56 million americans with disabilities.

during this month when we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the 14th amendment and the 28th anniversary of the signing of the a.d.a., we need to remember we all have a responsibility to complete the picture and to help americans with disabilities to realize the dream. as a nation, our duty now is to take the actions that protect and enhance the rights of all americans, including those with disabilities, and to make equality for all a reality. madam president, let me conclude with some thoughts about the recent debate about protections for preexisting conditions. as i said before, it seems that republicans in washington have a maniacal obsession with decimating medicaid, wiping out the a.c.a. protections, including -- including -- protections for preexisting conditions. so now that we've changed the law, which said if you have

cancer, you can still get coverage or treatment, now i guess some here want to take us back. we've got 5.3 million people in pennsylvania with preexisting conditions. 643,000 of them are children. we're not going back. we're not going back to those days when those 5.3 million people in pennsylvania don't have protection. we are not going back. and if they want to have a fight about it, we'll fight about it. last year i heard from liz from westchester, pennsylvania, suburban philadelphia who was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 26. here's what she told me. quote, for years i worried about losing my job and with it my insurance because i have costly preexisting conditions. this stress added to the stress of my diagnosis, treatments, and work life balance. unquote. then she goes on to say, quote,

weight lifted off my shoulders when the preexisting condition protections became law. quote, now those protections are threatened. so weight was lifted off her shoulders because of an advancement in law, because we protected people with preexisting conditions. now some people here want to add that weight back on to her shoulders. that has to be stopped at all costs. and we will stop it. this latest scheme, this court case trying to overturn preexisting condition protections is why senator man chin and i are leading the effort on a resolution to authorize the senate legal counsel to intervene in texas v. the united states, the case. this would be devastating to millions of -- -- devastating

for millions of people across the country. 133 million across the country. any of us, all of us are vulnerable when the preexisting conditions protections are targeted. it is outrageous, outrageous that the department of justice is weighing in against the law of the land and arguing that these protections for individuals with preexisting conditions should be struck down. we must defeat, defeat this cruel attempt to rip away these protections. and i'll fight every day to make sure every american no matter where they live or what their health status is has access to the health care that they need. it's good that we're celebrating the 28th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. we're happy about that. but at the same time we need to be vigilant against attempts to undermine progress that we've made since the a.d.a. and

progress we've made more recently. madam president, i would yield the floor. mr. flake: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: madam president, who wants to eat bugs for lunch? i'm hearing crickets, even among the pages here. there's a reason for that. but the national institutes for food and agriculture at the usda is spending more than $1.3 million to support cricket farming and the development of bug-based foods for human consumption. this sounds like a headline straight out of the onion but it is not. it is your hard earned taxpayer dollars being used to try to develop a taste for crickets and other bugs.

this initiative is trying to determine which bugs taste best, which bugs are most nutritious, and the best methods for farming bigger, tastier crickets. now, while the usda has no plans to inspect cricket farms and the f.d.a. has, quote, no special rules for edible inspects, unquote, at this time, multiple bug-based companies have received federal funds to research and develop techniques to put bugs in your food. for example, bug-eater labs -- i'm not joking here -- bug-eater labs of nebraska has received $100,000 taxpayer money -- this is a grant -- to identify the most edible insects. with support from the usda, bug eater is testing bug-based pasta, ramon and macaroni noodles. now to get bugs into the food, the crickets are ground into a powder and mixed into pasta

dough. bug eater hopes to secure another $600,000 in federal funds to cover the cost of developing and manufacturing a commercial-ready product made from bugs. now, separately, all things bugs of georgia -- i'm not kidding again. that's a real company -- has received nearly $1.3 million in reducing our -- for reducing the cost of and improving the efficiency of farming crickets as food ingredients. they currently produce and sell cricket powder with, quote, mild aroma, natural flavor -- i'm sorry -- neutral flavor and minute particle size that can be added to recipes. four pounds of crickets are required to produce one pound of powder. a pound of cricket powder produced by all things bugs which boasts, quote, the most affordable wholesale price sells for about $35 a pound.

by comparison, the average retail price for a hundred percent ground beef is about $3.80 a pound. the u.s. has more than 2.5 billion pounds of beef, pork, poultry and turkey being stockpiled. this is a record level. clearly a new source of protein is not needed and in this case likely not wanted. in fact, the c.e.o. of one of these cricket cuisine companies said yesterday, quote, realistically, as much as we wish people would behave differently, americans won't buy significant amounts of insect protein. if most were asked to volunteer to eat a bug, the response would be, as we heard here, crickets. and with, i should note, the annual commemoration of pioneer day in utah, i think i can speak for many of my own ancestors who nearly starved thanks to swarms

of crop-destroying crickets. when i say insect-based food development won't be stomached well by taxpayers. now, today i'm proposing an amendment to end the federal agriculture subsidies for farming of insects and to prohibit spending taxpayer dollars to develop bug-based food for human consumption. i can't believe it takes an amendment to do this kind of thing. my understanding it's being included in the managers amendment and will likely succeed if it is. i would just say that this is not going to balance the federal budget but at a time when the office of management and budget is projecting trillion dollar deficits in 2019 and beyond, we -- how can we pay money and have grants over a million dollars to pay companies to try to get people to eat bugs?

it doesn't pass the laugh test, and people simply have to have more faith in their government than that. so i hope that this amendment will pass. i hope that we aren't forced to eat crickets. that doesn't seem like anything anybody wants to do. and we shouldn't be forcing taxpayers to pay for it. with that i yield the floor. mr. flake: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i see nobody else seeking the floor. i'll speak briefly. i would urge the congress, both bodies, to heed the clear warnings of our intelligence

community. i urge them to take a meaningful step, important step toward defending our democracy. if we do nothing, we leave our elections vulnerable to the aggressive foreign adversary fully intent on destabilizing our country. to many of the senators in the chamber, it's a simple choice. it's a solemn responsibility. today the senate should vote on my amendment to provide $250 million in grants for the states to help secure their election systems. we have to send a clear message to russia and other foreign adversaries that tampering in our elections will not be tolerated. simply giving a speech about it is not enough. we should vote on this. in we had missile attacks or air

attacks or others against any of our state, we would respond immediately. our democracy is a sacred part of what we cherish as americans, all of us, republicans and democrats alike. and our states are under attack. in fiscal year 2018, congress came together, republicans and democrats, the house and the senate. we appropriated $380 million for state election security grants in response to our intelligence communities' assessment that russia interfered in the 2016 election. in just a few months, since then all states, states and territories, that's 55 in all, they've requested funding. a hundred percent of these funds have been committed. 90% of them have been dispersed

to the state. this week 21 states attorneys general signed a letter appropriating congress -- asking congress to appropriate more money to address this eminent threat. congress has not provided any new spending on election security grants in years. by not providing these funds, congress has allowed our election infrastructure to lag behind the times and the threat. we're leaving our country vulnerable. we're leaving us vul tbhecial to the clear threat of the foundation of this very institution and the other institutions of american government. we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in defending against missile threats as we should. or threats from the sea or the air, land, as we should.

but here is a very, very direct threat. we're talking about a tiny fraction of what we spend on other threats. my amendment would provide the funding needed to help protect our elections. and our intelligence community have warned us publicly that we are once again being targeted. and the senate should not allow that. we should vote to defend this institution, the united states senate, but our whole democracy. a world where the president of the united states stands shoulder to shoulder with vladimir putin and refused to condemn russia's attack on our election and attacked our own law enforcement intelligence agencies, my amendment is a necessary first step. i believe in america first, not

russia first. i believe in protecting america. our state works very hard to protect our elections. we elect republicans and democrats in our state. in the last election, republicans -- i was reelected senator. it's obvious we split votes but we count our votes and we do not have interference from another country. that's not -- we're probably a small state and we go under their radar, but let me tell you, there is no question anybody knows there's no question russia has attacked us before. russia is continuing to attack this country today. and russia will attack this country in november. we must protect it. with that, mr. president, i don't think anybody else is

seeking recognition, but if not, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i have been here on the floor many times bringing up the challenges of rural america, whether it is delivering quality health care or investing in vital infrastructure that supports our businesses, or connecting our schools to the 21st century.

i've worked hard to make sure is that rural states have a loud voice in the united states senate. that is why i am so frustrated with the recent comments made by national trade council director peter navarro. mr. navarro last week characterized the tariff uncertainty as nothing more than a rounding error. mr. navarro is in an important position. he is a trade advisor and strategist for the president of the united states. and he believes the tariffs that are harming montana producers equate to nothing more than a rounding error. the statement is inaccurate, it's insulting, and it is dismissive of rural america. if mr. navarro truly believes that his comments are true, he has a lot to learn about what's going on across this country. i'm willing to bet he hasn't

been to a farm, a ranch, a stock yard facility recently, maybe never, and i'm quite sure he hasn't kicked rock in north central montana. i don't think he would call the administration's trade war as a rounding error if he met with montana's homebuilders, construction workers, and small business owners, farmers and ranchers that are being squeezed by the rise of the cost of doing business now because of these tariffs. i urge mr. navarro to believe the swamp, come to billings or fort benton and get an accurate perspective on how these tariffs are impacting family farmers and ranchers and businesses across my great state. if he or anyone else in washington were to speak with the folks that are most impacted by their trade policies, here's what they will hear --

in ag country they will say, you know what? our commodity prices weren't that cheery to begin with and now we're seeing them drop even more. we're seeing our input costs go up. the head of the montana grain growers, a lady by the name of michelle jones, testified recently that they didn't buy a grain bin. this is a facility -- so mr. navarro knows -- the grain bin is a facility made out of steel that stores grain. the cost went up on that very simple structure 20% over the last year. in billings, montana, a company that builds bridges, has seen bridge structures like i-beams that are reinforced with rebar, they have seen the cost of rebar go up double digits just

recently. and in fact in missoula, montana, where they are building a new library to export information out of -- a very good thing for that community, any community as far as that goes -- they passed a bond issue. their costs went up more than $700,000 just because of the increased cost of steel. those are the input costs. we've been working generations and generations to develop markets all around the world, as we do live in a world that's getting smaller every day. and we're losing that's export markets. we're losing certainty. and without certainty you cannot plan for the future. many of these agricultural farms and ranches have been in the family for generations, as mine has been. and we hope to pass it along to the next generation. but if you create enough uncertainty, that will simply be impossible, and that's exactly

what's going on in this country today. in the 1980's we saw family farm after family farm go broke. started, by the way, with the grain embargo. we're seeing that same -- that same scenario being repeated today, if we don't change the way we're doing business. so i ask, what is the end game? i don't know that what's going on in the white house right now gives me any sort of hope that there is an end game. so here are the facts. according to the u.s. chamber of commerce, the ongoing trade war will threaten $20 million in montana exports alone, just montana exports. impact 140,000 montana jobs. we have just over a million people that live in montana. 140,000 jobs is a lot of jobs.

and only in washington, d.c., is a $20 million drop in montana's exports and 140,000 impact with montana's jobs be considered a rounding error. just five days ago, after he called the impact of the tariffs a rounding error, the administration announced that it is going to pay $12 billion to offset the financial impacts of these trade policies. now, unlike drought or hail or floods or insects or disease and other challenges that farmers and ranchers must deal with each year, this disaster is man-made, it is government-made. make no mistake, this is a self-inflicted problem. and it's a financial problem that is a direct result of the tariffs and irresponsible

policy. now, in order to try and ease the pain caused by these reckless tariffs, the administration has decided to further rattle the marketplace with an infusion of $12 billion of taxpayer money. i will tell you that folks in production agriculture want to sell their products, not depend upon undependable, erratic payments from the government. i've never, ever met a farmer who wants to receive their paycheck from the government. they want to earn their paycheck. they want to earn it from the free market. they want a free market. they want places they can sell their products. they want to raise the products -- in my case, in montana's case, some of the finest agricultural products in the world -- and they want to sell them to customers around the world. both at home and in markets across the earth. they don't want to collect cash

payments from the government. it's not why they got into business. they want to get it from the marketplace. they want to get their living from the marketplace. these dollars are being used as a band-aid to stop the bleeding that's being felt by american farmers and ranchers as a direct result of these trade policies. this $12 billion is not going to help hold on to any markets. it will simply be a patchwork to get through the problems that the government has created today, that this administration has created. it won't provide the long-term certainty. it won't provide them the ability to make long-term investments. it won't provide them the opportunity to pass the farm on to their children. it will provide temporary relief, and because of these trade policies, that temporary relief is important. but it is far from a real solution.

-- for the folks who give us food security and the folks who feed the world. our family farms and ranches. i will just say this. i have had conversations across the state of montana, over my tenure in the united states senate. i can tell you that folks work hard. they work hard for their money. and they expect to be given a level playing field. but what we're seeing right now is we're seeing markets that we have worked a generation to create and to mold being given away to other countries. we're seeing infrastructure in other countries that's not being focused at the united states and the products we produce. but it's being developed to do trade with other countries in the markets that they produce, sometimes those very same products.

-- that we produce. i was at a meeting the other night that talked about the fact that in regards to mexico, who buys more barley from montana than any other inauguration in the world -- than any other nation in the world and canada, our number-one trading partner, that mexico is sitting down and they're negotiating and canada isn't. it is interesting because we've heard this before. but as mexico negotiates, they also sign a trade agreement with argentina, to my knowledge the first one ever, to be able to supply their people with food. that's a market that we need. and as far as canada goes, i've had plenty of issues with canada. the canadian government knows that. whether it is softwood lumber or whether it is grain for our products going north or whether it is issues that resolve around

the columbia water treaty, but the fact is, this is our best friend from the world and we need to -- friend in the world and we need to treat them fairly and in the process make sure we have markets for the people of the united states. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: