quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. gardner: i believe water conservation program is the crown jewel. the land and water conservation fund has been an incredible program across the country saving land for future generations to enjoy, saving land that otherwise might be lost and neglected for future generations. parts of our parks systems, trail systems, parts of our communities. the land and water conservation fund has been around for many, many years, but yet set to expire on september 30. the challenge we have in this chamber is it never seems to be the right time to debate permanent authorization of the land and water conservation fund. again, it's a program that has incredible bipartisan support. so the land and water conservation fund expires september 30. we need to not only reauthorize the program but to permanently authorize the land and water conservation fund. but yet it's still not the right time to debate it. it's not the right issue, it's

not the right bill, it's not the right moment. i hope that we can find a way to do exactly what we need to do for our great outdoors, for our economy, for our environment, to continue the incredible work of this crown jewel of conservation programs. and that's why i've augustaed a bill -- augustaed a bill with a -- authored a bill with a number of of my colleagues around the country including senator burr, a champion of the land and water conservation fund, full funding for the land and water conservation fund. that's why we put together an amendment to do exactly what the american people want us to do, and that's permanent authorization of the land and water skraoeupbgs -- conservation fund. mr. president, i would ask consent to set aside the pending amendment and call you up amendt 3424, i ask that following the use or yielding back of that time the senate vote on the

amendment with no intervening action or debate. before i enter that formally i would like to yield to senator burr for a few comments. mr. burr: mr. president, i thank my colleague. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, i thank my colleague. i rise in support of his amendment. mr. president, the land and water conservation fund, you may remember last month when i tried to get a vote on its reauthorization, i had just come from a press conference marking 100 days until it expires. we've been here before. i'm sort of shocked sometimes on how hardhead he had we are in the institutions. this program has now reached a point where it's 66 days away from expiration. in the 115th congress we actually let it expire, and the

reason congress passed legislation to reauthorize it was the pressure of the american people. now let me say at the start i have unbelievable respect for the chairman of the committees that bills make up this package and deep respect for the ranking members. and i hold in high esteem the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. this is no beef with them. this is a beef with what we've set up as the process of a very choreographed movement of a piece of legislation, in this particular case, in the appropriations bill. now some have told me that this is not just germane to this bill. this is the only way it wouldn't be germane in my book is that we're debating legislation about the use of taxpayer money to

fund government, and the land and water conservation fund uses zero dollars of taxpayer money. you see, it was created to take a percentage off the royalties of exploration by visionaries that said we want a perpetual fund that taxpayers are not obligated to that is self-generating off of the resources we take out of the land to be pumped back into protect the treasures for generations yet to come. masterful. absolutely masterful. as a matter of fact, it's, it was so smart that over 60 members of the senate, if we called for a vote right now up or down, with nobody objecting or making a motion, it would pass. it would meet the highest threshold in the united states senate to actually move out of

this body and with over 240 cosponsors in the house of representatives, it would pass the house and the president would sign it into law, and this would be behind us and we would set the example for the next generation as parents, as leaders, that there are some things that you've got to save for generations who need an opportunity to be exposed to it. it's not as much about what we get out of it. it's about the example we set of how we get there. and that's why it troubles me that i look at this as a tremendous opportunity, though by standards it's not germane, it is germane because we're not using taxpayer money. we're actually protecting treasures for generations to come, which is our responsibility as adults. now as i said, it's likely that there will be an objection. i hold no personal disrespect

for those who are forced to object to it. if we were to table this amendment, i've already conceded to the chairman, they would probably win not because a majority of the body isn't for it, but because of the pressures that come with that vote, that actual sponsors of the legislation, people that would vote for it night actually vote to table this for another day. well, i've tried since, since the beginning of this congress to bring this legislation up. i've only asked for an up-or-down vote and a 60-vote threshold. i'm not trying to short the process in the united states senate by one vote. i'm not trying to piggyback and hide behind something. i just want the members of the united states senate to actually have an opportunity to debate this and to have a vote.

and at the end of the day i think what we'll find is a majority of senators, i think over 60 would support it. a majority of house members would support it. there's one assurance i can give my colleagues. a majority of americans agrees with us. they believe that we should pass this. now we can have a debate as to whether we change it. we're the united states congress. we can change a program at any time. but why would we not provide the certainty that the program is going to extend? you know, many that are many the creation of the land and water conservation fund, it was authorized and capped at $900 million a year. it's never received $900 million a year because every dime that we get off of royalties is filed through the same appropriations process that we're currently engaged in. another reason why i would claim

common sense would say this is germane to what we are doing is because it is money that is controlled by the appropriations committee, and for whatever reason and i'll not question it, they never appropriated it at $900 million. no administration ever requested $900 million. but nobody can prove to me that there are not $900 million worth of worthy projects out there. much of this land ends up back in the state inventory of state parks that the residents of their states get to enjoy hunting, fishing, and recreation on that land. they're not reliant on their ability to buy a piece of property that they can do it on. they share it with others in their states. my state of north carolina, we've got some national treasure shaours that thank goodness founders before me recognized and protected. one of them is called the blue ridge parkway, the most traveled piece of federal road structure that we've got in this country. it's just when we cut it through

the mountains from virginia to north carolina in the 1950's and we created the greatest jobs program at the time, that's what it was designed for, there were private landowners that had adjacent property to that road. what's the prudent thing? the prudent thing is to occasionally buy a piece of property that's not adjacent to the road and trade with the landowner that's on the road so that we can protect the roadway. that's the type of project that land and water conservation fund money goes for. it's not to create a bigger great smoky mountains national park, which is also in my state. it's the most visited park in the united states. but i'm not asking to enlarge it. i'm asking for us to provide these funds so that great decisions can be made in coordination with local officials about what treasures

should exist down the traod for our children and -- down the road for our children and our grandchildren. we're not going to have the opportunity to acknowledge today that we're going to move this legislation. i believe that's incredibly unfortunate, and i think it's tough because i think there are a lot of people that would be supportive that sound a little bit like crickets today. here's the only promise i can make to my colleagues today: you're going to have an opportunity to vote on this time and time and time again. that is as long as the senate goes into session, if we intend to move legislation, you will have an opportunity to vote on land and water conservation fund reauthorization. that when this floor opens in the morning on a regular basis, i will come down here and i will not encumber of the appropriations chairman in every

case. i'll probably pull every chairman into this. and i won't just rely on chairman's vehicles of legislation they are passionate on. i've got an intel authorization bill that i can't get to the floor for authorization, and i can't think of anything that's more important -- and i think the chair and the ranking member of the full committee both served in the committee on the past, they know the importance of the intel authorization bill. i can't get it up because sometimes we get too hung up on the power of one person in this institution than we do about the importance of what it is we're doing. well, that's what we want to do, i'll come down as one person, and i'll ask unanimous consent that we consider the reauthorization. and i'm sure somebody will stand up and object. they always do. but they're objecting to what the american people want us to do. they're objecting to a program that has a proven track record

of success and requires zero -- nada, not a dime of the taxpayers' money. if there was ever a thing i think we have presented to the american people that i think we should be applauded on -- and that doesn't happen often -- this is one of them. but because we've chosen convenience over debate, because we're trying to fit this in a real small box, let me suggest to my colleagues, we're making a foolish mistake for long term in the institution. this is an institution that was created for this moment. it's an institution that was created so we could come to this floor, we could debate. we could come in believing one and, hearing the debate, and actually go out saying, you changed my mind.

now, maybe some people listened and now they are supporters and maybe some supporters listened to what i said and now they'll vote against me. here's the troubling thing, they won't have the opportunity. with the promise i made to them, you will get the opportunity. watch what i said because you will be given the opportunity before i leave this institution to vote time and time and time again if, in fact, procedurally we're blocked from letting the american people's voice be heard with a vote in the united states senate. i yield back to my colleague. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. i thank my colleague from north carolina who's been a true champion on the laub laub. you -- on the land and water conservation fund. you hear his commitment and i'm along with him. we need to make sure that we let the american people's voices wb heard through -- be heard through our action and that is letting the land and water

conservation fund move through. every portion of this country has benefited from the land and water conservation fund. 330 million americans -- 330 million park visits occurred in 2017 -- 330 million park visits from every state, many, many countries from around the world, they have benefited from this conservation program. what it means to our country, what it means to our economy, what it means to conservation and the protection of our environment. and so i look forward to -- to fighting alongside senator burr as we move this most important piece of conservation program forward in the permanent funding for the land and water conservation fund. i'll restate my unanimous consent request. i call up my amendment 3424. i ask that there be one hour of debate and following the use or yielding back of that time that the senate vote on the amendment

with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from the great state of alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i rise to reluctantly to reserve the right to object. i will object to amendment 3424, which would permanently authorize the revenue collection and deposit of the land and water conservation fund. and i -- i want to thank my colleague from north carolina, i want to thank my colleague from colorado. i too know here and understand the passion that you have expressed not only at this time but that you have for quite some time about your support for this important conservation program. it is something that i think we, as americans, have much to be proud about. now, i have expressed some of my

concerns about how historically certain aspects of the land and water conservation fund have shifted from -- from less to state-side acquisition and more to federal acquisition. i would like to see some of that reallocated, rebalanced. but in concept what we have designed with the lwcf is something that has brought strong and good benefit to our states and really to -- to conservation throughout -- conservation efforts throughout the country. and so when -- when you speak about the merits of the program, i find nothing that i can -- can disagree with in terms of the benefits that we see. why i rise to express my -- my objection to advancing the amendment is that the effort that you have raised is to

permanently seek to authorize this program. this program is currently authorized, and as you have appropriately pointed out, it is authorized through september 30 of this year. the measure that you bring before us would be to permanently authorize. it is in its very nature authorizing on an appropriations here -- appropriations bill. we have a bill, an annual spending bill, that basically directs that spending for one year. this measure would be significant in the extent of its authorization. so as we have sought to advance the 12 appropriations bills through the floor in a manner that we have not seen in years. i mentioned when we started this debate on monday night we

haven't had an interior appropriations bill on the senate floor since 2010. that's not your fault. that is -- that's a failure of our process and you can assign a lot of blame, you can point a lot of fingers, but the fact of the matter is we had -- we had moved from that responsibility of what are the annual spending priorities that the appropriating committees are tasked to do every year. we had moved from that to effectively bring in a lot of authorizing that the committees themselves, the authorizing committees need to do. and it wasn't working. it wasn't working. and we stalled ourselves out. we had big omnibus bills that nobody liked, and so we're trying to get us back to a process that we can stand behind that really defines what the appropriations process is

designed to do. and so at the direction of chairman shelby and vice chairman leahy, we have agreed to really try to come together to work to restore what we fondly refer to as regular order and what some don't even know to be regular order because they've never really experienced it. and so because we made that commitment, we were actually able to move an interior appropriations subcommittee bill through the full committee 31-0, unanimous. i don't know, mr. chairman, if there has ever been a unanimous vote on the interior bill on this subcommittee, much less being able to bring it to the floor. so so much of this objection is the fact that your amendment would seek to permanently authorize on an appropriations

one-year annual spending bill. i think it is also important to point out to colleagues that while the -- the current authorization does extend through september 30, the authority to collect and deposit revenues in the funds, that is what expires on september 30. the ability and the authority to appropriate money continues indefinitely, and so those who may be concerned that if we fail to -- to authorize this before september 30, that the sky is going to fall on lwcf and all the good that is in the works stops. that is not accurate. within this year's spending bill, we have authorized lwcf

to -- to the 2018 level, $224 million. within this the state-side assistance program, it's about 50% of the funding. there's $124 million in 2015 for n.p.s. stateside, and also additional funding for the american battlefield program, an increase this year to the highest level ever within this account. and so i want to make sure that colleagues do know the commitment here. i think my commitment, the commitment of many in this body is to -- to work with our colleagues, to work with the senator from north carolina, to work with the senator from colorado, and the many others who care deeply and rightly about the future of the land and

water conservation fund and how we are able to ensure that it is able to continue the good work that it does. i -- i will remind my friends that it was just about a year and a half ago when we moved an energy bill out of the appropriating committee, the energy and natural resources committee, and included as part of that measure was a -- a permanent authorization of the land and water conservation fund. this is something that the senator from colorado had worked with us on. senator cantwell, the ranking member on the committee, made sure it was a priority and we were able to include it as part of the measure. now, that measure has not seen -- has not seen floor time this year. we were able to move it out the last congress. we were able to move that bill out 85-12. so i think when the senator from north carolina says that there

is good support for lwcf within this body, i think we've demonstrated it. we demonstrated it through votes on the floor, we demonstrated it through support through the authorizing committee. so i do think there is a path forward, but i would ask -- i would ask my colleagues to -- to honor the commitment that we have made to try to advance our appropriations bills in an order that respects the authority that we have as appropriators, which is to appropriate these -- these dollars to the designated priorities and to stand down when it comes to authorizing on these appropriating bills, but they have my commitment, most certainly, to continue to work on a positive path forward, a path that is not -- is not months in -- in delay.

i believe -- i absolutely believe that the senator from north carolina is -- is very serious in his commitment and his resolve that we will see this issue before us on every vehicle out there. so it's in my best interest, i think it's in our best interest to figure out how we are -- are able to come to agreement to support a program that most of us can -- can get behind, do so in a manner that allows us to do our legislative business, and to do so with a level of comity and civility that this process demands. and with that, mr. president, again, i must reluctantly and respectfully object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they've been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cornyn: yesterday the chair of the president's economic council of advisors brought a number of charts and a welcomed message, and that is the

american economy is very strong and many of the predictions made during the course of the tax cuts and jobs act debate have proven to be true. the -- the positive comments. the negative comments have been proven false in terms of what the tax cuts and jobs act would do to restart this great economic engine known as the american economy. back home in texas we issued our monthly employment report, and it includes good news, which i would also like to share. first, texas created 27,000 new jobs in june. that's a whole lot of people moving up, pursuing new opportunities and moving into our state from places where they don't have those opportunities. a single new job can mean a lot of things in a person's life, but at the very least it means a fresh start, a chance to be challenged and to grow and to

put a few extra dollars in the bank. now multiply that 27,000 new jobs by 12, and you can see the impact on workers, families, and our entire state are huge. this is, i'm glad to say, the 24th consecutive month of job growth in texas, and the folks i've talked to around the state in places like colin station, austin, amarillo, to name a few, are pretty excited. they are also relieved. they're relieved the texas unemployment rate continues to decline and excited that once again we've been called the top state for business. the top state for business. all told, texas has added 360,000 new jobs over the last 12 months. 360,000 new jobs in texas over the last 12 months. as mayor jerry morales of

midland, texas, who is also the owner of several restaurants there, said recently, he said this economy is on fire. and apparently the fire has reached as far as his kitchen because he's having trouble retaining cooks at his restaurant. in other words, the economy is running so strong, unemployment is so low, and the labor participation rate continues to go up. but employers are having a hard time finding qualified workers to perform the good, well-paying jobs that do exist. so that's what a competitive labor market looks exactly like. other employers in the perman basin around midland doubled the previous pay of new employees because of the competitive labor market there. but those are just a couple of stories in one area of my state. there are many more. and i continue to hear from them about the positive impacts of the tax cuts and jobs act,

landmark legislation we enacted at the end of last year. just to remind everybody, we cut tax rates, we doubled the standard deduction meaning fewer people would have to fill out the long form tax reform -- or the tax return. and we doubled the child tax credit. what's more, we encouraged companies that had billions of dollars in cash parked overseas that they didn't want to see taxed twice, we encouraged them to bring that money back home, and they have been bringing hundreds of billions of dollars of money previously parked overseas back here to the united states and putting it to work. early this summer we hit the six-month anniversary of the passage of the tax cuts and jobs act, and during that time i've heard from men and women like william outerman, for example. mr. allerman is a retired disabled soldier who said the new tax law increased his

monthly income enough to ease the rising cost of his living expenses. maybe it won't make headlines in "the new york times" or "the washington post," but that's a big deal to mr. allerman. i've heard from people like kim ewing in mesquite, who hadn't seen a pay raise in seven years. now she has one, and you can imagine she's grateful for it. she wrote that she's glad that her federal government is finally getting what she calls a little common sense. but the good news is not limited to texas. we've seen the country on fire when it comes to our economy. we've seen new-found optimism and confidence in the future, and that's a good thing. because during the preceding eight years before the current administration, before we had done this, we had been told that you have to accept slow growth and stagnant wages as the new normal. well, we know that's not true because people can hope for and

aspire and work for better. and with the right policies in place, they can be rewarded more generously for their hard work and their diligence and their self-discipline. so we've heard also from large companies and large cities. we've heard from small businesses and small cities. but we've heard some of the big businesses handing out bonuses and raises and 401(k) increases. we've heard about the effects in some of our rural areas, the effects on people that sometimes get overlooked in the national conversation. the u.s. department of agriculture has issued a report showing the estimated effective tax rates declined for all farms of all sizes and that farmhouse holds could pay close to 20% less in taxes. during a time of tough commodity prices, that's welcome news that

their bill to the federal government, to uncle sam, is going to go down by 20%. most americans unsurprisingly now believe that economic conditions are good or excellent and that the economy is improving. as i said, optimism is high. to be specific, it's at a 14-year high. after years of stagnant wage growth, after the previous administration ignored the plight of the average american worker and paid short shrift to his or her real circumstances, the bills they had to pay, the salary they earned each month, it's about time somebody got the message that kim ewing was talking about. this congress got a little bit of common sense, in her words, and passed the first major overhaul of the tax code in 30 years. 30 years. was it perfect? well, of course not. are we still working to make those reforms bigger and better? absolutely. but the main point is that we knew that american workers

elected us to actually do something, not just talk about it. and we sure weren't going to go turn our backs on their everyday concerns. things they talk about around the kitchen table. and what are the results six months later? well, the united states as a whole added 213 jobs in june, more than expected. average hourly earnings are up close to 3%. manufacturers are more optimistic that at any other time in modern history. and it's not just me saying, it's the chief economist of the national association of manufacturers. this week leader mcconnell has been talking a lot about the difference between rhetoric, what president obama offered, and the results that we've been able to deliver. and i agree with that contrast. as the majority leader put it, all of us agree with the rhetoric about creating jobs, but not everybody supported the policy agenda that helped

deliver those results for the american people. that's a chronic problem here in washington, d.c., saying one thing and doing another. so we not only tried to say the right thing, we tried to do the right thing by the american people, and i think we have succeeded. unfortunately, like so much that happens here in washington, d.c., even creating this newfound optimism, this confidence in the future, more take-home pay, lower tax burden, in spite of those benefits, it still surprises me that not a single democrat voted for tax reform. it was a party-line vote. every single democrat in the united states senate voted against tax reform. i bet you commonsense men and women like kim ewing, the lady

from mesquite, texas, i mentioned, people like kim have taken note. madam president, on to one more topic, earlier this month i was privileged to be at the white house when president trump announced who he would nominate to serve in the seat being vacated by anthony kennedy on the u.s. supreme court. the president had a great roster of judges to choose from, but he settled on brett kavanaugh who i've been on the floor here saying i believe is a stellar pick. he continued what we in the senate have been doing in the last 18 months. we have been voting on well-qualified nominees to fill the federal bench and we've been confirming them at a record pace. these are people who will, by definition, serve for a lifetime. that's what federal judges do in our country. they have life tenure. they're not subject to election.

they get independence that goes along with it and a unique job in our system of government of calling balls and strikes, applying the law to the facts of an individual case. and it's an incredibly important role to play. but sadly, we've heard during the discussion about judge kavanaugh that we will take up here soon, it increasingly appears that some of our democratic colleagues aren't particularly interested in the qualifications of the nominee. they don't seem particularly interested in whether they will or will not rule in accordance with the law and the constitution as written. instead they have made very clear that they're looking for judges whose views line up with the political opinions and views of the democratic party. i'm glad to see a few of them are breaking rank, though. the minority leader has issued an edict to his members saying don't meet with the judge until

we work out something on the documents that we want to see during his time as white house -- at the white house counsel's office as staff secretary or as a member of the d.c. circuit court of appeals. but fortunately some of the democrats have broken ranks and decided that they want to visit with the judge, which i think is entirely appropriate. as i said, the minority leader wants to get into a contest over how many documents are going to be produced. well, let me put this in context. our democratic colleagues have requested at least a million pages of documents on judge kavanaugh. how many were produced for judge kagan, who sits on the supreme court? well, it's about 173,000 pages versus a million. like brett kavanaugh, justice kagan actually worked at the white house, at the white house counsel's office.

but what strikes p me as so ironic and maybe just a little bit hypocritical is when judge kavanaugh was confirmed to the d.c. circuit court of appeals in 2006, they didn't want to eany of those documents. this could care less. and now all of a sudden they have become the most important thing in the world they can get their hands on during this confirmation process. that ought to tell us something. well, as i mentioned, the minority leader has told his colleagues to stop meeting with the judge, but a few have broken ranks, and i know judge kavanaugh is grateful for their political courage. our colleague from indiana, the senior senator, said he always planned to meet with judge kavanaugh. the junior senator from delaware said of course he'll meet with the nominee. and the senior senators from west virginia and north dakota

said they will too. good for them. i hope that means the dam of resistance is breaking and their fellow colleagues will follow suit. i'm sure they'll learn something by visiting judge kavanaugh and i'm sure they'll be impressed as i was when i met with the nominee and met more of his story, because the truth is judge kavanaugh is eminently qualified and well respected by everybody that knows him. and i look forward to voting both in the judiciary committee and then on the floor of the united states senate early this fall and confirming him for the vacancy left by the retirement of justice kennedy. i yield the floor. north dakota

*6. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: i terrorize today to speak in support of career -- i rise today to speak in support of career and technical education. as cochair of the c.t.e. caucus along with senators portman, kaine, i'm proud of the work we've done to advance c.t.e. and to ensure our students have the training and skills needed to succeed in today's ever-changing workforce. the career and technical education statute was last updated in 2006, over a decade ago, so it is due for reauthorization six years ago. earlier this week the senate passed a historic agreement to update the law and to make a number of important changes. and i was proud to help pass this legislation out of the help committee and through the full senate. yesterday the house also passed this reauthorization, sending it to the president's desk. so here are just a few reasons

why investing in c.t.e. is so critical to our country. by 2020, 30% of job openings -- 30% -- will require some college or a two-year degree. in the next ten years, 3 million workers will be required for the nation's infrastructure needs. high school students who take c.t.e. classes have higher graduation rates, we know, and they are more likely to find employment or attain higher education. postsecondary c.t.e. programs are also a proven cost-effective means to obtain a credential or other form of degree. so it's worth noting that this reauthorization of our nation's career and technical education law includes important components from legislation introduced by our senate c.t.e. caucus. the educating tomorrow's workforce act and the perkins fund for equity and excellence act are just two key bills that help align c.t.e. programs with

the jobs of tomorrow and ensure that quality is maintained and strengthened in our c.t.e. programs. the reauthorization also includes provisions from a bill that i helped introduce with senator peters to support training for career guidance and academic counselors. so so they can help inform students of opportunities in the workforce. it includes a measure that senator gillibrand and i worked on for hands-on learning approaches like maker spaces which provides students the tools and space needed to build, create, and learn critical skills. in conclusion, madam president, we critically need to update the law to reflect the current and future workforce. i'm pleased that the house overwhelmingly passed the senate c.t.e. bill and i look forward to it becoming law very, very

soon. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: madam president, first i'd like to commend the senator from indiana for his attention for this important subject. it's important in all of our states. career and technical education is critically important to grow our economy. i want to appreciate -- express my appreciation to the senator from indiana for his leadership. madam president, i rise today to talk about a different issue, and that is health care and what's happening to the affordable care act and to the availability of health care and health insurance in our society. madam president, i rise genuinely puzzled -- genuinely puzzled about what appears to be an obsession or mania with removing health insurance from people, with keeping people from

having health insurance. i just don't get it. the data is very clear over the years that having health insurance saves lives. there can be debate about exactly how many, but the reality is, and it's perfectly logical, if you have health insurance, you are more likely to be treated, you are more likely to be treated early and you are more likely to survive, particularly with regard to diseases like cancer where early detection and treatment is the best defense against this dread disease. i just don't understand why we cannot face the reality that health insurance or health coverage or access to health care is a fundamental right. it's a fundamental part of being a human. and the idea of rationing health care by wealth just doesn't make sense, particularly in a country committed, as we are, to

equality and equal justice under law. the other reason that i'm surprised at that continuing effort to undermine the affordable care act is that it's eventual sabotage will only lead to greater demands for some kind of more intrusive change to our health care system, a single-payer system or medicare for all. there are already millions of people in this country building a movement to support medicare for all which is essentially a single-payer system. so those who are trying to cripple the affordable care act, which really was a conservative proposal from the 1980's and 1990's, are only paving the way for a much more radical transformation of our health care system than they would eve desire. the a.c.a. builds upon the current system that we have of

private health insurance and provides health insurance to those who aren't fortunate enough to work for a company that provides a subsidy for health insurance or provides health insurance to its employees. that's all it is. it's really an effort to fill the gap in this country between those who have insurance through their employer or through medicare or through medicaid and those who have no insurance. and the a.c.a. was a remarkable success for a period of years because it vastly cut the number of uninsured people in this country. so why we're trying to kill it, to strangle it, to mug it, to sabotage it just doesn't make sense from any point of view, either from the point of view of providing health care and health insurance to people, which saves lives, or trying to maintain the

semblance of the current system. so here we are in the midst of an ongoing attempt to basically sabotage this system. back be in october 2017, the administration said they are no longer going to make cost-ing sharing reduction payments to help insurance companies to pay lower copays and deductibles to individuals. premium increases. i sat on this floor and listened to members decry premium increases because of the affordable care act. this is an action which is sure to provide premium creases, and -- increaseses and it was a voltaire -- increases and it was a voluntary action by the administration last fall. one of the first things the new administration did was to cut advertising to notify people of the availability of reasonably priced insurance under the affordable care act, an initial

step to cut access. and, of course, leading up to the tax filing deadline in 2016, for 2016 returns back last year, the administration said that the i.r.s. was no longer going to enforce the individual mandate, and then, of course, this body, in a provision which i can only deem as cruel because of the effect on -- on insurance premiums and the effect on the insurance market generally eliminated the individual mandate as part of the tax bill last december. okay. in 2018, the open enrollment period was reduced from 12 weeks to six weeks, cut in half. no reason was given, but let's cut it in half to fewer people can sign up. interestingly, almost the same number of people signed up because they knew how important this was. and then last winter during the

open enrollment season, h.h.s. shut down the website where people could sign up during sundays, ostensibly for maintenance, it happened to be the 12 hours on a sunday when most people would have an opportunity to navigate the website. speaking of navigation, and i think what is one of the most blaipt ant attempts to sabotage and undermine people's ability to gain this most basic and important health insurance to provide them with healthy lives, c.m.s. recently announced they are cutting grant funding for navigators, the people who help people to get the coverage. they cut it dramatically. it's gone from 62 and a half million to 36 million to 10 million. this is complicated stuff. i've gone on the website myself

in order to get my coverage. as the presiding officer knows, we're in the affordable care act, we have to go to the website, we have to get our care through it. if you have done it, it's hard, it's complicated, you're comparing policies, you're comparing deductibles and you're comparing premiums. it is complicated. the navigators, i know, in maine have been enormously helpful in just guiding peopling through the process so they done give up and are getting health insurance for the first time in their lives and the amount of funding available in maine has been reduced from $550,000 a year to $100,000. cut by 80%. this is just -- this is just arbitrary and cruel. because the result, of course, which, i guess, is what the people want is that fewer people will be able to access coverage. it also says that the navigators

no longer need to be based in the state where they are working so that means you can't go to on the ground efforts or face-to-face efforts and that's what often makes the difference. okay, the department of justice said that they are not going to defend the patient protections in the affordable care act, particularly preexisting conditions. this has enormous ramifications for the people of this country. about half the people in the country have preexisting conditions and under the old law, not in maine, i might add. maine dealt with this issue years ago. but under the old law in most of the country an insurance company could either deny you a right for a preexisting condition, which is basically any time you -- uf been -- you've been sick previously in your life. they could deny your coverage or charge you an outrageous rate, which, in effect, is a denial of coverage for so many people. finally the administration is now pressing what they are calling short-term association

prance which are really largely junk insurance. insurance that is hardly use full -- useful, doesn't cover everything, has very high deductibles and really gives people the feeling they have insurance, but when it comes time to use it, it won't really provide their coverage. i'd like to conclude with this picture of these wonderful people from maine who i was with last week. i don't know who this guy in the middle is. these are the people who staff the lef itsville free clinic. they are all volunteers. these are people coming in volunteering, they are nurse practitioners, physicians who come in and volunteer a certain number of hours of week to provide health insurance to people -- to provide health care to people who don't have insurance. and i just talked to -- to the director, patsy levvitt, and she

told, repeated what she said to me when i was there last week. they want to go out of business. we can't provide health care through the millions of uninsured people in this country by volunteers. it's wonderful what they are doing, but it's impossible. this is like having bake sales to support the air force. we've got to provide health insurance to people. we'll have a healthier country. we'll have a more productive country, we'll have a more economically successful country, we'll have a more humane country. and these people are fantastic. i spent time there, but i visited with one of their clients. he has to go to town assistance to buy his insulin. that's wrong. he needs it. he's a diabetic. it's part of what he has to have to survive. and he's having to go for general assistance to the town to provide insulin, the

lifesaving insulin that he needs. these are wonderful people. they are doing great work, but we shouldn't have to rely on people taking their own time, their own energy, voluntarily to come in. and it's wonderful for this region that dpises -- exists and there are several around maine and terrific. but they can't fill the need for the millions of of people in this country -- for the millions of people in this country. we have a responsibility. we have a responsibility when we see a problem to fix it. i know the affordable care act is not perfect. i know that it has problems. i know that it has limitations. we should be fixing it, not sabotaging it. i said at -- as i said at the beginning, if the sabotage is ultimately successful, the result will be heightened demand for more radical restructuring of our health system in this country because ultimately people are going to rightfully

demand that they have a right to health insurance and to health coverage and to access to health care that's not dependent upon their income. so, madam president, i call on the administration to stop these efforts, these petty efforts to undermine this law that has done so much good. and let's come together and talk about the problems is. i know members on this side are absolutely ready to do so. let's talk about fixing it, not continue to undermine it to what purpose? to a purpose of diminishing health care access to millions and millions of americans, not only those at the low end of the income spectrum, but particularly those in the middle income who aren't fortunate enough to have coverage through where they work. we can do better, madam president. i believe that we will. and i hope that the

administration will join us in this effort instead of continuing its efforts to systematically undermine a law that is working for the american people. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the -- the -- i'm sorry. thank you. the democratic whip. mr. durbin: thank you very much, madam president. first, let me thank my colleague and friend from maine. if you ask the american people from one corner of this country to the other, what are they worried about? what are they concerned? what you just talked about is the top one, two, three issues. the accessibility and affordability of health insurance. time and time again as some of us have been in a predicament when someone in our family was very sick, you have no health insurance, you will never forget it. and there are some who live with not having health insurance or

it is so darned expensive, they can't afford it. thank you for the effort that you have made. it's one thing to say you're against obamacare, you're against the affordable care act, the obvious question is, well, what would you replace it with when given a chance the other side of the aisle had nothing, and that's why, thankfully, we stopped their efforts to repeal it. you and i are open to making it better, reach more people in an efficient way. but saying we'll get rid of it and talk about it later is not an answer. i thank you for the comment you made. i want to address the second issue that comes up when you talk with people across america what they're concerned about. i'll start with the question have you ever, ever in your whole life seen an ad on television for prescription drugs? ever? if the answer is no, i know one thing for sure. you don't own a television. because the average american

sees nine -- nine television prescription drug ads every single day, nine every day. you know what i'm talking about? when they mumble as fast as they can at the end if you take this, you may die. don't take it if you're allergic to. all those ads, all those names of all those drugs. it took about 20 times for me to watch the zeroual toe ad to -- zeroual toe -- zerelto to get to the point i could spell it. why do the pharmaceutical companies spend so much money on television on advertising? what is this about? you can't buy most of these drugs over the counter. you need a doctor. here's why they do it. they believe if they keep suggesting to you that this is a drug that might help you, that when you go to the doctor, you'll ask. doctor, should i be taking xarelto?

the doctor may say to you you don't need it or you can take a generic that is a lot cheaper that does the same thing. in many, many cases the doctor says, let me right a prescription for zeroual toe for -- xarelto for you. what we have is the increasing cost of health care for everyone that's being driven by the increasing cost of prescription drug prices. because, you see, in the united states of america, there is no control over the increase in prescription drug pricing. so these companies that spend billions of dollars advertising on television end up getting more of their drugs prescribed, making more money, raising their prices, and it goes on and on. and we see the cost of health care increasing. how many countries in the world today allow drug companies to advertise on television like they do in the united states? two. the united states and new zealand. that's it.

what does the american medical association, the doctors of america, what do they have to say about this television advertising of prescription drugs? they say it's a bad idea. because what it does is incentivize doctors, first patient, then doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs than are necessary. and that drives up the cost of health care. so i decided to try to address this. there are lots of ways you could address t. i decided one of the things we might do is simply do something that's fair and open and honest. ask the drug companies in their ads to disclose the price of the drug. simply that. how much does it cost? put it in the ad. well, you might be surprised. here's one for you. have you seen the ads for the drug hugh mayor ra -- humera? i have. i have plenty.

it's a drug originally designed to treat rheumatoid arthritis. but then they found it could also impact psoriasis. most of us know psoriasis is a skin problem. in many of us, it's a tiny patch on your elbow. for some people it's more serious. but they now advertise humera can be used for psoriasis. good to know. here's what they don't tell you. do you know how much humera costs? do you know what it costs each month? $5,500. $5,500. they don't us that because that patch on my elbow, i think i can live with for $5,000 a month. and what i think and many agree is that we ought to move to the point where the pharmaceutical companies tell us the cost of the drug in their advertisement. that's not unreasonable, is it? in fact, it's so reasonable that

, hang on to your hats, president trump agreed on it. he had a press conference and says let's have pharma advertise the cost of the drug. i thought, that's been an issue i've been working on for a while. i agree with the administration. maybe we can do it together. so i went to my colleague and friend, senator grassley, chuck grassley of iowa. and i asked him, will you cosponsor an amendment to the bill on the floor today which gives an appropriation to the food and drug administration to support asking pharma to disclose their prices on their advertising. we introduced this amendment. and frankly, with 76% of the american people supporting the idea, we've got an interesting coalition. durbin, democrat of illinois, grassley, republican of iowa, president donald trump, and i

came to learn last night the secretary of the department of health and human services, mr. azar called me. i don't know him. i never met him. but he said, i want to tell you, we support your amendment. the durbin-grassley amendment for the disclosure of the cost of drugs. we think it's a good thing. we think it will start to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. that's a great thing. it turns out the commissioner of the food and drug administration also supports it. so now we have kind of an amazing coalition, democrats and republicans here in the senate as well as in the white house and the administration coming together. how often does that happen around here? not that often. sadly it doesn't. so let's seize this opportunity. i'm asking those who are managing this bill to include this language, this appropriations language in this amendment, in the bill, as a step toward giving us some control over the increasing cost of prescription drugs.

pharma hates this amendment like the devil hates holy water. they don't want to tell people that humer costs $5,500 a month. it kind of spoils your ad when you're talking about psoriasis and it comes out to be over $5,000 a month for their drug. so they don't want to tell you. they hope it gets lost in the system. i think it's better for americans to know what their getting into. why is pharma afraid to tell the consumers how much their drugs cost? we shouldn't wait to be surprised when we go to the pharmacy, when we stand by the register to pay for what we're buying. people have a right to know. we know the price of a car before you buy it, don't you? how about the price of that washer and dryer? i looked at those over the weekend with my wife. we know those prices right now. why shouldn't we know the price of these drugs? so i'm calling on my colleagues, we have amendments 3611 and 3612. let's put them on this bill.

let's do something. let's do the first thing we've done this year, the very first thing we've done this year to address the serious concern which americans have on the cost of prescription drugs. i see my colleague and friend senator grassley is here. i thank you for joining me on this amendment and i yield the floor. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north -- the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president, i rise today to honor and to celebrate the life of c.d. dicks bangler, a great north carolinian who passed away this week. a great contributor to our society is the fact that there's several acts in that individual's liefs. there's no one single attribute

to which to describe -- ascribe to the contribution and dick spanning letter -- spangler was a man. in that first act, dick built an impressive wealth at the time making him one of the wealthiest individuals in this country. the family construction business, the real estate business, the son of a charlotte contractor and real estate investor. dick attended woodbury forest, university of north carolina chapel hill and the harvard business school. after serving two years in the army, he moved back to his native north carolina to work at the family business c.d.spangler construction. 1973 while continuing to serve in the family's construction company, dick became the chairman of a little bank at the time, the bank of north carolina. subsequently elected a director of ncmb which would eventually be sold to bank of america. although he was a brilliant businessman, in my mind dick

spangler will best be remembered in our state for his commitment to education and what it means for lifting individuals out of poverty, giving them a path for learning, and expressing their individuality. he did this by advocating for a return to the emphasis on teaching the basics, higher salaries for teachers, programs for training high school principals for for a very challenging job. the second act in the energies and personal contributions he made to it are what made dick the remarkable man he was. during his time as president of the university of north carolina system, a position he held for over a decade, dick was laser focused on keeping north carolina's public university system affordable and low cost for all seeking post-secondary education. it's because of his dedication

so many years ago to low-cost tuition in the unc system, a mission he pursued without a paycheck during his time as president that current north carolinians today receive an affordable great university education. dick spangler once said and i quote, low tuition is not a gift. it's an investment in these students and they go to work and they pay that back over a lifetime, unquote. the number of individuals who have chosen to do just that by making north carolina their home after graduating from one of the u.n.c. system's great schools is a testament to that effort. he viewed leading the u.n.c. system as one of the truly great jobs anyone could have. on the eve of his departure, he said when talking about the u.n.c. system, and i quote,

we're on the side of angels, spending time with our students. to be with them is one of the great joys a person could experience. i live in a community that is vibrant, not asleep. it's wide awake and there's always turmoil because people are bright with viewpoints sometimes that end conflict, unquote. but for those who know the spangler family and dick's commitment to the state, i'll always remember dick for his fill philanthropy and the commitment to bettering our state through his personal efforts and his personal giving. the c.d.spangler foundation dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars over the past several decades to better public education in our state. through this work over 120 distinguished professorships, proposed towards improving instruction in our public education were funded, providing

generations of north carolinians with the benefit of quality education. for those unfamiliar with the racial history of north carolina schools, dick spangler was promoted -- prompted by swain v. charlotte mecklenberg schools, that seminole supreme court decision which said it wasn't enough to simply say desegregation of public schools was the law of the land, towns needed to commit to it and follow through on educating minorities next to their white peers. it's no exaggeration to say without dick's leadership in charlotte during the 1970's and 1980's, racial desegregation of charlotte schools might not have happened the way that it did. serving as a national model for other communities grappling with racial tensions in their schools. dick was so adamant about the fact that he decided not just to put his tremendous personal wealth to work but he put his time on earth to work as well. he ran to become vice chairman

of the charlotte-mecklenberg schools in an effort to ease the racial tensions that existed at the time in charlotte, north carolina. although he could have afforded to send his children to private school, he chose to lead by example and sent them to charlotte public schools to prove what is obvious to us now but was seemingly so controversial at the time. madam president, when i hear dick spangler's name, there's words i think of. honest. he was never questioned about his honesty. passion. dick spangler was committed to every effort that he joined into and he never sold it short. opinionated. he made you listen, whether you wanted to hear it or not. fair. he never let his wealth

influence his outcome. daring. he took on things that other people ran the opposite way from. demanding. i'm not sure that i've been in many meeting with an individual that controlled your attention like dick spangler did, because he saw time as a precious thing, and he knew that we were limited on the amount that we would be here to use it. dick spangler used every minute of his life to make our state and this country better. last one -- dick spangler was committed. he was committed to this country, he was committed to the state. he loved his u.s.a. tar heels. and, more importantly, he loved his family. he is leading by example rather than simply words will remain in my mind as we mourn and

celebrate the loss of a great man. today i would like to extend my condolences and deep appreciation to his wife of 58 years, meredith, to anna, tom, to the extended family. their loss is not only our state's loss but our country's loss. i can feel confident, as i think dick spangler does today in heaven, that dick did everything he could to set the example for every generation to come; that you have to invest something to get something. and i, for one, am moved, inspired, and committed to live on that commitment. i yield to my good friend from north carolina. mr. tillis: madam president? the presiding officer: the north from -- the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: madam president, i also tries make some comments about c.d., or as we all know

him, dick spangler. i met him about 11 years ago when i first got in to the state legislature. his office is just outside of downtown charlotte. from the every encounter from that point forward, i never left without learning something more. it could be on any number of topics. i appreciate senator burr's comments. he was a huge tarheels fan. i remember when a former university president, we had a memorial service for c.d. or dick spangler. he spokes, and he got up. everybody had been saying, this is a celebration. he got up there and said, folks, this is a very important memorial service, but a celebration is just what you do just after the tarheels beat the tar out of duke. he loved the tarheels. and he loved the university

system. and he loved a modern north carolina, an inclusive north carolina, a north carolina that, as a leader leading on the integration of schools. but i think the thing i remember most about dick were those experiences that i had over in his office. it was easy for me to get to. oftentimes i would go there on a monday before i'd go to the airport to come up here. every monday for about 30 years ago he had lunge for all of his employees. and he would be there. he would serve them lunch and they would spend time together, and i had the opportunity to do that hon a few occasions. and there were a couple of special times after we met in the conference room and he's coaching me on how i should present myself or issues that were important for education and any number of things. he was truly a mentor. he said, would you like to see my shop? now, this office out on moorehead street, it is an unassuming office, just as humble as the off-the-rack suits

that this man wore all of his life, or the old beat-up stationwagon that he would trive to the office. but this was an amazing experience. you go into this office in the back, and it's nothing but a workshop. he loved fabricating metals, fixing the clockworks on grandfather clocks. he loved creating tools to create kids how to learn. in fact, he gave me a homework assignment, which was basically a pyramid of ping pong balls, and i had to use geometry to figure out the dimensions of the peer med. but he was always trying to get people to learn and engage. and he engaged politically all of his life. and he was also one when he was president of the university system, senator burr said that you knew what was on his mind. if you were doing something in the legislature that was at odds with what he thought was in the best interest of the university system, i guarantee you you were going to spend quality time with

dick spangler and you were more an likely going to embrace his position -- or his opinion because he always made the university system better. i think there was one quote i was going to read. i think during an inaugural address. some important ideas don't deserve to be popular, ever. but they deserve to be aired. he real willly believed that -- he really believed that universities were a place where all ideas should be considered. not because they had merit but because someone has a deeply held belief and you should hear about it and you should have discourse. i think that's something we can continue to learn from to this day. but i want to join senator burr and offer my condolences to meredith and anna and her husband tom and their other daughter abigail. he has left a great impression. his earthly is no longer here.

but his advocacy will live for decades to come. and he's got a daughter who's clearly been raised right because anna serves on the board of governors, has served on the board of governors in the university system. she's actively involved in education pursuits in north carolina, so dick spangler is still living among us and his works are going to continue under his family's leadership and their belief in north carolina. so, madam president, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. to meredith, to anna, abigail and tom, our thoughts and prayers are with you. thank you for blessing us and having some time to share with dick spangler. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: thank you, madam president. i want to visit with my colleagues for the same reason that senator durbin about 15

minutes ago spoke to my colleagues about the high price of pharmaceutical drugs and maybe at least one little thing we can do to help moderate that price, or at least inform the public accordingly in a better way than we have so far. every american within earshot of a television has heard ads for prescription drugs. almost every night as i watch television i see something along that line. these ads promise patient relief from nearly every medical problem. and informing the public is an important thing for us to do in many areas. the pharmaceutical companies want you to know that their drug is on the market to help you, and they want you to talk to your doctor about the newest

drugs. as many of my colleagues know, i'm an outspoken supporter for transparency. i hope it's one of my tributes i bring to the united states senate. from the physician payment sunshine law to whistle-blower ex-prosecutes, i am a strong believe -- protections, i am a strong believer that transparency keeps citizens informed and for sure transparency in government brings accountability from those of us in government. senator durbin and i have amendments to the current funding bill which would shine transparency light on prescription drugs. these amendments would allow patients and their doctors to make informed decisions.

drug advertisers want to tell consumers all the benefits of the drugs. at the same time, drug advertisers are required to tell you about side effects. in fact, half of an ad has something about side effects. that's usually in the small print and when somebody is babbling something very rapidly about the side effects. but they aren't as gung ho to show how much that particular drug would cost. and i believe it's something that the public would likewise be well-informed when they're considering the advertisement and the purposes of the drug. $6 billion is what pharmaceutical companies spent on direct-to-consumer advertising last year. why would they spend that amount of money on tv commercials? because it works.

by bypassing the trusted physician and the ability of patients to decide for themselves, tv ads increase prescription drug utilization and, with it, drug spending. this increases drug costs to patients and taxpayers. in one case, a single drug in medicaid costs the taxpayers an additional $207 million just because of ads. the president's blueprint to lower drug costs includes a provision from f.d.a. to require the inclusion of the list price in these drugs. senator durbin and i agree on that, and i would hope, since it is in the president's blueprint to bring down -- as one step to bring down the high cost of drugs, that it will be easy to

get bipartisan support for the grassley-durbin amendment. this is a very simple, commonsense step to get drug prices down for consumers. now, i have to confess to you, it is not the only answer, but it is a concrete first step. if you want to know what i'm interested in other steps to get drug prices down, i would point out enacting the creates legislation introduced by senators leahy, lee, klobuchar, and this senator. or we could enact pay for delay, introduced by senator klobuchar and this senator. or commissioner gottlieb of f.d.a. could come up with a plan for the importation of safe prescription drugs from canada and other trusted countries.

so, madam president, consumers today are promised the sun, the moon, and the stars if they will simply get a prescription filled. senator durbin and i want to improve transparency in prescription drug advertisement so that consumers can decide for themselves. our amendments would simply clarify that the secretary of h.h.s. has the authority to require drug companies to report the list price on advertisements. and i had a telephone conversation this morning with that secretary of h.h.s. at his instigation, and he suggested that this would be very helpful, not only for him to accomplish the goals that he wants to, but to carry out the president's

blueprint. one of several steps in that blueprint to get the price of pharmaceuticals down for the consumer. consumers know the price of every other item they purchase before they make their decision. just think what of a benefit it was to the consumers of this country when maybe four decades ago the congress decided that we ought to have on the windows of a car what the cost of that car was, so that everybody had to play by the same rules of the game. this is a very simple free-market principle. i urge all my colleagues to support this effort that will lower drug prices for all americans. thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, i rise again to read letters from west virginians about the fears and concerns they have

about lawsuits being led by the 20 u.s. attorneys general including west virginia's own attorney general that threatens to one again allow insurance companies to deny coverage to west virginians with preexisting conditions. 800,000 west virginians including 90,600 children have a preexisting condition. let me go over things that qualify as preexisting conditions and that health insurance can rate you on. organ transplant, anxiety, cancer, heart disease, alzheimer's disease, crohn's disease, parkinson's disease, especially help circumstance anemia, depression, lupus, obsessive compulsive disorder, diabetes, kidney disease, sleep apnea, obesity, multiple sclerosis, bulimia, asthma, tuberculosis. i've always said that our nation's current health careship is in need of repair.

but every west virginian deserves access to quality, affordable health care. and i am very concerned our country is at risk of moving backwards instead of forward. when people ask why i voted against repealing the health care law, i always say it's because we need to make sure those with preexisting conditions don't go bankruptcy paying for basic health care. what's happening today is an unfortunate political move. the only reason this lawsuit is moving forward is because they have failed to repeal the law through this process here in the senate. congress has voted more than 50 times to repeal and it has not passed. so what they're telling us loud and clear, fix it, repair it. it can be fixed and made better for everybody. what makes this worse is that we do have this bipartisan compromise led by senator lamar alexander, republican from tennessee, and senator patty murray, democrat from the state of washington. with 12 republicans and 12 democrats, and i'm proud to say i'm one of them, this bill

includes important steps that will help reduce health care costs for west virginia families. and this agreement shows what is possible when we put people before politics. shame on us for not voting on that. this is impacting real people. last week i asked west virginians to share their stories with me and my office has been flooded with stories. i'm -- i want to share just a few of those stories with you today. this is whitney from morgantown, west virginia. dear senator manchin, please protect our preexisting conditions. in august of 2016, my then 15-year-old child suffered a stroke as the result of a brain a.b.m. he had to have emergency brain surgery which left him in a medically-induced coma for several months. he wasn't able to walk and talk when he woke up. he had to have continuous medical care, including expensive m.r.i.'s and an crow grams. this doesn't include his multiple therapies. if we did not have insurance coverage, i do not know what we

would have done. i can afford all of these medical bills without the help of insurance due to the extensive medical needs, i know if this preexisting condition is not protected, he will vently lose benefit -- eventually lose benefits. i beg you to stand up for my child and all those who deserve a right to ongoing medical care. please feel free to contact me with any questions concerning our needs. this is william from martins burg, best virginia. dear senator, it's imperative that insurance companies are not allowed to screen members for preexisting conditions. i'm a 20-plus year type two diabetic. i'm currently taking five medications for my diabetes. if i did not have coverage, i would be paying over $1,000 a month out of my pocket for just my diabetes meds. if insurance companies are allowed to start screening for and disallowing preexisting conditions, i would not be able to afford my medications and my

diabetes would not be controlled, which could possibly lead to loss of limbs, loss of vision, and i could die. how much would i cost the government if i was disabled? how much would i cost an insurance company then if i had to have feet, arms and legs amputated because of my condition? bottom line, i cost my insurance company is a lot less money when they help me to keep my diabetes under control. thank you for taking a stand for those of us with preexisting conditions. the final letter is from kevin from hinton. nor manchin, i've lived with crohn's disease that attacks the digestive system. the condition is painful and treatments are expensive. like many west virginians, i have dealt with insurance gaps and few jobs with good pay and benefits. though many americans struggle with expenses of health care, we remember, we do remember the unfair practices before a.c.a., the affordable care act, was

passed. and improve the health care system by ridding us of preexisting condition clauses which allowed insurance companies to overcharge six people for care or block them completely for getting coverage. please work for us to make sure that the steps taken in the a.c.a. are improved upon instead of allowing such benefit measures to be cut. madam president, these are just a few of the letters i received and i know we all have these preexisting conditions with people that are scared to death all over our country. i hope that we can come together for the sake of america and maybe get off of this political roller coaster where we're blaming everybody and trying to find out who we can blame, especially when we can fix it. so what i'm asking for is all of us to work together for americans. forget whether you're a democrat or a republican and just help the people you represent. these diseases don't have a home. they're not just because of a democrat or a republican, that's who they attack. they attack all of us. so it needs basically the help and the cure from all of us

also. thank you, madam president. and, mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: in my home state of florida, we have a rich history in manufacturing, hand rolled premium cigars and for those would aren't familiar with it, a hand rolled premium cigar is not the same thing as a cigarette. number one they're an expensive product, and they are consumed very differently from a cigarette or some other tobacco product. i would say they're more like wine than they would be like a cigarette for sure. the interesting thing about the cigar industry and its history, not just in florida but in this country, is that almost exclusively, the manufacturers of premium hand rolled cigars are small family-run businesses. by the way, so, too, are the retailers that sell it. this is not the kind of thing you go and buy at 7-eleven. there are stores that specialize in the sale of premium cigars.

they cater to a clientele that can afford to buy these things and they're significantly older than someone who would walk into a convenience store and buy a pack of cigarettes from behind the counter. and the companies that are involved in this endeavor are not the big companies that we see involved generally in the tobacco industry. they're family-owned businesses, both at the retail level and also at the manufacturing level. they are in addition to all this, they represent a rich part of the cultural history of the cuban community in florida. ybor city in tampa is an example of it. it was a city that -- an area that was settled over a hundred years ago by cubans that came to tampa to start a very vibrant hand rolling cigar industry which again these are hand rolled premium cigars. these are people literally sitting down and rolling it the leaves and these are high-end products. this industry is on the verge of extinction. i'll tell you why. in 2016, the previous

administration, they final liesed the rule based on a 2009 law that, by the way, it's intended -- its intended target was not premium cigars. they meant to go after tobacco products that were mass produced. but this law was interpreted that would require premium cigars to regulate the manufacture, the import, the packaging, the labeling, advertisement, promotion sale and the distribution of their products. and with each new product, they'd have to do it over again. so from year to year, the premium cigar industry may change the blend inside the hand rolled cigar. they come in boxes of eight or 12. every time that one of these things was changed, you'd have to redo the labels, redo the packaging, redo -- everything would have to be completely redone which is simply cost prohibitive because these blends change constantly, especially as you bring new markets. now, i've offered an amendment to the minibus that's before us that would exempt premium hand rolled cigars from the f.d.a. regulation, not just so the

industry can survive but so it can thrive and also to free up the f.d.a. to go after what they intended to go after, what everybody thought this was about which is common tobacco products like cigarettes and some of the other things that we are aware of. now, any time you talk about this, it gets a little tricky because people talk about tobacco use and causing cancer. i'm as sensitive to that as anyone. my father was a lifelong smoker. he lost his life in his early 80's because of cigarette smoking. we need to do everything we can to discourage people from smoking and consuming tobacco, especially cigarettes that are consumed in mass quantity and are cheap to buy in large quanities. i would note that it is already illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone who is under the age of 18. i would also tell you that beyond that, that the numbers have continued to decline in tobacco use. so we know that the laws that are in place and the programs have worked.

but one of the things that would foe -- focused on that's brought to bear some of these issues is that toe back exoa is a legal product and small -- tobacco is a legal product and small manufacturing of cigars is being harmed by this but the regulations were not intended for them. the regulations were designed to target cigarettes for flavored, fat cigarettes and other commonly used tobacco products, the kinds that could potentially be marketed to young people, that are not like a premium cigar five, eight, $10 each one, $80, $90 a box but the sort of flavored fat cigarettes, all the new stuff that's coming out that you can buy if behind the counter and they're very cheap to buy and they're manufactured, mass manufactured. that's what the rule was about. it was never intended to apply to premium cigars but the way it was written and the way the rule was interpreted, that's would it's now doing. it's putting the same requirement on a completely different product and it's a requirement they simply can't meet.

and here's the irony of it. all of the things that were targeted under this new rule are going to survive. they're still going to be around. a little bit more expensive, a little harder to bring to market. but they are still going to survive. all the mass-produced tobacco products will tip to be -- continue to be more accessible. but the premium cigar manufacturers are going to get wiped out. one more irony in all of this -- it is still illegal to mass-import cuban cigars, but you can bring them in on an individual quantity. those are not impacted by these regulations at all. none whatsoever. so you just think about that for a moment. a product made in another country doesn't have to meet the same guidelines but has all the same attributes. now, i talked a little moment ago about at that pa and in particular ebor city. and today after all these time there's only one factory left, a

company called j.c. newman. it is within the area and is known as cigar city. they've been making premium cigars -- not cigarettes, not flavored cigarettes, not jules so people can vape. i'm talking about premium, expensive, handmade cigars. they've been making them since 1895 and that's going to come to an end in the very near future in this rule goes through. they're a profitable company. they sell about $10 million worth of product annually. that sound like a lot of money. it is nothing compared to the mass-produced tobacco products. it is going to cost them three times that amount just to comply with the f.d.a. regulations. three times just as much -- upwards of $30 million to comply with the way this rule has been interpreted. the sad part about it is that everyone knows this. you go to the f.d.a. and they say, look, we get it. the law was supposed to go after these guys, but that's the way

it was written. everyone admits it. but yet that's the way it's going to be. and not just j.c. newman, it's going to put other retailers, and then the specialty cigar stories, it is going to put them out of business all because of a stupid regulation that was written as a result of a law that was not properly drafted and interpreted inappropriately. the federal government is going to put these guys out of business. and the irony is the people that they were trying to impact by the regulation are going to surrife and remain in business and be as -- survive and remain in business and be as successful as ever and the people that it was not meant to harm are going to get wiped out. this is the epitome of government overreach a buse. regardless if the business is 100 years old, this represents the livelihood of hundreds of american families. there are people that work in the factory, own those retail stores and they are going to be out of work not because the market shifted, not because americans no longer wanted to

smoke premium cigars. they're going to be out of business because no one can stay in business if the cost of following the law is three times as much as what you can make. you can't do it. that is legal product made by a hardworking americans who have been designee it for a very -- doing it for a very long time, not the intended target of this rule. and it is unjust for them to be singled out, just unfair, it's wrong. here is the worst part about this rule. it is written retroactively. not only will they have to start complying moving forward. you could argue just don't change your blend in the future. they will have to go back and relabel, repackage everything they have been making for the past 11 years. that explains the cost for just this one business. by the way, they've broken no laws and yet they've been singled out and this threatens their livelihood.

this is a bicameral and bipartisan issue. a number of members here in the senate from across the aisle agree with this. i have been working with senator nelson on this for a long time. this is not a partisan issue, this the no, sir a big tobacco issue. this is -- this is not a big tobacco issue. this is a premium cigar issue consumed by people in different ways. you don't smoke ten cigars a day. we just know -- common sense. but this is what's going to happen. we're going to wipe these guys out because of a government rule and the way it was interpreted, even though it was never meant to be about them. we have an amendment, we have a law that fixes all this. i'm not going to offer it on this bill because it's already part of the house package that lines up with the appropriations bills that are before us. but i wanted to point this out because i know people in ebor city and i know people who care about this are watching. and i want them to know when this issue gets conferenced with the house that we're going to be fighting for this, that this needs to get fixed because this

is the last chance. that's the other point. this rule is about to kick in. the comment period is about to end, and the rule is going to kick in. so this is our last chance. if we don't get it right here when we work this out, this is going to happen. you're going to be reading about it and maybe it doesn't matter in some places. it matters a lot to florida. it matters a lot to this company in ebor city, in tampa. it matters a lot to the hundreds and thousands of people across the country who work in the retail shops that sell them and who work in the places hand rolling and making them. and this is just wrong. and we should do everything we can to stop it from happening. and i hope that we will in conference deal with this issue. i'm glad it's in the house version. i wish we could get it in the senate version. we're going to fight to include it in the final version. we are not going to stand by and watch as j.c. newman and small businesses like them are put out of business by a rule that was never supposed to apply to them. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: