quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: i move to proceeds to executive session to consider calendar number 1006. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, bret indicatingle -- kagel grant of georgia to be united states circuit judge for the 11th circuit. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on on the nomination of brett grant of georgia to be united states circuit judge for the 17th circuit -- 11th circuit. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion many all in favor say aye. those opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for

3399. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the senate amendment number 3399 to h.r. 6147, an act making appropriations for the department of of interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion for h.r. 6147. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on h.r. 6147, an act making appropriations for the department of interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes signed by 17

senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand the senate received a message from the house to accompany s. 1182. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate the message to accompany s. 1182. mr. mcconnell: the chair -- the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate the message from the house. the clerk: resolved that the bill from the senate s. 1182 entitled an act to require the secretary of the treasury to mint commemorative coins in honor of the anniversary of the american legion pass with amendments. mr. mcconnell: i move the house move the house amendments to s. 1182 and send a motion to the desk. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of of the rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur

on the house amendments to s. 1182, a bill to require the secretary of the treasury to mint commemorative counties in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the american legion signed by 1 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur on the house amendment to the text of s. 1182 with a further amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. phoeupbl, moves to concur in the house amendment to s. 1182 with further amendment numbered 3628. membership. mr. -- mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes amendment numbered 3629

to amendment 3628. strike -- mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to refer the house message on s. 1182 to the committee on banking with instructions to report back forthwith. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell moves to refer the house message on s. 1182 to the committee on banking to report back forth with with instructions being amendment number 3630. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell proposes amendment number 3631 to the instructions of the motion to prefer s. 1182 to the committee on banking. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes amendment number 3632 to amendment number 3631. strike -- mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair to lay before the senate the conference report to accompany h.r. 5515. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the committee on conference in disagreeing votes of the two houses on the amendment of the senate to the bill h.r. 5515 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the department of defense, and so forth and for other purposes, having met have agreed that the house recede from its disagreement of the amendment from the senate and agree to the same with an amendment and the senate agree to the same signed by a majority of conferees on the part of both houses.

mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for the conference report. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference report to accompany h.r. 5515, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities of the department of defense, and so forth and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, for the information of all senators, the next vote will be at 5:30 p.m. on monday on cloture on the grant nomination.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i rise today to talk about the importance of a free press and its role since the founding of our nation in protecting the civil rights and civil liberties of all americans. i was on the senate floor on july 12 talking about a recent tragedy, a mass shooting at the annapolis based "capital gazette," a man who had a long-standing grudge against a newspaper for accurately reporting news about him shot his way into the news room and killed five good people. these five h men and women died doing their jobs, reporting the news and supporting a publication that is an important part of their community. one victim in particular, wendy wendy -- wendi winters and worked to distract the gunman in such a way that those who bore witness to her bravery described

her actions in this way, wendi died protecting her friends but also in defense of her news room from a murderous assault. wendi died protecting freedom of the press. wendi died protecting the freedom of the press. we think of violence against reporters as something that happens in other countries, in war zones and the like, but not here in the united states of america. all around the world reporters work to gather facts, ask questions, and report the news in the spirit of free, open, and transparent societies and governments that all people deserve. too often reporters are harassed, jailed, and even killed simply because of the nature of their work which often exposes cronyism and corruption. from this floor i stood in solidarity with the reuters reporter who was detained in burma. i stood in solidarity with the ethiopian journalists and

bloggers routinely arrested for criticizing the ethiopian government and exposing human rights abuses in that country. i talked frequently about china, a country that engages in routine censorship and online blocking, harassment, and detention of journalists and visa delays and denials for journalists. according to the committee to protect journalists, an independent nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide, more than 600 adjournment and media -- journalists and media workers have been killed in the last ten years while doing their job. while the member states of the organization for security and cooperation in europe, russia remains the deadliest country for journalists. investigative journalists max boradime who died in april was the latest russian reporter to be silenced by death. turkey is the largest jailer of journalists in the world and scores of media outlets have

been closed since the attempted coup there. the heavy-handed measures used against media freedom in turkey before and during the recent elections illustrate the lengths to which the government went to control the information available to voters. it also serves as a reminder of the essential role of pluralist media for free and fair elections. in may, a helsinki commission briefing on the murder of investigative journalist examined the unsolved murder of daphne igisya and juan kusea. daphne was known for investigations into international organized crime and its connection to the government of malta. she relentlessly probed maltese citizenship sales, revealed money laundering and exposed sanction evasion. at the commissions briefing her

son matthew described years of harassment, intimidation and threats she faced by those who sought to silence her. growing up, he said, i thought these things were normal. she was murdered in malta on october 16, 2017 by a bomb planted under the seat of her rent car. juan investigated crimes, organized crimes and corruption in slovakia, executed by gunshot in his home on february 25, 2018, along with his fiancee. on may 6, 3,000 people attended a holy mass in a small village where the two 27-year olds would have been wed. i am troubled that at a time when media freedom in slovakia is already under a spotlight, a slovak judge is suing journalist peter getting for writing about communist era judges who handed down sentences against people for attempting to emigrate. the crimes of communism should

be reported, taught, and remembered. somewhat ironically, a law reminiscent of the communist past is being used to thwart scrutiny of the crimes of that era. slovakia is not the only country where defamation or insult laws are used to limit free speech. in addition to laws that criminalize libel and make insulting the president or other officials an offense, belarus criminalizes providing media services without accreditation and has recently moved to limit access to the media on the internet. here at home, donald trump as a candidate and as president has mused about taking a strong look at our nation's libel laws, calling them a sham and a disgrace. jason reyes nick, a reporter from "the washington post" falsely imprisoned in iran for doing his job as a journalist had this to say recently.

he was talking about the attack i referenced earlier in annapolis. mostly i've covered attacks on the media taking place on the other side of the world, usuall in countries where the flow of information is restricted or conditions are such that it is a sense of desperation or political or tribal affiliation compelling individuals to take heinous action. writing about a deadly attack that happened less than 30 miles away in a town that i recently visited with relatives from overseas is a new experience for me and i have to say i don't relish the task. we americans have certain rights and responsibilities granted to us through the constitution, which is established a rule of law in this country. freedom of the press is one of the most basic rights and it is essential to the first amendment of the constitution. congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the

press. this precious freedom has often been under attack, figuratively speaking since our nation's founding. the day attacks on the american media have become more frequent and more liberal spurred on by dangerous rhetoric created in an open space for harassing the media for doing its job, asking questions that need to be asked, investigating stories that need to be uncovered and brings transparency to the halls of power whether they are in annapolis, washington, d.c., or elsewhere. then-candidate, now-president donald trump's rhetoric calling the media a stain on america, enemy of the people certainly has caused damage. on july 13, while donald trump was in the united kingdom, he continued his assault on the media brushing off a reporter from the cnn by saying cnn is fake news. now, mr. president, this was

underscored yesterday by a question being asked by a white house press corps poll reporter at his meeting with the european commission president. that reporter asked a question the president didn't like. because the president didn't like the question being asked by cnn's kaitlin collins she was told she will be banned from the next event open to the press or all credentialed media. then yesterday the president said to the audience there not to believe what you see and hear. he told a crowd of veterans, stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. what you're seeing and what you're reading is not happening. mr. president, that's the president of the united states saying those comments. again, demeaning the press and the importance of our free press. earlier this year, why is the

president doing this? earlier this year, cbs correspondent leslie stahl shared comments of donald trump with an interview she did with him after the election win. she said about donald trump about his -- she asked about donald trump's attacks on the media. why are you doing this? it's boring. it's time to end this. the candidate's response was straightforward and shocking. he said, and i quote, you know why i do it? i do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you. end quote. let that sink in for a moment. a man who is about to assume the position of the president of the united states explicitly acknowledging he was purposely working to diminish the integrity of the free press. after "the capital gazette"

shooting, donald trump said that americans should be free of the fear of being violently attacked when doing their job. how can we trust his sincerity when he tells the american people in the world that reporters are truly bad people? donald trump's constant dismissal -- dismissed refrain needs to end. he needs to accept the one of the press' most important roles is to speak truth to power, especially his. there is a reason why the leading newspaper in helsinki brought -- bought 300 ads that says, mr. president, welcome to the land of free press. the message is clear. he put that ad up to let mr. trump and mr. putin understand that one of the basic tenants of -- tenets of a democratic society is to embrace

and respect the freedom of the press. in russia, putin routinely jails political opponents. here we are left to wonder whether president trump believes with putin's view of the press or that of thomas jefferson, who said were it left to me if we were left with a newspaper without government or government without paper, i would oppose the ladder. as was written in "the washington post," donald trump didn't create the problem, but he exploits it and exaggerates it. that's true. two of the leaders in our country who routinely call reporters enemies of the state and terrorist threats, and we must be vigilant to stand up to these empty accusations. mr. president, after the tragedy at "the capital gazette" in annapolis, most of the country rallied in support of the survivors of the mass shooting.

they received tremendous outpouring of support, including by this body. i know it was heartfelt. and yet the paper has reported that it has received new death threats and e-mails celebrating the attack. that -- this is sick and it's dangerous. it shouldn't happen in in annapolis, it shouldn't happen in america, it shouldn't happen anywhere in the world. journalists should be free of the fear of doing their jobs figuratively and litly. the right of journalists to report the news is nothing less than the right of all of us to know, media pluralism is essential to express and ensure respect for other fundamental freedoms to safeguard democracy, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances. everyone in this body, democrats and republicans, have sworn an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states of america. as leaders of this great nation, we have a responsibility to

defend the rights of our citizens, including the freedom of the press. it is enshrined in our constitution, congress shall make no law respecting the status of religion or bridging the freedom of speech or of the press. just before the fourth of july recess, i had the opportunity to discuss the state of media pluralism and the safety of journalists with the o.s.c.e., representative on representative of the media. the representative plays a key role in calling out threats to and attacks on journalists, including murders and violent attacks. he also assists the osce participating states in fulfilling their commitments by providing them with expert opinion on media regulation and legislation. unfortunately, mr. dazar has his work cut out for him. in the aftermath of the tragic murders of "the capital gazette"

in annapolis, he sent his words of condolences and words of support. those mass shootings and other instances i just mentioned are all stark reminder of the incredible work that journalists do every day in big cities and small around the world, reporting on all the things that are important in our lives and the dangers they face doing it. i appreciate the sentiment for the osce representative on freedom of the media. i'm grateful to the other journalists at the capital gra z.t.e. who have been carrying on their mission and i'm grateful for journalists everywhere for their dogged pursuit of the truth. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the national flood insurance program is in trouble, and everyone in this building knows it. everyone in washington knows it. it's fiscally unsustainable

because it is, by its nature, structurally unsound. and, yet, here we are again for the seventh straight time in just six years considering so-called straight reauthorization -- straight. yes, that's the word that washington uses. that's what washington describes. it's the word that washington uses when republicans and democrats, after burning the mid-day oil for two and a half a week for a few months, decide together that a dysfunctional program $20 billion in debt is, in fact, perfect. and so we're planning to rubber stamp a continuation of its dysfunctional status quo. this aside here, mr. president, this is the opposite of straight. this is the definition of crooked and swampy.

here are the facts. the national flood insurance program creates a government monopoly to ensure -- insurance some -- insure .so -- some of the most expensive property in the world. we are talking about home owners would fall over themselves to insure. the flood insurance is there to be a vast, profitable industry, one creating jobs and opportunity for thousands of americans, but, no, in our unearned by infinite confidence, congress has assured the american people we got this. we, as in washington. except the problem, mr. president, is we don't. congress's answer to private insurance is $20 billion in debt, more -- just a few months after receiving a $16 billion taxpayer bailout. why is nfip losing money faster than congress can spend it?

well, because the program doesn't charge policy holders market rates for insurance. it offers them ar special below -- a special below market rate despite fact we know floodplains are dangerous. that's why we call them floodplains and not puppy dog and ice cream plains. we also know for a fact that the subsidized premiums will lead to shortfalls, debt, and taxpayer bailouts. here, one might recall the old quip, that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for different results. but congress isn't insane. we know exactly what we're doing and why. recall the last time nfip was reformed, it was about six years ago in its 2012 reauthorization. that bill, for the first time in a long time, reined in some of the program's worst distortions

for reformers on the left and right, it was a sign of hope. the problem was the reforms worked. nfip and its -- its artificially low premiums actually started to climb toward reality based levels, market-based levels. we, of course, couldn't have that, so in 2014 congress stepped in and repealed many of the reforms that were working. reforms that were put in place in 2012. that is the status quo we're being asked to perpetuate today. if this bill were any less serious, it would be written in crayon. the question is why? if the flood insurance program is so obviously and terribly flawed, mr. president, why is it so resistant to reform? why are we so resistant to reforming it? the answer, like most

inexplicably durable federal programs, this is a program that quietly serves the interest of the well to do at the expense of working and middle-class american families. proponents of the program would have us believe that nfip is essentially there to be protecting innocent victims who happen to live in low-lying communities and they can't afford flood insurance. but this argument is absurd. first of all, if home owners can't afford to insure their homes, then in reality they can't afford those homes. second, many of the areas that washington calls floodplains are really just property near water. residences there are expensive for lots of reasons, but as anyone who knows anything about real estate can tell you, the biggest reason is location, location, location. these homes are expensive because lots of people want to live there, among them wealthy people who bid up the price.

wealthy people, mr. president, is another way of saying people who can afford high-risk insurance premiums without taxpayer subsidies covered by washington, d.c., over and over again. now, in fairness, other floodplains are not necessarily home to multimillion dollar beach houses, but simply normal neighborhoods in low-lying locales. but in either case, the potential for flooding makes living in these areas more dangerous and more expensive. so in both cases it's unfair to ask taxpayers to make expensive, dangerous homes. 25% of which are vacation homes, artificially more affordable. it's unfair and it's unsustainable to hardworking, poor, and middle-class american families. the failure of the flood insurance program is not an economic theory. it's not a matter of ideological speculation. it is, in fact, a fact.

no amount of money will change that. the problem with nfip, as with all most wasteful federal programs is not the price tag itself, but the underlying policy. it doesn't work as currently structured because it can't. yet, despite decades of failure and folly, nfip remains unchanged as nothing more or less as a subsidy for people to live in places we know are probably going toe get flooded. -- to get flooded. it's tempting to call this a recipe for losing money. but as we know, mr. president, federal programs never actually lose money, whether it's waste, fraud, or abuse. someone somewhere pockets that money. and in the case of the nfip, as with so many other government programs, the winners are, well, see for yourself.

according to the congressional budget office, the median value of an nfip insured home is about twice that of the average american home. a 2015 study by the university of massachusetts dartmouth found an investor relationship between insurance premiums paid and total property value, close quote. in other words, quote, the greater the average property value, the lower the average premium paid. likewise, a 2016 study from the university of michigan law school found data, quote, suggesting that zip codes with higher value homes receive higher per value policies. there are beneficiaries of nfip, as there are for every government program, but in the aggregate, in the big picture, the nfip simply redistributes money from nonwealthy people to

wealthy people, from less wealthy people to more wealthy people. and to believe otherwise is to indulge what might be called an actuarial science denial. this isn't voodoo. actuaries already know how much flood insurance should cost. of course, they also know how much obamacare, medicare, social security are going to cost and congress is getting terrifyingly good at ignoring actuaries and actuarial science in general. but as with our entitlement programs, politicians just want to pretend that nfip can magically charge less and spend more and not leave future taxpayers holding the bag. mr. president, its long past time to set aside this farce owe

farcical, magical thinking. neither president obama nor king kanut a thousand years ago has the power to stop the rise of the oceans. what we can do is prepare through mitigation, through insurance, and through proven platforms of success. senators heller and tester have a bill that would allow private insurers to compete with nfip. i wholeheartedly support their bill and can cite utah's successful embrace of private flood insurance as strong evidence in favor of that approach. senators crapo and brown have a bill that would improve flood mapping and insist on community preparation for flooding as a condition for nfip coverage. this is not too much for the american people to ask. either of their affluent flood-prone neighbors or of their sworn representatives in

congress. nor is the amendment i'm offering, my amendment would leave the program broken as it is, exactly the same, only for today's purposes with one small change. it would cap eligibility for nfip insurance at homes worth more than $2.5 million. anything under that, fine. they can enjoy the cut rate premiums but the taxpayers should not pay any amount of coverage for the top 1% that can afford a new home of $2.5 million. a $2.5 million new beach home. all my amendment says is that people who can afford a multimillion dollar waterfront home should be able to afford to ensure those homes on their own without a government subsidy paid for by america's poor and middle class. with the stock market near all-time highs, with the corporate tax cut driving up

profits, i think it's eminently reasonable, an eminently reasonable time to ask multimillionaires to insure their beach houses without the welfare assistance of hardworking taxpayers who make a fraction of their income. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the committee on banking to be discharged from further consideration of s. 3128 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the lee amendment be agreed to, that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: mr. president, reserving the right to object. and through the president,

nobody, nobody in this chamber has more respect for the junior senator of utah than i do. he's whip smart. he's honest. he's a good guy. we almost always vote together. i have some problems that i'd like to point out to the chamber that i see with respect to the senator's request for unanimous consent. number one, it is a fact, mr. president, that 98.5% of all the homes insured by the national flood insurance program are not owned by a bunch of rich people. 98.5% of those homes are located

in counties with a median household income below $100,000. and 62% of those homes are located in counties with a median household income below $54,000 when is the national average. so i would respectfully disagree that the purpose of the nfip and the effect of the nfip is to help people with their expensive beach homes. point two, if we adopt the motion by my distinguished colleague, the nfip is dead on tuesday. let me say that again. if we do what the distinguished senator would like us to do, on tuesday the 31st, the nfip

expires. the reason being that we do not have time, even if i agreed with what my colleague wanted to do, we do not have time to passion this bill, get it to the house and get it to the president in time to get the program from expiring on july 31. and by the way, the house has recessed. point three, i agree with my colleague that this program needs to be reformed. and we've all, including my distinguished colleague, have been working toward that end. we're not there yet. but we're working hard toward that end. i slightly disagree with the proposition that we reform the program in 2010. i think the last time we really, truly reformed the national flood insurance program was never. and it's about time that we do it now. the final point i'd like to

make, mr. president, the amendment that my colleague is asking this house to adopt today is not just about vacation homes costing $2.5 million. i've looked at the bill and by my reading and the reading of people a lot smarter than me, this bill would apply to any structure, period, that costs more than $2.5 million. that structure would not be eligible to participate in nfip. it would prohibit assisted living centers. it would prohibit dormitories, it would prohibit hotels, it would prohibit apartment buildings from insurance coverage under the national flood insurance program. if you can't get it from the private sector and in many cases you won't be able to, that's why we have the nfip, you're on your own. it would mean we couldn't have

any more low-income housing. low-income housing projects, mr. president, are required to have flood insurance from h.u.d. we all know that. they would be barred from insurance coverage under this amendment. now, residents of louisiana and texas and florida and puerto rico also know that if one of their communities is not participating in the nfip, federal assistance can't be used in any of those areas. and finally, this amendment would jeopardize the ability of communities to receive the community development block grants for disaster recovery. mr. president, let me say it again. the junior senator from utah is slightly correct -- absolutely correct, we need to reform this program. but we need to keep it alive. and it's not going to do anybody any good to let this program expire on tuesday and scare about five million-plus americans half to death.

we don't have to do that. there is -- there is an instrument coming to us from the house. it extends this program by four months. it passed the house overwhelmingly. the house vote was 366-52. i am strongly encouraging the majority leader to bring this extension -- all it does is maintain status quo for four months to let us negotiate -- to bring this extension to the floor and let's pass it and let's keep this program alive. with all the respect i can muster, i think the proposal -- the purpose of this amendment is to cause the nfip to expire and i just can't live with that. i couldn't sleep tonight if i did and for that reason i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i stand with enormous respect for my friend and my distinguished colleague, the senator from louisiana. i stand also with enormous respect for the amount of care and diligence that he puts into

each legislative effort that he addresses in this chamber and in the committee on which we serve together. i would like to respond to a couple of points. my colleague is absolutely correct, most of the people, the overwhelming majority of the people who get insurance under this program are not wealthy. it's one of the reasons why this is a limited purpose amendment. this amendment would deal only with properties, new properties to be insured worth more than $2.5 million. the idea is that if you can build a structure, a home or otherwise worth more than $2.5 million, there can and ought to be a way -- there is a way for you to provide for the assurance in the event of a flood for the addressing of whatever flood damage is done as a result of that. anyone who has the ability to afford such a structure can address that structure without

having to be subsidized by america's poor and middle-class families. secondly, i'd like to respond to the suggestion that the purpose of this amendment is somehow to kill the nfip program. if that were the purpose of it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. we would simply be entertaining means by which to block the reauthorization of that program. now, yes, the house of representatives has adjourned just moments ago. but, yes, the house of representatives has a pro forma session scheduled for tomorrow. there are means by which the house of representatives could and i believe would pass this amendment, this reauthorization with the amendment intact. the house of representatives has in fact in the very recent past passed far more aggressive, far more significant reforms than this. and i believe they would do so in their pro forma session by

their version of unanimous consent. so this is not intended to nor would it have the effect of shutting down nfipaltogether. finally, let me say this. ten months ago when we were asked to give another so-called clean reauthorization of this program, i was promised by many distinguished members of this body that there would be reforms that we would put in place before the next reauthorization. it hasn't happened. and in fact, we haven't had significant reforms for six years. it is in fact time to reform the program. on that point, i'm very pleased that my friend, the distinguished colleague from louisiana, and i agree on that point. reforms are needed. but we can't continue to kick the can imperpetuity. st. augustine is quoted during his conversion to christianity, lord, grant my chastity but not yet. if we're always kicking the can,

if we are always saying, yes, we need to be righteous, yes, we need to do the right thing but not yet, when will we ever get there? if not us, who? if not now, when? it saddens me that we can't pass even this minor reform today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. kennedy: mr. president, with respect, i reassert my objection. the presiding officer: the objection was noted. the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, last year around this time millions of americans were mobilizing, marching, calling, and writing with a simple, straightforward demand. they demanded that the united states senate stand up to donald trump and protect the nearly 30 million americans who were at risk because the republican party was hell-bent on destroying the affordable care

act, the a.c.a. with a vote on repealing the affordable care act looming late in the evening, i came to the senate floor that night intending to stand with the thousands of hawaii residents who wrote or called my office with a sense of urgency to save their health care. i wasn't scheduled to speak that evening. i had already spoken many times previously about the importance of health care. as the debate wore on, much of it focused on health care in the abstract. i felt compelled to talk about the immediacy of health care because of what i was experiencing. two months earlier i had been diagnosed with kidney cancer during a routine examination. it's a moment everyone dreads, but it's also a moment nearly every family in this country has experienced at some point. but even as i reckoned with what came next, two surgeries and now ongoing immunotherapy, i knew i was fortunate.

i had health insurance that allowed me to focus on my treatment rather than worrying about whether i could afford the care that would save my life. every american deserves the same peace of mind. because health care is a right, not a privilege just for those who can afford it. during my treatment i was heartened by the kind words of support of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. many shared stories about ho -d stories about how cancer touched their lives. for some it was a personal battle, the others was it was a parent, child, or spouse. i was touched by their compassion. it meant a lot to me to know that so many people are pulling for me. but i was dismayed that evening. that evening on the senate floor, because the empathy that my colleagues showed me did not extend to the millions of people who would lose their health care if the a.c.a. was repealed that night.

i rose that night and implored my colleagues to show the same compassion to the american people that they showed me by voting against the repeal of the affordable care act. and in a dramatic late-night vote, we joined together across party lines to save health care for millions of americans, but the fight was not over. there was hope that we could come together to improve our nation's health care system. we got off to a good start, with senators murray and alexander's good-faith negotiations on a plan that would have helped stabilize insurance markets and provide a path forward to strengthening you are country's -- our country's health care s instead of embracing this bipartisan effort and proposal, donald trump and republican leaders doubled down on their efforts to destroy and dismantle the a.c.a., no matter the consequences.

last october donald trump announced he would halt all cost-sharing reduction payments that helped keep plans more affordable. in december, congressional republicans eliminated the a.c.a.'s individual coverage requirement as part of a massive tax giveaway to the wealthiest one percent of people and corporations in our country, a tax break, by the way, that they didn't even ask for. and, with that, 10 million americans stand to lose their coverage and millions more will see their premiums rise as a result. and earlier this year, the trump administration made it easier for insurance companies to offer minimal -- minimal insurance plans to consumers. and these plans are called junk plans for a good reason -- because they don't require insurers to cover some pretty basic, essential health services -- benefits. things as basic as annual physical, trips to the emergency

room, or prescription drug coverage. in other words, your junk plan will not provide coverage if you really get sick. two weeks ago the president announced a draconian cut to the a.c.a.'s navigator program, a program that helps people sign up for health coverage. in hawaii, funding for a.c.a. navigators is a particularly critical tool for outreach to the cofa community. these are citizens of the republic of the marshall islands, the federal rated states of micro-indonesia shah and the state of paloa. cofa citizens live, work, and pay taxes in the united states but a face significant health challenges and a difficulty in accessing health care. under current federal law, cofa citizens are ineligible for medicaid. they are, however, eligible for subsidized health coverage under the a.c.a. this is where the navigator

program comes in. this program helps our cofa citizens navigate the enrollment process in their own language and helps to ensure they have access to the health care that they need. without access to the navigator program, the already-underserved cofa citizen community will face new challenges in accessing the care that they need. and last month the trump administration joined texas and 19 other states suing to invalidate the a.c.a.'s core protections for americans with preexisting conditions, illnesses like diabetes, asthma, or cancer. if the president and texas prevail in this lawsuit, which will end up before the supreme court, nearly one in four americans with preexisting conditions will be at risk of either losing their health care coverage altogether or find it unaffordable. health care is one reason why i

have deep reservations about the nomination of brett kavanaugh to serve in the united states supreme court. judge kavanaugh was nominated by a president who has openly bragged about all the things he's done to gut the affordable care act and who expects his judicial nominees to share his views. in our democracy, every elected leader faces a reckoning with their voters. this year the american people are sending us a clear message to protect their health care. they are standing up and speaking out because health care is not just some abstract concern for them; it's deeply personal for all of us. it's why health care is a top concern for our constituents all across the country, whether they are republicans, democrats, independents, pro-trump, anti-trump. health insurance impacts every single one of us. this is not a game.

lives are at stake. our constituents are watching and demanding we listen and act to safeguard their health care. and they will hold us accountable if we do not. mr. president, i yield the floor.

is

ms. warren: mr. president, i want to start by thanking

senator brown for organizing time for our speeches today and of course for his tireless fight on behalf of working people in this country. i rise today to join senator brown and my other colleagues in standing with federal workers in massachusetts and all around the country. federal workers who are under attack from all sides by the trump administration. there are nearly 30,000 federal workers in massachusetts alone and almost a quarter of them are veterans. thousands of men and women who have put themselves in harm's way to protect us and then have come home to continue serving their communities in the federal workforce. these americans work at agencies like the social security administration to help older americans receive the benefits they've earned. and they work at the v.a. where they help us fulfill the promises that we've made to our veterans. they help keep our communities safe and they help them recover after a disaster hits.

they fight deadly diseases and work day in and day out to improve the health of our fellow citizens. those are just a few examples. but ever since taking office, president trump has attacked these public servants, attacked their paychecks, attacked their working conditions, attacked their retirement security just about every way he could of. freezing their pay and proposing draconian cuts to their wages and their hard-earned retirement benefits. his latest assault, in the form of three executive quarters, undermines collective bargaining rights that have protected federal workers' voices in their workplaces since the civil service reform act of 1978. passed this senate by 87-1. these orders disrupt the bargaining process that federal