more funding on those states that are more deeply affected but don't have the population to drive the formula funding to have enough formula funding in the states to meet our needs. just a few weeks ago our state department of health and human services released preliminary numbers -- in west virginia we had almost 500 copy-related deaths so far in west virginia. while this is the most devastating statistic, when it comes to west virginia and the opioid epidemic, it's not the only one -- it's not the only one we need to look at. we are seeing an increasing number of children in foster care. this is impacting the entire family. there are more grandparents and great grandparents who are raising their grandchildren and their great grandchildren. our state has an increased need for treatment facilities. we have more babies that are requiring neonato care as well as services as they grow.

i have seen these needs firsthand. this has impacted our state very deeply through visits to facilities, conversations with families, health care professionals, and first responders many i can say living in a smaller area, more rural area of our country, i know families personally that have been impacted by this. it's heartbreaking how many people need help and this bill, i think, takes major steps. while the opioid is a significant force of labor- h.h.s., i want to highlight other valuable investments, one that is of personal importance of mine and many of us, i know senator collins is here today, is the funding we provide for alzheimer's research. both of my parents died in the last four years. both of them with severe dementia and alzheimer's. it's probably the saddest,

hardest thing that we as a family ever had to face. and i understand the emotional, physical, and financial toll it takes on patients and their caregivers and families, because a lot of the caregivers are family members. it is a devastating disease which is why i've been such a supporter of a wide range of alzheimer's support legislation. with this bill we pass the $2 billion milestone when it comes to alzheimer's research. that isn't just for research. that's also to figure out the best way to help our caregivers. we also in this bill directed other priorities, help for other priorities in states like mine a rural state, community health centers. apprenticeship grants. apprenticeships are critical to the workforce we need. the idea program at n.i.h. which drives research dollars out to other, to universities away from

the main campus of n.i.h. certainly our colleges and universities are taking advantage of this, in particular west virginia university. we fully fund, and i'm excited about this, with senator reed our bill on childhood cancer. it's called the star act. we introduced it, we passed it. this will expand opportunities for childhood cancer research, improve efforts to identify and track childhood cancer incidents and enhance the quality of life for cancer survivors, many of them have cancer and treatments at their younger years but what happens to them as they enter into their teenage years, young adult years, if they move into family life? there are impacts that are impact our childhood cancer survivors all throughout their life. so i'm really pleased with the efforts that we've made there. in short, this legislation aims to improve the health and well-being of every single american. when it comes to the department of labor, very briefly, this is

important for us in west virginia. there is a training program there for displaced coal workers and coal miners. we've refunded that. we've pushed more funding to that, i should say. re-fund sounds a little confusing and we've increased the maximum amount for pell grants. this is a few highlights of this piece of legislation with a few critical resources that i think will make a big difference. so i know this bill will benefit my state of west virginia because it recognizes the needs and opportunities facing our state and nation and it provides the resources we need to seize those opportunities, and it represents the first time in a long time we've worked together, we've worked across the aisle, we've been able to have our say as members, every single one of us, into where and how we want to see both defense and labor- h.h.s., these enormously

impactful agencies and how they impact our lives. for me, that's a major victory, here being a member of the appropriations committee. so i want to extend again my gratitude to the subcommittee chair, senator blunt, and the ranking member, senator murray, and our two major chairs, senator leahy and senator shelby. it's a good day here, i think, on the floor of the united states senate. thank you. and i yield the floor to senator more -- moran. mr. moran: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. it is a privilege to be here on the floor of the united states senate today on this occasion as we work our way through another set of appropriations bill. today the defense appropriations bill and the bill we call labor-h. it involves the department of health and human services, which includes the national institute for health, n.i.h.

and the senator from west virginia was correct in her commentary in regard to this being a good day, but she she wh correct in her -- she she was ao correct in the number of people. i serve on the subcommittee with senator murray from washington state but i'm pleased to be here with the senator from west virginia, senator capito and the senator from maine, senator collins. it is an indication that there is broad support, and i now notice that the ranking member, the vice chairman of the committee, is with us as well, senator leahy from vermont. and for as long as i've been in the united states senate -- and i've been a member of the appropriations since that arrival -- it's been a mission of mine to see that we increase the amount of funding for the national institutes of health. and today we particularly highlight the consequences, the good things that happened in that regard with the diseases of the mind.

alzheimer's, in particular, it is a devastating disease which places such an enormous burden on so many people, so many families across kansas and around the country, and it has huge impact on lives. there is currently more than 5 million americans living with alzheimer's, and their combined care costs us $259 billion, $259 to our health care system each year. i appreciate the opportunity to work on issues which combine the opportunity to help individuals. the care and compassion that comes from one's heart, to see that people's lives are improved and families are changed as a result of the work. i also appreciate the opportunity to work on issues in which the mind kicks in, in which we can save significant dollars in our health care delivery system by finding the cure to alzheimer's, delaying the onset of this horrific

disease. it is estimated that by 2050, this number, this $259 billion to our health care system costs could rise as high as16 million people with alzheimer's, from 5 million to 16 million, and carry the cost from that $259 billion to over $1 trillion. in fact, an individual develops alzheimer's almost every single minute in our country. these predictions do not need to become a reality, and that's what this appropriations committee report that we will discuss, debate, and vote on this week involves. these astronomical costs can be curbed if this disease themselves are made treatable and curable. there's hope that progress is being made. i'm hopeful, but i know that progress is being made. we've seen it. this past decade has brought a

significantly increased awareness to alzheimer's research as well as important partnerships and developments at the national alzheimer's project that is updated on an annual basis. n.i.h. researchers are now able to study an increased level of small images proteins including detailed physical structures of the brain that are common in individuals suffering from alzheimer's, and this new development could be that piece that links the research and data together to find a way to reverse the disease's impact on the human brain. what a wonderful development that would be. the only way to build on this progress is to solidify our commitment to supporting national institutes of health through our annual funding increases. again, i'm pleased to see that we are once again adding significant dollars to the n.i.h., and particularly to n.i.a., for this research. i'm a cofounder of the senate n.i.h. caucus and i visited

n.i.h. headquarters last year with the director of the university of kansas alzheimer's disease center. it's one of 31 n.i.h.-designated alzheimer's disease centers across our country. the promising research that we see at home at the k.u. alzheimer's disease center demonstrates the benefits of n.i.h. utilizing partnerships to increase research capacity that yield results. it is critical to note that n.i.h.'s ability to support alzheimer's research at academic institutions such as k.u. is dependent upon stable annual appropriations. that stable annual appropriation is also important for us to be able to attract the best and the brightest researchers in this country who need to know that there is a stable source of research dollars for them to continue their efforts at finding this cure and the delay of the onset. so many of us care for people who have been affected by alzheimer's and serious illnesses. this unfortunate circumstance that many share should be made,

get easy to rally behind n.i.h. in hopes of that cure and improving the lives of those we love. this is the fourth -- excuse me for saying that. i'm proud to say that with this proposed increase of $425 million in fiscal year 2019, we have now worked to nearly triple the funding for alzheimer's disease research over the past years. in addition to our work in the appropriations process, there is a number of legislative efforts that are underway. i would mention two of them. the bold act and pachia, legislative initiatives sponsored by many of us speaking today about alzheimer's, that on the authorizing side separate from the appropriations side are deserving of the support of my colleagues here in the united states senate, in the house of representatives and are bills that should be sent to the president of the united states for signature. but as a committee and as a congress, we must work to provide the necessary support to n.i.h. to discover, and we will continue to do that with this bill today. i also want to take a moment to

recognize a couple of people. in my involvement in this issue, in fact, my involvement as a united states senator and issues in general, you meet lots of interesting, caring people. but there is a family that i have met who through, to the best of my knowledge, with nothing personally to gain from their efforts, bob and jill thomas and brother bill and susan thomas from oklahoma have been relentless, tireless advocates on behalf of the alzheimer's community. and it's so pleasing to me to know people who have a care and compassion for people and who spend their time and their resources making sure that members of congress, the american people, and the alzheimer's association has the resources and information necessary to accomplish the goal that we're all about: a better life for more americans and their families.

the elimination of this disease from the, that americans now face and the opportunity for us to find the cure to this horrific disease that affects so many. and so i want to use the moment to express my personal gratitude to bob and jill and to bill and susan and others across the country, others in kansas who day to day go to work to make certain that life is better for their fellow americans and for people around the globe. again, an honor to be here with my colleagues in support of this legislation. and i would ask my -- there's many reasons to be supportive of the labor-h. defense bill, but i would highlight this one as one that my colleagues can rally around, republicans and democrats, of all walks of life should be pleased by our efforts today to see that there is more research dollars available for that cure. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues, and i now yield the floor to the senator from maine. senator collins. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. what a pleasure it is to be here on the senate floor with such determined advocates on behalf of the families all across our nation who are dealing with this devastating disease of alzheimer's. i spoke earlier in the week about the many terrific provisions in this bill on the defense appropriations side and the labor-health and human services part of the appropriations package. but, i am delighted to be here today to shine a spotlight on the additional funding for alzheimer's disease. as a member of the appropriations committee, it has been such a pleasure to work with my colleagues, including senator moran, senator capito,

and our leader, chairman blunt, on this shared priority year after year. and i particularly want to recognize the extraordinary leadership of chairman blunt in making sure that adequate funding is provided for this devastating disease. mr. president, alzheimer's is the sixth-leading cause of death in this nation, and it is increasing at unprecedented rates. like many families, mine too has known the pain of its devastating consequences. today an estimated 5.7 million americans are living with alzheimer's. in addition to the human suffering it causes, alzheimer's is our most costly disease, at

$277 billion a year, with medicare and medicaid covering $186 billion. without a change in the current trajectory, the number of americans with alzheimer's is expected to triple to as many as 14 million by 2050, costing more than $1.1 trillion per year. and bankrupting the medicaid system. fortunately, congress has taken significant actions, and in this bill recognizes the urgent need to continue our investment full speed ahead. since the 2011 signing of the national alzheimer's project act

known as napa which i co-authored with former senator evan bayh, we have increased funding for alzheimer's by $1.36 billion. seven years ago, n.i.h. received only $440 million for this research compared to more than $5 billion for another very serious disease, cancer. since that time, we have steadily boosted federal research dollars for alzheimer's to 936 million in -- in -- $936 million in 2016, $1.4 billion in be 2017, and $1.8 billion last year. but this bill before us achieves a milestone because by adding another $425 million for this

research, we will bring the total funding for the first time to exceed the $2 billion mark. this is the largest increase in history, and it allows us to reach the level that experts have advised us is necessary to find a means of prevention, effective treatments, or ultimately a cure by the year 2025. and this has been a bipartisan commitment. alzheimer's doesn't care if you're a democrat or a republican or an independent or a green. it does not discriminate. this robust commitment promises returns such as we have seen for cancer, for diabetes, and other

chronic illnesses. fueled by federal support, researchers are beginning to understand more clearly the complex biology of alzheimer's with sophisticated new tools that are leading to better imaging agents and therapies. n.i.h. research is laying the foundation for precision medicine through the accelerating medicines partnership for alzheimer's disease, which will produce more targeted therapies that i believe will lead to a means of either preventing or at least delaying the onset of this disease. with n.i.h. funds, scientists are also exploring possible risk factors, including diet, heart health, diabetes, exposure to

environmental toxins. result from the special blood pressure intervention trial released last month found that lowering blood pressure is associated with reducing the risk of mild cognitive impairment and dimension. through a $25 million n.i.a. grant, jackson laboratories in maine is coleading the alzheimer's disease precision models center with indiana university, the first of its kind to celebrate the most promising research into therapies from the bench to the bedside. this is exactly the kind of collaboration and sharing that we need to make a difference. as the chairman of the senate aging committee and the founder and the cochair of the senate

alzheimer's task force and as the senator representing the oldest state in the nation by median age. i am committed to making 2020 the dawn of life for -- dawn of light for alzheimer's to alter the path for generations to come. and the robust support in this bill represent an historic step forward that will promise dividends in the future. as the glimmers of light seep through this door that has been shut tight for far too long, we must continue to push forward. we didn't let up on the accelerator of funding now. we need to improve the lives of those living with alzheimer's

and their care givers, and how many of us have seen an elderly parent caring for a beloved spouse with sphere dementia. it takes a toll, not just on the victim of the disease but on the entire family and particularly the caregivers. and that is one reason that i have introduced the bold infrastructure for alzheimer's act with senator cortez masto. this bipartisan bill would promote public health knowledge and awareness of alzheimer's disease, cognitive decline, and brain health by supporting implementation of the c.d.c.'s healthy brain initiative public health road map. bold now has 48 cosponsors, i am

delighted to report, and we are on track to consider the bill soon in the help committee led by senator alexander and senator murray. bold follows our previous efforts such as napa, and together with the extraordinary increase in n.i.h. funding that we're providing today, these congressional actions are poised to usher in a whole new era in our battle against this devastating disease. mr. president, i have visited research laboratories all across the united states, the mayo clinic, n.i.h. here in the washington area, jackson laboratories in the great state of maine, the university of

pennsylvania, harvard, and i have seen what is going on in the labs due to the increases in n.i.h. funding that we provided. it is so exciting, and i am convinced that if we sustain this commitment, we can avoid such tragedy for so many american families, as well as avoiding the tremendous burden of our nation's most costly disease. again, i want to salute the efforts of chairman blunt for continuing to press forward and for his leadership and strong support of biomedical research. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor to the chairman of the subcommittee,

senator blunt. mr. blunt: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, certainly i want to thank my colleagues for today not only the credit that they have shared with me and that i have -- that i am reluctant to accept on the basis that this is clearly an effort of establishing what our priorities are. there are a lot of things in this bill that are good things for somebody to do. in some cases, over years we have not done them as well as we should have. well-intentioned programs didn't work. we have gone through the process of eliminating programs and combining programs so we could set priorities, and priorities mentioned just this morning by senator collins and senator capito and senator moran, when you think about what we're talking about here, health care research, the opioid epidemic, what's happening in the

alzheimer's space that we would have never imagined these numbers or this cost or this family impact that we have. the one thing i want to mention just briefly before we end this part of our discussion and i think between votes and other things this morning, senator cardin is here, and like me plan to do what i am doing now about an hour ago. so i am going to take just a couple of minutes. i want to talk a little about the labor part of this bill. you know, we for the first time in the 20 years that we have been keeping the statistics of jobs available and people looking for work, this is the first time in that 20-year period of time that there are more jobs available than people looking for work. that is a big number. it's a big thing to think about. the other thing to think about, though, is the match between the people looking for work and the

jobs available is not exact, and in fact most of the time the people looking for work don't have the skills for the jobs that need to be done. just i was in missouri just recently visiting with a small manufacturing company that had 20 job openings just waiting for somebody to come in the door or for them to be able to find someone that had the skill set available for those job openings. what do we do to do a better job of combining the skills people need with the jobs that are out there or the jobs that will be out there, the apprenticeship programs, and this bill as senator murray and i have particularly been focused on with secretary acosta, give people new ways to get ready for work. create some new ways for partnering between people already on the work force and someone they can mentor and

apprentice. we're looking at the pell grant area of ways that the post-high school pell grant can be used in different ways that allow not just traditional college programs but various kinds of certified programs, certificated programs that allow people to go to work. in areas where there are high demands right now like construction, energy, hospitality, health care, manufacturing are only a few of the places where jobs need to be done. we have around 400 registered apprentice ship programs just in my state with more than 13,000 apprentices working with really several hundreds of employees, there are 530,000 americans that are in apprenticeship programs nationwide.

almost -- over half a million americans getting ready for the jobs that are out there to do. those issues, other issues in this program of what the department of labor is doing with job corps where the major job corps measurement for years has been did you get some kind of certificate? we're shifting now from did you get some kind of certificate to did you get a job? great to have a certificate. a whole lot better to have a certificate that gets you a job. and over the next three years, moving to of course you get the certificate, that's a basic part of the problem, but does it lead to a job, and do you still have that job or a job like it a year later? that's how the people running these programs are going to be measured in the future as opposed to did you just get somebody through your program? now it's did you get somebody through your program in a way

that met the goal of the job corps. it's not the certificate corps, mr. president. it's the job corps. and now measuring by getting a job. this bill is reflective of those kinds of new efforts in our society to try to match people with the jobs that are out there and to do the kinds of things in our economy that see that those are jobs that allow people to raise a family, that allow people to have opportunities they wouldn't have otherwise. and so i'm looking forward to later today when i believe we will all vote for this bill of labor, health and human services, education, combined with the critically important bill on defense. and with that, mr. president, i want to add one other thing. i have six requests here for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority

leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: before senator blunt leaves the floor, let me first thank him for his leadership in regards to the provisions in the bill before us as it relates to alzheimer's and the research. as has been pointed out by the speakers, this is bipartisan, and we strongly support the efforts in this bill. i'd just like to put one face on it if i might. this past week, sally michael, a distinguished leader in our community, died after a ten-year suffering from alzheimer's. we lost her way too early to this disease. she was an extraordinary person, a professional civilian activist, advisors to governors, mayors, and legislators and left a great legacy. the park and people program in baltimore, the super camps program. she helped start the baltimore school for the arts. she developed private-sector

partnerships working with government to get things done and was a very, very effective youth in our community and underserved areas benefit today from the programs that she started. i was very proud of my granddaughter julia volunteered at one of these super camps this summer in baltimore city. and my point is that she was taken way too early as a result of alzheimer's. and there are many reasons we have to make an extraordinary commitment to find the answers to this very, very challenging and cruel disease. i can assure my colleague from missouri that all of us in this chamber support the efforts that are being made to make sure that we are full partners here in the senate to move forward on conquering this disease. mr. president, i want to talk about two amendments that i have filed for the bill that's before

us. and the reasons why i filed those amendments. one deals with the cost of prescription drugs. prescription drug costs are just out of control. many of us who have been to any town hall meetings -- and i've been to many in my state -- we hear constituents all the time talk about the fact that there is a serious challenge as to whether they can afford to take the medicines that they need in order to control their disease, whether it's diabetes, heart, kidney, cancer. so many patients today have to make very tough decisions as to whether in fact they can afford the prescription drugs that are necessary for their care. many are going into debt. we're now seeing people go into bankruptcy because of medical debt from prescription drugs. and many are going without the medicines themselves. we need to do something about

it. according to the federal government's own projections of costs, the projected cost for prescription medicines will exceed $360 billion. a study in maryland showed that about $1 out of every $4 spent in health care go to medicines and prescription drugs. the projected growth rate of prescription drugs is much higher than the projected growth rate of health care costs, which is much higher than the projected growth rate of our cost of living. four of the top ten drugs are exceeding by more than 100% in cost since 2011. madam president, it's not just the exotic or expensive oregon fan drugs that -- or orphan drugs we're talking about. these are drugs that are desperately needed to deal with common illnesses. we all know the epipen story which a pack of two has gone up

in eight years from $100 to $600. now, okay, we might say, well, there's a cost issue in developing new drugs. but when you look at what americans pay for their prescription drugs versus what canadians or individuals in the industrial nations of the world, you cannot justify the pricing here in america. it's two to three times higher, in some cases even more than what consumers in industrial nations spend for the exact same medicines that are manufactured here. so what can we do about it? the amendment offers us to get the information we need. but there are three proposals i just urge our colleagues to take up in this congress. one is the medicare prescription drug negotiating act. we should very well use our bargaining power, our market power to bring down the cost of

medicines. that's what every other industrial nation does. and yet, we do not allow medicare to negotiate a collective price for the medicines that they pay for under the program. that's costing our taxpayers and consumers money. secondly, there is a bill that's filed known as the spike act that deals with the exorbitant price hikes we've seen in certain medicines. the bill requires disclosure and explanation. the pharmaceutical industry should at least disclose and explain why we have the extraordinary increases. and lastly, we need to improve medicare part d. the out-of-pocket costs are not affordable. we've got to put reasonable limits on what people can afford and cover what is beyond those reasonable limits. all of us are support the -- in support of the development of new drugs to deal with the challenges of health care today. it is a cost-effective way to deal with the health care problems in our community.

but we want to see fair pricing. why should american consumers have to pay so much more than consumers in other industrial nations? in many cases the basic research that went into developing that drug was paid for by u.s. taxpayers, the work done at n.i.h. and research facilities in this country. we need to have fair pricing and we need to act. we can no longer wait. the second amendment i want to talk about is the amendment that i filed that deals with the army futures command. this amendment would prohibit funding for the establishment of the army futures command headquarters for this fiscal year. the purpose of this amendment is to delay the establishment of the army futures command headquarters until two current g.a.o. investigations looking into the army's rationale and plans for establishing a new command as well as g.a.o.'s investigation into the impacts that a new futures command might

have on small business. it will also give the army time to respond to reports on futures command required by the john s. mccain ndaa for fiscal year 2019. these investigations in the reports will conclude by the summer of next year, allowing the army time to complete their plans for command during this fiscal year. most importantly, it gives the army additional time to take a deliberative approach to their acquisition overhaul. congress has asked questions about the army's plan to establish this command. what are the true costs for moving personnel? how many studies did the army conduct to develop this plan? what were the options presented? unfortunately the army has not been able to provide these answers. my fear is that the army is not executing this organization transformation in a deliberative and coherent manner. we all want the men and women of the army to have the best technology in the world.

however, we also have a responsibility to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. when the army can't provide basic answers to provide calculator on their -- provide clarity on their plan or identify how this plan was formulated, it leads me to believe that the army is building its tank while it is still moving. history has proven this strategy has not led to the outcome for which we hoped. it took the army almost a decade and multiple studies to establish a new physical fitness test. surely a new army acquisition model should take more than a year to develop. how is it possible for the army to establish a brand-new acquisition program in a far shorter amount of time without studying all the impacts and implications? it is important to note that this amendment does not prevent the army from moving forward on its big six priorities. this amendment would not stop the current research and development initiatives in which the army is currently investigating the resources in energy. it does, however, give the army

the time to develop a feasible plan and determine if creating a brand-new bureaucracy with the army for acquisition is the wisest approach. my biggest concern is that these major shifts in resources time and effort by the army will squander and amount to another waste of $20 billion as we saw in the future combat systems. the army has nothing to show for that program. our troops were not well served by the army's leadership strategy, and no one was held accountable. this measure guarantees the requisite accountability on the army's part and congressional oversight on the matter at hand to safeguard our armed forces against another future combat system debacle. the bottom line, madam president, oversight is our responsibility. we all support our men and women and we want the most efficient system possible, but we've got to get answers to questions before we commit to this type of change. my amendment will allow us that

adequate information before that decision goes forward. with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i come to the floor today because president trump, his administration, and this republican congress are engaged

in a heartless and deliberate plot to rip health care away from millions of americans, and it's only going to get worse. it was a little over a year ago when americans rose up, made their voices heard, and stopped republicans from passing trumpcare. but ever since they were unable to repeal the affordable care act on the senate floor, this administration has pursued a cynical campaign to sabotage the affordable care act from behind closed doors. the trump administration slashed the open enrollment period leaving americans with less time to get covered. and to confuse schedulers, they cut advertising and outreach funding. they abruptly eliminated cost sharing payments, raising out-of-pocket expenses for many struggling families. earlier this summer, they rolled back consumer protections and gave insurers permission to sell

more junk health plans to consumers, plans that leave people more vulnerable to massive medical bills that bankrupt their families. and then they even intervened in a court case to have protections for preexisting conditions struck down, jeopardizing coverage for 3.8 million new jerseyans who have a preexisting condition. every act of sabotage has contributed to soaring health care premiums, fewer choices for consumers, and millions of americans losing their health care coverage under this president's watch. but now we face president trump's greatest act of sabotage yet. the nomination of a judge to the supreme court who has decried the constitutionality of the affordable care act at the very same time this administration is

arguing in court that protections for preexisting conditions are unconstitutional. unconstitutional. as a candidate and as president, donald trump repeatedly pledged to protect people with preexisting conditions, saying on "60 minutes" that he would, quote, take care of everybody. now before the affordable care act, insurance companies could discriminate against any american who had a preexisting condition. and what is that? that's some illness that you acquired in your life. it's that heart attack or the parkinson's disease or the birth defect that you had when you were born. that then allowed an insurance company to discriminate against you and either deny you health care coverage or make the costs

so exorbitant that it was impossible to be able to afford. the affordable care act that i helped write ultimately eliminated that discrimination and the ability of insurance companies to do that. and in new jersey alone, which has a little over 9 million people in the state, 3.8 million new jerseyans have a preexisting condition. the president also said he replaced the affordable care act with, and i quote, something terrific. well, there's nothing terrific about breaking a promise that threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions of families. i remember when president trump promised to stand up for the so-called forgotten men. but i guess he forgot about them when he signed a republican tax scam into law handing $1 trillion tax cuts to big corporations at the expense of working families and new jersey's middle class, taking away or limiting significantly our state and local property tax

deduction. and he definitely forgot about the forgotten when he reversed his position on preexisting condition protections. the administration's plot to derail the affordable care act and the nomination of brett kavanaugh have implications for every family in america, no matter whether they're covered by an employer or by their own insurance on the marketplace. now, people remember what it was like before we passed the affordable care act. it wasn't so long ago that health care insurance companies could pick and choose who got covered and drop their customers the moment they got sick. before the affordable care act, women could be denied coverage for maternity care. women, in many parts of the country, ultimately were discriminated against by being charged more than their male counterpart in the same age group, in the same geography

simply because they were women. today women no longer are considered a preexisting condition under the law simply because they are a o -- simply because they are a woman. before the affordable care act, babies born with heart deformities could hit lifetime limits within days of being born. today families don't have to worry about lifetime caps. before the affordable care act, cancer survivors and americans with chronic conditions, like diabetes or asthma, could be charged exorbitant premiums and priced out of coverage altogether. today those patients are protected from discrimination. this guaranteed coverage for preexisting conditions formed the very heart of the affordable care act, but if confirmed, judge kavanaugh could drive a stake right through it. that's because this judge mass a long history of ruling against consumers and for big corporations, and that doesn't bode well for the 133 million

americans who live with preexisting conditions in this country. that includes those 3.8 million people in new jersey. for me, that's 3.8 million reasons to oppose kavanaugh's nomination, and that's before we even get to his hostile views with respect to roe v. wade. make no mistake, the antichoice, anti-affordable care act, and anti-everyday american views of judge kavanaugh are not up for debate. president trump has been crystal clear about only nominating judges opposed to roe v. wade and a woman's right to choose. so when i read reports about judge kavanaugh telling my colleagues here in the senate that roe v. wade is, quote-unquote, settled law, i have to chuckle because, let's be clear, these hollow words mean absolutely nothing. the supreme court has the power

to unsettle so-called settled law whenever they make a ruling, and we've seen in the court's recent decisions, such as in the janus case, where years of settled law all of a sudden became unsettled. now, i don't question judge kavanaugh's experience or his intelligence, but i do question his history of partisanship and impartiality. i question his ability to put aside his decades of work in republican politics. i question his connections to far-right groups that have spent decades rolling back women's constitutional rights and rigging our courts in favor of the rich and powerful. the american people deserve a supreme court justice who will defend their rights and strive for a legal system in which workers, consumers, patients, and families go to court on a level playing field at a time when powerful special interests are too often holding all the cards. instead, they've been given a

nominee, groomed by right-wing organizations like the heritage foundation and the federalist society, to do the bidding of their big corporate donors. if confirmed, donald trump will have replaced the only swing vote on the supreme court with a partisan who only swings to the far right. and brett kavanaugh will be in a position to cast a deciding vote through the trump administration's assault on the affordable care act and up in the supreme court. that's frightening, and it's frustrating. especially because any one of my republican colleagues have the power to make a real difference. any one of my colleagues in the majority could demand we don't confirm a supreme court nominee until this administration stops its assault on the rights of patients with preexisting conditions. republicans claim they support these protections, but this is not a time for halfhearted

statements. this is a time for action. if republicans truly believed in preventing insurance companies from discriminating against patients who endured complicated pregnancies or survived cancer, have chronic disease, they would do something about it. instead, as the trump administration carries out this campaign of sabotage against the affordable care act, my republican colleagues are engaged in a campaign of silence and complicity, because when you have the power to use your voice and your vote to protect millions of patients and families across this nation and you choose not to do so, you are indeed complicit. it's sad and shameful that not a single republican in this body has put their foot down and stand up for the rights of patients, stand up for all of those millions of americans who have a preexisting condition.

madam president, could i ask for order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. menendez: failing to speak sought means you're part of the problem. you're destabilizing our insurance market and kicking millions off of their consequently you're driving -- off of their coverage. you're driving millions off of their coverage. you're leaving millions who struggled with opioid addiction or endured a sexual assault vulnerable to discrimination. you're enabling president trump's worst instincts is, which is to do whatever he pleases whatever he pleases with no regard for the rule of law or the role of congress or the havoc he's wreaking on people's lives. most americans can't believe we have to refight the health care battles of the past. they want their leaders to work on building them a brighter future. there are so many ways we could be working to improve our health

care system and making a real difference in the lives of our constituents. we could be passing legislation that ensures women have access to reproductive health care and the right to control their own bodies, no matter which state they live in like the women's health protection act. we could be holding powerful drug companies accountable for price-gouging consumers and playing fast and loose with the rules by passing commonsense bills like the creates act and the spike act. we could be pursuing reforms to reduce health care costs, not by reducing access to care but by encouraging efficiency and becoming better at preventing and managing costly, chronic disease. we could be creating more transparency so that patients headed to surgery can shop around before going under the knife with a wish and a prayer that they don't wake up to massive medical bill. we could be pursuing solutions to reduce risk in the private marketplace and lower premiums for younger consumers, not by

inflicting a punishing age tax but by letting americans 5 years and older -- 55 years and older buy into medicare. but before we make our health care system better, we have to stop president trump from making it worse. it's time we do the responsible thing -- put the brake on brett kavanaugh's nomination. tell the president his nominee won't get a hearing until he drops his legal assault on patients with preexisting conditions. the man that the administration -- demand that the administration stop playing games with americans' lives and stand up for the right of every man, woman, and child in america to quality, facial health care. we have that opportunity in the senate. i don't here any of my completion on the other side of the aisle -- colleagues on the other side of the aisle raising their voice in the midst of an attack against the essence of the protections under the affordable care act that we supposedly all collectively embraced, that the president heralded.

but now that the president is directing his justice department to the attack, it is time to speak up. if not, one is complicit. if that ultimate tac against the affordable care act is successful, then for 130 million americans across this country who will no longer have those protections, i think they'll remember on election day. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: this body is about to vote on a resolution to protect west virginians and millions of americans from a dangerous lawsuit that 20 u.s. attorneys general, including my own attorney general from west virginia, are leading to once again allow insurance companies to deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions. this resolution will authorize the senate legal counsel to intervene in this cruel lawsuit on behalf of the u.s. senate to defend these men and women and children and fight for the right to affordable health care insurance. the department of justice has recklessly refused to defend the

law and as a result, nearly 800,000 west virginians -- an that's 391,000 of them being chairman with asthma, diabetes, or women who dare to have a baby -- at risk of financial jeopardy if they get sick. but we have an opportunity today to stand up for the millions of americans with preexisting conditions that are trusting us to protect their health care access. it's just common sense, and i encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the -- because every one of us has someone in our family with a preexisting condition. i will look for ways to ensure that every american has access to affordable health care no matter what their health condition may be. this is the right thing. this is the moral thing for all of us to do. i encourage each and every one of my colleagues to please vote for this amendment coming up. with that, i yield the floor, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. durbin: i join my colleague from west virginia and support his amendment. it is a good amendment for west virginia and a good one for america. and i look forward to voting for it. i ask unanimous consent at this point to enter into a colloquy with my friend, the senior senator from iowa. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. have you heard of a drug pricing proposal that is supported by both democratic and republican senators? the american association of retired persons, the american medical association, the federation of american hospitals, america's health insurance plans, 76% of the american people, president trump, and the department of health and human services? what kind of kind of idea can this be that that is has that kind of bipartisan support in congress as well as in the white house? well, senator grassley and i have a simple amendment to the spending bill that is before us which provides $1 million for

the health and human services department to issue rules regarding price tags on direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs. while this underlying bill includes many important provisions that i support, it doesn't do anything to tackle prescription drug costs, and we know -- american families know across the board that it's time for us to act. if i ask you whether you've seen any commercials for prescription drugs on television and you answer no, then i know one thing for sure -- you don't own a television. because they broadcast an average of nine drug ads that each of us see every single day -- nine a day. you know what i'm talking about. it's the ads with those unpronnouncable names of the drugs and then that long mumbling, don't take it if you are allergic to it, this may kill you, all the warnings that they give you at the end of the ad -- over and over and over

again. the pharmaceutical industry spends $6 billion a year so that we get a steady diet of these drug ads. how many countries in the world have television advertising for prescription drugs? two -- the united states of america and new zealand. each year, $6 billion is being spent for one purpose -- so that finally, after watching an ad for it the 45th time, you can spell xarelto and walk into the doctor's office and ask if you can have xarelto blood thinner rather than war warfarin or some other prescription. the difference is that xarelto costs more. it may not be better than the generic version that may be cheaper. you know what the number-one drug is that's advertised on television and sold in the united states in america?

when i tell you, you'll nod yes. here it is. humira. humira. it was designed to help people with rheumatoid arthritis. and then they discovered it had a positive impact on psoriasis s psoriasis can be a terrible thing to suffer from, but there are a lot of us who just have a little red patch on our elbow who technically have psoriasis. so what i showed you here you don't see on television, incidentally. how much does humira cost? $5,500 a month -- a month. you wonder why the cost of health care is spiraling out of control? $5,500 month and, sadly, many of these high-priced prescription drugs are being prescribed by doctors when it's not necessary. and it drives up the cost of health care. it's why a major health insurance company in my state has told me they spend more

money each year on high-cost prescription drugs than they spend on inpatient hospital care. think about that. more money. and it's going through the roof and there is nothing to contain it. so the senator from iowa, with his midwestern, commonsense approach to legislation, has joined with the senator from illinois, who those aspire to the same -- who hopes to aspire to the same goal to come up with the same idea -- put the price of the product on the ad. we'll know what it really costs and we'll know when they start raising it again and again and again. the pharmaceutical hates this bill and this amendment like the devil hates holly water. they -- holy water the they don't want to tell you what it costs. they want you to say that i absolutely have to have humira. so what senator grassley and i

are trying to do is give more information about drugs and particularly their costs. we're trying to make sure that this information gives transparency to the transaction and we're trying to give the american consumers a break and perhaps slow down the costs of prescription drugs. this is a simple amendment, $1 million to the department of h.h.s. to issue rules requiring price tags on ads. one senator opposes this, one. we're trying our best to convince him not to oppose this. we think it's a good idea to go forward with this and i yield the floor to my cosponsor of this measure, senator chuck grassley. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'm glad to join my friend in this effort because this fits into a lot of things we're trying to accomplish that congress has done for decades,

trying to give consumers information. remember maybe 40 years ago, i don't think it's 50 years ago, congress passed legislation that you had to have a window sticker on cars of the cost of the cars so consumers wouldn't be -- go back and forth between dealers. you can't go to a gas station without knowing what it costs. and then the -- even the pharmaceutical companies themselves want to educate consumers with these ads, and i've always supported the advertising of -- of these pharmaceutical drugs, but they want to -- they want to educate you not only about the value of their drugs but down to the

bottom and then half the ad usually tells you if you take this drug, what the side effects are going to do, maybe implying that it is even life dangerous. that is a very important thing to educate the public about. so all we're trying to do here is have the consumer get the additional information that they need if they want to consider that drug because everybody ought to want to consider the price just like you consider the price of a car. i try to buy gas at the cheapest filling station that i can because it's just common sense, right? that is what senator durbin is pointing out. this is a midwestern, commonsense approach to educating the consumers. you know, they want you to buy the product and then they have

some question about, could you really ford this? -- afford this? a lot of these ads indicate that maybe if you check with the company or somebody you could get help buying the drug. the pharmaceutical companies are already interested in consumer education, we just want to take it one step further and -- and part of it is because of the high cost of prescription drugs. so we have an opportunity now to do what we all talk about doing, doing something about the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, and this is just a very small step in that direction because it directs health and human services to require drug companies to include the list price of these drugs in their tv ads. now, the drug companies want you to know that there's a drug out there to help you. they want you to know the benefits of the drugs so why

don't they also want you to know about the price of the drug? that is simply -- by not having that information out there, it's simply not a transparent way of doing business. every other way you want to be transparent, we're just asking you to take one little small step and tell people what it's going to cost, like the price of gasoline, like the price of cars, or like seem to be worried a little bit about the high cost of the drug that maybe some people can't afford it and you might be criticized for that, you can get help. so, you know, what we're up against here is a very powerful interest in this town and it happens ton an interest -- to be an interest that has made life better, longevity for people longer for their life, so we

aren't here to find fault with the pharmaceutical companies, we're here to encourage the pharmaceutical companies to let the public know what they need. now, you know, around here it seems to me we're running against the pharmaceutical companies all the time. the creates act came out of my committee 15-6. we can't seem to get that up. this amendment is being offered. 0 we -- we know who is against this amendment. it's the same companies. it's a scheme out there that they'll keep their patent drug on the market longer if they pay a generic company off the market. we call it pay-for-delay, the klobuchar-grassley bill doesn't get very far because of these interests. they don't like the fact that they ought to have competition

for the importation of drugs. they don't like that the f.d.a. new director is trying to get generic drugs on the market a little bit sooner. we aren't fighting those things now. what we're trying to do is pretty darn simple. think of the -- of what's behind this now. how often do you get senator grassley and senator durbin cooperating on the same thing? not too often. that's something people should take into consideration. we have a very good chairman, very thorough chairman, alexander of the health committee. he's backing this effort and has even had a colloquy on that point. we have azar, the secretary of h.h.s., that says this is a good thing to do. and maybe two months ago now trump and azar had a news

conference on the high costs of drugs and what they could do administratively to move that along. this very day azar is announcing some regulations going to o.m.b. to move along some of the things that the president was talking about two months ago, and then everybody gets irritated about trumps tweets, do they do any good? probably most of the time they don't do much good. but at the same time he tweeted that these pharmaceutical companies were doing a lot about these drugs and he -- and that they were going to raise the prices. and he said how outrageous it is. then one company said they weren't going to go ahead and then another company said they weren't going to go ahead. i don't know if everybody will follow. you have the secretary of

h.h.s., senator alexander, and you have the president trying to do something about pharmaceuticals, and here is just a little simple's that we're trying to get on this bill and we're running into this obstacle that you run into all the time when all we're trying to do is educate the consumer the same way the pharmaceutical companies want to educate the consumer. and, by the way, 76% of americans in a poll support this. and i think senator durbin did better than i can about the interest, but i'll just kind of summarize. doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and the aarp support this amendment. so, really, since it's so sensible, since it's what -- it is right in line what -- with what the pharmaceutical companies are trying to do with their tv ads, educate the public, with what congress has tried to do other times, educate

the public, and to have transparency in the prices that you pay when you go to the hospital or what we're trying to do through health savings accounts, get the consumer involved to do some shopping to save the consumer money. that's what this is all about. it's so simple. i can't understand where common sense suf -- this isn't a -- this isn't a town for common sense. we ought to get some of this common sense done. i want to thank senator durbin, he led this effort. thank you for doing it. we're going to get this done one way or the other. if we don't get it done on this bill, we're going to get it done because it's the right thing to do. people, if you try listening 0 enough -- long enough and if you're right, you eventually get something done in this town. mr. durbin: i thank my colleague from iowa. patience is part of the job. the american people are impatient. they want to know why they

elected and we don't solve problems. this is something that senator grassley and i want to do, we want to solve this problem. informing the public about the prescription drugs. the first time you realize the cost is in front of the cash register with your mouth dropped open and you say, you you've got to be kidding me. instead people ought to know going into the conversation what the drugs cost. as senator grassley said, we do it forecaster, we do -- for cars, we do it for gas and so many things. why not do it for this? the american people want us to do this. i hope we can get the one senator holding this up that we can pass this to help bring the cost of mcin this country. -- health care costs in this country. i thank the senator from iowa. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i join the chorus of

senator grassley and senator durbin in support of their proposal. i want to, though, talk about another issue. today the federal deposit insurance corporation, which is the agency that does such things every quarter nounses bank profits -- announces bank profits and the assessment of the banking industry. and lowe and behold -- lo and behold as a number of us have said on the floor, it is a great time to be on wall street. bank profits, second quarter of 2018, bank profits were $60 billion, that's with a b, that's 60,000 million dollars. that number is fairly meaningless. it's really a big number. what is less meaningless, it is hard to grasp -- think about this. bank profits this quarter were

up 25% from a year ago. it is typical to compare quarter to quarter, year to year that way. what is fairly stunning about this, madam president, is that this congress can't do enough for the banks. first it was a decade ago congress bailed out the banks, then congress -- then we've seen bank profits go up and up and up, and then congress last year gave a huge tax cut, the financial services industry did better than the rest of the economy, and the big banks did better than the community banks with the tax cut in terms of percentage per capita, any way you measure it, amount of money on ait sets, whatever. then earlier this are year, congress passed another giveaway to the banks, legislation, another deregulation bill. and when you hear deregulation, think that it means wall street gets away with even more, now we're seeing even bigger profits from the banks.

it's like this congress -- this congress thinks it never can do enough for wall street. every time wall street asks for something, republican leadership, senator mcconnell's office down the hall, speaker ryan's office way down the hall and president trump, they all want to do something for wall street. 25% greater profits than a year ago. why does this congress continue to do the bidding of wall street at the expense of main street? during the year and a half of president trump, we've seen wages go down, we've seen profits go up, we've seen the stock market go up, we've seen executive compensation go way up, we've seen the banks do especially well, yet wages, literally since president trump has taken office, wages have declined in this country. so why do we continue to help wall street shovel more money to wall street, more money to senator, senator grassley, to the drug companies, and the middle class gets squeezed.

this is when executive compensation goes up and profits overall keep going up, the middle class continues to get squeezed. there's a lesson there, madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. merkley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes. mr. merkley: i ask the quorum call be vitiated, and i ask unanimous consent my intern amelia ziegler, have permission to be on the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor to talk about two things. the first is this saturday will be the one-year anniversary of the beginning of a horrific genocide against the rohingya in the country of miian march.

-- myanmar. this genocide was preplanned, as various independent investigations have established. so it's time for the united states to take a strong response as a statement of global leadership on human rights on behalf of this horrific circumstance. we have 350 or so villages burned, countless individuals slaughtered as they ran from their villages, shot from helicopters, systematic rape, children tossed into burning piles. it doesn't get much worse anywhere in the world at any time in history. and now 700,000 refugees who escaped have found their way to

bangladesh, but there is no room in bangladesh. bangladesh, a country half the size of oregon, and yet where oregon has four million individuals, bangladesh has 160 million individuals. so here are some things that the united states should do right away. on or before this saturday, the state department should release the report it has been compiling on the factual circumstances. second, they should send this report to their legal counsel for an official determination if this constitutes genocide. the third thing they should do is ask the senate to act quickly on the repatriation resolution that sets standards for the return of these refugees back to burma, back to myanmar. and the fourth thing they should do is call on the senate followed by the house to pass the burma human rights and

freedom act that creates specific sanctions on those who planned and carried out this horrific ethnic cleansing. ee lee weasel -- elie weisel said a destruction, an annihilation that only man can provoke, only man can prevent. but if we do not respond clearly and effectively when there is this type of ethnic cleansing, this type of assault, then we are failing to prevent future assaults by those leaders who will be so tempted to divide their country on ethnic or racial lines to take brutal action against a despised minority community. the seeds of this slaughter began with a military coup in 1962, following on which the

military demonized this ethnic group year after year after year. not only should the u.s. respond with a state department report and a clear decision if this is genocide and clear sanctions, but it's time for the president of the united states to speak out boldly and clearly on the international stage on this issue. a year has passed, and we have not a single public statement from the leader of the united states of america. so let that change. the second issue i'm here to talk about -- and i'm going to keep this short. my colleague is here prepared to speak to his amendment -- is the issue of whether or not the senate proceeds to have hearings on nominee brett kavanaugh for the u.s. supreme court.

and the answer should be by every member in this chamber a resounding no. first we have the kagan standard set by my republican majority who said that it is essential when there is a supreme court nomination to have all the facts, all the records that have been touched on, because only then can a senator exercise a responsibility under the constitution for advice and consent. sew if one -- so if one wants to exercise their side effectively on advice and consent shouldn't the same individuals make the same argument to exercise their responsibility effectively when a republican comes from a republican president? the standard should be the standard. so let's stand up, out of the

partisan troughs that have been dug and fight for the vision of a fair and transparent and fully credible nomination process. no hearings should be held until we have the full set of documents. it escapes no one's vision here in the united states of america that only a fraction of the documents have been delivered. it escapes no one's vision here in the united states senate that even those documents were vetted by a republican lawyer, a partisan lawyer, who proceeded to have worked beforehand for the nominee. that is not transparent, that is not fair, and that does not allow us to have the full scope of the record. and furthermore, and i'll say this just in a summary format, there is an enormous conflict of interest here in which the

president is attempting to print a get out of jail free card, out of the 25 nominees put forward, a list given to him, one of them had an expansive view that said the president of the united states cannot be indicted and the president of the united states cannot be investigated. that is the standard that says a president is above and beyond the law. so i challenge every member here in the chamber, pull out your constitution, find that provision that says our founders established a kingdom and a king, because i think you're going to find that's not the case, that there is no clause in our constitution that says the president is above and beyond the law. so let's exercise our responsibility appropriately as our oath of office requires in

the advice and consent responsibility and get the full documents and resolve this conflict of interest before any hear is held. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. i'm about to speak on an amendment to the underlying appropriations bill. my amendment is number 4004, but before i do, i ask unanimous consent that the following senators be added as cosponsors to that amendment 4004, they are senators baldwin, menendez, van hollen, blumenthal, reed, feinstein, markey, and carper. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you very much, madam president. madam president, maybe one of the most memorable moments from secretary devos's confirmation hearing was her response to a question that i posed to her. i thought i was giving her a

softball. i thought i was giving her a very easy question at the end of my five minutes when i posed a simple question to her, whether she thought that it was a good thing to have guns in schools. i thought that she would give me an answer how, of course, listening to teachers and parents, as she claims to have done during her career in education, that more guns in schools was not the right thing to protect our kids, and, instead, she said that, yes, in fact, she thought that that question should be left largely up to the states because of, quote, potential grizzlies. the idea that there have some schools that may need guns inside to protect against wild animals. i assume she would answer that question differently today. it became a but of jokes, but it

turns out, as we found out today, the secretary was, indeed serious. reports this morning suggest that secretary devos is planning to do the bidding of the firearms industry and put our kids at risk by allowing federal funds to be used to arm teachers in direct contravention of federal law. i have offered an amendment that will reiterate what has been the policy of this congress, not congress in general, but this congress that federal funds should not be used to arm teachers. first let me speak about why we have taken that position as a congress, why republicans and democrats have voted for legislation that prohibits federal dollars for being used to arm teachers. first, we listen to teachers when we set educational policy, and teachers have told us that they do not want to be

responsible for carrying firearms. two different polls of teachers suggest that three out of four definitively state that they think their kids will be safe, not more safe, if those teachers are armed. they tell us that because they know how difficult a teacher's job is. i have a first grader and a fourth grader in the public schools today, and i'm in awe of how many things we ask our teachers to do today. we ask our teachers to teach earlier than ever before. we ask them to be social workers, we ask them to engage in conflict resolution, we ask them to be nurses, we ask them to teach a range of children. we ask them to interact with the community, show our kids a broader view of the world. we want them on call to answer

our questions as parents all of the time. our teachers are probably the greatest multitaskers in this country today and they don't want an additional job description which comes with having to be trained and carry a firearm at all times, guarantee that firearm stay out of the reach of little children. earlier this year, we saw a series of events which tells us what happens when you do put guns inside classrooms. in one incident, a teacher accidentally discharged his gun at a high school in california. ironically during a class devoted to teaching public safety. three students were injured when that gun accidentally went off. at another incident this year, an officer discharged a weapon

in the school in alexandria, in maple wood, minnesota, a third grader managed to pull a trigger on an officer's holster, and on the same day in florida, a parent discovered one resource officer's gun in a faculty bathroom. this was with respect to school resource offices. their entire job is to engaged in public safety. who, i would assume, in these cases have serious training on how to handle a weapon. if these mistakes are made with school resource office he's, image what -- imagine what will happen when grade school teachers and art teachers who are not trained to handle a firearm are equipped with these weapons.

and put manage more guns in the hands of civilians doesn't solve the problem that we identify. a comprehensive study on the effects of carry guns across the country found that violent crimes increased after right to carry laws passed. it climbed 15% after right to carry laws were put into effect. another study of 111 of the most recent gun massacres showed that not a single one of them was interrupted by and armed civilian. the f.b.i. did their own analysis in which they showed that unarmed citizens are more than 20 times more likely to end enact -- end active shooting than armed offices are. the data tells us this is not the way to protect our kids, teachers are telling us this is not the way to protect our kids, and most importantly, congress

has told the secretary that this is not the way to protect our kids. earlier this year we passed, as part of the omnibus appropriations bill, the stop school violence act. this is a new source of funding that allows for schools to engage in trying to keep their kids safe. a really important piece of legislation supported by republicans and democrats. now, admittedly, this is not the source of funds that secretary devos is reportedly going to offer guidance on, but it's important to note that when we set up a new fund specifically dedicated to make schools safer, we wrote into the legislation this phrase, no funds within this new appropriated account to provide firearms or training, no amounts provided as a tbrant under this part -- grant under this part may be used for the provision of any person for a firearm or training for the use

of a firearm. that's republicans and democrats doing that together. but, more importantly, the statute that she claims to be relying on, or reportedly is going to offer guidance on, is title 4, which is a grab bag of federal dollars to be used for a variety of school initiatives. in that statute today, title 4 offers this to the secretary. it says that with respect to violence, the promotion of school safety, such that students and school personnel are free from violent and disruptive acts through the creation and maintenance of a school environment that is free of weapons. so the title 4 language allows for money to be used to try to quell violence, but there is a specific phrase here that seems to give clear guidance to the secretary because you can use the grants for a school environment that is free of

weapons. yet, reportedly, the secretary is about to issue guidance is that can be used to load schools up with weapons, that is in direct contravention of the legislation itself and it is in contra investigation of -- contravention of what we passed earlier this year. i understand the hour is late on the appropriations bill and so it is very unlikely my amendment will get a vote. my amendment would make clear that title $4 cannot be used to arm teachers. i hope as this bill ultimately heads to conference, we will revisit the clear congressional intent that we have expressed this year to keep federal funds away from arming teachers. and i hope that the secretary, as she considers whether to issue this guidance to states,

will look at this, and come to the conclusion that she does not have the authority to allow states to use federal money in order to arm teachers. it wasn't a joke, as it turns out. it wasn't just a -- a phrase that she uttered in a congressional hearing that drew a lot of attention on the internet. secretary devos is reportedly considering allowing federal funds to be used to arm teachers. that is not what parents want, that is not what students want, that is not what teachers want and that is not what the evidence tells us will make schools safer. i hope she listens and i hope ultimately this congress acts. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. flake: mr. president, did you hear about -- the one about three robots that walk into a bar. no, you haven't. it's not a joke but rather a project paid for in part by the department of defense. these robots, called beerbots, you see a depiction here, were programmed to serve cold beers to graduate students. researchers say that programs can be used in restaurants and bars, but, as you can see the private sector has developed robot bartenders. they've been mixing drinks at bars and even on cruise ships for years now. with our national debt exceeding $21 trillion, taxpayers should not have to pick up the pentagon's tab for beerbots and

other unnecessary items in the bill we're considering now. this mini bus bill provides over $800 billion for the department of defense, labor, h.h.s., and education, yet over the past three days we've considered four amendments to the bill. not a single one offers a reduction in spending, not a single one. i it introduced a handful of commonsense amendments that if adopted would reduce federal spending by nearly $500 million. one would limit funding for the literal -- i'm sorry, littoral combat ship program which has been plagued by cost growths, construction issues, and underperformance on mission effectiveness, even though the navy only requested funding for procurement of one of these ships, this bill needlessly provides funding for two ships. my amendment would simply reduce the department of defense's budget by $475 million to align

with the navy's request. now, i understand that senators are trying to protect jobs in their states by forcing the navy to procure more of these unwanted ships. sailors are going on longer and longer deployments because the ships that are actually needed to rotate them on are not ready to sail. it's important to remember the priority of this bill is not the parochial interest of members of congress, but rather the needs of the armed forces. i am proposing an amendment to keep the cost also under this bill of the military parade that the president would like to put on next year at a reasonable amount. recent reports have indicated that local d.c. officials claim the parade would cost up to $92 million, which is significantly higher than the $10 million to $30 million originally estimated by the white house office of management and budget director mitch mulvaney. the last military parade, i

should point out, was held in 1991 to celebrate the end of the gulf war. that cost about $8 million. the federal government paid $3 million. the remainder was paid by private donations. my amendment would cap the amount of money department of defense might -- would have to allocate for the parade to $15 million. that's a significant growth, far more than inflation, over the past parade that was held in 1991, and i think that that's reasonable. i think most of us would. another amendment i filed would prohibit the department of health and human services from subsidizing the construction of fast food franchises. now, you might wonder what in the world health and human services is doing subsidizing these, and you would be right to question it. a, quote, healthy lifestyles initiative, unquote, funded with more than $1.1 million in grants from h.h.s. is subsidizing fast food franchises in a kansas

county that year after year ranks as one of the state's most unhealthy. the grants are supporting -- now, this is health and human services, by the way. the grants are supporting the construction of two buildings, a combination wendy's and pizza hut and a stand-alone dunkin' donuts. this project contradicts the mission of h.h.s. to, quote, enhance and protect the health and well-being of all americans. federal nutrition guidelines recommend the consumption of about 2,500 calories for males, 2,000 for females. just one dunkin' donuts contains 290 or more calories. wendy's dave's triple burger contains 1,090 calories. a side of french fries adds another 400 calories. medium sized soda is another 30.

a single slice of pepperoni pizza from pizza hut contains 370 calories. now, despite the source of funding, the executive director of the organization overseeing the project admits this is not a health initiative. arguing that it's about economic health, not physical health. why in the world is the department of health and human services spending money, taxpayer money on these type of initiatives? it's really just corporate welfare for three of the top -- top ten most profitable fast food franchises in the u.s., each of which earns billions of dollars a year in profits. why? because the federal government is subsidizing them. i'm disappointed that i'm unable to call up any of my amendments and debate the merits of these items and the importance of addressing our out-of-control debt. we need to get serious about how we're spending taxpayer money. we need to open up the amendment process and allow real debate on

our national priorities. i do appreciate the appropriations committee's willingness to consider including my amendment to prohibit further pentagon funding of robot bartenders in the management package. i hope it stays in the package. at the very least, this may be the last call for the beer bots. with that, i yield back. mr. barrasso: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like to point out we have been seeing a lot in the news lately about the american economy, and it's really good news. last friday, "the wall street journal" had an article with the headline youth unemployment hits 52-year low. 52-year low. for people between the ages of 16 and 24, this is the best job market that we have had since 1966. the article went on to say that more opportunities are available to groups that historically have

struggled to find jobs. people are getting opportunities, mr. president, because the american economy is booming. since president trump was elected, we have gotten more than four million additional americans working. the economy grew at a rate at more than 4% last quarter. the atlanta branch of the federal reserve is predicting that we're going to have another 4% growth this quarter. so people are seeing the effect of the booming economy in their paychecks and in their lives. average wages are up more than 3% last year. so you look at all the good news, and it's no wond irthat confidence -- wonder that confidence is going through the roof. small businesses are now much more optimistic than they have been since 1983. they are hiring, they are expanding, they are raising wages, and they are much more confident about the future. it's all happening because the republican policies and the republican priorities that we have been putting in place.

it's what happens when you have a president who puts the needs of the people first, instead of the desires of unelected, unaccountable, heavy-handed washington bureaucrats. when president trump took office, one of the first things he did was to put washington on a regulation diet. he said that america was open for business again, so what does that all mean? what happened? in the trump administration's first year, they issued three new regulations. then they cut 67 regulations. three regulatory actions, 67 deregulatory actions. that's a ratio of 22-1. it's a -- it's in favor of cutting red tape, eliminating regulations, cutting the amount of paperwork that people have to fill out. nobody has ever seen anything like this, mr. president. this administration, working with this senate and this house, has been streamlining and

simplifying and striking out regulations from the very beginning, and we're not slowing down. when you add it all up, it amounts to about $14 billion in savings since the start of the trump administration. republicans in congress have been doing our part as well. we know that the reason america's economy has been struggling for so long was because it was being strangled by all of the red tape that comes out of washington. so we used the authority of congress to roll back major regulations that were harming our economy. burdensome to industries in our communities and our states, punishing to people who were just trying to do their jobs. we cut 16 unnecessary burdensome rules, saved americans $36 billion in the process. so if you combine what the president has done and what we have done in congress by passing the congressional review act, republicans have saved americans $50 billion and over 16 million hours of filling out needless

paperwork. of course, republicans also passed the biggest tax cut in 36 years. that's the other big thing republicans have done to get the american economy booming. every democrat in the senate voted against the tax cut that republicans passed. this tax relief bill and now the law gave people an immediate boost in their take-home pay. millions of americans also got bonuses and raises because of the law. now, because republicans have cut regulations and cut taxes, america has a strong, healthy, and growing economy today. the congressional budget office came out with a new report recently. they looked at the numbers for the first ten months of the fiscal year that we're now in. they looked at the rising wages and the rising employment, the falling unemployment, all of those things and they said that the big -- they said those are big reasons why revenue from the

federal government coming in for the federal government from the workers of the country is actually $26 billion higher than it was at this point last year, so more money is coming in. well, how do you do that? by cutting taxes, how do you get more money to come in? well, you do it because more people are working, more people are getting higher wages. all of those things are leading to increased revenue coming into the government because of the fact that we have cut taxes. because when you cut taxes, you turn the economy loose. you turn it loose to create jobs. good things happen. the economy grows, more people find work, more people get raises, more people get more money in their own pockets, money that they can decide if they want to save or spend or invest, how they want to do it, and revenue goes up as well. republicans want to keep going with more of these policies that have worked so well to spur the economy.

we want to do more to help the economy create jobs, more to help people keep more of what they earn. i think that's what the american people want as well. that's what i hear about in wyoming every weekend. what do democrats in washington want? well, they seem to want the exact opposite. that's the way they vote, and that's what they have been saying. senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts actually introduced legislation last week that would create an entirely new government bureaucracy. republicans are trying to rein in the bureaucrats. democrats are trying to give bureaucrats more power. this new democrat plan would give washington more power to control how american businesses operate. it would take away freedoms of the owners and the executives of these companies to create jobs, take away the freedom of these companies to create more jobs to serve their customers and to grow the economy, so the government ought to make that

decision, according to this legislation. democrats are clearly hoping that this will become the new and latest liberal litmus test. it would be an absolute disaster, just like all the other plans that we have heard from the democrats that they are trying to put in place. like the democrats' plan that they claim they want to raise taxes. that's actually what nancy pelosi said, the former speaker of the house. she said that democrats if they take back congress, she said we would raise taxes. one democrat leader, very prominent on television, a governor of one of the major cities, said that we're not going to make america great again. he actually went on to say america was never that great. this is what the democrat governor of new york said last week. well, there are some very big differences between democrats and republicans. republicans want policies that put more money in the pockets of hardworking people, that's what we want. more money in the pockets of hardworking american families. republicans want policies that take more control out of

washington and let the decisions being made back at home in the hands of the states and in towns and in families. democrats seem to want to raise taxes and raise barriers to the economy. mr. president, we're coming up on labor day, and i hope that democrats in washington and around the country will embrace the policies that will actually help create jobs. i hope -- help democrats to embrace the policies that are helping people find work at the highest rates in 52 years. i hope that democrats will embrace the policies that are actually raising wages for american families. i hope the democrats will recognize that america is a great country, and it is getting better every day. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: