the american's people's ability to access affordable health care, for example. their opportunity to work in an environment free from discrimination. their ability to access the justice system and have their day in court often against powerful corporate interests. as i said at the outset, the rights of working men and women, basic rights, the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, i hope that when members of the senate are making a determination about this nomination, i hope they'll take those interests and those concerns into their deliberations. mr. president, i would yield the floor. >> the u.s. senate continuing debate this morning on the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be a justice on the u.s. supreme court. senators waiting for the fbi to wrap up its investigation of a sexual assault charge against judge kavanaugh. majority leader mitch mcconnell says he intends to hold the

final confirmation vote this week. and senators working on a five year authorization of the f.a.a. including 1.7 billion dollar for hurricane florence relief. a final vote on the measure scheduled today at noon eastern and the chamber is also expected to take up opioid legislation later today. live senate coverage now here on c-span2. ... the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o lord our god, restorer of the joy of those who find you, we praise your holy name. today, strengthen our senators. remove from them divisions and

strife, infusing them with the spirit of unity and humility. deliver them from fatigue and irresponsibility, reminding them that careless words have consequences. lord, empower them to disagree without contentiousness, as they seek to protect our constitutional republic from self-inflicted wounds. remove clouds of disillusionment, as our senators strive to seize those opportunities that best serve the interests of freedom. and human betterment.

we pray in your great name, amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i think it's safe to say the national spectacle the professional left has created around brett kavanaugh's confirmation process has now reached some kind of fever pitch in 17 days since dr. ford's confidential correspondence was leaked to the press, 17 days,

mr. president of a feeding frenzy on judge kavanaugh and his family unlike anything we have seen in recent memory. since then, a literal mudslide -- mudslide -- of wild, uncorroborated accusations has literally poured out, each more outlandish than the last. and this mudslide has been actively embraced, urged on, and capitalized upon by democrats inside this chamber and organized far-left special interests outside. it hasn't been about getting to the truth or giving anyone a fair hearing. it's only been about one thing

-- the far-left's hunger to bring down judge kavanaugh's nomination by any means necessary, any means necessary. if facts and evidence couldn't get the job done, then intimidation tactics and bullying would have to do. sometimes this intimidation campaign has been aimed at the nominee. colleagues, including my friend, the democratic leader, have tried to get judge kavanaugh to withdraw from this process because of these uncorroborated and sometimes absolutely ridiculous allegations. and when that didn't work, then the far left tried to bully and intimidate members of this body, republican united states senators. they've tried to bully and

intimidate us. one of our colleagues and his family were effectively run out of a restaurant in recent days by these people. another reported having protesters physically block his car door. and some have seen organized far-left protesters camp out at their homes. i'm not suggesting we're the victims here, mr. president, but i want to make it clear to these people who are chasing my members around the hall here or harassing them at the airports or going to their homes, we're not going to be intimidated by these people. there is no chance in the world they're going to scare us out of doing our duty. i don't care how many members they chase, how many people they harass here in the halls. i want to make one thing perfectly clear -- we will not

be intimidated by these people. this is all part of the organized effort to delay, obstruct, and intimidate, including those of us who will be voting this week. a few days ago i did something i rarely do -- i offered a prediction. i predicted that here in the last few days before the senate will vote on judge kavanaugh's confirmation, the democratic conference would continue to make good on their leader's promise and fight this nomination with everything they've got. i predicted that on a dime. the various supplemental background investigation for which my friends had clamored would suddenly become insufficient -- suddenly become

insufficient that no matter what accommodations were made, no matter what agreements were reached, senate democrats would find more excuses to continue moving the goalpost one more time. granted, this wasn't exactly a radical prediction. this body and this nation have spent months watching their friends across the aisle grasp at every imaginable excuse to delay this process and damage this nominee. so i felt pretty safe in saying the last goalpost would soon be on the move yet again. but even i withstand sure it would -- but even i wasn't sure it would happen this quickly, mr. president. let's start with the democratic leader and the ranking member of the judiciary committee in a letter released on september 23, they suggested that the f.b.i.

had ample time to conduct at supplemental investigation before the hearing that was scheduled just four days later. they insisted an inquiry would, quote, not take a tremendous amount of time. the democratic leader brushed aside the notion that this, the seth -- -- the seventh background investigation of judge kavanaugh, it'll only take a few days -- said the democratic leader it'll only take a few days. that was before we agreed last friday to delay proceedings to accommodate such an inquiry. so, naturally, we're not hearing a different tune. yesterday the ranking member stated her view that voting this friday on judge kavanaugh's

nomination as planned would be, i quote, too soon. too soon. there goes that goalpost again, mr. president, moving right on down. in that same election the democratic leader and the -- in that same letter, the democratic leader and the ranking member said conducting background investigations on nominees has long been the f.b.i.'s standard practice. standard practice. here's what standard practice means. the f.b.i. conducts interviews, prepares a careful report, and makes it available for senators to review. standard practice does not mean what the democratic leader decided to demand for the first time yesterday, now that the

f.b.i. is concluding its review. you get the picture. as they conclude the review, it's not enough. that we have yet another delay so f.b.i. agents are made to appear -- listen to this, mr. president -- for in-person briefings and democrats can cross-examine the agents to see if they're satisfied with how they did their job. anybody surprised about this? there go those goalposts again. well, guess what? our democratic colleagues have made it abundantly clear they will never, ever be satisfied. not ever. does anyone really think the same people who said any nominee of this president would result in the destruction of the constitution will be satisfied?

does anyone really think the same people who called judge kavanaugh evil long before they heard one word of testimony from anyone is going to be satisfied? does anyone really think that the same people who said their goal is to delay this nomination past the election are going to be satisfied? to ask the question is to answer it. so if my friends across the aisle had their way, the goalpost on judge kavanaugh's nomination would be in another time zone -- another time zone by now. our democratic colleagues are quickly running out of material. one of their last efforts seems

to be the new argument that, notwithstanding whether or not these allegations can be corroborated in any way, the real crime here is that judge kavanaugh stood up for his family and took umbrage at this disgraceful spectacle. he's now expected to witness this disgraceful spectacle and not get upset about it. i would ask any of my colleagues, how would you feel if your entire reputation had been destroyed in this mudslide and be calm about it? for weeks now the national media feeding frenzy has literally dragged judge kavanaugh and his family through the mud. he's been semiconductorred to the most vial and -- he's been subjected to the most viola

could youizations. his wife has been threatened, his daughters traumatized. in many cases, my colleagues have ushered on these extremely absurd accusations and tried to give them the veneer of credibility. specifically citing them now as a reason why judge kavanaugh should not be confirmed. our democratic colleagues are enabling this mudslide and encouraging it. and now the same democratic senators had the temerity -- the temerity, mr. president -- to say judge kavanaugh disqualified himself for the supreme court because he got a little testy at the hearing. a little testy at the hearing. after they drug him through the mud. because he told them how much damage these accusations have caused him and his family. let's get one thing straight right now.

i don't want to meet the man or woman who wouldn't be frustrated it and angered by a coordinated strategy to destroy their good name on the altar of partisan politics. the senate has received an incredible volume of testimony about judge kavanaugh's exemplary judicial temperament. we have heard from the faculty of his alma mater who have called him a fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of law and commands wide and deep respect among his legal peers. and from his former law clerks who say, quote, he listens carefully to the views of his colleagues and clerks, even indeed especially when they differ from his own. yet, some still prioritize partisan point scoring ahead of judge kavanaugh's actual record. we've heard overwhelming

testimony that judge kavanaugh's time on the federal bench has been defined by equanimity, evenhandedness, and fair treatment of all parties. mr. president, it's time to put this embarrassing spectacle behind us. the american people are sick of this display that's been put on here in the united states senate in the guise of a confirmation process. the f.b.i. is finishing up a supplemental background investigation. it will soon add this information to judge kavanaugh's file for senators' consideration. this, mr. president, is the standard practice. then pursuant to last week's agreement of a delay no longer than one week, the senate will vote on this nomination this week. the senate will vote on this

nomination this week. when we do, we will be voting on one of the most impressive, most stunningly qualified supreme court nominees in our nation's history. we'll be voting to confirm a new supreme court justice who possesses sterling academic credentials, widely acknowledged legal brilliance, and exemplary judicial temperament and a proven commitment to complete fairness on the bench. that is exactly what the senate will do this week. now, on a completely different matter, mr. president, the senate is also attending to other matters of critical nationwide importance this week. today we'll pass a fulsome reauthorization for the critical functions of the federal aviation administration. we'll also take up and pass landmark opioid legislation. it's set to deliver major relief

to american communities that have been decimated by the scourge of substance abuse and addiction. every one of our colleagues represents families who have grappled with the loss of livelihoods and loved ones at the hands of this crisis, and nearly every one of them has contributed provisions to make this a truly comprehensive response. the legislation before us is the collaborative product of contributions from 70-plus members of this body. five different committees had a say. the result is a landmark package that will deliver critical resources to establish opioid-specific recovery centers and equip local medical practitioners. it will help law enforcement stop the flow of opioids across borders and increase safeguards against overprescription. so i hope each of my colleagues will join me in voting to pass this landmark legislation. i hope they will join in getting more assistance, more tools, and more training in the hands of

first responders. more access to housing and work opportunities for those in recovery thanks to my career act, which i'm proud to say is included in this legislation, and more resources for state, local, and community leaders as they stand up treatment and recovery programs. so with today's vote, the senate will say this to every american affected by the opioid epidemic -- america is fighting back against this crisis. more help is on the way. now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the house message to accompany h.r. 302, the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to concur in the house message to accompany h.r. 6, and that notwithstanding the previous order in relation to h.r. 6, the senate vote on the motion to concur without further intervening action or debate at

3:15 today, all as if in legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, first i'm glad that the majority leader and i get along. i'm glad we're able to do certain things together like the opioid bill and the appropriations bill, but that cannot hold me back from responding to the blatant falsehoods he tells day after day after day on this floor. first, from the man who single-handedly delayed the filling of justice scalia's seat for ten months to complain about a one-week delay to get the truth. give me a break.

it is classic diversionary blame-the-other-person tactics when he himself is the master of delay. it is galling, appalling to hear day after day the majority leader get on his high horse about delay when he almost invented the word when it comes to judicial nominations. second, he blames democrats for the delay, which is about the most blatant falsehood i have heard uttered on this floor in a long time. the majority leader knows darn well that he has the sole power to determine when to put the kavanaugh nomination on the floor. he could have done it two weeks ago. he could have done it last week. he is now insisting he'll do it this week. democrats have no say. he talked about an agreement that caused a week delay. who was the agreement with?

three republican senators. the majority leader knows, knows that it was republicans who caused him to delay, both for the f.b.i. investigation and for judge kavanaugh and dr. ford to testify. he didn't have to do that. he had the power. he's to blame for the delay, but he couldn't do anything otherwise because his own republicans insisted on it. again, it is a blatant falsehood i'm so tempted to use the "l" word, but he is my friend, to say the democrats caused the delay. mr. leader, assert your power and determine what's put on the floor and be a man, man up and say it's your decision, not ours. we have nothing to do with it. and third, he says one of the most qualified nominees we have ever seen. we know what's going on here.

everyone, everyone, everyone, including the majority leader himself, knows that kavanaugh is a deeply flawed candidate for a whole lot of reasons. knowing that, the majority leader and the republican majority have to divert attention from kavanaugh, so they are focusing on people who did nothing wrong, like senator feinstein, like judiciary democratic minority, like the democratic party. it's outrageous, but they know that kavanaugh is not very good, and they know his testimony hurt him across america. i was talking to a c.e.o., a republican, of a major company. he said his board was happening to watch the debate, and every one of them changed their mind after seeing kavanaugh testify. they said this guy doesn't belong on the bench. we can do better. that's the overwhelming reaction

of americans. judge kavanaugh hurt himself dramatically, permanently by his screed, his nasty partisan screed. that's something about new unschooled, two-bit politician, not someone who wants to be on the supreme court of the united states. and he hurt himself. leader mcconnell knows that. the republican leadership knows it. donald trump knows it. but they can't -- they have to get the focus off kavanaugh, and so they come up with these stra men and women. they come up with these false innuendoes, distortions and dishonesty. it's not going to work. it's not going to work. now, let me turn to the president. let me condemn in the strongest

possible terms the comments by president trump last night about dr. ford. president trump's outright mockery of a sexual assault survivor, riddled as it was with falsehoods. let me say that again. president trump's outright mockery of a sexual assault survivor, riddled as it was with falsehoods, was reprehensible, beneath the office of the presidency, and beneath common decency from one person to another. president trump owes dr. ford an immediate apology. for too long, far too long, survivors of sexual assault have been afraid to come forward because they thought that powerful men would shut -- shout them down and destroy their character. the president of the united states, the most powerful man there is, confirmed those fears for millions of women in the

most despicable way possible. president trump should send a message to the women of america right now that he's sorry for saying what he said about dr. blasey ford, that survivors of sexual assault should not only be heard but treated with dignity and respect and compassion. you don't have to believe everything dr. ford said, and i do, to refrain from the nasty, vicious attacks riddled with lies in sort of a mobocracy-type way, and yet donald trump shows no restraint, no regulator. he is the prime example of why the norms in america, regardless of politics, regardless of party , are declining. and we don't hear a peep out of my colleagues on the other side,

with a few notable and noble exceptions. he's ruining the norms of america. he's so degrading the way people treat each other. it's pathetic. and it does permanent damage to this public unless his own party members or other close to him speak up. anyone who watched dr. blasey ford saw a credible, courageous woman who elected to relive the worst night of her life because she felt civic duty to come forward. she is not the first. that action took courage. it's not unusual anymore. we know thousands of women who were hurt and then afraid to come forward, mainly because they thought they would be ridiculed, disbelieved, just as president trump appallingly and

despicably, lowly did last night. dr. ford's actions took courage from a woman who admitted she is far more honest than donald trump, who admitted that she was terrified to speak in public about her very private pain and trauma. i have been disappointed by president trump's comments before, but this is a new low. president trump should apologize immediately. i repeat that. and now what will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do? ignore president trump's comments, sidestep president trump's comments, spend their time blaming democrats, even though we had no say in the delay? that was three republicans. we know what they'll do. it's shameful. the president is day by day tearing down the norms that have built this country up. we have had the greatest norms, the greatest character, the greatest behavior of any nation

ever, but it's declining now because people of goodwill allow trump to do it without criticize ing. it's about time they did. it's about time they did. now, shifting focus back to events here in congress, we have to get back to reality and truth and focus on treating the supreme court nomination debate the right way. when all is said and done, this is about the nominee's credibility and temperament. i've said it before. i say it again. there are many who say what happened when someone was 15 and 18 doesn't indicate their personality and what kind of person they are when they are 53. well, i believe dr. ford. and i believe what she said is very relevant. there are many who don't want to consider that.

but there is an issue that should matter even to them, and that is the credibility and temperament of judge kavanaugh. this is what he is at 53. if he can't tell the truth about previous encounters, engagements, behavior, and activity, which we have found over and over and over again with judge kavanaugh, he doesn't deserve to be on the bench. that's why we need an f.b.i. investigation. that's why republicans stymied leader mcconnell in his headlong rush to have a vote and demanded an f.b.i. investigation. it wasn't democrats. we know that. because they wanted to get to the truth, because credibility of a justice on the supreme court is a very, very important characteristic, and right below

it is temperament and lack of partisanship. and unfortunately, at least from initial indications, judge kavanaugh is not high on any of those three lists. that's why we need the investigation, and that's why we need it to be thorough. but we still don't know how thorough of an investigation the f.b.i. is conducting. as of last night, dr. blasey ford and her list of corroborating witnesses have not been interviewed, while deborah ramirez has reportedly been interviewed, her list of witnesses have not. nbc news is reporting at least 40 people with information have not been contacted by the f.b.i. i've heard this story over and over again. people call the tips line. that's what they're supposed to do. and they don't get a call back. this may be vital information.

we want to know the truth. it can all be done in a week, the week that senator flake and senator collins and senator murkowski asked for. not the democrats asked for, although we certainly agree with them, but that's not what caused leader mcconnell to delay, and every republican senator knows it. so that's why we need this to be a thorough investigation. without a clear sense of what the white house has told the f.b.i. to look at in this investigation, we have no idea if the f.b.i. is doing a real investigation or simply preparing a fig leaf at the direction of the white house for republicans to vote yes. i understand the difficulty of the f.b.i. i have a great deal of respect for director ray. he's been pushed around. they have been ridiculed by the president, brave men and women who risk their lives for us, a part of law enforcement. but the f.b.i. has a duty to do, and director ray has a duty

to the reputation. and if he's being constrained by the white house, he has an obligation to let us know. and certainly counsel mcgahn has an obligation to let us know what constraints he has placed upon the f.b.i. so here's what needs to happen. first, the white house must publicly release in writing what the white house counsel has instructed the f.b.i. to pursue. if the f.b.i. is not interviewing these witnesses that ms. ramirez's torn presented to them -- attorney presented to them because counsel mcgahn or donald trump has said don't do it, we ought to know that. certainly not just we ought to know that. the senators who requested the f.b.i. investigation ought to know that. second, leader mcconnell should arrange an all-senators briefing from the agent in charge of the investigation before the vote.

we should know what he did and what he didn't do and why. and, third, the findings of the f.b.i. investigation upon completion should be released publicly, with any personal information redacted. this is not the usual practice but it's been done in the past when it's needed, and it's sure needed now. the f.b.i. should do it. these three steps would go a long way to ensure the public's faith that the investigation has been conducted fairly, fully, and properly. this debate, this nomination, mr. president, is about whether judge brett kavanaugh has the character, the credibility, the impartiality to serve on the nation's highest court. in order to be an effective judge at any level you need to be impartial, dispassionate. we don't ask our judges to be

perfectly neutral but we can't tolerate judges who are nakedly partisan either. judge kavanaugh himself has said that most obviously a judge cannot be a political partisan. those are his words, and that's just what he has shown us he is. in his long history and now in his recent rant. the testimony judge kavanaugh prepared for the judiciary last thursday -- prepared testimony. this was not just on the spur. this was not a -- it showed who he was and is it was steeped in partisan resentment and acrimony. he tried to implicate sitting senators in a calculated and orchestrated hit job. that's what heed said to the senators he was being interviewed by. he denounced left-wing opposition groups who don't have close to the power the hard right has had in pushing our republican colleagues around to rush this nomination through. we don't hear about them.

and then topping it off, he portrayed the recent allegations against him as revenge on behalf of the clintons. i dare say that dr. ford didn't have the clintons on her mind once when she wrestled and struggled with whether to come forward. it's an absurd charge. absurd. he even told democratic senators what comes around -- what goes around comes around, which to many here sounds just like a threat. a judge telling people what comes around goes around -- goes around comes around. a judge, a supreme court justice says that when he's nominated? we can certainly do better. even if someone is with the same ideological as kavanaugh is chosen, someone who doesn't do things like that should be before us. i hope that person won't be chosen, of course.

, if he has judge kavanaugh's ideology which is why one of the main reasons i was against him to begin with, and should never forget it's likely judge kavanaugh will greatly impede a woman's right to choose. it's very likely he will get rid of health care, including preexisting conditions. it's likely he'll allow presidential overreach. those three substantive bases motivated us to come out against judge kavanaugh even before his awful testimony. i understand judge kavanaugh felt his character was under assault. i understand how he's feeling angry and upset. i understand responding to questions in the heat of the moment with words you might later regret. but these were prepared remarks. it takes a partisan to see a partisan conspiracy against him. as conservative -- a

conservative fellow, the brookings institute, former kavanaugh defender benjamin whit ease wrote in a column i know judge kavanaugh but won't confirm him, judge kavanaugh's statement was an outburst of emotion from a would-be judge. i do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger, but i cannot condone the partisanship which was raw, undisguised negative conspiratorial for somebody who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. his of performance was wholly inconsistent with a congress we should expect from a member of the judiciary. that's from somebody who is abconservative and a -- a conservative and kavanaugh supporter. the courage that both kavanaugh 's friends and observers like whitease is showing realizes this guy is too much. i wish we saw a little more from the republican side because they know deep in their hearts this

guy shouldn't be on the bench. we know they know. now the judge's partisanship at hearing raises questions, as i mentioned, but the biggest issue against judge kavanaugh, in my judgment, is credibility credibility, the number-one issue. does kavanaugh always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. whatever you think of what he did as a 17- or 18-year-old, what judge kavanaugh has said as a 53-year-old matter. whether you think think the 17- or 18-year-old behavior should be part of the decision, which i do, or whether you don't. the harsh fact of the matter is that judge kavanaugh has repeatedly, repeatedly danced around the truth on issues large and small. in 2004, his first confirmation hearings. 2006, his second. and now again in 2018. on things like what happened

when -- what he did in high school and law school to things like it grand jury proceedings and white house controversies, again he has danced around the truth and never been direct and often tried to mislead. we cannot have a supreme court justice whose credibility is in doubt. that will hurt the nation for a generation. so i ask my colleagues whatever you think about what judge kavanaugh did at 17 or 18, think about what he said at age 53. think about the credibility of the man now as a grown adult and a judge. think about whether we want to put someone who has been so partisan, with questionable credibility on the court, or whether there is someone better. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. the clerk will report the unfinished business.

the clerk: house message to accompany h.r. 302, an act to provide protections for certain sports medicine professionals who provide certain medical services in a secondary state. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i unfortunately don't have enough time right now to respond to everything the democratic leader said, but i do want to say this the most accurate statement that the minority leader made as he was against judge kavanaugh from the start. no one should be confused about this being a search for the truth. this is about search and destroy now i think the senate conducted itself appropriately. the judiciary committee conducted itself appropriately

in giving dr. ford a chance to tell her story. i've said all along, i want dr. ford to be treated just the same way my daughters or my wife or my mother would be treated under similar circumstances. and i think we met that standard but we know that the goalposts continue to be moved by our colleagues. this idea that you can assassinate a man's character resulting in threats against his family, ruin his reputation and his future, and expect him to be a human punching bag and not respond forcefully, it's incredible to me. this should be about a fair process, but a fair process means that the people who ultimately decide should have an open mind at the beginning. you wouldn't want to walk into a

courtroom and talk to a jury or a judge where the judge or jury had already made up their mind. you'd want them to listen to the evidence. that's what fundamentally -- a fundamentally fair process means. and it also means that if somebody's going to make an accusation against an individual for a crime, which is what has been alleged against judge kavanaugh, that they would have to come forward with more than just an allegation. they'd have to come forward with witnesses, proof, evidence. because under our constitution, people are presumed to be innocent of crimes unless proven guilty. they are accorded due process of law, a fair hearing, a fair process. and unfortunately, as a result of the mishandling of dr. ford's

confidential letter to the ranking member, contrary to her wishes and without her consent leaked to the press, she has been thrust into this three-ring circus. she was not told by her lawyers that the judiciary committee had offered to send a bipartisan team of professional staff out to her home in california to interview her confidentially. why would her lawyers not tell her that? because they wanted this three-ring circus. they wanted, despite dr. ford's wishes not to be thrust into the spotlight, they evidently thrust her into that spotlight, raising the question in my mind who are they working for? are these lawyers working for

dr. ford, or do they have another agenda and another client in mind? well, the idea that now this is has all come down to what somebody wrote in their high school yearbook is beyond parody i mean, you can't make stuff like this up. and, oh, the judge -- we know the judge is belligerent because he threw ice allegedly on somebody in a bar in college. of course the reporter who wrote that had previously sent out a tweet demonstrating his bias against judge kavanaugh. now it's accepted as fact and, man, we're going to defeat this man because he threw ice on somebody what he was in college. or we're going to go through his

college yearbook. you know, i wonder what every senator in this chamber's college yearbook says -- or high school yearbook, i should say. i hope that's not the standard. the senate is one as an institution is one that operates best on precedent. if this is -- wow be to us. we won't be able to recruit the best and brightest people to serve in the judiciary or be subjected to this inquisition of a confirmation process. like i said, mr. president, there's more i with aens to say responding to the -- there's more i want to say responding to the democratic leader's comments, which i couldn't disagree with more. he'd already made up his mind, and so this is now about trying to build a case against the

nominee. the problem is, there isn't any evidence. and so in its place what he wants to do is presume the guilt, because somebody said something in their college -- here high school yearbook, they ought to be disqualified, because they allegedly threw ice on somebody when they were in college, that's disqualifying. that is -- that's making this whole process a laughingstock. this is the opposite of the sort of fair and dignified process that we should be following. but now, at the request of many senators, the f.b.i. is going to be reporting back to the senate on their supplemental background investigation. will that be enough to satisfy those who had said, all we need is one more week in order to allow the f.b.i. to question more witnesses? well, we see now that they've

moved on, that regardless of what happens with this supplemental background investigation, they won't be satisfied because they have their minds made up already, even before dr. ford's letter came -- became public. this is an impairing -- this is an embarrassing, disgraceful way for the senate to conduct itself. we do not honor ourselves or this institution by handling this nominee like this and this nomination and these witnesses, including dr. ford, like this. i don't know what it's going to take for us to change, but one thing can't happen is we can't let these despicable tactics and this strategy win, because if they're able to destroy the reputation of a sitting judge

based on such flimsy stuff, that means this same precedent will be applied to future nominees, and woe be to us, and what a terrible disservice, not only to the good men and women who want to serve in government but also to the american people. the thing i hate most about washington, d.c., and its insular culture is that some people don't just want to win the argument; some people don't want to just win the election or win the vote; they want to destroy their opposition, destroy them. that's why people are talking about even if the judge is confirmed, well, maybe over in the house they'll start impeachment proceedings. one of the members of the judiciary committee said, if the judge is confirmed, it won't stop there.

i'm not going to stop. what does that mean? we need to vote. we need to get the f.b.i. report and we need to vote. because the longer this circus continues, the more embarrassing it becomes -- to the senate and to the senators who work here. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, later today we're going to have an opportunity to vote on the opioid crisis response act.

i want to take some time in complimenting all involved in bringing this legislation forward. first let me start by acknowledging the problem in maryland, and the problem we have in maryland is throughout our entire country. recently i was at the med mark treatment center in baltimore city. and i had the chance to see firsthand efforts being made by the local community, by the private sector and by government to deal with those who have addiction issues as a result of the opioid crisis. and i must tell you, they're making progress. but the problem continues. the problem continues in every community in maryland. i've had similar roundtable discussions in western maryland, on the eastern shore, in the baltimore and washington metro areas, in all parts of maryland. in every community they tell me that the crisis of overdose is

still increasing, despite efforts made by local communities to try to deal with the addiction issue on many fronts. on the front of law enforcement, looking at different ways of dealing with pain medicines, and looking at ways to deal with people with addiction issues. as we know, with the widespread use of addictive opioids, they hit the market, people became addicted to the opioid medicines through prescription medicines they were not used for its proper purpose. later, they used heroin, which was cheaper than the opioid medicines. people became addicted to that, and more recently heroin has been diced with fentanyl, which can be very deadly, much more powerful than heroin or opioids, and people end up in the emergency room, in many cases, they end up dead. congress has responded. we passed the 21st century cures act, which was a

bipartisan bill which set up a framework of dealing with alternative ways of handling pain, rather than using addictive opioids, and dealt with providing significant resources to local governments to deal with the issues in law enforcement and in prevention and in dealing with people with addictions. and, of course, the passage of the affordable care act provided third-party reimbursement for people with behavioral health rand addiction, which helped not only those that are in the exchanges on private insurance but also those in the medicaid system. so we've done a job in trying to respond to it. now we have the legislation before us, the opioid crisis response act. i'm very pleased about the provisions many committees provided input. it's a true bipartisan product, reflecting the will of the house and the senate and the different committees of jurisdiction. i'm particularly pleased that we have provided additional resources and flexibilities to local communities.

for one thing -- the one thing i learned in visiting different parts of maryland is that programs in some communities will work. in other communities, the same programs won't work. sos we need to look at what works for the community involved. so otolegislation before us -- so the legislation before us, had authorizes and improves the 21st century cures act. in my state of maryland we received $20 million under that act in fy simplify 2017. i have been encouraged by the mayor of baltimore and other local officials to support that reauthorization improvement. they know it will help them deal with the problem. let me tell you what the additional flexibility means for people in maryland. in both baltimore city and the upper shore, the local governments are looking at establishing what's known as a stabilization center. stabilization center is to take those who have o.d. issues out of the emergency room into an appropriate setting where they can get the help they need, the

treatment they need for recovery. the problem in our emergency rooms is that many times these people that are o.d., once they're brought back, can become very disruptive and adversely affect the health care in the emergency room settings for people that are there for other purposes. in addition, they can't always get the services they need, particularly in the middle of the night, that -- to deal with their addiction problems. the stabilization center is set up to deal with those issues. the problem is, there is no funding for stabilization centers. fortunately, under this legislation, flexibility is given in regards to the grant program under the substance abuse and mental health services administration, samhsa, where local governments can apply for funds to deal with these innovative approaches to dealing with the addiction issue. i was pleased that that was a recommendation i had made and it was incorporated into the final legislation. another popular type of program

in my communities is peer support. they find that people have gone through this problem are much more effective in reaching out to those who have an addiction need today and can provide the type of support they need to stay with treatment. the problem again is that peer support is not reimbursed under our health care reimbursement structure. certainly not under the medicaid system. so i was pleased that this legislation includes an amendment i offered that will get at g.a.o. study as to how we can modify the medicaid reimbursement system to deal with peer support services in our community. i am also pleased that we removed restrictions on medical reimbursement for inpatient substance use disorder. i worked with other members of the senate to get that included in the final bill that was -- that we'll be voting on later today. we've also provided enhanced medication assistance treatment in the medicare system. that is an issue that i came

forward with in this legislation and am pleased that it was included. the legislation also provides flexibilities for medical home health, which is an important way to deal with addiction issues. telehealth, many of us have worked with the telehealth issues. that is also enhanced in the legislation before us, and we give additional flexibility for residential facilities, removing the caps on the number of beds, which can help us again deal with the needs in different communities around our nation. the bottom line is, i was pleased to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to provide the flexibility to local governments, local communities that do what they need in order to deal with this crisis and, at the same time, provide the federal government partnership and resources that can really make a difference. we do more than just dealing with the treatment issues. we deal with law enforcement. and i'm pleased that's in the bill. our governor had asked that we deal with the challenges of

shipment through international mail of fentanyl that's coming into this country. that issue is dealt with in this legislation. i was pleased to be part of that. i'm also pleased that we were providing first responders protective equipment to deal with fentanyl. many of our first responders are being attacked through the fentanyl, as they respond to an o.d. especially some of the i'm pleased that there is help in this legislation to deal with that. i am a. particularly proud about that since smith detection, located in my state, is providing the technology to help our first responders. maryland has a high-intensity drug trafficking designation. there is improvement in this bill to deal with the funding that that bill, to deal with the current opioid crisis. many is in this to -- money is in this to deal with drug courts. the legislation also deals with workforce, student loan forgiveness for those who go moo this field. that's something that is welcomed and needed.

and lastly, mr. president, the bill deals with housing. housing is a significant challenge for those whos have addiction needs -- for those who have addiction needs. this legislation will allow us to have innovative programs under medicaid to deal with housing in conjunction with the opioid crisis. i'm proud that we were able to work together. the committees on both sides of the aisle, both chambers, and i look forward to the passage of this legislation later today. with that, i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: plop? -- mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, what is the order right now? it is my understanding, i say to my good friend from illinois, that i was to be speaking in -- alternating back and forth, is that correct? the presiding officer:ness no order in effect. the unfinished business is the house message to accompany h.r. 302.

mr. inhofe: all right, mr. president, i ask that i be considered -- be recognized for, oh, ten minutes. mr. durbin: mr. president, if the senior senator from oklahoma -- i have been waiting for ten minutes. i didn't realize it was going to be an alternating situation. but i want to defer to his seniority and our friendship. i would like to ask how long he will speak and eminent domain like to ask unanimous consent to -- and i would like to ask unanimous consent to follow him. mr. inhofe: i am going to defer to you for ten minutes. i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks, i be recognized for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, it is hard to believe it was three weeks ago when we first heard the name christine blasey ford. it seems like a lot longer, doesn't it?

in that period of time, a lot of things have occurred. the first thing was an announcement from the white house -- and this came from kellyanne conway. she said that dr. ford's testimony and complaint would neither be ignored, nor would she be insulted. last night at a rally in mississippi, the president of the united states mocked christine blasey ford for her lack of specific memory about this terrible sexual assault which occurred 36 years ago. i think most people realize that she testified under oath, gave us all the information she knew, and conceded there were things she couldn't remember. neither she nor any victim should be in any way belittled because they can't remember all the details of something that happened in the distant past and something that they would much rather forget. let me also remind those who are following this debate, it was dr. ford who stepped forward and called for an f.b.i.

investigation. she was willing to step forward before the f.b.i. and tell her story. it was judge kavanaugh who resisted it even when i asked him directly. now the f.b.i. investigation is under way. for the good of the senate and for our nation, i hope that this is a complete professional nonpartisan investigation, and i hope that we are given the time to at least read the report from the f.b.i. before the republican majority leader in the senate plows through, as he said over and over again, to a vote in this senate. i would hope that those who come to this issue in good faith, regardless of their position, will be respectful of a process which we may be using in the future and should respect as it reaches its conclusion. on a separate issue, mr. president, i'd like to tell the senate about an experience which i had several months ago. i was in an immigration court in chicago. never been there before.

it was in a high-rise office building in the loop in chicago. the corridors were packed with those waiting for an opportunity for a hearing. i went into this courtroom where a judge was sitting and saw the two people who were before the court that day to have their case heard. the judge called the courtroom to order. she was very respectful to the two individuals who were there, but she had a problem. one of the people before her could not get into the chair to sit down for the proceeding, and the reason that young girl, whom i will call maria, could not get into the chair was she is 2 years old. 2 years old. one of the volunteer attorneys lifted her up and put her in the chair and handed her a stuffed owl which she clung to through the whole hearing. now, the other person who was

being subject to a hearing that day had no trouble getting into the chair. he scrambled into that chair and sat down because he was anxious to play with the matchboxcar that was on the table. this young man -- matchbox car that was on the table. this young man whom i will call hamilton was 4 years old. in the united states of america, in the city of chicago, in an immigration court in this federal government, these two individuals were up for a hearing because they had been separated forcibly from their parents. there was no real conclusion to the hearing. they reset the next hearing date for these two children 2 years old and 4 years old for four days before christmas. how did we get to this point in america where we're actually having a federal court hearing of an immigration court for a 2-year-old and a 4-year-old?

one too small to even get into a chair by herself and the other who, thank goodness, found a matchbox car to play with during the proceeding. we reached this point because of the announcement of the trump administration of something called zero tolerance and the decision to separate over 2,700 children from their parents at the border. where are we today? we're in a situation where 136 of these children, months after this policy was started and then discontinued, 136 of these children are still being held by the government. 96 of them have parents who we believe to be outside the united states. just this last week, the department of homeland security inspector general came out with a report which i commend to everyone, analyzing what the zero tolerance policy meant. i'll tell what you it meant. it meant the absolute ultimate when it came to cruelty and incompetence. what they tell us why this

report was a decision was made by the trump administration and the department of homeland security under secretary nielsen to separate children from their parents even before these children had the ability to speak. they were called preverbal children, and they separated them without any plastic brace et cetera on their wrists, without any fingerprints to trace them back to their parents. they were separated not by blocks or even a few miles but sometimes a thousand miles. i came to learn the story of the little boy i call hamilton because it was published in "the new yorker." it was a story about his mom from el salvador and the little boy being taken from her in march, taken from this mother. they left the mother in texas in detention, and they transported the child to chicago.

initially, a volunteer lawyer came in, bought a phone card, and said to the mother, you can call him, and she did, and they would talk for a little while and sing a little song. the next time she called him, he wasn't as responsive. it has now reached the point where that 4-year-old little boy will not speak to his mother on the telephone, will not communicate with her. the people at the shelter in chicago have begged the mother tell him he has to eat. did you ever see a little 4-year-old boy that you would have to tell you have to eat? it says something about his state of mind. sadly, this 4-year-old has now reverted back to diapers and won't say a word to his mother on the phone. separated by a zero tolerance program of this trump administration. well, what they tell us from the department of homeland security inspector general's office is we are far from the end of this sad, disgraceful chapter in american history.

who is going to be held accountable for this? will it be the president? perhaps some election in the future. will it be the attorney general who proudly announced this new program separating mothers from children? will it be the secretary of the department of homeland security who separated these children according to the inspector general's report, putting them in confined spaces which were unacceptable by humane standards which we have actually been governed by for years in the united states? i believe secretary nielsen should be held responsible. i believe she should resign. someone has to answer for this disgraceful chapter in american history, and we still must remember 136 eligible children are still being held by our government under this policy. it is time for us to reunite these children with their parents. except in the most extraordinary circumstances, it is time for us to try to put

these families back together again. i want hamilton to start eating again. i want him to be in his mother's arms again. i want him to try to get over this chapter in his young life that could affect him for as long as he lives. i yield the floor. mr. be inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, amid all this, the unfounded, uncorroborated accusation and attacks on a fine jurist, i think it's important for us to remember that other things are happening here at the same time. for one thing, i would only make one comment about the comments of the previous speaker, and that is that the program that was somewhat accurately described actually started not in the trump administration but the obama administration. but what i want to say is that something really significant is about to happen, and that is something we have been waiting for for a long time. if you're not on the commerce

committee, you're not dealing with this issue or actually -- of course, there are three committees dealing with it. you wouldn't be aware of how significant the vote coming up really is. we're going to be voting to reauthorize the f.a.a. this is something we have been trying to do now for many years, and this is actually a five-year reauthorization. now, that's significant. it's been -- last time we did a five-year reauthorization, the f.a.a. was some -- was back in the 1980's. and now if you -- it's a huge win, this thing is, for not just the obvious good things that are going on in what we need to be doing to update the system that we're working with, but if you single out general aviation to pilots, it's really -- it's really a big major deal. the legislation needs investments in our national

infrastructure improves aviation community. it improves commercial service for the flying public and streamlines the f.a.a. regulatory process, eliminating a lot of the red tape that goes along with any bureaucracy. it enhances aviation security and promotes responsible and safe integration for drones in our national airspace. now, as an active pilot, i'm especially pleased that many pilot protections i fought for are in this bill. in fact, i'm very proud that i actually introduced in committee and was able to get in the bill six of my amendments that i think are -- in fact i know are very significant, and they mostly address general aviation. it's going to have more transparency and communicating with the f.a.a. we have heard the stories about some of the f.a.a. enforcement proceedings and how -- which is common to a lot of bureaucracies. it strengthens one area, the notice to airmen.

that's called notams. notams are notifications to people who are pilots to let them know if they are going to land on a runway, if there is a problem on the runway, if it's under construction or something like that, it came from a personal experience that i had when i landed on one that was under -- that there was work on, but there are no notams so there is no way of warning people. i remember so well, i said, well, where are the notams if you say there are notams. they said that's for you to find out. this changes all that. we have the notam reform that's in there. it includes the volunteer pilot protection act. that's kind of like the good samaritan act. i remember, oh, about 30 years ago, i was mayor of tulsa at that time. on the island of domenica, not to be confused with the dominican republic, was a radio conveyor that reached the entire

central america and a lot of america the gospels over the -- the programs, and it was wiped out by a hurricane. i remember getting 12 pilots together and 12 aircraft together and going down to take medical supplies, take food and all these things down to that island. i actually had to fly through a hurricane to get down there. but there were four people that were going to go and did not go because they might incur some kind of liability. they might do something on the way that would create that problem. well, the good samaritan law that we have for -- that are there in this bill is something we have been working on for a long period of time and will allow people not to be punished for their generosity, which has been the case before. the bill directs the f.a.a. to update regulations and policies related to the -- to this selection and training and designation of pilot examiners.

here is a big problem, and i experienced this personally just about three months ago. they are called d.p.e., designated pilot examiners. there aren't enough of them around. what we did with this bill was add a new form of inspecting pilots that's going to allow one examiner to do twice as many pilots, and that's something that -- here it is in this bill. now, without the proper examiners, we don't get the -- the commercial pilots are prevented from obtaining the recurring qualifications and flight schools are prevented from graduating students. because there is a problem right now, and the problem of numbers of people who are out there who have passed and want to take exgz and are not able -- examinations and are not able to do that. it also addresses the problem of contract towers. now, contract towers, most of the towers you see around the country, the largest ones are called f.a.a. towers. however, some of them are not --

are contract towers, so they are contracted with the private sector. well, this is good. they do a good job. it obviously suggests, though, that if we had not allowed for these contract towers, we wouldn't have, in my state of oklahoma, some seven towers that are out -- that would be out there. two of those contract towers are in the cities of stillwater and norman, oklahoma. stillwater happens to be the home of oklahoma state university, norman oklahoma university. i suggest to you, mr. chairman, on game day, if you're in there going in with sometimes up to 1,000 aircraft, and if you didn't have a tower on that, how is that going to work? well, that's a recognition that that's a problem that needs to be dealt with, and that's in this bill. it also affects a lot of airports that are adjacent to military bases. it updates the f.a.a.'s dated

benefit process, ensuring communities invest resources without unnecessary paperwork. the f.a.a. reauthorization unlocks the economic growth potential of aviation. it provides to local communities. we had in oklahoma not far from tulsa actually, a very small community called bristow, business tow had two -- bristow had two large industries wanting to move in there and were not able to do it and were making a decision to go not just to another community in oklahoma, but to another state. it wasn't as far as alaska but it was something not too far away from oklahoma. what we were able to do was leverage the state funding to put in these improvements to the airport. i was there during the dedication. those two very large industries are moving in. people don't realize what a, an airport means to a local

community in rural america. this has provisions in there that will allow that to take place. the other one i just want to mention, if you're in a general aviation airport environment, that's not like dulles or one of those, it's the smaller ones. in the chair's state of alaska, that's about all they have out there. if you are in that type of an environment, then you don't have a -- if you get federal funds -- and they all do get federal funds, if they don't use that in a general aviation airport, it automatically under current law goes to d.f.w. or one of the giant airports. under this it will guarantee it will go to another general aviation airport, which is a huge win. well, our nation's aviation industry is facing a dire shortage of pilots. we have language in here that's

going to be helpful. we all know about the problems, those of us particularly are serving on the senate armed services committee about the pilot shortage we have. we have some 2,000 pilots right now that are actually fighter pilots that are short. one of the problems is that during the eight years of the obama administration, in the process of starving the military, they were not allowing their pilots in the navy and in the air force to fly more than 12 hours a month. this was something that can't be done. and consequently they were in that position of not being able to have them do it. well, in this bill we're starting out and actually have language as a pilot program to allow students in their high schools to go through ground school, to get people so that they are interested in aviation. all that is in this bill. the program is just a wide array of public and private-sector

stakeholders are dedicated to promoting aviation and accessible future career path for pilots. so i applaud the f.a.a.'s reforms and the f.a.a. process for certifying aircraft and aircraft products. one of the problems we've had that is out there is that people who are building -- i'm talking about major builders or experimental builders, building aircraft and then not being able to get them certified because of the long process in certification. we have shortcutted that and have the same amount of requirements. i've done it in this bill so we'll be able to almost double the number of certifications. that's happening right now. i want to thank senator thune and senator nelson and the committee for acknowledging that we finally have to do it. for ten years i've been sitting around waiting for a

reauthorization bill and been talking to people about what the consequences are. and now finally after about 30 years we have a reauthorization bill that is a five-year bill. we're going to be voting on it shortly. it's going to be a great improvement. other things are happening here. we are passing things. we are being productive, and we'll continue to do so as soon as this fiasco is over that challenges to our fine justice kavanaugh. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, two weeks ago i stood here to commend this body for developing and passing much-needed legislation to help families and communities respond to the opioid overdose crisis. it claimed an estimated 49,000

lives just last year. it is one that knows no political territorial or demographical boundaries. soon the senate will consider a bipartisan, bicameral consensus opioid package which overwhelmingly passed the house of representatives last week. contained within the conference bill are several of my provisions from the senate-passed legislation, including opioid milestones, a bipartisan bill i introduced with senators murkowski and hassan to create a score card to measure our nation's response to the opioid crisis. in other words, as we spend more money, how do we now give a grade to each one of the programs that we're funding so that in two, three, four years it's best practices across the whole country so that we're ensuring that we learned the lessons of what is in fact

occurring. that's a milestone, a score card so that we know what is happening with the money, with the programs that we're funding. the final package also retains important legislation i introduced with senators young and baldwin to help address increasing rates of infectious diseases associated with injection drug use, like h.i.v. and viral hepatitis. two weeks ago while highlighting these provisions, i also called on my house and senate colleagues to include in the conference legislation a critical policy that was noticeably absent from the senate-passed bill. expansion of medication-assisted treatment, or m.a.t., for opioid use disorders. in 2016 i worked with senator rand paul to expand access to m.a.t. by enabling nurse practitioners and physician assistants to temporarily prescribe suboxone. and this year i introduced bipartisan legislation with

senator paul and senator collins and senator hassan to provide permanent m.a.t. prescribed authority for nurse practice additions and sphinx -- practitioners and physician assistants. our legislation would extend this authority to other nursing professions already stepping up to address the opioid crisis. certified nurse, midwives, clinical nurse specialists and certified registered nurse anesthetists. as this legislation was being negotiated senator paul and i led a bicameral letter urging senate leadership to prove the house-passed version of our legislation in the final bill. today i am pleased to report that we succeeded in this endeavor. section 3201 of the conference legislation would permanently allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe m.a.t. it would also provide that authority to the other nursing professions for five years. this policy will immediately

save lives and improve our overall response to the opioid overdose crisis, and i thank my partners in both the house and senate for fighting to ensure that we reduce the demand side of this epidemic by enhancing access to treatment. in addition to expanding m.a.t., the conference package takes important steps to help connect vulnerable populations to health care, particularly substance use treatment. as we work to address our nation's opioid crisis and right the wrongs of the failed war on drugs, we must do all we can to remove barriers to care, including for those who have been incarcerated. last month i reintroduced my legislation to supporting positive outcomes after release act which prohibits states from terminating an inmate's medicaid coverage during incarceration.

my legislation would instead require states to temporarily suspend medicaid coverage, ensuring immediate access to health care services upon reentry into the community. in other words, when the prisoner is left out of incarceration and back into the community, they have access to health care services. otherwise the likelihood of relapse is very high. and i am pleased in the conference opioid package, it includes a version of my legislation requiring states to suspend rather than terminate medicaid coverage for young people under 21 years of age during incarceration. this provision will help bridge the precarious time after release by ensuring these individuals can access their benefits as soon as possible. so i applaud the work of senators hatch and wyden to include this important provision

in the conference package, and i hope that this is a step forward in expanding the suspension policy to other medicaid populations. i don't think it should just be 21 and under. i think it should be anyone who is leaving prison. a high percentage of people who are in prison have some drug-related problem. and if we don't provide them with the treatment they need as they're leaving, then it's almost, it's not a guarantee, just a high probability that they're going to take a u-turn and come right back with the same problem again. so this final opioids package represents a critical component of our response to the nation's opioid overdose crisis. i commend senators murray and alexander on their incredible and tireless work to put this legislation together. and i thank them for working with me throughout the process in all of these provisions.

however, this should not and will not be the end of congress' efforts to tackle the opioid epidemic. there remain a number of other outstanding proposals like mandating, prescriber education and clearly labeling the risks of opioids on prescription bottles that could pay big dividends in addressing this crisis. and i just say in conclusion that it's a missed opportunity when we don't mandate physician education across the whole country on the prescribing of opioids. we should do it. there's a lot of physicians out there who are prescribing bottles of opioids who have never had the correct training in order to ensure that they understand what the consequences are. and simultaneously, senator hatch and i have introduced legislation that says in the absence of mandatory physician education, that the bottle cap

of every opioid have a warning. as they're taking the bottle from the pharmacy, so that the mother, the wife, the father, the responsible party in the family can actually see that this is dangerous and it's addictive. and the warning is right on the bottle cap, in a color -- red, orange, green -- that just says this is a different medicine you've got in your cabinet than anything else. at least give to the mothers and fathers, at least give to the family members the tools they need, or the information they need to say the physician didn't tell us this because they weren't mandated to have the education, but at least i can read it and say to myself that this is something i should be very careful with in allowing my family member to take these pills. that's for another day, but i think it's important and i think it's something that we're going to have to include ultimately down the line just to give families the information they need.

so i thank -- again, i thank everyone, democrat and republican. this is a perfect example of how bipartisanship prevails over paralysis. and there can't be a more important issue that we've proved this institution can work. so i thank everyone involved. and, mr. president, with that, i yield back to the chair. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the

bipartisan, bicameral five year reauthorization, the federal aviation administration act that we'll be voting on here and i believe passing in about one half-hour. mr. hoñ -- this is the first five-year reauthorization since 1982, providing long-term certainty for our aviation infrastructure, while we continue to have the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world. the bill continues to provide stable funding for the airport improvement program which supports construction and rehabilitation of airports of all sizes, including the new construction of the williston international base in north dakota for the first new air carrier airport built in the united states in over nine years, and very much needed because it's right in the heart of the balkan. we've had incredible energy

development there. we now produce, well, between 1.2 and 1.3 billion barrels a day, second only to texas. we have a lot of people coming in, a lot of infrastructure developed, and obviously the services are incredibly important. i can't -- mr. hoeven: that we not only needed an expansion of airport facilities but we needed to build a whole new airport because it was closed in by the community of williston, because it is the first new airport in nine years. it is not just about serving wilston, but all of northwest north dakota as well as parts of eastern montana and a very important growing energy industry area for our nation. so that shows the importance of the kind of provisions that we have in this legislation and how it affects every part of our

great nation. ensuring long-term certainty for f.a.a. programs like the airport improvement program are essential for our airport construction projects, as i've described in the williston basin, and it is particularly important that we have this funding and we're able to utilize it in an efficient way. for example in cold-weather states like my state or like the presiding officer's, you have a relatively short construction season so you have to get out there and get after it as soon as you can. so we are making sure that the appropriations and funding is there and get the construction done when we can do it. further the f.a.a. reauthorization includes a number of provisions that i worked on and authored to expand on work in north dakota on

unmanned aerial systems. this is a big part of the future of aviation. i want to thank the commerce committee chairman, commerce committee being the committee of jurisdiction. i would like to thank chairman thune and all those who worked on the u.s.a. -- u.a.s. legislation. as my colleagues well know, north dakota is one of the leading states when it comes to development of unmanned aviation systems technology. as a matter of fact, one of the leading -- and eastern -- eastern north dakota has been referred to as, quote, the silicon valley for drones. our northern planes, unmanned aircraft systems test site in grand forks, north dakota, is one of seven u.a.s. research development sites in the nation, providing the proving grounds

for a range -- from u.a.s. testing from one pilot operations and precision agriculture to military be a indications, defense am -- applications, defense applications, border security and energy security. the whole gamut of military, border protection and commercial, agricultural uses for unmanned aviation. for example, one of the golf courses in grand forks, the king walt golf course, which was developed by around palmer -- arnold palmer was designed using drones. we have companies like general atomics, northrup grumman, leading aerospace companies that are developing the military

application whether it's predator, reaper, global hawk, you have i.s.r., military applicationings, and so forth many we have c.b.c., so we have 900 miles of border responsibility. they are using unmanned drones on the border. that is not just to keep an eye on alaska, but we work with our good friends in canada. so customs and border protection, military applications, but then all of these other ag and energy applications, but also this idea of small product delivery where you can actually have products delivered to your home right with drones, and they are actually starting that on the golf course. you walk before you run, so here you are on the golf course, you're getting food or beverages delivered to you. that's the first step in this process, and i look at these young people and i think about what we all carry now is our

smart phonesnd and -- phones, and our amazing computers can do so much. when we were their age, we never dreamed of something like this. even ten years ago, we had no idea what this device could do. think about unmanned, aviation drones systems will do in ten years. you all, looking at the pages here, you will be developing the applications. we'll be trying to keep up, guys like me and the presiding officer will try to keep up with these young people. it's amazing and we have no idea the amazing applications that will be developed. that's why we worked so hard in this area. i actually back in 2011 worked on the legislation and authored a lot of it that set up the test sites that we have. we were actually the first test site named. what we've been able to include in this bill is another five-year extension of those test sites. and that's really important because the work we're doing out

there, as i mentioned some of the great companies out there, they have to know that they can continue to operate on those test sites and we have to make sure that they have the airspace to fly the unmanned aircraft and do the testing and development, whether it's high level, like i described for something like, you know, global hawk, which is a very large jet aircraft, all the way down to the small drones that are delivering food products on the golf course. you have to do it all and having test sites is a huge part of it. another part of it, a second aspect of the legislation that i was able to include in this bill really goes to spectrum -- speck -- spctra -- spectra. we have a program in there that helps us develop the spectrum. that is very important as well. the amendment i offered will

enable us to evaluate the best and the safest spectrum for u.a.s. use. you need that for command and control, right? it's amazing the things we have to figure out, you know, privacy, safety, high-level satellite, low level, is that communication towers, cell towers, what spectrums do we use? all of these things. redundancy, sense and avoid, all of these things go into developing concurrent airspace use for man and unmanned. another thing we included is this language that will allow us to evaluate the best spectrum for u.a.s. use. it's important to ensure that u.a.s. operate on spectrum that provides the safest command and control of the aircraft and involves the least interference with other spectrum users. so again i want to thank chairman thune for working with me to include this provision in the final bill that enables us

to move forward in that very, very important area. as we see growth in u.a.s. development use, it is also important to plan for ways to address vulnerabilities. in the wrong hands, unmanned aerial systems can pose a serious threat to our country, to people, to property yip. i was also pleased that this legislation includes the preventing emerging threats act legislation that i helped introduce along with the chairman of the homeland security and government affairs committee. i'm also on that committee and work with chairman ron johnson on that. i really appreciate his work, but certainly the fact that we were able to include this in -- that legislation which secretary nielson at d.h.s. very much wants. she was very clear. the department of homeland security needs this legislation to have the authorities not only to protect our nation's borders, but internally as well in case

there would be any kind of unmanned aircraft attack on a facility, and they have to be able to protect and prevent that. they needed this -- d.h.s. needed this authorizing legislation to be able to do that. so our bill will help protect important facilities from the security risks posed by anyone using unmanned aircraft improperly or dangerously. so we do this by providing the department of homeland security, department of justice, with the authority to protect covered facilities andcy sets when there is -- assets when there is a security posed by unmanned aircraft. i'm pleased that we were able to include them in this large, important bill. this is all different areas of aviation that are so important to address for our nation, and our nation leads the world in aviation. we lead the world in aviation. we always have. we lead in technology development, whether it's manned or unmanned aircraft. we're pushing the boundaries,

whether it's rocketry or anything else. the president is af indicating a -- advocating a space force. we will continue to do that because of the adventureus spirit of the american people, but we've got to make sure, our job here in this body and our fellow members of congress, our responsibility is to make sure we create the framework for our great companies, our great venters, our great scientists for these amazing young people with all of their brilliant and bright ideas to have that forum, that opportunity, right? that support, the regulatory environment where they can go out and do truly great things where the sky is the limit. right, guys, where the sky is the limit. that's where it is. it is not about the government doing it. it's about empowering the great

people of this country to do all of those great things and continue to lead the world forward with aviation. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: there's a lot going on in the world right now and a lot obviously in washington, d.c., but i do want to take a quick global look at some of the things happening in trade. i want to begin by what's happening in indonesia. it's a part of the world a lot of americans don't travel to too often. it's not in the typical sphere that people interact with. right now the people of indonesia is digging out from a massive earthquake and tsunami. many of those who have been

deeply affected by the earth cake have not been reached yet. our state department is already engaged, as we should to be able to help them in any way that we can. we've already released initial aid relief to them. we're offering our help in any way that we possibly can to assist the people there as they try to make sense how to be able to go forward on relief efforts. there are private organizations like world relief or baptist global response that are already on the ground that are engaging being able to help. there are americans helping the people of indonesia, as rightfully we should. we should keep our focus on what is happening around the world and where we can help, we should help where we can engage. we need to be able to help the people of indonesia and we'll try to keep people updated on that in the days ahead of how people can stay engaged. the president made an announcement dealing with other neighbors, with canada and mexico.

this is an issue that has been discussed for quite a while the president brought up in his campaign and immediately went to work on trying to be able to reshape the nafta ayeement. different states had different opinions about nafta, but in oklahoma, our number one and number two export locations are canada and mexico. our manufactured products, our agricultural products are moving northern south often to our close neighbors and nafta has been a win for us in building our own economy and leaching out with -- and reaching out in export products. when the president said he wanted to look at nafta, he wanted to look at what we could do to help. it was one of the issues i brought up with robert lighthizer, we talked about nafta and the importance of trade agreements. i met with greg dobb, the chief

agricultural negotiator multiple times. i met with the white house to be able to talk numerous times. i met with the president, i met with the vice president. we talked about how important trade is and how essential it is to get to a good deal. initially we were going to real solve it with mexico and leave canada out. my conversations with the white house were, i understand the problems with canada but oklahoma's number one trading partner is canada. i would encourage you to finish that out as well it is important to us. there there is a perception those who border with canada care about canada. we continue to interact with him in meetings, letters, phone calls, and was pleased to be able to see a trade agreement that actually came forward. there's a lot still to be resolved and we're still going through the details on it. the important thing to be able to come through is locking in some of the things we already have with trade agreements. when i speak to the people in my

state about trade, they will often say we want to resolve the trade issues with our friends, but the main focus we want to have is reach out to make new friends internationally. let's resolve the markets that we already have and make sure that's stable but let's try to find new places to be able to sell our products and establish new trade agreements that makes sense for our economy. it makes sense, quite frankly, worldwide for us. i was pleased to be able to see the administration step forward and say we're resolving the issues with canada and mexico and resolving some of the unanswered issues. when you go back to the 1990's, we weren't talking a lot about e-commerce in the 1990's when the nafta deal was first done. it was time for an update on that. it was time for a state like ours that deals with a lot of wheat that canada finally acknowledges the wheat that we grow is quality wheat. canada had a bad habit of every time we sent quality wheat to them, they would downgrade it as soon as it came across the border so american wheat was never the same quality as canadian wheat. well, sorry to say our wheat is

that quality and so that's finally being resolved back and forth with canada and the united states. simple things like what is de minimis products to be able to carry across the border with canada and mexico. might not seem like a big deal but allowing an individual to be able to travel across the border from the united states to canada or back and north with a small amount of goods that they purchased is significant to someone that's just going to be a normal consumer crossing back and forth across the border. to finally get that resolved, that's been a problem for a long time. and the dairy issues famously have been a problem to be able to resolve with canada, to be able to open up their market a little bit more to dairy products is very significant for us. this preserves and expands access for u.s. poultry and egg producers. it makes updates to the areas where we need modern updates. so i'm pleased to be able to see that we're finally moving in an area to be able to resolve this. there are some areas that i think still are unresolved. this issue about an expiration

date. i've spoken with the administration multiple times about. i think trade agreements can be revisited any moment. we don't have to set an expiration date on it. clearly they can be revisited because we're revisiting nafta right now to be able to renegotiate the deal. i don't think we need to set some future date in the future and say this whole thing goes away. i think that sets an arbitrary deadline on a trade deal that if it's working, we can renegotiate the areas that need to be tweaked but leave it in place. it creates greater stability. i look forward to having the debate about some of those issues and try to resolve some of those things. but in the meantime, i do want to thank the trump administration for doing the work that was required, taking on the trade issue that needed to be taken on for quite a while and trying to actually get this resolved. now that nafta is wrapping up and we look forward again to seeing the details in the days ahead and coming before congress for a vote as we see all the details and all the american people are able to be able to see this final negotiation. i look forward to seeing the next year.

the next year are the new markets. we have trade issues, for instance, with japan and united states beef. the whole world wants to have our beef and they know the quality of the beef that we put out. but japan has arbitrary tariffs that well exceed the norms against american beef coming to japan, that other countries don't face, that needs to be resolved with japan. we need to continue to expand our exports into multiple other countries. the trans-pacific partnership that was discussed in the previous administration that this administration set aside and said we're going to do bilateral negotiations rather than doing multilateral negotiations. i understand that but it's time to take on the bilateral negotiations. it's time to deal with the trade agreements and expand into new markets and new places. the american economy is thriving right now. we're continuing to create greater efficiencies, greater products. the world continues to want our products and the more we can negotiate those deals and find places to send them and people

that want to buy them, let's do t. i would add one more thing in this. we have a unique relationship with england. as the u.k. breaks away in their brexit vote from the e.u. and the trading block, they're working on negotiating a deal with europe. we should be aggressively negotiating a deal with the u.k. to form a trading relationship. there's no reason the united states and the u.k. shouldn't be the first major trade negotiation that they take on and that we solve. we have a lot of products back and forth. aerospace being one of those primary -- prime areas where the u.k. and united states should be able to cooperate extensively in aerospace. let's get that trade agreement going. let's make sure that we can get that locked in because in the days ahead, we'll want to continue to have our close ally with the u.k., including a close free trade agreement between us to make sure that we can knock down tariffs. this is a moment when the u.k. can walk away from europe's high

tariffs and high barriers to trade and say let's establish a closer relationship with our close ally with the u.k. there's a lot to be done in trade. there's a lot of new places to go. and there are some areas that i would tweak and do different, even in this new deal on nafta with the united states, mexico, and canada agreement. but i'm proud of the administration that they've actually taken this on to be able to solve it. as i've jokingly said, they've had the ability to be able to break things. now it's time to be able to prove they can fix some things. this is one they're fixing. and it will be good for the american economy in the days ahead to be able to see if it's done. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president,

shortly the senate is going to vote on legislation called the f.a.a. bill. it's the concerns of air travelers across the country. the bill before us has some key safety and security aviation measures. we've worked to cross the -- worked across the aisle to bring the congress a five-year authorization of the federal aviation administration. this is the first five-year bill of the f.a.a. that has passed and will pass this congress since the 1980's. and why is that important? there needs to be stability for planning purposes for the aviation industry. and fortunately, this bill is marking a new mark of bipartisanship that would allow

us to get such an extensive bill charting the authorization for aviation for the next five years. remember, mr. president, there was a time that during one year, we had multiple extensions, and that's been the inability to bring bipartisan agreement to the f.a.a. governing aviation. well, we have that agreement, and it's going in a five-year bill. i've already commended chairman john thune in hearing this morning on another topic in the commerce, science, and transportation committee. and it is that bipartisanship that brings us to this point. now, along with the f.a.a. bill, the bill will also provide long-term stability and continued focus on security and

safety at the transportation security administration, t.s.a., and the ntsb, the national transportation safety board. that's the entity that's charged with determining the cause of aviation and other transportation accidents. this bill greatly benefits the flying public. it ensures the f.a.a.'s core mission remains safety, and it helps american aviation and aerospace companies remain competitive and produce good-paying jobs. and in florida alone, my state, aviation and aerospace companies employ over 98,000 people. it's big time to us in florida.

and most important of all, mr. president, we have heard of weary travelers loud and clear with their cries for help and help is on the way. and that's why this bill contains a number of comprehensive consumer protections. we have all experienced the indignity and the frustration of being squeezed into smaller and smaller airline seats. and under this bill, the f.a.a. will be required to establish minimum dimensions for passenger seats. for airline passengers who purchased airline services that were never received, the legislation requires prompt refunds. remember how infuriating it is if your bag doesn't arrive?

what about if it's completely lost? the indignity that you have already paid for that bag, you're going to get a refund. and we've already a-- also addressed the needs of the traveling families by requiring early boarding during pregnancy, private space in airports for nursing mothers, ensuring strollers can be checked in at the gate, and oh, by the way, you know how cigarettes are prohibited on flights? prohibiting e-cigarettes, electronic cigarettes on flights. and the bill calls for the development of a bill of rights for passengers with disabilities we've also established an aviation consumer advocate within the department of

transportation. the aviation consumer advocate will now be there to help travelers who have been mistreated by the airlines. and those are just some of the consumer oriented reforms. it will be incup bentsz on the trump -- incumbent on the trump administration to carry out these improvements. and this senate will be enacting our constitutional responsibility of oversight to see that the executive branch is doing just that. now, aside from the consumer wins, i would also like to mention that the bill advances the t.s.a.'s mission of securing our transportation system by expanding the use of bomb-sniffing dogs. speeding up the deployment of

technology and addressing gaps in surface transportation security. the bill also addresses another topic, disaster recovery and response by including protections for local governments who have experienced a natural disaster by limiting the number of years that the federal emergency management agency, fema, can demand repayment of disaster assistance in cases that don't involve fraud or abuse. that's a real problem in florida where years later they call it a clawback, that fema is trying to claw back disaster assistance funds that it had already sent to the state or local governments and