>> and i'd just like to remind everyone that t-tip was not the most popular thing that the eu ever did and just, you know, supposing there's some kind of negotiation, just to think about the process of getting that passed and to think about how easy it would be for european politician to stand up and say, i'm taking this to donald trump. >> and with all of those elements on the table, how will these play-- >> we are going to leave the discussion on trade policy as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in shortly. you can watch all of our programming at our website, c-span.org. two items on the senate agenda this morning, we are expecting a final vote on a water infrastructure projects bill including spending for 12 army corps of engineers projects and authorizes 4.4 billion dollars in financing for state water drinking programs. the chamber is also scheduled

to vote on a resolution that would overturn a recent trump administration rule expanding short-term health insurance plans. now to live coverage of the u.s. senate 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.

eternal lord god, you are our hiding place. you alone are our mighty rock and fortress. thank you for directing our steps. today, provide our lawmakers with your peace, infusing them with the wisdom that strives for faithfulness lord, let that faithfulness so energize them that harmony will triumph over discord. may the effects of this unity be felt in our nation and world.

teach us all to serve you with all our hearts, souls, minds, and strength. we pray in your sacred 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: later this morning the senate will vote to deliver the most substantial infrastructure legislation yet considered by this congress to communities across america. yesterday i spoke about president trump's challenge to improve our nation's infrastructure, and i laid out how america's water infrastructure act will represent a major step toward meeting that challenge nationwide.

this comprehensive legislation meets all sorts of pressing needs unique to different corners of our country, from dams, levees, and flood control to safer drinking water and sewage systems. there are national issues at stake like the ability of american producers and manufacturers to access markets around the world. but the questions at stake are also very local. by way of example, i'd like to highlight just a few of the ways this legislation will have a direct impact on communities in my home state of kentucky. first, the bill before us includes a measure that will protect property owners from paying thousands of dollars in fees to fix decades-old surveying mistakes by the army corps of engineers. this is a critical issue for kentucky's rough river community where the army corps' own errors threaten to stick local landowners with a steep bill. i was pleased to lead the charge in crafting a commonsense

solution to prevent this kentucky community from paying a financial price for government mistakes. this legislation also halts the imposition of burdensome fees on water use in lake cumberland and extends my freedom to fish act by five years by barring the army corps from prohibiting fishing in the tail waters of barkley and wolf creek damn -- creek cam. for many my communities fishing is a hobby and way of life. this is not an area where the government needs to jump between americans and their backyard. we have to pare back this legislative overreach. here's one more example in states like kentucky where waterways play such a pivotal economic role it's also crucial the army be equipped to demolish defunct parts of our waterways and infrastructure that stand in the way of progress. these efforts will allow

communities along kentucky's green and barren rivers to make these waterways healthier, safer, and more attractive for outdoor recreation. i'm proud this legislation authorizes these important steps forward. this is the beauty of america's waterways, mr. president. it's a national issue, but it touches local communities across the country in very direct and specific ways. i'm proud of the ways this legislation will help kentucky. i know each of my colleagues knows just as many ways this bill will impact their own states for the better. that's underscored by last night's overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96-3. i look forward to similar bipartisan vote later this morning to send this significant infrastructure bill to the president's desk for signature into law. on another matter, today the senate will also vote on an effort by my delaware -- democratic colleagues to strip away health insurance options

for families whom obamacare failed. the first four years of the obamacare experience was one of failure after failure, skyrocketing premiums, broken websites built on broken promises. many families were caught right in the middle of the obamacare mess. those who earned too much or received subsidies but not enough to keep pace with premiums. so it became even more important to look for alternatives. the american people are resourceful. some held on to so-called grandfathered and grandmotherred plans. others looked for lower costs, short-term plans that could be held up -- could be held for up to a year. we all know that big government doesn't like it when citizens try to avoid the micromanagement and run their own lives as they see fit, so in the waning months of the obama administration democrats issued a new regulation that cut these plans from 12 months down to 3 months and made them nonrenewable. i guess the goal was to force

even more americans into obamacare. the real effect was just to punish these people twice for democrats' bad policy. fortunately this year the trump administration righted the ship. they undid the restriction and restored the status quo that was in place from the 1990's through most of the obama administration. it was a simple fix. it doesn't take away the choices they have under obamacare, but empowers americans to use this alternative choice if they prefer it. and according to even the liberal urban institute, more than 1.7 million americans will likely be insured with this option. who otherwise would have gone uninsured. but apparently our democratic colleagues can't tolerate even this modest step away from the top-down government control. they introduced a resolution of disapproval to overturn the trump administration's fix and snatch these options away from

families. we'll be voting on it today. so, mr. president, i know my democratic colleagues are embarrassed by the state of obamacare. it's been more than eight years since they passed their signature law that was supposed to make it all better. instead working americans are saddled with increasing costs and decreasing choices. but surely they must have a better answer than snatching away one of the remaining options that some americans still prefer to anything democrats have been able to come up with. this is an easy decision. i would urge every one of my colleagues to vote against this resolution. our constituents deserve more options -- not fewer. the last thing we should do is destroy one of the options that still is actually working for american families. now one final matter, while the senate was focused on judge kavanaugh's confirmation last friday, our economy reached a major milestone. according to the latest department of labor report, unemployment in the united states of america has now fallen

to 3.7%. that's the lowest unemployment rate since 1969s.3.7 -- since 1969. 3.7%, the lowest unemployment rate since 1969. the share of americans who are seeking work but cannot find it is as low as it's been in just shy of 50 years. there was other good news as well. unlike what happened too often in the previous decade, this drop in unemployment did not come from discouraged workers giving up their search altogether. to the contrary, 150,000 more americans -- more americans -- joined the labor force last month and the unemployment rate still went down. now that's an opportunity economy. that's exactly what an opportunity economy looks like. day after day my republican colleagues and i have come to the floor and outlined all the things we're doing to try and help generate precisely this

kind of economic momentum for the american people. roll back regulations, cut red tape at a pace that hasn't been seen for years. we've handed american families and job creators the most significant tax code overhaul in 30 years, lower tax rates, a bigger child tax credit, more help with small businesses and better incentives to invest and create jobs right here on american soil. our actions have been clear and our economy is sending equally clear signals in response. the highest consumer confidence we've seen in nearly 18 years, the highest small business confidence we've seen in 35 years, and now the lowest unemployment rate we've seen in almost half a century.

now i've said it before and i'll say it again, government itself is not creating this prosperity. republicans know that growth starts with workers and entrepreneurs, not with washington. but government can either put the wind in america's faces or at their backs. and there's little question which way the wind has been blowing these past two years. it certainly is not armageddon or crumbs, as the house democratic leader notoriously proclaimed in recent months. it's not disaster, as my friend the senate democratic leader has suggested. no. it is rising wages, more job opportunities, and new investment. and it's reaching kitchen tables in communities large and small all across our country. the real winners here are the american people. republicans are just proud of our policies, helping them do what they do best.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. and under the previous order, the time until 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

are. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: . the majority whip. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, as you know this woke we are -- week we are considering an important piece of legislation known as america's infrastructure act, the most sweeping act to be considered by congress this year. it will literally reauthorize billions of dollars of spending for our nation's ports, harbors, and waterways, and it will end wasteful spending on water projects that are no longer necessary. i want to thank chairman barrasso and ranking member carper for spearheading had this legislation through the committee. drinking water, wastewater

systems, dams, levees, ports and reservoirs matter to every single community in america. they are usual not front and center on our priority list though so people naturally take them for granted. we take it for appear given ta water will be available, that it will be treated and filtered and that wastewater will somehow be transported wherever it needs to go, and that dams and levees will hold up when they are put to the test by rising floods. actually, though, that's not the -- that's the case in many parts of the world and we in america do take that for granted because usually none of these present a problem to most americans. none of these problems happen in the united states if public and federal resources are allocated in the right ways, and that's why we can't afford to let our guard down and be lax when it comes to maintaining these important national treasures. and that's what makes this bill water voting on so crucial.

it's not just a drop in the bucket so to speak, it's one of the main reasons the bucket, our nation's entire public water capacity, functions at all. as chairman barrasso has said, many pieces of our water infrastructure systems are aging and in need of serious attention. they need to be repaired or replaced or other long-awaited projects need to begin. i know that because of some of the things that need to be done after hurricane harvey. the gaps in our infrastructure became acutely apparent as we begin the recovery process, one thing became clear to us, there isn't much sense in rebuilding without assuring that the region can withstand major weather events in the future. it's not just about fixing what is damaged, it's about making sure that future infrastructure will not be damaged because it's

been brought up to standard. so one piece of the bill we'll be voting on this week will be to allow the army corps of engineers to expedite a study on the so-called coastal spine that will run up and down portions of the gulf coast. this is part of flood mitigation improvement. the crucial first step is fully funding the proper engineering study, and that's what we're going to do in this bill. i want to emphasize, this is not just some parochial matter. it's not something that just matters to the city of houston and the gulf coast region. this is an important natural resources that important to our natural security and vital to our national economy. the second thing this bill does for texas is to authorize a project from an area known as the sabine pass to galveston bay. across more than 4,000 square miles of south texas, this bill

will update the levee system an in some cases construct new ones to better protect the area from storms and hurricanes. in places that were dramatically affected by hurricane harvey like clear creek and brave bayou, it will replace bridges and renovate dams. importantly, these projects clued cost-share requirements, shared by the state, local officials, and federal government when it comes to flood mitigation. as texas communities continue to rebuild from hurricane harvey and prepare for future storms, it's critical we take these steps to ensure the coastal region can better withstand major weather events. i'm grateful once we vote on this bill we'll be one step closer toward completing these projects as well as many others. finally it's important to note that in many ways the provisions of this bill represents a

continuation of efforts we began last fall. as you will recall in the weeks and months following hurricane harvey, congress passed three separate aid bills totaling $147 billion for harvey and other natural disoosers. and then in february we secured $4 billion in the omnibus bill to saving the galveston project as i mentioned. as we move towards passage of this important piece of legislation, it's important this is sort of the -- this is the bricks and mortar that congress needs to do. it doesn't gather a lot of attention and there's not a lot of controversy, unlike the supreme court appointment, you don't see thousands of people gathering in the halls or the malls or out in front of congress, but it is the basic building blocks we need to construct in order to keep our country staff and -- safe and prosperous. i yield the floor, and i note

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

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: democrats have long believed that good -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the democratic leader. mr. schumer: democrats have long believed that good health care for every american is a right, not a privilege. it's a tradition that was etched into our party by presidents roosevelt, johnson, clinton, and obama. we believe it's wrong to allow insurers to discriminate against women, older americans, and folks with preexisting conditions. we believe it's wrong to allow insurers to put a cap on your insurance or to offer insurance so threadbare that it hardly counts as insurance at all. people end up paying a lot of money for insurance and then they find it doesn't cover anything or has such a huge deductible, it does no good. that's why the affordable care act prohibited these abuses by

insurance companies. our republican friends seem to want to say the best way to get health care is put yourself in the hands of your insurance company. we don't believe that. for the past two years, president trump and republicans in congress have tried to wrench our country back at a time when all these abuses and loopholes were commonplace, at a time when insurance companies could do whatever they wanted. they've tried to repeal our health care law, gut medicaid and cause 20 fewer million americans to have insurance. president trump ended a program that helped low-income americans afford insurance. congressional republicans repealed the coverage requirement causing an unnecessary and completely avoidable increase to premiums this year. and republican attorneys general across the country, many now running for a seat in this chamber, filed a lawsuit that would repeal protections for americans with preexisting conditions. today on the floor, the senate has the opportunity to put a stop to the relentless sabotage of our health care system.

my friend and one of the great leaders in health care in this chamber, senator baldwin, has put forward a motion to repeal the trump administration's rule to expand short-term insurance plans. short-term insurance plans lower consume -- lure consumers in with low rates but fail to provide adequate coverage. many don't cover maternity care, mental health treatment, prescription drug costs and more. these plans are junk insurance, period. no ands, ifs, or buts. junk. we prohibited them in the past. this administration wants to let these junk insurance plans run rampant and let people be duped into thinking they're having insurance when it covers almost nothing. they are a massive risk to any family who purchases them and worse. they cause rates to go up for everyone else, even those who don't elect to buy one. that's why traditionally nonpartisan organizations like the american cancer society, the

aarp, the lung association have come out in staunch opposition. the aarp, for instance, says that junk insurance, quote, would force millions of older americans to choose either inadequate coverage or comprehensive coverage that's unaffordable. now, my republican friends say they support these plans because they give americans another choice. but if you asked americans would you like the option to purchase a faulty product, i don't think many would say yes. do we want a choice of buying a car where the engine doesn't go? of course not. that's the 1890's. we've changed for the better and people are protected. so this vote is not about giving americans a choice. it's about allowing whether or not we would allow insurance companies to scam americans with cut rate health insurance. i wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of that vote. an abundance of public opinion shows that health care is the number one issue to voters. my republican friends have

desperately tried to make it more unaffordable, harder to access. meanwhile, the one significant legislative item passed by republican congress this year, the tax bill, is under water in the polls. it may be it's hard to make a tax cut unpopular. but this one is. because so much of it goes to the wealthy. and republican leaders just rammed through one of the least popular supreme court justices in history. in a few short weeks the american people will head to the polls where they can vote for another two years of republican attempts to gut our health care system or they can vote for democratic candidates who will safeguard the protections in place and work to make health care more affordable. again i see my friend from wisconsin. i want to thank her for her outstanding leadership on this issue. i yield the floor.

dewayne dewayne proceed to

calendar number 627, s.j. res. 63 -- ms. baldwin: proceed to calendar number 627, s.j. res., 63. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 627, s.j. res. 63, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code of the rules submitted by the secretary of the treasury, secretary of labor and secretary of health and human services relating to short-term limited duration insurance. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: mr. president, just over a year ago in this chamber three brave republican colleagues -- senator john mccain, senator susan collins and senator lisa murkowski -- joined all democrats in voting against health care repeal

legislation. they listened to the families of their states. i too voted against that repeal legislation because the people of wisconsin did not send me to washington to take away their health care. when congressional republicans tried to pass repeal plans that would allow insurance companies to charge more for preexisting conditions, families across our country fought back. when the republican majority tried to charge older americans an age tax and make people pay more for less care, people let their voices be heard and sent a loud message to washington: protect our care. they sent us all a clear message that they want us to work across party lines to protect the health care guarantees they depend on and to stand up for

those with preexisting health conditions. but defeating the legislative efforts that would have made things worse for families did not end the threat to the american people. the trump administration has been trying to do what congressional republicans couldn't. they have been sabotaging our health care system and rewriting the rules on guaranteed health protections and access to affordable care that millions of americans have today. this sabotage has created instability in the health care market, contributing to widespread premium spikes in 2018. this administration ended the critical cost-sharing reduction payments that made health care more affordable for almost 90,000 wisconsinites. the trump administration again slashed funding for outreach efforts to help people sign up

for health care. trusted navigator programs like those in wisconsin have had their funding cut by nearly 90% in the past two years. this will mean fewer people in rural wisconsin will receive the support they need to obtain affordable coverage this year. but it doesn't stop there, mr. president. the trump administration has even joined wisconsin governor and wisconsin's attorney general and other states in going to court to support a lawsuit that would take away guaranteed protections for people with preexisting conditions. if they succeed, insurance companies will again be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for the more than 130 million americans with a preexisting health condition. in fact, the affordable care

act's protections for people with preexisting conditions, if they're struck down in court, wisconsin is among the states that has the most to lose. according to the kaiser family foundation, one out of every four wisconsinites has some sort of preexisting health condition, and they simply cannot afford to have the health care that they depend on threatened with higher costs or coverage denials. now the trump administration has expanded junk insurance plans. these plans are cheap for a reason. they do not have to provide essential health benefits like hospitalization, prescription drugs, and maternity care. and according to the fine print of one of the plans sold in several states, including my home state of wisconsin,

marketed by golden rule company, the plan doesn't even have to cover hospital care on a friday or saturday. so it will be just your bad luck if you happen to get sick and need health care on the weekend. and the very first exclusion states that it provides no benefits for a preexisting health condition. the fine print also notes that if you're pregnant, that will be considered a preexisting health condition. these junk insurance plans can deny health care coverage to people with preexisting conditions when they need it the most, and that's why i'm leading this effort in the united states senate to take action and stop this sabotage. mr. president, this is personal to me. when i was nine years old, i got sick. i was really sick. i was in the hospital for three

months. i eventually recovered. but when it came to health insurance, it was like i had some sort of scarlet letter. my grandparents who raised me couldn't find a policy at any price that would cover me, not from any insurer. all because i was a child who had been branded with those words -- preexisting condition. this is also personal for chelsea from wisconsin. she lives in seymour, and she has her family there and her daughter zoe who was born with a congenital heart defect. right now zoe is guaranteed access to coverage without being denied or charged more because of her preexisting condition. chelsea wrote me during that debate last year. i'm pleading with you as a mother to fight for the kids in wisconsin with preexisting

conditions that are counting on you to protect that right. no parent or grandparent should have to lay awake at night wondering if the health care that they have today for themselves and their families will be there tomorrow. but with the expansion of these junk plans, that fear could become a new reality for far too many families, as healthy people leave the market, increasing premiums for everyone , children like zoe may not be able to find any plan that her parents could afford or that will cover the care she needs. no family should be forced to choose between helping a loved one get better or going bankrupt. but before the affordable care act, too many families had to make that choice. before the health law, i heard from sue from boite, wisconsin.

sue's husband was diagnosed with lung cancer and they quickly found out that their insurance plan had a $13,000 limit on radiation and chemotherapy. well, that covered about one round of chemotherapy. when they needed to continue treatment, sue and her family used all of their savings, and then they maxed out all of their credit cards. and when they were facing insurmountable credit card debt, she told me, i had no choice but to file for bankruptcy. sue's husband later died. mr. president, we can't go back to the days when insurance companies wrote the rules just as we cannot allow the trump administration to rewrite the rules on guaranteed health care protections that millions of americans depend on.

more than 20 of the leading health care organizations in america representing our nation's physicians, patients, medical students, and other health experts are supporting this resolution to overturn the trump administration's expansion of junk insurance plans. they're doing so because these junk plans will reduce access to quality coverage for millions and increase costs. these junk plans will charge people more for coverage based on their preexisting conditions or deny them coverage outright. these junk plans will leave cancer patients and survivors with higher premiums and fewer insurance options. and these junk plans will force premium increases on older americans. i heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they are committed to protecting

people with preexisting conditions. now is your chance to prove it. anyone who says they support coverage for people with preexisting conditions should support this resolution and overturn the trump administration's expansion of these junk insurance plans. this is an opportunity for democrats and republicans to come together to protect people's access to quality affordable health care when they need it the most. let us join in seizing the opportunity to do what's right by the american people. mr. president, i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: the resolution by the distinguished senator from wisconsin is a resolution to say to the plumber in wisconsin or tennessee who's making $60,000 a year that we want to keep your insurance prices high.

we don't want to reduce them by 70%, and we want to keep 1.7 million people according to urban institute uninsured. let me say that again. if this resolution passes, if you vote yes, you're saying to the plumber who makes $60,000 a year, who can't afford to buy obamacare because his insurance premium is $20,000, we're going to do everything we can to keep your insurance costs so high you can't afford it. and we're going to do everything we can to keep 1.7 million americans, according to the urban institute, from having the option that this short-term rule allows. let's see what we're talking about. we just heard an eloquent comments about preexisting conditions, mr. president. this resolution has nothing to do with preexisting condition. it doesn't change one single word in the affordable care act which guarantees that if you have a preexisting condition,

you have a right to buy obamacare, and you can't be charged more because of it. let me say that again. this rule which the senator from wisconsin seeks to overturn not only keeps you from lowering your costs 70%, it has nothing to do with preexisting condition because it doesn't change one single word of the affordable care act guarantee that if you have a preexisting condition, you can buy insurance and you can't be charged more. a rule can't change a law. it couldn't if it tried. that's one thing. the second thing is the rule which the senator from wisconsin seeks to overturn is the same rule that was in effect during all of president obama's term. president obama's administration allowed one year of short-term plans for people who couldn't afford insurance, couldn't find it anywhere else, who might be

between jobs. even after the affordable care act passed in 2010, president obama and the democratic congress thought it was a good enough idea to allow these short-term plans to continue that they kept them in the law. the law supporting these plans has nothing to do with the affordable care act. it was passed in the 1990's for the purpose of giving people who need a short-term option that might cost less because it has less coverage the chance to buy insurance. states can regulate these plans. states may decide what protections they should have. states may decide what the price should be, but typically in 2016, the difference between the cost -- the cost between an obamacare plan was $393 a month for an unsubsidized obamacare plan and for a short-term plan was $124. in other words, the short-term

plan which the democrats and the senator from wes wis seek to over -- wisconsin seek to overturn which was existence during the obama administration was authorized in the 1990's would cut the plumber's insurance cost by 70%. why should we put up with that? the urban institute, not known as a conservative organization, has said that up to 1.7 million americans will take advantage of president trump's short-term plan, which was the same as the obama short-term plan except that under the trump rule you may do it for as much as three years instead of just one year. it says that 1.7 million americans will take advantage of that. that's a lot of people. 83% of americans who buy obamacare have a subsidy to help them pay for it. it's the 17% who don't have a subsidy who are most likely to

be helped by this. they simply can't afford a $20,000 health insurance plan if they don't qualify for a subsidy, and this says we understand that. you can buy a different sort of plan if your state permits it. you can pay less with less coverage and at least you will have some insurance -- at least you will have some insurance. but our democratic friends say, oh, no, we don't want to do anything that would lower the cost of health insurance. mr. president, sometimes i think that our democratic friends have elevated to the level of the status of the 67th book of the bible, the affordable care act, or obamacare. they won't even change parts of it that they agree with. earlier this year senator murray and i, and then senator nelson and senator collins worked together with many senators in a great bipartisan way to come up with a piece of legislation that would temporarily help with the high prices of health insurance.

make no mistake about it in tennessee health insurance has gone up about 170% since obamacare was passed. that means that the plumber or the farmer or the person making $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 a year can't afford to pay the $20,000 premium that they might be required to pay. so we had this temporary alexander-murray-collins-nelson proposal. i can still see collins proposing it saying that oliver wiseman, the respected oliver wiseman, saying it will lower premiums by 40% over the years by people who don't get a subsidy, hardworking people who cannot afford health insurance. what happened? even though the democratic leader said it contained provisions that every single democrat could support, the democrats pulled the rug out from under it at the last minute by insisting on a radical

version of abortion funding that they had not required since 1976, except in the obamacare law. in other words, they deliberately kept health insurance prices 40% higher than they otherwise would have been. was it to have an issue in the election this year? i have no idea. but i can think of no reason why not to do that. there's another example. the secretary of labor has come up with another very good idea that's been talked about within this body before. why not give employees of smaller companies the right to buy the same kind of insurance that employees of i.b.m. or big companies buy? half of all of us who have insurance get it on the job. we're pretty happy with it. it has a lot of protections in it. not as many as obamacare, but apparently democrats thought those protections were sufficiently strong, including preexisting conditions,

sufficiently strong not to tamper with. so the idea was, let's let the people who work in the company with 10 or 15 or 20 in alaska, tennessee, or wisconsin, let's let them have the same opportunity to buy insurance as an employee of a big company has. democrats said absolutely not. so we don't want to lower rates by 40% by a temporary proposal proposed by president trump, speaker ryan, leader mcconnell, we don't want to let employees of smaller companies have the same options as big companies have, that would lower insurance and give them more choices, and now we're saying you can't have a 70% reduction in your health insurance, the same proposal that you had during the obama years -- let me say it again. president obama said it was just fine to have short-term plans for up to a year during the

entire obama administration. they changed the rules 22 days before the end of his term and reduced it to three months that you could buy these plans, but that wasn't enforced until april. let's keep it simple. if you need insurance, if you loss your job and couldn't afford insurance during the obama years, if obamacare got too expensive during the obama years, you could buy insurance for up to a year if your state allowed it. democrats are saying we're not going to do what president obama would do. so we're going to keep your insurance high today with a yes vote. we're going to say to 1.7 million people that you can't buy insurance because we know more than you do. some people who might know more than we do are the national association of state insurance commissioners. senate democrats wrote them asking them about these short-term plans and raising questions about them. here's what the insurance

commissioners, a bipartisan organization, wrote back. quote, short-term limited duration insurance meets the needs of consumers for whom other types of coverage may not be appropriate, affordable or available. state insurance commissioners say short-term limited duration insurance, the type that a yes vote today would ban, those are my words, meets the needs of consumers for whom other types of coverage may not be appropriate, affordable or available. so, mr. president, i hope that across this country, as americans look at this today, you would ask the senator from wisconsin and her democratic colleagues, why do you want to kill a rule that president obama favored that existed all during obamacare while he was there, that gave people who might lose their jobs or couldn't afford obamacare a chance to buy insurance that might be 70% cheaper? why would you want to keep 1.7 million americans who don't have insurance, according to the

urban institute, from being able to afford these short term insurance? what have you got against lower-cost insurance that doesn't change one word of affordable care act's protection guarantee of preexisting conditions? in other words, with this rule, if you still want to buy obamacare and need free existing insurance protection, you've got it. this could not possibly change that because it is a rule, not a law. so, mr. president, i hope today that we vote no and that we affirm the trump rule, which is the obama rule, which is the rule that supports the wisconsin, oklahoma, and alaska plumber who makes $60,000 a year, can't afford $20,000 a year obamacare, gets no government subsidy, and needs this in order to insure his family. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the time for the majority has expired. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that i be acknowledged

for ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you, mr. president. i don't think that was necessary because i think i was scheduled to do that anyway. but what we're going to be addressing here in just a few minutes is a very sig p can't -- significant piece of legislation. we do a lot of things around here that some people think are important, but this is something that really is important. it has a long history behind it, america's water infrastructure or known as the wrda bill. that was about 20 years ago. we started this and we made a commitment at that time that we would actually have a wrda bill every two years, and we didn't do that. up until 2014 -- 2014, we had gone since 2007 -- since when we had one, and this needs to be done to keep our water infrastructure going, the things that we're supposed to be doing in this -- so we did it in 2014, 2016, and now we'll do the 2018

bill, and that's what we're supposed to be doing. the great way to keep up the productive momentum that we've sooner in congress leading up to the mid-term elections, delivering on president trump's promises, the wrda bill is another great example of what can happen when we work with our friends across the aisle on issues that affect every state of our nation. i was privileged to chair the environment and public works committee during that time frame when we went back to every other year and it has worked very well. people can depend on the resources being there when the time comes, and so i think that right now the -- it's a bill that is sponsored by ourselves, along with the ranking members and the senators of that committee, the e.p.w. committee, and the transportation subcommittee. so i want to take a moment to thank the members i just mentioned and their staff, and the staff are the ones who do

the heavy lifting without them being able to work on the legislation, we wouldn't be able to discuss it on the floor today and i appreciate that dedication. so it is going to happen today. there are a lot of provisions in the bill that will advance our infrastructure priorities. in addition the state of oklahoma will benefit in many ways as well. in oklahoma, that's one of the big secrets around the world and around america is that oklahoma is navigable, we have a navigation way that goes all the way from the mississippi river all the way up to my hometown of tulsa. i can remember when people, many years ago when i was in the state lenls is lature -- legislature, the world war ii veterans of the -- of one of the groups that was doing a very good job. they said, you know, we would like to be able to show, to demonstrate that we're navigable

in oklahoma, if you give us a submarine, we'll take it up to oklahoma. i went down to texas and found the u.s.s. bat fish, a world war ii submarine, and they were able to do it without any help from the government. they had to get on there and under bridges and lift it up to get out of shallow places. all of my adversaries, i say to the president, we will sink inhofe and his submarine. so we did do it. we have the mcclure-cullen navigation system. we have some things under there to protect that resource from what they call the three rivers report which provides a permanent solution for the situation we're experiencing from the mouth of the system where the white river and arkansas river are trying to merge. if left alone, they would merge. that would destroy everything that goes up from -- from that

area in arkansas. it includes language for bartonsville to navigate the murky waters and the water supply contracts and to change those contracts with everyone to get away from the idea that the army corps of engineers is going to be able to do something that is -- that would be prohibitive and costwise to communities like bartonsville, oklahoma. we support our nation's economic competitiveness by increasing access to water supply, we maintain navigate ability in the waterway. so hurricane season is upon us, we have recently seen the cruel aftermath of these storms and the flooding that follows hurricanes harvey, irma, florence, and now michael. right now they are preparing down there as we speak to evacuate. it could come to a mandatory

evacuation, but this is something that is happening. and events like this show why it's critical to maintain flood control and protect against the floodwaters. that's part of what this bill is all about that we'll be considering in a few minutes. it would also further address the need for repairs to our current -- for our aging wastewater and irrigation system, improving conditions across the united states in homes, farms, and businesses. we authorized wifia, a new tool by including senator boozman's s.r.f., that's state revolving fund, his win act of which i'm a very proud cosponsor. these provisions along with technical assistance for our small and rural systems will provide more help to our communities struggling to finance -- to upgrade our hidden vital important infrastructure needs. so maintaining critical infrastructure is one of the most important constitutional requirements -- required duties

that we have as members of congress. i sometimes have to remind people that often disregarded document called the constitution, that's what we're supposed to be doing here. that's what we're carrying out with a bill that we are about to pass here in the next few minutes. so i look forward to passing this legislation and sending it to the president to sign it into law, another win for america. i have to say that that committee has done so well. all the time that people are criticizing the senate saying nothing is being done, in our environment, public works committee, we get things done, the fast act, the chemical act, the last wrda bill and now the 2018 wrda bill. it's what we're supposed to be doing here. it's a significant vote and i yield the floor, eowe i yield the floor -- i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

in terms of trade, agricultural, job creation, infrastructure, heidi heitkam has been there for the state of north dakota. >> you talk about the economy, the president will run on the economy and take a look at the current economic figures, he'll take credit for that, how does that play out with women particularly economic issues? >> well, it's about the paycheck, what you bring home every week or two weeks, the ability to get better jobs and better wages, we all know that for every dollar a male earns it takes a woman almost a year and

3 or 4 months to earn the same amount of money. for women of color less than 80 cents a dollar. paycheck issues is very important for women and i also think the environment. that's a hidden issue. one of the unknown in american politics the number of people who care about our environment, climate change. as the native of the deep south, by the way, i watched the saints and redskins last night, i can't believe we watched that on so- called day and native people, look at the intensity of michael that's breathing on the people on the panhandle in florida, i believe all the issues would be important for democrats, not just the run against trump, we all know that the first year or the first election after presidential is referendum also on the president. >> again, women only for this time with donna brazile, the numbers will be on the screen, susan from virginia, democrats line, you are up first with our

guest, go ahead. consent the quoe lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent that the following fellows be granted floor privilege for the remainder of the 115 ghts congress. sherry santos, derek and brian kaplin. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you. mr. president, i come to the floor today to support senator baldwin's resolution to overturn president trump's junk plan rule. you know, since day one, president trump has been relentless in his efforts to sabotage health care for people in our nation. he has worked to drive up the cost, give power back to big insurance companies, and despite his recent campaign promise to fight for people with preexisting conditions, almost every single step he has taken has been in the opposite direction. president trump's awful junk plan rule which went into effect

last week is the latest example. his decision to expand junk insurance plans actually gives insurance companies more power to sell plans that ignore protections for people with preexisting conditions. it gives insurance companies more power to discriminate based on age or on sex. it gives insurance companies even more power to avoid covering important medical needs like emergency care or mental health care, prescription drugs, or even maternity care. and this roulettes insurance companies spend less money on patients directly and more money on excessive administrative costs and executive bonuses. this new rule shows how empty president trump's promises are when it comes to preexisting conditions. and it is not just president trump. a lot of republicans are claiming to stand for protections, for preexisting conditions. however, when you compare how

democrats are fighting for these protections and how some republicans are undermining them, the difference is clear as night and day. when president trump tried to pass his trumpcare bill and undermine preexisting condition protection, democrats stood with families across the country and fought tirelessly to stop that awful bill. however, most of our republican colleagues championed it. when president trump's justice department chose to abandon these protections in court against the republican-led lawsuit to strike them down, democrats rallied around a bill to let the senate join the lawsuit and defend protections for preexisting conditions. not a single republican joined in that effort. now president trump is undermining these protections through these junk plan rules. and democrats are again here on the floor leading the charge against him with the resolution that is before us today. and where are those republican colleagues who claim to care so

much about this issue but have done so little to fight for it? so far they've offered empty promises and even gimmicks like a bill they claim protects people with preexisting conditions but actually it allows insurance companies to discriminate based on age and sex. if republicans are serious about standing for people with preexisting conditions, they will join us to pass this bill and fight for them. i'm not holding my breath, but i am not giving up. democrats are going to keep fighting for people across the country with preexisting conditions. we're going to keep fighting for cancer patients and survivors and people living with diabetes and arthritis and other chronic diseases. and we're going to keep fighting for women who are pregnant, for seniors who are facing the challenges of old age, and for so many other families who might not be able to get the care they need without these important protections for people with preexisting conditions. finally, mr. president, i really

want to thank senator baldwin for her leadership on this really important effort. i know this fight is personal for her as she's outlined like it is to so many families across the country and i really am grateful to her for leading the charge. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

$4.4 billion to states and utilities for drinking water programs and motion to proceed a congressional disapproval resolution proposed by democrat tammy baldwin of wisconsin would repeal the administration's rule to expand short-term health insurance plan under congressional review act, congress has authority to review federal regulations and vote on the approval or disapproval of that within 60 days of receiving that. those votes coming up shortly here on the senate floor.

mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, we're in a quorum call i believe, is that correct? the presiding officer: we are. mr. carper: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: i don't know what it's like in alaska or wyoming or tennessee these days, but a lot of times when i'm going home or going back and forth, people say to me i wouldn't want your job for all the tea in china. i say well, i actually feel lucky to do this job. people say would do you like about it? i say i like helping people. they say really? and they ask for examples.

this is an example. one of the best ways we can help people is make sure they have a job, make sure they have a job. there's a lot of different ways we provide job creation, job preservation. one of those ways is our infrastructure. and sometimes overlook part of our infrastructure is one we address directly in the water resources development act which is before us today. our water infrastructure is actually the forgotten leg. sometimes of the infrastructure stool. we rightly worry about the infrastructure -- we can see our bridge, waterways, our regards but our nation's infrastructure, shipping channels, our flood control structures, the infrastructure we don't see as we've learned in desperate need of investment. the legislation before us today has received endorsements from industry -- let me back up. our nation's drinking water,

rather, our water systems, our dams, reservoir, levees, our shipping lanes support and promote economic growth and job creation. these systems provide water for everything from -- from families to agriculture to small businesses. this is infrastructure the americans rely on every day. and it keeps our economy moving. america's water infrastructure act of 2018, the legislation we'll soon be voting on, makes water a priority from coast to coast. as my good friend, the chairman of our committee, john barrasso, has said, america needs comprehensive water infrastructure legislation that will create jobs, keep communities safe and make the army corps of engineers and e.p.a. more accessible to stakeholders. the legislation before the senate has received endorsement from industry, from environmental protection groups, and everything in between. the u.s. conference of mayors, the national association of counties says that this bill drives investment in navigation and flood protection and

ecosystem recent store reagan administration that protects public health and safety and our natural resources. it is critical to helping our communities build, maintain and build and grow our local economies p i am here-to-a pplaud and thank our chairman, our staffs, everyone who has worked on this from alaska to wyoming. now i yield my time. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to complete my brief statement before the roll call is taken. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. barrasso: i want to thank my friend and colleague from delaware, senator carper, for his great contributions to this piece of legislation. it is an important bill, has broad, bipartisan support, broad bicameral support. 95 groups have edge ambassadorsed it. they represent a broad group from the sierra club to the

american petroleum institute. all agree that this important legislation is good for our country, good for our communities, good for our economy, good for our environment. from the wyoming wool growers association to the arkansas rural water association, to the milwaukee sewer, all praise the bill. the water infrastructure bill passed our committee, passed the house hon a unanimous voice vote. it is too i am to send it to the president for his signature. thank you, mr. president. i just ask our members to join us in supporting this important, bipartisan infrastructure bill. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the unfinished business. the clerk: house message to accompany s. 3021, an act to designate the united states courthouse located at 300 south 4th street in minneapolis, minnesota, as the diana e. murphy united states courthouse. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time on the motion

to concur in the house amendments to s. 3021 is expired and the motion to concur with further amendments is withdrawn. the question occurs on the motion to concur. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 99, the nays are 1. the motion is agreed to. under the previous order, all time on the joint resolution is considered expired and -- could we have order in the chamber? under the previous order, all time on the joint resolution is considered expired and the question occurs on the joint resolution.

a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. the joint resolution fails at passage. the majority whip. mr. cornyn: madam president, i have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate approved by both the majority and new orleans. the presiding officer: -- minority leaders. jrks i ask that the -- mr. cornyn: i ask that the clark nomination occur at 2:15 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: finally, i ask that the senate stand in recess as if under the previous order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate

will >> this weekend booktv is live from the wisconsin book festival in madison.

>> utah senate candidate mitt romney a republican and jenny wilson democrat debated at southern utah university last night. they are buying for the seat of senator orrin hatch who is retiring. the candidates discussed trade tariffs, gun laws, the supreme court confirmation process and president trump. the cook political report lists this race as solid republican. ♪

[applause] >> good evening and welcome to a debate between the two major party candidates running for utah's open seat and the united states senate. i name is bruce lindsey and it is my pleasure to moderate this evenings debate sponsored by the utah debate commission. this event held by on october 9 is part of the utah debate commission work of educating voters and to encourage the civil exchange of ideas. candidates that rahm and jenny wilson aren't with us on the camp o