difference. this congress is doing that, and this economy is ready for that. >> in the united states we cherish our first amendment rights. we cherish our right to predecision -- petition, our right to assemble, we cherish our right to protest and free speech. but over the past several days, with we've seen calls to kill the supreme court nominee. we've seen -- >> we'll record the democratic leadership when they come out. the senate is back in session, we'll take you back to senate iroor now for work on executive nominations. spined by 17 -- signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is it the sense of the senate that the debate on the nomination of jeffrey bossert clark of virginia to be an assistant attorney general shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays be mandatory under the rule. 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 53. the nays are 44.

the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of justice, jeffrey bossert clark, of virginia, to be assistant attorney general.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, could i ask for a status report on where we are? the presiding officer: the senate is considering the clark nomination. mr. markey: mr. president, i

seek recognition to speak at this time. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i am here to convey my strong support for the water resources development act which passed earlier today. with americans working to improve the quality of their drinking water and seeking to be more competitive in the global economy. this package will provide welcomed relief and support for critical infrastructure i've long focused on providing the resources needed to improve the maritime linchpin of the state's economy, boston harbor, but we need direct federal funding to fire on all sill enders, especially as we transfer to a new ship supershipping sizaa. two years ago the panama canal allows bigger vessels called post panamax ships.

these ships, which are the length of airveght carriers and carry -- length of aircraft carriers are too large to dock at boston harbor sood. that's -- today. that's why in the new wrda bill, i looked to fund $213 million which will deepen the harbor to accommodate the new ships. i'm pleased my provision dedicated an additional $16 million towards this crucial project which was included in the 2016 water resources bill. the boston harbor improvement project is projected to double the harbor's container volume, protect and grow 7,000 jobs, and generate $7.6 million in economic activity throughout the new england region. larger ships mean more cargo,

more cargo means more commerce and more commerce means more jobs for boston and the state of massachusetts. i'm pleased the corps has allocated $91 million for funding for the critical project thus far. deepening the harbor alone does not ensure that the port of boston can accommodate these new giants of the seas. we must deepen the berths, the area where these ships dock. that's why i'm proud to secure a provision in this bill that will allow the port to con obstruct more expansive berths, and i'm pleased to have help to secure a $42 million federal grant to expand these berths. now, by no means, is boston harbor the only coastal gem in massachusetts. in 2020, we will be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the voyage of the mayflower, but the celebration won't be complete if

ships can't get into and out of plymouth harbor. regrettably plymouth harbor has so much sand that ships are having difficult time navigating. and that's why i was able to secure a provision in this bill requiring the corps to dredge this important landmark for the 400th anniversary. just a few months ago, i helped secure $13.5 million needed to ensure this hallmark of american history is swiftly deepened. what this statutory -- with this statutory funding, plymouth harbor will be able to host a about big birthday party that people from around the world will attend. but for those who are living on cape cod, they are most likely to experience a little traffic on the way to the event, and

that's because cape cod is only accessible by two bridges which span the cape cod canal. if cape cod is the arm of massachusetts, then these two bridges are the vital arteries delivering the life lifeblood. this will determine the strength of the island's economy and health and well-being. regrettably these two 80-year-old bridges, which are owned by the army corps are structurally deficient, and that's a problem for businesses who need an uninterrupted flow of commerce, and residents who must have a safe means of evacuation in the event an an emergency. imagine if there were an accident at the pilgrim nuclear power station or the equivalent of a hurricane maria, these two bridges are the only way for many cape cod residents to escape to safety. i'm proud that this bill includes my provision directing

the corps to replace these critical evacuation routes, helping preserve the safety of island residents. in a time of emergency, massachusetts residents shouldn't have to think twice about the best way to get their families to safety. and the bill also includes legislation that i've authored to help consumers from unjust and unreasonable increases in their electricity rates. right now if the federal energy regulatory commission has a vacancy, as is currently the case, and deadlocks 2-2, on whether to improve a rate increase, the increase goes forward. to make matters worse, the public can't even challenge a decision in this circumstance, and that is exactly what happened in new england in 2014, leading to a $2 billion increase for our region's consumers. my legislation would fix this by allowing the public to bring a

challenge when -- for dead -- when ferc deadlocks. in sports, a tie isn't a loss, but the fair rates act will ensure that a tie at the ferc won't mean that consumers lose with higher electricity rates. we must ensure that rate payers are protected from unjust and unreasonable increases in energy prices. the legislation will help return power to the people when it comes to energy prices by providing an outlet for consumers to challenge rate increases. i thank senators murkowski and cantwell for working with me to move this legislation forward, and i thank my great partner in the house of representatives, congressmen kennedy, for his tireless work for address this issue and to protect consumers. i'm pleased that this legislation contains several other key provisions, provisions that will increase the funding

caps for three coastal protection programs, allowing new bury and sandwich to help for beach nourishment, reevaluate the muddy river restoration project to pave the way for this project, permit the town of sandwich to use sand pumped from the cape cod canal that would otherwise be dumped in the ocean to fortify their town from rising seas, ensure that the corps pays all of the cost for sandwich beaches which experienced erosion due to the jetties at the mouth of the cape cod canal and require the environmental protection agency to have liaisons to tribal communities so they can have better access to the various resources and tools provided by

the federal government to improve the quality of our nation's drinking water. from fortifying our communities to dealing with the present day impacts of climate change to eradicating the environmental contaminants from our water infrastructure, this legislative package will provide the funding and direction needed to help modernize the commonwealth's water infrastructure. i thank chairman barrasso and ranking member carper for working with me on this important legislation. i was proud to vote in favor of america's water infrastructure act today. it is something that i think is going to work very successfully for the state of massachusetts. it's something that, in my opinion, is the quintessential example of how bipartisanship should, in fact, animate the legislative process in this body. so, with that, mr. president, i

yield back to -- to the chair. and i at this point question the presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. murkowski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: request that the proceedings under the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. a few hours ago we had a matter before the senate relating to senate joint resolution 63. this was a resolution of disapproval which would have worked to disapprove of the rule that was issued jointly by the treasury, labor, and health and

human services regarding these short-term limited duration insurance plans. and i had hoped to actually have an opportunity to speak to this prior to the vote, wasn't able to. but i wanted to take just a couple minutes this afternoon to -- to weigh in on this issue from an alaskan perspective. because i -- i think there have been some suggestions that -- that with this -- with this rule in place that those of us that care about protecting those with preexisting conditions somehow or other, we're taking these protections away. i -- i have weighed this carefully and -- and, in fairness, i think some of the

arguments that have been made are perhaps not as quite clear cut as would be suggested, and perhaps certainly in a state like mine where we still have the highest health care costs in the country, and certainly some of the highest costs for in the country. i think members here and in the senate know full well that while i have -- i have opposed many aspects of the affordable care act, i have supported and strongly supported certain parts of it as well, and one of those things that i feel again very strong about is the need to ensure that -- that we protect those who have preexisting coverage.

that is a debate and i think is ongoing in other places as well, but i want to make clear that certainly my vote this morning is in no way meant to -- to erode or undermine where i'm coming from when it comes to preexisting conditions. back to the situation that we face in alaska. as i mentioned, we are highest cost in terms of cost of care, highest in terms of cost of coverage, and we are still one of those states that has but one insurer on the exchange in alaska. so our options are really pretty limited, and so as i am speaking to individuals about what they are hoping for when it comes to coverage, they're looking for additional options, but they're looking for affordable options as well.

and it is true, it is absolutely true that these short-term plans do not offer as much or certainly may not offer as much in the way of coverage as those plans that are offered on the individual exchanges. i understand that, but i have had to come down on this issue on the side of more choice for consumers, more options being a good thing for consumers. in alaska, our population, as you know, is relatively small. we're about 720,000 people in the whole state. but we're talking about 18,000 give or take people that are enrolled on the individual exchange each year. 18,000 people is this universe

here when we're talking about the exchanges. in the year 2016, which was the most recent year that the i.r.s. can give us information on this, there were about 15,000 people who chose to pay the individual mandate penalty rather than buy the insurance. so think about what that means. they are weighing this, and they're saying i would rather pay a fine, pay that penalty because it's not that i don't want the assurance, but i cannot afford it. so you have got 18,000 people on the individual exchange, 15,000 people chose to pay the individual mandate penalty rather than buy the insurance. and that's because if an alaskan does not get the subsidy, and a pretty heavy subsidy, the

exchange plans just aren't affordable. they just aren't affordable. so even though you want to have that coverage, you want that insurance. wanting it doesn't necessarily get it to you if you cannot afford it. the average premium for plan year 2018 -- this is according to c.m.s. data, was $804 per month. so what i'm getting from constituents is folks are writing in to me and calling me, they are telling me what they are playing for their plan. for a family of four, premium is over $2,000 a month with a $7,500 deductible. and when you think about what that actually means for this family, folks with those kinds of bills basically have only catastrophic coverage as it is. so you think about again the

number of folks on the individual exchange. you think about those who choose to not pay the fines. you look at the numbers of those who receive the subsidies in the state of alaska, which is quite considerable. we also have about 10,000 or so alaskans -- this is according to the state division of insurance -- that have enrolled in health care-sharing ministries. so this is yet another option for people out there. so a significant number have turned to these health care sharing ministries, and these folks have managed to avoid the penalty in prior years, but in fairness, some of the ministry plans do not provide much in the way of coverage. but it's an indicator of what people feel that they have to do in the face of just very, very, very high-cost plans.

so again, mr. president, i understand where those who oppose this rule are coming from. i had good long conversations about this. but i guess that i would ask that they turn to the realities that we are facing in a state like alaska. and just appreciate where -- where people are coming from when you think about the 15,000 splans who have chosen not to buy insurance over these past few years because it's too expensive, but they want to have something. they want to have something that they can afford, and these short-term plans, while not ideal -- i'm not suggesting that they are. it is an option for them to consider. and then what about the people

who don't get subsidies and are paying over $50,000 per year before their insurance covers anything? that, too, is a situation where they are looking for alternatives. so perhaps these short-term plans could be a viable option. and then for the 10,000-some-odd people who are currently using a sharing ministry, again, these types of plans could be an alternative. and for the people who may choose to drop off of the individual exchange next year, these -- these plans could be a path forward to some having some level of coverage. and again, i'm not saying this is perfect. i'm not saying this is ideal, but i am saying it offers a limited option in a place where we have very few affordable

options to turn to. another reason that these shorter term plans are helpful for us and why i have heard from so many alaskans on this, we're a state where our -- our employment base is very, very seasonal. you have got a construction industry. it's not like it is back here. construction is maybe six months out of the year, longer in certain parts of the state, shorter in other parts of the state, but you have got a seasonal job. our fishing industry is a great example. if you are working in the processing end of fishing, it may be three months. if you are working as a crabber, it may be two and a half months. if you are working on a tender up in bristol bay, it may be a very truncated two months.

but -- and then we have got the tourist season, which again we'd like to think that we can entice you all to come up year-round, but quite honestly, it, too, is very, very seasonal. and so we -- we need to have some level of flexibility for those many, many alaskans who -- who move between many of these seasonal employment opportunities. under the prior rule, a short-term insurance plan could only last for three months. well, that -- that's not going to help out, say, those in the fishing or the tourism industry or -- or, again, so many of these areas where you need -- you need longer term coverage but you don't need a full year. so flexibility is something that people have been asking for as well. where that sweet spot is, i'm

not sure. i'm telling you that for us, three months doesn't make it. maybe three years is too long. maybe we do need to look at that. i happen to think is i think that we have to have some trust in both our states as regulators and the individual, the consumers. the rule that -- that we were speaking about this morning really does allow states a great deal of leeway in regulating at the local level. we are seeing that amongst many of the states. i had a long conversation with our director of insurance up in the state of alaska, talking about where our state might take this, looking at, again, perhaps the -- the length of these short-term limited duration plans, how they might be regulated. but also, also the transparency side of this, because this is something that concerns me.

some of the things that we have heard is that people have bought these less expensive plans, the shorter term plans, and then when they need it the most, they realize that the coverage doesn't take care of them. that's not a place we want anyone to be as well. so making sure that there is a level of transparency, that there is a level of disclosure that is real and not just the tiny boilerplate that nobody can understand. it has to be, again, transparent in that way. so i think that this is one of those areas where trusting in our laboratories of democracy which are states to tailor plans that fit a state well. i think that that should not be an action that we hear in the

senate are not so unwilling to take. i do think that as we look to how we do more in this congress, how we do more to help those for whom health care and the cost of health care and access to health care is still their number one issue, still the number one subject of discussion. and i have come down on this particular issue today because there's about maybe 25,000 people in the state that could see some benefit from these types of plans being available and also because i believe that trusting the regulators and certainly in my state to handle the plans intelligently is as

important part of how we move forward as well. so, mr. president, i wanted to put that on the record today following the discussion from earlier this morning and the vote at noon. mr. president, i want to just transition really quickly and just take a minute because last week i think we all know was a very difficult time here in the senate as we processed the nomination for judge kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. that vote is concluded. judge kavanaugh is now justice kavanaugh and i truly wish him all the best as he begins his new term on the highest court in the land. but there is a residue -- i

don't know fits' a residue. i don't know -- i don't know how we make sure that we are able to move forward after difficult votes that divide us all and work to come back together. and i'm going to speak very directly about my friend who sits right here next to me on the senate floor. she and i went through probably a similar deliberative process. probably the same as everybody else here on the floor. we perhaps shared more discussion about it than i did with other colleagues. at the end of the day we came down on different sides, but both of us, both of us agonized over the decision and the process. she is now enduring an active

campaign against her, and it's not just an active campaign against her. to be protested at her home every weekend, to know that she cannot travel without a police escort, i made comments as i prepared for the final vote last week, and i said we are better than this. we have to set the example here. and i am -- i'm really touched that after i have taken a hard vote within my caucus that there are some who are notably angry at me but we are working together on the next issue of the day, and we're moving

forward. we need to set that example in this body because if we don't set it here, i don't know how we can expect anyone on the outside to follow us with that. there is a need for civility, and it is a hard time for us. but i would just urge us all choose our words carefully. don't be afraid to speak with kindness towards one another. don't be afraid to call out the good in somebody else, even though you have voted against them. we are better than we're seeing right now. so i -- i'm only smiling because i feel like i should recommend

my colleagues watch a movie, a documentary. i don't do that very often. but after the vote on saturday, i just by chance picked up a d.v.d. that had been sent to me. it's a documentary about the life of the career of fred rogers, mr. rogers. won't you be my neighbor. i figured i needed something just kind of calming for the night. it's okay to be good with one another. it's okay to accept people for who they are. it's okay to just find the good. with that, mr. president, i thank you for allowing me to just speak a little bit from the heart right now, but i would ask us to be civil with one another

now, not civil when the next election comes. with that i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i'm going to pose the pending nomination of jeffrey clark to be the assistant attorney general in charge of the justice department's environment and natural resources division. this is the division that leads the department of justice enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. mr. clark is not the right person for that job.

in 2014 he said the science of climate change is, quote, contestable. he represented british petroleum in litigation over the deep water horizon explosion and oil spill. he has represented the chamber of commerce and other industry groups in challenging e.p.a. greenhouse gas regulations. he is a favorite of the federalist society, having chaired that group's environmental property rights practice group. he is also a member, as i mentioned, of the federalist society. but his nomination is strongly opposed by groups that care about protecting the environment. the sierra club called him an outspoken opponent of environmental and public health protection, the natural resources defense council described him as an enemy of the environment. exactly the wrong person to be in this job of enforcing regulations to clean up our environment. just this last few days, the united nations put out an alert to all the members around the

world. we are going to pay dealer for this current administration's decision to remove ourselves from the paris agreement where in literally every country on earth agreed to try to do something to clean up the mess of our environment and leave our children a better place to live. we decided under president trump to be the only nation to step away from it. why? what in the world are we thinking? can you believe the things that are happening that are easily documented can be ignored? do you see the flooding that's going on now down in florida? on a regular basis? and that's just one of a thousand different examples. if we don't accept responsibility in our generation to make this a better world, shame on us. we want to leave our kids a better world, well, for goodness sakes, do we have the political courage to do it? will you be able to say to the president you're just wrong, mr. president? we have to work together with nations around the world. the united states should be a

leader, not an apologist. the president has said he wants to make america first. well, how about america first when it comes to cleaning up the environment? there is nothing wrong with that leadership. it's something that we should be proud of. this man, jeffrey clark, who is to be the assistant attorney general, just doesn't buy into what i just said. i can't support him as a result. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that this next statement be in a separate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you. mr. president, in the 2018 wrda bill, water resources development act, that we are considering on the floor this week is an important step in modernizing our nation's infrastructure and ensuring access to clean drinking water. if we are talking about the environment, one of the first things people say is i want safe drinking water for myself and my family. next to that, i want to be able to breathe in air that is not going to make me sick or hurt any member of my family. our nation's infrastructure is aging and in need of significant

investment. last year, the american society of civil engineers gave our nation's levees, inland waterways and drinking infrastructure a d in terms of its infrastructure report card. they estimate that $80 billion is needed over the next decade to improve our nation's levees. $80 billion. $4.9 billion is needed over the next few years to maintain our inland waterways. $4.9 billion. and $1 trillion is needed over the next 25 years to expand our drinking water infrastructure. these are massive numbers, and they are going to require sustained and significant federal investment if we are ever going to reach these goals. this bill, the wrda bill, is a step in the right direction. it authorizes $6.1 billion in funding for the army corps flood control navigation and ecosystem restoration projects around the country. these are critical projects in every state. i just went down a few weeks ago

with senator mcconnell on the ohio river, the olmstead lock and dam that has been under construction for decades was finally completed. it's an amazing investment. it's the most expensive single infrastructure project in our nation's history, civil project in our nation's history. it's an indication of the kind of investment that's necessary if we are going to try to tame rivers like the ohio river. there are critical projects like that in every state. they improve our inland waterways to help deliver $600 million in goods and 60% of our grain exports each year. if we want the united states to literally lead the world, if we want america first, for goodness sakes, we need to be first in investing in our infrastructure. these projects maintain levees and build reservoirs that protect millions of people at an estimated $1.3 trillion in property, and they protect the environment. they restore wetlands and they prevent the spread of invasive species. i'm especially proud that this

bill includes important cost-share change for future operations and maintenance costs at the brandon road lock and dam in my state of illinois. i worked with senator tammy duckworth on this project. the brandon road project is integral to ensuring that the invasive asian carp never spread to the great lakes. knock on wood, we have held up that carp from going into the great lakes, and in doing so, we have preserved an important part of the fisheries and the lake itself, and i want to continue those efforts if not redouble them. now, while i'm proud to support passage of this authorizing bill, i also implore my colleagues to remember that unless we are willing to work together, republicans and democrats, to provide these authorized projects with consistent and increased appropriations each year, then we're sending out press releases and not even getting the job half done. let me say it another way. it's not enough to go home and take credit for passing the wrda bill, which is an authorization

bill if you aren't also willing to pass an appropriations bill that actually provides the money to break ground on these projects. an authorization bill is just that -- it gives you permission to do a project, but then you need to go to the spending bill, the appropriation bill to come up with the money to actually achieve it. listen to this number, and i wanted to make this part of the record as we debate water resources and infrastructure. an analysis by the roll call newspaper from earlier this year found that while congress has authorized more than $25 billion toward army corps projects in the last decade, $25 billion in the last decade, congress has only appropriated $689 million. $25 billion authorized. $689 million appropriated. what percentage of money have we actually come up with to finish these projects? $689 million out of $25 billion?

2.7%. we send out all these press releases congratulating ourselves about projects that are never going to happen. we send out the releases and say oh, isn't this going to be great for future generations? we're not doing it. we're not investing in mr. america. slow and inconsistent federal funding for these projects results in years of added delay and millions in added costs. instead of funding new projects, we have to spend more on ongoing projects because congress just doesn't get its act together. democrats and republicans. i am proud of the work of the appropriations committee which i have the owner to serve on. both sides of the aisle do work to get their job done in record time and ensure the corps has stable funding for the next fiscal year, but this year's appropriations process should not be unusual. unless we as a congress commit every year to getting our budget work done and appropriating these federal dollars, we'll never get ahead on investing in our infrastructure. our competitors like china around the world are making massive investments in

infrastructure, not just in their own country but in other countries that are teaming up with them with an economic vision of the future. what is our goal? what are we trying to achieve right here in the united states and how are we working to build our economy and create good-paying jobs for the future? our nation's water infrastructure is in need of significant investment. the good bill that we're considering today is just a step in the right direction, but an authorization bill without appropriation is just an empty press release. i hope we can work together to ensure funding gets appropriated each year to actually complete these important projects. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. cardin: mr. president, i regret to inform our colleagues of the death of former senator joe tidings who died on monday, succombing to cancer at the age of 90. senator tidings was one of the most outspoken progressive democrats in this body. he was born to privilege. his father was a democratic senator from the state of maryland, a conservative democratic senator. his grandfather was one of our first ambassadors to the soviet union. his fraternal grandfather married marjorie maryweather post, who built mara largo in palm beach. he came from great privilege but was known in maryland as a senator of the people. his first elected office was president of the young dames of maryland. from there he became a member of the house of delegates where he fought the establishment, took

on the network in annapolis and investigated the savings and loan situation in our state and really shed a lot of light on what was happening in abuses in that industry. he was chosen by then-senator kennedy to head up his campaign for president. joe tidings handled his campaign in maryland for president kennedy and helped in other primaries around the nation, leading to president kennedy's election as president of the united states. president kennedy asked him to serve as the u.s. attorney for maryland, and senator tidings served as the u.s. attorney. he was known for his independence at the u.s. attorney's office. he pursued white c collar crime and political corruption. a former member of the house of representatives, he indicted and convicted as well as the speaker of the maryland house of delegates. he recruited young talent to his office in the u.s. attorney's

office including ben civiletti who went on to become the attorney general of the united states and steven sachs who continued to become the attorney general for the state of maryland. in 1964, he ran and was elected to the united states senate. he worked on progressive causes, including voting rights act, helped getting that enacted under president johnson, and gun safety legislation. after leaving the senate, after one term, he continued to be extremely active in our community, best known, i believe, for his work in -- at the university of maryland. he served three terms on the board of regents at the university of maryland system, giving back to the school where he graduated from both undergraduate and law school. and he was known as one of the most progressive people in the reform in the university of maryland system and also the independence of the university hospital. on a personal note, let me tell

you that he helped in my election to the united states senate 12 years ago and gave me a great deal of support, friendship, and advisor and a role model for me. i remember him being here when i took the oath of office as a united states senator walking me down the aisle, and i had a great deal of pride that he was with me. he's going to be missed by all of us. just an incredible person, a person who put his principles over practical politics. it may have cost him an election, but he did what he thought was right, and i can tell you we're all proud of his service to the people of maryland and our nation. mr. president, i would ask consent that my entire statement concerning joe tidings be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: with that, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. a senator: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: thank you. i rise with respect to the water infrastructure act of 2018 and the importance of it to the state of washington. this legislation is going now to the president's desk, and it's very needed to help make our ports more competitive, protect thousands of jobs, and help protect our salmon habitat in the state of washington. this legislation means that the ports of seattle and tacoma will be able to deepen their harbors and meet the much larger cargo demands that we have to if we're going to compete with other

ports on the west coast, specifically in canada. this legislation also improves the critical habitat for salmon in waterways like the puget sound in columbia rivers and helps utilities make commonsense investments for the future and helps protect ratepayers and the environment. i'm proud to have worked on this legislation with our colleagues because we need to keep moving forward on developments that help make our region competitive. our ports are essential to our economic growth in the northwest. i always say ports are us because we have so many along the columbia river and on the west coast. and trade is a cornerstone of our economy with $94 billion in exports and $91 billion in imports each year. so the fact that this legislation helps us on important maintenance and operations for both large and small ports, for lacks and dams

and waterways is so important to our future. it also helps us with important alliance that seattle and tacoma did together to help our marine cargo operations at the port which generate $4.3 billion in economic activity and 48,000 jobs are dependent upon. what happened is as the world market changed and large container ships could double in size the amount of product they were shipping, it was so important for our west coast ports to be competitive and able to serve these large panamax ships. these megaships which are twice the length of the space needle, wider than a football field, carry twice the number of containers compared to ships that typically call on west coast ports, they needed deeper waterways. to maintain the top grade lane through the pacific northwest and to compete with the canadian ports, the ports of seattle and

tacoma have to deepen their ports and make the navigational changes to address the large container ships. so the army corps and the northwest seaport alliance teamed up with seattle harbor navigational improvement study, tacoma navigational study improvements and many other partners to make sure we were making the right investments. so in this legislation the ports of seattle and tacoma are big economic winners. they're economic winners because we're authorizing over $29 million to deepen the east and west waterways at the port of seattle to 57 feet. and when the project is completed, the port of seattle will be the deepest in the country. it will allow us to serve those panamax ships and instead of having just 1,000 or 12,000 cargo containers, it will be up to 18,000 cargo containers. and the same we're expecting to complete a feasibility study at

the port of tacoma where it is expected to be deepened, which is currently at 51 feet. so these two projects are going to help us continue to build the reputation of the ports of seattle and tacoma as moving our products throughout the united states to asia quickly and reliably and reaching critical markets. we don't want our shippers to have to pay more because we haven't made these infrastructure investments. moving freight is what we do, and we made improvements in our physical land transportation infrastructure. this bill is about making it in our waterways as well. deepening the waterways of ports of seattle and tacoma will ensure that they can compete with canadian ports. it will help us continue to grow our job in the maritime sector, and it will help us continue to be a gateway from north america to asia. this legislation also, though,

helps us in restoring waters adjacent to puget sound and helping us with our salmon recovery efforts. for the last 18 years puget sound adjacent waters program has focused on protecting and restoring habitat within the puget sound basin. so using this program, the army corps was able to work with places like the city of jurian to remove a sea wall on the sea hurst park shore line. now that shore line is a habitat for endangered salmon and home fo bald eagles and osprey and attracting visitors everywhere. the army corps was able to us oo the program to restore critical habitat along the snohomish river that was lost in the early 20th century. the estuary now provides access to spawning and rearing and feeding areas for salmon. and puget sound, the second largest estuary in the united states, is home to thousands of species that also this will

help. over a dozen of these species are listed as endangered or threatened, and us helping by making these improvements to clean up puget sound and restore habitat is so important to the viability of the pacific northwest. the bill increases funding for puget sound adjacent water restoration from $40 million to $60 million and the pro-project funding from five to ten. these are just expanded numbers but they meet everything from meeting the goals of these projects around puget sound. we are returning our waterways to puget sound unblocked and providing cleaner habitat for salmon. for threatened juvenile salmon and opportunities in areas like spencer island and the snohomish river estuary near everett, washington. another project will restore title flows and create open coastline inlets at a creek originating near joint base lewis-mcchord south of puget

sound. so in this will help us restore spawning habitats, help us for forge fish and support salmon recovery and improve shore line conditions that are so important. so these projects are just an example of the diversity that our region uses when it tries to help our ecosystem known as puget sound and helping salmon recovery. this legislation also helps in making sure that those who make great improvements to our water infrastructure, particularly our hydro system, get rewarded for doing that and that they don't wait and hesitate to get that done. this legislation provides an early action provision for licensings on hydro systems to make improvements and make sure that they will be recognized later. this provision would remove an impediment and it encourages people to take corrective action sooner than later. that is good for our environment. it's good for taxpayers. and it helps us save on energy.

most importantly, it does not take away any regulatory oversight with the agency but rewarding people earlier for doing the right thing. i know a good example of this is rehabilitating units at rock island hydroproject, a significant investment of over $500 million. this area needs to have these upgrades, and this provision will help them get it done sooner. we also in this legislation are helping to fight one of the most challenging things we see in our waterways, and that is protecting the physical infrastructure of waterways in our hydrosystem from invasive species. the highly invasive guaga and zebra mussels have invaded our waterways in 20 different states. if invasive systems invade the

northwest, it could cost our system over $500 million in annual costs. that would be devoting way more of our resources just to manage that infestation. the columbia basin is the last major uninfected watershed in the united states. much of it to the credit of watercraft inspections stationed on the columbia river. the columbia river inspection station helps inspect these boats that travel up and down the river for such invasive species, and they require -- it's a required inspection in all state watercraft. so i'm pleased that this bill authorizes money specifically for the columbia river inspection stations. this helps us, because, as i said, as a river that hasn't seen these invasive species, the fact that we can still do these inspections is critical. last year, over 9,000 boats were inspected throughout washington, and the funding for the columbia river was successfully kept in these invasive species were kept

out. that means they were kept out not just in washington but in other parts of the pacific northwest as well. this legislation also continues the great down payment on the drinking water state revolving fund which was created and has helped our state in millions of dollars of annual grants. this is so important, and many of our colleagues know that this drinking water revolving fund, as we saw so many problems in flint, michigan, and other places is necessary for us to keep clean water in the united states. these funds help the city of linden replace its 1926 surface treatment water plant and enabled water supply to the linden community and surrounding area. the funds also have helped the city of prosser make investment in an aging water system to make sure communities have access to clean supply. and at the end of this week, the city of kelso will be celebrating the completion of

the minor road reservoir which replaced two aging reservoirs that were leaking that would have failed in the event of a natural disaster in the area. so the city was able to complete the project with the help of the drinking water state fund, and i'm so glad that that is going to help secure more resources for that part of our state. this also provides states and communities with additional financial resources to make investments in their economies for the future, and it also helps to right wrongs from the past. i'm pleased the bill also delivers on an 80-year-old promise by the army corps to complete tribal village development for tribes that were displaced when the dams of the columbia river were constructed. the yakima, the nez perce, yumatilla and warm springs all signed treaties in the 1950's and these treaties allow for the tribes to hunt and gather at all of the accustomed places but the army corps -- the sites were

designed for day-to-day fishing but out of a need they also were supposed to include housing. this has resulted in very challenging living conditions along the river, so i'm so glad that my colleague, senator murray, and my colleagues from oregon, senator merkley and senator wyden, that we have been able to make it crystal clear to the army corps of engineers we need to correct this problem. this bill ensures those families will get what they were promised years ago. so, mr. president, in closing, i want to thank our colleagues, senator barrasso and senator carper, as well as the leadership of the house transportation and infrastructure committee for all of the hard work on this bipartisan legislation. infrastructure investment when it comes to our waterways means jobs. it means the continued protection of clean water and for us in the northwest helping us preserve our salmon population. i'm so happy that we have finally taken another step towards the competitiveness of our ports in the northwest. these are real jobs.

we will now be able to serve in the future, near future with this deepening larger cargo container ships that will help us keep our competitiveness in moving product. and while we move about 10 billion products of washington, we move about seven times more of that from all states of the united states moving through our ports. so while it sounds like an investment in two very large port infrastructures on the west coast, i guarantee you it affects many midwestern states and many products in their ability to cost-effectively ship to other parts of the world. so i thank the president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. before my friend from washington state leaves, i first want to thank her for her strong advocacy around water infrastructure, and i agree with her that this was a great bipartisan bill. mr. president, the distinguished senator from washington state mentioned flint, michigan, and i

just want one more time to say thank you. no one stood stronger with me and senator peters in trying to help the people in flint, and i just greatly appreciate your help and support and advocacy. mr. president, i actually in addition to praising the water resources bill, which was a great bipartisan effort, some wonderful wins in here for michigan. i want specifically at the moment to speak about my deep regret that a very important resolution did not get the bipartisan votes necessary to pass a little while ago on the senate floor, and that resolution which failed would have stopped the administration's short-term planned rule which is gutting

comprehensive health care and undermining people with preexisting conditions from getting the health care that they need and deserve. about half the families in michigan have someone in their family with a preexisting condition. it could be anything from high blood pressure to diabetes to something like cancer or whatever other illness that it might be, and they are in a situation now with these junk plans, as we call them, where they are going to be undermined, and they won't be able to get either any health insurance or it will cost much, much more. i have often said that health care isn't political, it's personal. it is not political. we all care about being able to get the health care we need for ourselves, our children, our moms, our dads, and when a family has a child born with a seizure disorder, they aren't

wondering who their pediatrician voted for in the last election. when a single mom of two teenagers learns she has breast cancer, she is not concerned about who is up in the polls, who is down in the polls. when a senior is forced to make a decision between buying the medication that helps him breathe better or keeping his heat on, he's not interested in what's happening on twitter. health care isn't political, not to any person that i represent or to myself or my own family. it's personal. and it affects every one of our families, whether democrats, republicans, urban, rural, red states, blue states. and i wish we could come together and work on ways to provide more health care at reduced costs based on that premise, that it is personal, not political. when people tell me their health care stories, i can assure you

that they don't start with their political affiliation because it doesn't matter. they simply want to know that the health care that they depend on for themselves and their families will be there. that's why i'm so concerned about this short-term limited duration insurance plans which we are calling junk plans because that's what they are. they may be cheap, but they don't cover much, if anything, and you don't know until you get sick. many of them are medically underwritten, meaning that insurance companies can charge whatever they like based on the applicant's health, their gender, their age, their health status. remember when being a woman was considered a preexisting condition? i certainly do. these plans are coming back. they're coming back through these junk plans. and one recent study found that none of the plans cover maternity care. as a member of the finance

committee, i led the fight to cover maternity care and birth control services, other preventative services for women. that's pretty basic for the women of this country. and if you think you didn't need it, as a man, well, just ask your mom if she did. on top of that, these plans can exclude people with preexisting conditions or impose yearly or lifetime caps on care. as i indicated, it's estimated that half of michigan families include someone with a preexisting condition, everything from diabetes to asthma to arthritis to cancer. and under the affordable care act, we didn't have to worry about people with preexisting conditions being covered until it began to be undermined now through these new administrative rules put forward by the

administration. people like louisa, a beautiful little michigan girl who was born with half a heart. i was so fortunate to meet her and her parents earlier this year. louisa didn't ask for half a heart. she or her parents didn't do anything to cause it. louisa didn't have a choice. she needs comprehensive health insurance. unfortunately, that kind of insurance is getting less and less aivel. thanks -- affordable. thanks to short-term plans and other health insurance changes, comprehensive health insurance will cost over 12% more next year in michigan than it would otherwise cost, and it's only getting worse. louisa should be able to focus on starting school, growing up, learning to drive, going to college, and having a family of her own, not whether or not she will pay more for insurance if she can get it because she was

born with a preexisting condition. louisa isn't alone. she is just one of the estimated 130 million people in our country with preexisting conditions. that's 130 million people who could be hurt either directly or indirectly by these short-term junk plans. now, perhaps you're incredibly lucky, nobody in your family has a preexisting condition. these short-term policies are a good choice then, right? well, just ask sam who came to d.c. earlier this year to share his story. sam is self-employed. he owns a small landscape design business. in 2016, sam was shopping for health insurance. he had been healthy, aside for some back pain. he told his insurance broker that he had been to the chiropractor a number of times, that the chiropractor had taken

co-pays but they had not been able to find a diagnosis for his back pain. the broker assured sam that as long as he didn't have a diagnosis, he would be wasting his money if he bought anything other than a short-term insurance plan. sam took her advice, thinking he was signing up for a quality health insurance plan that would meet his needs. fast forward to 2017 when at age 28, sam was diagnosed with stage four non-hodgkin's lymphoma. what he thought was simply back pain turned out to be an aggressive form of blood cancer. after six months of chemotherapy and radiation, sam's cancer was in remission. however, his doctors told him that a bone marrow transplant was his only hope for a long-term cure. then sam heard from his insurance company. they refused to pay for any of

his treatment, any of his treatment, even though he had insurance, including the bone maim owe transplant because they claimed the cancer was a preexisting condition, even though his broker told him that was not the case. sam appealed the decision and endured nine additional rounds of chemotherapy to keep his cancer in remission. after months of waiting, months of waiting, his appeal was denied. sam was left with no health insurance, no way to pay for a lifesaving bone marrow transplant, and about $800,000 in medical bills, even though he had bought an insurance policy. sam eventually was able to buy some real health insurance, the kind that covers you when you get sick, and get the bone marrow transplant he needed. he's healthy again. thank goodness, but his finances

aren't. in his words, instead of planning a life together with my girlfriend and a future for my business, i am kept up at night worrying about staying afloat, how to pay the next bill, how to avoid bankruptcy. this is the story of too many people before the affordable care act passed requiring comprehensive coverage and requiring people with preexisting conditions to be able to get affordable coverage. as i said before, health care isn't political. it's personal. people with preexisting conditions deserve to know that their insurance will be there when they need it. families with a sick child deserve to focus on getting her better, not how they're going to pay for the bill for the doctor.

and small business owners like sam deserve insurance that covers them when they get sick or hurt and doesn't leave them on the verge of bankruptcy. that's what we're talking about. these current plans undermine the capacity for people to be able to get real coverage. they're less expensive but they don't cover much if anything. and the problem is you don't know until you get sick. what we need, what everyone needs is the confidence that they're buying insurance, affordable insurance that will actually cover them and cover their family. everyone deserves that kind of insurance. this isn't about politics. it's about protecting what's most precious, our families and our health. unfortunately because of the administration's actions, we are

seeing tremendous rollbacks that are putting more and more power back into the hands of insurance companies that are making the decisions based on what's best for their profit, not what is best for families. i'm very disappointed that we weren't able to stop that today. but i'm going to continue to try as are my colleagues, my democratic colleagues are committed to doing everything we can to make sure that people in the greatest country in the world know that they can have affordable health care coverage that actually covers their health care needs. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mitch began. mr. peters: mr. president, i ask -- the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. peters: thank you, mr. president. the topic of health care affordability should unite us as a common cause. we all need health care, whether you are young or old or male or

female, rich or poor. not one of us will go through life without experiencing a major health concern. even if you have a clean bill of health today, we all face the prospect of accidents, illnesses, and the inherent universal health challenge of aging. the affordable care act is not perfect, but it has moved us towards a shared goal of making health care more affordable for every one. most significantly, the affordable care act prevents insurers from denying coverage or increasing premiums because of a preexisting condition. this critical protection has been widely and wildly popular and rightly so. if you don't have a preexisting condition, you probably have a family member who does. the affordable care act also requires plans to cover a full set of benefits that enrolees will really leastically --

realistically need over the course of their lives and it encourages americans to have their health insurance so they have the appropriate support when they need it the most. i will be the first to recognize that there is room for improvements in our health care law, but we need to be working together to fix it, not allowing the trump administration to continue its relentless push to undermine the affordability of health care. since the beginning of his administration, president trump has taken every possible step to weaken consumer protections in health insurance. all the while misinforming the public about what the real impact will be on their daily lives. but americans right now are feeling the impact. for too many hardworking families, health insurance and health care costs are still not affordable. today premiums are going up. health care prices are soaring,

and the burden of cost is increasingly shifted to the patient. we should be focused on ways to strengthen our health system so it lowers out-of-pocket cost, removes barriers to health care and incentivizes cost efficiency. but the flawed trump administration policy the senate voted on earlier today is a step in the wrong direction. it is a step towards terrible coverage for consumers who won't understand what their plan fails to cover until they need it. we are seeing yet another trump administration effort to roll back parts of the affordable care act that are actually working every day to help americans. president trump is creating a new loophole for some insurers to ignore the affordable care act's central patient protections. this is moving us back towards a period where insurance companies could discriminate against americans based on their conditions, like diabetes, cancer, arthritis, and even

pregnancy. yes, even pregnancy. millions of michiganders rely on the affordable care act's safeguard for preexisting coverage. americans should have the power to choose their own health care, but unfortunately this administration has it backwards. president trump wants to give more power to insurers to not only choose who they cover but also what they cover. the affordable care act's ten essential health care benefits are truly just that. they are indeed essential. the list includes things like prescription drugs, hospitalizations, and preventive care. before the affordable care act, we saw insurance companies neglect to cover services like maternity care, substance abuse disorder treatment, and mental health care. these are all truly essential elements of any true plan. the trump administration is

allowing for risky plans that make insurance companies money while shifting cost to taxpayers and michiganders who choose insurance that covers these essential health benefits. the trump policy will create a parallel market that only targets relatively healthy, less costly individuals. and that was why i'm deeply disappointed by today's vote and the actions of this administration. the true message president trump is sending to the public is that he wants you to be misinformed. he wants you to make bad decisions and buy these flawed plans increasing the profits of insurers. american taxpayers will be left with a bill when patients find out that their insurance and all the money that they have put into that insurance over so many years simply does not cover their health care needs when they need it the most. no matter where you live, how much money you make, or what your health record looks like,

no one should be forced to make the impossible choice between seeking medical assistance or paying the bills for other basic necessities. regardless of what the health condition is or when it arises, all americans deserve certainty that their decision to go to a doctor will not push them into bankruptcy. let's be clear that any member who voted to support the trump administration efforts to undermine the a.c.a. cast a vote today against coverage protections for preexisting conditions and against affordable, quality health care for all american families. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor.

a senator: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to share the story of one of my friends, jesse klein elder. they own and operate one of reno's most successful businesses. ms. cortez masto: it's under the rose brewery. they're also the proud parents of a beautiful baby boy. jesse, her family, and her business are doing great. but when i met jesse last year, she told me that her path to this point in life had not been easy. in 2012, jesse left her job at a large firm and the health insurance it provided to pursue her dream of starting a brewery with her husband scott. about a year later she learned she was pregnant. during a routine checkup nine weeks before her due date, jesse's midwife advised her to see an ob/gyn. jesse, though, didn't feel sick so she hesitated but the midwife urgedder to go see a everybody -- urged her to go see a

specialist anyway. jesse's life was in danger. he diagnosed her with preclamps ya and rushed her to the hospital. her son was born a few hours later via emergency c-section. her doctors who blifer r delivered her baby -- who delivered her baby said had she waited, both she and her son would have died. in no uncertain terms, jesse told me that she and her son owe their lives to the affordable care act. without the affordable care act -- affordable coverage purchased, jesse would not have been able to see a specialist and she and her husband certainly would not have been able to afford the million dollars in medical costs jesse's son incurred over the course of a month-long stay in the nicu unit. jesse's son is now a happy, thriving toddler but he has a medical issue that interferes with his growth. jesse and her husband scott fear that president trump's efforts to

roll back ex-prosecutes for people with preexisting conditions will make it impossible for them to afford their son's health insurance. donald trump has not yet been able to get the support in congress he needs to repeal protections for people with preexisting conditions, but he has taken steps to circumvent the will of congress and hack away at these protections bit by bit. in august he signed and executive order expanding access to what are called junk plans. these are health insurance plans that don't cover essential services like preexisting drugs, emergency room visits, or maternity care. these plans are designed for short-term use only and don't include protections for people with preexisting conditions. that means if you go to sign up for one of these plans and you are a cancer survivor or a pregnant woman or a war veteran, you could be charged a higher rate. it also means you could be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for the care you receive in an emergency.

junk plans come in all shapes and sizes, but none of them comply with consumer protections established by the affordable care act. the kaiser family foundation looked at junk plans in 45 states and found that 43% did not include coverage for mental health services, 71% did not cover outpatient prescription drugs, and not a single one covered maternity care. junk plans appear cheaper than comprehensive health insurance plans. that is, until you read the fine print of the junk plans have low monthly premiums and astronomical out-of-pocket costs. president trump's executive order allows insurance companies to trick consumers into signing up for these plans. consumers think they are getting a good deal only to find out as soon as they get sick that they are medical bills are not covered. the american cancer society action network says that junk plans pose a serious threat to cancer patients' ability to

access quality, affordable health coverage. they also said that the present administration's rule will likely leave older and sicker americans in the individual insurance marketplace with few, if any, affordable health coverage choices and that patients living with serious conditions will be left paying more for the coverage they need if they can afford coverage at all. president trump's executive order to expand access to junk plans is not just an attack on our health system, it is an attempt to send us back to the days when families like jesse's couldn't afford the health care they need. jesse told me she owes her life to the health insurance she purchased through the a.c.a. where would jesse and her family be without it? what if she had not been able to afford a comprehensive plan? what if she had purchased a junk plan instead? 1.2 million nevadans live with preexisting conditions. that's nearly one in two. that number includes nearly

159,000 children and nearly 270,000 people nearing retirement. the junk plans rule directly threatens their health care. heather carballo summed up the risk that junk plans pose. she said, junk plans are designed to basically take their preexisting condition and charge you more or tell you you can't be on the plans at all. if they find you got a undisclosed preexisting condition, you're left high and die with no assistance. i don't want to go back where nevadans can't get the care they need or where insurance companies aren't required to cover basic services like maternity day. i was a proud cosponsor of senator tammy baldwin's resolution to overturn president trump's executive order. in failing to pass this resolution, the united states senate has done a profound disservice to families and communities all across the country. i will continue fighting to

restore protections against junk plans, and i encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, two years ago when republicans took control of the white house as well as congress, we promised the american people that growing the economy was going to be our number one priority. and we got right to work. under the obama administration, american workers and businesses faced a lot of obstacles

including burdensome regulations and an outdated tax code that acted as a drag on economic growth. we immediately focused on the one hand removing burdensome regulations. then we focused on develop an historic, comprehensive reform our tax code, which was signed into law last december. now, the tax code isn't necessarily the first thing that people think of when they think of economic growth. but the tax code, mr. president, has a huge impact on our economy. it helps determine how much money individuals and families have to spend and save. it helps determine whether or not a small business can expand and hire. a small business owner facing a huge tax bill is highly unlikely to be able to expand her business or hire a new employee. and the tax code helps determine whether large businesses hire, grow, and invest in the united states. a large business is going to find it pretty hard to create

jobs or improve benefits for employees if it's struggling to stay competitive against foreign businesses paying much less in taxes. and large business sun likely to keep jobs and investment in the united states, if the tax code makes it vastly more expensive to hire american workers. prior to the passage of the tax cuts and jobs act last december, our tax code was not helping our economy or american families. it was doing just the opposite. and so we took action. we cut tax rates for american families, doubled the child tax credit, and nearly doubled the standard deduction. we lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small business- and medium-sized businesses and ranches p. we lowered our nation's massive corporate tax rate which used to be the highest tax rate in the developed world. we expanded business owners' ability to recover the cost of

investments that they make in their bases, which frees up cash that they can reinvest in their operations and their workers. and we brought the u.s. international tax system into the 21st century so that american businesses are not operating at a competitive disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts. and, mr. president, now we're seeing the results. the economy is thriving. our economy grew at a robust 4.2% in the second quarter of this year. the unemployment rate is at its lowest level since 1969. almost 50 years ago. 1969, mr. president -- think about that. in other words, it's been almost 50 years since the last time unemployment was at this low level. more than 1.8 million jobs have been created since the tax cuts

and jobs act was signed into law. wages are growing at the best rate in years. and incomes are up 4.2%. businesses are bringing money back into the united states and business investment is up from an average of 1.8% before the 2016 election to an average of 10% so far this year. small business optimism is at horrific levels. consumer -- is at historic levels. consumer confidence sat an 18-year high. and, mr. president, the list goes on. that's a lot of stats, but they basically boil down to one thing, and that is that life is getting better for american families. incomes are growing. families have access to more jobs and opportunities and better benefits. and that means that fewer families have to live paycheck to paycheck. that's an unexpected -- been an

unexpected car repair or doctor bill is less devastating. that it's easier a ford that family -- afford that family vacation or the fees for piano lessons and that more families have money to save for their kids' college or for their retirement. that was the goal, mr. president -- getting the economy thriving again so that american families could thrive. and i'm proud to say that we're succeeding. i'm proud that our policies are making life better for american families, and we're not stopping there. we're going to keep working to secure the gains that we've made for the long term and make sure that every american has access to a future of security and opportunity. mr. president, i want to just take a brief moment to express my gratitude to judiciary committee chairman senator grassley for his leadership over the past months as we worked to confirm judge and now justice

kavanaugh. every supreme court confirmation process is a somewhat arduous affair. but chairman grassley had to contend with more than an increased workload. he had to contend with democrat colleagues who did everything they could to delay and disrupt the process and to tank justice kavanaugh's confirmation. but no matter what tactics the democrats resorted to, from interrupting the confirmation hearing to withholding critical information, chairman grassley stayed above the fray. he carried on with what needed to be done, whether that was compiling information from justice kavanaugh's time in the white house or interviewing witnesses. he made sure the entire confirmation process was thorough and fair. and he ensured that dr. ford and justice kavanaugh were treated with dignity and respect. i'm grateful that we had him at the helm of the judiciary committee during this process and i'm grateful that once again

he helped put an outstandingly qualified justice on the supreme court. mr. president, i also wanted to take just a minute to recognize the outstanding work that nikki haley has done as united states ambassador to the united nations. ambassador hailey has been a terrific ambassador and a real leader on the president's foreign policy team. she has been a clear, unequivocal voice for the principles that our country values. and she has been a tough and outspoken critic of the tyrannical regimes that threaten our country and the free world. i'm sure the president will choose an excellent replacement, but nikki haley will be a tough act to follow. i wish her all the best as she begins her next chapter. she will be missed. mr. president, i yield the floor.

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

quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, may i first ask unanimous consent that the pending quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. may i also ask unanimous consent that ryan edwards and kim bentsen, triple a fellows in my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: may i finally ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the senator from new hampshire, senator shah sheen, be recognized -- senator shaheen be recognized. she will be picking up at the end of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. it is a real pleasure to be joined on the senate floor today by senator jeanne shaheen of new hampshire. senator shaheen has been a

tireless advocate for clean energy and is the senate's bipartisan champion on energy efficiency alongside senator portman. the u.n.'s intergovernmental panel on climate change released a major warning last week. 91 authors and editors from 40 countries reviewed more than 6,000 scientific papers to assess what it would take to hold global temperatures to 1.5 degrees celsius above preindustrial levels. the report says we will need to invest roughly five times what we do now in low-carbon energy and energy efficiency by 2050. the shaheen-portman energy efficiency legislation would help move us toward that target.

the american council for an energy-efficient economy says the bill would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 650 million metric tons over a 15-year period. the cumulative net savings from the bill would reach nearly $100 billion. my state of rhode island is a national leader in promoting energy efficiency, so we know how good programs like the shaheen-portman reforms are for consumers, for businesses, and for the environment. rhode island has consistently ranked among the top states for energy efficiency. this year we are in the top

three on the state energy efficiency score card. to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius, the ipcc tells us we need renewables to grow to about half the world's energy mix by 2030 and to perhaps 80% of the world's energy mix by midcentury. coal in the global electricity mix needs to be mostly phased out by 2050. now the fossil fuel industry's front groups, of which there is a considerable legion, tell us that this will raise costs on consumers. but renewables are now beating fossil fuel power on cost, and

renewable costs are still falling. in a recent report on global energy trends, deloitte notes, i quote here, solar and wind power recently crossed a new threshold. already among the cheapest energy sources globally, solar and wind have much further to go. end quote. the deloitte report shows the top solar states here in yellow, and the top wind states here in blue. and these two -- texas and california -- are in green because they're leaders in both wind and solar. if you look at the top 20 u.s. solar and wind states,

three-quarters of those states have electricity prices below the national average. so clearly renewables don't hurt energy costs. and, by the way, these states include some of the reddest politically, including oklahoma, kansas, nebraska, north dakota, iowa, and texas. the cost transition with renewables coming down through the price of fossil fuel is showing up in u.s. solar projects purchased power agreements. you can see in this chart from green tech media that solar generation costs over time have come down into line with new but

natural natural gas generation. this is the price for new built natural gas generation. this dot right here represents a new project by next era energy to sell power to the southern arizona utility, tucson electric power, from a 100 megawatt solar array with an accompanying 30 megawatt energy storage system for $45 per megawatt-hour, right in line with new natural gas plants. one industry analyst suggested that this facility effectively took the place of a peak demand gas plant. defenders of old dirty energy sources paint renewables as

unreliable, as intermittent. but deloitte's report finds that renewables have actually proven, and i quote, to strengthen grid resilience and reliability, integrating renewable capacity into the grid has gone well in practice, and ferc analyses predict increased renewable uses to improve grid security and resiliency. the grid operator in iowa, the most heavily wind powered state, figured out a while ago the algorithms to treat wind across its grid as baseload. and when you pair wind or solar projects with battery storage, like that next-era project, then individual renewable projects become baseload power sources. you don't have to aggregate and

run algorithms. that's the new baseload source. the transition involves batteries and batteries are booming. wood mack -- mackenzie power and renewables projects worldwide storage capacity currently around six gigawatt hours to grow tenfold to at least 65 gigawatt hours by 2022. 2022 is right around the corner, a tenfold growth. and costs are falling fast. lithium ion batteries are down in price 80% just since 2010, just in these seven years, 80% drop in price. regulators are adapting. the federal energy regulatory

commission just finalized a new rule, a unanimous and bipartisan new rule for energy storage on america's electric grids. one study has predicted that the rule could spur 50 gigawatts of additional energy storage across the united states, enough to power roughly 35 million homes. energy storage is actually coming to market already. the colorado state public utility commission just unanimously approved an excel energy program to build $2.5 billion in renewable energy and battery storage to retire 660 megawatts of coal-fired power, shutting down ongoing plants for cheaper, new renewable and battery combinations. the request for bids didn't just smoke out this one bid, it brought out a flood of renewable energy proposals at costs that beat out existing coal and

natural gas facilities. mr. president, the ipcc warning was particularly serious and specific about the urgent choices before us, and we too need to be serious about a new direction to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. renewable energy and energy efficiency are our pathways in that direction, along with a new technology trapping carbon emissions to use or store them, even pulling carbon dioxide straight from the air. these carbon capture technologies have been starved without revenue because of a failure in energy market economics, which is that there is no revenue proposition for capturing carbon pollution. when polluting is free, the flip side of polluting having no

price is that preventing or cleaning up the pollution has no revenue. which brings me to the nobel prize in economics just won by william d. nordhaus of yale university. he aligns with the well-established market economics that polluters should pay for damage to the environment and to public health. that's econ 101. without that, the price signal which is at the heart of market economics is off and subsidies result. the market fails. and when the international monetary fund estimates the fossil fuel subsidy at $700 billion just in the united states, that is a massive market failure. nordhaus recommends that we correct the enormous market failure which the fossil fuel

industry now so busily protects politically. there is basically no alternative to a market solution, nordhaus said in response to the nobel prize award. the incentives, he said, are market prices to raise the price of goods and services that are carbon intensive and lower the ones that are less carbon intensive. the science on this, as i think most of us understand, is firmly established, and the economics is widely understood. it's the politics that keep getting in the way. the fossil fuel industry dark money politics. this is the last frontier of climate change, said nordhaus. i think we understand the science, he said. i think we understand the economics of abatement, he said. we understand pretty much the

damages, but we don't understand how to bring countries together. that is where the real frontier work is going on today. well, mr. president, america should be leading at this frontier, not lagging. lost in our fossil fuel politics, we are failing in leadership. history will not be kind with our failure. it is well past time, mr. president, for congress to wake up, and i yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from new hampshire, absoluting her once again for the leadership that i remarked on at the beginning of my remarks in working with senator portman to be the senate's bipartisan leader on energy efficiency. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president, and thank you to my colleague, senator

whitehouse, not just for those kind words but for all of the work that you have done and continue to do for the last six years -- continue to do. for the last six years, senator whitehouse has come to the floor of this senate week after week, every week, to talk about climate change, to talk about its effects throughout the united states and around the globe and our need to take action to address this crisis. so thank you very much, senator whitehouse, for your leadership. climate change is real and it's a present threat to our planet. senator whitehouse talked about some of the science involved with that. it's very clear to anybody who has looked at the science who doesn't have a political agenda that this is real, it's a threat, we need to address it. and in new hampshire, we're already seeing the impacts of climate change in so many ways. rising temperatures are shortening our fall foliage season, they are disrupting our

maple syrup production, they are shortening our ski seasons and our snowmobiling. ice occurs earlier each year on our lakes. they are causing sea level rise that could imperil businesses and homes along our seacoasts. the strains on our fisheries and the increases of insect-borne diseases that endanger our wildlife can all be tied to the effects of climate change. and i have here a photo that i think it's important for people to see. you know, moose has been one of new hampshire's iconic wildlife representatives, to put it the easiest way. the moose are something that we're very proud of in new hampshire. we have seen them in the wildest parts of our state, some even as far south as where i live in

southern new hampshire. what we're seeing as the result of climate change is a 40% reduction in the moose in new hampshire, and that's happening because, as i said, increases in insect-borne diseases. if you look very closely, this picture, which looks like there are these little round balls on this moose, those are ticks. those are ticks that have been able to attach to the moose and in so many cases kill moose, and they are there because it's not getting cold enough in our winters to kill off those ticks. and so they multiply in such numbers that they attach to the moose and they kill them. and you can see, this is a distressed moose who has been affected by those ticks. she shouldn't look like this. but it's the ticks. they are also responsible, those

insect-borne diseases, there is something called brain worm that affects moose as well. so for our hunters and the people who enjoy the outdoors, wildlife viewing, that's being threatened now because of climate change. the beautiful maples that produce maple syrup, that cause such beautiful colors in our fall foliage, those are being threatened because of climate change. and the estimate is that in several decades, we will no longer see either moose or maple trees in new hampshire because they will have been forced out because warming temperatures mean that they can no longer survive. now, climate change is also affecting the public health of new hampshire citizens. rising temperatures increase smog levels, they heighten the effects of allergy season, they increase the number of children

with asthma. new hampshire has one of the highest childhood asthma rates in the country, and that's gotten worse because of climate change. scientists have proven without a doubt that co2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary culprits for the climate changes that we are seeing and that human activity has increased the concentration of these greenhouse gases, and if p we're going to stop global warming, the united states must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in every sector, starting with how we produce and consume energy. and one of the things that i have learned since my days as governor is that the easiest, fastest way to reduce our energy use is through energy efficiency. it is without a doubt america's largest energy resource. it contributes more to our nation's energy needs over the last 40 years than any other

fuel source. without the economywide improvements in energy efficiency made since 1973, it's estimated that today's economy would require 60% more energy than we are now consuming, and, in fact, savings from energy efficiency improvements over the last 40 years have reduced our national energy bill by an estimated $800 billion -- with a b -- all while growing and expanding our economy. if you put that another way, in the last 40 years, we have saved more energy through energy efficiency than we have produced through fossil fuels and nuclear power combined. so think about that. think about the potential of energy efficiency in addressing our energy needs. it's also the largest sector within the u.s. clean energy economy and employs nearly 2.25 million americans nationwide, and the majority of

those people work in our small businesses, and we know that small businesses create about two-thirds of the new jobs in this country, that they are responsible overwhelmingly for innovation. 16 times more patents are produced by small businesses. so this is where innovation is going on, and it's going on in energy efficiency. so to just reiterate, energy efficiency measures have proven time and time again to be the easiest and most cost-effective way to increase climate change while reducing energy costs and creating private sector jobs. and the thing that i like will energy efficiency is you don't have to live in a certain part of the country. you don't have to be a proponent of other types of fuel sources to be -- to appreciate and support energy efficiency.

everyone benefits from energy efficiency. now, unfortunately, since he took office, president trump and his administration have proposed policies that seek to undermine america's clean energy economy and delay our progress toward addressing climate change. the administration has proposed rollbacks to clean car standards that will force americans to pay more at the gas pump and harm our environment. and here is a chart that shows very clearly what rolling back cafe standards, the vehicle emissions requirements, would do. by 2035, the rollback would add at least 158 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. it would increase u.s. fuel consumption by 13.9 billion gallons per year. this is according to the

american council for an energy-efficient economy. so if we think about that in terms of fossil fuels, this fully consumption, that's more fuel than we import from iraq or venezuela each year. so think about what that will mean for increased consumption. now, the administration has also proposed to replace the clean power plan with regulation that would relax pollution standards for power plants at the expense of the health and well-being of crept and future generations. appliance efficiency standards have been frozen in place, and after four decades with energy efficiency as a bipartisan cornerstone of federal energy policy, the president has once again proposed profound cuts to energy efficiency and to renewable energy programs at the department of energy. now, for those of us who support

energy efficiency, there can be only one response to these rollbacks. we must address them head on, and we must redouble our efforts to keep america on the right track. now, as a result of bipartisan efforts in the house and senate -- as i said, energy efficiency is one thing that we can get behind, republicans and democrats. last month, the president signed into law a spending bill that includes increased investments for clean energy programs at the department of energy, something that had strong bipartisan support. in addition to increasing those investments, this legislation, this appropriations bill marks the first time since 2009, so the first time since i have been here in the senate that the department of energy will secure its funding before the start of the fiscal year, and this financial certainty will

strengthen these programs and the industries that they support. the passage of the energy and water appropriations bill that we did today demonstrates that congress remains committed to advancing commonsense bipartisan policies that will strengthen our nation's energy efficiency. and just last week, this senate adopted a bipartisan resolution that was sponsored by senator portman of ohio and me, along with 19 of our colleagues that recognizes the economic and environmental benefits that energy efficiency has contributed to this country. senator portman and i are also committed to advancing our legislation to spur energy efficiency innovation and other initiatives across the most energy-intensive sectors of our economy. senator whitehouse talked about the efforts that we have engaged in over the last seven years. we have introduced our bill into

congress, in each congress over the past seven years. each time, we're getting a little more momentum in getting this through. we have gotten certain provisions of the bill through in the last two congresses, but it's been far too long since congress passed the comprehensive energy bill, so it's time for us to work together to pass an energy bill that includes energy efficiency. this is bipartisan legislation. if it were brought to the floor today, i guarantee you it would pass overwhelmingly, and it would improve our nation's energy policies and help to grow the economy. and we have some great examples of what's being done. senator whitehouse talked about some of those, but what's being done around the country to address energy efficiency and reduce our energy use. new hampshire, like rhode island, is one of the states that's part of the regional

greenhouse gas initiative. at the state, local, and grassroots levels, individuals, businesses, and governments are rising to the challenge by intensifying their efforts to advance energy efficiency and clean energy. and we can see this shows what happened for the states that have been part of the regional gas emotion. carbon has gone down 51% and electricity costs have gone down 6.4%. if you don't support energy efficiency for any other reason, you should support it because it reduces your costs. look how much energy savings to consumers, $773 million. since 2009 the nine states in the regional greenhouse gas

initiative have outperformed the national average in terms of all of these measures. now, because the majority of proceeds are invested in energy efficiency, they have allowed electricity prices to fall, and they have saved consumers millions on their energy bills and, as we look in the out years, billions more are expected in savings thanks to those investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy under the regional greenhouse gas initiative. in august of 2017, rggi will decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 2024. they will make smart clean energy choices that is better for the environment an will

strengthen the economy. those who say they need a market-driven approach to addressing climate change, this is a perfect example of that. so, mr. president, climate change represents an enormous challenge, but solutions are within reach if we put into place policies that will allow for swift action. we have a responsibility to help protect our children and grandchildren from the severe consequences of global warming, and we've got to start now and we've got stoort with energy efficient -- start with energy efficiency. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i would note that my allergies are a result of that climate change. thank you.

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

mr. sullivan: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: question. mr. sullivan: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, as you know i have been coming down here nearly every week, usual tuesday, wednesday, thursday, to talk about somebody who has made a difference in my state and i call this person the alaskan of the week. most of the people who visit alaska do so in the summer, and i was honored that the presiding officer and his family came up to visit this summer, and we know that's understandable to come up when the sun is high in the sky. but this time of the year is truly magnificent in my great state. to borrow a phrase that is no

doubt familiar to many, including some of the pages, winter is coming. winter is coming. every day the sun comes up later and sets earlier. snow is already on the ground in some places in alaska, and in some places in the state the mountains are dusted, termination dust, we call it, and that dust is quickly turning into deep snow and making its way down the mountains. it won't be long before it spreads out all around our communities and anchorage and the cities. the whole state is crackling with energy to get ready for the long winter, like we do every year. for some, particularly for the hungry and homeless, winter in alaska can be incredibly difficult, incredibly challenging. actually, as we all know here, for the hungry and the homeless, any time of the year can be incredibly difficult and

challenging, but in anchorage, there's a place where everyone, no matter who you are, is greeted with dignity and respect and a hot meal. the place is called beans cafe. and the person who makes sure it always happens, all comes together is lisa souter, the executive director of beans cafe, and lisa is our alaskan of the week. mr. president, let me tell you a little bit about lisa. she was born in anchorage, moved to the west coast with her parents when she was a young teenager, and when she graduated from pepperdine university with a degree in communications and political science, she was on her way back home to alaska. alaska always calls you when you leave it, she said. it's always the place that feels most like home. she worked at a local bank, the anchorage convention and visitors center, where she was

able to travel all around the country into visiting our great state, particularly in the offseasons like fall, like now. then her husband's job took them to the east coast where they stayed for some time, but once again alaska beckoned and they returned. shortly after coming back home again, lisa saw an ad to help run beans cafe, and she knew she had to go for it. she knew that passion was in her heart. the fact that it's completely local and completely community supported was a huge lure to her, she said. but so was helping and working with the homeless throughout the state. lisa's uncle, for example, was a vietnam veteran with mental health challenges after serving in vietnam. and for decades he lived on the streets in seattle. she saw the pain that her

uncle's homelessness caused her mom and the rest of the family, and, of course, her uncle, but then he got help at a place like beans cafe, and she also saw the positive impact that not only had on her uncle but the entire family, the entire community. mr. president, beans is an anchorage institution. it's serves breakfast and lunch every day, about 950 meals a day, to the hungry and the homeless. this requires the work of about 120 volunteers a day, people from all across the community who come to help out. on any given day, you will see, say, a business executive, maybe a pastor, a construction worker, politicians, so many from all walks of life serving food to the homeless an hungry. you -- and hungry.

you will also see the recipients of that generosity of that food volunteering themselves, all of them. such a supportive community working together to help one another. bean's is so much more than a place for a meal. it serves as a mailing address for their clients. it's a place where you can call a loved one, a place to get some dry socks and a hat and a coat. warm clothing for the cold winter. you can get help with your v.a. benefits. you can get help finding a job or it's just a place to get out from the cold for a few hours. lisa said oftentimes the day that someone walks into bean's cafe is the worst day of that person's life, and we're there to greet them with compassion and respect. lisa's also expanded the program to include a very popular program now in anchorage called children's lunch box which

provides after-school and weekend meals for children. all told between the meals served at bean's and for the children's lunch box under lisa's guidance and leadership and passion, more than 700,000 meals were served last year. 700,000. lisa loves her job. she loves how supportive the community is. she loves watching people grow and helping them get the help they need, and then them coming back to help others. we're very fortunate here, she said. we get to help people, which is a passion and not everybody can say that. lisa's work extends far beyond bean's cafe and the children's lunchbox. she's also very involved in alaska's recovery community from addiction, recovery from addiction, particularly in the past few years. mr. president, alaska,

anchorage, like the rest of the community isn't immune to what's happening all across the country with regard to the opioid and heroin crisis. the good news is we are working here in the senate and in the house on this issue. we just passed a bill, a very important bill that's going to help states and communities address this, but we have a long way to go. too many young people, people of all ages are being lost to us because of this horrible epidemic, and unfortunately and very tragically, lisa's son tucker, 23 years old, was one of these that we lost. she has put the pain, the deep, deep pain of losing her son to good work. she has turned into a fierce advocate for those suffering from addiction. she talks about tucker often wanting people to know that this

can happen to anyone. that's why we need to continue to focus on it. and through her work and the work of so many advocates across the state, people are finally getting the help they need. the peer mentorship that is going on right now is really saving lives, lisa said. so much progress has been made. there are so many people who have really helped to shine a light on the issue. mr. president, lisa's such a force for good in my state. she has tenacity, grit, courage, and a huge heart doing so many things. and for that we want to thank her, lisa, for all you're doing and congratulations on being our alaskan of the week. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. today in the senate, we were faced with two opportunities to

side with cancer patients over insurance companies. in our country, almost everybody would say you ought to side with the cancer patients over the insurance companies, but the senate frankly failed again in both cases. let me explain. today as we consider this, you want to make clear whose side we're on and the side that this senate chose and it looks like the committee -- the judiciary committee chose is not the side of patients. this morning i spoke -- testified at judiciary committee's hearing on the white house's two nominees to the sixth circuit court of appeals,. both of the men have a record of stritching ohioans of their rights. mr. readler's actions on health care are particularly threatening to americans, not just the 500 million ohioans but

millions of americans with preexisting conditions. five million ohioans under age 65, as i said. half the population of my state. because the affordable care act, these ohioans can rest a little easier knowing they can't be turned down for health care coverage or have their rates skyrocketed because their husband has asthma or their wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. but mr. readler is willing to take that peace of mind away and throw those families into financial chaos. this summer he did what three career attorneys with the department of justice refused to do he filed a brief challenging the law, protecting americans with preexisting conditions. the next day the white house appointed him to a federal circuit court judgeship. this unprecedented move earned him rebukes. this filing this brief earned him rebukes from across the legal community. three career attorneys withdrew from the case. one actually resigned in objection to the department of

justice's unprecedented action. our republican senate colleague from tennessee, senator alexander called the brief as far-fetched as any he's ever heard, but mr. readler had no problem putting his name right at the top and filing it. we should not be putting anyone who puts partisanship ahead of cancer patients or ahead of people with diabetes or ahead of someone with high blood pressure, putting partisanship ahead of americans' health care, putting them on the bench for life. unfortunately, the white house is also chipping away at the ability of ohioans with preexisting conditions to get affordable coverage that actually covers their condition. again, we're talking about five million ohioan, tens of millions of americans. you can talk about ant and autism. -- anxiety and autism, or heartburn or high cholesterol, stroke, we're talking about families. we're talking about neighbors. we're talking about some of the people in this body. everyone here, by the way, of course, mr. president, takes

care of themselves. we all have good health insurance. we just don't mind apparently -- we don't mind denying it to millions of others. so some senators think it's fine letting insurance companies sell junk to our constituents back home. these insurance policies are just that, they're junk. they're insurance until you need the insurance. allowing insurance companies to sell these plans, drive up health care for everyone, they weaken protection for anyone with a preexisting condition. under their new rules, insurance companies could force americans with preexisting conditions into these junk plans and junk is the right word that barely cover anything, or they can charge them exorbitant, unaffordable rates for a decent plan. half my colleagues, exactly half, the vote of senator baldwin's motion, senator baldwin has been a hero on this from wisconsin, ha of my colleagues all -- half my colleagues all with help paid for by taxpayers tell the people, sorry, you're on your own. we're letting insurance companies do whatever they want,

rip you off, hike up your costs, the way it goes. it all comes down, mr. president, to whose side are you on? chad readler, the president's nomination for the sixth circuit has made it clear. he stands with insurance companies, not with cancer patients. the administration has made it clear they stand with insurance companies, not kids with asthma. and today the senate chose to stand with those insurance companies over their constituents who need prescription medicines. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to place -- to have the next section in a different part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, a free independent press is critical to our democracy. reporters do vital work, not just in washington but around the country. they shine a light on the important issues in our communities. right now that means covering the addiction crisis that grips our country. today alone if today is an average day in ohio as i assume it is, 11 people will die from opioid overdose. yesterday 11 died.

tomorrow 11 will die. friday 11 will die. we've been working bipartisanly to help get communities the resources they need. this month we passed a bipartisan package to fight opioid addiction. it's a start. we need more help from the generally disengaged white house. we need a state government to get out from under its corruption day to day that afflicts it and get out and do what they should be doing on fiefting the opioid a-- fighting the opioid addiction. everyone has a role to play. local journalists do vital work. that's why this week i want to highlight another story in an ohioan paper informing the public reported by a journalist serving his community. i remind my colleagues that the media are not the enemy of the people as the white house likes to say, but they serve our communities. they live in our communities. they're part of our communities. they fight for our communities. joshua curen reported on the

local addiction center. it's the oldest and most comprehensive treatment center, a great partner to my office and work, along with senator portman to help ohioans fighting addiction. and my conversations with clients, it's clear what a difference this organization makes in so many lives in central ohio. he reported on maryhaven families and recovery program which provides education, training and consulling support for families confronted with substance problems. through its reporting the delaware gazette is raising awareness about this important local resource. this kind of reporting is what journalists do every day in every community in utah, in rhode island, in ohio, and across the country. that's why they are deserving of respect. we should reject the out and out attacks by the president of the united states and others who call journalism and journalists in the media enemies of the people. they serve their readers. they serve their viewers. they serve their communities.

they deserve our respect. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today i rise to continue my series of speeches on russian hybrid warfare and the threat it poses to our national security. russian hybrid warfare occurs below the level of direct military conflict, yet it is no less a threat to our national security and the integrity of our democracy and our society. we must refrain our thinking to understand these are attacks from a foreign adversary on our democratic institutions, our free markets, and our open society. we recently honored our fallen

and observed the attacks of september 11, 2001. the 9/11 commission report which looked into what happened after the attacks assessed that one of our government's failures in preventing those attacks was a failure of imagination. now, too, we have the director of national intelligence telling us that the system is blinking red, akin to the threats we were seeing before 9/11. we must be focused on the current problem as a national security threat. this threat requires that the united states defend itself against hybrid attacks with the level of commitment and resolve as they would against the military attack against our country. for far too long we have failed to rk nice -- recognize that hybrid attacks are the new russian form of warfare. as laid out in the russian national security strategy of 2015, the kremlin's approach to conflict includes weaponizing tools and resources from across government and society. the russian strategy states, and

i quote, interrelated political, military, military technical, diplomatic, economic, informational, and other measures are being developed and implemented in order to ensure strategic returns and the prevention of armed conflicts. the russian strategy describes the conventional and nonconventional arenas of warfare as the kremlin envisions it and how russia has utilized all the tools of stage craft to engage in adversary without in many cases actually firing a shot. these different disciplines make up a russian hybrid approach to confrontation below the threshold of direct armed conflict. a method that has been developing and escalating since the earliest days of putin's rides to power in russia. the main tenets of the hybrid operations are informational operations with fieber tools,

propaganda and disinformation, manipulation of social media, influences which can be deployed through political, legal, or financial channels. a further characteristic of russian hybrid warfare is denial and deception used to obscure its involvement. and the kremlin deploys more than one hybrid warfare tactic simultaneously to provide maximum effect. a look at the russian hybrid warfare doctrine also illuminates that the kremlin sees deterrence and prevention differently than we do. and this is a critical point. we see deterrence as a way to avoid conflict, confrontation, the use of these tools. they are not merely using these tactics as a deterrence or strategic prevention in the way we think about these concepts. instead, they are deploying these tactics aggressively, but below the threshold where they assess we the assess we will respond with

conventional weapons. one such example was the hybrid war for operations the kremlin deployed in crimea, including covert forces sometimes referred to as little green men. and the use of coercive political tactics, including an illegitimate referendum. now previously i addressed aspects of russia's operation dealing with tactics of financial maligned influence and multiple hybrid tools they have used. today i will discuss another russian tactic and its hybrid warfare arsenal, the use of assassination, politically motivated violence, intimidation, or detention to pursue the kremlin's objectives these tactics are sometimes referred to as dirty active measures. with dirty active measures, the immediate attack is deployed against an individual who is working counter to the kremlin's strategic goals by challenging putin's power base, exposing

corruption, or damage of these d warfare tactics goes well beyond the individual killed, hurt, or jailed by the kremlin. these tactics cause chaos, fear, and instability to bystanders and have a deterrent effect, sending a chilling message to others that might seek to challenge the kremlin's rule. further, the reach with which putin has deployed these weapons inside russia, across ukraine, europe, and even in the united states instills fear that if the kremlin wants to get rid of you, there is nowhere to hide. like all aspects of russian hybrid ar fair, dirty active measures are part of a package that serves russia's strategic interests. putin'shighest strategic objective is preserving his grip on power. he also seeks to operate unconstrained domestically and in the near-abroad. finally, putin wants for russia to be seen equal to the united

states and to regain the great power status it lost at the end of the cold war. he knows he cannot effectively compete with the united states in conventional ways and win. instead, he seeks to use tools from his hybrid warfare arsenal in order to divide us from our allies and partners in the west and weaken our democratic societies from within. the putin regime has been engaged in a pattern of dirty active measures for more than a decade, and the tempo has only increased since he retook the presidency in 2012. these tactics have increasingly aspects for allied national security. i want to address this because it has taken on greater urgency due to recent events. in particular, i am thinking of the poisoning of sergei skripal, a former russian intelligence officer and his daughter on british soil and putin's threat against ambassador mcfaul and

other u.s. officials at the helsinki summit. these events may seem unrelated, but they are actually part of a pattern of malicious and threatening russian behavior. today we'll explain the connection and make recommendations for how we can deter and counter russia's use of dirty active measures as part of its hybrid warfare operations below the level of military conflict. dirty active measures have a long and sordid history in the russia and the soviet union dating back to the czarist times. for assassinations, poison was obvious the weapon of choice, including the attempted cyanide poisoning of raze putin. lenin opened a poison laboratory to test weapons to be used against political enemies, named the special room, which was also named the lab of death. they developed nerve agents known as novoshocdh.k.

these tactics were amplified under stalin and used against assassins. used inside and deployed abroad. as stalin notoriously said, death solves all problems. no man, no problem. given president putin's background as a spy master, it should come as no surprise that russia's use of dirty active measures have continued under his regime. before becoming prime minister, president putin spent the majority of his year in the k.g.b., the state security service, and its successor, the f.s.b. as russian journalist andre sol to have wrote, the k.g.b.'s main task was always to protect the interests of whoever currently resided in the kremlin. in this system, loyalty and fidelity to the state is prized above all and putin's values were shaped by it. in 2005, putin lamented that the breakup of the soviet union was

the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century. when he assumed power, he resurrected a system that reflected soviet methods. he employed all the instruments of the state including the parliament, the courts, and security services to protect his power base and allow him to pursue strategic objectives in the foreign arena unconstrained. putin's use of hybrid car fair tactics of assassination, political violence, intimidation, and detention, the dirty active measures, are tenets of the system he created to cement his hold on power. putin has also manipulated the parliament and the court system to make and enforce laws that manufacture legal consent for tactics of dirty active measures. as opposition activist vladimir caramosov wrote recently in "the washington post," in putin's russia, thraws are often passed

were specific people in mind whether to reward or punish. notably, in july of 2006, the russian parliament gave the president, putin, permission to use russian armed forces and security services to perpetrate extrajudicial killings abroad. companion legislation passed about the same time expand the the definition of extremism to include liablist statements about his administration. this legislation effectively gave those who carry out dirty active measures immunity. in addition to the use of the legislative and legal mechanisms at their disposal, the kremlin unleashes a barrage of propaganda against those targeted for dirty active measures. these information operations contribute to a climate of fear targeting both the individuals they're trying to silence and the broader population. propaganda campaigns are also employed after the dirty active measures carried out in order to

sow confusion and make people doubt whether russia is culpable. putin and his inner circle have grown a i ask unanimous consent narrative, branding those who oppose the kremlin as catch and release, thus deeming them as deserving of punishment, they're often also accused of being part of a so-called fifth column, russians that putin defines as advancing foreign interests. worse than catch and release in putin's mind are those the kremlin views as having been loyal in the past but were now working against the interests of the state. these people are branded as straighters and as "the new york times" reported last month, traitors hold a special status for putin. putin's disdain for traitors stems from the early days of the end of the cold war when dozens of former soviet intelligence officers became defectors or informants for the west. according to the "times," quote, mr. putin cannot speak of them without a lip curl of disgust.

they are beasts and swine, treachery, he told one interviewer is the one sin he is incapable of forgiving. he could also, he said, darkly, be bad for your health. putin publicly threatened those considered traitors on multiple occasions. one of those episodes occurred in 2010. after a spy swap between russia and the united states, which included the recently poisoned skripal, putin stated, a person gives his whole life for his homeland and then some (blank) comes along and betrays such people. how will he be able to look in the eyes of his children? the pig. whatever he got in exchange, they can choke on them. believe me. for putin, labeling his political opponents in these stark terms helps to justify the dirty active measures deployed against these measures. these tactics of dirty active

measures have been used with impunity inside russia to silence and intimidate kremlin critics and preserve the system of power putin created. they have been unleashed against journalists, opposition leaders, oligarchs and others. the senate foreign foreign relas minority staff from january detailed more than two dozen kremlin critics who died under mysterious circumstances in russia since putin took power in 2000. the report separately compiled violent attacks on human rights activists and journalists. russian opposition activists are also a target of dirty active measures inside russia. one example was the assassination of boris nepsov, a popular prime minister under yeltsin who became disenchanted with putin's political system. he publicly exposed extensive corruption and covert use of russian hybrid warfare tactics

in ukraine. arkoty oscosy described the tactics of intimidation deployed against him including that he was stigmatized as a national traitor and an american stooge. he was demonized on television and on the streets banished with nemtsov's face was framed i about the words fifth column, aliens among us. these threats were filed with nemtsov being brazening assassinates nateed steps from the kremlin. nemtsov appears to have been killed for exposing corruption in putin's inner circle and trying to serve as a constraint on his ability to conduct hybrid warfare operations in the kremlin. these were seen as threatens to putin's power. attacks of dirty active measures inside russia continue unabated. this april russian journalist

maxim m borody fell to his death after investigating the paramilitary forces clinged to a russian military ally. three additional russian journalists who were investigating pregozin, the activities particularly in central africa, were killed under suspicious activities in august. in just a few weeks ago, the publisher of a website that exposes kremlin a-- kremlin abuses fell ill from apparent poisoning. this attack occurred on the same day he expected to receive the results of an investigation he commissioned into the deaths of the journalist in central african republic. as i have detailed here, these attacks are not officially linked back to the kremlin allowing for plausible deniability but are part of a clear pattern of attacks deployed against those who work to expose activities that may

hurt putin's base of power. putin has resorted to using dirty active measures beyond russia's borders which demonstrates the willingness of the kremlin to use these attacks not only for dock stick political purposes but also as part of its hybrid warfare against other countries. similar to other tactics of hybrid warfare operations, ukraine is usually for russia deploys these tactics first, a testing ground for tools that may be deployed in the west at a later time. we see these tack dirty active measures deployed as far back as 2005 when the more western-oriented victor united states cheng confirm was poisoned after he won the presidency. the kremlin continues to deploy dirty active measures including assassination in ukraine with impunity.

dennis vornenkov, a former russian parliament member, was shot in the head on a crowded ki ev sidewalk. he was once a close putin ally who used his position to promote key kremlin priorities including annexing crimea. he fled to ukraine in october of 2016 and began to criticize putin's government. he was slated to provide testimony to ukrainian authorities that would expose kremlin deliberations prior to hybrid warfare operations against the ukraine. forebodingly, a few days before his hurricanes he told "the washington post," they say we are traitors in russia. and again the idea that he could be shot brazenly in broad daylight served as a warning to others that they might want to expose hybrid warfare operations should think twice and that they can't escape even if they leave russia.

similar tactics were deployed against montenegro as it chose to join nato in 23015 and 2016. the kremlin saw the decision to move closer to the west as a threat to its strategic interests including russia's ability to operate in eastern europe unconstrained. when several other hybrid warfare operations including propaganda and information operations failed to keep montenegro from joining the alliance, russian military intelligence officers planned and attempted to execute an election day coup that included plans to assassinate the montenegrin prime minister. the attempt on the prime minister's life was unsuccessful fortunately. however, it shows the extremes to which the kremlin would go and the methods used to try to maintain its strategic interests. beyond ukraine and montenegro, the kremlin has increasingly demonstrated aings in to use dirty active measures in the west. suggesting a sense that russia feels it can operate with

impunity even in these cannes. one western country where a pattern of russian dirty active measures appears promise innocently is the united kingdom. an estimated 16 suspicious deaths over the past 12 years and that may not be the totality. the most well-known example of russian dirty active measures inside the u.k. is alexander litenetkovestment, who blew the whistle on corrupt practices of the f.s.b. while he had retired from spying, he did consulting work for the british and spanish intelligence services, helping both governments understand connections between the russian mafia, senior political figures, and the f.s.b. further, he continued to speak out against the putin government and expose kremlin corruption. because of these actions, the kremlin branded him a traitor. he received threatening e-mails from a former colleague who told

him to, quote, start writing a will. he was later poisoned. the day after his death arcs a member of the russian parliament stated the deserved punishment reached the traitor. i am sure his death will be a warning to all the traitors that russian treason will not be forgiven. his poisoning served as a prologue for the poisoning of sergay scrapow 40 years later. he was a russian intelligence officer who was you can convicted of being a double agent and sentenced to prison. as i mentioned earlier, he was traded as part of a swap in 2010. he was given asylum in the united kingdom. press reports indicated that similar to the earlier spy, he was working with the estonian

intelligence service. this march, he and his daughter were poisoned by a poison sprayed on the door handle of his lisa bury, england, home. kremlin officials deflected, denied absurd propaganda misinformation. they estimated the 280 bots that russia was responsible and to amplify divisions among the british people. they blamed the west for the poisoning and suggested it was a hoax. once the u.k. pointed a finger at russian military intelligence, the two alleged perpetrators went on tv and absurdly claimed to be sports nutritionists with a yearning desire to visit a salisbury cathedral. again, these killings are part of a pattern. both were part of the security services. they turned on the state and were deemed traitors. even when they appeared to be safe, they were targeted for

dirty active measures, sending the message that the kremlin was the ultimate arbiter and that they can reach traders any time or anywhere. this message was altered through others who might wish to expose putin's secrets in the future or try to constrain or challenge his power. the patent of dirty active -- pattern of dirty active measures also extends to the united states. this includes a former kremlin insider who was crucial to putin's consolidation of the russian media. he was also responsible for the rise of russia's tv and internet platform r.t., a tool the kremlin used to deploy propaganda and disinformation across the world, including against the united states during the presidential election in 2016. lessen was reported to have had a falling-out with two members of putin's circle, including a long-time friend known as putin's banker. lessen was found dead under

suspicious circumstances in a washington, d.c. hotel room in november of 2015. the d.c. coroner concluded the death was accidental and that he died alone, despite noting that he had sustained blunt force injuries to his neck, torso, upper and lower extremities. lessen was allegedly planning to tell the secrets of a major component of the kremlin's hybrid warfare operations to the justice department when he appeared to have conveniently died before he could explain its inner workings. and similar to other dirty active measure campaigns, the kremlin released a disinformation campaign to ensure plausible deny ability and generate confusion about the circumstances surrounding his death. here, too, lessen appears to fit the pattern of being targeted for revealing aspects of the hybrid warfare campaigns that the kremlin has come to rely upon. in what appears of an even more brazen move for putin, he engaged in dirty active measures

with the whole world watching. while standing next to president trump in helsinki, president putin proposed that he would allow special counsel mueller to interview the 12 russian military intelligence officers indicted on charges of large-scale cyber operation to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, but there was a catch. putin announced that in return, he would expect that russian authorities would be able to question current and former u.s. government officials that putin described as having something to do with illegal actions on the territory of russia. president trump stood next to president putin during this disinformation operation and endorsed it as being, quote, an incredible offer that he and his administration actually considered. the very next day, russian officials announced a list of 11 accused criminals that they wanted to interrogate because in the course of doing the work of the united states of america, they took stances that the

kremlin opposed. among those listed was a congressional staffer who helped write the magnitsky sanctions act and former u.s. ambassador to russia michael mcfaul who served as a point person for the russia reset during the obama administration and ambassador to russia for 2012-2014. during mcfaul's time as ambassador to russia, the kremlin unleashed its hybrid warfare playbook against him. they announced him as an nemg and had the security services follow his family. the kremlin also employed a disinformation campaign against him that accused him of being a pedophile. the kremlin was using these active measures in an attempt to instill fear in him and others that they could be pilled or jailed for doing the work of the united states government. the united states and western countries more broadly must understand that these attacks are not random. they are part of a pattern, a doctrine of hybrid warfare that is being spread across the globe. we need to understand that sass

nations, filings -- that assassinations, filings, threats and intimidation are taxes that putin is using to achieve foreign policy goals and that these activities are harming our national security. for instance, "the new york times" reported in august that vital kremlin informants have gone silent, leaving our intelligence community in the dark about what russia's plans are for november's midterm elections. the report continues that american officials familiar with the intelligence concluded they have gone to ground amid more aggressive counterintelligence by moscow including efforts to kill spies. these are not just brutal tragedies or incidents. the use of dirty active measures are purposeful and are intended to advance putin's agenda short of using tools of conventional warfare. the united states must lead with strong announcements against dirty active measures and all other hybrid tactics used by

russia or any other country. it is particularly critical as the president denounced russian threats against u.s. officials for their actions in carrying out u.s. foreign policy or advancing our national security interests. instead, the president's deference to putin at helsinki sent the wrong signal to putin in the face of these threats. fortunately, the senate has taken some action, including voting 98-0 to protect our diplomats and other foreign government officials implementing u.s. policy after putin requested that they be turned over for questioning. however, the government must be -- our government must speak with one voice and send consistent messages that this kind of action will not be tolerated and that putin will pay consequences for his behavior. while it is important that we respond to these attacks, including with unequivocal denouncements of these tactics by the president and by the congress, we should not be in the business of trying to respond to these attacks

symmetrically. putin resorts to using these dirty tactics because he believes they give him an advantage over the west. we need to stay true to our ideals of democracy, human rights, and liberty. we don't want to normalize or legitimize these methods by engaging in them ourselves. doing so would simply create a false moral equivalence that plays right into putin's hands. instead, we must employ responses that play to our strengths. we stand for transparency and accountability in the united states. we stand for the rule of law. we must develop and implement a comprehensive strategy that deploys tool and tactics that are consistent with and showcase these values. we must shine a light on the corruption at the highest levels of the putin regime. we must shine a light on how putin's cronies are hiding their ill-gotten gains in the west. we must deploy a systematic and strategic messaging campaign that counters the base of putin's power, reputation, and funding. and we must take these actions

in concert with our allies and partners. in response to this poisoning, the united states expelled 60 russian diplomats, joining with more than 25 ally and partner nations in applying diplomatic pressure on russia. this action sent a strong signal that the world would not allow putin to act with impunity. when we act together with our allies and partners to push back against these hybrid operations, it imposes a cost to putin's reputation on the world stage which thwarts one of his major strategic interests. while these steps are in the right direction, they have been undermined by the president's words and actions. despite punitive measures in response to the poisoning, the kremlin thought that the helsinki summit erased that taj. press reports indicate that the western and u.s. intelligence agencies assess the kremlin was pleased with the outcome at the helsinki summit and is wondering

why the president is not implementing more russia-friendly policies. one important tool in our arsenal for holding the kremlin accountable is sanctions including those on putin's inner circle. in particular, sanctions implemented under the magnitsky act appear to be particularly threatening to him. this act was passed in response to the death of sergei magnitsky, a russian attorney. he was arrested in russia and placed in jail where he was tortured until he died. the origins of the magnitsky act were to hold accountable those in the russian government who are complicit in magnitsky's abuse and death by sanctioning their assets and barring them from receiving american visas. subsequently, the magnitsky act has been expanded to include those who are a couple of acts of significant corruption and abuse. russian expert heather connally of the center for strategic and national studies testified recently at a banking committee hearing about the significance

of magnitsky to putin. she said because the kremlin has based its economic model and its spiefl on kleptocracy, sanctions and other democracy denigrate the furtherance of corruption or worse yet in the minds of the kremlin of providing accurate information to the russian people about the extent of this corruption are a powerful countermeasure to russia's maligned behavior. the magnitsky sanctions, along with those designated under the countering america's adversaries through sanctions act or caatsa, threaten putin's power structure and show a counternarrative of corruption of abuse by the kremlin. we need to continue to use these sanctions to hold those who are complicit in dirty action measures and those who are responsible for interfering in our election accountable. ratcheting up sanctions on those in putin's inner circle is a way to make putin and his cronies feel pain and has the potential

to change their behavior. additional sanctions should be imposed on oligarchs and high-ranking government officials to target putin's base of power and further expose the corrupt nature of their sources of income. we should also consider declassifying the so-called 241 report compiled by the intelligence community along with the departments of treasury and state. this report require an assessment of the net worth of senior kremlin officials and oligarchs, their relationship to putin and his inner circle and evidence of corrupt practices. if we were to release such a report with redactions for portions with national security implications to the public, it would further expose maligned influence and activity and unexplained streams of wealth. congress has provided many tools for the administration to i am implement, and it's time to utilize them fully. implementing them in a transparent public manner is likely to cause reputational harm to putin himself and

restore a measure of confidence in the administration here at home. however, specifically targeting sanctions this way is unlikely to cause large-scale harm to the russian people or to our european allies. it is very clear that implementing sanctions is far more effective when done with the cooperation of the international community. the most effective sanction regimes are those that are implemented in a multilateral fashion. i urge the administration to engage with our allies and partners to coordinate sanctions enforcement and further he is catory -- he is cue lateory steps as warranted. that includes working through diplomatic sanctions to ensure the sanctions by the european union remain in place. a coordinated front of the united states and our european allies provides the greatest chance of successful implementation of sanctions in deterring further aggression by russia. the administration must also place a premium on exerting

diplomatic pressure to those who flout or to those who do not enforce sanctions on russia. another form of pressure should be an increase in assistance to pro-democracy and civil society groups in russia and in nations of the former soviet union. working with these groups in conjunction with our allies, partners, and private sector will provide another means of raising the costs on putin and oligarchs. putin is threatened by the success of democracies and private enterprises. in addition to sanctions, we must continue to play a strong role in law enforcement. that includes aggressive prosecution of murders and threats of violence to limit the impunity that putin operates with. there was an official incarry after a year for lit veng --

accountable for these actions. we need to adopt u.k.'s lessons learned to be sure that they are prosecuted fully and without delay. we have missed too many of these dirty active measures operations for far too long. we must recognize that this is an element of russia's warfare. we must not fail to have the imagination to see what is happening right before our eyes. we must do more to identify and attribute these attacks from russia. these attacks have only grown more brazen and won't stop unless we send a message that dirty active measures are unacceptable. it will be costly to russia or any other country who chooses them. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent

that notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, all postcloture time on the clark nomination be considered expired at 12:10 p.m. on thursday, october 11, if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on health education an pensions be discharged from s. 670, and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 670, recognizing the tenth anniversary of the enactment of the paul wellstone and peat domenici equity act of 200le. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceed -- 2008.

the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 671, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 671, designating september 29, 2018, as national urban wildlife refer refugee day. the presiding officer: is -- refuge day. is there objection to proceeding to the measure? if not, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the considers of s. res. 672, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 672, expressing the sense of congress

that electric cooperative energy production programs reduce energy consumption and save participants money. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 447, s. 1305. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 447, s. 1305, a bill to provide u.s. customs and border protection

with adequate flexibility in its employment authorities. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and paf, and that the -- passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., thursday, october 11, further, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. finally, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session an resume consideration of the clark nomination as under the previous order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there's

no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. >> the senate has gavelled out. earlier they agreed to a water infrastructure projects bill which includes federal spending for 12 army corps of engineers projects. the vote was 99 to 1. the measure now goes to president trump for his signature. they also defeated a democratic resolution to overturn a trump administration rule that expanded the amount of time that consumers can keep short-term health insurance plans which don't have to comply with all of the requirements of the 2010 healthcare law. the senate also worked on white house nominations today. follow live senate coverage when they return, here on c-span 2. >> coming up this evening, we will take you to erie,

pennsylvania, where president trump will campaign for republican congressman who is challenging the democratic incumbent for his senate seat. live coverage here on c-span 2 beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern. over on c-span, our coverage of congressional debates continues from north carolina's 9th congressional district where democratic candidate debates the republican mark harris. live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. then in new jersey, 11th congressional district, between the democrat and the republican, they are vying for the seat of republican congressman who is retiring. live coverage of that after the north carolina debate at 8:00 p.m. eastern. with 27 days until the election, c-span is your primary source for