>> the house will be in order. for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> the u.s. senate is back in session this morning with more work on trump administration executive nominations, including peter wright to be assistant administrator for the environmental protection agency's office of land and

emergency management. confirmation votes on two of the nominees are expected at 11 a.m. eastern today. and now through live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, who is given our lawmakers diversities of talents

by the same spirit, use us for your glory. lord, protect our nation from evil, prevent the weapons formed against america from prospering, for you remain our refuge and fortress. continue to be the strength of our lives as we remember the many times you have preserved us in the past. lord, open our eyes to the unfolding of your providence. open our minds to your truth. open our lips to speak your wisdom. we pray in your holy name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask to speak for one minute in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: in honor of the iowa department of agriculture's sweet corn days yesterday, i

would like to highlight the strong agricultural sector of my state of iowa. many people don't know how you get from the seed of the corn on the cobburing -- cob you're used to seeing on your table and that's why i started corn watch on my instagram. each week i post an update with a progress of how the crop is growing on my farm in newhartford, iowa, it is a new way to show how iowa feeds and fuels the world. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership

time is reserved. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday the entire senate had the opportunity to meet in classified session for a briefing on election security. we heard from the director of national intelligence, the f.b.i. director, acting

secretary for the department of homeland security, and other key administration officials about our recent progress and ongoing work to protect our democratic process from interference. the takaway was perfectly clear. after 2016, the new administration kicked into high gear, alongside our efforts in congress, all levels of government work proactively to make sure that 2018 was not a repeat of 2016. and far from letting up, the executive branch is continuing to work hard in advance of next year's presidential election. we know our adversaries will not let us so we're not letting up either. i want to underscore my appreciation for the tremendous work that so many officials across our government have been doing to protect democracy and impose costs on adversaries who

dare to interfere. threats remain, but yesterday's briefing was instructive, an instructive counterpoint to the doom and gloom eye perply -- hyperbole we often see in the media. good news doesn't sell newspapers, but although i doubt it would get much coverage, i'm proud of the work of our government, what they've done to shore up our defenses of american democracy and defer foreign influence -- deter foreign influence and interference. i believe our colleagues feel the same way. at one point during yesterday's briefing, applause broke out in the room for the work of one of our agencies, bipartisan applause in the briefing yesterday about what was done in 2018 after which was largely incident free. many of the details of

yesterday's briefing were classified and should remain so, but much of what was discussioned -- discussed were the specific details and the full impacts of steps that are already public knowledge. here in congress, we've taken legislative action to interact cybersecurity and clearance for election officials and allocated hundreds of millions of dollars in direct aid to state election officials. with the new resources that we provided, the department of homeland security dramatically strengthened its information sharing and security partnerships with the state and local authorities that operate elections in the united states. participation came from all 50 states and 1,400 localities, and the direct aid to states helped the authority on the front line of conducting elections update

their systems, strengthen their defenses and maintain vigilance. these and other actions have been part of a coordinated government-wide federal, state, and local campaign to shore up our defenses. i would anticipate that every member who attended the classified briefing likely came away feeling confident that big steps forward have taken place in the last two and a half years. thanks in large part to these measures, the 2018 elections went more smoothly than the 2016. and as we look to 2020, it's encouraging to look at how seriously the administration is taking the threat and proactively working to counter it. because we know the threat is not going anywhere, foreign adversaries will keep at it, so i'm glad the administration is so focused on staying strong and remaining vigilant. but, of course, as i said yesterday, the roots of the

issue run deeper than just our elections themselves. a foreign adverse like russia didn't just wake up and decide to interfere in democracy. the meddling was an outgrowth of a long pattern of naivety that permeated the obama administration. so punching back against this behavior and deterring future episodes like it has also meant taking broad strokes to strengthen's america's abroad and our relationship with the russians. obviously nearly 30 russians and russian corporations have been indicted by the special counsel for election meddling. more broadly, we have a new national security strategy, an improved road map for our global presence to check great power

competitors like russia and china. we're recommitting to the alliances that preserve american values around the world, reforming nato to meet 21st century threats an equipping our allies and partners who are on the front lines of russia's geopolitical prospecting. and congress and the administration have worked together to restore our armed forces and unwind harmful funding restrictions that cut readiness and limited our commanders. so not just our efforts on election security but really our entire foreign policy have made strides under the leadership of this administration. yesterday's briefing made it clear our work has led to huge progress -- huge progress, but the work certainly isn't oaf. leaders across government are continuing to explore an repair potential vulnerabilities and

increases opportunities ahead of the 2020 election. congress will monitor this closely while resisting any efforts to use the failures of the past to justify sweeping of election laws as some have consistently sought to do. let me say that again. congress will certainly to continue -- will certainly continue to monitor this closely while resisting any efforts of failures of the pass while sweeping federal election laws as some on the other side have consistently sought to do. make no mistakings many of the proposals labeled by democrats said to be election security are measures in fact for election reform that are part of the left's wish that wish list of the left called the democratic

politician protection act. what they do is ignore the great work this administration has done and sweep under the rug the necessary measures this chamber has passed. but speaking broadly, i think all americans should remember this, what russia really set out to do was to sow division, spark doubt and trigger a crisis in our country that would trigger beyond the actual actions that they undertook. so, as i've said before, as we continue taking action in shoring up our defenses, it's also vital that we not fall into precisely -- precisely the trap that putin and company have laid. it's vital that americans not take the bait on fear and division and ultimately do russia's work for them. our country is strong. american democracy is strong. our elections are already safer and more secure, and the

important work continues. our adversaries woarnt let -- won't let up and so we are not letting up either. now, mr. president, on another matter. all week the senate has continued productivity in confirming the president's well-qualified nominees for important offices. we confirmed the newest judge on the ninth circuit. yesterday we confirmed three district judges by overwhelming bipartisan margins, 78-15, 80-14, and 85-10. those are the margins on three district judges. clearly, mr. president, we're not exactly talking about radioactive controversial nominees here, not when 78 votes for confirmation is the low end. but, nevertheless, as has become

typical over the past two and a half years, our democratic colleagues insisted on cloture votes to cut off debate before we could confirm any of them. in fact, we have yet to voice vote a single judicial nominee this entire congress. we haven't voice voted a single judicial nominee this entire congress. it's really shame. -- a shame. it's not the precedent the senate ought to be setting for these lower-tier nominations. but, of course, we've confirmed them nonetheless. before the end of this week the senate would have done the same for three other lower-level nominees for the executive branch. weeks like this were impossible before my republican colleagues and i did the right thing for the institution a few months back and moved the senate back towards our historic norms for nominations of this sort. we argued that the senate democrats were mindlessly

obstructing even the least controversial nominees just for obstruction's sake. our colleagues across the aisle insisted no -- this is what they said, mr. president, no. the majority would be ramming through these extreme individuals and cutting off intense debate that these extreme nominees deserved. well, who was right? one more time for good measure, 78-15, 80-14, and 85-10. enough said. it's particularly ironic that some of my friends across the aisle elect to complain the senate is spending too much time on nominations. you have heard that, mr. president. spending too much time on nominations. i'm not making this up. we actually hear protestations from the democrat side

confirming these men and women it's taking too long. as though it were totally obvious to everyone that their own unprecedented delaying tactics aren't the only reason these nominees have not been quickly confirmed in big batches on a voice vote. it's quite the two-step. democrats systematically drag their heels for two and a half years and counting and then complain we aren't moving fast enough. well, if it weren't clear by now, the tactics are not going to work. the senate is going to press on, we're going to do our job. today we'll press on despite 492 days of obstruction, 492 days of obstruction and confirm peter wright, the president's nominee to serve as -- listen to this -- assistant administrator at

e.p.a. he has been waiting for 492 days. and as it happens, we'll also vote on two kentuckians, robert king and john pallasch. mr. king has been nominated to serve as assistant secretary for postsecondary education. he comes with an impressive record of experience in higher education and administration and advocacy at home in the bluegrass state and beyond. mr. pallasch has been tapped for assistant secretary of labor. his resume includes service as director of the kentucky office of employment and training, as well as previous service to the department as deputy assistant secretary for mine safety and health. so i will be proud to support each of these well-qualified nominees as the senior senator from kentucky, but moreover as someone who believes that the american president deserves to have his team in place and that

citizens ought to be governed by the government they actually voted for. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, the democrat party's model this year might as well be free stuff. free health care, free college, free debt relief, free child care, free income. the problem, of course, is that the old add j, there's no such thing as a free lunch is 100% true. health care has to be paid for by someone. college has to be paid for by someone. democrats, of course, think they should all be paid for and often

controlled by the government but what they don't like to talk about as much is that the government has to get its money from somewhere. and that somewhere is from the american people. now, if you asked democrats how they're going to pay for all of this free stuff, what they'll say is that they'll tax the rich. the problem is, madam president, there's simply aren't enough rich people to even come close to paying for the democrats' free programs and expansive policy proposals. "forbes" magazine reports every year the combined net worth of the 400 richest people in the united states. but if you took every penny from every one of those people, it would be a tiny drop in the bucket next to the cost of the democrats' proposals. free health care alone -- and these are by conservative estimates -- would cost $32 trillion over ten years. taking every penny from the richest people in the united states wouldn't even cover one

year of that proposal. in fact, you could take every penny from every billionaire in the entire world and it would still only cover roughly 28% or less than three years of democrats' medicare for all proposal. and that's just free health care. that's not the green new deal or guaranteed income or free child care or anything else. but what if we move away from billionaires. how about millionaires? what if we taxed every household in the united states making more than $200,000 at a 100% rate for ten years? well, we'd still barely have enough to cover free health care much less democrats' other proposals. but let's look at one of the democrats' -- what i would say relatively smaller proposals and that is student loan forgiveness and free college.

now, no one can deny that student loan debt is a problem in this country. many graduates emerge with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt that they struggle to repay and that burdens them for years. it's a growing problem. and ways to alleviate this burden and encourage more affordable education or conversations that we need to have. but the free college and debt elimination solutions offered by two leadin leading democrat sens are no solutions at all. the united states government is not swimming in money. we are deeply in debt. and we already need to shore up existing programs like social security and medicare both of which are on shaky financial footing. paying for a college education for millions of americans is not something the government can easily afford. the senator from vermont's plan for free college and student loan forgiveness would cost approximately $2 toy 2 trillion -- $2.2 trillion over ten years. that maif not sound like -- may not sound like much when

compared to democrats' budget busting plan when paying for health care but it's still a lot of money. the entire federal budget for 2019 is less than $5 trillion. and that is supposing that the senator from vermont's proposal comes in on budget which seems unlikely. for one thing, when you offer something for free, demand for it generally increases. the senator from vermont is making his estimate based on today's numbers. but what happens when demand skyrockets? the federal government could be on the hook for far more than the senator estimates. and these proposals would do anything but incentivize colleges and universities to lower the cost of tuition. now, both the senators who have proposed free college and debt elimination plans this year have said -- have said they will pay for it. the senator from vermont would impose a financial transactions tax while the senator from massachusetts would impose what she calls an ultramillionaire's tax on the very wealthy. but as one "wall street journal"

editor highlights in a recent column, this is unlikely to cover the cost. i quote, financial transaction taxes chronically underperform estimates of the revenue they'll generate and wealth taxes are so ineffective that even france scrapped its version in despair in 2017. much heavier middle-class taxation which what feeds european social welfare states. end quote. it goes on to say and much heavier middle class taxation is likely to be the end result of democrats' proposals like free college and student loan forgiveness. but even leaving aside the cost, madam president, let's talk about the merits of the democrats' proposals. for starters there is the sheer unfairness of these plans. legislation suppose -- let's suppose one of these proposals becomes law. suppose you're someone who has lived frugally for years and you just finished paying off $30,000 in student loans. you're not going to get a penny

back from the democrats. meanwhile someone who has just incurred that $30,000 in debt is going to get a complete -- get it completely wiped out. no need to live frugally or think about paying off the debt you freely incurred. the debt will just be gone. then there's the fact that democrat proposals for free college and debt forgiveness are not going to solve the education debt problem. the director of the education policy program at new america, not a conservative think tank by the way, recently published a column in the new york types where he noted that the senator from vermont and the senator from massachusetts proposals that free college would, and i quote, not eliminate future student debt, not even close. that's because most student loan debt isn't taking out to attend undergraduate programs at public colleges and universities. most loans are used for private colleges. for-profit colleges and most of all graduate school, end quote. as the column points out, that's not something that free public

undergraduate education will fix. in fact, the column notes the day after senator sanders hits the reset button, as he put it, at his news conference, the national student debt adom ter would rapidly begin spinning again. madam president, what can be done to help those struggling with student loan debt? what can we do to help while still maintaining fiscal responsibility and preserving a respect for honoring the comiftments you've made. well, one democrat senator and i have a proposal take can definitely help. the senior senator from virginia and i reintroduced the employer participation and repayment act earlier this year. our legislation would amend the education assistance program to permit employers to make tax-free payments on their employee student loans. right now employers can contribute to their employees' tuition if their employees are

currently taking classes, but they can't help employees with education debts that they've already incurred. our bill would allow them to help with employees already existing student loan debt. this would be a win-win situation. it would be a win for employees who would get help paying off their student loans, and it would be a win for employers who would have a new option for attracting and retaining talented workers. our bill would not be a silver bullet but it would certainly help ease the pain for paying back student loans for a number of americans. i also look forward to seeing other efforts to help alleviate the burden of student loan debt in a feasible and fiscally responsible way. i know republicans on the senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee are working on legislation to make it easier to pay back student loans. another big thing we can do is to make sure that graduates have access to good-paying jobs. thanks to republican economic policies over the past two years, our economy is thriving. good jobs are being created and

wages are rising at the strongest pace in a decade. all of that can go a long way to enabling people to pay off their debt and republicans, madam president, are committed to building on the economic success that we're experiencing and expanding opportunities even further. madam president, free college makes a great bumper sticker. but it doesn't make very good policy. we need to address the problem of student debt without weighing down the economy or hardworking americans with massive new government spending and massive new taxes. the employer participation and repayment act is a step in the right direction and i hope to see it receive a vote in the very near future. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive

session and resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: department of -- nomination, department of education, robert l. king of kentucky to be an assistant secretary for post-secondary education. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you, madam president. i would call attention today of the senators to an article -- a disturbing article in the june 29, 2019, issue of "the economist" on pains 36 and 37. it's about the military buildup in china and the way it affects the united states. it says they want china's armed

forces to be world class 2050. he's done more to achieve this than any of his predecessors. and i would quote, madam president, from the lead of this article in "the economist." over the past decade, the people's liberation army has been lavished with money and arms. china's military spending rose by 8 3-r 3 -- 8 3-r% between 2009 and 2018, the largest growth spurt than any country. it has allowed china to deploy antisatellite weapons that challenge america's supremacy in the west pacific. president xi says that his dream

is to have a strong armed forces, that involves modernizing the p.l.a. by 2035 and making it world class, in other words, america beating by mid-century. he's been making a lot of progress, and it goes on to say in the second column of this article, he's done more in the past three years to reform the p.l.a. than any leader since the previous dictator. not quoting -- quoting from one of the leading in the economist. we need to be mindful of the threat that is arising to the united states from around the globe, not only from -- from china, as -- as i've just read,

but also from vladimir putin's russia, from iran, from be international terrorism. there are -- there is a deteriorating security situation in almost every sector of the globe, and the -- the fact that the united states has always been super supreme and able to defend the free peoples of this world is challenged. we can no longer assume that any war would never be a fair fight. and that's been the goal of the united states. if we have to go to war, and we want to avoid war, but the best way, in our judgment as a national strategy down through the decades, to avoid conflict of any kind is to make sure if america ever gets into a fight, it's not a fair fight. it's a fight where we have

overwhelming superiority and so no one dare challenge the sea lanes and the freedom that we stand for in the united states of america. that's being challenged today. and i would submit to you it's a good time for the united states to point out that we passed the national defense authorization act, the ndaa, on a huge bipartisan basis. 80-something votes to eight. just unbelievable the way we came together under the leadership of chairman inhofe and ranking member reed, his democratic counterpart, working together as professionals, as legislators, as americans to send a strong statement that we need to go from the $700 billion that we spent last fiscal year to $750 billion to give our troops the pay raise they need,

to recognize the sacrifice that they made. but to give the military, army, navy, air force, marines, the tools that they need, the equipment that they need, the innovation, the manufacturing that they need to get us where we need to go. you know, we went through a seven or eight-year period, madam president, when we ought to all be ashamed, because our fingerprints are on it, all of us in office at the time, the distinguished president, i was not a member of the senate at that time, but those who were, we have our fingerprints on it. somehow, try though we might, say what we might, we were unable to prevent sequestration from happening.

an unthinkable result. the military branches couldn't believe this was happening. couldn't believe the congress would be so irresponsible, but somehow we were. now, we've righted the ship over the past two years. it would be unthinkable to me, madam president, my fell quo americans, -- my fellow americans, if after making the progress to get back on the right track and return to responsible defense spending and responsible stewardship of our national security, if somehow we heeded some voices that we're hearing in washington, d.c., and around the country during the past few days about a continuing resolution perhaps. maybe a continuing resolution of an entire year. the thinking there is we'll just do a continuing resolution and

that will amount to level spending and we can live with that. i was -- i just left a hearing on the confirmation of general mark mille, as chairman -- as the next, i hope, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and i asked him about that. would a continuing resolution simply be level spending and we might be able to -- to live with that? and he absolutely made the point which we all know if we studied the law, it's way more than level spending. it stops innovation. it stops the new starts. it starts everything that we planned in the ndaa, which we passed for this -- with this overwhelming bipartisan vote, and it makes it against the law for the shipbuilders to do anything new, for the people working on our next generation aircraft to do anything new. it stops them in their traction. it creates uncertainty in every

branch of the military and then we have to pay millions of billions to get that going again. it's an unthinkable result. surely -- surely we can avoid that as republicans and democrats. let me quote now retired secretary mattis when he asked about this very subject on a recent occasion. secretary mattis said this, and i quote, i cannot overstate the impact to our troops, moral from all -- morale from all of this under the certainty. the combination of rapidly changing technology, the impact on military readiness resulting from the longest stretch of combat in our nation's history and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and under resourced military. end quote.

under continuing resolutions, according to secretary mattis, we actually lose ground. now, madam president, we need a budget deal. we need a two-year budget deal, as we've had in the past. give our defense leaders, the secretaries and assistant secretary, as well as the ones who put on the uniform and agreed for a career to put themselves in harm's way, give them the certainty they need for defending against the threats that "the economist" talked about and the threats that general mattis talked about. give them -- give them that certainty. a new -- a c.r., a continuing resolution, would prevent us from having that certainty. it would delay maintenance for

the harry s. truman aircraft care yes it would prevent a guidance missile from continuing, it would cripple research and development and it would prevent the pentagon from aligning its funding with upcoming priorities. we need to realize a fact of life around here. i didn't exactly get my way in the last november election, madam president. if i had my druthers, the house of representatives would have remained in republican hands with republican -- with a republican speaker and a republican chair. the voters, in their wisdom, decided to vote for divided government last november. our team was elected to continue

leadership in the united states senate. the democratic leadership was elected to the house of representatives, and i can assure you if i were writing a defense appropriation bill, which is half of discretionary spending, and all of the other appropriation bills, which is so-called nondefense discretionary, it would look far different from the bill that speaker nancy pelosi proposes to write. i can assure you it would look different and weed have less domestic spending. but the fact of life is that mitch mcconnell, the republican leader, is -- is the one who guides legislation over here in the senate and nancy pelosi, a democrat from california, is the one who guides legislation on the floor of the house of representatives, and if we get a bill passed, we're going to have to get a

compromised bill passed. if anybody within the sound of my voice doesn't realize this, they don't understand government. they don't understand the dynamics that have taken place since philadelphia in 1776. and philadelphia again in 1787, where give and take had to occur but we moved things along for the greater good. we can come to an aagreement, -- to an agreement, madam president, or woe can show our -- or we can show ourselves to vladimir putin's russia as unable to govern adequately. we can show ourselves to president xi's china as unable to make the tough decisions to protect americans. we have that choice, and we have a willingness on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle.

and i was with some of my democrat and republican friends from the other body just yesterday. i think there's a willingness there. we're going to have to have an agreement that the administration will sign on to because the president's signature has to be affixed to this. now is the time, july 11, 2019, to get this decision made before we leave for august. i would hope we wouldn't leave for august until we get that number agreed to. we come back after labor day and then it's brinksmanship, and then suddenly it's shut down city, and that's being threatened and russia knows this and the iranian leadership knows this and china knows this. let's do it now. and so i call on the democratic leadership and republican

leadership in the house, i call upon our leadership, i call upon our president to get down to business in the next few days. let's go ahead, make this decision that we know will event will have to be made. make a responsible decision and send a message to the rest of the world that we intend to take care of our security. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. blunt: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: first of all let me say i couldn't agree more totally with the senator from mississippi, mr. wicker, than i do. his points are exactly right, a

democracy is finding a way forward. it's not finding your way forward necessarily. it's obviously finding as much of your way forward as you can find, but it's finding a way forward. clearly a top priority of the federal government is to defend the country. it's my top priority. i think i would be safe in suggesting it's senator wicker's top priority and it's a top priority for our friends on the other side, but it might not be quite the same priority on the other side for this to work, th house and senate has to work together, the white house has to work together to come up with just that spending number. once we have the number of -- that we're going to spend, having the debate on the floor is suddenly possible, and so i'm fully in agreement with that, madam president. but i want to talk for fa few minutes -- for that few minutes today with about a program that we need to extend for a short period of time to get it

extended to the end of this spending year. i know the minority leader, the democrat leader just arrived and he heard a lot about this program from my friend senator stabenow, the excellence in mental health program, something that we started two years ago and passed legislation in 2014 and we've come to the end of the first two years of that trial program. i be want to talk more about why we need a longer term expansion of that trial, but, first of all, we need a three-month expansion to get us a three-month extension, to get us to the end of this spending year. i'm always glad to talk about this program when it -- because what it does is really begin to close the gap between how we talk about physical health and how we talk about mental health. somewhere between one and four and one in five adult americans, according to the national institutes of health, have a mental health problem that's

diagnoseable and almost always treatable, but less than half of the "sports -- people that havet problem actually receive the care they need. these are people that are our neighbors, our family members, our colleagues. there is no stigma to seeking care here, and society needs to do a better job, as i believe this program is helping us do, to talk about mental health like all other health. on the last day of october, 2013, which was the 50th anniversary of the community mental health act, that was the last bill that president kennedy signed into law in 1963. senator stabenow and i came to the floor to talk about that 1963 bill and how many things had been closed down because of that bill and how many things

had not been open to replace it when that happened. in the decades that followed, about half of the proposed community health centers that that bill anticipated just simply were never built. facilities that people had used that had substantial mental health challenges were closed. what really happened here is that in that 50 years, the emergency room and local law enforcement became the de facto mental health system for the country, and nobody has been well served by that. the local law enforcement hasn't been well served by that, emergency rooms haven't been well served by that, and most importantly, people with mental health challenges and their families have not been sent -- served by that. so this law, the excellence in mental health act, was signed into law in 2014 to try to begin to address that problem. what the bill did was create

eight states in a two-year pilot that would look at -- that would provide mental health at locations that met the standard just like any other health would be provided. these would be certified community behavioral health clinics that would have, among other things, 24/7 crisis services available, outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment available, immediate screenings, risk assessments, and diagnosis available, and care coordination, including partnerships with the emergency room, the law enforcement community, and veterans' groups. all of that would have to be what you would have to do to be part of that eight-state pilot. now, 24 states initially applied. 19 states went through the entire process, and eight states were chosen. missouri was one of those. and among other things in our

state, we have participated in the emergency room enhancement project. this is a project that's designed to identify people who present themselves at the emergency room as people who really need treatment for addiction issues or mental health issues, not other health issues. and then to get them to a place where that treatment is going to be much more appropriate than it's likely to be at the emergency room. now, in just six months of working with the emergency room, law enforcement, and mental health services in our state, we think there has been a reduction in homelessness of people who came to the emergency room by about 72%. reduction of emergency room visits by those people by 72%. unemployment reduced by 14% among people that have gone to

the emergency room with what was a mental health concern, and law enforcement contact reduced by 59%. so we have got two years of study that indicates that's where we have gotten in our state, and i think other states are seeing similar kinds of numbers. i have been at clinics all over our state who have dealt with this. i have talked particularly to law enforcement people all over our state who have seen the change in the people they are dealing with and the options they have available. suddenly the options not just to go to somebody's house at a crisis moment in the middle of the night and take somebody to the emergency room for one night having that problem solved, but the option is actually to go somewhere where your mental health challenge is being dealt with just like if you had had a heart attack or you had had a kidney problem or some other problem. that's why we have introduced

legislation to extend this for another two years, and if money is available in the pay-for that we have proposed, to even see if we could add more states to those eight states. when we announced this new legislation, laura heebler, who is with health compass systems in missouri, was one of the people who joined us. she said that in the past before this program was able to help in our state, that roughly half of the people who sought an appointment from their mental health facility couldn't get scheduled for several days, sometimes several weeks, and half of the people didn't come back. if you show up that one time and say i'm here, i've got a real problem, i need help, and the answer is not we're going to help you today, we're going to do an evaluation right now, you often -- more often than not --

or at least as often as not, you don't come back. and so at compass health, like in many of our other certified clinics in our state, we have increased access, we have established same-day walk-in attempt to look at your problem and see if you need even more help that day or you could, in fact, come back a few days later for an -- everybody, madam president, is being seen at that facility and others when they come in. the suicide care path they established has been reduced by 70%. so let me make two quick points here as i conclude. one is the goal of this program is not for the federal government to take over the behavioral health costs of the country. the goal is for this program to look at mental health and keep

track of 24 or 25 other health care markers and decide how much your other health care is impacting in a positive way and in fact in a cost-saving way if you're dealing with mental health at the same time. and the second point i'd like to make is we need to see the congress step up in the next few days, extend the current program through the end of this spending year, and then let's have a debate about why two more years of putting all that information together gives states and communities the information they need to find out what i believe will be everybody understands not only the right thing to do but fiscally the smart thing to do by dealing with mental health like all other health, the overall health care costs of that big mental health community goes down dramatically if you're seeing your doctor, showing up

for your appointments, taking your medicine, your other problems are much more easily managed than the costs of adding the right thing to do, health care, mental health care to all our other health care priorities. and so hopefully the congress will deal with that. the senate can take a leadership role in dealing with that. the house has already sent us a bill. we need to respond to that by doing the two things i just mentioned. let's treat mental health like we treat all other health, madam president, and i yield the floor. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: first, let me thank my friend from missouri. i support what he and senator stabenow are trying to do on mental health. i know that some states were included. other states were not. and i hope we can get that done. so i support that aspect of what he was talking about.

now, madam president, later today, president trump will give a news conference in the rose garden about his attempts to create an executive order to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. that is outrageous. it's outrageous substantively and it's outrageous because this president has so little respect for rule of law, he thinks he can just issue executive orders and go around the congress, go around established law, and try to bully the courts. i believe he will be thwarted by the courts, and this will be a real test of john roberts and the supreme court, whether they stand for rule of law or are always looking for an excuse to move the country rightward. we'll see. to date, the trump administration has provided no legitimate legal rationale for

adding this question to the census. just yesterday, "the new york times" reported that justice department lawyers, quote, resigned from the lawsuit out of ethical concerns and a belief that the suit was unwinnable. well, we all know what's going on here. the trump administration doesn't have a legitimate legal rationale. the true motivation was even clear before the papers of that deceased designer of this question came to light. the true rationale is to -- is blatantly political and self-serving. president trump wants to include the citizenship question to intimidate minorities, particularly latinos, from answering the census so that it undercounts those communities and republicans can redraw congressional districts to their advantage. the census bureau itself determined weeks ago that including such a question would result in a significant undercount. that alone is enough for

disqualification. that's not what the constitution says -- manipulate the census so you don't get an accurate count. the president knows this, and yet he continues to pursue a cynical idea. typical of the president. continue cal against minorities and with no respect for rules, rule of law, the mores, the morals, the values that made this country great. day by day, he destroys them, day by day. it's nothing more, the president's action, than a naked political power grab, which is one of the few things he's good at as president. and it shows once again just how little respect the president has for our democracy. it's also one prong in the trump administration's multifaceted attack on communities of color. they're doing another one today in addition to this, which i will speak about in a minute.

now, let's not forget the census is a constitutional mandate. it has been conducted impartially by democratic and republican administrations alike since 1790. it should be beyond the reach of partisan politics. this president has such disdain for constitutional norms and rule of law that it will try anything to set the rules to his advantage, even if it means circumventing congress and circumventing the courts. this is what dictators do in banana republics. they try to change the rules to consolidate political power, no matter what their constitutions, rule of law say. the president is moving us in that direction, and our republican colleagues are supine. they say nothing. many of them know what he is doing is wrong.

and knees clatter because they are too afraid to tell the president he's wrong. the american people should be outraged about this. republican senators shut be outraged about this. but like so many other instances in which the president subverts our democratic norms, silence from republicans in congress has been deafening and degrading and the very fabric of this wonderful democracy that the president day by day tries usually unsuccessfully, thank god, to undo. now, on the i.c.e. raids. last night, "the new york times" reported -- another thing that president trump is trying to do -- ordering i.c.e. to resume plans to carry out mass deportation raids over the weekend. his plan will tear families apart, disrupt immigrant communities across america,

including immigrants here legally and those in the process for legally applying for asylum. cruelty, cruelty seems to be the point of these raids. this is not an effort to root out dangerous individuals. this is an act of brutish force designed to spread fear in the immigrant community. steve miller whispers in the president's ear. treat them cruelly. make them afraid and maybe they won't come. they're going to come. the dangers in their home countries are much worse. what would any citizen do, american or any other place in the world if a gang came to you and said i'm going to rape your daughter unless you do what i want? i'm going to kill your son, i'm going to burn your house. you'd flee. these are not criminals. they're people trying to preserve their families, their children, their lives.

and yet the president egged on by some of the right-wing news media tries to make americans believe they're all criminals. sure. if one of these folks is a bank robber or burglar or hurt somebody, they should be out, one, two, three. but if they're simply trying to escape brutality, we still should have rule of law but they should be treated with some decency and some honor and some humaneness. that's been the american tradition for some 200 some odd years. the president's policy is not only cruel -- that's the worst of it -- but it's brainless. when it comes to intelligently using our immigration resources, the administration should focus on the very small minority who are actual criminals, not

families and not 10-year-olds. these raids will not make america safer. they will not solve our immigration challenges for the reasons i mentioned. they will instead terrorize innocent families and rip children away if their parents. -- away from their parents. and i warn president trump, the pictures of these raids aren't going to be pretty. average americans would may agree with him on many issues will be appalled. president trump, you're going to have to back off from this cruel policy because the american people are a lot better than you. and they will see the pictures. what are they going to do? a father is driving his child to school, they stop the car, pull the father out. they've done that. let the 8-year-old sit in the car traumatized. they've done that. and president trump, mark my words, it will be a huge

backlash against n. the american people aren't cruel like you in this regard. so i would plead with the president to call off these raids. we democrats have proposed real solutions to the same migration problems that will stop the influx or greatly reduce the influx at the border. we would simply say let these immigrants apply for asylum, these would-be immigrants, in nicaragua and el salvador and honduras. beef up the number of immigration judges so they can get add jude indication quickly. if they're turned down, they can't come. tough luck. if they get asylum, they should be welcomed here as america has welcomed people which the lady in the great stiff, in the

harbor has done for centuries. we should go after the gangs making the people flee, go after ms-13 down there, go after the drug dealers, go after the coyotes. it was working in the last few months of the obama administration and even the first few months of the trump administration until the president rescinded the policy because he got mad at somebody. that's typical of how he operates. so that's what we should do. but until then when these folks get to the border, i call on the president to work with us to put an end to the cruelty that the migrants are being shown when they come into u.s. custody. they're a small percentage of the people in this country. it's not a large number in terms of our total population.

now another round of reports this week describes the horrid conditions endured my migrant children at the border. facilities built for no more than a hundred people are now housing up to 700 children. many of them have nothing to sleep on, have no change of clothes, sometimes not enough food. these are reports of the president's own executive agencies, not of someone outsi outside. in arizona the kids are reportedly being abused. c.b.p. agents use racist slurs, deprive them of slapping mats and one case potentially sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl. it's barbaric. it's not american. we need to put an end to this behavior now. we have just passed a supplemental appropriations bill to provide more resources to improve conditions and speed the asylum process, but it didn't go far enough. so that is why later today i

will join with my colleagues senators merkley and feinstein to introduce the stop cruelty to migrant children act. this new legislation would establish mandatory sentences -- sorry -- would establish mandatory standards for the appropriate and humane treatment of children. it would make it easier for children to be connected with sponsors and legal counsel, and it would once and for all end the inhumane practice of separating families, pulling children, even little children, away from their parents. democrats have been fighting for these provisions for months. we were able to secure some of them in the last border supplemental, but unfortunately our republican colleagues blocked many additional provisions from going in the bill. this new legislation marks a clear bright line of what is left to be done. now the only question is, and it

looms, will leader mcconnell finally stand up for the children and work with us to pass these new standards into law. i want to thank senators merkley and feinstein for working on this very important bill. it's a necessary step to restoring america's moral credibility. a nation as powerful as ours has no need or right to treat the weak and suffering this way. we can deal with our immigration issues with dignity, common sense, and rule of law. the bill is how we get that done. finally on china, yesterday it was reported that president trump told president xi of china that the united states would tone down its criticism of beijing's approach to hong kong in order to revive our trade negotiations. if these reports are true, once again president trump has made another error when it comes to china for two reasons. first, it is crucial always for the united states to stand up to

democracy, human rights, and civil liberties from everywhere, to be the shining city on the hill that john winthrop talked about 370, 375 years ago. from tiananmen square to dib bet, to the brutal suppression of the muslim minority uyghurs, to the recent protests in china hong kong, china's record is an abomination. they want to be treated equally but in some way they're like a third world dictatorship. america used to champion religious right, minority rights, democratic values abroad. it helped us in immeasurably ways, not just morley but economically and politically. it gave us the moral high ground that the scriptures have always said is important in human dealings. unfortunately under this president, that doesn't happen. but second, the idea that going easy on china's human rights record will ease trade talks is

exactly backward. i know china. they respond to strength, not flattery, not capitulation. every time the president gives in to president xi, president xi smells weakness and says i can get even more out of the americans. i generally am supportive of the president in a tough policy towards china on trade. china has ripped us off over and over and over again. but the way to win is show strength. and on some days the president does. and then a week later he backs off. there's no consistency. the chinese smell that they can outfox the president. backing off from fully telling huawei they can't operate was a huge mistake because huawei with the huge exceptions if they're given broadly will gain economic strength. huawei is a national security problem but it is also a trade problem. why when china steals our

intellectual property as huawei has done do we allow them to come into this country when they don't allow our best tech companies to go into theirs? it's ridiculous. the president's instincts are right but he never is consistent about them. the way to speed trade talks, successful trade talks where america secures real enduring concessions is to keep the full-court press on beijing, on human rights, on foreign policy, and certainly on trade. president trump must not be weak on china for the sake of america's role as a champion of democracy and for the sake of driving china to accept meaningful reforms to its predatory trade policies. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague and friend, the democratic leader,

senator schumer, for raising the issues of immigration. at this moment we are at a moment in history in this country that i'm sure will be reviewed and reflected upon for many generations to come. decisions that are being made in the white house today in the area of immigration will be criticized, analyzed, and in many cases repudiated in years to come. it is time for us to at this moment to have sober reflection of what this administration has done in two and a half years with the issue of immigration and where we stand at this very moment. this president came to the white house promising he was going to get tough on immigration. immigration. probably at the heart of america more than anything has been the issue of immigration. we are a nation of immigrants. my mother was an immigrant to this country.

the diversity of our nation because we've attracted people from all over the world i believe is one of our strengths, one of our core strengths. this president doesn't understand it. if he does, he's not pushing policies that show any reflection on that reality and that historic background. think of how this administration started within hours after this president was elected, he announced the muslim travel ban, that he would single out countries with muslim majority populations and say that their people were not welcome in the united states. the reaction was immediate across the united states. in the city of chicago, i can remember the supporters of those coming from other countries heading out to o'hare, attorneys volunteering to give them counsel. it was an outpouring of support for these people realizing they're fundamentally innocent people traveling to this country. and yet the president with his travel ban made it clear from the very start of his

administration his view on these immigrants. what followed from there, a decision by this administration to eliminate temporary protective status, immigrants in this country who came here because of natural disasters and political upheaval and got protection in the united states, the president wanted to turn them away. was there any measurement as to which ones might be dangerous? no. all would be turned away. and then of course the president's decision to eliminate the daca program. the daca program created by president obama so that those who were brought to the united states as children because of decisions by their parents, grew up in this country, and every day in classrooms pledged allegiance to that flag believing it wawr their flag -- it was their flag too learned at some point in their lives that they were undocumented. they didn't have legal status in america. president obama felt and i as a

sponsor of the dream act agreed with it and encouraged the creation by executive order the daca pra. 790,000 -- program. 790,000 of these young people came forward, paid a filing fee, went through a criminal background check, and after they were approved, they were given two years to stay in the united states, renewable, where they couldn't be deported and they could work legally in this country. that program as i said attracted 790,000 successful applicants. many of them outstanding students, amazing young people. i've told their stories on the floor of the united states senate. and so president trump decided to abolish that program and to end the protection for these young people, 790,000 of them. that wasn't the end of it. the president continued with policies such as zero tolerance. do you remember that one? last year when the attorney general of the united states stood up and quoted from the bible as to how it was the right thing to do, to separate 2,880

infants, toddler, and children from their parents at our borders. zero tolerance. treat the parents like criminals. separate the kids. and what was worse, no effort was made to track those children, where they were placed, and what happened to their parents. it wasn't unt -- it wasn't until a federal judge? southern california came forward and forced this administration to finally match up the children with the parents and still more than 100 of them were never matched, lost in the bureaucratic sea of the trump administration. that wasn't the end of it, by far. what we've seen at the border in the last several months has been shocking and unprecedented in american history. this get-tough president who says he's going to cut off foreign aid to countries in central america and get tough at the border with his almighty wall has ended up attracting larger numbers of people coming to the united states presenting

themselves for asylum status at our border than we've ever seen. dramatic increases we haven't seen for decades in people at the border. the president's immigration policy has backfired and the net result of it we see -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. durbin: i ask consent for two additional minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: now we have the announcement of the administration that comes sunday. we'll see mass arrests and deportations in this country. reports from "the new york times" that thousands will be rounded up, arrested, and deported. when possible, they say family members will be arrested together and will be held in family detention centers. have these people committed a crime since they've opinion in the united states? no evidence of it. simply the fact that they are undocumented at this moment. many of them could have lived here for years. these mass arrests and mass deportations are going to create fear in communities across the

united states, including the city of chicago, which i am honored to represent. and for what? it won't make america safer for us to deport these people? sadly, it's going to mean that their families are going to be torn apart and there will be more children and families in detention. we were told there is a humanitarian crisis and that we needed to apply ourselves and make sure we had billions of dollars to deal with it. we did. and now the administration turns around and announces a new wave of splitting up families and deporting them from the united states. this is not what america is all about. there is a way for us to deal with immigration in a sensible, thoughtful, rational way. cruelty has no place in the history of this country and has no place when it comes to the treatment of those who are in the united states today. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, is there a question on the king nomination? is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 56, the nays are 37. the nomination is confirmed.

the clerk will report the next nomination. the clerk: department of labor, john p. pallasch of kentucky to be an assistant secretary. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, the ayes are 54, the nays are 39, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of peter c. wright, of michigan,

to be assistant administrator, office of solid waste, environmental protection agency. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of peter are c. wright, of michigan, to be constant administrator, office of solid waste, environmental protection agency, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the claim brother wishing to vote -- chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? the yeas are 53. the nayses are 39. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: environmental protection agency, peter c. wright of michigan to be assistant administrator, office of solid waste. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i ask that i have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly

noted. mr. cornyn: madam president, tomorrow i'll join some of my colleagues from the senate judiciary committee as well as the vice president for a trip to mcallen, texas. it's a beautiful city nestled in the heart of the rio grande valley. this region is home to a lot of history and a vibrant call fur and people whose generosity has made national headlines over the last period of time. as they've worked to manage the humanitarian crisis that has ended up on their door step. for each of the past four months, more than 100,000 migrants have crossed our southern border and presented themselves to the border patrol. this has placed an unbelievable strain on federal, state, and local law enforcement as well as the cities, the counties, and the nongovernmental organizations that have tried to step in to help. after ten weeks from the point

when it was requested by the president, congress finally passed a bipartisan bill to provide funding for the federal departments and agencies working to manage this crisis and make $30 million available as reimbursement for local governments for paying bills that legitimately and fairly should be those of the federal government. this is an important step to help manage this humanitarian crisis, but it is far from a permanent solution. you could say we're really dealing with the effects and not the causes. the truth is, we need to pass legislation here in congress that makes lasting changes to our immigration system, particularly our system whereby people apply for and receive asylum so we can prevent this humanitarian crisis from becoming the norm. we can run but we cannot hide from the fact that only congress

can solve this problem. to that end i've introduced bipartisan legislation called the humane act with my friend and colleague in the house henry cuellar that would make significant progress in doing exactly that. this is the only bipartisan, bicameral bill i believe would help staunch the flow of humanity across the border and deal with the underlying causes. our bill would close a major loophole that is being exploited by the human smugglers that serves as a poll factor for those who want to come to the united states illegally. it would also ensure migrants in our custody would receive the proper care and streamline the processing of those who cross our border. it's an important step to address this crisis at its source as well as provide relief for folks along the entire u.s.-mexico border that have been impacted. we need to pass this bill and pass it quickly and get it to the president's desk for his

signature. while the compassionate response of our local communities has become national news in recent months, texans have long known that they've been the ones left alone to step up to assist migrants who arrived in poor health many times with nothing but their clothing on their back. they provide warm meals, a safe place to sleep, and some of the basic necessities of life before these individuals head off to communities across the united states where they await their court dates with immigration judges. sadly those of us that live in border states have also seen the toll this treacherous journey takes on migrants, and we've had to face the dark reality that many don't survive the journey from central america, across mexico into the united states. migrants travel with human smugglers known as coyotes who

are all too willing to leave their customers for dead if they become sick or injured. i've seen photos and of course heard heartbreaking stories from the border patrol as well as local officials and ranchers about finding the remains of those who've died in the desert on ranches or open terrain along the border trying to make their way to the united states. i've been to sacred heart cemetery in brooks county, texas near the fall furious check point where i saw graves of these unknown that are labeled with terms like skull case, bones, and unknown female. here's a chart or photograph depicting one of those graves. as you can see, it's marked unknown male. literally the remains are identified by not the name but

by, in this case, the sex and obviously listing the fact that they are unknown. this is not a rare occurrence. while exact figures are hard to find, there's no question that thousands of migrants have died while attempting to enter the united states illegally. it's one of the toughest parts of the job for border patrol, and it takes a toll on communities as well who are obligated to do what is right to ensure the dignity of the deceased. the process of identifying these remains is expensive and it also often falls on local taxpayers, like the taxpayers of brooks county, texas, and frankly they don't have the tax base and can't afford to deal with this -- without our help -- with this without our help. we know they have limited staff and buckets and it puts -- budgets and it puts serious strain on local resources. it's an issue i've worked on for

a number of years and i'll soon be reintroducing a bill i authored last year to provide some relief. it's called the missing persons and unidentified remains act. it will provide local jurisdictions with the resources they need to identify the remains of those who've died along the border and solve missing persons cases. this bill will expand the eligibility for jurisdictions to receive grants through jennifer's law and make desperately needed funds available. with this expansion state and local governments, forensic labs, medical exercises, -- examiners, nonprofits and others will be eligible to receive funding to support their work. they'll be able to use these grant funds to support transportation, processing, identification, and reporting. these funds can also be used to hire additional analysts, technicians, and examiners to support identification as well as purchase the necessary state-of-the-art equipment.

this legislation would take steps to improve the recording and reporting of missing persons and unidentified remains which is a major challenge, particularly when it comes to notifying family members. i had the great honor of representing more than 28 million texans. i know that in order to do my job as all of us attempt to do, we need to listen to our constituents and act on suggestions they make to us. the missing persons and unidentified remains act is a prime example of that. border communities have borne the brunt of the humanitarian and security crisis at the border and they're often forced to do the job of the federal government without any help from the federal government. this bill would go a long way to helping defray some of those costs. it would provide additional resources to local communities working to identify those who've gone missing as well as process unidentified remains and invest in the forensic equipment needed to provide closure to families

in the united states and abroad. i appreciate the feedback of the folks who live and work in our border communities, and i look forward to heading to the rio grande valley tomorrow with the vice president and a number of my colleagues on the judiciary committee to hear more about the challenges they're facing. madam president, i yield the floor. mrs. blackburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam president. as i begin my remarks, i would like to thank the senator from texas for the work that he has done on arranging our travel to the border tomorrow. i'm one of those committee members that will make that trip. and how wonderful it is that he is working with chairman graham to make certain that we're going to be able to visit with the border patrol to see and hear firsthand what is going on and

making certain that we all focus on the security of this great nation and providing the resources that are needed. so i thank him for that good work. i do, madam president, want to talk today about another issue that is related to what is happening when it comes to trafficking. this has to do with our childr children. in 2017 i.c.e. agents arrested francisco javier soldad on charges of pornography using the popular social media app snapchat. he assumed a variety of false identities. first a teenage boy. later an adult woman. and coerced at least six underage children in to sending him explicit pictures and video,

six children. when one victim realized this was wrong and attempted to block soledad's account, soledad turned around and threatened this child, threatened him, with posting this video on social media unless -- guess what? -- he sent more videos. he did that on snapchat. imagine this happening to a frightened child. imagine it happening to a child who is close to you. unfortunately, it's not an isolated incident. matthew murphy of massachusetts was recently charged with sexual exploitation of children after he posed as a teenage girl to extort nude photos from a middle

school-aged boy, again via snapchat. evidence was found that murphy had used his fake account to victimize other had iran in the area. before i continue, let's talk about exactly what is happening here. and this is horrific. pedophiles are using popular social media apps to trick underage children into creating and distributing homemade pornography. if we're going to talk about these things, we have to be focused and direct, focused and direct on what is happening here and the distribution methods that are being used. snapchat, by it's very nature,

is a child predator's dream. its auto-delete feature ensures that their videos and pictures erase themselves only after a few seconds. its public location-sharing feature allows anyone, even under-age children, to share their location in realtime. if left in public mode, the snap map will reveal their location and their snap video feed to complete strangers. even if an underage user hasn't fallen prey, they're still exposed to provocative and age-inappropriate material via the app's discover feature, recommendations generated by snapchat itself free from parental control or monitoring.

if you guessed that some of these channels specialize in porn and suggestive content, you would be right. and it is not small business. $1.18 billion is the 2018 revenue for snapchat, and how many teen users have they attracted? 16.4 million children who are exposed to what i have just laid out. that's why this week i sent a letter to snap executives asking how they plan to fight this predatory behavior and if they will give parents more control over the content to which their children are being exposed. to their credit, a snap -- snap executives have already reached outed and responderred, and it

is -- and responded, and it is my hope that they are going to take these questions seriously and do something about this, do something about their ratings, do something about the discover section, do something about how it leads children to these pornographic sites. i think it's also important to note, as we talk about social media, snapchat is not the only offender. last month my friend and colleague, senator blumenthal, and i sent a letter to youtube asking why the video service's recommendation mechanism continued to push content involving children in suggestive or exploitative situations. by suggestive or exploitative i mean featuring partially clothed children, children in bathing suits, and children dressing and undressing themselves. youtube's recommendation system

works by promoting similar videos to the one the user is already watching, which means that, by design, one vile video can lead to another and another and another until the user is buried in smut that shouldn't even exist. the comments on these videos have turned into a predator chat room, allowing users to share time stamps, marking the most explicit moments in a video. youtube did disable comments in videos involving children, but their algorithms continue to push this content via the recommendation feature. youtube needs to stop this. they need to fix this. the point of describing these things is not to throw individual companies and their

technology under the bus, but it is crucial that we understand that even at home or at school, our children are very vulnerable, and they are exposed. even the non-technology that doesn't necessarily expose children to pornography can pose risks. in 2015, the electronic front tear foundation -- frontier foundation filed a complaint with the f.c.c. against google alleging that their exploiting minors' information and potentially supposing to it to third parties. think about that. the chromebooks that were irked to students were loaded with google sync. what it does is allow for the

collection and storage of students' browsing history, information and passwords. program administrators were given complete access to a cloud system which allowed them to alter settings, exposing student data, educational and personal data including physical location data. this was exposed to google's development team and to third-party websites. one wrong click -- one wrong click would expose the students' virtual you, their presence, all online. in two days of judiciary committee committee hearings, i asked the founder and c.e.o. of protect young eyes, christopher mckenna, what steps he would take, what he would recommend to

protect our children from online predators. his answer was simple. give parents the option to control content access and don't hide the tools that are necessary to do this. give them to the parents. make certain that they have them. now, i'm not suggesting a takeover or a ban of these social media apps. and i'm not suggesting we drop a regulatory anvil on these companies. what i am suggesting is that we should not have to ask the makers of popular digital services to stop catering to child predators. they should choose to recognize that predators lurk in every corner of society, and they should change the age ratings on these apps. they should issue the warnings

to parents. they should choose to make parents aware of what a simple click or tap on a screen might unlock right before their child's eyes. they should choose to stop this horrific cycle of dehumanization and exploitation before it begins, and they should choose to work with us to make certain that consumers have all the information that they need. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: the fifth circuit court of appeals heard oral arguments in thetons v. united states case, an argument trying to overturn the affordable care act. and, unfortunately, although the affordable care act is currently the law of the land, the

department of justice, our nation's highest law enforcement authority, was not there to defend the law of the land, the affordable care act. and they were not there because they have been instructed by this president and this administration to join the effort to overturn the affordable care act. sadly, the stakes of the texas v. united states litigation are profound. this year in new hampshire alone, approximately 90,000 granite staters obtained health insurance coverage through the affordable care act's medicaid expansion or through the a.c.a.'s health insurance marketplaces. across the country, more than 17 million medicaid expansion enrollees and 11 million people in the marketplace health plans depend on the affordable care act for their coverage. and yet the department of justice refuses to defend them, refuses to defend the law of the land in court.

now, if the court sides with the trump administration and the republican attorneys general in this case, millions of these people will return to the days when they were one cancer diagnosis, one medical implications, or one car accident away from medical bankruptcy. the affordable care act's coverage expansion is our most powerful tool for combating the opioid epidemic. that's critically important in new hampshire, where we have the third highest overdose death rate from opioids of any state in the country. in new hampshire, more than 11,000 people receive substance use disorder treatment thanks to the affordable care act's medicaid expansion. and many more granite staters are able to get substance order use treatment due to the a.c.a. marketplaces. just think -- without the expansion of medicaid, which is

a bipartisan effort in new hampshire, without the a.c.a.'s health insurance marketplaces, we have thousands of people affected by substance use disorders who will not be able to get treatment. there is no plan b if the affordable care act is overturned. in 2017, a mother named nancy from concord -- i won't use her last name -- wrote to my office. i ask, madam president, unanimous consent to include her letter in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. in nancy's letter, she said, and i quote, the a.c.a. saved mysons life. it was due to obamacare become that we were able to get him insured so he could get into a suboxone program that assisted him. now you if the court sides with the trump administration, this critical source for treatment and recovery could be ripped away.

we don't have enough time for me to go through the whole list of all of the benefits under the affordable care act that would be lost if it gets overturned. but one of those that is critically important to people in new hampshire and across this country that would be thrown out are consumer protections against skyrocketing prescription drug costs. they will be gone. i was at a hearing in the committee on aging a couple of weeks ago, and we had someone from the f.d.a. testifying, and she talked about the fact that the major driver in prescription drug costs under medicare, medicaid are the costs of biologic drugs. what is bringing down that cost is the pathway to create alternatives for people for those biologic drugs.

but what she failed to point out is that that provision was in the affordable care act, and if the affordable care act gets struck down, that provision guests struck down. and so these increased costs we have been seeing of those biologic drugs, they're going to continue to go up. probably even more important for most people in new hampshire is that the affordable care act includes a very important program that has closed the medicare part d coverage gap, what's called the doughnut hole, for prescription drug coverage. this program has saved new hampshire seniors an average of 1100 dollars a year on drug costs. these savings help ensure that granite staters with fixed incomes can pay their utility bills or put food on the table. the court's decision could wipe out these critical medicare savings for seniors, just as it will wipe out coverage for preexisting conditions, coverage to keep young people on their

parents' insurance up until age 26, coverage for essential health benefits -- that means that mental health care and coverage for substance use disorder treatment are required by insurance companies to be covered. so given what's at stake, mr. president, at this point i want to offer a unanimous consent request that the senate proceed to consideration of s. res. 134, which is a resolution that i introduced to express a sense of the senate that the department of justice should reverse its position in the texas v. united states case and defend the affordable care act. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that as if in legislative session the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 134 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

further that 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: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: stembg the right to -- reserving the right to object, mr. president, whether you support the obamacare law or oppose it, and let me be clear i oppose it, it remains the law. this week a court heard a case related to texas vs. the united states and i expect it will end up before the united states supreme court. regardless of the outcome our commitment remains to protect people with preexisting conditions. as a doctor, as a husband of a breast cancer survivor, i know the importance of making sure patients can have access to high-quality health care at an affordable cost. since the obamacare health care law passed, this has not

happened for many families that i speak to at home in wyoming. they keep telling me obamacare made their insurance unaffordable. it has made it more difficult for them to get the care that they need. simply put, they know that the obamacare health care law has failed because they personally experienced the law's sky-high premiums and fewer choices. it's taken washington democrats a little longer to figure that out. now they're clamoring for a one-size-fits-all health care plan. they want a health care system controlled by washington bureaucrats, and as a doctor my focus is on making health care better for patients, period. republicans and the trump administration are taking on the tough issues facing patients across the country. we eliminated the individual mandate so patients aren't punished for refusing to buy insurance that they cannot afford. we support more insurance choices such as association health plans so folks can find the best coverage for them and their families. we're taking on the drug

companies. congress already eliminated gag clauses. more reforms are on the way. finally with the president's support, we're going to end surprise medical billings. simply put, republicans want patients to pay less for the coverage they already have. democrats want to take away people's health insurance, especially the coverage they get through their work. it's simply wrong. the question is whether washington democrats are interested in actually solving the problem or playing politics. therefore, mr. president, i object. mrs. shaheen: mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator for new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i knew my colleague from wyoming was going to object. i'm disappointed in his objection. and i know that he's a doctor. i believe he cares about his former patients. i believe he cares about providing health care to his constituents. as i believe all my colleagues care about that. that's why i'm so puzzled by why

there has been this nine-year effort to try and undermine the affordable care act and the health care that it provides to people in this country. you know, as i said earlier, there is no follow-up plan that will provide coverage for people with preexisting conditions if the affordable care act is overturned. there is no follow-up plan that will provide coverage for people with substance use disorders, for mental health coverage. that's all going to go out the window. and by failing to send a clear message to the justice department that they should defend the affordable care act, we are putting access to care at risk for millions of americans across this country. what we should be doing, and we should have done it as soon as the effort to overturn the affordable care act was defeated in 2017, we should be working together to put in place changes that make the affordable care

act work better. we should be looking for ways to provide coverage to people that is affordable, that provides quality health care, that is accessible to every american. and instead of that, we have no plan b. there is no bill that would provide coverage if this administration is successful in overturning the affordable care act. so, mr. president, i'm very disappointed, though not surprised, by the reaction from my colleague from wyoming. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent this afternoon that two congressional fellows in senator udall's office, katelynn mcconty and lindsey be granted floor privileges for this, the remainder of the 116th congress.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: i rise in opposition to the nothing -- nomination of peter wright. i take little joy in opposing this nomination but do so for three reasons. let me make a preface before i say those three reasons. i sat on this floor right up until the end of the last congress trying to get peter wright confirmed, trying to get him confirmed on a unanimous consent approach. we failed at the havent. the irony -- at the very end. the irony of it is having stood here and trying to get him confirmed at the end of the last congress and today be in a position that i'm asking for us to postpone, at least for today his nomination. there is an irony there. i don't have time to go into all the reasons but i'll mention a few of them. in the last congress i worked with the e.p.a. to set significant policy concessions that i believe would have allowed the senate minority to agree to a more expeditious

confirmation process for mr. wright. i worked diligently until the closing of the last congress, right until the bitter end to achieve that objective. so i've done good-faith with other e.p.a. nominees. in fact, the very last nominee confirmed in the last congress was the e.p.a. nominee to head the agency's tribal office, tad mcintosh. in this office the e.p.a. has refused to golgt with my office -- to negotiate with my office. on this point, on this nomination. the agency no longer agrees to the policy concessions that i previously secured and to which they had previously committed in the last congress. while this has been a real disappointment for me, it's hardly a surprise given this increasingly extreme policy and tones of this e.p.a. second, the e.p.a. under

mr. wright's leadership has failed to advance a critical policy to me in the regulation of pfas chemicals. substances known as pfas are a class of man-made chemicals that contain pfos, jettex and other chemicals. developed in the 1940's, pfas can be found across -- these chem cals can be found in many products including food packaging, clothing, furniture, fire-fighting foam and the military. just this week donald trump said, quote,, we have the cleanest water we ever had. close quote. the president often made this statement while asserting his commitment to make sure our drinking water is safe. in his confirmation hearing,

andrew wheeler said, and i also quote, it is these americans that president trump and his administration are focused on, americans without access to safe drinking water or americans living on or near hazardous sites often unape wear of the -- unaware of the health risk that they and their families face. many of these sites languished for years, even decades. how can these americans prosper if they cannot live, work or learn in a healthy environment? the answer is simple. they cannot. president trump understands this, and that is why he's focused on putting americans first, close quote, close quote, from andrew wheeler, now our e.p.a. administrator. under peter wright's leadership for the past year e.p.a.'s office of land management has failed toed these words -- toed these words where peter wright serves on a temporary basis. i think we have a poster here

that's relevant. a study releasedded -- released today identified 712 locations in 49 states that are contaminated with pfas. 712 locations in 49 states that are contaminated with pfas. from coast to coast, from our canadian border to the gulf stream waters. last year the town of blades, in the middle of the delaware, southern part of delaware, alerted descrents to stop use -- residents to stop using water for drinking and water because of contamination at nearly twice the federal health advisory level. north on route 13 officials at the dover air force base found that 36 of the 37 sampled groundwater wells showed high levels of pfas, pfos and pfoa

related to, we believe, the use of chemicals in fire-fighting foam at the base. it's not just delaware. pfas contamination is widespread in red states, in blue states, in small water systems and large ones, on military sites and in residential areas from maine to alaska. while industrial manufacturers and users of these chemicals are responsible for much of the contamination it turns out a principal user of pfas was our military. i speak as a retired navy captain speaking here to an officer fs marines as part of our history in the military. but part of, as it turns out the principal user of pfas was the military which used it as a fire fighting foam as i said earlier. in 1973 as a young naval flight officer stationed in california, on a sunny april

day, driving to work one morning, mr. president, driving to work to my home in palo alto saw a big black plume of smoke rising above my base after, as it turns out a massive jet descended on a runway. we had parallel runways and the traffic controller directed two aircraft to land on the same runway at the same time. as a result one descended on a runway where a p-3 aircraft had already landed and was taxiing and the larger aircraft literally landed on top of the smaller aircraft. it took over an hour for the firefighters to control the blaze. 16 people died. only one crewman survived. these were my brothers and sisters, my squadron mates. i understand pfas has saved lives better than most but the

cruel irony is it winds up in a glass on a kitchen table, the same chemicals endanger lives. the environmental working group, environmental working group has identified 117 military sites including 77 airfields where pfas contamination, because of the use of pfas containing foam to both train for and fight fires involving highly flammable jet fuels. yet in many states cleanup of these sites has been stalled and the military has shockingly been part of the problem. in may of last year, 2018, then e.p.a. administrator scott pruitt held a pfas national leadership summit and proudly announced concrete steps, close quote that e.p.a. would take to address pfas contamination. the second of these four steps is e.p.a. would propose designated pfoa, pfos, two of

the most dangerous elements in this class of chemicals, to designate them as hazardous substances under the super fund law. that was almost a year, more than a year ago. more than a year ago. making that designation would compel the defense department to stop fighting cleanups in states all across the country. indeed in some cases the defense department has justified its refusal to clean up pfas contamination on the grounds that the super fund designation has not yet been made. designating these substances as hazardous would also unleash e.p.a. resources to address cleanups of orphan sites for there is no identified liable polluter. despite scott pruitt's commitment to move forward with the designation of pfas as a hazardous substance under the super fund law, under peter

wright's watch the e.p.a. has not even proposed, has not even proposed to do that, let alone finalize the action. at this rate it will be at least another year, maybe longer before this vital step will be taken. americans deserve better than this, and they deserve greater urgency on this issue. last month the united states senate passed its -- right here, passed its national defense authorization act, which clueded several important bipartisan provisions to address pfas contamination. notably i could not even secure an agreement to allow a vote on my amendment to designate pfas as hazardous under the super fund law. i did not get a vote on my amendment despite the fact that 35 cosponsors on bipartisan legislation signaled their

support for this policy. meanwhile, e.p.a. continues to drag its heels, repealing the regulation, our government's own activities have -- has inadvertently contaminated. mr. wright will make this designation for pfas if he is confirmed. mr. wright will have the ability to make this hazardous substance designation for pfas if he is confirmed. he should hear strongly from this senate our collective desire that he urgently do so. it is my hope despite the many disagreements that we have had with some environmental rollbacks, there can be some commonsense agreement on the need to clean up widespread pfas contamination. that has not been the case at least thus far.

third, finally a late-breaking matter came to the committee's this week regarding mr. wright's financial disclosure. chairman barrasso and i received news from the white house office of government ethics, that mr. wright held stock in dow, dupont at the time he filed his financial disclosure report and continued to do so until this march 12. although e.p.a. believes mr. wright complied with all applicable ethics laws during that time, o.g.e. asserts it currently lacks the information necessary to make such a determination or to send a completed amendment to his ethics agreement and financial disclosure report to our committee. o.g.e., office of government ethics, felt compelled to share

this information with the e.p.a. committee because of its direct relevance to the consideration of mr. wright's nomination today. in light of the ongoing o.g.e. investigation, i would just implore my colleagues to delay the senate's consideration of mr. wright's nomination for the time being. i don't suggest to do any consideration of this nominee lightly. again, i was one of the people standing in this chamber back in december trying to get this man confirmed. in fact, i need -- any delay in the senate's confirmation of mrd not prevent him from continuing to serve in his current capacity as he's done since he first arrived at e.p.a. in acting capacity on july 9, 2018. i strongly believe that we must afford o.g.e., office of government ethics, and e.p.a.

the opportunity to complete their investigation into this matter and fully share all relevant information for both the sake of mr. wright and for the agency. if the facts are described by e.p.a. -- if the facts are, ascribed by e.p.a. -- described by e.p.a., then an investigation would be to mr. wright's benefit. let me say that again. if the facts are ascribed by the e.p.a. -- as described by e.p.a., then it would be to mr. wright's benefit. this would be available for every senator's consideration when voting for mr. wright as assistant administrator at the e.p.a. it is my understanding that the e.p.a. is working to get the relevant information to o.g.e. to provide to the senate,

proceeding with the consideration of this nominee -- nomination while revolution of this ethics matter deprives the senate of important and relevant information. i would urge delaying this vote today and i will vote no on the motion to proceed to the nomination of peter wright. i urge my colleagues to do the same. and thank you. i yield back. mr. udall: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president, for the recognition, and let me at the beginning thank senator carper for his just incredible leadership at the environment

and public works committee. he has a very good on cleaning up pfos, and i'm going to talk about some of the damage in new mexico, as mr. carper knows, this is a nationwide problem that the department of defense has a major responsibility on. mr. president, this is a photograph of art scopp at his dairy farm in new mexico. art's farm is located outside of clovis in the central part of the state adjacent to cannon air force base. he is a second generation dairy farmer, he and his family worked hard to build this dairy and keep his cows healthy and provide nutritious milk to new mexico and the nation's consumers, but today art will dump 15,000 gallons of milk. that's enough milk to give

240,000 children a carton of milk at their school lunch and he will dump another 15,000 gallons tomorrow and the next day and the next day. why is art dumping all of this milk? because highly toxic contaminants from the air force base have polluted the water for his cows. the drinking water is polluted by a group of toxic chemicals collectively known as pfos. we know pfos are dangerous to humans. they are associated with increased risk of liver, tess particular eweular -- testicular and pancreatic cancer, and lower

pregnancy, and lower fertility. art's dairy is ruined. he can't sell his milk, he can't sell his cows, he can't sell his property. he is spending thousands of dplars to maintain his -- dollars to maintain his cows and dump milk. in fact, the pfos levels in art's groundwater are 371 times greater than what the environmental protection agency says is safe. the air force knows that it is responsible for this environmental disaster but it claims that it doesn't have the legal authority to provide clean water for art's cows or to reimburse art for his lost livelihood. art is not alone. there are other new mexico dairies located near cannon air force base and are threatened. those dairies have spent hundreds of thousands of their

own dollars to install water filters to prevent their from losing their livelihoods. the department of defense has identified over 400 military sites where pfos were used. there are over 100 military sites nationwide with known pfos contamination. this is a national problem of immense proportion, yet this president's e.p.a. refuses to issue drinking water standards for pfos. it's issued only an advisory that does not have the force of law and they have not listed these chemicals as eligible for superfund cleanup. our farmers and rural america deserve better -- much better. although the air force claimed it had no authority to provide

relief, the then-head of the air force, secretary heather wilson, assured me in a hearing under oath the air force would work with me on legislation to secure that authority for the air force. contrary to that assurance, the air force did not work with us on this legislation. they made it clear they didn't even want the authority to help farmers like art. so in march i introduced the pfos damages act, along with senator heinrich and representatives lou hahn to ensure compensation for those hurt and to make sure those contaminated sites were cleaned up. i also joined senator carper's bipartisan pfos action act of

2019, that requires the e.p.a. to establish pfos as a hazardous substance eligible for superfund cleanups. you know, clean water is not and should not be a partisan issue. new mexico is a patriotic state and honors its military bases, but the department of defense caused this contamination and needs to make it right. senator heinrich was able to include our bill as an amendment to the national defense authorization act that the senate passed by an overwhelming margin, 86-8, in june. it looked like relief -- releigh owed to -- relief owed to art and others unfairly hurt would be on the way. but two days ago, on tuesday, the president threatened to veto the entire defense bill if it gets to his desk with provisions

to help farmers like art and clean up pfos contamination. that is a 370 billion-dollar bill because it requires cleanup of a known pollutant. without a doubt, this is one of the most outrageous veto threats i i've ever -- threats i've ever witnessed in congress. vetoing the defense bill over helping farmers facing riewnt. it is shame -- ruin. it is shameful. republican senators in the senate and house should join us to assure this is one veto that will be overridden. on top of all of this, the president is asking the senate to confirm peter wright, -- the

company that manufactured pfos to run the toxic waste office. this nomination is more filling the swamp by this administration, more foxes guarding the henhouse. e.p.a. has designated slow walking pfos as hazardous programs under the superfund program mr. wright wants to oversee. mr. wright has recused himself from matters relating to dow chemical and therefore will provide no leadership on this pressing issue. the american people deserve a nominee who will clean up current pfos contamination and prevent future contamination. mr. wright can give no such assurance and i will be voting no on his nomination. i call upon the president to nominate someone who will commit

to tackle this issue with the urgency it deserves and to withdraw his shocking veto threat so that innocent farmers like art can save their families -- family's livelihoods. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise today to oppose the nomination of peter wright as assistant administrator for the environmental protection agency office of land and emergency management. this is of enormous consequence to the people of new jersey and i refuse to stay silent as the trump administration stacks the agency that affects our health and environmental safety with industry insiders. mr. wright is a former chemical industry lawyer. if confirmed, he will be charged with overseeing the cleanup of the most toxic waste sites in

america through what is known as the superfund program. new jersey is home to more superfund sites than any other state in the nation. for many years a lack of strong environmental protections and oversight left our communities vulnerable to unsafe, unchecked, unregulated pollution. i'm talking about the days before we had an environmental protection agency, before we ambassador landmark varmintal law -- environmental laws. before we had regulations to protect public health. back then, polluters had a blank check to contaminate our air, soil, and water with toxic chemicals. people across america were exposed to pesticides, lead, asbestos, and other toxins to the air they breathe, the rivers they fished, the soil they farm, and the land they built on. it was unhealthy, unsustainable, and in many cases, it was downright dangerous. indeed, it was 1980, the same year a chemical waste facility in elizabeth, new jersey, burst

into flames and forced an entire community to stay indoors that congress passed the law creating the superfund program. today superfund is our primary tooling for cleaning up the hazardous waste across america. it requires polluters to pay to clean up the site they have contaminated, and it also funds the cleanup of orphan polluters which no longer exist. the superfund program is a promise to our communities, a promise to hold polluters accountable for the damage they have done, a promise to rid our soil and water of toxic chemicals, a promise to transform toxic groundfills into safe, livable, usable land, a promise to protect the health of today's families and of future generations. for that promise cannot be kept on its own. we, the people, must keep that promise, and the one way we can do so is by ensuring leaders who

oversee the superfund program are willing to stand up to polluters, listen to the best science, and hold big corporations accountable. nothing in peter wright's recor suggests he will be that kind of leader. he spent nearly two decades as a lawyer for dow chemical, one of the primary polluters for many superfund sites across the nation. so for all the presidents talk of draining the swamp, it's just that, talk. mr. wright could have been a force for good at dow. he could have stood up for science and race standards. he could have pushed for more efficient, thorough cleanups of toxic waste. instead, he did just the opposite. consider dow's midland site in michigan where more than a century of producing things like styrofoam, agent orange, and mustard gas left rivers contaminated for more than 50 miles. as dioxin self--styled lawyer,

mr. wright points to the midland site as one of his greatest achievements, but a "new york times" investigation from last year tells us a different story. it found that under mr. wright's watch, dow was accused of submitting disputed data, misrepresenting scientific evidence, and delaying cleanup. these accusations were leveled by federal regulators and whistle-blowers alike. one independent lab found dow used incomplete contamination data, leaving the risk of toxins going undetected. an internal whistle-blower revealed dow intentionally designed its data so that it couldn't be properly vetted by independent third parties. and in a 2007 e.p.a. memo, they concluded that dow had, quote, a documented history of impeding the efforts of the michigan department of environmental quality at the midland site. but it wasn't only regulators that mr. wright misled.

the e.p.a. also found that dow, quote, frequently provided information to the public that contradicts agency positions and generally accepted scientific information. that include mailing out a newsletter to local residents, downplaying the risks of dioxin to human health, which according to the e.p.a. is highly toxic, can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, and damage the immune system. the newsletter even included the false claim that dioxin dioxin-contaminated wild game was safe to eat. that is appalling. mr. wright also participated in dow's funding of a study claiming that people living on dioxin-contaminated soil were not at risk forever personal -- for personal exposure. simply put, peter wright made his mark at dow chemical by misrepresenting science, by downplaying threats to mchealth, and undermining cleanups. these practices run counter to the very mission of the e.p.a.,

yet mr. wright's past indicates that if confirmed he will continue to mislead communities, continue to delay cleanups, and continue to sacrifice the health of our people for the bottom line of corporate polluters. finally, as if it wasn't enough to mislead the public, we now know that mr. wright misled congress when he lied to the environment and public works committee about continuing to own stock in dow after his nomination. when i hear that mr. wright proudly called himself the dioxin lawyer, when i hear that he misled families about threats to their health, when i hear that he sought to distort scientific evidence and get his company off the hook for their toxic legacy, i worry about the damage he could do across the nation, including in new jersey. new jersey is home to 114 superfund sites. that's more than california, a state with four and a half times

our population. that's more than double the total sites in texas, a state with 30 times our land mass. millions of people live within just a few miles of these sites in north jersey and south jersey, in bustling cities and rural towns, in every corner of our state. among them is one of the largest superfund cleanups in the country. like the site in michigan, new jersey's diamond acolyte superfund site is contaminated with dioxin for the making of agent orange. like the site in michigan, we have warnings about dioxin-contaminated foods such as seafood from the passe i can river. and like those in michigan, new jerseyans who preside by the passe i can are defending on the superfund program to clean up the river and limit their exposure to toxic chemicals. these families and millions of americans nationwide are depending on the e.p.a. to protect the water they drink, the air they breathe, the soil

they farm and build on. they are depending on their government to put their health ahead of corporate polluters' profits, and today they are depending on us to reject the nomination of peter wright. the e.p.a. has a simple mission -- to protect human health and the environment. the american people deserve an assistant administrator who believes in that mission, not someone who has spent decades fighting it. i urge my colleagues to vote no on mr. wright's nomination, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. i ask to be recognized for seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise in opposition to the nomination of peter wright for the position of assistant administrator of the office of land and emergency management at the environmental

protection agency. if confirmed to this position, mr. wright would be in charge of the office that cleans up hazardous waste, contaminated lands, oil spills, and environmental disasters. he would be at the helm of the nation's superfund program, which is critical to keeping our communities and families safe from dangerous chemicals and other toxic substances. as a former counsel for dow chemical company, peter wright's resume looks early similar to the listing of parties responsible for contaminated superfund sites across our country. for 19 years at dow, he was known as the company's dioxin lawyer. he headed negotiations for a massive cleanup of this cancerous chemical at a time when the company was accused of

delaying cleanup efforts and misrepresenting scientific evidence. for the past year, peter wright worked in an unconfirmed capacity as, quote, special counsel to the e.p.a. administrator, and despite promising to divest all his equity interest in dow, dupont, it was recently revealed that he held on to these stocks until just four months ago. continuing to profit off a chemical company while working for the primary federal agency responsible for regulating that company is unacceptable behavior. just as our lands need protection from toxic chemicals, our government needs to be kept safe from ethical dangers and

toxic nominees. two things that have continually contaminated the trump administration. early in my career, i worked with a mother in woburn, massachusetts, named ann anderson. ann worked tirelessly to expose the link between the industrial chemical t.c.e. and the development of leukemia in wo burn, massachusetts. and the children of woburn, massachusetts, her work and the work of other woburn families helped spur congress to pass the superfund law. and i was a champion of that bill in the house, and i am proud to continue to defend and strengthen the superfund program today in the united states senate. ann anderson's son jimmy died from exposure to t.c.e. and

other chemicals. she had to do the job because the federal government was not doing the job. she had to be the one to put together all the other mothers who had children who were also going to die. now, you may have seen the movie or read the book "a civil action." it was a very good movie, but it's about her. it's about what happens when the federal government turns a blind eye to the impact which large chemical companies and others have upon the lives of ordinary citizens, if there isn't proper protections. now, those sites are cleaned up. her son jimmy has passed. the site now has a transportation facility on it. it's named the jimmy anderson transportation center, in his name. he died. superfund is meant to make sure that there are no more jimmy

andersons. right now, there are tens of millions of acres of contaminated land in america and in places with long industrial histories like massachusetts, and we have nearly a century's worth of toxic materials that have accumulated across our state and across the country, and that's why we need an administrator, an assistant administrator who will fight to protect american communities from these toxic exposures and make sure polluters pay for that cleanup. recently, congress has been debating how to handle a class of chemicals known collectively as pfas, pfas which are everything from teflon to firefighting foams are often called forever chemicals because of how long they stay in the environment, cycling through soil and water and air until they build up in our food and in our bodies. certain pfas chemicals are associated with a host of

dreaded diseases -- cancer, thyroid, hormone disruption, low infant birth rates, and immune system problems. pfas should really be poisonous for all species, because it poisons fish, it poisons cows, it poisons the water, and ultimately it begins to affect human beings as well. pfas, poisonous for all species. massachusetts has documented pfas contamination in air, all across our commonwealth, and polluters should pay to clean up their messes, but right now it is the public that pays. this could change if the e.p.a. follow up on a promise made by scott pruitt to designate pfas as a hazardous substance under

the superfund law. more than a year later, we are still waiting. we need a champion at the superfund office. there are many ann andersons around this country trying to keep their little jimmys protected. mr. wright hasn't committed to giving our communities the weapons they need to fight back against chemical contamination, and that's why today i will oppose his nomination on this floor. and, mr. president, with that, i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks on this nominee before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today the senate is considering the nomination of peter wright to serve as the assistant administrator of the environmental protection agency for the office of land and emergency management. if confirmed, mr. wright will lead this critical e.p.a. office that provides policy, provides guidance, provides direction for the e.p.a.'s emergency response and waste programs. mr. wright will play a crucial

role in helping the agency respond to disasters and cleanups. the office of land and emergency management oversees the superfund program, which is a priority for this administration. there are currently about 1,300 listed superfund sites across america. on top of these there are 450 brownfield sites that need to be addressed. the e.p.a. needs an assistant administrator in place to prioritize these cleanups. peter wright is ready for the task. he currently serves as a special counsel at the e.p.a. previously mr. wright worked as managing counsel at the dow chemical company for nearly 20 years. his nomination has been endorsed by 18 current and former chairs of the american bar association's section of environment, energy, and resources, including john cruden who is the former assistant attorney general in president obama's administration. john millner, the current chair

of the section, writing on behalf of the former chair said this of mr. wright. he said peter's career, his selfless commitment to the american bar association's section of environment, energy, and resources and the members it serves as well as his well recognized personal integrity exemplify the high standards of the legal profession. he goes on to say, we enthusiastically and without reservation support the consideration of peter as assistant administrator for the office of land and emergency management and believe peter will serve this office, he says, with distinction and honor. so he's ready to take on this responsibility, and he's been ready for well over a year. president trump originally nominated peter wright to serve in this important role on march 6 of 2018. well, that was 493 days ago. the reason for so long a delay, well, obstruction by senate democrats. we've seen it before. for over a year this important

e.p.a. office has been without confirmed leadership because of political games being played by senate democrats. now the games have ended. it's time to get serious. senate democrats are now saying that they would delay this vote further because of an error mr. wright included on his disclosures. according to career e.p.a. ethics officials, mr. wright made an inadvertent error and immediately corrected it. e.p.a. ethics officials found that he did not violate any federal ethics laws or regulations. justine, a career ethics at the e.p.a., this is what she said. in my opinion, mr. wright adhered to the federal ethics laws and regulations when he became aware of the inadvertent error. he notified me immediately, she said, and corrected that error. the delays must end, mr. president. superfund sites need to be cleaned up. emergencies must be responded to, and this important office

needs its senate-confirmed leader in place. it's time to confirm peter wright to be assistant administrator of the e.p.a. for the office of land and emergency management, and i strongly encourage senators to support this nomination. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the confirmation of the wright nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 52. the nays be 38. the nomination is confirmed. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motion 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 move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 362. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination. the judiciary. peter joseph phipps of pennsylvania to be united states circuit judge for the third circuit. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the notion of peter joseph phipps of pennsylvania to be united states circuit judge for the third circuit signed by 17 senators as follows.

mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading ftd names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 1, treaty document number 113-4. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the --. the clerk: treaty document, 113-4, the tax convention with spain. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment at the desk and ask the clerk to ratepayer. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes amendment number 910 to the treaty. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading

be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 911 to amendment number 910. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on treaty calendar number 1, treaty 113-4, the protocol amending the tax convention with spain. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed

to executive session to consider calendar number 2, treaty document number 112-1. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the treaty. the clerk: treaty doc 112-1 protocol amending tax convention with the confederation. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky proposes an amendment 912. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment number 913 to amendment number 912. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators, we, the undersigned senators, of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on treaties calendar number 2, treaty 112-1, protocol amending the tax convention with scwits scwits -- switzerland. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. the ayes appear to it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 3, treaty document 114-1. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the treaty. the clerk: treaty document 114-1 protocol amending the tax convention with japan. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment at the desk and i ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 914 to treaty document 114-1. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 915 to amendment numbered 914. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i sent a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion.

the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on treaties calendar number 3, treaty document 114-1, protocol amending the tax convention with japan, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 4, treaty document number 111-8. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the treaty. the clerk: treaty document 111-8, protocol amending tax convention with luxembourg. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have an

amendment at the desk and i ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 916 to treaty document 111-8. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 917 to amendment numbered 916. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on treaties calendar number 4, treaty document 111-8, protocol amending the tax convention with election embowrg, signed by 17 -- election with luxembourg, signed by 17 senators as follow-

mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 54. pyrite the -- the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, clifton l. cooper of tennessee to be united states district judge for the eastern district of tennessee. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of clifton l. corker of tennessee to be united states district judge for the eastern district of tennessee, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion.

all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 175. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state, linda blanchard of alabama to be ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the republic of slovenia. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of linda blanchard to be ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the united states of america to the republic of slovenia, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 183. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. thethe ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk: donald r. tapia of arizona to be ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the -- to jamaica. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of donald r. tapia of arizona to be ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the united states of america to jamaica, signed by 17 senators as follow-

mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i rise today to address one of the most pressing crises the american people are facing today, our refusal to address the border crisis is inexcusable. right now texas and other border states are being overwhelmed by

thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants who are flooding into small communities monthly. our inaction, the inaction of the united states congress, leaves these communities responsible for paying for where these illegal immigrants will stay, for how they will receive medical care, and for where they will go when they are released. from brownsville to mccallan to he'll rio to el paso and beyond, texas communities are at their breaking points in terms of resources and manpower in dealing with this crisis. i'm hearing this from elected officials throughout south texas, democrats and republicans, the crisis has reached a breaking point. our hardworking border patrol agents are also struggling with the enormous influx of illegal

immigrants. it's been reported that there are now more illegal immigrants in custody than border patrol agents on the southern border, and thousands more being appear ended daily. since last october, over half a million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at our southern border, many of them having traveled through pleaks mexico through -- from mexico to he'll sal have a -- el salvador and guatemala. during this time the border patrol apprehended nearly 700 gang members trying to enter the united states. in the last