senate will be in session. cloture having been invoked. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, james wesley hendrix to be united states district judge for the northern district of texas. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mrs. mcsally: i rise today to give my maiden speech as the 14th senator of the state of arizona. it is an honor and humbling to be appointed to serve in the

seat held by senator john mccain. like most of my life, i didn't take the traditional path, but i am blessed to have been given the opportunity to make a difference for others and stand in this historic chamber today. i love arizona, the grand canyon state, its people and our spirit. like many arizonans, i wasn't born there, so this is a love of choice. also like many arizonans, i first came to the state on a military assignment in the summer of 1990 to attend pilot training at williams air force base, now home to a thriving industrial park called mesa gateway. i fell in love with arizona right away and was fortunate to have the majestic view from the sky as a pilot. what a privilege to live in a land of adventure i'd only read about as a kid. home to one of the seven natural wonders of the world and the grand canyon, and our diverse landscapes, mountains, canyons, lakes, rivers, sunsets, and the powerful desert lightning. after an assignment away i came

back to arizona to fly the a-10 wart hog. there is nothing like finishing a demanding mission on the barry goldwater air force range. it isn't only our climate and beautiful landscapes that make arizona a great place to live and work. we arizonans are known for our resilience, harry reid -- hardness and service. it is this patriotism that transcends generations. ms. mcsally: we were the last in the continental united states to become a state we and have a history of adventurous people. our state motto is god and riches, highlighting the importance in faith in god in our path and future. the original foundation of our economy is known as the five

c's. copper, cattle, cotton, citrus and climate. today we still have the largest copper producer in north america which i recently visited. arizona has made history in our own unique way. we're known around the world for the famous town of tombstone and the legendary ok corral and the proud home to sandra day owe corn, the first -- sandra day o'connor. arizona has proudly supported our troops and remains crucial for our defense, our vast open land, beautiful weather and airspace makes our state a national security treasure sure and arizonans always answered the call to support our vets. arizona is the home to 22 federally recognized tribes and has the largest percentage of tribal secretary. the hopi village was started around 100 a.d. and piesta le

peep is named after the first foreign woman to die in combat. carl hayden was our first congressman turned senator who served 56 years and secured funding for the arizona water project. raul castro was the first latino governor of arizona. we are home to two senate heavyweights, barry goldwater who served five terms and john mccain who served six terms in this chamber. i approach this opportunity to serve in the senate the same way i approached my 26 years in the air force base as a fighter pilot and my four years in the house. i lost my father at the age of 12 so my life was shaped early on to be treating each day as a gift. in the hospital, shortly before he died, my dad told me to make him proud.

my journey to this chapter of service has not been an easy one but i learned from my dad and my mom who was left behind with five kids that hard work, education, and faith and a mind-set of service to others are unfailing foundations for any endeavor in life. when i have retired in the air force having served in peace and war, i gave a speech with principles that still ring true for this new deployment in the senate. first, know your oath. the oath i took on january 3 as a u.s. senator is the same oath, the same exact wording as the one i took as a military officer. the oath and what it represents is what those of us who served in the military were willing to fight for, and if necessary die for. during my eight-year battle with the pentagon over their policy requiring u.s. servicewomen to be treated like property and wear the muslim burka like

coverings, there was extraordinary pressure telling the top four-star brass that they were outrageously wrong and me a lowly rang -- ranking major had every reason to believe i would be. we were taught as cadets and officers that moral courage means doing the right thing even if it comes at a great personal cost to you. trust me, i was tested but stayed the course. subsequently i sued donald rumsfeld which we can all probably agree on both sides of the aisle is not a good career move. nonetheless, i went on a one-woman lobbying campaign as a regular citizen which led to legislation being passed unanimously, signed into law and resulted in overturning this demeaning discriminatory policy. it took eight years to win but by all measures it was worth it. i credit that oath. it gave me purpose.

it gave me power and be enabled one woman opposed by the entire department of defense to endure and as a result changeable. this is how i plan to serve arizona in this body, standing up for what's right in the same fighting spirit that comes with living up to my oath of service. next the question is, is this a job, a career, or a calling? a job brings a paycheck, provides certainty and pays the bill. a career can sound noble at its surface, but if someone is only focused on a career path they can purposely or inadvertently step on others, not be a good teammate, not rock the boat to do the right thing, make decisions based on fear. a career focus could foster risk as aversion and selfish motives. a calling is being a part of something greater than yourself. just like my time in uniform and in that message i gave at my retirement, i approach my time here in the senate as a calling for this season and this moment

in time. i get up every day with the focus of what can i do today to make a difference for arizonans. next don't walk by a problem. it's part of our military culture. if you're complaining about something, you better be willing to step up and do something about it. god puts us in certain circumstances in order for us to use our energy and our talents to make a difference for others. that's how i laugh from yelling at the television from my living room it to delivering this speech in the chamber today. as i learned from my dad's untimely passing, if these two years are the last two years of my life, what will i do with them? how can i make this time truly meaningful for those i represent? the senate was created to be the world's most deliberative body and designed to be methodical in nature but wasn't designed for anonymous holds and partisan bickering to score cheap political points. i built a reputation in the house for being a pragmatic problem solver who understands

my constituents, to increase opportunity and prosperity for everyday americans and to take a stand when actions go against their best interests. far too often too many elected officials lose sight of that goal. during my retirement certainly i concluded with this quote from fighter pilot john boyd. he says one day you will come to a fork in the road and you'll have to make a decision about which direction you want to go. he raised his hand and pointed, if you go that way, you can be somebody. you have to make compromises. you'll have to turn your back on friends, but you'll be a member of the club and you'll get promote and get good assignments. then boyd raised his other hand and pointed in another direction. or you can go that way and you can do something, something for your country and for your air force and for yourself. if you decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted. you may not get the good assignments. you certainly won't be a favorite of your superiors. but you won't have to compromise

yourself. you'll be true to your friends and yourself and your work might make a difference. to be somebody or to do something, in life it's often the roll call. that's when you'll have to make the decision to be or to do. which way will you go? that question is what should be posed to all of us who serve in this chamber today. it's no secret my path is to take action and do something. and i'd ask my fellow senators to join me with this precious time we've been given. i already know so many of you feel the same and are driven to serve. let's point in the direction of do. there's only 1,983 people who have served as united states senators. how many can you name? as for me, but a fraction. except for a few extraordinary exceptions, no one is going to remember our names when we're no longer here. we'll go back to being regular citizens, so it's about service now, not self. to do something that matters. arizonans like people all over

the country are tired of the gridlock. they want congress to work for them, not the other way around. many people here want to protect this institution, but the american people have basically lost faith in these bodies and those serving in them. our approval rating is pathetically low and is likely credited to family members and paid staff. to point the direction of john boyd's challenge of doing something, we must commit today to stop the dysfunction, break the gridlock, stop spending, stop obstructing, start truly working on behalf of the american people. yes, we live in divided times, but there is always more that unites us than divides us. since i took this oath on january 3, my first mission in the senate was to visit all 15 counties in arizona, to listen to my constituents' priorities and challenges. it was a two ears and one mouth tour used proportionally. despite the diversity of our state, there was tremendous common ground on so many major

issues and priorities. arizonans want us to promote policies to ensure if they work hard they'll be able to provide for their families, get ahead, and meet their full potential. they want to make sure our country is safe for them and their children. they want a life of dignity and respect for one another. they want us to give our military men and women everything they need to do their mission and take care of them and their families when they're done serving. that's why i'm going to continue to fight to protect the a-10 wart hog at davis mountain and fielt for the f-35 at luke air force base plus other amazing military installations that we have and their unique missions in arizona. and it's why since taking office i visited numerous veterans service organizations like u.s. vets where i heard real stories from veterans who struggle with homelessness and addiction, who have since been helped off the street and been able to start a new life for themselves. arizonans want us to solve the border crisis and stop playing

political games with it. a crisis all too real like cities like yuma. i saw firsthand there where over 300 migrants illegally crossed the border due to poor infrastructure and lack of resources for agents or like douglas where outdated facilities leave agents overwemed and leave our country vulnerable to illegal drugs. arizona arizonans want us to work together to bring down the cost of health care and not allow insurance companies to make health care choices for them. we can do this by protecting preexisting conditions and supporting initiatives like association health plans which allow groups like the arizona chamber of commerce association to partner together to access the health insurance plans that right now only big companies can. lives will be saved but the medical innovations happening in my state. arizona is home to many institutions that are leading the way to find new treatments

and cures for deadly diseases. when i visited the ivy brain tumor center, i was inspired by the story of katherine ivy whose husband ben passed away from glee i don't see blastoma, the -- glioblastoma. instead of being consumed with her grief, katherine searched for the best place to conquer this disease. she found it at the barrow neurological institute right there in her state of arizona. the doctor and his team are doing amazing work in leading cutting edge research and clinical trials. we need more investments and less barriers for initiatives like this. arizonans want us to continue to tackle the opioid epidemic that is disproportionately impacting our rural communities. during my 15-county tour i met the mayor of stafford who shared

the senseless death of his son. his life and all his potentially ended with a fentanyl-laced heroin dose. we pledge to end this crisis. arizonans want us to do this for the long haul, not a one-size-fits-all approach. we need flexibility and partnerships with states. cities in both the west and east valley of maricopa county have been tasked with the daunting feat of keeping up with the fastest population growth in the country, but not the resources to modernize their streets and freeways. we need bipartisan solutions to modernize our infrastructure and include water infrastructure and rural broadband. arizonans want us to ensure that our freedoms and opportunities are preserved for their children and their grandchildren. they want us to ensure that seniors can have retirement security after working their whole lives. we can solve some of these

problems in the days ahead if we choose to, if we choose to work together and do something bigger for those we all serve. at this moment in history, as john boyd said, we're at a fork in the road, and we have a choice. be someone or do something. i choose to act for those i serve. i know you do, too. so let's get to work for the nation. as senator mccain once said, americans never quit. we never surrender. we never hide from history. we make history. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i request the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are requested. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the nomination. the yeas and nays are ordered. 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? seeing none, the yeas are 89, the nays are 1. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. 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 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of shawn d. jordan of texas for united states district judge for the eastern district of texas, signed by 17 senators. 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 sean d. jordan of texas to be u.s. district judge for the eastern district of texas shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are the presiding officer: does anyone wish to change their vote? the nays are 36, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, sean d. jordan, of texas, to be united states district judge for the even district of texas. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, recently i joined a senate delegation to visit the to view the humanitarian crisis facing the united states, we visited the catholic respite center and the ursla processing center. i held a town hall in highland

town, it was organized by the latinos network which included catholic relief services, hebrew immigration society and other nonprofits. i was impressed by the catholic charity's center. the center provides a warm meal, a shower, a change into clean clothes and provides medicine and other desperately needed supplies. these migrants are lucky to make it there. what i saw in another town was disturbing. i saw many families huddled together. i saw children behind facing and basically in cages. some children were in clothing that were soiled and had not been changed since they arrived in the united states. children and families were only supposed to be there for a temporary holding, but we heard families were held up to 10 to

14 days and in some cases even longer. why are migrants leaving their homes in the first place? these individuals are desperate. they are desperate because they are fleeing violence and persecution in their own countries. these families are often given a are terrible choice, had a young daughter or son join a criminal gang. that means attacked, kidnapped or murdered. even though it's a dangerous journey, these families feel they have no choice. let me remind my colleagues these families are lawfully seeking asylum at our border and should not be treated as criminals. we need to respect their human rights. these migrants are not trying to harm -- do harm to the united states indeed, government officials told us that the vast majority of sthoas screened present no safety -- those screened present no safety risk such as criminal behavior and most have not pride to

previously enter the country illegally. i am gravely concerned by the new metering system for those seeking asylum and refuge in our country as part of the expansion remain in mexico program. normally a migrant would present themselves to customs or border patrol agents at the point of entry and ask to seek asylum. but under the trump administration's new metering policy, border patrol agents will stop migrants at the border, oftentimes halfway across the bridge approaching a legal port of entry, border patrol will give the migrant a number and they will have to wait for their number to be called before they can formally present themselves for admission at a legal point of entry. so how long's the wait for your number to be called? madam president, in some cases it's weeks or even months. in the meantime migrants are told to wait at a border town or tent city setup on the other side of the border.

one of the most dangerous downs of all in mexico is just across the border from the mcallen border patrol station. migrants staying in if these temporary tent cities are subjected to violence, extortion, human trafficking, even death at the hands of gangs that operate with impunity within the city which is effectively not controlled by mexican law enforcement authorities. the town is so dangerous that u.s. law enforcement personnel are forbidded from visiting there to meet with migrants on the mexican side of the border. this is outrageous and america can do better to live up to our values. migrants who are desperate and fleeing prosecution at home come to the united states for safety for themselves and their families and now they are told they must wait indefinitely in essentially a lawless town where they are at the mercy of criminals, gangs, and traffickers that prey on the most vulnerable.

what happens next? many of these migrants sty they have no choice but to cross the border illegally so they can escape the camps. when migrants try to cross the border illegally, they face new dangers of dehydration, drowning or even death. the trump administration is ignoring the asylum policy of those fleeing persecution in their home countries. the trump administration is trying to deter migration by making it more difficult to seek asylum and to deter refugees from coming to the united states in the first place. the exchanges of remain in mexico and metering policies will make it even more difficult for asylum seekers to apply if they travel through multiple countries as they make their way to the united states. i believe it should be easier

for migrants to apply in their home countries and get i asylum determinations from the u.s. embassy so they do not have to make the dangerous journey to the united states and try to cross our border with the uncertainty of what awaits them once they reach the u.s. border. i'm concerned of the migrants who did not receive asylum may not receive proper notice before an asylum judge in order to make a case. these are people who are released in our country but have to show up for a hearing, the address may be incorrect or outdated in terms of where the migrant is heading to the in the united states to await their asylum hearing before a judge. in other words, the information may be -- inaccurate, may never get the notices to appear, they are therefore out of status and have not had a chance to make their case. n.g.o.'s made a strong case to restate the family case management program which the trump administration has

canceled. they explained that if i.c.e. reinstated this program, we could see 99% compliance without the need for overcrowding. this is backed up by the statistics of the department of homeland security itself when the program was in use. this is a promising alternative to detention that should be expanded instead of canceled by the trump administration. let me say a word about the border patrol agents themselves. they are trying to do their job under difficult circumstances. the main problem is the trump administration's asylum policy, not the border patrol agents. i hope that the supplemental legislation will help in terms of providing better and more humane care to children in custody under the auspices of the offices of refugee resettlement. it will seek to improve

conditions for migrants by addressing the dangerous overcrowding found by the department of homeland security's inspector general. the bill improves due process for migrants and seeks to ease the immigration court backlog by hiring new immigration judges to hear cases and giving are migrants access to the legal orientation program. what should congress do to address the immediate needs of migrants, particularly children, as well as addressing the root cause of this humanitarian crisis. i'm a cosponsor of stop cruelty to migrant children act, it would provide guardrails an minimum standards for the treatment of children of families ensuring that the government will not harm asylum seekers. it will reduce family separation, setting health and safety standards, ending the operation of refugee shelters by for-profit contractors, making it easier to place children with sponsors and ensuring that

unaccompanied children have something s. to legal counsel. in terms of route causes, i joined with my colleagues in joining the central america legal enforcement act to address the crisis that is driving the immigration from central america and to smooth the path for those seeking asylum in this country. it would assume assistance to the northern triangle governments and crack down on smugglers, cartels, and traffickers exploiting children and families. the legislation enhances monitoring of unaccompanied children after they are processed at the border, provides a fair process for asylum seekers and improves legal court inefficiencies. that's what some of the things we can do. in particular this legislation would reverse the foreign aid cuts made by the trump administration that is worsening the migration crisis in the

northern triangle. i am concerned, however that the president sees immigration and -- and immigrants as a good political issue for the 2020 election. congress needs a partner to take up and pass comprehensive immigration reform which i believe could pass comfortably in both houses if the president of the united states would join us in an constructive manner for immigration reform. there is a muslim ban, canceled temporary legal status, canceled daca, tried to institute an asylum ban, lowered and now seeks to eliminate refugee emissions, increase domestic enforcement, and has expedited removal of residents in the united states without due process or court hearings.

in this many cases the trump administration decision has been subjected to challenges in court and our independent judiciary has largely upheld the rule of law and serves as a check and balance against the worse excesses of the trump administration as it disregards our laws and the constitution. i, therefore, urge the president to reverse course and work with congress on comprehensive immigration reform, which must include sensible border security. we do need border security. these times when we have international terrorism and international drug trafficking, we need to know who is coming into our country and have an orderly way to process those who want to work or live or go to school in the united states, but it must include an asylum policies for -- policy for families at risk in their native country. let us build on the proud history of america and help those seeking persecution and

helping to build a better america. with that, madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: are we in a quorum call?

the presiding officer: we are. mr. tester: i would ask that the quorum call be viscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. as i travel across montana, i hear from folks who work tirelessly every day to make ends meet. many many work long hours for too low of wages and they face housing costs and health care costs. but, you know, folks in montana are resilient and resourceful and know how to live within their means and how important it is to make the numbers add up at the end of the month. i rise today because, as usual, washington, d.c., could learn a lot from montana. this week we will vote on a bill that swipes washington's credit card to the tune of about $250 over the next two years. dollars that will come out of the pockets of our kids and our grandkids. now, this $250 billion comes on

top of the $1 trillion the united states will add to the national deficit this year because our budget is that far out of whack. previous to this year, it was $800 billion that we added to the national debt. so to put that in perspective, that's about $2.2 trillion in just two years, and if you're sitting at home wondering, $2.2 trillion, how much is that? well, it's far more than $250 billion, and with $250 billion, half the students going to college for four years would not have to pay anything to go to school in the united states. and we're adding $2.2 trillion. and it's going to continue on until we get our budget in line. fortunately this for the of

reckless spending, by both parties, has shown a disregard for its impact on the national debt and it is now the norm in washington, d.c.. folks both sides of the aisle are calling for this agreement, and they are calling it a compromise, but in reality the only thing it will compromise is our children and our grandchildren's future. montanans expect me to hold washington, d.c., accountable and fight back against irresponsible spending and poor tax policy. this falls on the responsible spending side. the bipartisan committee for a responsible federal budget projects that this administration's policies will add $4 trillion to the debt over the next ten years. i am here to tell you that that is too conservative of a figure. at this point in time we're going to be adding about $1.2 trillion to the debt every year if things don't change.

our debt is skyrocketing, and guess what. we're not fixing the health care problems that need to be fixed. we're not fixing the high cost of education. we're not investing in our infrastructure. but our debt continues to skyrocket because of irresponsible spending, and quite frankly, a republican tax giveaway for the wealthy at the expense of our kids and our grandkids. you know, i've listened to colleagues both sides of the aisle during my tenure here that warned of debt and how our national debt could damage our national economy and national security. two years ago my republican colleagues passed a partisan tax giveaway drafted behind closed doors with no -- with no public input from montanans or anyone else in this country. they promised that this tax giveaway would pay for itself but it did not.

let me say that one more time. they promised the tax giveaway would pay for itself, but guess what, just like the previous ones, it didn't. instead it tacked about $2 trillion on to our national debt and it's another example -- example of why we can't get our books in order because we have a short-sighted fiscal approach to make this the first generation to inherit from our parents and borrow from our kids. my colleagues made campaign promises to tackle this debt. as a congressman -- as a congressman, mick mulvaney, who happens to be the president's chief of staff promised to eliminate, but this white house has done just the opposite. as we stand here today, the debt has exploded to more than $22 trillion, and it continues to climb higher every day despite the country being in the middle of the longest period of economic expansion in our

history. now, i'm going to tell you it's one thing to run a deficit when you're in a recession, it's necessary to bring the economy back, but when you are in the longest period of economic expansion in this country's history, we should be paying that debt down, and we are not. we are adding to it as if we were in a recession. and running trillion dollar deficits during times of growth like this one, and everybody in this body knows it, puts the economy on a sugar high. it feels good now, but we all know it's not sustainable and a crash is inevitable. the same folks who voted to file on $2 trillion -- $2 trillion on to the deficit now argue, some of them, that we cannot find the money to provide our veterans with the health care they have earned. they say we need deep cuts into medicaid and social security and

other programs that many folks have paid into for their entire life, but yet, we're going to cut them. now i've known, and we all know that budgets and spending is about priorities, and it is clear that congress's priorities are out of whack. you wouldn't know it from watching c-span, but it's possible to be fiscally conservative without cutting folks off at the knees. i know this because as a member of the montana senate i negotiated and passed a. i asked that congress pass a balanced budget. we know that it can't be done overnight. but in a measured approach with bipartisan cooperation, we can at least get headed in the right direction. there is no reason why we cannot

make smart investments in our working families, our kids' education, 21st century infrastructure and other needs across the country without bankrupting future generations. folks in the treasury knows that and washington, d.c., needs to know that too. it is time for congress to follow montana's lead. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. alexander: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, i ask to speak for as much time as i may require. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: madam president, i often recommend to tennesseeians that they look at the united states congress as if it were a split-screen television settlement. here's what i mean by that. during the last month on one side of the screen you saw the usual washington, d.c., turmoil, trump versus the squad, mueller

testifying, impeachment votes, battle over the border, presidential candidates posturing, and, of course, the daily tweets. but on the other side of the screen was the president and congressional leaders agreeing to a two-year budget that will strengthen our military, help our veterans, fund research for medical miracles, fund research for our national laboratories, and support our national parks and save taxpayers a boat load of money by providing stability and funding. and i might add that this part of the budget, 31% of the budget, is not the part of the budget creating the budget deficit. this part of the budget that we'll be voting on tomorrow has gone up at about the flait of in -- rate of inflation for ten years and it is expected by the congressional budget office to go up at the rate of inflation

for the next ten years, it is the entitlement part of the budget that is the problem which is why i'm voting for what the president and congressional leaders have recommended. but then, madam president, also on that side of the screen, away from the washington, d.c., turmoil, there was another story which is the story i want to talk about today. during that last same month three senate committees, by my count more than -- made more than 80 bipartisan proposals sponsored by at least 75 united states senators of both political parties to reduce the cost of health care that americans pay for out of their own pockets. on june 26, after 17 hearings, six months of work, recommendations from 400 experts, our health committee, which i chair and which senator patty murray, the democrat from washington state is the ranking member, voted 20-3 to recommend

to are senators 55 proposals from 65 senators that would end surprise medical billing, increase transparency so that you could know the cost of our medical care. you can't lower your health care costs if you don't know what the price of your health care costs is, and increase competition to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. the next day, after our health committee reported that legislation, the judiciary committee, headed by senator grassley and senator wyden, reported out -- headed by senator graham and senator feinstein, excuse me, reported out four proposals from 19 senators that would reduce prescription drug costs by banning anticompetitive behaviors by drug manufacturers and helping the federal trade commission to block those who

game the process to delay generic drugs and biosimilars. and last thursday, the finance committee, this one headed by senator grassley, senator wyden, by a vote of 19-9, reported more than two dozen additional bipartisan proposals also aimed at reducing the costs of prescription drugs. that's not all, madam president. the house energy and commerce committee has passed his own solution to surprise billing. last thursday senator murray's staff and i met with representatives frank pallone and greg walledon, leaders of the house energy committee and we worked together to lower health care costs. all of this work is consistent with what secretary azar and the president has been saying and doing to lower prescription drug costs and increase transparency. for example, last week, after the finance committee released its legislation, the white house said, quote, it is encouraged by

the bipartisan work of chairman grassley and senator wyden to craft a comprehensive package to lower outragesly high drug prices and today we are engaging with coalitions to help build support. that from the white house. here is why this amount of activity is in so many ways such a good sign for the american people. in our committee what we have seen before with fixing no child left behind, 21st century cures act, last year's response to the opioids crisis, the last of which occurred, by the way, while on the other side of the split-screen television was the kavanaugh acrimonious hearing, what we saw with those laws is that when that many senators and that many congressmen work together on a big issue that affects millions of american people, that that's likely to be a result that affects the american people. in other words, madam president,

i believe that legislation to end surprise medical billing, increase transparency, and lower prescription drug costs is looking like a train that will get to the station when congress reconvenes in september. and well it should. the cost of health care is americans' number one financial concern, according to gallup. and at one hearing before our health committee he experts from the academy of medicine testified that up to half of what our country spends on health care is unnecessary. that is such a startling fact that i sat down then with senator murray and with senators grassley and wyden and with senators graham and feinstein, and i said to the leaders of those committees, surely if -- if the experts say that half of what we're spending is unnecessary, democrats and republicans can find some things that we can agree on that reduce

the cost of what we pay for health care out of our own pocket, and we have. the work of these three committees, more than 80 proposals from 75 senators, is the result of that work over the last six months. let me say a word perhaps the most visible proposal in the hill committee's bill, surprise medical billing. this is one of the most urgent problems that the house, the senate, and the president are trying to fix. about 20% -- after about 20% of all emergency room visits, patients are surprised a few months later to receive an unexpected bill. it can range from $300 to $3,000 to $30,000. this happens because patients see a doctor they didn't choose either because of emergency care of an out-of-network hospital or because of an out-of-network

doctor not chosen by the patient treats them at an in-network hospital. in the state of the union address and again at the white house event in may, president trump called for an end to surprise billing. at the event he gave me a copy of this medical bill which we have enlarged on this chart. it was a bill sent to liz marino, a texas college student who had back surgery and during his post -- her post surgery follow-up visit, her doctor ordered a urine test. a year later this bill showed up, $17,850 for a urine test. that's about the price of a new nissan centra. the bill was sky high because the lab that ran the test, a lab liz had no way of choosing, was considered out of network by her insurer. or take drew calvert, a textian, told the president about his story about getting $110,000 in bills. both the emergency room he was

rushed to during his heart attack was out of network and so were the doctors who treated him. that day the president said, quote, for too long surprise billings have left some patients with thousands of dollars of unexpected and unjustified charges so this must end. the lower health care cost act that the senate health committee passed last month by a vote of 20-3 would have protected liz and drew from receiving those surprise bills. here's how it works. insurance companies would pay out-of-network doctors a local market-driven benchmark rate which would be the same local market-based rate that insurers negotiated with doctors who agreed to be in network. obviously this saves liz and drew because they wouldn't be getting a surprise medical bill. but the congressional budget office says that by ending surprise medical billings, this

approach would generally lower health insurance premiums. and c.b.o. also estimates the approach would save taxpayers $25 billion over the next ten years. now, based on data from kaiser, only about 5% of doctors at 10% of hospitals send most of these surprise medical bills. so our solution primarily affects those doctors that patients have little control over choosing. anesthesiologists, aidologyists, pathologists, emergency room doctors, neonatologists. it does not affect doctors that a patient can choose like cardiologists or primary care doctors or pediatricians. in fact the american academy of family physicians representing primary care doctors supports our lower health care cost act

that ends surprise medical building. over the 17 hearings of our health committee conducted in developing our legislation, we heard many stories about surprise billing. here are a few. todd, a knoxville father who wrote me. he took his son to the emergency room after a bicycle accident. todd was surprised when a few months later he received a bill for $1,800 because even though the emergency room was in network, the doctor he treated -- that treated his son was not. ahead of the birth of their first child, danny and his wife, linda, from georgia chose an in-network doctor and hospital. of course, that means they thought their insurance would cover their bills. but when luke was born three weeks premature, he had to spend 11 days at the in-network hospitals in i.c.u. in the weeks after luke went home, neonatal care center that

would be, went home, $42,079 in bills were sent to danny and linda because the neonatal care center located in their in-network hospital was out of network. or take carrie wallinger from phoenix, arizona. she received a $9,000 surprise medical bill after going to an in-network emergency room after her dog bit her finger. the doctor who came to stitch up her finger was from an out-of-network facility and so she got an unexpected $9,000 surprise bill. or a south carolina woman who had to have an emergency c-section, received a $15,000 bill from an out-of-network anesthesiologist. usually when you're not being wheeled -- when you're being wheeled into an emergency room for an emergency operation, you're not thinking about choosing a doctor and you're not interviewing them about whether they're in network or out of

network. in texas, after an atv crushed his arm, dr. naveed kahn, a radiologist needed advanced care. the cost of a trip in a helicopter, $44,631. nicole brings from -- briggs from colorado had emergency surgery to remove her appendix at an in-network hospital. she owed $4,727 because the surgeon was out of network. mississippi, stacy white took her husband to the emergency room at an in-network hospital. the emergency physician who saw her husband was out of network and to her surprise, they received a bill for $2,700. west coast, a 3-year-old with 107-degree fever was airlifted from a small community in west virginia to a more advanced hospital 75 miles away. his parents were left with a

$45,000 bill for the helicopter. and in maine the state representative who sponsored a bill to protect patients against surprise bills received a several hundred dollar bill himself after the radiologist who read his daughter's x-ray was out of network, even though he took his daughter to a in-network hospital. there are many more stories i could tell. but the bottom line is in each case, this happened because the patient almost always had little choice. and if you don't have choice, then you really don't have a functioning market. it is a market failure. one reason for the uptick in surprise bills is that this market failure is now being exploited by private equity firms. oftentimes hospitals will contract with a company to staff their emergency rooms and hospitals. these companies will handle billing, managing schedules, hiring doctors to staff the hospital emergency room.

here's some research done by yale economist zak cooper. he found that two of the leading staffing companies both backed by private equity firms significantly increased the rate of out-of-network billing at a hospital once the firmts are hiring. -- firms are hiring. he found the cases one of the physician's staffing companies that cooper studied, a large insurer data showed the cases of surprise billing increased by 100% in six different hospitals once this physician staffing firm took over those hospitals' emergency rooms. in a "new york times" article, cooper described the 100% jump in surprise bills once these private equity-backed staffing companies entered by saying it was, quote, almost like a light switch that was being flipped on, unquote. and cooper said, if you're willing to engage in some unsavory billing practices, these services could be quite lucrative.

that's just discouraging. and it makes people want to go to single payer. these surprise bill abuses make americans want to go to single payer. our goal, mr. president, is to protect patients, not private equity firms and companies who are taking advantage of patients. surprise medical bills are one of the most visible problems of the 180 million americans who get their health insurance on the job. when growing number of patients are receiving surprise medical bills that can bankrupt their families, it's time for congress to act. if congress can't fix such an obvious market failure in health care, pressure will only grow for a radical federal takeover of health care that will take away private insurance from 180 million americans who get insurance on the job and leave patients with less choice, fewer doctors, and worse health care.

avic roy has written in forbes, quote, if we do nothing to address surprise medical bills, the problem will get far worse. if we do something that is too incremental, we'll pat ourselves on the back and be forced to revisit the problem in a few years. americans deserve market-based alternatives to single payer health care. without reform of this exploitive hospital price, we'll never get there, said avic roy in forbes. mr. president, americans want to be mindful consumers of health care. when todd, the knoxville father wrote me, he said, quote, if i'm expected to be a conscientious consumer of my own health care, i need a little more help. in other words, he needs for congress to end surprise medical bills. it is unacceptable to say to patients that even by paying their premiums every month, even by researching and choosing

in-network hospitals and doctors that they may be on the hook for thousands of unexpected dollars because of a surprise bill over which they had no control. mr. president, at least 75 senators and the president of the united states have made it clear that our intent is to end surprise billing and to reduce what americans pay out of pocket for their health care. when congress reconvenes in september, i would encourage all of my colleagues to support these efforts to reduce health care costs. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. van hollen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i'm here on the senate floor today with my friend and colleague, the senior senator

from the state of maryland, senator cardin, and i think we would both agree that we were rather -- we would rather not be here today to talk about this subject, but i feel compelled to come to the senate floor today because, in my view, we have a duty to speak out when the president of the united states of america engages in conduct that brings dishonor and disgrace to the office of the presidency. that's what we witnessed once again over the weekend when president trump unleashed a torrent of personal, nasty, and racist attacks on congressman elijah cummings and the city of baltimore. and president trump has continued his poisonous barrage for days. now, mr. president, congressman cummings can defend himself. he grew up having to confront racist bullies and in the face

of these attacks, he has shown great strength and great integrity, the same strength and integrity he has brought to his efforts to fight for his dear city of baltimore, his entire congressional district, and his constituents over many years. baltimore is a great american city with great people, great spirit, and great heart. yes, of course, baltimore faces many challenges. we are facing those challenges with determination, with unity, and with grit, and the president's attacks on this great american city have only served to rally the people of baltimore, the people of maryland, and in fact the people of the united states of america. -- to support the city and the people of baltimore. mr. president, i would like to enter into the record an op-ed that appeared in "the baltimore sun" today entitled "leaders, proud not only to be in

baltimore but of baltimore." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. this is signed by many of the leaders in our community, including the president of johns hopkins university, the head of under armour, a great american company, the head of a number of major companies in the city of baltimore, the casey foundation, morgan state university, a great hbcu, eddie brown, one of our great city leaders, and many other leaders of baltimore, diverse leaders who have come together to stand up with pride for the city of baltimore. and here's what they say in the first paragraph, and i'd like to read this to the senate. quote, we are proud and privileged to call baltimore home. baltimore is a city of creativity, optimism, and determination, home to leading public and private research

universities, world-class medical institutions, and a diverse business community. baltimore is a city where both artists and start-ups strive from creating one of the nation's first racially integrated library systems to producing today's modern medical and technological breakthroughs. our city has a proud legacy of leadership in improving lives and setting a national example for a stronger tomorrow. and i want to pay particular attention to this next sentence. it's no wonder we are often named as a place where millennials are moving and staying. this is a city where people not only want to live but love to live. mr. president, if you come to baltimore today, you will in fact find lots of young people from other parts of the country coming to settle and work and raise their families in this great american city. so the president may say that nobody wants to live in

baltimore, but the facts show a very different story about young people, young people who understand they have a great future in baltimore, nothing of that great city. -- moving to that great city. now, it is of course true that baltimore faces a series of problems. we have in a legacy in baltimore of racial discrimination and segregation. and i would like to read, mr. president, from today's editorial in the "baltimore sun," and i ask unanimous consent that this whole editorial be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: here's what "the baltimore sun" editorial of today writes. he says, those days -- excuse me, let me start right here. it says this -- president trump, whose early career was marred by a federal housing discrimination suit, may be interested to know that

baltimore was something of a pioneer in that regard. it enacted the first housing segregation ordinances which were soon invalidated by the supreme court, leading to more nefarious tactics, privately enforced, prevented the sale of homes in certain neighborhoods to minorities. redlining prevents minorities ms from getting financing to buy homes in white neighborhoods and block-busting made rich the unscrupulous men who capitalized on racism and fear to drive white plight. a profiteer on blacks who sought security and better opportunities but instead found themselves exploit and impoverished. they go on to make the point, quote, those days are nearly so far in the past as we might like to think. seven years ago baltimore

settled a discrimination suit against wells fargo, the sort of abuse that the consumer financial protection bureau, which mr. trump has eviscerated, might have prevented. landlords in baltimore continue to take advantage of rules stacked in their favor to evict low-income -- and in parentheses -- frequently tenants. the kushner companies, in perrin they seekers aces in trump's son-in-law jared kushner, close perrin they seekers has aggressively sought to jail tenants who fall behind on their rent. mr. president, we do have -- weo have a legacy of discrimination in baltimore to overcome. and the president instead of challenging that legacy has decided to pile on in the manner he did with his comments. now, i know that baltimore will rise above this. i know the city is resilient,

and i know this great city's greatest days are still ahead, as we tackle that legacy and move on to the future. but, mr. president, i think that we as a body, both republicans and democrats alike, have an obligation to also stand up for our country. we cannot allow these kind of remarks out of the oval office to go unanswered. we cannot allow silence when the president of the united states challenges the very idea of what it means to be american, which is a place where people of all different backgrounds, all different races, all different religions can come together -- epluribus unum. the president wants to drive a stake in that idea. he wants to divide the country. and we cannot be silent while he soils the oval office. so, mr. president, i ask all of us to speak out wherever we are when we see this kind of attack

by the president of the united states. it is wrong for our country, it is bad for our country, it is a disgrace to the oval office, and the one thing i can say is that in the face of that disgrace, baltimore has shown great dignity, incredible dignity, the dignity of a city of people who see a wonderful future ahead. and we should all work together to make that future as bright as possible. with that, i yield to the senior senator from maryland, my friend ben cardin. mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, first i want to thank senator van hollen, my seatmate and friend representing the state of maryland in the united states senate. his comments reflect the views i hope that the overwhelming majority of americans. and it is critically important that we speak out as to what the president has said. mr. president, i have lived my entire life in baltimore.

i love baltimore. this is a great city. as senator van hollen has said, it is has an -- it has an incredible history, it is a vibrant estimate there are so many good things happening. it has a great future, and it needs our help from the point of view of any major urban center in america. on weekends my wife and i will frequently walk areas of baltimore city in order to get some exercise, to clear our heads from the workweek and to see what's happening in baltimore. and i must tell you, it is so energizing to see the building cranes in downtown baltimore building new housing for young people coming into our city because they know the economic future of baltimore. they're there because they want to live in an exciting place in baltimore city. we see the optimism on their faces as they are doing their

exercise in the morning walking the streets of baltimore. we see a great city that is continuing to rebuild in modern economy. so when the president of the united states insults the city of baltimore and congressman cummings, it's incumbent upon all of us to speak out and tell the president, this is unacceptable. we know the office is something the president has referred to at bully pulpit he can use. but for the president of the united states he cannot be a bully and yet that is exactly what he is doing, trying to bully minorities and others in this country. it won't work. the bully is not elijah cummings, as called by president trump. the bully is president trump. the person who is dividing our country is president trump, and he should be the one bringing us

together. why does he do this? i don't think any of us believe that he isn't doing it for political reasons. he wants to distract from what's happening in this country. in the congress of the united states, congressman cummings sledding a committee that has responsibility on the checks and balances of our system to act as a check on the president of the united states. does anybody in this chamber believe there shouldn't be a check and balance on our system on this president? look how he's used his executive powers and abused his executive powers. the emergency declarations that he has used, the mueller report spells out how the president tried to interfere in an investigation. the wait that he talks about our judiciary saying he's not going to follow the orders of our corporate the wait he trashes our free press. all of that cries out for an

aggressive check and balance on the independent first branch of government, and that's what elijah cummings is doing. so why is the president using these person tax deduction -- personal attacks against elijah cummings and the city of baltimore? to try to distract from the legitimate role congress plays ras a check and balance on the powers of president trump. it won't work. i can assure you that congressman cummings is going to continue to do his work. his committee is going to continue to do its work. i'm going to continue to do my work as a united states senator and senator van hollen will continue to do what is right to make sure we carry out our constitutional responsibilities. he also does this, quite frankly, for political appeal against minority communities. that's inexcusable for any american but the president of the united states, it is totally outrageous. as senator van hollen said, we don't have to defend elijah

cummings. he can defend himself. mr. president, i've known elijah cummings now for about 40 years. when i was speaker of the house of delegates in annapolis, there was a young new legislator who came upon the scenes, elijah cummings. he recognized from the beginning that he was going to be a great leader and he showed that in his early years. he rose to be speaker pro tempore and was a leading voice of the house of delegates. you see, we had something in common. both elijah cummings and i graduated from the same college, baltimore city, three members of congress from the same public high school in baltimore city. we both attended the same law school, university of maryland law school. so i recognized from the beginning that there was a lot in common, and i wanted to help this young legislator. he then of course ran for the

congress. was elected to the congress and has done an incredible job. he's a gifted orator. he motivated people by his speech. he's a mentor for young people. and he has helped so many young people with their lives. he lives in baltimore city in neighborhoods where he is such an inspiration to people who otherwise would not have much hope. so he has used his own life experiences to lift the lives of others. and, yes, i can tell you some many records of accomplishment that he has. just this past week along with senator van hollen, we announced $125 million grant for the howard street tunnel in which congressman cummings played a critical role in getting those funds. that's going to mean thousands of jobs for baltimore and economic opportunity for our

region. just one example. penn street station, the revitalization. amtrak is going to invest $90 million in revitalizing that part of baltimore. elijah cup actions was instrumental in getting that done. ellicott city flood, two floods within a 20 20-month period. part of his congressional district. trump doesn't quite understand how congressman cup actions' district -- cummings district is redistributed but he represents ellicott city. he was on the scene immediately and helped bring in all the federal partners so that ellicott city could beat the odds. when you have a major flood like that, most businesses don't return. in ellicott city they returned. why? because of the federal partnership in which elijah cummings played a critical role, a well -- and other members of our congressional delegation. affordable housing. congressman cup actions has brought -- congressman cummings has brought affordable housing

to baltimore. after freddie gray, i will never forget the scene as i was watching on the television screens as we see the riots or the disruption started in baltimore. there was elijah cummings on the streets calming things down, saving lives. that's what he was doing to represent his community. that's the type of legislator he is. and he's provided support for public safety in baltimore, for public education in baltimore, for stem education if baltimore city schools. so president trump, when you say this guy hasn't done his work to represent the people of the seventh congressional district, you're absolutely wrong. come to baltimore. let us show you exactly what we've been able to accomplish and how you can help us. but don't defame our city. you're the president of the united states. act as president. bring us together. recognize that you are responsible for this entire

country and help us with the reputation of baltimore. again, i don't have to defend my city. my city is well known, one of the great cities in america. but i'm going to do it anyway because i want my colleagues to understand how proud we are, those of us who represent the state of maryland, represent baltimore city, how we proud -- how proud we are of our city. the nation's first washington monument, the national aquarium, oriole park, m&t bank, fort mchenry, one of the great librairies in america that gave free libraries to the people of our city. blake national jazz institute and cultural center. i can go through all the museums we have in baltimore. american visionary art museum. baltimore museum of art, industry, the art gallery, babe ruth birthplace, born in baltimore. the reginald f. lewis museum,

the b&o railroad museum. how many of us have been there, the great history of the railroads in baltimore started there. its future. maryland science center, great sports icons have come out of baltimore from john yu unitus to frank robinson to brooks robinson, cal ripken, ray lewis. we have great health institutions. johns hopkins. i just got an e-mail as i was sitting on the floor. i know the rules of the senate prohibit me from looking at my -- the electronic device but "u.s. news & world report" today ranked johns hopkins department of neurology number one in the nation located in baltimore city, maryland, mr. president. you can go over the other great institutions we have such as university of maryland medical center, kennedy kriger institute, the ?iewt for brain development, the great colleges we have from morgan state university to the university of

maryland law school to johns hopkins, university of baltimore, notre dame university and the list goes on and on. farmers markets and public markets, the trefnedz setting writers from john waters to david simon, tom clancy and barry levinson and the unique neighborhoods from little italy to pig town. baltimore is well known. the taste of baltimore. how many of you know that the only place you can get a really legitimate crab cake is in baltimore city. we all know that. and the aubay seasoning. the port of baltimore, the economic heart of our state, domino sugar. under armour investing hundreds of dollars in the city because they know the future. the ngo's, able foundation, center for urban families, catholic relief services, luther

immigration and refugee services. i do this in hopes that the president might be listening so he can learn a little bit about why we're so proud of baltimore city and what we do ask is very simple to the president. come and learn about our urban centers and how you can help us in meeting the problems that we have in baltimore and many urban centers -- cities around the nation. we need a federal partner that will help us with our economic growth and help us meet the challenges of the future. it's exciting to live in baltimore and it's exciting to see our city grow. i am proud to be a baltimorean and i'm proud to represent baltimore in the united states senate. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for maryland. mr. van hollen: i want to thank my colleague, senator cardin, for talking about some of the highlights of baltimore city,

the storied history of baltimore city, a history of much good but also a lot of challenges that i recounted earlier. and it doesn't do baltimore city or any city in this country any good when the person in the highest office in this country launches these nasty, personal, racial diatribes. now, i know the president had a history of these kind of comments before he came to the oval office. but now that he's in the oval office, all of us have an obligation and responsibility to speak out. when he fouls the office in that way. now, the president really wants to help cities like baltimore, he can do some of the things that senator cardin talked about on a bipartisan basis in the appropriations committee, on a bipartisan basis we're working to make she.s take will help that city and many other cities, things like the community

development block grants, things like economic development administration proposals, things like financing through cdfi's, things like the minority business enterprises, those are four investments. they don't solve the problems but they certainly help. and, mr. president, here's the thing in the president's budget -- in president trump's budget, zero, zeroed out every single one of those programs. i propose a major additional investment in our schools throughout this country, including title one schools which are schools in lower income areas. that would be a huge boost to education throughout the country and to the city of baltimore. as senator cardin said, we need to make investments in our national infrastructure. we have a thriving port in baltimore good-paying jobs so we need to expand it. there are so many things we can and should be doing, but the president apparently, according to many, has this political

strategy where he doesn't want to talk about those things. a political strategy that seeks to divide this country, not to unite this country. you think about that, that's a pretty sick political strategy, sick for the country, kick for maryland, sick for baltimore. and so i hope all of us, i hope all of us will work to focus on the things that we can do to make baltimore and maryland and this country stronger and end, end this kind of divisive rhetoric but part of ending it means speaking out against it when we see it. and we need everybody, everybody in this body to join us in doing it. and again, i think when it comes to the city of baltimore, it's going -- it's going to rise way above the president's comments. it understands it has challenges but it also understands it has a great future.

let's all together be part of a future, a great future for baltimore and this country, and that means coming together, coming together to serve the interests of all of our constituents. and, mr. president, i thank the senate for the time senator cardin and i have had here and i yield the floor. mr. enzi: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i rise to talk about the need to fix our broken budget and spending process. picking up efforts we began in the 114th congress, the senate budget committee has spent the last several months holding hearings and meetings with members of congress, state

officials, the administration, and stakeholder groups to listen to their budget reform priorit priorities. along the way we collected a lot of good ideas. today i come to the floor to outline a fiscal reform plan that incorporates a lot of the feedback we received. it reflects suggestions from members of both sides of the aisle and from groups that span the political spectrum. these reforms are not driven by politics but instead are rooted in fixing our broken budget and spending process in favor of a system that works for everyone. in developing this plan, my focus was on creating a durable system to substantially manage our country's finances, to improve transparency, to improve oversight, and to improve accountability in the budget process and to end the brinksmanship in our fiscal debates.

i've broken the plan down into four separate discussion drafts which i'm sharing this week with senate budget committee members. each of the drafts tackles a different aspect of the broken budget and spending process. the first proposal is most ambitious. it would reorient the budget process around long-term planning and shift the federal government to a biennial budgeting and spending system. 20 states, including my home state of wyoming have some form of biennial budgeting and appropriations. i have long believed that one of the most important reforms we could do at the federal level would be to move to a biennial process, to only have the problem every other year. the plan proposes to maintain the budget resolution as a concurrent resolution but with a few important changes. first, it would change how we write the budget.

top line di dis-- discretionary would be in the resolution while mandatory spending would continue to be displayed on a portfolio basis. this new approach will allow each individual member to have more of a say in the budget through the amendment process. second, it would require the budget resolution to include debt-to-g.d.p. targets to focus congress on creating a path to stabilize our debt levels and sustainably manage our finances. it could even provide an estimate of anticipated revenues third, the plan would allow for, upon adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the automatic enrollment of a bill that would set discretionary spending caps, something that's taken until right now to get done this year. discretionary spending caps enforced by both congress and

o.m.b. and increase the debt limit in line with the levels assumed in the resolution. it would save us a lot of time. the proposal seeks to encourage congress and the president to reach agreement on a fiscal agreement early in the budget process while maintaining the budget resolution as a congressional document. the budget resolution would be enforced whether or not the president signs the joint resolution. to encourage congress to adhere to its budget blueprint, the proposal would create a special reconciliation process that would be triggered if the congressional budget office finds that congress is not on a path toward meeting the budget resolution's fiscal targets that everybody voted on. this process would allow congress to make surgical changes to achieve the debt target and could only be used for deficit reduction. the byrd rule, which prohibits

changes to social security in reconciliation, would apply. now, the plan also seeks to get legislative committees more involved in the budget process. it would require them at the beginning of the process to share their plans to address spending on unauthorized programs in their jurisdiction as well as programs that agency-based inspectors general and the government accountability office have identified as in need of improvement. for that budget cycle, the committee would have to suggest a dollar amount for those programs listed as such sums. it would change our committee's name to the fiscal control committee to better focus the committee's focus on guardrails. it would require the chairs and rank member of the appropriations and finance committee, if not already members of the fiscal control committee, to serve as nonvoting

members of the budget committee. this the change is intended to increase the input from the primary spending and taxing committees in developing fiscal plans. now, the second discussion draft i'm releasing with congressional budget enforcement, justice louis brandeis once wrote, that, quote, sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant, end quote. in keeping this w. this proposal, the proposal would require congress report to be regularly printed in the "congressional record" and printed on a publicly accessible website. this would help ensure thats members of congress and the leadership of each committee are accountable for their fiscal decisions. gough the other two components -- the other two components of this draft deal with senate points of order which are the

means through which the senate enforces congressional budgets and rules. these point of orders are supposed to create a meaningful obstacle to breaching the budget but in recent years they have been routinely ignored or waived. the discussion draft proposes to make it harder to rewrite inconvenient budget rules. there have been a number of attempts in recent years to rewrite budget rules outside of the normal budget process to allow for more spending. there's already a point of order against this practice under the congressional budget act, but that point of order lies against the whole measure, making it a very blunt instrument. the discussion draft would make the current point of order surgical so that it would target only the offending provision without threatening to shut the whole bill down. in a similar vein, the discussion draft would disallow

global waivers for surgical points of order. right now any senator can make a single motion to waive all budget points of order. these global waivers allow numerous budget rules to be broken with one vote, regardless of whether the points of order that lie are surgical or apply to the whole measure. these waivers have even been used to preemptively prevent surgical points of order that could alter the bill text from being raised. the discussion draft aims to end that practice and ensure the ability of senators to raise points of order that could remedy a budget violation without killing the bill. the third discussion draft that i am releasing deals with congressional budget office operations and transparency. c.b.o. serves a vital role in the budget and legislative processes. while the agency's long-standing mission has been to produce

timely, objective, and accurate information for congress, there have been growing calls for increased transparency in that estimating process. the discussion draft aims to build on bipartisan transparency reforms already under way at the c.b.o. in a number of ways. one, it would require c.b.o. to report on its transparency initiatives, review past estimates to see where the agency got it right or got it wrong, and produce underlying data for its estimates of major legislation. ment two, it would require interest costs to be included as supplemental information in cost estimates, ensuring that lawmakers and the public have better information about the true costs of legislation. number three, it would require public cost estimates of appropriations legislation. unlike legislation reported from

authorizing committees, there is not currently a requirement for c.b.o. to provide public estimates of legislation reported by the appropriations committee. number four, it would require c.b.o. and the government accountability office to conduct unwilling portfolio reviews of federal promises to prep lawmakers identify spending on duplicative, overlapping and fragmented programs as well as long-term funding trends and liabilities. that was my third discussion draft. my fourth discussion draft relates to how budget resolutions are considered on the senate floor. the congressional budget october provides special expedited procedures for consideration of a budget resolution on the senate floor. these procedures were meant to ensure that the budget is considered a dopted in a -- and

adopted in a deliberate and efficient manner. however, our floor procedures have undermined this intent by allowing a marathon of votes known as a vote-a-rama. once debate on the budget has ended, we have a vote-a-rama. without time for debate or analysis of what's being proposed, this process is not conducive to substantive consideration of fiscal policy and serves as a major deterrent to considering a budget on the floor. the budget draft aims to establish a more process that ensures the ability of senators from both sides of the aisle to offer and have votes on amendments. it would change the current 50-hour rule on debate of a budget resolution to a limit on consideration and force the

senate to consider amendments after all allotted general debate time expires. amendments would alternate between those offered by the minority and those offered by the majority, and the maximum debate time font first-degree amendments would be -- on the first-degree amendments would be reduced from two hours to one hour to aflower the consideration of more amendments. -- to allow for the consideration of more amendments. under the proposal, even if the maximum debate time was burned on each amendment, 24 amendments would be considered. coincidentally, 24 is both the average and the median number of roll call votes on budget resolutions since 1976. of course, it isn't one minute of debate. it would be an hour of debate. that would be much nicer. this proposal would apply toll senate consideration of budget resolutions. it would not preclude adoption of a managers' package, apply to

reconciliation bills or change house procedures. we can all agree that the current budget and spending system has broken down. reforming this dysfunctional system has been a goal of mine since entering the senate. as one of my top priorities before i leave it body at the end of this congress. i encourage my colleagues to consider the reform ideas laid out today, and i invite their feedback. i am hopeful through this process we will be able to reach bipartisan agreement to end the current dysfunction and put our country back toward a sustainablable fiscal future and on time so we don't have government shutdowns. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request. mr. enzi: i would withhold my request. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator for west virginia. mrs. capito: mr. president, yesterday i joined with fellow leaders of the environment and public works committee to introduce america's transportation and infrastructure act, a five-year reauthorization that would deliver resources to repair and maintain critical surface transportation infrastructure. today the committee approved our comprehensive legislation with a strong bipartisan vote, 21-0, in our committee this morning. as chair of the e.p.w. infrastructure subcommittee, i am incredibly proud of this legislation. this is as a result of months of serious negotiations with full committee chairman barrasso and ranking member carper, my committee -- my subcommittee and my rank member, senator carper. i think we have produced a bill that secures needed investments

in our nation's infrastructure. first and foremost, the bill provides additional funding for highway investment. how many times do we hear we don't have enough money to complete this? we can't get it done. but this also maintains the state's share through their formula dollars. that means that a rising tide lifts all boats. whether a state is urban or rural, like my home state of west virginia. the majority of these funds, 90% of these funds, are distributed by the formula to the states, providing maximum flexibility to our states' programs. and with the full five-year reauthorization, state d.o.t.'s will have the certainty that they will need to plan their investments without fear of lapses in their contracting authority. after all, it's the states, not the bureaucrats in washington, that know their communities' needs the best. our legislation would get rid of some of the obstacles that

states face as they work to start and finalize infrastructure plans that take forever. they cast so much. the bill incorporates the trump administration's focus on one federal decision. under that policy, the u.s. department of transportation is in charge of leading the regulatory review process, one federal decision, and it would consolidate the review of other federal agencies like the a., the -- like the e.p.a., the corps of engineers. that means that states won't end up in a regulatory purgatory going back and forth seeking endless approves. d.o.t. would also maintain a federal dashboard system. america's transportation infrastructure act directs the department of transportation to work to complete its review process within two years and to

push other agencies to expedite their regulatory reviews. everything drags on so much, and it makes it so long and expensive. this would push our agencies to expedite their regulatory reviews under its own categorical exclusions. that's a fancy term for when the department doesn't think a full and time-consuming process is necessary for a straightforward infrastructure project such as putting a -- replacing a bridge from right where it is and putting a new bridge right where it is. it takes forever. we would eliminate that. we also worked in a bipartisan way to promote natural infrastructure that will help reduce costs and time lines, diminish environmental impacts, and improve the resiliency of our infrastructure to natural disasters like floods that ricci so common in my part of the country west virginia has the

unfortunate title of being in the top five states of structurally deficient bridges. that's why i'm very proud that the america's transportation and infrastructure act includes language i cosponsored with senator brown in implementing the new bridge investment program. this program will infuse $6 billion over five years in additional funding to fix bridges in poor condition and dedicate that funding that is essential to addressing this problem. when faced with the decision of using scarce taxpayer dollars on a new highway expansion or improving bridge safety, states too often, it's too tempting opt for a ribbon cutting on a new stretch of highway. now hopefully they won't have to make that choice and we can reduce both congestion and the odds of a bridge failure, something that not only threatens our lives but also

cuts off a community while they wait for a costly replacement. the climate and resilience portion of america's transportation infrastructure act will ensure tption are not repeatedly replacing infrastructure affected by natural disasters. this portion of the bill also includes important bipartisan legislation that i cosponsored. the first is called the use it act. this would facilitate the deployment of carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies by reducing regulatory obligations that the project stakeholders would face. and it also includes the diesel emissions reduction act which would provide funding to states and communities to replace older, smog-producing vehicles like obsolete school buses with modern vehicles that use diesel, propane, natural gas

and electricity. most importantly for west virginia west virginia, the legislation includes be several provisions i wrote to celebrate the exclusion of the appalachian system. the commission was first authorized in 1965. the appalachian development highway system was designed to better integrate our region with the midwest, northeast, and mid-atlantic and south. for an economically distressed area with communities that are relatively isolated, this infrastructure network is vital. it's vital for attracting investment are creating new economic opportunities and for improving the quality of life. the appalachian regional commission has found that the highway system has already created and supported more than 168,000 jobs and generated $7.8 billion in wage income that hero wise would not have existed.

those wages in turn drive local and federal tax bases. completing the system would generate an additional $8.7 billion in annual economic activity. it would support another 46,000 jobs and lead to an additional $2.7 billion in worker income. these are very significant numbers, and i can't really overstate the impact that this additional economic activity would have in our region. unfortunately, the highway system, the appalachian development highway system is only 90% complete. the remaining 109% generally represents -- the remaining 10% generally represents the most challenging terrain. that means this is the costliest and most environmentally complicated miles to complete, but we have got to get this done. the highway system was started almost 55 years ago. america is better than letting

an infrastructure priority just sit around for more than half a century with no end in sight due to lack of funding or regulatory certainty. this was also a promise made to the people of appalachia. the appalachia development highway system completion was identified as being in our national interest in the last two highway bills, but it's the american transportation infrastructure act that will actually provide a mechanism to move us toward the finish line. beyond the regulatory reforms i just spoke about, my language states that for states that for whatever reason have accrued significant appalachian development highway system balances, they can exchange those dollars to states like west virginia that are still working to complete projects but we lack the resources to engineer and construct these challenging remaining miles. in return, those states that turn their dollars back in to

the appalachian development highway system dollars, they will receive dollars that they can use for any project in their state that would otherwise be eligible for a federal highway project. that means that states can respond to the changing transportation needs in their particular area. they use excess dollars for an underdescribed federal loan program which has historically not contributed to infrastructure investment in rural america. this would be a win for all states involved. those needing additional funding will be able to continue to advance their appalachian highway system, and states that have needed to shift their focus say on growing urban transportation needs will have the added flexibility to be able to do that. i appreciate my fellow appalachian highway system state committee colleagues for working with me to include this provision as well as leader mcconnell's support on this section of the bill and our

counterpart legislation, the advancing infrastructure development in appalachia act. the committee also included language that i wrote and worked for those individuals to reauthorize the appalachian regional commission, a key economic development, agency and $180 million a year. my provision also doubles to $20 million the funding available for something i care deeply about. that is broadband deployment in appalachia, which is a critical tool for connecting our communities and keeping our region, and making our region more competitive. i thank leader mcconnell and ranking member cardin and senator wicker for their support of this language on the stand-alone a.r.c. authorization bill. leader mcconnell also joined me in authorizing the a.r.c. to provide up to $5 million in grants to support the development of a central appalachian natural gas liquids storage hub along with the

associated downstream manufacturing sector. this infrastructure project would be a huge to the economies of west virginia, kentucky, pennsylvania, and ohio. in fact, the american chemistry council estimates that the regional market in downstream manufacturing would generate $36 billion in capital investment and more than 100,000 jobs. it would also help keep a much larger share of the economic value and compliement opportunity in our -- and employment opportunity in our states where the resources is compared to producing and exporting the gas and associated natural gas liquids to other parts of the country or abroad. secretary perry and the department of energy have also endorsed this concept of the project as well as the significant economic and energy security dividends that it would pay for america and the entire united states. this is somewhat modest investment given the significant private sector capital needed to build this out, but it's essential that the federal

government send clear messages to potential investors that it supports this driver of economic growth in an area that would greatly benefit. this legislation gives the a.r.c. the power to lead the way. investment in our country's infrastructure is vital to the many aspects of our american life, from keeping us competitive in the global economy, keeping our drivers safe. there's a lot of safety aspects in this bill. to reducing irritating congestion and minimizing impacts to the economy. america's transportation infrastructure act delivers on all these fronts and ensuring that rural america will benefit equally from these investments. not only will our legislation help rebilled and repair our -- rebuild and repair our infrastructure system but it will also help us create new infrastructure opportunities for generations to come. i appreciate my colleagues' collaboration. my colleague from rhode island is on the floor. he was in the committee this morning when we voted, both of

us in favor of this legislation. it is a bipartisan bill working to make sure that this country sees a five-year highway reauthorization and all the benefits that it would provide. i thank all of my senate colleagues. i think all my senate colleagues will find a lot to like in this legislation. i'm hoping that we get it on the floor in the fall, and i encourage their support when it comes time for a vote. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: let me thank the distinguished senator from west virginia for her work on the highway bill that we voted out of the environment and public works committee today and on our industrial emissions bill and on carbon capture. it has been a terrific working relationship. as i begin my 251st time to wake up remarks i'd like to thank two fellows who will be leaving my office.

dr. kim benstead came to us from the university of hawaii where she was principal investigators on the nasa sponsored high seas project studying conditions like those that astronauts would encounter on mars. next month she returns to hawaii to continue her research. dr. ryan edwards joined us after completing his ph.d. at princeton university where he studied carbon capture and storage. he hails from australia and is thus by far the best cricket player on my staff. low bar. next up for him will be houston and more carbon-capture research. i thank both of them for their service and their expertise, and i wish them the best. tomorrow about two and a half miles from here executives from some of the biggest fossil fuel companies in the world are meeting at the u.s. chamber of commerce. it's a power-packed event. the chamber is the most powerful lobbying force here in

washington and a fierce political operator. the fossil fuel industry runs a remorsely and often covert political operation. they're defending a $650 billion annual subsidy as the international monetary fund estimates, so hundreds of millions spent on lobbying and election mischief is money well spent. the chamber and big oil together have stopped climate progress here. for the member companies of the chamber, including companies that say they support climate action, it's time to confront the relationship between the chamber and the fossil fuel industry. the earth is spinning toward climate catastrophe. action in congress to limit carbon pollution is essential to averting this catastrophe. yet the chamber, according to

the watchdog influence map, is in a virtual tie as the most obstructive group on climate change, blocking legislation, opposing executive action and even seeking to undermine climate science. the chamber is so obstructive it would be better called the chamber of carbon. the chamber has opposed one comprehensive climate bill after another. first the bipartisan cap and trade bill in 2005, the energy policy act. the chamber helped defeat it with a key vote alert, a signal that whoever voted in favor of the bill could face an onslaught of chamber political attacks in the next election. in 2007, the chamber ran political tv ads against climate legislation claiming that it would prevent people from heating their homes or that they wouldn't be able to drive to work any longer. here is somebody cooking an egg

over candles. in 2009, the chamber led the charge against the waxman-markey bill. for that legislation the chamber pulled out all the stops, haranguing members, more vote alerts, sending more messages of election doom if you dared to support waxman-markey. since the u.s. chamber tanked waxman-markey, republicans in congress have refused to hold hearings on, mark up, debate, or vote on any legislation proposing a policy framework for economy-wide reductions in carbon pollution. and it's not just in congress that the chamber wields its baleful influence. the chamber has also fought climate action in the courts and at the executive branch. in fact, the chamber in 2010 sued the e.p.a. to overturn the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. you would think it would be

obvious that they did. look around and you will see that they do. but disabling the endangerment finding would cripple the agency's ability to regulate carbon pollution under the clean air act and so off went the chamber. when the courts rejected this lawsuit on the endangerment finding, then the chamber became central command for corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists and republican political strategists to devise legal schemes to fight climate regulation. this produced another chamber lawsuit to block the clean power plan, reducing carbon pollution from power plants. once president trump took office the chamber went from defense to offense and attacked many obama administration rules limiting carbon pollution. the chamber even funded the phony report, the trump administration used to justify leaving the paris accord. and perhaps worst of all, the

chamber has fought against science itself. it proposed putting the evidence, the scientific evidence of climate change on trial in what its own officials branded the scope's monkey trial of the 21st century. that's what this crowd was for. indeed, the chamber said the trial, quote, would be evolution verizon creationism. guess what side they would be on. this is not your hometown chamber, folks. the chamber has even tried to limit the scientific studies that regulators could consider. the chamber's evident target was public health studies that demonstrate just how dangerous burning fossil fuels is to public health. and the chamber is an election-nearing force, not just a lobbying force. spending massive sums in politics to shore up control in congress. since the 2010 citizens united

decision allowed outside groups to spend unlimited sums on electioneering activities, the chamber has funneled roughly $150 million into congressional races, making the chamber the largest distributor of undisclosed donations, dark money we call it, in congressional races. am i up against the clock? the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent for an additional five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. i appreciate that courtesy. blocking action on climate has been the central focus of the chamber's campaign spending. they ran this ad in pennsylvania in 2016. two moms watch their children on the playground. one comments on how much energy the children have. the other says oh, don't say that. the candidate wants to tax that

energy. the ad gets even weirder when a faceless woman arrives in a car and steps out toward the children. alarmed, one of the mothers yells the ad punch line, run, jimmy, run! classy stuff. i wonder who the chamber was fronting more. so how does the chamber's anticlimate crusade square with its big corporate members. it has members like coke and pepsi who have good internal climate policies, who have websites full of commitments to reduce corporate carbon footprints and signed letters on climate action. pepsi signed a series climate plan declaration. coke plans to reduce co2 emissions by 25%. it says it will work to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions across its value chain, making comprehensive carbon footprint reductions across its manufacturing processes, packaging formats, delivery fleet, refridge outrages equipment, and ingredient

sourcing. yet, both coke and pepsi fund the chamber of commerce. and they fund the american beverage association which in turn runs more money to the u.s. chamber of commerce. with the end result, two companies that are actively reducing their carbon emissions and enthusiastically support good climate policy have the position in congress via their funding of the chamber of opposing climate action here in washington, the place where it really counts. verizon reduced its carbon intensity by 28% since 2016, and its c.e.o. publicly stated verizon's commitment to combat climate change, yet verizon, too, funds the chamber's obstruction. then there is google. motto, don't be evil. google is warning its investors that climate change threatens its systems, that they are vulnerable to damage or interruption from natural disasters and the effects of

climate change such as sea level rise, drought, flooding, wildfires, and increased storm severity. google has signed pledges to fight climate change, and yet google, too, funds the chamber's anticlimate crusade. coke, pepsi, verizon, google, they are just four examples among many. these companies say they support climate action but fund one of climate action's worst opponents. why does the chamber put these members in this position? the best explanation i have is that the fossil fuel industry is secretly calling the shots that the -- at the chamber, secretly funding the chamber, and that would explain the chamber's refusal to disclose its funders. i think this is a governance issue now for these companies, particularly those that serve on the chamber's board. board members of nonprofit organizations have a common law duty of care.

not knowing who's funding your organization looks like a breach of that duty of care. so the chamber's member companies, they need thousand ask themselves do we know who is funding the chamber? do we know how much each donor has given, and do those donations explain the chamber's years of obstruction? the chamber holds itself out as a business association. another question -- why is it accepting money from nonbusinesses in 2012 and 2014, the chamber took at least $5.5 million from front groups backed by the koch brothers? in 2014, they took 5.25 million from a front group affiliated with karl rove. did the chamber's board members know this? did they exercise the proper duty of care? do they know what nonbusiness money is funding the chamber these days? do they know what percentage of

the chamber's funding comes secretly from fossil fuel interests? i don't think the chamber's board members know the answers to any of these questions. so question for general counsel to these board member corporations, should they know, or are you going to go with willful ignorance? good luck with that. the bottom line is simple -- chamber board members with good climate policies are supporting one of the worst climate obstructors in america. indeed, writing big checks to do so. this, i believe, is not just a maryland problem but a governance problem. if these companies aren't asking these tough questions and if they're not pushing the chamber to be transparent about its funding sources, they are answerable. until this mess gets sorted out, in spite of all corporate america's efforts to reduce emissions, its funding of the u.s. chamber of carbon means

that corporate america is doing more harm than good for our climate. mr. president -- madam president, i yield the floor, again with my thanks to the distinguished senator from oklahoma for his courtesy in allowing me the extra time. mr. inhofe: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: first of all, in spite of what some people might think, i have the highest regard for the senator from rhode island. you know, i have -- it's very interesting that climate is changing, and climate has always changed. every evidence out there, every historic evidence, every scrip agricultural evidence tells us over and over again that climate is changing. it always has been changing, always will change. and the good news is that the world is not coming to an end

because of climate change. because climate is always changing. and so those people who believe that the world's coming to an end because of the gases, the good news is it's not, and i'm happy to share that good news with you. now, i'm here, though, to speak about some other good news, and that is an opportunity with a vote that's coming up -- i don't refer to the -- what people call the budget vote or the budget agreement. i call it a defense agreement. and i think everybody knows where i stand on this. this is a vote that's going to have to be coming up before too long. and there is a unique group of people in the united states senate who knows the reason that we have to pass the defense budget. and those are the members of the defense committee, the senate

armed services committee. it happens that i chair that committee, and we have done really great work. we went through a period of eight years where we had -- and first, let me make a unanimous consent request before i forget to do this, madam chairman. that is, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized as if in morning business for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you. so we have a situation where we went through a period of time, an eight-year period of time when the -- our military was somewhat devastated, and i want to share some specifics on that because it is a serious thing. we're going to be voting on the defense budget agreement. i have already stated where i stand on the thing. and i'm here today to outline why the budget agreement is necessary for our national defense. now, with this defense budget

agreement, we will be able to focus on the senate armed services top priorities, that's fixing on-base prioritization, military housing. remember, this happened about six months ago. we discovered all of a sudden that we were not doing a good job on our privatized housing. hey, i have to admit, i'm part of the responsibility of that because i was around here when we decided to do privatized -- to privatize the housing. and it worked for a while. i think after a period of time people got a little careless, got a little slack. some of the contractors that made the -- that commitment got a little bit greedy. and consequently, this came from a person at tinker air force base who was the spouse of a military person and how bad the conditions were. so when i first heard this, i thought they were just bad conditions in my state of oklahoma, but they weren't.

they were all over the nation. so that's one of the -- we fixed that thing. we fixed it with our defense authorization bill. we have some -- a lot of provisions in there, and we are now modernizing our military housing in a way that's going to be good for all of our spouses and others that are forced to live there. modernizing our military, giving our troops a well-deserved pay raise. that's something that's going to be -- for some reason, our defense budget agreement were to go down in flames and not be passed, they wouldn't get that. they wouldn't get that, the pay raise. and they haven't had a pay raise in a long time. this is going to be the largest pay raise for our military people in the last ten years. it's a good thing. by the way, people are always talking about how can we be so concerned about building our military when we have china and russia who have passed us up in many areas, and they spend just

a fraction of the amount, and the reason is very simple. that is that china and russia, those are countries where they don't have to do anything for their -- for their soldiers. we take care of ours. we try to provide good housing. we provide the types of things that we -- that our all-volunteer force can be very proud and are very proud. and so that's something that we -- we have to encourage. the largest single expenditure that we have in military is end strength, end strength. that is, the people out there. communist countries, china, russia, they don't have to worry about that, because they just say here is the gun, go out and kill somebody. we don't have that luxury, and we wouldn't do that if we wanted to. so we -- if we don't pass this budget bill, the effects to the military would be devastating. let me just share a couple of things that would happen. we would force the department of defense to operate under a continuing resolution which

shortchanges our troops and wastes taxpayer dollars. we all know that. we would face destructive haphazard cuts in sequestration. what is it we hear on our committee? the occupier of the chair right now is fully familiar. she is one of the most loyal members in the senate armed services committee. she remembers when we have moss tour hearings, posture hearings for about six months at the beginning of every year. we had every one of the people, we're talking about the leaders of the various branches in the military, general votto, then thomas waldhizer, admiral phil davidson. all of these people come in, what do they tell us? they tell us that you are going to have to do -- if we don't start funding our military again, we're going to have sequestration. look, if we vote for this thing and we pass it, we will end sequestration problems, threats forever. it's not going to happen again.

what else do they comment to us? a c.r., a continuing resolution, that would be an absolute disaster. now, a lot of people in this body don't know that, but every member of the senate armed services committee does know this, because they were there. when all of these people come in, 16 leaders come in for posture hearings each year, and we know the problems that we're having and the problems that we're confronted with. so we would be faced with cuts in sequestration. we would have our national -- this document right here is the -- is the assessment and recommendation of the national defense strategy commission. here it is right here. this is our blueprint, what we're doing to save america and put us back on top in all these areas we're deficient. but if for some reason we didn't pass this defense budget agreement, then we would not be able to continue implementation

of the national defense strategy, and we all know that. certainly, we don't all know that, but the members of the senate armed services committee do know that. so that's what could happen. but what would this mean? the members of the armed services committee knows what this means, but for everybody else, the deficit budget deal would end the threat for sequestration forever. you don't need for me to tell you that sequestration would be devastating. general milley, said the levels of funding caused by sequestration would place america at great risk. we remember, unfortunately, heather wilson, the former u.s. secretary. she was having to leave and had to leave her position. she said that cuts would be absolutely devastating in scope and sale. if we were hit by sequestration,

there would be across the board cut of $71 billion to defense programs that would halt our progress on space command and developing crucial capabilities like hypersonic weapons and artificial intelligence. those are two areas we've actually been passed up by both russia and china. just yesterday, darpa, has announced they completed a successful design review of hypersonic weapons. that's a great step. we were way ahead of them before the last administration came into office and then all of a sudden over that period of time, we got behind. in the meantime, china and russia are already testing their hypersonic weapons, they are ahead of us. we're trying to catch up and that's what this budget bill is all about. the 2020 ndaa invests in

hypersonic weapons, but we can't move forward if we are hit by sequestration. it would set us even further behind. by the way, the hypersonics that we're talking about, that's state of the art, that's representry that moves at five times the speed of sound. i don't want to characterize china and russia as enemies. they are not enemies, but they are certainly on the other side and we want -- it's -- people are in shock when they find out they have something we don't have and we've got to be competitive with them and we are going to be if we pass this defense budget vote that we're going to have before us. so another example. in our ndaa, we passed overwhelming just last month and authorized a 3% pay raise and they deserve that pay raise and -- and under sequestration that pay raise is at risk.

the ability for facilities to receive the next generation of aircraft is also at risk. if your state is like my state. if your state is slated to house the f-35 or the tx trader or kc-46. the kc-46 is a system that is going to replace the kc-135 that's been in place now for over 50 years. it's 50 years old. that's a system, and if you are going to have one of these systems in your state, you may not get them because of this deal without the budget vote that's going to take place, we wouldn't be able to neeferred with our plan and -- move forward with our planned and we could be hit with sequestration and it would be over. we talked about tx trainers. we've had the trainers in existence for 40 years and the

kc-46, the same thing. that's what would happen. if for some reason we don't vote for and pass the defense bill that we're going to be asked to vote on probably tomorrow. we made plans to plan to strengthen our end strernghtsdz from the obama era and our current goal without the defense budget deal, that wouldn't be possible. i think we may all know it. maybe we don't all know it in this chamber, but every member of the authorization committee, the -- the defense authorization committee, the senate armed services committee, they all know because they've been told over and over again. and that's why it's so important that they be very responsible in their vote. it would be kind of hard to say that you're defending -- you're working for the defense of our nation and then turn around to gut their funding. now, we made remarkable gains and readiness over the past

couple of years thanks to president trump's leadership and the greater budgetary stability, just one example, at the end of the obama administration, only 5% of our brigade combat teams were ready to, what we call, fight tonight. we made a huge improvement. that's up to 50% now after two years of this administration, but we've got a lot more to do. and we would be -- all the improvements we made in fiscal years 18 and 19 would be at risk if we were not able to go forward and pass our defense budget act that we're going to be asked to defend -- to support. sequestration would undo what we've done and take us back to where we were before. we'd be abandoning our troops when we said we would be there for them. a continuing resolution means that funding will go to the wrong places, places that were important last year but don't

need to be funded this year, that's just wasteful many we all understand that, but a pending resolution would be devastating for the military. and every one of these military people that i just was reading to come in for their annual meeting, they all said the same thing. it would be devastating if we had to go into a continuing resolution. we'd be forced to do programs that otherwise we would not be doing. so general dunford said it himself. he said the fact that we have routinely not had a budget at the beginning of the year has delayed new starts. it's been incredibly inefficient in how are we prioritize and allocate resources throughout the year. that was general dunford. a continuing resolution means that our military will lose key planning ability. david norquist, nominated to be

the deputy secretary of defense, gave a great example to the senate armed services committee last week. he said, let's say a unit is planning for training in october but we are operating under a continuing refugees, at that time they -- continuing resolution, they would have to cancel because they don't know how much money they would be getting in order to accomplish that. we would be getting more money, but in the meantime we would have lost a month in the process. with sequestration off the table and stable two-year deal in place, the department of defense can move forward with what's really important, implementing the national defense strategy. this is what the committee has been focused on all year. we're facing a different and more dangerous world than ten years ago. i look back wistfully -- i said this many times. i look back wistfully at the days of the cold war. we knew what they had and they

knew what we had. that doesn't happen anymore. you have countries run by people who are mentally deficient and able to blow up one of our american cities. that's the world now and that's why it's so important that we pass this -- this budget because our defense depends on it. not everybody knows this, but members of the armed services committee, they do know it. we're falling behind china and russia as they continue to build their militaries, we're seeing persistent threats from north korea, from iran, from terrorist groups and we no longer have the best of everything. and most people don't understand that. of course the members of our committee do understand that. we have set clear priorities and now we need to fund it. the future of our nation is at stake. this is what it will take to regain the qualitative and

quantitative advantages we have lost. i would have liked to have seen even more funding provided to this. the national defense strategy commission. by the way, they set up a system that they can use and that system is we should be putting together between a 3% and 5% increase over inflation, but we have not done it and we have not done it with even the budget that we're working on now. the national defense authorization act, which is nonpartisan, has said 3% to 5% growth, that's what's needed and that's what we did not do. but at the end of the day, i will take this smaller deal to give our military what it needs, predictability. it's also more than what the house passed in their defense authorization bill, which was dangersly low. every member of the armed services committee should vote for this and they know we are outranged and outgunned in our

artillery. they know we are at a disadvantage in air defense, have only two active duty battalions, we have a nuclear triad modernization is not taking place and it is now. we aren't there but china and russia are. anyway, what i'm trying to impress upon is those individuals that are members of the committee are fully aware of the problems that we've had. they remembered that under the obama administration, at the end of the obama administration our air force was short 2,000 pilots, 1,500 of them were fighter pilots. only one third of the combat teams, a fourth of the brigade teams were ready. 16% of f-18's weren't flyable. this is what we are in the process of correcting and it all depends on the passage of this budget. i'd only say that those individuals who are on the committee, that i can't imagine

that any of them would not be supporting this defense budget when it comes up. and i would hope that we don't have members of our committee who are anticipating doing things, such as -- as hearings back in their state or amendments that go as we put our defense authorization bill through the next steps because now is when we need -- when our defense system needs to have this budget passed. with that, i will yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the senate floor to discuss for my colleagues, and also to inform the american people -- i'm sorry. i ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for is a minutes. -- for 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i want to inform my colleagues and the american people about some progress that's been made on a very important bipartisan piece of legislation, plus what a couple of other committees are doing along the same line of keeping health care costs down that we're making progress to reduce the price of prescription medicine for the american people. i've been telling the fields of

legislative policy long enough to know that we have our work cut out for us. ranking member and i of the finance committee started out six months ago to cultivate a bipartisan consensus for much-needed reforms. we knew that we had a long role to -- road to hoe. our efforts to reduce drug prices face big-time opposition from big pharma. as we work side by side in a republican and democrat way, we've planted the seeds to grow a strong bipartisan coalition, one strong enough, i believe, to withstand the influence of money special interests.

now, it should be no surprise to anybody that big pharma and other stakeholders in the drug supply train are working six ways from sunday to throw sand in our gears. we know that they will continue to fight us during the august work period. as a life-long farmer from iowa, i learned a long time ago the fruits of one's labor won't be worth a hill of beans without proper groundwork. for months we've been telling the soil and fertilizing the legislative fields to bear fruit at harvest time. we've teamed up with leadership of other key committees of jurisdiction, together with the chairman and ranking member of the senate health committee, senators lamar alexander and

patty murray and chairman and ranking members of the senate judiciary -- finance committee, senators graham and feinstein, senate has an opportunity this congress to deliver reforms that would yield real savings for what americans spend on health care. both the health and the judiciary committees have advanced legislative packages that help address drug prices, including bills that i've sponsored such as the creates act, the stop stalling act, and the prescription pricing for people act. since january the finance committee that senator wyden and i lead, and i lead as chair, has held a series of hearings to examining the vulnerabilities in

drug supply chains that are ripe for abuse. we don't have answers to all the problems, but it's really crystal clear a strong dose of transparency is desperately needed to shed light on a convoluted pricing system in dealing with prescription drugs. from the drug manufacturers to the patient's medicine cabinet, the drug supply chain is shrouded in secrecy and is very exceedingly complex. this opaque pricing system has allowed exorbitant price hikes to climb higher and higher and higher with no end in sight.

don't forget the taxpayers of the united states foot the bill for the lion's share of prescription drugs through medicare and medicaid. the woolly drug supply chain allows taxpayers to be fleeced year after year. we need to let the sunshine in to help root out our abusive practices. secrecy in the supply chain has grown into noxious weed damaging our free market ecosystem. transparency is needed to help rein unsustainable costs threatening the fiscal viability of medicaid and med care. seniors, individuals with disability, and low-income

americans depend on these programs for life-saving medicine and innovative cures. last week the senate finance committee approved the bipartisan prescription drug price reduction act, the carefully sewn grassley-wyden bill limits seniors' out-of-pocket costs without limiting access to life-saving cures americans expect. it inject, reasonable incentives in gra. prescription drug programs for drug manufacturers and insurers to keep prices low. pharmaceutical companies and insurers need to have more skin in the game to keep prices down. it also fixes flawed policies that disport free market principles to lower the lid on

spending. now, we all know in our town meetings and other places we go americans have spoken very loudly on this subject. they want high prescription drug prices addressed furthermore americans want congress to act and act now. the senate finance help and judiciary committees have acted. now it's time to get the job done. as lawmakers go home over the august recess, i encourage each of you to share the good news with your constituents. americans are fed up with sticker shock at the pharmacy counter. we have the opportunity to deliver a badly needed legislative remedy. first, we've got to drain the

swampy special interests blocking the path to victory. the moneyed players in the drug supply chain will use the august recess to unleash a public relations blitz against our bipartisan effort. you can bet the farm that big pharma, hospitals, pharmacy benefit managers will whip themselves into a real frenzy to kill these bipartisan reforms. let's remember why we started down this path in the first place. it's simply democracy working, representative government working. americans are demanding relief at the prescription counter. we hear it from our constituents and our town meetings, in our letters and our e-mails and the phone calls that we get.

unchecked drug prices are putting medicare and medicaid in financial peril. the payment structure is unmoored from fiscal reality and the american taxpayer is on the hook. congress has a real opportunity to do something about this spiraling of drug prices. for my colleagues who are on the fence -- and there's nothing wrong with being on the fence because you've got plenty of time to become acquainted with an issue you hear from your constituents all the time, become acquainted with our solution. so for these colleagues who are on the fence about our bipartisan proposal, these are a series of questions i want you to ask yourself.

do americans want us to act to reduce runaway drug prices? do americans want to keep access to break through drug therapies and innovation? do older americans want protection from coverage gaps and out-of-pocket costs? do people with disabilities and poor and elderly americans who depend on medicaid deserve access to innovative cures and next generation therapies? the answer to all these questions, i think, is a resounding yes. farmers are smart enough to make hay while the sun shines. let's supply that time-tested farm lesson here in the congress. don't bail out on the opportunity to make a meaningful difference for the people that

we're elected to serve. too many americans are rationing or skipping doses because they can't afford their prescription medicine. so as i started out, i finish now by saying on behalf of senator wyden, senator alexander, senator murray, senator graham, senator feinstein and others, i suggest to our colleagues this is our goldie logoal -- goldie locks m. let it not be -- it's not too far right or too far left. that's what makes our bipartisan remedy to lower prescription drug prices just exactly right for the american people. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, following disposition of the jordan nomination, the senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the following nominations in the order listed. executive calendar number 205, 231, 232, 233, 326, 327, 345, 350, 352, 364. and then up to ten minutes of debate under the control of senator menendez prior to the vote on cloture on calendar number 402. i further ask consent that if cloture is invoked, the confirmation votes on the nominations be at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader. finally, i ask consent that the cloture motions on the following

nominations be withdrawn. executive calendar number 48, 55, 344, 346, 351, and 394. and the senate vote on the nominations at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to h.r. 3877 be withdrawn and that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 3877. i further ask consent that notwithstanding rule 22, that if cloture is filed on h.r. 3877, there be up to two hours of debate equally divided between the leaders or their designees.

i ask consent that the only amendment be in order be the paul amendment number 932 and that following the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on the amendment with a 60 affirmative vote threshold needed for adoption. finally, i ask consent that following disposition of the paul amendment, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture and that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. all time is expired on the jordan nomination. the question is on confirmation. is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

#u vote: vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 54, the nays are 34. the nomination is confirmed. mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in the series be ten minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. 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 mark t. pittman, of texas, to be united states are district judge for the district of texas. the presiding officer: is it the sense of the senate of the nomination of mark t. pittman, of texas, to be united district judge for the district