life and being in our own, in an act of civil disobedience. watch on q & a. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years c-span has covered the white house, the supreme court, and you can make up your own mind. from 1979, c-span your unfiltered view of government. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in on this wednesday to start the day. more work is expected on judicial and executive nominations, including kelly craft to be the next u.s. ambassador to the united nations. it's also possible that

lawmakers will vote on the deal by the house. now live to the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. black, will open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who laid the foundation of the earth, the heavens are the work of your hands. you are the same yesterday, today and forever, and your

years have no end. today, use our senators as they serve you with gladness and awe. may they make pleasing you their first priority. lord, give them your guidance so that they will behave wisely striving to have a conscience void of offense toward you and humanity. may they never forget all your blessings and benefits. we pray in your loving name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic

for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask to speak in morning business for one minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: there is too much secrecy in drug pricing, and particularly in who benefits from rebates. not all rebates are created equal in the medicaid drug rebate program.

rebate obligations for brand name drugs are currently based upon both brand-name and authorized generic drug sales. that means that brand-name drug manufacturers pay less in rebate obligations. the bipartisan legislation i introduced with senator wyden fixes this. it ensures that brand-name drug manufacturers pay, like common sense ought to dictate, that they pay brand-name rebates. this reduces gaming in the system to make sure authorized generics come to market for a purpose related to patient access, not just to lower brand rebate obligations. transparency brings accountability, and with transparency and

accountability, the market ought to work better, competition work better, and in the end get the price of drugs down. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: yesterday the senate took a number of steps forward on our considerable to-do list for the week. we confirmed four well-qualified jurists who are now our country's newest district judges and voted to advance the nominations of ten more. ten, that's what you call big progress for the federal judiciary. today we're going to continue moving these nominations forward. for too long fairly uncontroversial judicial nominees just like these have been held up and delayed by our democratic colleagues even when the vacancy qualifies as a judicial emergency. uncontroversial district judges used to be confirmed promptly in big groups by voice vote. these days, on account of protest theater, our colleagues

across the aisle usually insist that we hold a cloture vote and then a roll call confirmation vote on each one. but we're getting the president's impressive nominees on the job one way or another, and we'll continue doing just that. but our work doesn't stop there. the administration remains in need of a full complement of leaders at the pentagon and on the diplomatic corps, so last night we voted to confirm, david norquist, the president's' pick as number two under our secretary of defense mark esper. we votedded to a vans the nomination of -- advance the nomination of kelly craft, an impressive individual to serve in the critical role of u.n. ambassador. ms. craft is a fellow product of the bluegrass state. she has already made kentucky and the nation proud through significant public service including as an alternate delegate to the united nations and most recently ambassador to canada. in each of these cases, this

impressive nominee earned an unopposed confirmation, and in each case she repaid the senate's confidence by skillfully and effectively advocating for the interests of the united states on the international stage. during her tenure as ambassador to canada, america's relationship with our northern neighbor was tested. a number of challenging policy hurdles threatened to trip up progress on several important issues, including trade negotiations, but by all accounts, ambassador craft's involvement led to greater cooperation. she worked on finalizing the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement, encouraged crossborder participation in joint sanctions efforts, and helped more americans do business in canada. as she stands for this new role, she brings the ringing endorsement of peers and counterparts she engaged all along the way. she has done a job very well. another quote. every premier i know thinks the

world of her. she really proved herself over some tough times. that's from the premier of ontario and a former canadian ambassador to the u.s. our partners to the north have a healthy respect for the hard work and qualifications of ambassador kelly craft. and so does the senate. last week, even in this contentious moment, a wide bipartisan majority of our colleagues on the foreign relations committee voted to recommend her nomination to be u.n. ambassador favorably here to the floor, and before we adjourn this week, we will confirm her. and, of course, madam president, the senate also needs to pass the bipartisan budget agreement secured by the administration with speaker pelosi. the deal we have in front of us is the product of extensive negotiations between president trump's team and the democratic house. i'm confident it is not exactly the legislation that either side of the aisle would have written if one party held the white

house, the house, and had 60 votes in the senate. that's what we call divided government, but i'm equally confidence that this is a deal that every one of my colleagues should support when we vote on it in the near future. this government funding agreement is the right deal for our national defense, it's the right deal because it ensures the united states maintains its full faith and credit. it's the right deal because it brings predictability and stability through the 2020 -- through 2020 and moves toward restoring regular appropriations. and it's the right deal because it secures these priorities without the partisan poison pill riders that would take us backwards on the issue of protecting human life and curtail essential presidential authorities. republicans' number one priority was investing in our national

defense. after eight years of neglect and atrophy under the obama administration, congress has worked hand in hand with the trump administration to begin writing a new chapter. more of the resources our armed forces need, more flexibility for commanders, more cutting-edge tools for u.s. service members, and more investments in the modernization that will not only rebuild the military we need today but set us on the trajectory we need to be on to secure our future. all in all, madam president, i don't think any senators are actually rooting for a destabilizing continuing resolution. i certainly don't think any senators are rooting for a debt limit crisis that could put our full faith and credit at risk. so i believe that every one of our colleagues wants this agreement to pass. that means every one of our colleagues should actually vote for it. the house has passed this deal. the president is ready and eager to sign it. it's our turn to do the job.

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

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, over two weeks ago the four congressional leaders and the white house reached an agreement to raise the budget caps and extend the debt ceiling. the house already passed the legislation that codifies the agreement into law. the president supports it. he's even making calls evidently from press reports, asking republican colleagues to support it. so the last piece of the puzzle here is the senate.

speaking for the minority, democrats have no objection to voting on the budget caps deal as soon as possible. i'd say to my friend the majority leader, why don't we vote on the caps deal this morning and send it to the president's desk. there's no need to wait until later in the afternoon today, tonight, or tomorrow to get this done. democrats are ready to pass it right now if the majority leader would call it up for a vote. now on china, as trade negotiations with china continue this week, i want to press the president again to stay tough and hold out for the best possible deal. if china is unwilling to make significant reforms to its economic model, president trump must be prepared to walk away. i believe the president's instincts on china are right and i've not been afraid to say so despite our vast political and moral disagreements. but if we're going to be successful in these negotiations, it will be up to

the president, president trump, no one else, to keep the pressure on chinese leaders this week. there are a few things that he can do. the most significant point of emphasis for the president should be huawei, the chinese telecom giant. china has responded to the administration's justified restrictions on huawei unlike any other action the president has taken. it's our greatest source of leverage, so president trump hold tough on huawei. don't let there be giant loopholes. i am told that under the reported -- purported proposal being talked about 80% of huawei's products could be sold to it. if we have a total boycott of huawei, then china will beg us, beg us to come to the table and make real concessions. it's the best leverage we have,

even better than the tariffs. china wants huawei to dominate the world. they'll find a way do it unless we are tough as could be. and i'd say to president trump, i know these multinational corporations are pressuring you, cut a quick deal. the president should not listen to these big corporations who want him to cut a deal quickly. these same corporations, many of them are the ones who shipped jobs overseas through the last decades, are the ones who took jobs away from american workers and moved them to china. i understand those corporate executives. they're supposed to be totally subservient to their shareholders. shareholders say whatever you have to do to bring the price up do it but that hurts american workers, american security, it hurts the american economy especially when it comes to huawei. so, president trump, don't listen to the siren call of those same corporations who have

created part of the problem with china to now get you to back off yes, they'll have a little pain. they've made billions at large from dealing with china and letting china get away with stuff, from taking jobs away from the united states and to much lower paid, lower standard jobs in china. trade negotiations with china are far too important to the future of american business and american workers to sacrifice just because a handful of american corporations are worried about their quarterly profits. their quarterly profits are nothing compared to america maintaining its technological dominance, its technological superiority that china keeps trying to steal from us, in some ways legitimate, in many ways not. another point of emphasis for

the president's team -- this is one the president cares less about but that's okay -- is china's human rights record. china released a new policy outlining the use of force against hong kong's protests. its military built up forces along the border. we've seen this movie before at tiananmen square. it was a horror movie, one that resulted in hundreds if not thousands of unarmed chinese citizens being mercilessly slaughtered by their own army under the command of the chinese communist party, under the direction of the chinese communist party. we cannot have a sequel to this atrocity. the administration should push back against china's militarism and stand up for the autonomy and democratic rights of hong kong citizens. i read some of these columns, oh, can't we get along. we can't get along because, first, china doesn't play fair and has stolen trillions of

dollars and millions of jobs from america and seeks to keep doing it, duping our presidents, pushing them around, making agreements and breaking them. and second, we can't get along with china because look what it does to its citizens, the wee wee -- uighers in western china. now the citizens of hong kong. what we've seen with china is when we're tough and strong they'll back off. when we show any glimmer of weakness as we're showing in floating a deal, a lessening of the restrictions on huawei, they take advantage. and let me say this to all of those in this administration who are urging the president to back off on huawei, to let them buy some of our products, there's a bipartisan group here in this senate that will work very hard to prevent that from happening

legislatively. the most likely vehicle is the ndaa, and i think we'll get broad support, democrats, republicans, house and senate. so don't even try it, those in the administration who are trying to back off. now on election security, looking back on this work period, it's a shame that the senate once again made no progress, none, on the issue of election security. only a week ago counsel mueller called russian interference one of the greatest threats to democracy he has seen in his career, a threat that he said continues as we sit here. despite mueller's warning, a warning echoed by prominent republicans, trump appointees like f.b.i. director wray, n.d.i. director coats, our entire senate intelligence committee led by richard burr, a colleague of ours and of chairman mcconnell's, leader

mcconnell has not brought election security to the floor. in fact, he has blocked democratic requests for a debate on election security, dismissing our ideas as a partisan wish list. that's political rhetoric to avoid a problem that shouldn't be partisan at all. using paper ballots, not partisan. making sure that our machines are safe from hacking, our election machines are safe from hacking, that's not partisan. giving the states resources to better manage their elections, that's not partisan. that's american. the sank -- sancranctness, and these are wide reforms that will make our election safer particularly in this dangerous new world where powers who have

malice towards the united state, iran, north korea, can use new technology to reach into our election structure. this is not 1940 or even 2005. we need to strengthen our election security, and it should not be a partisan issue. and when leader mcconnell calls it a partisan issue, he's just ducking to avoid it for reasons unknown to almost anybody. recent republican opposition to election security has been disappointing, and i'd say to my republican colleagues, where are you? why aren't you telling the republican leader that we ought to do something? every one of our republicans, when leader mcconnell blocks election security is complicit in that blocking because they could join with us. and if they began to join with us, my guess is leader

mcconnell might put some legislation on the floor. we want to debate it. we want to discuss it. leader mcconnell, our republican colleagues may not exactly agree with our ideas, although many are bipartisan, but we should at least bring things to the floor and discuss them and get something done. but unfortunately, we don't see much action. it was precisely a year ago that democrats last sought to secure funding for election security, when senate republicans voted down our amendments. and unfortunately, it appears that leader mcconnell will not take action before the august work period, but i assure the american people and leader mcconnell this issue is not, is not going away. democrats will press for election security when we return, and again when the senate debates appropriation bills. this is about protecting the

wellspring of our democracy, the vitality of our democracy, the san crow saingt -- sacrosanct nature of our democracy. and to call it political demeans everything. young men, young women from bunker hill on, for hundreds of years, have died to protect our elections. they have to protect them in a different way now with technology, cyber threats, but the idea of protecting them burns just as brightly in the american heart and somehow leader mcconnell is impervious to all of that. climate. i am pleased to share that yesterday the senate committee on environmental and public works did something amazing and ground breaking. it passed the first-ever climate title in a transportation

reauthorization bill. thanks to senate democrats on the committee and particularly ranking member carper's hard work, the highway bill actually includes $10 billion dedicated to climate-focused programs and policies. to reduce emissions and improve the resiliency of our transportation infrastructure to climate change and natural disasters. it includes funds for states to reduce carbon emissions, support for electric and alternative fuel vehicles, reductions in emissions from ports and roadways, and investment in climate-resistant infrastructure. less than a year ago, i said that democrats would demand that climate change be addressed in any infrastructure bill moving forward. this bill, with its $10 billion investment in climate, is a product of that demand. this will be the first time serious money has been included in an infrastructure package to fight climate change, but it

certainly, certainly will not be the last. the clock is ticking when it comes to climate change. we need to make progress whenever we can and as quickly as we can. if the republican leader won't bring legislation to the floor, democrats are prepared to take the lead and fight for climate progress every opportunity we get. that's precisely what this $10 billion climate investment in the highway bill represents. and again, i want to thank senator carper for his leadership, his skill, his persistence in getting it done. protecting our country and the world from the threat of climate change is no less than a moral obligation. when we return from recess, democrats will continue to look for more opportunities to make progress on climate change. and finally, on the debate last night when it comes to health care, last night, half of the

democratic presidential field engaged in a healthy debate. a great deal of which was focused on the number one issue to american voters -- health care. despite different policy proposals, the debate showed that the democratic party is completely united on the idea of universal health care coverage, as well as the need to lower the costs and improve the quality of health care for every american. but one point that should have been made in the debate and unfortunately wasn't is the fact that republicans are actively sabotaging our current health care system. the difference between the parties, whether you were one of the more moderate members on health care or one of the ones who had a broader, more sweeping proposal, but those differences almost pale before the differences for every democrat on that platform and our republicans, because the republicans are seeking to undo health care, to sabotage health

care, to have fewer people covered, and as a result of their ideas, thoughts, and lawsuits, costs going up. there is a huge gap between the parties on health care, and i'm glad we're having an active debate on how to move forward, cover more people, cost less. while we're doing that, the administration is doing the opposite of the -- opposite, the trump administration. it has reduced funds to help americans locate and sign up for the right insurance. it ended cost-sharing payments that help low-income families afford care. congressional republicans have tried and thankfully failed to repeal the affordable care act. the coup de grace, of course, is the fact that now the trump administration, with the support of many republican attorneys general and the complicity of every member of the senate on

the republican side here or just about every member, the administration is supporting a lawsuit that would invalidate the affordable care act entirely, kicking tens of millions off insurance, eliminating protections for preexisting conditions for over 100 million americans who have those preexisting conditions, and just about every republican is going along with that. the difference in the 2020 elections between democrats and republicans on health care will be apparent and glaring and will far and away subsume any differences that we may have on policy. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, mark t. pittman of

texas to be united states district judge for the northern district of texas.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. several years back at a committee hearing of the energy and natural resources committee. the director under the obama administration,ed offed of of of -- the dresht of the bureau of land management, he testified that most if not all of the county commissioners and various organizations in colorado were opposed to. in fact, the opposition was so uniform in colorado, i simply couldn't understand, and throughout the west actually, i couldn't understand why the b.l.m. was going forward with that regulation. and out of frustration at one point during the committee hearing, i said director, if you were just located in the west, if you were just out west, you would understand why this rule is a bad idea. and the response at the time several years ago was kind of a

chuckle and laugh and we should talk about that. it planted the seeds of an idea that actually was made into reality just last week with the announcement that the headquarters of the bureau of land management will be moving out west and indeed to grand juch, -- junction, colorado. this announcement was made on june 16 and i commend the efforts of the department of the interior for listening to the people of the west. this is not a republican issue, this is not a partisan issue. this idea to plouffe -- to move the b.l.m. headquarters out to the land it regulates and overseas has been embraced by democrats and republicans across colorado and throughout the west. they also talked about their intention to reorganize the bureau of land management and relocating a significant number of headquarters jobs throughout the west, not just in grand junction, but in lakewood, colorado, in montana, utah, and beyond. i think it's important to talk about the reasons why this

particular agency makes so much sense to have it located in colorado, in the west. look at this map here. this map is a combination, the red on this map is a combination of both mineral rights and surface lands. 47% of the land in the west, you can see the red, 47% of all the land out west is where 93% of all federal land is located. the federal government owns roughly 47% of this land out west. that's where 93% of the federal land is located. think about that. 93% of the federal lands in the red. that's where 47%, nearly half of all the federal land is located. nationwide, nationwide the bureau of land management is responsible for managing approximately 700 million acres of federal mineral state underground. 245 million acres are surface

acres. federal surface lands. all but 100,000 acres of those surface acres, all about 100,000 of those acres are west of the mississippi river and located predominantly, even the 11 most western states and alaska. one of the frustrations i hear from local county be officials and environmental activists and farmers and ranchers, that when they deal with their b.l.m. local field office, they seem to have a very good experience, that people are working together to solve problems that they like the conversations that they have and the cooperation they're getting from the local and regional offices. but something happens when that decision-making process then moves to washington, d.c. something happens and all of a sudden the conversation and communication can stop. it changes, and all of a sudden the outcomes aren't what they thought it would be based on those local productive conversations.

we've seen directives and management decisions coming more from washington, d.c. lately than local field offices where people know their communities best, who understand the land the best. so what happens is the deep pockets and special interests in washington often carry the day, make the convincing arguments. thousands of miles removed from where the federal land and the public land actually is. and that's why it's important to have this b.l.m. move. it changes that. instead of having the special interests in washington in a community that has none of these public lands located in it, you're able to make that decision right here in colorado, surrounded by public lands, in a community that is defined by the public lands that they oversee. i believe government is going to work better when it's local, when the local decision-makers are closest to the land that the decisions they are making affects the most.

and that's why this decision is so important. because whether it's issues of withdrawal of locateable minerals or reduction of grazing permits, the concept of multiple use over time, the idea that we can use this land for preservation, conservation, use it for energy development, that we can use it for grazing has somehow fallen out of favor. my friend greg walter, a former senate staffer for senator armstrong, used to head the department of natural resources wrote an op-ed pointing out the mandate includes managing 18,000 grazing permits, 220 wilderness areas, 27 national monuments, 600 national conservation areas, 200,000 miles of streams, 2,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers, 6,000 miles of scenic trails, 63,000 oil and gas wells, 25,000 miles and 50 million acres of forests.

not a square inch of that is in washington, d.c. it's in the 12 western states. alaska, arizona, california, colorado, idaho, montana, new mexico, oregon, utah, washington, and wyoming. it's never made sense for leadership to work 2,000 miles away from these states insulated by the inevitably different perspectives of life inside the beltway. that's what's so important about this decision. when you don't live in the communities that are among and surrounded by these lands, it's easy to make decisions that close off energy development or close cattle ranches and grazing opportunities because the consequences are felt out west instead of in washington, d.c. but the strong push by westerners, others, secretary zinke, be began the conversation about modernization and the organizal structure for the next 100 years of the bureau of land management, and i

appreciate secretary bernhardt's decision to make this happen. grand junction is an incredibly beautiful place with people so supportive of this decision, a community that knows when these decision-makers are in their community they are not going to have to drive hours or take a flight out of washington to see b.l.m. lands, but just to look out the window and see the lands they manage will result in better decision making. mesa county where grand junction is located, the county seat, is 73% federal land, 46% of which is managed by the b.l.m. in total the b.l.m. manages 8.3 million acres of surface in colorado and 27 million acres of federal mineral estates in colorado. we're not the only state that will benefit. there are a lot of other positions that will be moving across the country to the state, to the location where those jobs are best fit. it makes sense. i know sometimes people think that washington is the only place where people can do the

government's work or where people can find the kind of skilled workforce. that's one of the arguments that's been made against the b.l.m. move is only washington has a skilled workforce able to do these jobs. look, i'm sorry, if you don't want to live in the counties and communities surrounded by public lands, then why are you working for a public land management agency? so i'm excited about this. i want to thank the good people at the secretary of interior who made this decision happen, to the community of grand junction who supported this from day one. in the same op-ed mr. walter wrote, he opened with a quote. it said this, there is something more powerful than the brute force of bayonnets. it is an idea whose time has come. that's where we arrive today. an idea whose time has come, locating the decision-makers who affect our public, our western communities the most out in the

western united states. so thank you, mr. president, for the opportunity to talk about this decision, and i commend the secretary of interior for doing what's right by our public lands and i will continue to stand up for our public lands throughout this process. thank you. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, an unusual event occurred yesterday

in the environment and public works committee. a major bill reauthorizing america's transportation infrastructure for five years. it passed the committee by a 21- 0 vote. that's the way that we should be able to operate on a subject that i think enjoys universal support here in the united states senate, and that is making sure that the federal partnership for infrastructure is not only reauthorized but also increased because we know that the infrastructure needs of this country have only gotten more challenging. i want to start by complimenting the leadership of the environment and public works committee. chairman barrasso and ranking member carper worked very closely together on this bill, including the input of all members of the committee, as well as members of the united states senate. the subcommittee on transportation and

infrastructure, chaired by senator capito and which i am the ranking democrat on the committee, also worked very well in developing this transportation infrastructure reauthorization act. as i pointed out originally, the needs are urgent, and the leadership of the committee recognized that, and every one of our states we know the unmet needs of infrastructure and maintaining our existing infrastructure and replacing our bridges that are falling down, dealing with our transit systems, dealing with the needs to deal with congestion. there are so many issues that we know there are out there. it is important for us to give a clear signal that we intend for a long-term reauthorization five years so that there is predictability, so that our states and local governments know that these projects that require longer term planning, there will be a federal partner that's available and reliable. it also increases the funding the first year by 10%. it increases it by certain

percentages thereafter, recognizing we need to do more. and there are several new initiatives and building on existing programs that i think are worthy of mentioning. so let me just go over a few of the real highlights of this infrastructure bill. first, it has a climate change title. this is the first time we have done that, a separate title to deal with the realities of climate change. i need only remind my colleagues of what happened this month in maryland where we had four inches of rain that flooded maryland roads. we had to deal with the realities that we have to deal with resiliency and adaptation in regards to what's happening with climate change. this title deals with that. transportation is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. we need infrastructure that deals with the realities of reducing carbon emissions. so this title provides for

financial hel