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 help for building an

infrastructure for electric and alternative fuel vehicles. that's a reality of consumer desire, as well as dealing with the realities of climate change. we give local discretion for funds to initiate emission reduction strategies. that include simple things like providing alternatives for our cars, people who want to walk or bike rather than getting into our cars. it's a major commitment that we are going to provide resources and partnerships with local governments to deal with our realities and the responsibility in the transportation sector to reduce carbon emissions. i can tell you, mr. president, as i told my colleagues on the environment and public works committee, every day i face it every day, every day i community from baltimore to work and have to deal with the realities of congestion. it's been estimated that the

delays caused by congestion and the excessive fuels that are used by congestion costs our economy over $300 billion every year. so there's not only a quality of life issue involved in us taking on congestion, there's also an economic reason to take on the issues of congestion, and, of course, it's also linked to our commitment to deal with the climate change issues by reducing unnecessary fuel consumption that adds to carbon emotions. so the legislation provides funding for new initiatives so that we can get solutions to deal with the problems of congestion, the multimobile solutions are available in many communities. we work and allow the locals to give us ideas and help fund those to reduce congestion. as i mentioned earlier, we have

a real challenge on dealing with our bridges. many of our bridges are in need of replacement. many are in need of desperate repair. i can mention many in maryland, the southern part of our state, we have two bridges both in need of replacement and repair, this legislation provides additional resources to deal with bridges in our country. there are certain highways that have been built that no longer really serve the function -- or may never have served the function -- of moving people from one area to another, but are instead dividing communities. we are identifying highways no longer needed that are isolating communities so we can get those highways removed. i'm proud that this legislation builds on the transportation alternative program that i helped author. my partner on this on the

reauthorization bill is senator wicker, and i thank him for his help. it allows for much more local discretion on how transportation funds are spent. it allows local communities to have a source of federal support to deal with local safety issues, for developing trails, for pedestrian paths, for bike paths so that the safety of a local community is taken into consideration on the use of federal highway funds. it provides flexibility to local government. in the first year we provide $1.2 billion for transportation alternative programs with a steady growth in the pursuing four years. i also want to acknowledge the section in the bill that deals with freight traffic. it's a growing field. we expect it to continue to grow. there's funds that are provided in here to deal with the realities of moving freight through our highway

transportation -- surface transportation system. in that regard, i was pleased that this past week we were able to announce an infra-grant for maryland of $125 million for the howard street tunnel. this is a tunnel that is 120 years old that runs through baltimore. the removal -- the replacement of this tunnel will allow for double stacking of rail freight which is what you need to do today if you're going to have efficiency and be economically competitive. this grant will help us replace that tunnel and help create more jobs in baltimore, md, and our entire region of the country and we'll provide for more efficiencies on truck traffic. i say that because today, because of the inefficiencies of rail, we have trucks stacked up in baltimore which is inefficient for the truck operators and adds to the climate problems with the

excessive use of fail. we deal with safety, as we should. 20,000 people died in 2017 in our transportation areas. we need to improve that. there's important provisions in this legislation that deal with safety issues. the bill also deals with reauthorizationing -- reauthorizing the appalachian commission. i want to thank senator capito for her leadership on this issue. this is important for the entire region, including the western part of the state of maryland. mr. president, this is the first step, and i hope a successful step, for the completion of the reauthorization of surface transportation by this congress. i hope we can get it moving and enacted in time so there's no lapse in federal partnership dealing with transportation. i know we have other committees that need to act on a

comprehensive transportation bill. many of us serve on those other committees. if we follow the example of the environment and public works committee, 21-0, if we listen to each other, if we do that, we can succeed in passing a strong reauthorization of resurfacing transportation that will modernize america's transportation needs which will be good for our economy, good for our environment and good for the quality of all americans. i urge my colleagues to follow that example and get this worked on. with that, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, as those who are following c-span have probably noted, we are not overwhelmed with business on the floor of the united states senate nor have we been over the past year. we have passed several bills, the the defense authorization

bill and the tax treaty with luxembourg which was pending before the senate for nine years. it finally made it to the floor of the senate. that was the highlight of the week as we watch the united states senate ignore some of the most important issues of our time. let me tell you one that strikes at the heart of our democracy that we should be focused on today and until it's resolved. last week former f.b.i. director and special counsel bob mueller testified before the house judiciary committee about russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. it clarified several things, for example, president trump likes to explain how the mueller report exonerates him. director mueller made clear, and i quote, that is not what the

report said. when asked by house judiciary chairman, quote, did you actually totally exonerate the president? director mueller answered, quote, no. president trump likes to say the mueller investigation was a witch hunt. he said that about a thousand times, but the investigation actually led to 37 indictments, over $42 million in assets for fitted to the -- forfeited to the government. if this were a witch hunt, it found wealthy witches. some members of the house judiciary committee tried to attack director mueller's credibility, but mueller has a reputation for being a straight shooter and did this country a service by taking on the special counsel role. one thing director mueller tried to remind people of why this investigation was necessary. he said, i have seen a number of

challenges to our democracy. the russian's government -- russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. special counsel mueller said, and i quote, this deserves the attention of every american. one of the most important takeaways from the mueller report is that russia did successfully attack our democracy in 2016. page one of the mueller report says, and i quote, the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. the report detailed numerous examples, including a quote, intelligence gathering mission, including the i.r.a., took in june of 2014. the i.r.a. was the ruin troll form that used stolen

identities, fake social media accounts and fake campaign events. the mueller report and the earlier indictment of several i.r.a. employees noted that two of the russians remained in the united states for that three-week trip, quote, for the purpose of collecting intelligence for the i.r.a.'s operation. the report also detailed russia's attack on my own home state's board of elections. in 2016, the illinois state board of elections discovered it was the target of a malicious month-long cyberattack that enabled the intruder to get information and view the information data of approximately 76,000 voters in my state of illinois. these efforts to influence the election and attack campaign organizations and state and local election administrators and vendors continue to this day. what are we going to do about

it? and what has been the response so far of the united states senate? the body to uphold the constitution and protect against enemies foreign and domestic? nothing? we're too busy with the trade treat with luxembourg to deal with the election interference. this senate has been quiet as a graveyard. let's start in 2016. top officials from the administration's national security and intelligence community came and warned congressional leadership of russia's ongoing attack of our election. rightly asking for a bipartisan statement to tell russian dictator putin to stop. what was senate majority leader mcconnell's response to this obvious request to protect our nation? no thanks, heed said -- he said, not going to do it.

history will no doubt look back in infamy on that decision. what about the committee that has key jurisdictions on russian attacks on the united states? that committee did not even conduct an investigation into russia's actions in the last congress. republicans were silent when president trump repeatedly accepted russian dictator vladimir putin's brazen denials over intelligence experts and all the evidence to the contrary. they were silent again after the mueller report's devastating findings of russian interference and they were silent when president trump subsequently said he'd gladly accept the election help from a foreign power again. now look at the current congress. several bipartisan bills have been introduced to respond to this russian threat, including the election security act. this is a critical,

comprehensive bill that would provide states with much-needed resources and establish a robust federal effort to protect our democracy. unfortunately, republican senate leader mcconnell is blocking all efforts to bring this important legislation to the floor for a debate and vote. this legislation could thwart russian interference in the 2020 election. senator mcconnell refuses to bring it to the floor. so i end it with a question i asked before on the floor. how can the party of ronald reagan continue to sit by while this president pursues policies aligned with a former k.g.b. agent, vladimir putin? why didn't the first bills in this new senate under republican control deal with this threat to the election process in our democracy? why isn't the senate foreign relations committee holding urgent hearings on the stunning

dal yenses between a russian president. why isn't bipartisan legislation we protect u.s. membership in nato? quite frankly, we barely do anything in the legislative graveyard of the senate under republican control. you would think we would focus on a bipartisan basis on making certain that the outcome of the next election is not influenced by a foreign power, whether it's russia or some other malicious force in our world today. but because it bruises the president's ego and it may evoke a nasty tweet, the republican-controlled senate prefers to do nothing. it's time the republican majority stop protecting president trump at all costs. there's -- there reaches a point when the senate republican leadership needs to put the country before fear of the president's tweets.

mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: thank you hear it? can you hear the somber notes, the feet shuffling, the solemn tones? can you hear it? it's a durge, a funeral march, the death of a moment. a once-proud movement with hundreds of thousands of people gathered on the national mall. it's the death, it's the last gasp of a movement in america that was concerned with our national debt. today is the final nail in the coffin. the tea party is no more. the budget deal today allows unlimited borrowing for nearly two years, unlimited.

no limits. the government will borrow what they wish without limit for two years. it abolishes all spending caps. adoption of this deal marks the death of the tea party movement in america. fiscal conservatives, those who remain, should be in mourning. for congress, both parties has desert you. -- has deserted you. the national debt now stands at $22 trillion. this year, we will add over $1.2 trillion. we are approaching record deficits, and neither party cares. both parties have deserted, have absolutely and utterly deserted america, and show no care and no understanding and no sympathy for the burden of debt they are leaving the taxpayers, the young, the next generation, and the future of our country. the very underpinnings of our country are being eroded and threatened by this debt.

the interest on this debt will be over $400 billion next year. precisely $455 billion. interest will surpass all welfare spending in the next two years. interest on the debt will surpass defense spending by 2025. social security is $7 trillion in debt. medicare is over $30 trillion in debt. and yet, a parade of candidates on national television last night says they want to double and triple the government's expenditures where the government is already trillions of dollars short. whose fault is this? both parties. the media completely doesn't get it. the media says oh, there is not enough compromise in washington. exactly the opposite of the truth. there is too much compromise in washington. there is always an agreement to spend more money. there is always an agreement to spend money we don't have.

there is always an agreement to borrow your kids and your grandkids' money and to put this country further at risk. admiral mullen put it this way. he said the most significant threat to our national security is our debt, and yet all around me on my side of the aisle are those who clamor and say our military is hollowed out and can't complete its mission. well, perhaps the mission's too big for the budget. maybe it's not a problem of having enough money. maybe it's a problem of making our mission to be everything to everyone around the world to spend $50 billion a year building roads and bridges in afghanistan for the last 20 years and to continue that forever. when the president put forward a proposal of thought that we might try to end to declare victory in afghanistan, this body, both parties, rose up as one, and the vast majority said it would be precipitous to leave afghanistan after 19 years. this is the problem.

it isn't acrimony. it isn't both parties fighting each other. it's both parties agreeing to increase the debt. they increase the debt for different reasons, but the only way they get theirs, give me mine, give me mine. that's what both sides say. the right wants it for the military, and yet, we spend more on the military than the next ten countries combined. we spend more on the military, the u.s. spends more than all of nato combined. all of the nato countries combined spend less than we do on the military. people say we're hollowed out. we can't complete our mission. well, maybe the mission is too big. it isn't that the budget's too small. it's that the mission's too big. maybe we don't need to have troops in 50 of 5 african countries. maybe we need to rethink our mission. maybe the mission of the military should be to defend our country, not to intervene in every civil war around the world. admiral mullen said it was the

most significant threat to our national security is our debt, and yet we're piling on more debt, saying we need more military. maybe we need to discuss the mission of our military. we are piling more debt on, some in the name of national security, and yet i think it weakens us with every moment. the vote today will be on a two-year debt ceiling with no limits. the details do matter. raising the debt ceiling with no limits would be like telling your kid, okay, you can have a credit card, but there will be no limits on what you spend. just spend it on whatever you want, in whatever amount, and in two years, i will just pay the bill for you. nobody would do that with their family money, and no one should act that way. we can't keep going on like this. where are all the fiscal conservatives? what happened to the tea party movement? which was bipartisan and was concerned citizens rising up and

saying i don't want something from government. what i want is a government that is responsible, a government that spends what comes in, a government that doesn't keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and putting us further at risk. what happened to that movement? that movement elected some of these people. you have heard these people. don't you remember when president obama was president, the republicans all clamoring and saying trillion-dollar deficits for multiple years. every year they were saying president obama wants to spend and more owe and spend and borrow. i heard it in my state. i heard it from the very people who today will vote for this monstrosity. some of them will actually vote for my amendment to give them cover. they will say oh, yeah, i was for the paul amendment, but then they are also going to vote for the deal that will bankrupt our country. what happened to these people? they all thought debt was bad when it was president obama's debt, but they are not very ecumenical. they are not very much into

self-examination. they are not interested in the debt now that republicans are complicit. but before we make this about republicans, remember that there is not a democrat in washington that cares about the debt. the difference between the parties are the democrats are honest. they are very honest. they don't care about the debt. look, they are all over the states falling all over themselves trying to give free health care to illegal aliens, all right? they are all at the stage trying to talk about giving medicare for all when we can't even afford the medicare for some. so democrats don't care. the country should know that. democrats do not care about the debt. but here is the problem. the only opposition party we have in the country is the republican party, and they don't care either. they just come home and they are dishonest and they tell you they care and they vote for a monstrosity. today's vote will be a vote for a monstrosity, an abomination. the ability to borrow money for over two years until guess what intervenes. why are we going to wait two years with no limits on

borrowing? there is this little thing called an election. dhoant want to be in public voting to raise the debt ceiling an unlimited amount or a vast amount again, so they are putting it off to beyond the election. both parties are complicit, though. nobody wants to vote on this again. people talk about draining the swamp. you can't drain the swamp unless you are willing to cut the size and scope of government. that is the swamp. the swamp is this morass that is millions of people up here organized to involve themselves in the economy. most of them could disappear from government and no one would notice. the only thing you would notice is less money coming to washington and more money remaining in the states. it's a little bit of what happened with the tax cut. but in addition to the tax cut, returning people to their own money, we should also quit spending money we don't have up here. i for one during the tax cut said you've got to cut spending. i offered amendments during the

tax cut to cut spending, but do you know what happened? i got four votes. four people in the senate care about the debt on that particular vote. after we passed the tax cut, there's a provision that says there will be automatic spending cuts if the taxes were to bring in less revenue. guess what? i forced a vote to keep that rule in place. i got nine votes. because most people don't care. no democrat cares about the debt, and the republicans falsely tell you they care, and the vast majority will vote for this monstrosity today. today i will offer an alternative. some say well, you conservatives won't vote to raise the debt ceiling at all, and we would go bankrupt and there would be turmoil in the markets, and there would be a disaster. so what i am offering for conservatives today is we will raise the debt ceiling under a couple of conditions. we will raise the debt ceiling if you adopt in advance significant spending cuts, caps

on spending, and a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. see, because here's the rub, and here's the -- i guess the beginning of the end of the dishonesty around here. if we had a vote today and some people were saying why don't we vote on the balanced budget amendment, we would all love to vote for it. we don't really mean it. we don't really care about balancing the budget, we're not for it because we are big government republicans, but we would love to vote for the balanced budget amendment because i can go home and tell people, yeah, i voted for the really crazy, monstrous budget deal to expand the debt, but i also voted for the balanced budget amendment. well, here's our deal. we don't want to vote on the balanced budget amendment. we want adoption of the balanced budget amendment. so if you will cut spending, if you will cap spending and you will cast a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, i'll vote to raise the debt ceiling, but only if those things are done. and people say well, if we don't raise the debt ceiling without any reform, the country, the

markets will go into turmoil. well, guess what? we bring in $3 trillion and we spend $4 trillion. what does that mean? we can pay for $3 trillion on a daily basis without borrowing. so if tomorrow we didn't raise the debt ceiling, what would happen? we would spend $3 trillion. every social security check could do out, every soldier could be paid, and everybody could be taken care of on medicare. that's probably about it, to tell you the truth. because we spend too much money. we spend money we don't have. but you can provide the essentials to people. social security, medicare, and pay our soldiers, and maybe a few other things if you just spent what came in. isn't that what we should do? isn't that what responsible people do? does any american family routinely spend a third, 25% more than comes in? does anybody spend $4 for every $3 that comes in? nobody does that. nobody in the right mind does that, but your government does it. and who is at fault?

both parties. they are complicit. they scratch each other's back. they both are terrible on the deficit. both parties are bad. both parties are ruining our country. my amendment is called cut cap and balance. cut spending, puts caps back in place that they can't exceed, and says that we vote now on a balanced budget amendment, and if it passes and if it is sent to the states, then we would raise the debt ceiling. most people around here don't want any linkage. it's not that they will just complain that my budgetary reforms are too harsh. they will explain that they don't want any, so there won't be any alternative. they won't be saying those are too much and we would rather have just a little bit. no, they don't want any restraint. the budget monstrosity, the deal, the abomination we will vote on today will have no

limits, no dollar limits. i was arguing this last week on another particular issue, and from across the country, i get reamed by the left-wing mob who says oh, why are you doing this? why couldn't you do it on another matter? we do it n every matter. those of us who are fiscally conservative say we shouldn't spend money we don't have. i'm doing it again this week, saying that we should not spend money that we don't have, that it's irresponsible, that we are eroding the very foundation that has made america great. i will vote against this budget deal. i will present cut cap and balance. cut cap and balance is a responsible way to raise the debt ceiling by cutting spending, capping spending, and also passing a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. i hope my colleagues will consider that. thank you.

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senate majority whip. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: it is not. mr. thune: mr. president, i -- i love the month of august, and i think i've always loved the month of august, going back to the time when i was a kid because obviously growing up in south dakota, august is a great month of the year. it's hot. there's a lot of activities. of course, it's the month before or in some cases the month of returning to school. but it's a time in which there are lots of things going on in my home state of south dakota. and especially since becoming a member of congress, i really love august. i head back home to south dakota almost every weekend to meet with south dakotans but august is wonderful and different for two reasons. one is august gives us an extended work period, a time when we get a chance to visit the furthest corners of our state, places that might be hard to visit on just a weekend. places like bison and milbank

and clear lake and molbridge. i get to talk to people who make their living in production agriculture in some of the most rural parts of south dakota. there's nothing more valuable than getting to talk to these south dakotans firsthand to hear what challenges they're facing and what we can do here in washington to help out not to mention how wonderful it is to spend time in these beautiful parts of our state. if you haven't taken in the rugged beauty of the bad lands or the rivers or prairies of central south dakota, then, mr. president, you're missing out. the other thing i love about heading back to south dakota for august is that it's fair season. the empire fair, the turner county fair, the brown county fair, central states fair, yank and river boat days and powwows in tribal communities across south dakota. the list goes o. you would be hard pressed to find better people or food. i often joke in the month of

august i'm basically eating my way across south dakota. ice cream at the fair in parker. pork sandwiches with the pork producers. milkshakes at today coat take fest. cheese kurds at state fair and i can go home. i can remember the year i had a puppy burger and the fries and a malt at the brown county fair and got up early the next morning to run the 5k at river boat days in yankton. needless to say it was not my best run time but it was worth it for that tub by burger. there's really not better than a south dakota road trip, mr. president. our state has so much to offer, incredible scenery, rolling prairies. hundreds of miles of wide open country. there's nothing better than a summer afternoon driving down a south dakota highway. you feel like you can see literally forever. we have an incredible number of outdoor opportunities from fishing and hunting to hiking,

biking, rock climbing, water sports, you name it in south dakota we have it. south dakota is an affordable place for families to visit as well. you're not going to break the bank on meals or lodging. and of course we have unforgettable road trip stops like the corn palace in mitchell or wall drug. make sure if you get to walldrug, you grab a homemade donut or glass of free ice water and take a pick for instagram with the giant antelope outside. as for south dakotaians, well, they're the nicest people you're ever going to meet. a south dakota road trip is worth it for the people alone. in addition to the wonderful memories that i've made traveling across the state as an adult, i cherish my memories of trips to the black hills as a child with my parents and siblings. we used to go out there for labor day, stay in this little nonair conditioned cabin and just enjoy the outdoors. we'd hike and visit the caves or

go to mount rush more or head to the lake. i love, love then and still love visiting silvin lake in the black hills. i love being there with my parents and siblings and i loved taking my daughters there on trips like the ones i took growing up. nobody who visits south dakota, mr. president, should miss the black hills. i'm not sure there's a more beautiful place on earth. the interplay of light, shadow on the trees and rocks late on a summer afternoon, the endless south dakota sky reflected in the clear blue of silvin lake. people in washington, d.c. don't know what the milky way looks like on a clear night on the black hills or the prairies of south dakota. it's if the sky had been carpeted with millions of diamonds. mr. president, i'm lucky to be a son of south dakota. ism a -- and i'm looking forward to getting out of washington, d.c. this week and heading back to my home state of south dakota for some of the best weeks of

the year. and brown county, if you're listening to this, please save me a tubby burger. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: over the past months we've heard a lot of talk about medicare for all. if democrats -- if democrats supporters claim this is a panacea that will solve all of

america's health care woes, they say it will guarantee every person's access to health care and simplify our health care system. but it didn't take much effort to see the flaws in their proposal and in their argument, something we're obligated to do, to examine these proposals and see will they work or will they not work. our democrat friends proudly own the fact that medicare for all would completely end employer-based health insurance as we know it. we heard that a lot last night during the debates of the democratic candidates running for president. it would literally force every american into one government-run plan modeled after our current medicare system. part of the problem is seniors have paid into the medicare system for many years, and we know that it is on a path to insolvency unless congress does something. this would only make that worse,

medicare for all, to expand it to every eligible american. according to a kaiser poll released yesterday, more than three-quarters of americans favor employer-sponsored health insurance. and 86% of people with employer coverage rate their insurance positively. that would include, as again we heard last night, many union members who've been part of a collective bargaining agreement with their employers with management to negotiate outstanding, quality private health insurance. that would go away under medicare for all. we know that about 83% of the people polled support our current medicare system for our seniors and a whopping 95% of people with medicare coverage are happy with it. but if medicare for all becomes the law of the land, those numbers would plummet because

medicare would be unrecognizable to the seniors who've paid into that fund and who have earned that coverage. families would lose all freedom when it comes to making their own health care costs. you see, a government-selected doctor at a government selected facility. we know what that looks like in the united kingdom and in canada where people have to wait in long lines just to get seen by their doctor, much less elective surgery. you get the coverage that the government says you deserve at the time when the government says you can have it. it would completely hollow out the existing medicare program and inject unfathomable instability into america's health system. and if you get past all of that, which is hard to do, you certainly won't be able to stomach the price. medicare for all it's estimated would cost taxpayers $32

trillion over the first ten years alone. now, credit bernie sanders, our colleague from vermont. he's honest enough to acknowledge that he's going to have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for that. but $32 trillion is a lot of money, especially when our current debt exceeds $20 trillion already and is growing. well, when it comes to how they would pay for it, the only answer that we hear from everybody other than bernie sanders is let's just tax the rich. well, this is part of their usual talking points and part of the democratic party's incredible sprint to the left. and their shocking embrace of a socialist agenda. we saw the start of their move toward socialized medicine in 2009 with obamacare. we famously recall president obama trying to reassure people that if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. if you like your doctor, you can

keep your doctor, none of which proved to be true. and now democrats want to make these extravagant promises about medicare for all which we know that they cannot keep. so it's clear that obamacare was just the beginning and medicare for all or the public option, so to speak, which some people tried to -- tried to tout as an alternative but the public option is nothing but a government competition for private health insurance. and you can't beat the federal government, especially when paid for by federal tax dollars. so what that means again is a march toward elimination of private health insurance, including that provided through your employer, which now benefits about 180 million americans. last knight we saw these candidates defend these radical

policies during the democratic debate. two of our senate colleagues who are running for president sparred over what another candidate called fairy tail promises. they fought to defend their plan to remove all choice from america's health care. they tried to convince their fellow democrats and the american people that they are writing a check that if elected, that they can cash. we know that's not true. the american people are not going to be fooled. they don't want socialized medicine. they don't want to run up government spending and certainly don't want to have to pay $32 trillion in additional taxes to pay for it. and they certainly don't want washington bureaucrats dictating their families' health care choices. in a speech last week, the administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid services seema verma spoke about these radical health care ideas and

she said these proposals are the largest threat to america's health care system. let me say that again. the head of c.m.s., the center for medicare and medicaid services, she called it these proposals the largest threats to america's health care system. so you'd better believe that we will keep fighting to resist the socialist agenda and this ever more liberal wish list. mr. president, on another matter, we'll soon be able to vote on a bipartisan two-year budget agreement to provide some certainty and stability to the federal government and federal spending. the president and speaker pelosi have reached this deal in order to avoid the possibility of another government shutdown. and instead leave time and space for a wide-ranging debate on our government spending habits. i know the presiding officer believes like i do that it's past time to have a genuine

far-ranging debate about government spending habits but not just focused on discretionary spending which is what this budget caps deal does but on all the money the federal government spends, which includes the 70% of spending which is on autopilot which this deal does not discuss or deal with. i'll be the first to admit that this budget agreement isn't perfect. it never is. anything that's negotiated means both sides have to give up a little bit in order to find common ground. and, as quated, is certainly -- and, as i indicated, i certainly wish it was more aggressive. i wish it did something to deal with our entitlement programs as we continue to face growing deficits. but i'm glad to see that the agreement offsets roughly a one-year increase for nondefense spending above current law and allows our government to be funded on time and on budget. it also avoids 30 poison pill

policy riders on everything from taxpayer funding for abortion to immigration law from reaching the president's desk. above all, this agreement delivers on our most fundamental responsibility, which is to provide for our common defense. our friend, the senior senator from oklahoma, told me when i first came here, he said, i am a a. conservative, which means there's really two things that take priority when it comes to the federal government. one is national defense, and the other is infrastructure. and he said, everything else comes below that on the priority list. and i found a lot of wisdom in those words. providing for the common defense is the most important thing congress does along with the administration. and we know under the previous administration the pentagon and our national defense was underfunded dramatically. it operated without any kind of

stability or predictability and took a serious toll on our military readiness. so after nearly a decade of neglect, president trump and senate republicans are working to rebuild our military and rebuild that readiness and modernize our force. let's look at the army future vertical lift or f.v.l., as an example of why this ine have is he important. -- this investment is so important. it is a cross-functional team headquartered in austin, texas that aims to develop two new helicopters for the army in the 2020's. these next-generation aircraft will replace age military helicopters and provide our service members with the capabilities they need today and tomorrow. but right now these programs are progressing without timely funding. it's hard to make plans when you don't know how the money is going to flow. so without a budget deal and on-time appropriations, the army has no choice but to

significantly delay these programs for years to come. meaning that the army will continue to operate helicopters built in the 1970's and 1980's. the same goes with our artillery. those years of underfunding have allowed russia and china to surpass our capabilities in a number of areas, including long-range precision fire. in this and other areas, the military must develop longer longer-range weapons to provide an advantage over our adversaries and maintain our qualitative edge. newer program, the army would not be able to continue research, developing and testing under a continuing resolution or without a budget deal, putting us another year behind in modernizing our force in an era of great power competition, which means china and russia continue a pace while -- apace

while we are slow to try to catch up. that's why this deal is so important. it provides stable and reliable funding so our military leaders can plan for the future and provide for the common defense. our newly confirmed defense secretary, mark esper, talked about this at length when testifying before the armed services committee a couple of weeks ago. he talked about the department of defense receiving funding on time last year and said, it really allowed us to accelerate the readiness gains we made to advance our modernization efforts and to do all the things that the national defense strategy tells us we need to do. so you would think there would be broad bipartisan support that we should provide mechanic's military with the necessary resources to keep the american people safe. somehow, though, some of our members believe that this critical national security mission is optional.

and, unfortunately, there are some in our midst who look to reduce military funding at every possible turn. fortunately, we have a president who shares our commitment to national security. and thanks to the trump administration's tough negotiating, this deal provides the stability that the pentagon needs, including critical investments in military readiness. compared to current law, it provides a larger increase in discretionary funding for defense than nondefense discretionary programs and will allow us to regain the ground lost under the obama administration. so, mr. president, i appreciate the president's work along with the house and the senate to deliver a budget deal that supports america's military, and i look forward to supporting this agreement later today and certainly later this week.

mr. president, on another matter, notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i further ask unanimous consent that the committee on homeland security and government a fairs be -- affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 639 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 639, an act to amend section 327 of the robert t. stafford dallasster relief and emergency assistance act and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate proceeds. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 3245,

which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3245, an act to transfer a bridge of the wabash river to the new harmony river bridge authority and the new harmony and wabash river authority and for other purposes. the presiding officer: objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate proceeds. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on armed services be discharged from further consideration of s. 2052 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2052, a bill to authorize the honorary promotion of colonel charles e. mcgee to brigadier general in the united states air force. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. cornyn: i further ask that the van hollen amendment, which

is at the desk, be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of h. con. res. 53 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 53, authorizing the use of emancipation hall for an event to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first african slaves to the territory that would become the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate proceeds. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be

discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to s. res. 263. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 263, honoring the 1 seeth anniversary of the american -- 100th anniversary of the american legion. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate proceeds. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 294. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. cornyn: -- which was submitted earlier today. the clerk: senate resolution 294, designating august 16, 201, as national airborne day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the? will the proceed. mr. cornyn: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the

motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 295 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 295, designating the month of september 2019 as campus fire safety month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: is is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the

judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and that the senate now proceed to s. res. 285. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 285, designating september 2019 as school bus safety month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and finally, mr. president, i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these have been approved by both the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cornyn: i beg your pardon, mr. president. that wasn't the last thing. this is the last thing. i'd now ask unanimous consent that the senate resume executive session and that notwithstanding rule 22, the time between now

and 3:00 p.m. be equally divided between the leaders and their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. braun: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: whistle-blowers play a key role holding the federal government accountable for waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and illegal activity. it is, therefore, appropriate that even though whistle-blower appreciation day was yesterday, we take a moment to pause and thank the brave men and women who have the courage to speak up when they see ways to better improve our government. i want to thank them for their efforts to ensure our government never loses sight of why we are here, to serve the american people and to be good stewards of their resources and trust.

i'm also proud to introduce legislation with senator maggie hassan of new hampshire. our bill ensures adequate protection for subgrantees, the folks on the firing line that are most important to revealing when something is not right. that needs to be protected in a way that is ensured that they always feel comfortable coming forward. in 1989, congress approved the whistle-blower protection act, thereby expanding whistle-blower protections for federal employees and later expanding protections for individuals in certain private-sector employment. from time to time it has been necessary for congress to refine federal whistle-blower laws. we always want them to be working. in one such instance, congress

enhanced whistle-blower protections as part of the national defense authorization act of 2013 for federal contractor, subcontractor, and grantee employees on a pilot program basis. the program worked well, and in 2016 congress saw fit to make the pilot permanent. it makes sense. this is how the process should work. congress shaw a problem, addressed -- congress saw a problem, addressed it on a test basis, evaluated it to make sure it was working as it should, and moved to make the program permanent. however, the subsequent amendments in 2016 to make sure the program was working failed to guarantee subgrantees were recognized in the legislative text as necessary to make sure it would work on a technical basis. while 2016 amendments explicitly

included federal subgrantee employees, coordinated changes were not made in the statutes' related sections. i am proud to introduce this legislation with senator hassan to close this gap. because it needs to work in all cases. senate bill 2315, the whistle-blower act, clarifies the scope of this protection statute specifically as to employee, of federal -- employees of federal subgrantees who provide protected disclosures. subgrantees are often in the best position to provide information regarding wrongdoing as to federal subgrant funds. i am, therefore, pleased to play a small role in cleaning up our laws so they operate as they were intended to protect whistle-blowers. finally, i'd like to say that we

take whistle-blowers seriously in my office. if anybody would like to assist, contact me through our whistle-blower assistance line. they can e-mail me at whistleblower at brawn.senate.gov. thank you, mr. president. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: over the past several weeks, we've seen numerous attempts by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take a serious issue and frankly i think turn it into a political football. it's an issue you and i both spent a lot of time on, having served on the intel committee

and in my case on the rules committee looking at what we need to do to be sure that people have maximum confidence, that what happens on election day is reflected exactly in the results. now, our friends came to the floor last week and they sought unanimous consent to make sweeping changes in the election laws of the country and then somehow suggested there is conspiracy that anybody would say no to that. mr. president, unanimous consent means exactly that. it's what we do when we name a post office. it's what we do when we make decisions that are unanimously agreed to and usually that's all it takes to get that issue settled. it is not how we shape the laws at the heart of our democracy nor is it what we do when we try to make a point about that in my opinion. in fact, one of the bills they sought unanimous consent on had

passed the house. it got exactly one republican vote in the house. so it clearly was not unanimously consented to over there and would not be unanimously consented to here. this is about press releases, not policy. in fact the president today called for us to pass voter i.d. laws that would require voter i.d. in every state and a law that would have a paper trail in every state. i suppose if right now i would have drafted that bill and would call for unanimous consent under the same standard, i should expect my friends on the other side to say that -- that's something that others say would help elections. i should just be for that and be for that immediately. of course, mr. president, that would not be the case. now, these attempts have all been brought to the floor on the basis of saving democracy. this is what we need to do to save our election.

this is in the name of election security but really it's not what it's about at all. three of the bills were about campaign committees which are managed by lots of laws and may need to be managed by more but how you run a campaign committee is not how you secure what happens at the voting place on election day. one of the proposals was for the federal government to secure the personal devices of members of congress and their employees. that could, i assume, since you and i know one of the things we do in the intel committee is if you have a fit bit like this one, you put it in the shell of before you go into the meeting. if you have a phone like this one, you put it in a shelf before you go into the meeting. that law would say that the federal government should secure those personal devrys of mine -- devices of mine so there's absolute security that if they interact with a federal system, that they have done no damage to that system. i guess it would also mean that

if one of my children calls me on their personal device, whether they live at home or not, i'd of course take that call immediately. they would then have gotten into my personal device. do i need -- does the federal government need to secure that as well? even if it was appropriate for the federal government to do that for members and their extended immediate network, i'm not sure it's possible. i'm certainly sure that it has nothing to do with election security. it might have something to do with security of our system here in the senate. frankly, i think it might make it less secure which is why i've chosen not to bring that bill up before our committee up i know more about it. i think it might make it less secure if everybody thought without hesitation well, somebody has looked at this personal device of mine and they have secured it. so i can go into any of the secure system in the senate i

want to with this device and not runny -- not run any sense of danger that i might endanger that senate system. this doesn't protect the elections. there are numerous u.c. attempts we've seen on plenty of other bills that claim to secure elections. one included a provision that would take away the authority of the states to determine their own process for voter registration. i'm not for that. i also think it's hard to make the case that that would secure elections. but in case you think it would be another one was for it to require every state to have online voter registration. i'm pretty sure that would make the elections less secure. we talked about all the infiltration of bad information out there on the internet and one of these provisions to secure elections would require states to have online registration. another was automatic voter

registration. another was same-day registration. you know, in missouri it was in -- the nonurban part of our state, we didn't have voter registration in all elections until 1975 or so. the view was, well, then small towns and school district elections and all, they're going to know everybody so they don't really need to have registration. but finally it occurred to somebody they might just think they knew five people and the bond issue might be decided by five people. so we'd have voter registration, in fact we'd have it and not only we'd have it, we'd have it enough in advance that anybody could look at those voter rolls 28 days in advance and see if there's any question about whether they were registered or not. other states have decided to have same-day registration but one of these bills to secure our elections would require anybody that walked up to vote would be able to register to vote that day. if you think that works in your

state, i'm not really arguing that you shouldn't do it because maybe it does, if that's what the voters of that state believe to be the case. pretty sure it wouldn't work in every state. and let me revisit that online voter registration again. i'm sure that doesn't secure elections. there was one proposal in these bills that was rejected to secure elections. that for every one dollar contributed at a certain level, there would be $6 federal -- 6 federal dollars given to the campaign. that was one of the secure elections things that was rejected, wasn't accepted by unanimous consent. you know, at this point it does seem to me -- and if you're not -- if you're not willing to accept all these things, there was this sort of hair on fire moment where somehow if you're not willing to accept anything, somebody else says would secure elections, that you're undermining the election system. you know, we really undermine the system when we say this kind

of thing helps it. frankly, i've been watching this for a while, and that list of things i gave you, that's been on every democrat wish list of what would advantage them in the election for about 20 years. never before did they purport that it made a more secure election. they just said they thought it was a better system and more fair. it was obvious to them it would help them. it was obvious to us it would help them. and we haven't done it. and we're probably not going to do it right now. you know, there are people in this building, mr. president, who just simply won't accept the fact that there is not a federal -- that there's not a federal solution for every problem. and sometimes if there is a federal solution, it's not the best solution. frankly, i think the diversity of the election system that we have is one of the strengths of the system. i may get back to that later but that's what president obama said in october of 2016. he said the fact that we don't have a federal structure made it

really more difficult to impact our elections than if we did. now, i believe everybody here knows that clearly state and local officials faced a significant threat from russians particularly in 2016 that they hadn't faced before. and probably added to that you could add the russians and the chinese and the north koreans and the iranians, all of whom for not much money can do very disruptive things. there's no question that the russians affected our elections but they've been trying to impact elections in eastern and western europe for well over a decade. why this would be a surprise to us is shocking to me. why in 2016 we would act like we were totally flat footed. oh, the russians would actually interfere with the elections just because they interfered in

elections in a double handful of countries in the previous decade and the world's pretty small when you get to that internet world we live in now. critically infrastructure declaration came from the obama administration in october where frankly they terrified most state election officials that suddenly the federal government with about two weeks left in the election was going to federalize a system that they were personally responsible for. so recently the intelligence committee that started this process, mr. president, when you and i were both on it and i'm still on it, released some key findings about what the russians had done. they found that the russians had worked hard to find the seams between where the federal government could be helpful and state and local governments. it found that the f.b.i. and the department of homeland security warnings to local officials came way too late in the process and were not well thought out.

it scared the wrong people and confused more people when they -- the f.b.i. and d.h.s. did what they did. and while there's no question that both of those agencies have redoubled their efforts to build trust with the states and deploy resources to help secure elections, that we have to remain vigilant to see that they -- that they continue to do that. even when you and i worked on a bill together last year that local officials continued to have some problems with, even after we worked on it, i know i said at the time i believe we're doing everything this bill would do, but i'm not sure we'd still be doing it ten years from now. so we need to memorialize that. i haven't significantly changed my view on that but i haven't changed my view most importantly that we're doing what we need to do now. but congress needs to be vigilant. we have to insist that state and local officials have the

clearance levels they need. i talked to -- frankly, let me say this, too. on that topic, i'm not sure you can legislate take. i'm not sure you can legislate here is what you have to be willing to take state and local officials. i'm not sure you can ever put that in writing, but you can ask them what they are telling people. i talked to one of our state election officials just last week, and he said -- i said how is this going? he said, well, everything we requests seems to be one level above the security that i -- the security clearance i have. too many of the things we ask meet that criteria. we're going to have to insist that that not be the case while this is not likely to be solved by legislation, i think it can be solved by congressional oversight and inquiry. the intelligence committee also found that russian activities demand renewed attention to vulnerabilities in the u.s. voting infrastructure.

certainly agree with that. we even said in that report we should replace out of date machines and improve ways to vote and improve cyber security. i think that's happening. election officials have been taking this threat very seriously. d.h.s., the department of homeland security, has reported that all 50 states and more than 1,400 local jurisdictions have signed up for the cyber threat information sharing program. we've had reports to the senate on that. the rules committee has had hearings on that. intel has asked repeatedly about that. the intel committee. the monitoring sensors that help detect malicious activity have been deployed to election infrastructure in most states. remember in 2016 we had a cyber defense, but we didn't have a cyber offense.

and in early in the trump administration, i remember people being asked in a open hearing, do you have any direction now to -- to have a cyber -- to be fighting out there, to have a cyber offense? well, that was about five months into the trump administration when the person said no, you'd think that somehow the old cyber offense had been turned off. in fact, there had been no cyber offense. sometime in 2017 the cyber fighters were given what they needed and they're out there helping. they're fighting back, too. and we had a report on that just recently that all the senators are aware of. one of the chief state election officials in terms that have cyber war said that there, in their system, there are about 100,000 attempts every day to scan the system -- the voter registration system and see if you could possibly get in. i don't know how many thousand

of those might be from foreign actors. i suspect a majority of them are from people just, let's see if i can get into the system. but we should assume all is 00,000 of them are from somebody who wants to do something wrong but we should assume all 100,000 of them are from somebody who wants to do something wrong. we've seen states use equipment that didn't have a backup that -- when the election was over you could count something individualsly that the voter would have been able to look at, get their hands on and recount. that's the great -- if you ask me, that's the best proof you could have is a backup, a ballot that can be counted, a ballot where if i vote in missouri, i vote my -- my voting machine. it generates something that i look at and then i put that in the ballot box. that's counted at the polling place. but if it ever had to be counted again, if there was any question about that precinct counter, they could go back and open that ballot box and count them again.

on election day in 2016 and even in 2018 there were still four states that didn't have that system. it took -- anywhere in their states. therethere are a couple of other states that are partial. four states didn't have it. delaware had it, and it's in place for this year's election. georgia announced just last week that they'd awarded a contract to replace their equipment that will be in place by 2020, the 2020 elections and have an auditable ballot trail. south carolina made a similar announcement last month. the fourth state, louisiana, is working through contracting bidding process right now. whether they're in place by 2020 or not in louisiana, i don't know. but i no he that they'll be in as soon as they can reasonably be in and not confuse voters. congress has to continue to move states to do that.

we need to look and see what happened with the states that were given $380 million in 2018. 49 states took the money immediately. one state, minnesota, has some glitch with their legislature, so they don't have their money yet. but of the $380 million that states have, they've only spent 25% of t so there's still $285 million that states have to do the kinds of things that the congress thinks that states should be doing. now, there may be some states that have already spent all their money and need more. that's something that in appropriations process i'm sure we'll look at again, just like that money, that $380 million came through the appropriations process. mr. president, as i recall, you were pretty involved in that discussion at the time. the federal government's role

isn't to run elections for the state, but it certainly has a place in trying to be a valued partner ensuring that the states have all the help they need. in fact, i believe that a larger federal role requiring a one-size-fits-all approach to the election would be a big mistake. i'm not for federalizing the elections. i spent 20 years as an election official, either as the individual responsible for the elections in the third most populous county in our state or the chief election official as the secretary of state. and in 20 years of doing this, i guarantee you that the person on the ground generally elected by the voters that he's trying to secure -- he or she is trying to secure their election that day is intensely interested in that election going well and people having confidence in it. there is very little kicking the buck up to some federal official in a four-way place and -- in a

faraway place and say, we can't prepare for that because we haven't been told that we can prepare for that. public confidence in elections is fundamental. it is the central thread in the fabric of democracy. elected officials take it seriously when they're elected to do this job or supervise this job, just like appointed officials and boards of election officials do. that system would not be improved if it was directed from washington, d.c., in a one-size-fits-all world. these public servants undertake an important job and they understand it's an important job. we need to support them. we are supporting them. we need to have oversight. there may be a time when that oversight has produce add system that's so finely honed that we're ready to make it permanent. but every time you put something

in law permanently, you reduce a lot of your flexibility to insist that something be done differently that needs to be done right now. both the intel committee report -- and i want to -- both senator warner and senator burr have done a good job keeping our committee on a bipartisan, nonpartisan track in this report. but both that report and former f.b.i. director mueller focused on the insidious efforts to confuse voters. this is a much better -- bigger question than what we can do at the government level at election security. let's not confuse that certain fight about bad information that's out there with a fight about whether our elections are secure or what happens on election day. frankly, much more atersion on what -- frankly, much more attention on what we can do out there, and put people on alert. sometimes your political

opponent says things that aren't true. they don't have to be russian to do that. people need to be on alert about information that's out there. but they also don't need to be scared to death that somehow we're not taking seriously the important moment of democracy when people decide. i believe we're doing that. i'm committed to it. i believe this senate is committed to it. i think these -- this effort to make everything that might advantage one side an election security issue is something that people need to be thoughtful about and, mr. president, it needs to stop. i'd yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: mr. president, i rise today to discuss the need to hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable for putting profits before the health and

well-being our people and our communities. i know that my colleague, senator brown from ohio, came to the floor earlier this week to call off bad actors in the -- call out bad actors in the pharmaceutical industry. i am grateful for senator brown's leadership in calling attention to this issue. and i join him in the effort. we are constantly learning more and more about the unconscionable ways that pharmaceutical companies fueled the substance misuse crisis, a crisis that is killing more than 100 people a day in the united states. recent data released by the drug enforcement administration showed that between 2006 and 2012, just six years, companies distributed 76 billion pills of oxy codone and hydrocodone throughout the country,

including 290 million pills that were sent to new hampshire, a state with only 1.3 million people. that works out to about 30 pills per person per year in the granite state. and as they distributed those unfathomable amounts of opioids, pharmaceutical companies pushed these drugs with deceptive marketing tactic, despite the known risks of addiction, to maximize their profits. one of these tactics even included pushing the unproven concept of pseudo-addiction. this false claim asserted this patients showing signs of addiction weren't actually addicted but instead needed evening higher doses of opioids. the solution that these scam artists pushed was to encourage the prescribing of even more opioids. so instead of providing actual addiction treatment to those suffering from substance use disorder, some patients just

received more drugs. that kind of strategy enabled the pharmaceutical industry to dole out those billions of doses of opioids and profit enormously from it, leaving in their wake an opioid crisis that is devastating communities. outrageously, as they have aggressively pushed doctors to prescribe these opioids, a tax loophole has enabled big pharma to write off the cost of television ads that blanketing the airwaves, encouraging more and more people to seek opioids from their doctors for pain relief. oblivious to the harm that these drugs could do. i've joined with senator brown as well as senator shaheen on legislation to close that loophole and end taxpayer subsidies for drug ads. and i'm going to continue to push for transparency from these companies. mr. president, in addition to the devastating impact that big pharma has had in fueling the

substance misuse crisis, the industry has also hurt patients by massively increasing the cost of prescription drugs. one of the top issues i hear about from people in new hampshire is that affording lifesaving medications is becoming more and more out of reach. and high drug costs are too often forcing seniors and families to making a nizing decisions. no one should have to decide between buying their prescriptions and heating their home and putting food on table. but these are the types of choices that manners are devastatingly have -- that americans are devastatingly having to make. all the while, pharmaceutical companies are reporting profits that are higher than ever. would end to change that system, bring -- we need to change this system, bring down costs and hold big pharma accountable. last week the finance committee moved forward with bipartisan legislation to begin to take on big pharma and lower

prescription drug prices. this bill would cap out-of-pocket costs for seniors on medicare part d and crack down on pharmaceutical companies that raise drug prices higher than inflation. it's a really big deal that a bill to take on the pharmaceutical industry in a meaningful way advance out of committee on a strong bipartisan vote. phrma did everything they could to try to kill and weaken this bill in committee, and they'll keep trying. i'm really encouraged that we've gotten this far. that's no small accomplishment, and we'll continue working with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to get it across the finish line. mr. president, at the heart of the issue with big pharma is the blind pursuit of profits at the expense of people's health and well-being. representatives from the pharmaceutical industry have told us often how important

innovation is and how much innovation costs because they say they want to save lives, and innovation is critically important. in my own family, like so many across our country, medical innovation has been critical not only to saving life but to improving quality of life. our son ben regularly has a compression vest that helps clear his lungs without the incredibly labor-intensive respiratory therapy that we used to have to do. he's able to get nutrition through a feeding tube that runs steadily through the night so that he can have the kind of nutrition he needs. innovation in pharmaceuticals have also helped ben improve his quality of life, and the

combination of pharmaceutical innovation and medical device innovation means that a backlafin pump inserted in his abdominal cavity helps his muscles to relax. but if innovation is about saving lives, then now did we get to a point of crisis that started from the drugs that they produced? and how did we get to a point where many patients can't even afford the lifesaving prescriptions that pharma promotes? it seems that at least for some pharmaceutical companies, they only want to save lives when it makes them money or when it gives them an excuse not to restrict their profits. mr. president, from the substance misuse crisis to the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs, this body has failed to hold pig pharma accountable for far too long.

that must change. and i'm committed to working with anyone who is serious about finally acting to put patients first. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, it's that time of week again, that time when i come down on the floor to recognize a very special person in my state, someone who i believe helps to make alaska the best state in the country. and we refer to this person as our alaskan of the week, and it's one of my favorite times of the week because i get to brag about the state, brag about my fellow alaskans and constituents. i think the pages always enjoy it because there are stories about alaska and what we're doing up there. and this person this week is cheryl vanachuck, mr. president

she is our alaskan of the week, a wife, a mom, a grandmother, an active member of the community in heely, alaska, which is in the interior of alaska, and a woman who is very active not just in her community but in her chosen profession. she is a proud member of labor laborers local 932 in fairbanks fairbanks, part of the construction union labor 93 ayuna, one of the biggest construction building trades in north america, men and women who like to go out and build stuff -- roads, pipelines, mines, build things, and that's what has made our country great, these type of americans. now, mr. president, let me talk about cheryl's life, about raising her five children in

heely, about her job, about all she does for her community, which is a lot. and you know, i certainly thought that she personifies the kind of self-sufficiency toughness, kindness and independent spirit that alaska and alaskans are known for not just in alaska but throughout the country, really throughout the world. she personifies this. let me tell you a little bit about cheryl's life, mr. president. she was originally from the midwest -- michigan. when she was about 23 years old old, she -- a friend of hers, tom bodette, a high school friend and eventually became the voice of motel 6's motto, we'll leave the lights on for you, told her that alaska was a good place to make a living and raise a family. so cheryl and her husband tim with a child on the way moved to a beautiful part of alaska,

southeast alaska, a community called petersburg, which is a beautiful fishing community in the southeast part of our state. they settled there and they made friends. they began to raise a family. she worked at the local cannery, at the day care, at the grocery store. she loved petersburg. we all love petersburg. i would encourage people watching or watching on tv, when you go visit alaska, make sure you make that part of one of your stops. and eventually three kids later cheryl and her husband tim moved, they moved north for tim's work as a vary for a coal mine in heely, alaska. that's about 100 miles southwest of fairbanks in the interior and that is another great story in alaska. that is several generations of yusabelle family members have

been producing coal for the country and they're still doing it. great country, great family. what did cheryl find in heely? certainly another welcoming community, but a lot smaller with many, with a lot fewer of the amenities than she found in petersburg. so as she does, cheryl rolled up her sleeves and along with other young mothers in the area, she got to work to create a community that her children eventually five children and all other children and families could enjoy in interior alaska. we made stuff happen, cheryl said. they started a day care. they started a boy scout and brownies troops. they made sure that hungry children got a hot lunch. they went around town picking up cans and started a recycling effort before recycling was even a rage. they helped build an ice rink for the kids to play hocky on.

they -- hockey on. they even went so far as to haul the water for the rink in a truck and then spread it out to form ice. she mentored countless kids and always had time for her five kids. this is what one of her children said about her, quote, you have a hockey team that needs a hot meal, call cheryl. you need food for a wedding, call cheryl. your kids in trouble, call cheryl. you need something built, call cheryl. mr. president, every community has a cheryl, the backbone, the go-to person who is usually unsung. but we all know someone like that, and they make our communities so strong and caring, and in many ways these kind of people are exactly what my alaskan of the week series of speeches is all about. so it's very appropriate we're

talking about her right now. so when cheryl was in her mid40's, with their kids settled and in college, like a modern-day homesteader she yearned for the next challenge. one day she. >> group of workers doing road construction, hard work but very important work and she thought i can do that. soon she became a proud member of alaska labor's local 942. that was almost 20 years ago, mr. president. her hard work along with fellow laborers is seen all across the state of alaska. wind farms, trails, roads, bridges, pipelines. now, mr. president, many people talk about the great natural wonders in alaska, and we have so many, but the manmade wonders are also remarkable. bridges, roads slicing into giant mountains, oil rigs,

mines. and she and her fellow laborers have done so much to build up that part of the state. she is a strong advocate for anybody who decides to work in the building trades, and she is particularly focused on women in the construction and building trades and recruiting them for these good jobs. she said, quote, these are good jobs. they're good-paying jobs, and they build confidence. it's a great way to make money and to learn how to use your hands and, of course, to give back to your community. to that end, she and her daughter haley created at their own expense an alaskan women in trades promotional calendar. the calendar features women of all ages employed at heavy equipment operators, welders, truck drivers, tree trimmers

and on and on and on. her own money, mr. president. she put this calendar together. she drops these calendars off at laundromats, schools, cafes, union halls, churches, always keeps a few on hand to give to women who might need a way of thinking about a career, who might need hope. she also gives them to people she just runs into, people like me, mr. president. i was out in fairbanks, alaska, a couple of weeks ago in the o'riley's auto parts parking lot, bumped into cheryl and her daughter haley and i got one of these. i'd like to submit it for the record, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: women in the trades, it's a great calendar. a couple of inspirational quotes. here's one -- nothing is impossible. the word itself says it. iim -- i'm possible.

get it. pret clever. how about another one? do something today that your future self will thank you for. good advice, even for senators. mr. president, this is the kind of work she does, on her own dime, giving this kind of inspiration to her fellow alaskans. my team and i have gotten e-mails from cheryl's five children over the past few days, all of them talking about what a great mother she is, how giving, caring, hardworking she is. she is a hero to all of them, how she is an inspiring example. let me quote from one of the e-mails. her daughter emiline hill, who, by the way, signed up for the u.s. marine corps when she was 18, then went on to graduate from notre dame, got her commission in the marine corps and now is stationed in japan as a major in the united states marines. here's what she said about her

mom. quote, my mom believes in people, especially those who have a hard time believing in themselves or don't think they are worthy of it. she is a rugged champion for the underdog and a tireless advocate from employing alaskans and building our communities, through volunteerism and action. that is a beautiful testament to her mom from her marine corps major daughter in japan. so, mr. president, we're going to be going into our august work session. i'm going to be back home the whole time in alaska. and we're going to be coming up on labor day, a very important holiday. but i think it's important to think when we're thinking about labor day, think about people like cheryl, her fellow laborers, particularly the women who are doing this kind of hard work. you don't always think about that in terms of the construction and building trades, but they do great work.

cheryl, thank you for all you've done. thank you for your hard work, your inspiration, your dedication and faith, your indomnitable spirit and your example to kids, your yaks and now to americans as we congratulate you for being our alaskan of the week. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, in the coming hours the senate could take up the nomination of elizabeth darling to serve as commissioner for children, youths, and families at the department of health and human services. if she is confirmed to that role, she would be a key

official overseeing the foster care system. i previously had a hold on ms. darling's nomination, and i'm going to begin my remarks by saying that my hold was never about her personally or about her concerns -- or about concerns about her qualifications. in fact i believe she's qualified for the position. i placed a hold on her nomination because of serious problems at the department of health and human services affecting child welfare policies that would fall in her area of jurisdiction if she's confirmed. and i think this involves a matter national distinguished president of the senate might be particularly interested in at this point. i authored with former finance committee chair, senator orrin

hatch, landmark families legislation called the family first prevention act. family first, that chairman hatch and i authored, is a once-in-a-generation bipartisan update of child welfare laws in america inspired to a great extent by marion wright a adelman, head of the children's defense fund. the implementation of that was moving too slowly. last week the department of health and human services followed through on the request from me from both parties in both chambers to open up the availability of prevention programs for states that chairman hatch and i felt so strongly about under family first. this is an important first

step, and if ms. darling is confirmed, i expect to see the department take more. what i would like to address for a few minutes, though, is a deeply discriminatory policy change that has been made by the trump administration in the child welfare system. until the trump administration intervened, health and human services regulations explicitly banned religious discrimination in federally funded social services programs, discrimination that should be barred by our core constitutional protections. unfortunately, under this administration, that safeguard is no more. this year the trump administration has set a precedent that foster care agencies that receive federal

dollars can turn away qualified prospective foster parents simply because they are catholic, jewish, muslim, hindu, buddhist, mormon, or any other faith, or simply because they are nonbelievers. what this is all about, in short, is a green light for taxpayer funded discrimination on the basis of religion. it stems from a case involving miracle hills ministries, a foster agency in south carolina. miracle hill is a faith-based social service organization, the largest provider of foster care services in south carolina. it serves around 15% of the state's foster care population. i have no reason to doubt that miracle hill has a lot of

wonderful staff and volunteers who wish to do a great deal of good work. last year the governor of south carolina asked the department of -- department of homeland security a waiver to allow them to receive taxpayers dollars despite turning away qualified foster parents based solely on their religious beliefs. in effect, it was a request for a loophole to evade the federal policy banning religious discrimination. the department of health and human services ok'd it. at a time when the presiding officer and i have talked about it when you have too few safe foster care homes in america, the trump administration gave

the largest organization permission to turn perspective foster parents away because of their faith. this is not an academic matter. let me give an example of the consequences, beth leser, a woman who unintentionally brought this issue to light went to miracle hill to volunteer as a foster mentor. before she moved to south carolina, she was a foster parent in florida. you would think any foster care organization would be thrilled to have ms. lester walk through their door, an experienced foster care parent coming to volunteer her time and her energy and her love. but during an orientation training, miracle hill found what they considered to be a problem, ms. lesser, like me, is

jewish. after miracle hill discovered ms. lesser's religion, they quickly turned her away. ms. lester is not the only person to experience this discrimination. another was amid madonna who grew up in a foster care home and has three kids of her home, she contacted miracle hill, volunteered to open her home and screening process. but when miracle hill learned that she was catholic, she got turned away too. she's devastated by the decision. in february she sued the state of south carolina and the department of health and human services over this unconstitutional discrimination. i commend her for fighting for her rights, and i believe she speaks for people of so many faiths that i just mentioned earlier. i do want to explain why i find

this precedent. the trump administration has said to be so objectionable, starting with the most obvious. it is horrendous policy because it's gonna hurt vulnerable kids all across this country, mr. president, particularly if and when the trump administration hand out for waivers in more states. they do it this way, it's going to reduce the number of safe and loving foster homes available to youngsters in the child welfare system. that is the wrong, wrong way to go. this policy is going to limit the diversity of foster homes and foster parents and growing up around people of different views and philosophies and religions. diversity is important for kids, as it is important for lgbtq youth who make up one in five

kids in foster care. their homes where lgbtq kids are not safe. they benefit from the chance to grow up in these more inclusive backgrounds where more diverse families accept their gender identity. it raises questions about what will happen to children who have been raised outside evangelical chris can'ty before -- christianity. what will happen to a jewish kid, mormon kid or muslim kid who is placed in a home? this is a personal matter for me, mr. president. a kid could have been -- that kid could have been me. i was so proud of my parents. they fled the nazis in the 1930's. not all got out.

my dad was just about the most red, white, and blue person wanted to serve in the army to drop propaganda pamphlets. you can read about my dad in the holocaust museum. i'm very, very proud of my dad, and i thought about, for example what might have happened if my parents had died when i was 12 years old in a car crash and i was put in one of these families -- an evangelical family through a foster agency that discriminates. i could have been told that everything my wonderful, patriotic jewish parents had taught me to believe was wrong, that my parents -- that my dad, honored in the holocaust museum and his beliefs were sinful.

it would have added a lot more difficulty to a situation that is already traumatic. the thought that children who lost their parents could have another part of their identities stripped away is just appalling. religious discrimination in particular is fundamentally un-american. the idea that it's going to be propped up with federal tax dollars is wrong. what the trump administration has done with the south carolina waiver is unconstitutional. i also believe it's the latest iteration of a much larger assault on individual religious liberty. from a legal perspective, the department of health and human services justifies its discriminatory waiver by pointing to the freedom restoration act, what is known rfra. that law was intended to stop

religious discrimination, not promote it. in this case the administration is allowing miracle hill freedom and not allowing catholic or buddhist individuals who want to become foster parents in south carolina. h.h.s.' waiver disregards the establishment clause in the first amendment of the constitution which prob hibts the government -- prohibits the government from, and i quote, respecting an establishment of religion. this is a federal agency using taxpayer dollars to elevate some religions above others. that is unconstitutional every way you cut it. the consequences at this point are limit to one state, but because of this precedent, that is one too many.

it only takes one small step to set a harmful, dangerous precedent that will change everything. there are already rumors that h.h.s. plans to turn this waiver into a nationwide policy. make no mistake about it. that would be nationwide religious discrimination. the consequences of an action like that would reach far beyond our child welfare system. it's not much further down the road when out and out discrimination against people of section sex, gender or religious orientation bleeds into other areas of american life. these debates are going to keep hitting the courts and keep confronting the congress. the trump administration, republican lawmakers and republican judges are ensuring that happens. i mentioned at the outset that this debate is tied to a nomination that the senate may take up today.

we'll see about later in the week and it involves the commissioner for children, youth, and families at health and human services. i have made that judgment after a lot of reflection, mr. president, that i am not going to stand in the way of that vote. i believe ms. elizabeth darling is qualified, but in making that judgment, i was not willing to let today pass without sounding an alarm on a very dangerous precedent the trump administration has set in this field. what this is about is the prospect of state-sponsored religious discrimination, and in this case it's going to come down hardest on vulnerable kids in our country. i believe that it's clear what's happening is unconstitutional. and i will close by saying again

there is bipartisan interest in improving our child welfare system. the distinguished president of the senate is from utah. i wish he could have seen chairman hatch and i work together on families first. mr. president, as you know, when chairman hatch got enthused about something, he was really enthused, and marry ann -- marianne wright came to us with fresh approaches. what family first does is create a third option. you have kids in homes where a parent might have gotten caught up in drugs or alcohol, we can get them some help. there's the foster care option. we've got some very good foster care facilities in this country. we've got some that aren't exactly so great. so what chairman hatch and i

said, and democrats and republicans on the finance committee said, and eventually the congress on a bipartisan basis said we're going to do better by these vulnerable kids and we created a third option, and one of it was built on a dream that i was part on back when i was director of the gray panthers, we activated for something called kinship care where grandparents could pay a bigger role in stepping in and trying to help these vulnerable families where maybe a son had gotten in trouble with the law and daughter-in-law got involved with alcohol and the like, grandparents could help out. families first, senator hatch, a republican, and myself, we're going to try to help those families. we will try to give them help if you have a son who has had problem with alcohol and drugs, the grandparent can step in and get some help. we will create options for the

most vulnerable families and most vulnerable youngsters in america. we were moving forward. we were moving forward to be able to say, and this, of course, is not driven from washington, d.c. it's driven at the state level. the president of the senate is a former governor, moving forward. now we have the trump administration seek being to move backwards. there are nearly half a million kids in foster care in this country. democrats and republicans ought to keep building on the work that chairman hatch and i -- and i was proud to be in his partner with him as the chairman, in this effort to help those kids stay safe and get ahead in life. now the trump administration is spending taxpayer dollars not to help those kids but to promote discrimination. that is not the way to help

these kids, not the way to help these families, and i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in opposing these policies of discrimination. mr. president, i yield the floor. i also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: