capital camera stain on capitol hill so check out the democrats briefing there and we take you to the senate floor here on c-span2 in just a moment. er.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. kennedys -- mr. kennedy:thank you, madam president. i want to talk for a few moments this morning about money, 5-g and radio waves. mr. kennedy: a radio wave is nothing more than electromagnetic radiation moving through the air. that's all a radio wave is.

think of it as a -- imagine a pond, and think of a radio wave as a ripple or wave in that pond. the wave goes like this and has a peak and a valley and peak and a valley, and eventually it gets shorter and shorter. that's what a radio wave is. and there are different kind of radio waves. i don't know how many, but a bunch. and they are, they're differentiated by the length of the peak and the valley. remember, radio wave's doing this. as it goes to the top and comes to the bottom, that's called a cycle. and frequency, you've heard that term before. frequency is nothing more than

how many cycles a radio wave goes through in one second. so we have out there -- we can't see them, they're invisible, but thousands, millions of these radio waves, once again, doing like this. what does that have to do with 5-g? well, 5-g is nothing more than a certain type of radio wave, and i'll come back and talk a little more about 5-g in a second. when i make a cell phone call, madam president, to you, what's happening is that my voice is being converted into an electrical signal, as you know, that's being sent to your phone through a radio wave. and then your telephone, once it gets my signal carried by the radio wave, your telephone

converts it back into my voice. and that's all a cell phone is. i say hello, madam president. that, my voice, is converted into an electrical signal, sent by radio wave to your telephone. and that's how a cell phone works. what's 5-g? 5-g stands for fifth generation wireless technology. now, the very simple answer to what is 5-g, it is an incredibly fast radio wave that can carry a huge amount of data. i mean, it is lightning fast. it is ten times faster than anything we have right now, even if you have fourth generation. fifth generation is going to

be, those waves are going to be ten times faster and carry way more data, way more information. and it's going to change the world. not just the united states of america, it's going to change the world. it's going to change space. you heard about the internet of things? one of the things 5-g is going to be able to do for us, you can hook up all kind of devices that can talk to each other simultaneously. once we get 5-g in america, i'll be able to open my garage door half a mile away. madam president, you'll be able to set the timer on your coffee pot from here in the senate if you want to. surgeons will be able to conduct surgery through the internet thousands of miles away from each other. we'll have driverless cars.

any of you ever get money out of an a.m.t.? they're going gone. we won't need a.t.m.'s anywhere. you'll be able to get the money through a smartphone. farmers through 5-g technology will be informed well in advance when there are disease, diseases encroaching upon their crops. we won't have to sign our name anymore. 5-g will make possible what's called personal heat signatures. it's going to change the world. remember 5-g is just a radio wave. who owns that radio wave and the air that it goes through? the people of america do. every country owns its own radio

waves. and if there's any doubt, the communications act of 1934 says that the united states of america -- you and i -- own that radio wave and the ability to send that radio wave from my cell phone, madam president, to your cell phone. now you'll not be surprised to learn that all radio waves -- i told you there were millions of them, billions probably, all radio waves are not made in the same way. there's a special kind of radio wave that is just perfect for fifth-generation wireless technology. this is called the c band. and the c band is between 3.7 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz. that's the frequency. i think of it as that's a certain type of radio wave that

is perfect for sea band that can be -- c band that can be sent through the air to effectuate 5-g and that certain radio wave and the air and the right to execute that service belongs to the american people. and the f.c.c. is in charge of it. now the f.c.c. auctions these radio waves all the time. when a company says, gee, i want -- let's say a radio company or television company or an internet company, they say, you know, i need to use some of those radio waves. they go to the f.c.c., and the f.c.c. says okay, we're going to auction that radio wave off because we believe in competition. and because these radio waves belong to the american people, so we want to get the best

price. in the last 25 years the f.c.c. has conducted over 100 auctions of radio waves. they don't call them radio waves. they call them spectrum. you've heard of the term spectrum auction. but the f.c.c. has done a public auction, over 100 of them, of these various radio waves or bands of spectrum. they've brought in $123 billion for the american people. done an incredible job. so now we're about to assign the special radio waves for 5-g. i don't blame you for trying, but three foreign countries, two foreign companies from luxembourg -- i love luxembourg, great country --

and one foreign corporation from canada -- i love canada -- these three foreign-owned satellite companies have gone to the f.c.c. and said we can do an auction faster than the f.c.c. can. and we need to get these 51g radio waves out to the wireless companies real fast. and if you will just give us these foreign satellite companies said, if you'll just give us those radio waves, we'll auction them off for you, and we'll do it a lot fast he that un. and when i first read about this madam president, i said, am i reading this right? the f.c.c. has held over 100 auctions, brought in billions of dollars. we have these radio waves for 5g

that the experts say are worth $60 billion, and instead of auctioning them off and letting everybody fairly compete, these three foreign corporations want the f.c.c. to give them the airwaves and let them auction them off and the foreign companies get to keep the money. but -- and i'm astounded. i said, gosh, i couldn't ask for something like that with a straight face. but you know what's even more incredible? the f.c.c. is thinking about doing it. they're thinking about doing it. they're thinking about taking $60 billion that belongs to the american people and giving it -- just giving it to this alliance of companies, two from luxembourg, one from canada, saying here, it's yours. go auction it off, even though

they've never conducted a spectrum auction in their life. you know how much $he 60 billion? i did the math, madam president. our f.c.c. is thinking about doing it. and what i find really incredible is the president, he just issued this executive order. he did a little while ago. buy american and hire american. i was so proud when i saw this executive order. buy american and hire american. doesn't mean we don't love our world's neighbors, but america first. and what's our f.c.c. thinking about doing? they're thinking about giving our spectrum to three foreign companies and letting them keep the $60 billion. talk about swampy. these are also foreign companies. i don't mean that in a pejorative sense, and i love

luxembourg and i love canada. they had a french company in here. the french company has bowed out at least for a while. but our job is not to maximize profits for foreign corporations. our job is to help our people. and this 5g has national security implications. before we give away these 5g airwaves to a foreign corporation, we need to know who they're going to give it to. what if they give it to china? what if they say, well, we'll conduct our own auction and they give it to huawei? there is another reason that this whole approach is foolhardy. madam president, 5g is going to be great for the cities. that's where it's going first. but what about the people who don't live in the city? what i'd like to see us do, and

i am encouraging the f.c.c. to do, is to hold a public auction, take some of that $60 billion they're going to get, and use it for rural broadband. to make sure that the people who live in rural areas get taken care of as well the people who live in the cities, because our wireless technology companies are going to have to be encouraged. they make a whole lot more money selling in the city than they do out in the rural areas. now, remember this foreign corporation group says they can do an auction faster, even though they've never done an auction in their lives. they say, we can do it faster, and we got to beat china. so give us the radio waves. we'll do a quick auction. we get to keep the $60 billion, but we'll get it out there. there's just one problem -- all those wireless technology companies that didn't get to

bid, every single one of them is going to file suit, every one, if we don't do a public auction. so we're going to have this thing tied up in court for 20 years, for 20 years. we're going to be so far behind china, china is going to have lapped us several times. we're going to think we're in first place, but we're really going to be in last place. i'm just -- i've held hearings. i'm -- not because of anything that i did or any competence on my part. i'm chairman of the financial services and general government subcommittee of the appropriations committee, as you know, madam chairwoman. and the only reason i got the job is seniority, okay? but, nonetheless, i got it.

and the f.c.c. is under my jurisdiction. and i've been holding hearings. and i'm going to hold more hearings. and so far the only reason that anybody can give me to take these 5g airwaves and give them to a foreign corporation is that they think they can do it faster, despite the fact that we will have litigation and despite the fact that they've never done an auction before. the best way to resist temptation, in my opinion, is a proper upbringing, a strong set of values, and witnesses. we need to have a public auction of this internet, of the 5g

radio waves. everybody needs to compete. if we don't want a foreign company to get control of it -- and i don't; we can put it in the bid specks. huawei need to the apply. nothing personal. but as long as you spy for china, you can't work here. but p we need a level playing field. we need to have competition. competition is a moral good. everybody needs to get an equal bite at the apple. this doesn't need to be done in a backroom swampy deal. i'm not saying that anybody's brother-in-law is going to get taken care of here. i'm not saying that. but it sure looks swampy. and we need to do it exactly like we've done for the 100 past broadband spectrum auctions, and i'm saying that not only to our senate colleagues here and to

the chair, but i hope i'm speaking clearly enough to the f.c.c. do the right thing. don't give away $60 billion that belongs to the people of america to two companies in luxembourg and one of them in canada. it's wrong. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i ask that the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: i'm going to speak on another matter in just a moment, but i want to thank my friend, the senator from louisiana. there is a number of subjects that are debated on this floor that i may know a little bit about or may not know much at all about. but on the subject he was just addressing -- the question of

spectrum and the challenges and the threats around 5g -- i spent -- i can still claim this -- i am proud of the fact that i have spent a longer time in business than i have in politics. my whole career was spent in the business of mobile communications, wireless communications. spent the last three or four years on the intelligence committee in a bipartisan way looking at both the challenge and the opportunity in 5g, and let me assure you some of the items that the senator from louisiana has raised in terms of the security threats that are being posed if we end up with the wrong vendor in 5g is an enormous problem. i don't always agree with the president. on this item, he is right. i hope it is that he will stick to his guns and not trade that away in a trade negotiation with china. and i also know that getting spectrum aligned the right way

has been one of our challenges because other nations have been able to, frankly, in asia and elsewhere align spectrum better, so they're almost -- the underpinnings are better positioned than we are, so how we do this is 100% right. and let me also say, whether it is louisiana or virginia, one of the issues i hear the most -- and i'll not talking far rural, i'm talking small town and even mid-size city virginia. i'm sure the case is the same in louisiana. the issue is, when am i going to get broadband in an accessible way? and if we don't make sure that we think this through on spectrum, recognizing the national security implications and also recognize if we roll out 5g and leave in my state 18% of the population behind who don't even have broadband, their

ability to compete in the 21st century is going to be dramatically undermind. so i hope i have a chance to visit with my friend, the senator from louisiana, and see if we might be able to work together on some of these issues. and as somebody who for a while at least before the f.c.c. auctioned off that spectrum, it was left in other hands, and i know how much that -- suffice is to say, i know how much that spectrum is worth. now i'd like to turn to a different matter. madam president, i move to proceed to calendar number 278, s.j. res. 52. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to s.j. res. 52, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of the rules submitted by the secretary of the treasury and so forth. mr. warner: madam president, i know of no further game.

the presiding officer: is there further debate on the motion? if not, all in favor say aye u those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the joint resolution. the clerk: calendar number 278, s.j. res. 52, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of the rules submitted by the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of health and humanniveses relating to state relief and empowerment waivers. mr. warner: i ask -- the presiding officer: there are now ten hours of debate equally divided. mr. warner: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that craig radcliffe, counsel on mesa, be permitted floor privileges for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: madam president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. madam president, i withdraw the

quorum call. mr. inhofe: madam president, we -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i have four requests for committee to meet today during the session of the senate and they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. inhofe: madam president, for 58 years, the congress has passed the national defense authorization act with large bipartisan margins, and i believe we're going to do so again this year. in fact, we must. if it were up to me, it would have already been done by now. people have to realize how this is the most important bill of the year. it's one that we have to do. we have to do it by the end of the year. that's the end of december. we're not going to fund our military. that's how serious it is. i'll keep working with my colleagues in the house and the senate to get this done. i'm going to say that again

because there's been a rumor out there to the contrary. i'm going to -- we are still working to get a comprehensive bill done. we're going to keep working on it. it's even more important because of what happened over the weekend. our brave special operations forces successfully executed a dangerous mission to get isis leader al-baghdadi, and it was successful. it was the right call by president trump to bring down one of our most dangerous terrorists that the world has ever seen. and it was successful. it also underscored the importance of the annual defense authorization bill. there is a he no better time to pass an ndaa -- that's the national defense authorization bill -- that puts our service members and their families first than after a perilous operation demonstrating bravery, service, and sacrifice of our troops. because it took a lot of people to pull this thing off.

but to ensure that we give the -- that we give the men and women the tools they need to fight and win, no matter what, we are filing a skinny bill today. let me explain what that is. we have to have a defense authorization bill. it's happened for 58 years in a roavment if it -- row. if it happened for 58 years in a row, it will continue to happen. people know it will pass. consequently people put more and more things on the bill that have nothing to do with the military because they know that the bill is going to pass. and what happens is that then they decide to get everything in there and consequently there are so many people lined up with different things that want to be put on the defense authorization bill that we have not been able to come to an agreement. this has happened in the past. and what happens is in the event

of the defense authorization bill, and this is the most signature bill of the year, if for some reason we're not able to pass it, military operations will stop. a skinny bill is simple. it extends necessary authorities for military operations, takes care of the service members and their families, and authorizes essential military construction and acquisition programs. that's . it that's one paragraph. that's all it does. and so that part has to pass. and so at the end of the day that's what we have to do by the end of this year. that's december -- the end of december. now, there's this old document nobody reads anymore, it's called the constitution. if you read that, it says what we're really supposed to be doing, what is really important of what we are supposed to be doing, i say to my friend to west virginia, sometimes what we do is not all that signature. but this is signature. it is important and we want to

make sure it passes and it will pass. by introducing this as a skinny bill, it takes everything that has nothing to do with the military and takes it out and we pass the bill that takes care of our troops. here on capitol hill, the ndaa, national defense authorization act, is an institution itself. the last bill of its kind, an authorization bill that passes every year. we always have disagreements with within and between parties on the future of national security, but we've always managed to overcome those divisions to support our military, and this year is not going to be any different. earlier this year, i worked with my democratic colleague, senator jack reed, to produce a bipartisan ndaa in the senate. we did a great job. we passed that thing out of -- we spent hours on it, but we did pass it ultimately out of committee, unanimously,

democrats and republicans, brought it to the floor and we passed it. now, look, it's not the same bill -- it's not the same bill that jack reed and jim inhofe would have agreed on in every aspect. we had to make decisions and we made decisions and consequently when it came up to the floor, it paid by 86-6. only six people opposed it in this entire body. the same is going to be true with any final agreement on fiscal year 2020 ndaa. that bill will require 60 votes here in the senate and it will require republican votes in the house. the bill that came out of the house from the house committee on the defense authorization bill in the house didn't have one democrat voting for it, and obviously it's got to have republicans in the house to vote for it. it's got to pass by a 60% margin and there's no other way that it can be done. so we continue making progress.

we know we can't pass a bill with as many partisan provisions as we saw in the house bill, things like unprecedented restrictions on the president's ability to defend america, defend the nation and putting social agenda above the needs of our truth. unfortunately the same progress on the slowing of the ndaa has stalled the appropriations process. when i supported the bipartisan budget act of 2019, i argued that a lower top line was acceptable if it got us on-time passage of the ndaa in the defense funding. but now we're facing a delayed ndaa and the real responsibility for a full-year continuing resolution. this is -- this is unacceptable. the department of defense has never operated under a full-year c.r. c.r. is a continuing resolution. a c.r. is something that would be disastrous. what it would say is we're going

to do the same thing for the military and the rest of government as we did last year. well, the needs have changed. we have new programs that have to be authorized, have to be voted on, and so we -- it would be a huge waste of taxpayers' money if we were unable to get this thing done. we know that a full-year c.r. would press pause on hundreds of new weapons programs and leave tens of billions of dollars in the wrong places. we had a hearing where we had general martin, he's the vice general chief of staff for the army. for the army alone, he said we would be looking at delays to new start programs and increased cost in 37 programs totaling $7 billion. that's according to the vice chief of the staff of the army. that's the army alone. the total figure would be around $22 billion that would be lost. so all said this would put our work -- rebuilding our military

even further behind and waste enormous amounts of taxpayers dollars. the national defense strategy. that is this book. this is kind of interesting. this was put together by democrats and republicans with the background in the military and an equal amount of democrats and republicans, they agreed this would be our defense strategy and they had a national defense straight ji. and it shows the serious challenges it faces and the urgent need on a significant scale. secretary mattis stated it that way. failure to pass an ndaa and accept a full-year c.r. would stop our nation's defense strategy in its track. it would undo the good work with secretary esper, the president of the united states, the pentagon and our partners to

follow the n.d.s. commission report. this is this not just inside the beltway gridlock. the world is watching. our allies and our economies are watching. they enemies are watching. they want to know if america is serious about their own national defense. failure to pass a bill for the nation's military sends a terrible signal. think of the signal that sends our troops who are out there risking our lives to defend us here at home. caring for our troops is about the only thing anyone in this town greece on. if we lose that bipartisan support, it will be hard to get it back and we need it now more than ever. now, china and russia. this is interesting because we didn't used to be that concerned about that. say that back during the obama administration, his priorities were not the same. he was very honest about it. he had other priorities. and so we didn't do the job we

should have done at that time for our military. china and russia are not waiting around for us to end our disagreements with each other. during the last administration, under obama, our military's funding decreased by 25%. that is between the years of 2010 and 2015, we decreased the amount of funding for our military in that administration by 25%. meanwhile, china had increased spending by 83%. stop and think about that. china increases spending by 83%, we reduce by 25%. they are continuing a campaign of aggression, building islands in the south china see. -- sea. our allies in the south china sea are watching that china is doing there and around the world and what we're not doing and they have come to the conclusion that a third world war may be imminent and they are not sure who's side they want to be on. put that chart -- there it is

there. this thing that we're seeing right here is a hypersonic weapon. this is the state of the art weapon. it's a missile that travels at the -- five times the speed of sound. this is -- this is something that we were ahead back during the beginning of the last -- previous administration, and we're now behind. right now china is parading dozens of massive hypersonic missiles and we haven't even built one yet. there they are. i hadn't seen one until today. they are hypersonic weapons, they were in teen china -- they were in china. we don't have one -- we haven't built one yet, and there they are. people don't realize where china and russia are. well, russia, that's china. but russia continues to develop new and dangerous nuclear

weapons while it expands its influence in the middle east and elsewhere. i have no doubt that a united america could face these challenges. i feel that a divided america, a country that allows defending america to be a partisan issue cannot. the path to a final defense bill is, as it always has been, partisan. the defense authorization bill has historically enjoyed broad bipartisan support. that's not an accident. both parties have compromised to get a bill worthy of or troops' sacrifices. hopefully we get to a place where we can find common ground to give our troops a military comprehensive bill. now, that's what we want to continue to do. we have been working on this bill for a long period of time. it normally doesn't take this long. we have gotten down to what we call the four leaders. i'm one of the four leaders trying to put this together. but we have not been able to get

it. so what we're doing with this bill is we are putting the -- the bill up and we're going to get it on the floor so that we can be ready. here's the problem. if we don't do it, we could sit around and do nothing for the next -- through the month of november, and when december gets here, all of a suddennen we'll be faced that we'll have to have some bill that takes care of just the military, not all the other stuff on the bill. but to do this, you have to pass it out of committee, you've got to take it to the floor of the senate, you've got to pass out, and then if -- and if you can get that far, the house has to do the same thing and then we go to conference and confer on this thing. that will take, not days, but weeks. to prepare for the unlikely possibility that we don't get together, we have a skeleton bill that we will introduce. i will introduce it in an hour from now. it's a bill -- it's the only thing we can do right now to

make sure that we can take care of our troops if -- if we're not able to get the comprehensive bill completed. so that's the reason for it. i will be introducing it, and every provision in that bill is a provision to enhance our military efforts, to pay our troops, and to take care of our -- of our country the way we have been able to do in the past. with that, i will yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, i want to first say thank you to my colleague, senators warners and senator casey for joining me on the floor today and also to the senators jones, senator brown, senator kaine, and yourself, madam president, for standing with all of us to protect the coal miners pensions. when coal companies go bankrupt, coal miners are at the bottom of the priority list which is why we're here to introduce the

mini -- at this time i want to yield my time to my good friend from virginia, senator warner, and i will come back later. senator warner. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: madam president, first of all, i have done this a number of times. i know you care, i know my colleague from pennsylvania care, but nobody's kept this issue alive more often and more consistently than joe manchin from west virginia. so i'm only going to take a minute or two. i will step off and i appreciate our leader on this issue giving me a little bit of time. last night we had another coal company go bankrupt, murray energy, that potentially leaves 70,000 folks without a pension. in virginia we've got about 7,000 miners who are dependent upon umwa funds for their health care retirements, another company, westmoreland coal that

has gone bank the rupt where literally -- bankrupt where folks are weeks away from losing their benefits. the truth is this issue may not affect everybody across the country, but the people it affects, it affects in a way that it undermines the ability of widows to maintain their livelihood. we made a promise to honor our miners many we will now be put to the test. my hope would be this miners act amendment would be included on the appropriations bill. i will do rg i can in my -- everything i can in my power. i thank the senator from west have a vaf. i will turn -- west virginia and i will turn it back to the senator from west virginia. let's make sure we commit to the get this done. thank you, madam president. mr. manchin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: thank you, senator warner. i appreciate the hard fight during the middle of this with

me and everyone in this room is in this fight because we have a lot of people's lives at stake. without passing this bill, the u.m.w. pension fund would be insolvent by 2022. and that timeline could be accelerated to within a year if one of the coal companies declares bankruptcy. last night that happened, murray energy filed for bankruptcy. making it the eighth coal company in the past months to do so. it has contributed 90% of the money going into the pension fund annually. it will become insolvent even faster and they're telling me by this time next year there will have to be cuts drastically to people's pension checks if not eliminated. most of those checks, madam president, i would remind everybody watching and listening that are $600 or less. and most of them are for widows. where their husbands have passed

away and they still depend on that for their basic necessities of life. once the mine worker pension fund becomes insolvent, this is going to start the snowballing effect, the crisis will truly go into a snowball effect and impact every other pension fund for america. so to say this does not affect all of america is wrong. because anybody that goes to work and pays into a benefit package with their employer matching it is in this same condition and in the same vulnerability. that's another day i'm going to be speaking about that and what we can do to prohibit that from happening also. so that is why it's essential that we protect the coal miners' pensions now. not next year, not the year after, but now. and the reason for that, it's going to be for late -- too late if we do it any later than now. we have a stumbling block with the majority leader. senator mcconnell is concerned

about other pensions. we're all concerned about other pensions but this is on the front burner now. when this happens, everything else will snowball with it. it would amend the current act of 1977 to transfer the funds. these are funds that are in excess of the amounts needed to meet the existing obligations. under the abandoned mine land fund so you know what -- abandoned mine land fund for every ton of coal that's mined, there's a certain percentage of that put aside to take care of the reclamation that's going to be done if it's abandoned so we don't leave the environment in a horrible shape. and that's what we work towards where this fund has some excess funds. we're still meeting our obligations. we're using those excess funds to try to prevent this insolvency. it also raises the cap on the fund transfers from $490 million a year to $750 million and to make sure the pension fund has sufficient future funding also. the funding for coal miners pension is already there. it is already there.

and this is the product that they have worked and developed and basically extracted so we're working with the same -- in the same realm of what their livelihood has been. and it's exactly what our amendment would do. it will reallocate those funds that they've worked for. everybody that receives a paycheck which is over 10.6 million hardworking men and women take home less wages and instead invest their pensions that i was telling you. they invest into these multiemployer pension funds. and they take money out. and they expect it to be there. and when it's not and the bankruptcy courts allow them to walk away, the miners, the workers are put on the back burner and that's got to change. so when workers expect the wages that they have expected to be there, when they retire, as they were promised and it evaporates, there's no answer. the cause of a bankruptcy i'm

sorry you've lost all the money you invested. it's not their fault. but under the current law, workers' pensions aren't protected and the executive and investment firms exploit, they benefit from filing a bankruptcy. if you have never read anything about bankruptcy, read one case, sears roebuck. if you want to find out the unraveling of america and what happens to 250,000 workers that gave their life to this company and how basically investors came in and raiders came in and took advantage of every person's pension plan, that's the one case you want to read. sears and roebuck. and that's why i'm here today to introduce the american miners act as an amendment to the appropriations mini bus that the senate is voting on this week because it's imperative we do it now. since the majority leader won't allow the miners act to come to the floor for a vote which is his prerogative, my colleagues and i are here to introduce it as an amendment to the appropriations mini bus that the senate is planning to pass this

week. if we include the american miners act in the mini bus, we would protect coal miners' pensions now before it's too late and we will protect other pensions from starting to unravel in the snowball effect and we'll also protect the ppgc which is a guarantee from the federal government. if not all of this is going to come to fruition which would be horrible for the workers of america but most importantly the economy of this country and a lot of people will be hurt about i that. these coal miners and their families deserve the peace of mind knowing that the pension they paid into and the paycheck after paycheck is secure. there are so many and so -- i say less than $600 is the average check of a miner's retirement. most of that is retired -- is retired miners, it's their widows that they have passed on from the hard work they did. the widows are still there trying to manage what they have which is very small at times. this is just a siphon of what they need. to take this away will be

detrimental to their lives, the quality of their lives and their family. so we can give them that peace of mind today if we can agree in a bipartisan way to do the right thing for the people that made america, the working men and women, and especially the coal miners that get up every day and they go to work and they produce the energy. and i've said this. when you think about a coal miner, what they've given and the families that have committed and dedicated and lived their lives in these coal communities, they basically never complained. they've done the heavy lifting. they mined the coal that made the steele, that built the guns and ships, the factories that built the middle class. they've been there every step of the way from this great country, the united states of america, to become the super power of the world. and we owe it at least to give them the money back they paid into it. not your taxpayer money but the money they paid into it. don't let somebody steal it. wall street doesn't have a right to that money. but they've taken it as if it was their own little treasure chest. it's just wrong. so we're introducing this

amendment. we would hope we would have a bipartisan support. i appreciate very much and i appreciate my dear friend from pennsylvania who has the same hardworking people, doesn't matter where your state is. if you have good hardworking coal miners and them and their families have sacrificed for this country, they need -- such as senator casey. with that i yield the floor. mr. casey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i want to commend and salute the work of senator manchin, the senior senator from west virginia for his work on behalf of american workers generally but in particular his advocacy for his passionate advocacy and his hard work to make sure that we in this body, the united states senate, that we do everything we can to keep our promise. i want to pick up from where he left off as he has so often said when he came to this floor as he did today to talk about the

people who are -- whose retirement security is on the line. this debate applies to a whole range of workers but when you consider just coal miners and their families who have given the country so much, i'm reminded of a story from my home area of northeastern pennsylvania. we produced? a few counties in northeastern pennsylvania the hard coal, anthracite coal. the great novelist stephen crane came to the region in the 1890's. he would go on to become famous for writing the novel "the red badge of courage" but stephen crane when he was a young man and he never made it to his 30th birthday sow was a accomplished writer as a young man but he wrote an essay about a coal miner in scranton, my hometown in lackawanna county. he described going into a coal mine and what he saw in that essay. at one point in the essay he said that the mine was a place

of inscrutable darkness, a soundless place of tangible loneliness. and then he went on to describe what the coal miners did, what the -- really the children were doing, little boys in the mine and men in the mine. and then at the end of the essay he listed all the ways a miner could die in those mines in the 1890's. now, i know we have made progress over the generations, over the decades, but even in the modern times, coal mining has been very dangerous and very difficult work, work that i can't even begin to imagine. i never had to do it. but my ancestors did. and these miners not only worked in those dangerous conditions, not only put their lives on the line to do that work, but they also did it with a sense of keeping their promise. they made a promise to their

employer that they would work hard every day. and they kept that promise. they made a promise to their families that they would work hard to provide a living for their families. in some cases provide a living for several generations of their families, and they kept that promise. some of them even made a promise to their country to serve in war, all the way from world war i all the way to the -- all the way to our most recent conflicts. a lot of them died in vietnam. a lot of them died in battlefields all over the world. in world war ii and other conflicts. so they kept their promise to their country. they kept their promise to their family, to their employer. and all they've asked of us is to keep our promise. not hard to do it either. all you've got to do is put your hand up and say i support that bill or i support that amendment. not hard to do. it doesn't take a lot of floor time either to have these

matters considered. now what are we facing today? the bankruptcy filing of murray energy which stems largely from competition from cheaper alternatives like natural gas, decline in exports. this could bring the pension and health care coverage for our coal miners to the very brink. to result in us not -- not keeping our promise. failure to act could result in devastating consequences for these coal miners and communities across pennsylvania, west virginia. we heard from the senior senator from virginia, senator warner, and indeed all across the country. now there's another bill that deals with pensions more generally. the butch lewis act. now, the house passed the butch lewis pension act. i'm adding the word pension into it. it's called the butch lewis act.

the house passed it three months ago and the majority leader mcconnell -- senator mcconnell has chosen not to have a vote on that bill. i don't understand that. i'm not sure there are many people that do. but i would hope, i would hope that he would reconsider and have a vote on the butch lewis act. we should also have a vote on the american miners act. the legislation that senator manchin has worked so hard on. we know that in the house as well, a bipartisan effort led by chairman gurahava and chairman scott. we know that the health benefits for miners act of 2019 and the miners pension protection act were voted out of the natural resources committee last week by a voice vote. so in the house they're doing voice votes to advance

legislation to help these workers, to help miners, and here there's not even a vote. voice vote, roll call vote, any kind of vote. we're not asking for days of floor time. all we're asking for is a couple of short time for debate but mostly we're just asking for a vote. and that vote is real simple. keep your promise. keep our promise, the promise our country made to these miners, the promise that our employers make to workers every day of the week and there's still a lot of work to do on pensions generally as outlined by some of these bills. but they've kept their promise over and over again. it's about time we kempt our properly -- we kept our promise. i would yield the floor and note -- i'd yield the floor. mr. manchin: i wanted to in a colloquy type style, i want to

thank senator casey because he comes from the same coal mining regions i come from and the hard work and the families and the iewnlty they have there. it's unbelievable the commitment, the dedication these people have had their entire life and the patriotism they have. most of them have served, most of them have about therein, most -- of them have been there. this was consummated by congress and the president of the united states and all they have said up until that time there, my grandfather or my -- all my family members worked in the mines. they had nothing. if you ever heard that song o my soul to the company store -- there was never money transferred. they had script. by the time they buyed from -- bought from the company store, there was nothing left. in 1946 they said there's got to be more. that's when it came and truman was determined not to let this country fall into a recession or a depression after the war by keeping the mines working because we needed the energy for that. and they have produced this energy in a patriotic way every

time. we can't even keep our promise to them through an act of congress and god help us all. and that's what we're here to ask for. so he implore all of our friends and senator from wyoming is here now. he comes from a coal mining region. we're asking all of them just to help us do the right thing for the working people who built this country. and that is what our ask is. it has to be done this week. if not, i will guarantee this problem is going to grow much larger, much quicker, and more than what anybody wants to bite off and try to chew on. with that, i ask for all of my colleagues, please, please help us get this miners act to the floor. we can take care of this pension and prevent other pensions from tumbling behind behind. thank you, madam chair, and i field the floor. -- and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today to once again discuss health care in america

and specifically to oppose this senate joint resolution 52, which is the latest congressional disapproval resolution. what's happening here is that the democrats are trying to block the efforts that republicans are making to actually lower the cost of health insurance. we're working on ways to lower the cost of health insurance for american families and the democrats are trying to block it. let me explain because people certainly understand how after the obama health care law was passed, health care premiums, insurance premiums all across the country went way up. so i strongly oppose the passage of this -- of this resolution, and i strongly oppose the passage of this law which we now hear from so many of the democrats who are running for president they are willing to admit that the law itself has

failed. you know, it's interesting the democrats now say scrap the whole thing and go with the one-size-fits-all government-run health care program where people will pay more to wait longer for worse care. ironically, it's the republicans who today are delivering on so many of the democrats' empty promises about obamacare, because republicans are actually doing things to lower the costs of care and the costs of health insurance for american families. i like to think of it as republicans are the e.m.t.'s arriving on the scene of the obamacare train wreck. we didn't cause the accident. we're trying to help the victims and victims live in states all across this country. for nearly three years now, republicans have tried to treat the victims of obamacare and tried to help people that have been hit with skyrocketing insurance premiums.

well, last week, we saw a major breakthrough. for the second year in a row, on average, we saw insurance premiums on the obamacare exchanges actually come down. they have actually come down. well, it's very welcome news for people that have to pay these premiums. yet what we see is that the 2020 democrat candidates, when you listen to them, they don't seem to be really concerned about lower the costs. they're too busy pushing this astro nominateically expensive $34 trillion medicare for all health insurance health care scheme, one that by republicans and democrats alike have been called by many a pipe dream. and to put the cost into perspective, this total dollar figure that has been estimated by people on the republican side of the aisle, the democrat side

of the aisle, folks who looked at what promises are being made, all have come to the conclusion that the cost would be greater than what we spend right now in this country on medicare and on medicaid and on social security combined. add it all up and that is not even -- that has not even reached the point of what the bernie sanders, elizabeth warren medicare for all would cost. and it's interesting when you take a look at the proposal, they want to actually take away from the american people, from the 180 million people who have earned health insurance and get it through work. they want to take that health insurance away from 180 million americans and put them all on a one-size-fits-all government-run program. madam president, even union workers who as part of their contract negotiations negotiate the health insurance they want, they would lose the hard-fought

health care benefits if this plan of the democrats ever were to become law. so now what we see the democrats doing, they are backing what i believe is a very foolish resolution of disapproval, and i'll get to the reason why in a second. they are attacking part of president obama's health care law. we're talking about obamacare section 1332. this section of the law helps give states more flexibility. madam president, from your state and mine, we are states that like to have flexibility, flexibility to provide better coverage, flexibility to bring premium costs down. we need to set the record straight on one key point. section 1332 never can be used to waive protections for the american people, for people with preexisting conditions. never waive those, not happening, never. my wife is a breast cancer

survivor, three operations, chemotherapy twice, dozens of radiation treatments. i know how important it is for patients, i know this as a doctor and a husband, for patients to have protections of their preexisting conditions. republicans remain 100% committed to protecting people with preexisting conditions. we will protect them today. we will protect them tomorrow. we will protect them always. you know, it's interesting, the house energy and commerce committee chairman greg walden asked the centers for medicare and medicaid services for some clarifications regarding this section 1332, and here's how the administrator responded. she said to be very clear, the 2018 guidance does nothing to erode the health care law's preexisting condition provisions. she said it cannot be waived under section 1332. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the full text of

the c.m.s. administrator's letter be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. because the letter proves that all patients will continue to be protected. section 1332 simply gives states some leeway. a little wiggle room in following the law and how to use and apply the law best in their home states. so all state waivers must meet the following conditions. they must provide coverage at least as broad as is currently offered under the health care law. they must provide coverage and cost-sharing at least as affordable as under the health care law. they must provide coverage to at least as many people as under the health care law. and they must not increase the federal deficit. so again, all the 1332 waivers leave protections for preexisting conditions unharmed. and they are not just popular

with republican governors. it's interesting, madam president, these 1332 waivers, people who are applying for these are democrat governors from around the country. they are at odds with what the democrats in the senate are trying to do. they're per suing waivers. -- pursuing waivers. they are asking the trump administration for waivers for their states as well. and why would these democrat governors come to the trump administration and ask for waivers, madam president? it's because they work. that's the reason the democrat governors are coming to the trump administration, because they work. in fact, a number of states are using these waivers right now today to help lower the cost of health insurance. so let's look at the states whose section 1332 waivers have been approved since the trump administration guidance was issued. just those states where they had this, they have applied for waivers since the new trump

administration guidance was issued. again, these waivers were approved using the very same guidance that the democrats in the senate now want to have repealed. it is astonishing, madam president. so the states with 1332 waivers since the trump administration came out with its guidance are colorado, delaware, montana, north dakota, and rhode island. now, nearly all have democrat governors, four out of the five do, and they have democrat senators in many of the cases, or they have both. but let's take a look at what's happened to the proposed premiums for the year 2020, what they are expected to do in these states which have asked for under the leadership of democrat governors, asked for waivers from the trump administration, have been granted waivers, and what is the impact on the

insurance premiums in these states? well, in colorado with a democrat governor, one democrat senator, the rates are going to fall this next year by about 16%. delaware, democrat governor, two democrat senators. the rates will fall about 13%. montana, democrat governor, one democrat senator, one republican senator, fall by 8%. rhode island, democrat governor, two democrat senators. rates will fall by about 6%. so we have state after state after state after state where the democrat governors said please grant us a waiver, apply the waiver. they are seeing the rates come down. yet the senators on the floor on the other side of the aisle, the democrats are offering a resolution to remove these waivers, to remove the guidance from the trump administration that is resulting in rates of

insurance and the cost is going down. madam president, of course we need to fix health care in this country, but we need to take a scalpel to our health care problems, not a meat cleaver, which is what we see the democrats doing. the obama health care law was a train wreck. republicans opposed it all the way. but still we're treating the victims of this wreck, and we want to help them for years in the future by changing and coming out with guidance that is going to make it easier and give flexibility to states. so states where the governor -- whether the legislature is republican or democrat can make use of the flexibility which they can use to help lower the high, high cost of obamacare insurance. i find it outrageous that senate democrats are wasting precious health care debate time. they should be working with us to find solutions, solutions to

lower the cost of care, to lower the cost of prescription drugs, to provide more accountability, more transparency so patients can make more informed decisions. so even -- even as we address this, and we're going to vote on this tomorrow, it's time to really take a look at what the democrats are saying in the senate as opposed to what the democrats are doing who are in the statehouses across the country. i say let's make sure the states can keep the relief that they're asking for and they're getting by rejecting what the democrats in the senate are proposing. let's keep working to give patients what they need, which is the care that they need from a doctor that they choose at lower costs. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president, i ask for the quorum call to be dispensed with. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. the senator from arizona is recognized. ms. sinema: i rise today to face world cup of the issues facing people in arizona -- making health care more affordable and health care protection. sometimes the issues discussed on the senate floor appear far removed from the concerns of everyday americans, but not today. today's debate focuses the senate's attention on the most important issue for many arizonans and offers elected officials the opportunity to reject partisan political games in favor of commonsense solutions. not long ago, insurance companies were allowed to deny care or overcharge americans based on the fact that those americans had been sick before or had been born with a chronic condition.

arizonans who had been previously treated for skin cancer or diabetes were told that no insurance cover would cover them or the insurance plans they purchased would not cover their preexisting conditions, despite promises of comprehensive coverage. beyond major illnesses, arizonans with even common conditions like high blood pressure, high cholesterol, asthma, even acne, were denied the coverage they needed. until recently, insurance companies had also been allowed to charge consumers high prices for insurance plans, only to leave out coverage for essential health benefits that virtually all americans eventually need, like prescription drug costs, ambulance costs, and hospital stays. critical needs that consumers rightly expect will be covered. insurance is supposed to be there when people need it. hardworking americans who play by the rules and pay their monthly premiums shouldn't have the rug pulled out from under them at the very moment they need that health care. that's why such discrimination

against people with preexisting condition health conditions is now banned and why health insurance plans are now required to cover essential health benefits. and that's why it's so disturbing that the administration and some members of congress have begun moving backwards, allowing insurance companies to again sell plans to americans that lack the very health protections consumers need. congress has a lot of work to do to make health care affordable and protect access for american families and businesses, from lowering premiums to stopping surprise medical billing. but partisan approaches won't solve these challenges. we can and must work across the aisle to pass bipartisan solutions such as increasing the number of doctors to address provider shortages, lowering costs for home health services, expanding mental health care and eliminating the health insurance tax. i've partnered with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to sponsor legislation that achieves these goals. but allowing insurance companies

to return to their old practices will only hurt everyday arizona families. these health plans lack key protections. they're often called junk plans and for good reason. junk plans mislead arizonans, selling something billed as health insurance when in fact it's better described as a bill of goods. and when arizonans are sold these plans need to actually use the coverage they paid for, the rug gets pulled out from under them yet again. i hear from hardworking arizonans on a daily basis who deserve access to critical health care protections. arizonans like chantal who has a preexisting auto immune disease that without treatment would cause her to become blind. arizonans like corrine from phoenix whose daughter was born with a congenital heart condition. before the law protected people with preexisting conditions, her family was unable to find an insurer who would cover their family. and arizonans like john from

casa grande who signed up for a plan that he was told covered preexisting conditions only to find out after he paid his first month's premium that his particular preexisting condition wouldn't qualify for coverage. there are 2.8 million arizonans under the age of 65, just like chantal, corrine and john who live with preexisting conditions. that's half of all nonelderly arizonans whose health care is at risk. these arizonans remind us exactly what's at stake and exactly what's wrong with partisan politics in washington today. for too long too many elected officials theer focused on how they can score political points to help them win the next election all at the expense of the health and security of everyday families. arizonans are rightly worried that the dysfunction and chaos they see coming from washington could threaten their family's coverage, and that's unacceptable. it's time to get partisan

politics out of arizonans health care so i call on both parties to quit partisan games, come together and stop the sale of junk plans that fail to protect people with preexisting conditions. we must protect access to health care for millions of arizonans and tense of millions of americans and we must make health care more affordable for everyday families. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on senate joint resolution 52. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. coons: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: madam president, are we currently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. l. mr. coons: we are not? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. coons: madam president, i come to the floor todays a a proud member -- floor today as d member of this senate and as someone who believes in our role in constitutional order. i'm here because of a real and significant challenge to our body and each of its members is

potentially in the very near future. right now the house of representatives is holding an impeachment inquiry focused on grave and significant charges against our president related to the very threats to our democracy of foreign interference that our founders feared the most. i'm not here, madam president, to argue over whether president trump's actions deserve impeachment or perhaps even removal from office. it is, i think, inappropriate to reach that point. instead, i am here today as the inquiry proceeds in the house to urge my colleagues here in the senate, republicans, independents, and democrats, to take seriously the moment we are in and the tests we may have soon ahead as a senate when we will need to uphold and defend the role of this institution. i'm on the floor today to issue a challenge to all of my colleagues. if an impeachment trial does

take place here in the senate, all of us must decide to approach it as americans, less as people representing any parochial or partisan or particular interest, less as democrats or republicans or independents, and instead as senators. if we are called to serve as jurors in an impeachment trial, all of us must show our nation and the world that this body, that this institution has not been completely overtaken by the divisive political era in which we live. nothing less than the senate's very legitimacy will be at stake. our founders warned about the challenge of this moment. they warned specifically that foreign powers improperly influencing our american government were, in the words of alexander hamilton, the most deadly adversaries of republican government. this is why our constitution entrusts congress with the

enormous power of potential removal through impeachment. james madison called impeachment indispensable for defending the community against the incapacity, the negligence of the chief magistrate, a reference to the president. alexander hamilton argued that the senate was the proper body to hold an impeachment trial. the founders entrusted us to protect our country from the misconduct of public men and the abuse or violation of some public trust. george mason put forward the precise language that appears in our constitution, the language of high crimes and misdemeanors, and urged that impeachment must be a remedy to remove even a president, asking shall any man be above justice? our founders insisted that no one, no one in our nation, in our constitutional order, not even our president is above the

law. this fundamental principle remains the very linchpin of our government. based on what we know today from press reports about the president's actions and from notes of a conversation, i believe it is critical that the house conduct a thorough impeachment inquiry. if the house does vote impeachment articles, members of the senate will have to live up to the responsibilities which the framers of our nation entrusted to us. the eyes of history will be upon us. so, madam president, let me be clear. i'm not saying here today that if the house should vote articles of impeachment, it will be the senate's duty to vote to remove him. it will be instead the responsibility of every single senator to carry out their duty to serve as impartial jurors with their principal focus their oath to uphold and defend the constitution, and nothing else informing our decisions.

this is a challenge to all of my colleagues, both republicans and democrats must appreciate the gravity of this process as we call on our colleagues to do the same. democrats equally with republicans must not allow our vigorous disagreements with this president and our colleagues to influence our judgment and cloud it. we have to understand that this process, this likely future moment are far more important than our own individual political fortunes. an impeachment trial of a president would be a true test of the integrity and capabilities of the senate. our commitment to follow the facts, to consider the evidence, and to apply the rule of law. it will be a test that we as a body cannot afford to fail. so, madam president, it's important to begin the process of establishing what that

process might look like as soon as there are impeachment articles, if that is the direction the house takes. the basic rules are clear, as stated in the constitution the house is given the sole power of impeachment, and the senate the sole power to try as jury all impeachments. if the house votes to impeach, the senate must conduct a trial and either convict by two thirds or he acquit on whatever count is presented. at that trial the chief justice of the united states supreme court would preside. the house managers would present the case. the president's counsel present his defense. and the senators serve as the jury. the manner in which our leaders, leader mcconnell and leader schumer, direct the senate in the event of a trial will be the most important test in a generation, of whether our senate remains capable of enforcing the law, living up to the constitution and upholding the responsibilities our founders bestowed upon us.

i remind you that the opening vote in the senate of the impeachment trial of president clinton, the vote that set the rules under which that trial would proceed was unanimous. it was 100-0. an impeachment trial may not come in the future. any trial should be governed by rules that should be passed on a broad and bipartisan basis, animated by justice over partisanship. it would mean that our institution of the senate would also be on trial. we, as a body, need to show the american people and the world that we are more than just 100 elected politicians brought here by partisan whim or a bear majority of our states but a body whose sum is much more than individual parts. together we must act as stewards

for our democracy. history is watching us. all of us, democrats, independents, republicans, how we respond will shape and impact our senate and our nation for years to come. so in the days, weeks, or months to come, i hope my colleagues will rise to the challenge we face to liberate an eye toward history and a heart focused on our constitution, and prove that in this body we answer to the constitution, not any particular partisan loyalty to our president or any other elected official. the health of our very institutions and democracy itself is at stake.

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a koon koon we have just lost a dear friend and remarkable leader. she was a force of nature. she dedicated her life to confronting social injustice, her philanthropy and mentorship and public service made my home state of delaware a better place for everyone. so i rise today to celebrate and honor her work, her spirit, and her impact on so many of us. her story began on april 1, 1928. she was born in wilmington, delaware to parents sigmund and rosa lia shore. her father was elected to delaware's general assembly and served as president of the of

the new county castle board. her mother was a teacher and active in different community. she was raised in a an atmosphere of community involvement. she was exceptionally bright and gifted, an honors graduate of wilmington high school, she graduated man number cum laude from syracuse university in 1949. she was accepted to jefferson medical college in philadelphia where she earned his master's degree in microbiology, she was the first woman to graduate from jefferson in its 125-year history and the first student to complete graduate work there. after teaching several years at temple medical school, she was the first woman hired by dupont to work in the central research

department in will imagineton where -- -- wilmington. she met a scientist of nearby fairfax. sonny and gil fell in love and a few years later were married on memorial day 1957. together they raised two wonderful sons, victor and jonathan. and during this period sonny became more and more involved with local community groups and political organizations. her commitment to public service was a hallmark of her life. she was a skilled and forceful advocate, a tireless campaign organizer and relentless fundraiser for community groups and campaigns alike. when she saw a need, she would fill it, whether it seemed doable or not. when people felt like delaware needed a more active advocacy organization, they were concerned about civil liberties,

civil justice and civil rights, she founded and launched the delaware chapter of the aclu. when she became increasingly concerned about the access to reproductive rights, she launched a capital campaign to build a brand-new facility for planned parenthood of delaware. she helped to launch the cancer support community of delaware. she was involved in so many different civic and community organizations, so many campaigns, they are more than i could relate in my time here on the floor. her legacy of service to our state, which began more than 60 years ago, steadily grew over the next 50, 60 years. she eventually formed her own fundraising firm and raised over $100 million for various nonprofits an agencies. she was able to pick and choose the causes she championed and

didn't do anything she lacked passion. her work touched the whole community from the food bank to the ywca and the delaware college of art an design. sonny also invested in people in whom she believed. she was a mentor from the very first days that a young, then-29-year-old joe biden, launched his campaign for county council and then for the u.s. senate and played a central role to joe biden's election in 1972 to this body. she mentored countless people, dozens of people, not just my predecessor, she was a mentor to this young candidate as well when i first ran for office. mr. coons: she was a mentor for folks no one heard of. she was a mentor for a young man just released from the juvenile detention center.

sonny helped him get a state identification card, helped him get a new job, helped him get a bicycle, helped him and mentored him until he was able to get back on his feet. she recorded books for the blind. she even agreed to put up the deed of her own home to bail out a vietnam protester from jail. these are the sort of things she did no no one heard of. she was inducted into the hall of fame for delaware women. she wasn't the sort of person who hold up these accomplishments. aside from her civic engagements, she loved to run and seen jogging around rockford park, enjoyed cooking, collected stamps, and loved to read. after passing away at age 91, one friend remarked that sonny had so much energy an passion to

give. another friend called her a beacon of light and a pillar of courage whose light will shine for many years to come. she never stopped taking a chance on young candidates and on first-time candidates. a friend of mine, the recently elected state senator said sonya stern took a chance on me even though i had no name recognition or resources. once they heard she was in my corner, endorsements flowed in. i am where i am representing the fourth district of the state senate because of sonia sloan. it is clear she broke many barriers. she had strong and passionate feelings about countless issues, but the empowerment of women, the election of women to office, the advancement of women to our society was absolutely at the

forefront. as she often said, women's issues are not just women's issues, they are everybody's issues. one of the last times i got to see sonny was at a dinner in he her honor. there i joined hundreds of friends and neighbors 0 recognize -- neighbors to recognize her service. she lived her life committed to a deep belief she shared with many of us. focus on what you can do to change just one life for the better. because when you change one life, you can change the world. sonny did that thousands of times. she was tough and determined, funny and smart. she never hesitated to offer very direct input to those of us she knew needed correction or direction, but she could equally offer compelling and comforting advice. she has been and will continue to be that voice of conscience

inside my head challenging me not to settle for the easy but to push for what seems difficult or even impossible. her dedication for fighting for justice was rivaled only by her tireless love for gil, victor, jonathan, her five granddaughters and five great grandchildren. she was the best of what we are as delawareans, her sharp intelligence and fierce resolve and unwavering dedication to people and causes will be impossible to replace. so, to sonny, i wish to say we will all miss you, family, friends, neighbors, the thousands whose lives you've touch. you affected the lives of countless delawareans, and i'm truly grateful to have known you and that was part of your work to make our state and world a better place. you will forever have my deepest thanks. back in october of 1969, sonia

read a prayer with touching words. bless our country, she said, that it may always be a stronghold of peace, may contentment rain within its borders, strengthen the bonds of friendship and may the love of your name hallow every home and every heart. touching and fitting words. sonny, bless you, and thank you. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i come to the floor to discuss the environment

transportation housing and appropriations bill that this body will be working on. the first amendment addresses a serious issue, the rising scourge of methamphetamine. it is something that we talked a lot about a decade ago and conversations turched -- turned to opioid abuse in this country and right to focus on opioids, but now meth is increasing in states like colorado as we continue to address the opioid epidemic. when i traveled across colorado over the summer last week through the august work period, i heard from rural sheriffs across the state concerned about the severe impact that meth is having on small communities. headlines this summer, as recently as this week, talk about the increase in meth use across colorado and across the country. treatment admission across colorado increased by nearly 40%. in 2018, 318 people died in colorado from meth overdoses,

that is a 370% increase. and there has been a 1,400% increase. in 2018, just last year, denver police made nearly 1,500 meth-related arrests. there were more arrest for meth than heroin and cocaine combined. it damages our families, it can cause permanent damage to the individual using meth. it causes tremendous harm to families in utah, just in august in utah, nearly $2.2 million of methamphetamine was seendle in the state of oo -- seized in utah. it was headed to colorado. it is enough to provide 1.1 million individual doses in colorado. it was on its way and would have done great harm. i introduced an amendment that would add $1 million to the cops

anti-methamphetamine program. this would allow a grant to go to an area to a state to a drug program to help reduce and to break up this cycle of meth. and so we've heard the people in colorado, the sheriffs, we've heard from our communities to do more and i believe this amendment does more to help address the epidemic of meth and the lives it is shattering in colorado and i hope my colleagues will be able to support this. i want to thank senator daines, senator tester, senator gillibrand and senator jones who have joined me in adding $1 million fully paid for and offset within the bill to help combat this epidemic of meth in our country and certainly in our states like colorado. another amendment that i've been working on is the bullet-proof vest amendment. we've seen too many attacks on our law enforcement over the past several years, so this legislation would provide a $1.1 billion fund for our nation's law enforcement officers with

type 3 bullet-proof vests. they are capable of stopping more powerful rifle ballistics and would allow more officers to come home, to come home at the end of the day of their service and that's what we need to be focusing on how to protect the men and women in blue in our communities. proud to have joint legislation earlier this year that was signed into law that permanently reauthorized the bulletproof vest partnership program and hope we continue to build and offer our support to those who it defend that thin blue line. the crown jewel of our conservation programs, the land and water conservation fund benefited colorado and this country so significantly over the past several decades, it's something that has affected every state in the country to be able to preserve and protect some of the most pristine environments across this great land. we were able to work together on a bipartisan effort last spring to permanently authorize the land and water conservation fund. the amendment that i'll be offering to the bill would fully fund the land and water

conservation fund. while we've done a great thing in permanently authorizing the land and water conservation fund we need to fully fund it. this amendment would do just that and fully fund the land and water conservation fund. why is this important? because the outdoor economy and protecting public lands is critical to colorado. the outdoor economy in colorado generates $28 billion in consumer spending, $2 billion in state and local tax revenue, employing close to 230,000 people in colorado alone making colorado the year-round destination for visitors. and if you're interested in skiing, there's already 40 inches of snow in summit county. the ski resorts have opened up already and it's snowing right now in cromplet, so this amendment -- in colorado and so this amendment is all the more important for people looking to enjoy the great outdoors. we have a bipartisan amendment with senators bennet, burr and

shaheen that will fully fund it for 2020. i hope this chamber will support the legislation. also working on an amendment that would address the ski area fees that our ski resorts pay to the federal government to operate on public lands and have their ski runs on public lands. many times the ski resorts, the ski areas are the largest employers in our mountain communities and contribute significantly to the economy, to their health and stability of our local communities. 122 of our ski areas operate on national forest system lands generating roughly $37 million in rental fees for the treasury. but staffing levels for those very recreation programs, the permitting needs, those recreation programs are 40% lower than they were in the year 2000. as more people are enjoying public lands, we see fewer people employed by the federal government to deal with those public lands, to process the permitting needs and to address the needs of our public lands. fire borrowing has been an issue

that has gobbled up some of the funding that helped manage our forests. we put a bipartisan fix in place that will no longer allow that money to be gobbled up. but we need to have a solution on the ski area fee retention as well so we can allow that money to be, to stay within the forest that it's generated in. now that we've got the fire borrowing fix, we put the ski area fee bill in place and we can have even more dollars returned to the forest where those fees are generated so that we can address the staffing issues and other complex issues that we face in our national forests. this bill p -- bill would allow a portion of that $37 million to be returned to the forests where generated. that means more timely application processing at the forest service, better customer service for ski areas trying to accommodate more people visiting our great ski areas. also working on an amendment to the legislation dealing with r.t.d., our public transit system in denver and the front

range. years ago the department of transportation was working on a effort that refunded some programs in colorado. r.t.d. paid off a loan of more than, basically paid off a loan on one of these projects more than 20 years early. they were told that they would be reimbursed by the department of transportation if they paid this off. and unfortunately while they paid it off early, they haven't been reimbursed. if you look at the effort, the program that they accomplished with this project -- the project they accomplished with this loan, the denver union station program, denver union station project, one of the highlights of urban renewal in the country, they got the loan successfully paid off early, a great success. now they need that money back to continue investing in colorado. working with senator bennet to make sure that this money comes back to colorado. that's one of the amendments that we have filed. the national institute of standard and technology is one of the nation's premiere

research agencies in the federal government. colorado is lucky to house the second largest con continue jinf where they work on issues like telecommunication, forensics and quantum information science and technology. the boulder campus of nist and affiliated partnerships have won three nobel prizes in physics, national medal of science. these experts were charged with continuing to build on their successes in the national quantum initiative act which passed into congress, into law just this last congress. in order to remain competitive globally, competing against countries like china, the u.s. must continue its robust investment in science, research and development. that's going to require investing in our science facilities as well. when i was able to travel to the nist facilities in boulder a couple of months ago i witnessed a crash can and a trash bag being used to collect rain water from a leaky roof. that's happening in a place

where we have nobel prize-winning scientists working. it's unacceptable and harmful to think that it's okay for this great country to have nobel prize-winning scientists working in a facility that can't even keep them dry because the roof leaks. while i'm grateful for the appropriations committee's attention to increasing the construction in facilities budget for nist in recent years we've got a lot more work to do. that's why in light of the national quantum initiative i introduced an amendment to these appropriations bills to provide an additional $161 million for construction and renovation costs for nist projects. in partnering with the universities like the university of colorado, boulder nist can continue to expand and renovate state-of-the-art facilities that benefits the united states and will help us retain and grow our competitive advantage around the globe. another issue that i continue to hear about in colorado that we're able to address through the appropriations package before us is the issue of

affordable housing. many times the people may think that affordable housing is simply an urban issue, that it is something we face in boulder, denver or colorado springs but it is actually an issue that i hear in some of the sumwalt communities as well as the biggest communities. senator young and i have been working on an amendment that deals with affordable housing. we know we have a relationship between the lack of affordable housing and issues relating to health, education, nutrition, and job outcomes. and those issues combine homelessness and lack of affordable housing combine with these other issues to create significant strains on government and other social services. the amendment we've offered will help us understand those challenges, it will help us understand the root causes of and lack of affordable housing and help us understand the effects of the affordable housing crisis on health, on education, on employment as well. it will help us understand that the work we need to do to solve the problem or whether there are smaller programs that are already working that we could

expand to help to do even more good. that's a number of bills related to the great state of colorado in this country that i think will do a lot of good. i hope as we process these appropriations bills in a bipartisan fashion that we'll be able to approve them and to start addressing some of these major issues. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. today i join my colleagues in discussing one of the latest attempts of the trump administration to undermine and sabotage the affordable care act. this week the senate will vote on a congressional resolution of disapproval or a c.r.a. on a trump administration final rule that gives states broad latitude to ignore the consumer protections of the affordable care act. the rule essentially gives patients in those states the choice between health insurance that doesn't provide coverage when it's needed the most, the

so-called junk plans, are being priced out of the health insurance market entirely. as we've already seen, republican lawmakers in some states are more than eager to dismantle protections of the affordable care act and bring back the days of insurance companies being in charge, putting profits above the health of consumers in those states. in fact, 20 such states have gone a step further by bringing forward a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the a.c.a. in its entirety. this is not a theoretical threat to our health care system. over the next year we will see a final ruling on this lawsuit and ruling in favor of these states would be nothing short of catastrophic. not only would this upend the health care system as we know it in those states, this ruling would apply to every state, even those like my home state of rhode island which has done an outstanding job in implementing the a.c.a., expanding coverage, and making health care more affordable for all

rhode islanders. the affordable care act has given individuals and families more choice, more affordable options, and more control over their health care. and with these new options for health coverage, the uninsured rate has reached historic lows, hovering around 4%. today because the a.c.a. is the law of the land, insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage for a preexisting condition or put an annual lifetime cap on how much they will pay for your care. because of the a.c.a., young adults can stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26 years of age. and women can't be charged more based on their gender. also under the a.c.a., basic health services like maternity care and behavioral and mental health must be covered. the a.c.a. has helped keep costs down by requiring insurance companies to cover preventive

care at no charge so that the smaller things don't turn into bigger expensive medical problems like surgeries. yet president trump continues to put all of this progress at risk. the rule that we're voting to invalidate this week is just one such example. in his first year in office president trump failed to pass his bill to repeal the a.c.a. when he had republican majorities in both the house and the senate. despite widespread public opposition to these efforts, the administration has since moved forward with its sabotage strategy in the absence of a legislative win. president trump ended federal funding for key a.c.a. program which helps keep plans more affordable for those in the private market by covering some costs for patients with the most expensive medical conditions. next the administration put forth new rules to allow more

junk plans, plans that can charge more for those with preexisting conditions and that can refuse to cover needed health services. and now the rule subject to this week's vote goes one step further in allowing states to expand these partisan attempts to weaken the a.c.a., increase costs on consumers, and increase the uninsured rate. if this wasn't enough, a single court case championed by partisans looking for a political win could overturn the a.c.a. as soon as next year. if president trump's strategy succeeds, many americans will suffer. preexistingcondition protectiono away and over 15 million americans with preexisting medical conditions could go back to being priced out of coverage. the medicaid expansion that helps states cover americans would also go away. young adults would be kicked off

their parents insurance. women could be charged more, as would older americans. people would lose access to mental and behavioral health care and prescription drug costs for seniors would go up. in rhode island, it is estimated that approximately 100,000 people could lose coverage if trump's lawyers convinced the costs to tear down the a.c.a. the state would lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for health care, all to satisfy president trump and congressional republicans' desire for a political win at the expense of the american people. we cannot afford to go back to the days when insurance companies were in control. we cannot wait until the trump administration and congressional republicans come up with a plan. the a.c.a. was signed into law almost ten years ago and still its opponents have no alternative. americans with preexisting conditions, those who are fighting illnesses, parents with children with complex

medical needs, young people who need coverage while they explore new career opportunities, these people, our constituents, our neighbors, our families do not have the time to wait for republicans to come up with a solution for a problem they themselves are creating. we should instead spend our time to work on solutions to today's problems. there are pressing issues that congress should be spending time addressing to improve health in this country. prescription drug costs continue to skyrocket. in fact, addressing prescription drug costs alone would go a long way to bringing down health care costs overall. yet, if the a.c.a. goes away, this will be for not. it won't matter if the drug companies are required to negotiate fair prices for drugs. without affordable health insurance, consumers will continue to be priced out of lifesaving drugs and treatments. further, without the a.c.a.,

requirements that plans should cover prescription drugs would go away. indeed, before the a.c.a., many plans did not kof needed prescription drugs, leaving patients to pay entirely out of pocket for lifesaving treatments and interventions to prevent severe conditions down the road. congress made significant bipartisan progress on the opioid epidemic, providing considerable funding to states to help people access treatment to get on the path to recovery, however, one of the most effective interventions in the epidemic, has been the a.c.a.'s medicaid expansion, helping those with substance abuse disorders get treatment and get back on their feet. without the a.c.a., the bipartisan laws that congress passed with regard to the opioid epidemic would be nowhere near enough to successfully combat this crisis. we are have also seen new data from the centers for disease

control and prevention, showing growing rates of suicide in this country, especially among young people, nothing short of an epidemic. i have been working with my colleagues across the aisle, such as senator kennedy, from louisiana, to increase funding for the suicide lifeline and make it more accessible. this is important work. we need to ensure that when someone reaches out to get help in a time of crisis, that we'll able to connect them with affordable mental health for the long term. without the a.c.a., that care may be out of reach. there's certainly more we can be doing to increase access to health care, and i have been working with my colleagues to do just that. however, allowing the administration to continue its efforts to destroy the a.c.a., not only undermines health care for the most vulnerable americans, but also all of our bipartisan work on critical health care issues such as lowering drug costs.

the american people, my constituents and yours, expect better. i implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand up to this administration's reckless plans to up end the health care system and work with us to improve the health care system instead. , and, madam president, before conclude my remarks i would like to make some comments on the death of my dear colleague, senator kay hagan, and i would ask unanimous consent that these remarks be placed in the appropriate section of the congressional record in which other remarks were made of kay hagan. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: kay hagan was an extraordinary individual, a great senator from the state of north carolina. i had the opportunity to express my thoughts to her husband chip, who i talked with yesterday. we will all miss her advocacy, her spirit, her support of military families, small businesses, students, and

americans everywhere, particularly in her home state of north carolina. i had the pleasure of serving with her in this body on the armed services and bank committees, and we traveled together to iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan in 2010. all of us here in the senate are saddened by this loss and we send all of our thoughts to chip and her family. i must recall a vivid memory. senator hagan and i were in afghanistan, and again this dauntless, courageous senator, we were together on a moonrise infantry patrol, moving far away from kabul and the center of our tifts, a re -- activities, we were moving to a meeting of local afghan fighters. as we rolled down this dusty road, i looked over and pointed out to her, kay, see all of

these beautiful red flowers. she said, yes, they are attractive. what are they? well, they are opium poppies. we were in a battle with, and we didn't want to alienate them. she understood that and understood the sacrifice and service of the young men and women in a combat zone and she fought for them. many of them were yents from fort brag -- were from fort bragg and sheef not afraid to -- she was not afraid to go forth to dangerous places to see what they were sharing enterterms of danger and deprivation. she had such care and compassion, such humanity.

i deeply, deeply mourn her passing. to chip and all of her family, my sincerest condolences on the passing of an extraordinary woman who graced this chamber with dignity. i know her example of courage, strength, and love will continue to sustain and inspire her family and those of us who are privileged enough to serve with her. may she rest in peace. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: madam president, a couple of weeks ago i had the privilege to be able to stand at iron horse industrial park. it's a brand-new industrial park outside of shani, oklahoma --

shawnee, oklahoma. for years they had a dream of opening up a location in oklahoma for foreign trade and they would be able to work on raw materials, products, and sales. it's been a remarkable dream for them. i stood on a platform, the leadership and the citizens of the indian nation and members of the shawnee community sat next to the consulate and business owner who is opening up a plant in a couple of months to be the first company in that location to start doing international trade in that part of oklahoma. that location, pro pipe, will manufacture pipe they will send all over the place, it's a canadian company but it will have 40, 45 jobs that are oklahoma jobs. why did i mention that? i mentioned that because as i stood on the platform next to

canadians and others from multiple other countries on how integrated we really are. if i took you to shawnee, oklahoma, it's a great community, but the first thing you wouldn't think of is international trade, but it should be now. in oklahoma, our top two trading partners are canada and mexico. we have an overwhelming amount of trade just with those two countries. in fact, we export $2.4 billion worth of goods just to canada and mexico last year. we're a very connected economy, and working through the trade issues is incredibly important to us. that's why this new trade agreement that replaces nafta, which is now decades old and needs a revision, that's why it is so important. because our oklahoma economy dmendz on how we trade -- depends on how we trade.

there are other financial services that are connected through trade to canada and mexico. they cooperate with us, we cooperate with them. so a new trade agreement started in the negotiation process. it started in august of 2017 with the trump administration that -- the administration of mexico and in canada all sat down and decided to reopen nafta after the trump administration put tremendous pressure on canada and mexico to update the agreement. initially everyone said, don't want to change a thing. from august 2017 until september of 2018, our three countries negotiated a new trade agreement that all three countries now have come back in their leadership and said that's a better deal than what nafta was, that works better for everyone. it provides new elements on digital trade that wasn't an issue in the 1990's, e-commerce wasn't a thing at the time, now there is. there's areas about innovation

and intellectual property that helped protect inventers in all three countries to be able to protect what they have invented and make sure the benefits come back to the inventers. there's new protections for labor. there's been longstanding issues for labor practices in mexico, this addresses some of those things and basic human rights elements for mexico. it adds new environmental requirements so that we would take on, as a whole of north america, in the way we do our manufacturing, the way we do fishing, the way that we handle marine litter, the way that we handle sustainable force management, all of this would be addressed in the trade agreement. it is a comprehensive agreement, the usmca is, and it is very important that we actually get it passed. but i hope you didn't miss tt timeline that i laid out. the negotiations started in august of 2017. the negotiation finished in september of 2018. and since october of 2018, that

agreement has been waiting on a vote in the house of representatives. mexico has already long since passed it. they not only passed the agreement, they passed the laws doing the implementing language. they long since passed it. everyone is waiting for the united states to pass this trade agreement that will help us in labor issues, help us in manufacturing, help us in ag exports, help us in our digital trade, help us in environmental policy. we're all waiting on the house of representatives to take it up. we are now past a year that the house has had this. it that's start constitutionally in the house, and i cannot say strongly enough how important this is to able to maintain our momentum in trade with canada and mexico that we should not have to wait. now, some in the house say this is about not giving president trump a win so they don't want to vote on it because it will give president trump a win. this is not about a president of

a country. in fact, mexico has already changed presidents since the time of this agreement. this is about giving the american people a win. this is, quite frankly, to be selfish about the people of oklahoma getting a win. it's additional jobs. it's additional protections. it's additional opportunities to do invest. and we'd like to be able to see that for my state and for the people of my state. so i can't encourage enough the house to be able to take this up. i do also want to compliment the administration for taking this agreement on. three years ago no one thought this agreement should be done or could be done and now when it's in the process of being finalized, everyone seems to nod their head saying, that's better. let's keep going. the administration recently also struck a deal with japan. japan is a trade partner already, just like canada and mexico, but we've had some problems with japan. the united states exported $14 billion in food and agricultural products to japan

just in 2018, $14 billion. but of that $14 billion, right about half, $7.2 billion of those had a need to be able to address some of the issues about tariffs and about some additional protections. so this new trade agreement that the administration just struck with japan is exceptionally helpful to us. it takes out half of the tariffs, either reduces them or eliminates them entirely of our ag trade back and forthwith japan. why is that a big deal for oklahoma? you may say oklahoma is a long way from japan, it is, except we ship a lot of beef that way and we can ship a lot more. this agreement specifically deals with things like beef, pork, poultry, wheat, those are products that are all coming right out of my state and it is exceptionally important that this agreement has been done. now, this agreement doesn't have to come through congress. it's an executive agreement. it's not like the usmca.

it's done. so we've already seen a gain in oklahoma based on that trade agreement in japan. if there's any encouragement i can make to the administration is, keep doing this. we have further negotiations we need to have completed in the pacific. and while they've done step one with japan, there's more to be done with japan on lowering other tariffs, but we'd also like to see a trade agreement with new zealand. we'd also like to see a trade agreement with other partners in the pacific. keep going and keep expanding markets. the big issue right now is with china. our trade issues with china have been significant and they've been signature for decades. the -- sig be can't for -- significant for decades. the past five presidents have had to deal with china and trade, their violation of basic dignity for workers, their environmental issues have been deplorable. we should address the issues of

trade with china and how to deal with some of the inequities of workers and deal with some of the inequities of environmental policy and certainly deal with the theft of intellectual property. all of this is ongoing as china is one of the worst human rights violators in the world. in our trade negotiations we should talk about free press, freedom of religion and opportunities for those bound up in concentration camps being reeducated to be more chinese rather than live out their faith. there are many issues we need to deal with that go beyond just dollars. it's how we actually interact with each other. so for the administration as they're finalizing the final moments of how they're going to deal with the trade deal with china, i continue to encourage them keep doing the work. the last five presidents have all tried to resolve issues with china. keep going. we've got to be able to get this done. but hold china to account on human rights issues while we're

also dealing with economic issues. this is our moment to address those critical needs. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this afternoon i join with a number of my colleagues on this side to put republicans on notice that their health care charade is coming to an end. tomorrow the senate will go on the record and make clear once and for all whether they stand with patients and families who are counting on them or with president trump and big insurance companies. tomorrow democrats will force the senate to vote on our bill to reverse president trump's rule that undermines protections for people with preexisting conditions and promotes junk health plans and higher costs for families. for too long republicans have been making empty promises on

health care while taking harmful steps that make things worse for patients and families. time after time democrats have asked republicans to work with us to actually make health care work better for patients and families. but time after time senate republicans have said no. in fact, there's been no greater cheerleader for president trump's relentleslentlesslentlen family health care. mr. president, this isn't just a hypothetical conversation. any day now, any day now, we could get a ruling on the partisan lawsuit brought by president trump that would undermine health care for over a hundred million people by ending protections for people with preexisting conditions, stripping away coverage families got through the exchanges and medicaid expansion, and letting young adults get kicked off their parents' insurance before

they turn 26. a republican win on this lawsuit could drive up costs by scrapping the caps on patients out -off pocket -- out-of-pocket costs. and ending essential health benefits that require insurers to cover prescription drugs, maternity care, mental health care, emergency care, and more. when senate democrats took a stand against this dangerous lawsuit and introduced legislation to fight for patients and protect their care, senate republicans ducked for cover and did not bring it to a vote. just like they've done with senate democrats' efforts to bring down drug prices through impactful steps, like medicare negotiation or restore funding to help people find the care that's right for them when open enrollment starts this week. or make coverage more affordable for working families.

now democrats in the house have already made progress on some of these steps from successfully joining the lawsuit to fight for patients, to passing legislation that would restore navigator funding, reverse president trump's harpful junk insurance rule and -- harmful junk insurance and more. republicans in the senate have blatantly failed to live up to their promise to fight for families' health care instead of working with us on these steps to help our families and protect patients with preexisting conditions, to do what families sent us here for. they have buried each of these solutions in their legislative graveyard so that they don't even have to admit on the record that they aren't doing anything to help protect families' care. well not tomorrow. tomorrow democrats are going to bring forward a bill to ensure protections for preexisting conditions that leader mcconnell cannot bury and republicans can't hide from. tomorrow every single one of us is going to have to go on the

record about where we really stand on families' health care and protections for preexisting conditions. tomorrow we will be voting on democrats' legislation to reverse a step president trump took to warp a tool that was meant to encourage innovation into one that encourages states to eliminate protections for patients with preexisting conditions, increase costs, undermine essential health benefits, and promote harmful junk insurance plans that can charge vulnerable patients more and cover less. letting president trump's rule stand could leave millions of patients with higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs and no affordable options to get the health care they need. our vote tomorrow to reverse this rule that takes protections away from patients and gives power back to insurance companies offers a very clear test about who senators are actually fighting for.

people across the country are going to be watching tomorrow and taking note of who's pushing for solutions to protect their care and who's blocking them, who's trying to repair the damage president trump has caused and who's trying to cause even more harm, who is fighting for their health care and who's fighting against it. i hope each and every one of my republican colleagues think long and hard about the promises they've made to their constituents and how they are going look them in the eye after the vote tomorrow. i hope each of them finally decides to do the right thing, stand up for families' health care even if it means being a republican who stands up against president trump. i believe that issues as important as families' health care should come before party, and i hope we will see tomorrow that republicans agree. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire.

ms. hassan: thank you, mr. president. first i want to thank my colleague, the distinguished senator from washington, for her leadership on the issue of providing health care to all americans. in a democracy where everyone counts, everyone should have access to high quality, affordable care. mr. president, i rise today to discuss the trump administration's efforts to undermine our health insurance system and scam health care consumers by allowing harmful health plans to be sold to unsuspecting, vulnerable americans. since the president's first day in office, his administration has taken measure after measure that makes it harder for patients to access necessary care, weakens our health care system, and increases costs. and this latest effort to expand access to what are appropriately referred to as junk health insurance plans would allow insurance companies to discriminate against americans

who experience preexisting conditions and would also leave patients with higher health care costs and worse insurance coverage. junk plans don't cover even basic benefits such as prescription drugs, substance use disorder treatment, or maternity care. and people often don't realize how inadequate these plans are until they are in the middle of a medical crisis. unless you can guarantee that you will never get sick, never break a limb, or never get into an accident, these plans are a bad deal for you. we all know that life doesn't come with those guarantees. and when the worst does happen, when illness or injury strikes, these plans are more often than not barely worth the paper that they are written on. this can lead to two very bad

outcomes. the first is that the patient chooses to receive the critical care that they need but because the short-term junk plan doesn't cover the care, the patient ends up being stuck with an incredibly high out-of-pocket medical bill. or the patient upon learning that the junk plan doesn't cover critical care chooses not to get the care that they need which leads to adverse health outcomes or an unplanned trip to the emergency room, the cost of which may be footed by the taxpayer. and if you are someone with a preexisting condition, such as asthma, diabetes, or cancer, you could be charged more, sometimes truly astronomical amounts for insurance that won't even cover many of your most basic benefits. or you could be denied certain benefits altogether. if that sounds familiar, it is because it's the same situation people with preexisting

conditions were in before the passage of the affordable care act. that's why i'm calling on all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to vote to repeal the trump administration's rule that authorizes these junk plans, threatening protections for millions of americans with preexisting conditions and increasing health care costs all across the board. if there is one thing that republicans and democrats should all agree on, it is that we must ensure that people with preexisting conditions are protected, that they can be covered. people like bernadette clark of manchester whose youngest son is living with cerebral palsy, a complex medical condition, and would not have access to the type of health insurance that she and her family needs if not for the protections of the affordable care act afforded to people with preexisting conditions. doctors, nurses, hospitals, and

patients universally oppose these junk plans because they know how dangerous these plans are for the health and well-being of our people. i urge every senator to stand with granite staters and all americans in opposing the trump administration's latest attack on our health care system. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent the quorum -- the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. leahy: i think as the senator knows, senator shelby and i have been working very hard on the appropriations bills. i want to commend his staff and my staff for all the work that they have done. it's not just the bills, the first page and the number at the end, that counts. there's a whole lot that goes in. in between there are a number of policy considerations that are in there. there are things that senators in both parties want that make a great deal of sense and both parties support, and we're getting those -- we're putting those together. i would hope that having done all that it means that within the next day or so we can get at

least four these appropriations bills passed. i'd remind everybody that the last time that senator shelby and i went through this exercise, we passed most of the bills, if not unanimous, virtually unanimously. and i think it helps the senate. it shows that we're doing our work, that we can set aside partisan differences and do what is best for the country. the other body has been working very, very hard. in the house of representatives on their appropriations bills, they -- their appropriations committee, led by two of the finest members i have served with, neillloy, the chair for new york, kay grange he, the ranking member from texas, one a democrat, one a republican, both of whom believe in the congress

and how should work, and they've worked hard. so i say that just because i have had so many numbers -- members ask me how it's going. i think it's going better than anybody thought it might at this point. earlier -- we will get it done. with that, i know other senators want to talk. but i'm about to propose -- or about to note an absence of a quorum, if nobody is here, and nobody is, so i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: and the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire sheen a senator: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: since president trump was sworn in, he's made it his mission to dismantle the affordable care act. last congress time and again we saw the house and senate majorities try and fail to

repeal the law of the land, the affordable care act. mrs. shaheen: after their attempt to repeal the affordable care act failed in the senate, the trump administration made it abundantly clear that they will do everything possible to sabotage the act through regulations and administrative actions. through the sabotage, the administration has undermined the critical protections that the health care law provides for people with preexisting conditions. i just want to reiterate my support for the congressional review act disapproval resolution that i worked on with senator warren and congratulate him for his leadership. what that disapproval resolution points out to is that preexisting conditions and short-term insurance plans also known as junk plans are inconsistent. i'm proud to support the

disapproval resolution that we'll vote on this week that would reverse this administration's so-called 1332 waiver rules. those rules allow for the use of taxpayer dollars to subsidize junk insurance plans. these waiver rules are part of the trump administration's ongoing attempt to make an inrun around congress and dismantle the affordable care act through the regulatory process. now, i think it's important to understand the short comes of these junk plans that the administration is promoting. these plans are allowed to deny coverage to someone because of a preexisting condition of the they also allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums if someone has a preexisting condition. they're not required to cover the affordable care act's essential health benefits like maternity care, substance use disorder treatment, or

prescription drugs. and in new hampshire where we have a real challenge with the opioid academic, without coverage for substance use disorders, we have thousands of people who would not be able to get treatment for their substance use disorders. these plans are allowed to place arbitrary limits on the dollar value of services that will be covered annually and they also don't have to comply with the affordable care act's caps on how much insurers can require that patients pay out of pocket. in short, these junk plan policies often are not worth the paper they're written on. for some reason these are plans that are favored by this administration. the administration's 1332 waiver rules effectively rewrite the law to allow the affordable care act's premium tax credits to be used to purchase junk plan

coverage. so rather than to help subsidize comprehensive health care coverage as intended in the act, coverage that will actually allow people to get the health care services they need, what the trump administration waiver does is have those taxpayer subsidies cover junk plans that provide -- that generally do not provide the care that people need. allowing taxpayer dollars to subsidize junk plan coverage is not only dangerous for consumers who can be duped into purchasing junk plans, but it also poses a threat to the stability of the insurance market. by aggressively pushing enrollment in junk plans, this administration is seeking to split the insurance market into two. one market for younger and healthier individuals and a second much more expensive market for older individuals and people with chronic health

conditions. this is not the outcome that people in new hampshire and patients across this country want or deserve. that's why i intend to vote in favor of the congressional review act resolution that will overturn these rules that are sabotaging the affordable care act. but unfortunately, the waiver rules are not the only grave threat that this administration is posing to access to health care coverage and protections for people with proexisting conditions. -- with preexisting conditions. in addition to the sabotage of the a.c.a. that's going on, the department of justice, our nation's highest law enforcement authority, continues to refuse to defend the law of the land the affordable care act in federal court. instead the justice department has argued that the affordable care act should be struck down resulting in the loss of coverage for millions of americans. the estimate is that if the

affordable care act is struck down, 20 million americans will lose their health care. in new hampshire, approximately 90,000 granite staters have obtained health insurance coverage through either the affordable care act or the medicaid expansion. across the country more than 17 million medicaid expansion enrolees and 11 million people in the marketplace health plans depend on the a.c.a. for their coverage. so these families could see their coverage ripped away if the department of justice gets its way in the courtroom. and if the department is victorious in its litigation, they'll also take away the best tool we have for combating the opioid epidemic, the medicaid expansion. in new hampshire more than 11,000 people receive substance use disorder treatment thanks to the a.c.a.'s medicaid expansion. and access to those services will be gone without the

affordable care act. at a time when so many families are struggling with sky high prescription drug prices, a victory by the department of justice in this case would increase prescription drug costs for granite state seniors who currently save an average of $1,100 a year thanks to the a.c.a.'s medicare part d drug discount program. and that's not all. if the courts strike down the affordable care act, insurers would once again be able to exclude coverage for prescription drugs and the f.d.a.'s approval pathway for less expensive biosimilar medications would be invalidated. so i've been watching these ads on behalf of president trump and the administration that talk about his commitment to lowering prescription drug prices and the importance of the pathway for biosimilar medications that are basically generic drugs for

biologics. and yet this pathway to approve those less costly biosimilar medications would be invalidated if the affordable care act gets struck down. so the stakes are really just too high for us to continue the partisan bickering aaround the affordable care act. we should be coming together to tell the justice department to defend the law of the land. that's why i filed an amendment to the commerce, justice, and science appropriations bill that would prohibit the justice department from using federal funds to argue against the affordable care act in court. that's why we need to support the congressional review act vote that we will have this week that would ensure that people with preexisting conditions are not going to be cut off of their health insurance when they are tricked into buying junk plans

through this administration's deceptive advertising. this friday is the start of the 2020 open enrollment season for the marketplace coverage under the affordable care act. and at this important juncture, we should be sending a very clear message that the department of justice should defend the law of the land and that the administration's promotion of junk plans should not continue. if we fail to do so, we're going to be endangering vital access to care for millions -- tens of millions of americans. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i'd note the absence of a quorum. nope, take it back. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. durbin: i thank my colleague from new hampshire for taking it back. and it's my honor to come to the floor to speak on an issue that is important to so many americans. let me start at the outset before i move unanimous consent on a specific piece of legislation to say that i believe that the change in the affordable care act, which prohibited discrimination against people because of preexisting conditions, is one of the most fundamental changes in health insurance in america. who among us doesn't have a member of their family or a friend with a preexisting condition? there was a time, of course, that because of that, people were denied any coverage or charged exorbitant amounts of money. over-wellcomeingly, -- overwhelmingly, we need that if we're going to have a health insurance system that really serves the entire nation, we cannot allow health insurance

companies to pick and choose. prior to the affordable care act's passage in 2010, health insurers charged people with preexisting conditions higher monthly premiums or simply denied them coverage altogether. health insurance companies used to impose annual and lifetime caps on what they could pay for. these arbitrary limits disproportionately hurt people with preexisting conditions who much needed ongoing, intensive medical care. and health insurance companies before the affordable care act used to refuse coverage of certain health care services that people needed with preexisting conditions. prescription drugs, hospital visits, mental health and substance abuse treatment, maternity and newborn care. the affordable care act changed all that. no more denials or higher premiums for preexisting conditions, an amazing breakthrough. no more annual or lifetime caps on benefits. no more refusal to cover

maternity benefits or doctors' visits. ten years ago every single democrat -- and i was one of them -- voted in favor of the affordable care act and i'd do it again today. it was a law that ensured that these protections for people with preexisting conditions really meant something and were enforceable. ten years ago every single senate republican voted against the affordable care act. since it's been signed into law, house and senate republicans have voted more than 100 times to repeal the affordable care act. their efforts have failed. the one most dramatic effort, which many of us can recall, just a couple of years ago right here in the well of the senate when senator john mccain, republican of arizona, the late-senator john mccain, came to the floor in the middle of the night and cast a no vote. he believed -- and i think he was right, and i'm sure he was right -- when he said you just can't be against something. you have to be for something. the republican side of the aisle

has no alternative to the affordable care act. they're just against it. they don't like it. they don't like the name of it. they don't like obamacare. they don't like obama's administration. they just vote no over and over again. right now there's a pending lawsuit that even will try to eliminate the entire affordable care act, including the protection for people with preexisting conditions. 18 republican-led stated, including the state of texas, brought the suit after congressional republicans eliminated the a.c.a.'s individual mandate. president trump's department of justice supports this bill to eliminate the affordable care act. if this lawsuit is successful, nearly 20 million americans, 600,000 of them living in illinois, could lose their health insurance, and nearly 133 million americans with preexisting conditions, three million in illinois, could once again be at the risk of

discrimination by health insurance companies. as if that weren't bad enough, president trump mass also proposed new rules that will allow states to discriminate against americans with preexisting conditions. this week the senate will be voting on a congressional review act resolution to overturn the trump administration's latest assault on americans with preexisting conditions. senator warner of virginia has offered a resolution of disapproval. it is cosponsored by every single senate democrat. if any senator on the republican side really wants to help people with preexisting conditions, join us. make this a bipartisan effort to tell president trump and his administration it's wrong. we should not discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. and i hope that senate republicans will consider supporting a piece of legislation known as the momma act, m-o-m-m-a. i am cosponsoring t the house

sponsor is the robin kelly of illinois. it would ensure that all pregnant women get the care that they need. why is this important to raise in a modern country like america, with our great natural and medical resources? because the united states is one of only 13 countries in the world where maternal mortality rates are worse now than they were 25 years ago. i'm going to repeat that because it is an incredible statement, though true. the united states is one of only 13 countries in the world where maternal death rates are worse now than they were 25 years ago. fortuitously, the presiding officer is a medical doctor. i know that he's devoted a good part of his professional career to serving people of low-income, limited means. and you'd think when you hear that number about maternal mortality in the united states, well it clearly must be

associated with economic levels, income levels, wealth levels, education levels. turns out, it's not. nationwide, more than 700 women die every year as a result of pregnancy, and more than 70,000 suffer near-fatal complications. more than 60% of the maternal deaths are preventable. the tragedy is even more pronounced when it comes to mothers of color. in the united states, women of color are three to four times more likely than white women to die as a result of their pregnancy. in illinois, six times more likely than white women to die. and when i researched this, went to the university of chicago, asked the ob-gyns there, look into the stats, tell me the story, tell me what's behind this. they said, senator, there's no correlation between income or education attainment and this

death rate among women. it is only a question of color. we're losing new moms, and sadly we're losing babies as well. every year more than 23,000 infants die in the united states, largely due to factors that could be prevented. black infants, twice as likely to die as white infans phants, a -- infants, a disparity greater than it was in the year 1850 in this country. that's why representative kelly, my colleague senator duckworth and i introduced this act. the bill would expand the amount of time that a new mom could keep their health conform. currently medicaid only has to cover women two months part partum after the baby is born. our bill would expand that to a full year. next, the momma act would improve access to dhulas.

too often black women are just not listened to or taken seriously been health care providers. doulas can provide advocacy to women whose voices are being ignored. leader mcconnell has laid it clear that he has no intention allowing the senate to debate and pass legislation. instead, rendering the senate what has been characterized as a legislative graveyard. senator mcconnell says with pride, he will be the grim reaper, his words, the grim reaper. nothing will pass in the united states senate. but i hope -- i hope he'll make an exception for the momma act, which is currently moving through the house of representatives. whether you're pro-choice or whether you're right-to-life, shouldn't we all stand together, democrats, republicans, and independents, and say, let's do

something to eliminate this unacceptable level of maternal mortality in the united states. let's do something to save these babies. let's agree on that part, if we can't agree on anything else. and so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 916 and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: reserving the right to object, this bill is in the jurisdiction of a committee that i'm chairman of, the senate finance committee. i think the senate finance committee has a reputation for doing things in a very bipartisan way and moving a lot of important legislation, like

we moved out of committee for hopefully to get consideration on the floor the bill here, a very bipartisan bill reducing the cost of prescription drugs, as one example. we did that on a 19-9 vote. there's a lot of other things we're working on, some trade legislation. we want to consider hopefully in a bipartisan way the u.s.-mexico agreement. we have an agreement out on encouraging savings and things of that nature. so i want to respond to my friend in a way that -- reminding him how our committee works. and last night was the first time that i've heard there was an interest in moving senator durbin's bill. the bill has not been through the committee process and, therefore, there has been no opportunity to weigh in with what we know and determine what we need. there are a number of programs

focused on reducing maternity -- maternal mortality, and it's unclear how this bill coordinates with those efforts. this bill makes a number of long-term changes to medicaid and the policy -- as well as the budgetary impacts of the unknown -- sun known. i am offering a counterproposal in the medicaid program to address maternal health in identified underserved areas. additional funding is provided for existing maternal and child health service bloc grants. this focus is fully offset by a policy that saves money by focusing on our unlimited -- our limited resources on moms and babies rather than spend on prisoners at a higher percentage

than our most vulnerable populations. so i'm going to offer senator dur -- so i'm going to offer, senator durbin, a proposal. this proposal that i just described -- so i ask the senator to modify his request to include my amendment, which is at the desk. i ask that the amendment 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. the presiding officer: will the senator so modify his request? mr. durbin: mr. president, reserving the right to object, the senator from iowa is my friend. we throw that word around here on the senate floor, and it usually doesn't mean much. but it's true. we're friends. i respect you very much. i think you're a good father, a good grandfather. and i think the time will come -- and i hope soon -- when we

can sit down and take your proposal and my proposal, put them together and make a bill that we'll both be proud of. we've done that before, even to the point of getting the president to sign a bill into law. so for the time being, and because your proposal cuts some medicaid benefits, which are of great concern to me, i'm going to object in the hopes that we can use this opportunity and this moment as a basis for sitting down and finding a bill that we can agree on. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modification. is there objection to the original request? mr. grassley: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent to have floor privileges for a member of my staff, rob givens. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i rise today to honor and pay tribute to one of the most tenacious and dedicated kentuckians i've had the pleasure of knowing, mr. jim milliman. jim began his career in 1964 after graduating from the university of notre dame. he subsequently graduated magna cum laude from the universal of louisville law school in 1970. he married nan and they made their home in louisville, kentucky. they have been married for 48 years. when i first met jim, i knew him as one of kentucky's finest attorneys who represented brown and williamson during the

tobacco litigation and state republicans in election law matters. i knew him as an accomplished managing partner of the louisville based law firm middleton rylinger. i knew him as the fiery conservative cohost who often sat opposite congressman john yarmouth on political show "hot button." he was known for his spirited debate and for not backing down. after over 40 successful years in commercial litigation and numerous awards from his peers such as being named one of the top 50 attorneys in kentucky, jim decided to retire from the law, at least. in 2010, right after i was elected to the senate, i convinced jim to come out of retirement and be my state director for kentucky. i'm truly grateful that he said yes because for nearly a decade jim has served in that role and has been one of my most trusted advisors. anyone who knows jim knows that

he is a force to be reckoned with. he is fiercely loyal, a real problem solver, and a highly accomplished legal mind. moreover, he is an incredibly kind person who cares deeply about his friends and colleagues. when i ran for president, jim spearheaded the approval of a caucus for kentucky so i would not be kept from the ballot for president and the united states senate. recently jim has decided to transition from the daily state director duties into more of an advisory role. considering he tried to retire over ten years ago, i think it's well deserved. no matter in what capacity, i will always be thankful to have jim as a part of my team and an ally and an advisor. he has dedicated so much of his time to the pursuit of liberty and freedom, to defending the principles that made this nation great, and to supporting a pro-kentucky policy agenda. thank you, jim, for your service to kentucky and to this

country. i yield the floor.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that debate time for s.j. res. 52 expire at 12:15 on wednesday, october 30 and that notwithstanding rule 22 the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session of the senate ripen following the disposition of s.j. res. 52. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. wednesday, october 30. further, that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the senate resume consideration of s.j. res. 52 under the previous order. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senators perdue, cassidy, and casey. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: l thank you, madam president. nelson mandela once said that education is the best weapon with which to change the world. today, this morning 51 million students woke up and went to a public school in the united states. each student carries a spark with which to light up the world in their future. unfortunately, today, given the realities that we've seen over the last few years, some of these students are at risk. last week was designated as

america's safe schools week. it was meant as a time to reflect on the steps we're making to protect our children every day. upon reflection, however, one thing becomes very clear. in many cases our public schools have not been designed physically to deal with the student safety issue considering current realities. the consequences of this are heartbreaking. we heard this story too many times. parkland, florida, 17 lives. newtown, connecticut, 27 lives. columbine, colorado, 13 lives. these are some of the darkest days in our country's history, madam president. none of us will ever forget the terror, the tears, and the devastation that these and other communities have felt. for the parents and relatives of these affected, it's a nightmare that many will never wake up from.

this can't be allowed to continue. there's an implicit agreement that when we drop our children off at a school, we want to know that they are going to be kept safe. in many cases today we're not fulfilling that agreement. there are a lot of steps we must take in order to face this crisis. i'm confident that if we come together in a bipartisan fashion and focus on doing what actually works, we can make our schools safer. the united states senate has a chance to get this started right now. last month in a bipartisan effort senator collins, and tillis joined me in the school safety clearinghouse act. this will protect students and faculty in our public schools in america. the school safety clearinghouse act will codify a recommendation from president trump's federal commission on school safety to

create a federal clearinghouse containing all the best practices for designing safer schools. the techniques contained in the school safety clearinghouse will come from the brightest engineers, architects, researchers, and educators in the country. it will be like a library that schools can trust when making critical decisions in talking about physical upgrades in their environment. it's imperative that schools have the best design information because design flaws in school buildings are placing students and faculty at risk every day. when drafting this bill, our office met with max shakter whose son alex was tragically killed at the marjory stoneman douglas high school massacre in parkland, florida. not that long ago. on that awful day the murderer fired through the window of alex's classroom door and murdered alex and two of his

classmates senselessly. had the glass been stronger or had the window been designed with an obstructed view, alex might be alive today. there are simple things that could have prevented that. facing design flaws like these are a simple matter that we need to take a step toward today to make our schools safer. thankfully most schools understand this and they're doing everything they can today to close this security lapse. in august i saw this firsthand when i toured an elementary school in forsythe county, georgia with georgia's first lady. the elementary school has taken incredible steps with the grants from the state to enhance safety measures. using this grant money made available by governor kemp, mashburn elementary resphoirsed doors to -- reinforced doors to

every classroom and has new protocols and is able to prevent tragedy from occurring. and the best thing it's done in recent years is to develop a very close relationship with the local police force and sheriff's department. as a matter of fact, they have a sheriffs deputy in their school every day. every school in the country wants to upgrade their safety. the problem is that many schools don't simply have the information they need to make the best choices. the school safety clearinghouse act will close this information gap once and for all. this is not a top-down government program, by the way. the school safety clearinghouse will never have an unfunded mandate, make any recommendations, or force any school to take any action it doesn't want. rather, the school safety clearinghouse act will empower schools, communities, and states, not the federal government, to make the decisions for themselves. here in america, it doesn't matter if you have big dreams or humble ones. this is the land of opportunity. everyone has a right to pursue

their own happiness. a good education is, as we know, the best way to start that. i learned that from my parents, both of whom were public school teachers. i saw it happening today through my three grandkids. in this country, we promise all our kids a good education. we now need to promise a safe education as well. the school safety clearinghouse act is a step that we can take right now, right here in this body to fulfill that responsibility. we have no time to waste. every day, students across the country attend school to learn, grow up, and build their lives. the longer we wait to secure our schools, the higher the chance that some of these students won't come home. this is not all we need to do. there are so many other things we need to do in addition. this is just a first step, madam president. if this bill helps to make one school safer, if it saves just one life, then it will be worth it. let's get it done. thank you, madam president. i yield back.

mr. cassidy: madam president.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i was presiding before the president was, and i heard several speeches from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speaking about the 1332 waiver process that the trump administration is using to lower insurance premiums, and the kind of common refrain is that this is a terrible thing, that we're erodeing protections that were in the affordable care act and we should preserve the affordable care act as it is. and this is so ironic, madam president, because the people who want to get rid of obamacare right now are actually running for president on the democratic side of the ticket. if you ask bernie sanders if he wants to replace obamacare, he raises his hand. if you ask elizabeth warren if she wants to replace obamacare and force people to give up their employer-provided insurance, she raises her hand. now, why do the presidential candidates, democratic presidential candidates sit there and say hey, let's get rid

of obamacare, and when the administration does something positive to lower premiums, my democratic colleagues stand up and decry this kind of assault upon whatever value they are speaking to? i think the democratic candidates running for president are so aware that health care costs under obama have skyrocketed. let's see if i can find my figures here, but it's quite remarkable, madam president. here we go. madam president, let's just speak a little bit about what has happened. since 2008, the -- 2013, deductibles for someone with single coverage has increased by 53%. and despite deductibles going up to, say, $10,000, premiums have increased 20%. so the patient's out-of-pocket

exposure is increasing both with the deductible and with their premium. for a family of four in louisiana, we have looked on healthcare.gov just walking here. $25,000 for the policy with an over $10,000 deductible. now, madam president, this is not affordable. so clearly there is a concern about affordability. that's what the trump administration has been trying to address and, frankly, that's what bernie sanders and elizabeth warren wish to have americans sacrifice their employer-sponsored insurance to address. but my democratic senate colleagues don't want to do this. they would rather have all the protections of obamacare, even if you cannot afford the policy. and truly, that was what we are to now. now they then again speak of the waivers that the trump administration is giving, somehow saying these are terrible things. but let me point out that in the seven states with 1332 waivers

granted under the trump administration, premiums -- health insurance premiums have decreased by 7.5%. some states have had a double-digit reduction. maryland, for example, -- and i'm going to come back to maryland -- has had a 30% reduction in their health insurance premiums under the 1332 waiver given by the trump administration. north dakota had a 20% reduction. and what about if you didn't get a waiver? madam president, in my state, which did not apply for a waiver, premiums have risen -- are expected to rise 10% this coming year. 10%. so the family of four paying $25,000 a year with a $10,000 deductible will pay $27.500 next year, with a 12,500-dollar deductible, meaning they will be

out almost $40,000, madam president, $40,000 from their health insurance. i suspect there is a lot of families in my state that wouldn't mind if we applied for a waiver if we could just lower premiums instead of seeing out-of-pocket expense continue to rise. now, there is a little bit of an irony here. maryland has a legislature dominated by democrats, and they actually got a 1332 waiver. so my democratic colleagues are speaking out about how terrible these waivers are, they should look back to states which democrats control who are applying for these waivers. i'm told that montana has a waiver. montana with a democratic governor, a democratic governor who is running for president on the democratic side of the ticket. apparently, that person felt as if it was something he would sign into law and otherwise approve because it would be beneficial for the people in his state. i don't know why my democratic

senate colleagues want americans to pay more for insurance. why do they insist on continuing to advocate for policies which make health care, health insurance so unaffordable? this is personal to me. aside from being an american, wanting all to have coverage. for 25 years, i worked in a hospital for the working poor, for the uninsured. trying to bring health care to those who could not otherwise afford. it has been my life mission, if you will, as a physician to try to get health care to those who cannot have it. folks want to get this great policy, but don't worry. it's a great policy if you can just afford it. like the greek myth tantilus, where you get the word tantalize from, where the prize is just beyond the reach, always there to tempt but you can never have. so you have a family making

$120,000 a year having to pay $25,000 for insurance with a $10,000 deductible, they are sacrificing so many things, it's almost tantalizing. but we are sure that this is the better state of affairs. now, what the administration has done, they have given states flexibility to craft affordable options for families that do not have subsidies. it respects the fact that some states are different than other states. imagine that. alaska is different than rhode island. alaska, if you laid it across a map of the lower 48, would stretch from georgia to california, but has fewer people than rhode island, and rhode island, which is a postage stamp compared to alaska but has more people, those states are different, so allow them to have different health care systems. and by the way, when you do this, we are assured by the administration that they continue to enforce protections for those with preexisting conditions and all other things that we as americans, that we as

republicans, that i as a physician who have spent my life caring for the uninsured value. so, madam president, if health care is not affordable, it is not available. and what we have seen by the folks on the left who are concerned about health care costs is a doubling down on government control. they want to go for medicare for all. they want to take away the employer-sponsored insurance. but at least they acknowledge a cost of the problem. what my senate colleagues are not doing, the ones that are speaking today, is acknowledging that cost is a problem. and you can have the greatest plan in the world, and if it is unaffordable, then that greatness is ironic. it is on a piece of paper, but it's not real in someone's life. but we what we have seen is that states when they come to the federal government requesting permission to put in a program which is specific to the circumstances in their state, they are not only covering the citizens of their state,

continuing to have protections for those with preexisting conditions, but they're also lowering premiums by as much as 30%, and that is a good thing, and i have no clue why my democratic colleagues do not want to see premiums lowered by 30%. madam president, thank you, and i yield the floor.

mr. cassidy: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 367. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 367, condemning the who are ific -- horrific attack in dayton, ohio. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged. mr. cassidy: 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. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 2667, s.

s. 1678. calendar number 237. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1678, a bill to express support for taiwan's diplomatic alliances around the world. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute -- that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed than the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 233, s. res. 183. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 233,

s. res. 183, reaffirming the vital role of the united states-japan alliance and promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the indo-pacific region and beyond. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, preamble be greed to and -- agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to calendar number 234, s. res. 2366. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 236, reaffirming the strong partnership between tunisia and the united states and supporting the people of tunisia and continued pursuit of democratic reforms. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. cassidy: i know of no further debate on the measure. the presiding officer: is there

further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to than the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with to this intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 235, s. res. 277. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 235, s. res. 277, remembering the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the argetine center. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. cassidy: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be

considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cassidy: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 3344, an act to amend older americans act of 1965 authorize appropriation it's for fiscal years 2020 to 2024 and for other purposes. mr. cassidy: i ask for a second reading, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will receive a second reading on the next legislative day. mr. cassidy: i yield.

mr. casey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum call. the senator is recognized. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i rise tonight to talk about health care which is an issue that obviously commands a lot of attention, but lately, frankly, not enough attention here in the senate. irli'll focus in particular on e report that we're issuing today that will talk about one aspect of some of the problems we're having in our health care system right now that a lot of americans may not be aware of. they'll probably be more aware when they hear about the report that i have. but i think we should start from the basic premise that we have made tremendous progress in the last number of years in access to health care, health care coverage. we know, for example, that

between the years 2010, the year that the patient protection and affordable care act was passed, between that year and the year -- the end of 2016 so basically just a matter of six years, something on the order of 20 million-plus americans gained health insurance coverage. we went from roughly the number of uninsured in the country at a little more than 47 million in 2010. that went down to 27 million, a little more than 27 million in 2016. so over the course of just six to seven years, 20 million fewer people were uninsured. that's a great measure of progress on an issue where most people said there's no way you can get 20 million more people insured.

very few americans thought that was possible until it actually happened. unfortunately, that progress, the progress being the diminution of the reduction of the uninsured population is unfortunately not just flattening out but is actually getting worse. the number of uninsured americans is actually going up now. and that's a giant step backwards in a country that not only reduce the uninsured number by 20 million-plus but provided in the same bill the patient protection and affordable care act, the patient protection part of that ushered in all kinds of reforms that gave those with insurance, those who had insurance before 2010, those who are paying their premiums but had their lives and their coverage in the hands of insurance companies who had

power over their lives to the extent that someone with a preexisting condition would not be treated, would not be covered because of the preexisting condition. the patient protection of the affordable care act changed that for tens and tens and tens of millions of americans in addition to the coverage gains that i just mentioned. but for just for point of reference, i'll mention the recent numbers. the census bureau back in just september of this year said, and i'm quoting from a report from kaiser health news, mr. phil gallowitz, who was talking about the census report said the following. quote, for the first time in a decade the number of americans without health insurance has risen by about two million people in 2018 according to the

annual u.s. census bureau report released tuesday. this tuesday being a date in september. quote, the census found that 8.5% of the u.s. population went without medical insurance for all of 2018, up from 7.9% in 2017. unquote. so what he was referring to was the census bureau that said the number of uninsured went up, up by 1.9 million people. that didn't happen just by accident. it happened because of some of the steps taken by the administration and by those that support the administration. so we've got to be focused on reversing that decline and getting the number of uninsured down, getting more americans covered, making sure that more americans have basic protections. what is particularly egregious and disturbing about this trend is those suffering the most tend

to be children. for example, another analysis by the -- by georgetown university says, and i'm quoting, 4.3 million kids are uninsured in 2018, a statistically significant increase of 425,000. unquote. so what georgetown is telling us in that analysis is that that diminution of those who are insured, have insurance, is rising by more than 400,000 among children, among children. so the united states of america which made great strides in the mid-1960's when the medicaid program was enacted into law which helped reduce the number of children who are uninsured, which helped reduce the number

of children who did not have access to quality health care and are ushered in a brand new health care program for children and people with disabilities and seniors needing long-term care, the medicaid program, the kids -- you could call it the kids, seniors, and disability program for health care, the same country, the united states of america then made greater progress decades later when the children's health insurance program came into effect. voted on here in the 1990's with bipartisan support. sustained over time by bipartisan support. sustained in many states by republican and democratic governors. but, but despite the medicaid program and the advances for children, despite the children's health insurance program and the advances for children and despite the advances brought about by the patient protection affordable care act and advances

for children in that, now we're seeing a reversal. are we going to be satisfied? are we going to say that we're the country that we want to be, that we claim to be if now we're moving backwards on children's health insurance that that 400,000 -- 425,000 fewer children have health care in 2018, that that is what we're going to settle for in the united states of america? that is an abomination. that's a stain on our country. and anyone who's not in the business of reversing that and getting that number up, covering more children, making sure that children have health care coverage shouldn't be involved in any government, shouldn't run for public office if that's what your attitude is. either you don't care about that or you think that's actually a measure of progress. so we've got some work to do in

the united states senate and the united states house of representatives and the administration to make sure that when they measure this again in later -- later in 2019 or in 2020, that that number is coming down, that we're reducing the uninsured, that we're reducing the number of children who are uninsured. it's going to be difficult to do that and to make progress on that when you consider what the administration supported by republicans in the house and the senate have done lately. they've done three things that are setting us backwards. one is supporting a lawsuit in the fifth circuit court of appeals which will destroy the affordable care act. it will destroy it. and we should be arguing against that lawsuit. and it's highly likely or at least likely, i'll say -- i

don't want to be that pessimistic -- but it's likely that that lawsuit will prevail. and the affordable care act will be wiped ai -- wiped aiway, declared -- a away, declared unconstitutional by the supreme court down the road were it to take that case upon appeal. that's not good for america, for lots of reasons. all those americans? more than 130 million who have a preexisting condition, they will be out of luck in that lawsuit prevails. the protections for pe existing conditions -- preexisting conditions will be taken aiway after having -- away after having been granted for the first time basically a decade ago to tens and tens of millions of americans. a lot of other adverse consequences come from that lawsuit succeeding. so every member of the senate should be against that lawsuit. now some say well, we have a

better idea. well come forward with your better idea and figure out a way, if you can, to provide coverage for 20 million people, to provide protections for those who have a preexisting condition, provide the same protections a different way, if you can. but don't say to the country that we're supporting a lawsuit that will take all those protections away and you don't have anything to replace it with. you have nothing that's been enacted into law or nothing that's been proposed that will be commensurate with the protections, the coverage gains and the protections of the patient protection and affordable care act. we could be weeks aiway from that lawsuit -- weeks away from that lawsuit succeeding. that's problem number one -- threat number one i'd call it. threat number two are proposed cuts to medicare and medicaid. the administration proposed cutting the medicaid program

that i just referred to a couple of minutes ago the children's disability and long-term nursing home care program, that's what medicaid does, helps people get into nursing homes, helps a lot of middle-class families afford nursing home care, long-term care. helps about 40% of american children with health care and helps a lot of individuals, especially children with disabilities, have the therapies, the treatments, the protections that they need because they have a disability or sometimes more than one disability. that's a medicaid program. what's the administration want for do? they want to cut it by $1.5 trillion. no one here should support that kind of a cut. but not only do some people in here support it by their silence, by their assent, many here are champions of that,

strongly advocating for that kind of a cut. so we've got to fight against that, too, the cuts to medicare and medicaid. and then threat number three, one being the threat of the lawsuit, two being the threat of the cuts it medicare and medicaid -- to medicare and medicaid. the third threat is the sabotage that's been undertaken from day one of the administration. and on the republican side, i would hope that someone would speak up against this. haven't heard much. been listening. haven't heard much about those who might claim to not be in favor of sabotage. here's one example of sabotage, the report i referred to earlier. we just issued this report today. health care sabotage online, a warning to consumers. and here's what we did. we started calling all over pennsylvania and doing research on what was advertised for these short-term duration health care

plans. by known in the vernacular here in washington by the phrase junk plans. why do we say they are junk? well, we say that because these are plans that until recently would only last -- you're only allowed to have them in place for three months. but the administration changed that by rule. so now these plans are available -- you can purchase a plan like this for a year. and then you can renew it for up to three years. what happens? well, often people are deceived into signing up for plans that don't have the protections they thought it would have. they don't have the protections that i think most americans have come to expect. here's the first finding in the report. when searching online for health insurance plans, it's difficult to differentiate between paid advertisements and search results.

we just had an example today of a man in pennsylvania who told us that when he went online and did some investigation and then was talking to someone on the phone who was selling him insurance, they said it's got all the protections of the affordable care act. but of course it didn't. and he was deceived. there's lots of stories about people being deceived by false advertising, by misleading advertising. even when you go to -- you may go to a page after you've done a search. and on that page it might say healthcare.gov which is the right place to go if you want to enroll. but sometimes healthcare.gov has nothing to do with it. it's a -- it's advertised as what healthcare.gov offers but it doesn't offer that.

it offers a junk plan and people are in real trouble when they sign up for the wrong plan. so the first thing folks should do is make sure that they carefully examine these paid advertisements so they don't get into a plan that's going to prevent them from getting the coverage they need. the second finding that we concluded was paid advertisements for health insurance are often misleading and fail to fully disclose very important information. we found that as well. the third finding in the report, the third and final finding is the following -- advertisements obvious use, quote, healthcare.gov, as i mentioned, headlines and titles despite having no affiliation with healthcare.gov. so people see that at the top of the page and it's not designated in the correct way so that you could get to -- you could

actually get to that site. you're sent to some other site, and before you know it, you're clicking onto plans that don't give you the coverage you think you're getting. so there's a lot of misinformation, there's a lot of scam artistry, a lot of other ways to describe it because they have more time to do t they used to only have a three-month time period. it wasn't a really good business model to try to mislead people into your junk plan if you only had three months. now they have a year, or they might have more than a year if the individual were to reenroll for a total of three years. so, instead of having three months for this short-term insurance, which is never meant to be permanent, which is only m.e.p.'s to be an interim -- which is only meant to be an interim policy, now these purveyors of fraud have a lot more time to rip you off and to

get you onto a plan that doesn't provide the kind of protection that you and your family need. so what do we do about it? well, we got to do a couple things. we first and foremost should remind people that this is the time, starting this friday, november 1, for open enrollment. so folks will have six weeks in that open enrollment period. that's good and we should make sure that people are aware that that open enrollment period starts. but while they're searching, while they're making this very consequential decision for themselves or for their family, they should be warned about and be educated about what can happen to them if they are on a site that will not provide the care and the coverage that they need. there's an old expression. forewarned is forearmed. we want to forewarn people so they'll be ready and they'll be vigilant. well, here's a couple things we can do. number one, we've -- i'll just

provide a couple of tips to avoid enrolling in one of these junk plans. number one, to get help picking the health insurance coverage that fits your needs, visit healthcare.gov. in fact, when you type in to do a search, you should type www.healthcare.gov. so that's the best way to get to the right side so just make sure you're on healthcare.gov, not something that looks like healthcare.gov. now, some will have the site, and some people don't realize they're not on healthcare.gov. they are on healthcare.org. that's an old way of referring to a site. healthcare.gov is the correct one. that's tip number one. be careful of that. number two, be aware of how the search engine designates advertisements. be aware that what might look

like something official is really just an advertisement. so be careful about that. number three, always look at the website address, typically displayed in green font, before clicking on a link. so be careful about the website address. number four, pay attention to the words used in the website title and description. title and description. for example, the difference between healthcare.gov and healthcare.org, for example. so folks can take a look at these tips and be ready to enroll through healthcare.gov in a way that will give them the coverage that they want. when they're making that basic choice. but this is what sabotage looks like. when you change a rule from one administration to the other, instead of having a three-month

rule, giving these interim plans a chance to operate in a shorter time frame and you enlarge that to a year, you're sabotage the system when you do that. you're not giving -- you're not providing people a chance for better health care. you're making it much more likely that folks will be deceived because those who are trying to make money here saw this opportunity. as soon as they saw that three months going to one year, they saw a golden opportunity to make money and to rip people off. and it's working. a lot of people are becoming victims of it. so that's sabotage. the other sabotage is limiting the enrollment period. i just mentioned that the open enrollment period starts on friday. that's good. but it's six weeks. used to be longer than six weeks. so you're limiting the time within which someone can avail themselves of the opportunity to get health care, the opportunity to change a plan, or to do

anything like that. another way that sabotage has played out is a limitation on the advertising. guess what? if you limit the advertising by cutting the advertising budget, by at one point it was cut by 90%, guess what? fewer people know about their opportunities to enroll by way of heck.gov or to have by way of healthcare.gov or to often have a subsidy to help pay for the coverage. so that's another way that the administration is engaged in sabotage. and it's working because, as i mentioned, 1.9 million americans or fewer americans are ensured today than -- insured today than a year ago. there is a "new york times" story dated october 22, just

last week. the headline is "medicaid covers a million fewer children," and then the second part of the headline sayings "baby elijah" was one of them." officials point to rising employment, but the uninsured rate is climbing as families run afoul of new paperwork and as fears rise among immigrants. so a series of steps taken by the administration has caused a number of children who are uninsured to go up. that is and should be unacceptable to any american. finally, madam president, i wanted to conclude with one thought about preexisting conditions. when we vote this week, we'll have an opportunity to push back, to push back against some of this sabotage, to make it less likely that people will be misled, to make it less likely

that people will be enrolled in some junk insurance plan. and one of the consequences, one of the adverse consequences of being in the wrong plan, getting the wrong information, and being misled, being deceived, is a lack of coverage for a preexisting condition. so if you have asthma or diabetes or arthritis or high blood pressure, under the old rules, under the old law, you could be discriminated against because you had a preexisting condition. so an insurance company could legally discriminate against you. the law change in 2010, fortunately. so that discrimination was pushed back again, and we finally had a circumstance where families didn't have to worry about preexisting conditions or at least didn't have to worry about coverage or treatment for

a preexisting condition. lo and behold, you find examples in your home states. i was a couple months ago with one of my constituents, reverend shirley cornell. she told me how the affordable care act had completely changed her h.u.s. life. she told me that her husband's $8,000 deductible dropped by about one-third after enrolling in insurance in the affordable care act. she said, and i quote, we are one experience away from chaos and possibly bankruptcy, unquote. so said reverend shirley cornell. because of the protections in place for a preexisting condition, reverend cornell doesn't have to worry about that. she may have to worry about a lot of other things, but that's one thing she doesn't have to worry about. but, unfortunately, if this sabotage keeps marching forward, she may have to worry, a worry

that was lifted from so many families just less than a decade ago now may burden them once again. there's no reason why we have to go back to those days when an insurance company could deny a child coverage because that child had a preexisting condition. could deny an adult treatment or coverage because they had a preexisting condition. there's no reason why we have to go back to those days. but some around here seem to want to go back to those days. the best way to make sure we don't is to fight against what the administration has been doing, to fight against the lawsuit, to fight against the sabotage and to fight against the budget cuts. but i know some don't want to do that. they seem to want to continue to support what the administration is doing. but i hope that folks will take advantage of this opportunity in the next six weeks starting on friday, november 1, and use the

open enrollment period and examine these issues with an eye towards not being deceived, not being brought down a road where you won't get the coverage you need, and maybe we can have some success in putting the junk plan ar tastes out of business -- artists out of business so that they can't deceive people into getting insurance that they expect would provide them more coverage. so, madam president, with that, i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until

the resolution laying out the democratic plan for against president trump. committee will set parameters against the debate. it will consider minutes of resolution. online is he's been better or you can listen live on the freight cspan2 radio app. then thursday the house will vote on the next impeachment inquiry. resolution would affirm the committee his work so far. and what extent authority on investigating committees. it also lays out for the process on which hearings will be open to the public. the house meets thursday morning at nine eastern live on our companion network cspan2. >> were making it easy for you to follow the impeachment inquiry on cspan.org. search video on command for all of the congressional briefings and hearings. as well is the administrations response during the impeachment process.

log on to rap schmidt his webpage at cspan.or cspan.org/impeachment. your fast and easy way to cspan2 his unfiltered coverage anytime. >> bass will be in order. for 40 years cspan2 has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, the public policy events washington dc and around the country. you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, cspan2 is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. cspan2 your unfiltered view of government. >> democratic and republican senators held their weekly caucus meetings today and spoke afterward with reporters. we begin with the republican briefing allowed by the democrats.