the care is better or specialized cares available that's not in va, i think we all believe that that should be available. >> watch book tv every weekend on c-span2. congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind, created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider, c-span, unfiltered view of government. ♪ >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel back in after going into recess a short time ago where all senators classified briefing from syria and the al-baghdadi

raid, senators are expected to work on 2020 spending on several departments including agriculture, commerce, transportation and housing. now the live coverage of the senate. ..

senators are expected work on 20/20 spending on several departments including agriculture, commerce, transportation and housing. while we wait for senators to return, look at remarks on the senate floor dealing with impeachment inquiry against president trump >> on the whistleblower, alex the house of representatives continues its impeachment inquiry into whether the president jeopardize national security by pressuring the york rain to interfere with our elections, the white house , their allies in congress and the media have resorted to despicable tactics to falsely discredit individuals who have provided the house testimony. yesterday lieutenant colonel alexander. men serving on a detail in thewhite house testified before congress .

in ltc vindman's testimony was announced and especially in the past 24 hours he's been vilified by individuals in the media and elsewhere. although he has served our country for more than 20 years, although he is a recipient of the purple heart n after being wounded serving in iraq he has been called derogatory terms and some have gone so far as to call him a spy and question his loyalty to the united states. these attacks are outrageous. they are unacceptable and they are not much unlike the attacks the president and his allies have levied against the whistleblower. >> we take you live to the senate floor. >>

every day. for example, we're not making sure every american has access to affordable, quality health care. we need to lower costs and take on big pharma, and we're not doing that. we're not passing commonsense gun safety legislation that 90% of the voters support, to stop

shootings in the schools, on our streets, in our communities. if we can't pass bills that save children's lives, our democracy is not working. we're not even taking on the most pressing issue facing our planet, climate change. younger generations are urging us to act, but this body is running away from taking any action. the number of grave stones in the majority leader's legislative graveyard where urgent bills are stalled and buried steadily mounts. bills keep going in to the majority leader's graveyard. and the congress will not and cannot do the people's business when the bills to fix our democracy also rest in that graveyard. the house of representatives overwhelmingly passed the for the people act, h.r. 1. they passed that in march. at the same time i introduced

the senate companion to the for the people act which has the support of all 47 democrats and independents in the senate. but leader mcconnell has buried the for the people act along with a pile of other good and necessary bills. the for the people act repairs our broken campaign finance system, opens up the ballot box to all americans, and lays waste to the corruption in washington. these are all reforms that the american people support. why won't the senate majority leader let us vote on them? madam president, there's hardly a day that goes by that we don't see evidence of why it's so important that we pass the for the people act. foreign influence in our elections is only growing. 2016 was just the start.

associates of the president's personal lawyer have been indicted for laundering foreign money into our elections. the president's lawyers under investigation for the same. political ads from foreign sources are flooding social media. our bill fights foreign tampering in our democracy. it prohibits domestic corporations with foreign control from spending money in u.s. elections. it cracks down on shell companies used to launder foreign money into our elections. our bill makes sure american elections were decided by american voters without foreign interference. it protects our democratic institutions, increases oversight over election vendors, requires paper ballots, and supports security upgrades for states' voting systems. this body should have gotten serious about election security immediately after the 2016

election. but under the majority leader's direction, we have not done that. and at a time of increased foreign interference, the president has invited foreign assistance in any way it might benefit him, personally, politically, or financially. madam president, day in and day out we see this president taking full advantage of his position to benefit himself, his family, and his political prospects. the president never divested, he never formed a blind trust for his assets. so now every day we see foreign officials and foreign nationals currying favor with the president and padding his pocketbook, whining and dining at trump properties. indeed, mr. giuliani and his two close associates lunched at trump international right here in washington just before these two individuals were picked up

at dulles international airport with their one-way tickets abroad. the same individuals have been charged with illegally funneling foreign money into our democracy. and the president only relented from hosting the next g-7 summit at his dural resort in miami after republicans told them even they couldn't defend that, all the while the president calls the emollients clause intended to stop these very abuses phony. the for the people act requires the president to fully disclose his or her financial interests and disclose the last ten years of tax returns, something this president has never done. it requires the president to fully divest and transfer all assets to a blind trust. the american people deserve to know their president is acting in the national interests, not

in his or her own self-interests, or subject to leverage by foreign interests who seek to corrupt our electoral process. the intelligence community has been very clear with their disturbing warnings. adverse foreign interests are actively trying to manipulate our democracy. they did so in 2016 as the mueller report and prosecution from that investigation confirmed and they are trying to do so again in 2020. we are watching it happen in real time before our eyes. these foreign interests are not red or blue, not democratic or republican. they will use whoever they can to pursue their interests, interests that are often opposed to ours or simply corrupt. so we must unite in defense of our electoral system and in defense of the sanctity of our

democracy. like the other bills democrats are seeking to pass this week, the for the people act would provide that protection. the house version, h.r. 1, would do so as well. we want to partner with republicans in these efforts. we're open to negotiation. but while the american people demand that we fix our out-of-control campaign system, make sure elections are secure and root out the corruption in washington, bills to address these issues gather dust on the leader's desk. madam president, i for one will not stop fighting for the comprehensive democratic reforms that we need, for bringing power back to the people where the founders intended it to be. our democracy will always be worth the fight. and once again let me just say senator merkley has been a great partner to work with on the for the people act, and i yield to

him. mr. merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i'm honored to join my colleague who has led this battle for the vision of the for the people act that will restore our we the people democratic republic. here we are on the floor of the senate, an institution that once reverberated with great debates on the great issues our nation faced, issues of war and peace, issues of civil rights, issues of health care and housing and education and infrastructure and living-wage jobs, issues of equal opportunity, issues of environmental pollution, issues that affect the fundamental success of each family in america and our collective success as a nation. but if you're sitting today observing the senate from the

benches up above, you'd be hard-pressed to see any of that because those debates are not happening in the u.s. senate. this chamber is silent on the great issues facing america. now, the majority leader promised before he was majority leader that things would be different under his leadership. he said, and i quote, i said it under my leadership would break sharply from the practices of the reed era in favor of a far more free-wielding approach to problem solving. i would work to restore its traditional role as a place where good ideas are generated, debated, and voted upon. now one of the fundamental principles is that every senator should be able to raise any issue and have the chance to defend it, to present it, to see

it attacked, to respond to those attacks, and have the american people see where we stand. but today the senate is not operating in that manner. the reality is reflected by a different quote from the majority leader. from this past year. he said donald trump is still in the white house and as long as i'm majority leader of the senate, i get to set the agenda, and that's why i call myself the grim reaper. the majority leader is taking great pride in preventing this chamber from being the legislative body envisioned in the constitution where we examine the issues that citizens of our states are presenting to us with great concern asking us to resolve them and take this nation forward. but instead we're deeply mired in the legislative graveyard that the majority leader has been so proud to create. how about the bipartisan

background checks act? it's now engraved on a tombstone. the paycheck fairness act engraved on a tombstone. violence against women on a tombstone. or how about saving the internet or saving our planet, the climate action now act. how about health care? across my state in rural areas in urban areas, everyone want the same fair price even if they have preexisting conditions. that is the fundamental nature of an effective insurance strategy for health care. but the protecting americans with preexisting conditions act has never been debated on this floor. the american dream and promise act, the securing americans federal elections act, the raise the wage act. how about the equality act that grants every member of our

society, lgbtq americans, the full opportunity to have the doors of opportunity open rather than slammed shut. debated and passed just down the hall each and every one of these bills. but here they haven't been debated. the senate is failing its constitutional responsibility. in fact, during the last two years, there's only been three priorities that have seemed to arisen in this chamber. one was the goal of stripping health care from 30 million americans. it failed by the slimmest of margins. a second is to pack the courts with judges who believe in a supercharged amendment to give power to the powerful rather than power to the people. the third, a $2 trillion tax cut to enrich the richest americans.

in any chamber that truly represents the people, you don't see the goal of destroying health care for 30 million americans and giving $2 trillion to the richest americans. but that's what we've seen here while we fail to see the bills on health care, on housing, on education, on infrastructure, on living wage jobs, the fundamentals by which the american families prosper. and why is it that this chamber is now a completely-owned subsidiary of the most powerful people in this country? it's because of the fundamental corruption of our constitutional system. starting with gerrymandering. many of us hear that phrase equal representation and understand that we're talking about fundamental fairness of distributed power, but gerrymandering is the opposite of that.

and the supreme court has given complete license to extreme partisan gerrymandering, instead of defending the constitutional vision of equal representation. it's a principle in a democracy and in a republic that the citizens choose their legislators, the legislators don't choose their citizens. but that legislation to address that, to create nonpartisan commissions, to prevent that gerrymandering hasn't been debated on the floor of this chamber. a second piece of corruption -- voter suppression. the supreme court opened the doors by gutting the voting rights act, again failing to defend the vision of the constitution. but have we remedied that here on this floor? have we addressed that fundamental corruption in which all kinds of tactics are created to prevent people from voting across this country, all kinds

of clever i.d. laws to disempower communities that are minority communities or college communities or poor communities or native american communities. we have not. and then there's perhaps the most vicious form of corruption -- the dark money flowing flew our campaign systems. jefferson was very clear that if you have government by the powerful, you end up with laws for the paul. -- for the powerful. so you have to have distributed power so that the power of the people results in laws that reflect the will of the people. that's the difference between the vision of our constitutional system here in the united states of america and the system of kingships that dominated europe. but, because of the corruption of dark money in our campaign system, it's created the

concentration of power, the exact opposite of what jefferson laid out and our founders laid out in our constitution. we start our constitution with those powerful first three words, we the people, because that's the vision of our constitution, not we the powerful, not we the privileged. so a bill has been crafted, h.r. 1, or for the people act. my colleague from new mexico has led this charge to address this fundamental corruption in order to restore the vision our nation was founded on, because if we restore that foundation, then we would be addressing health care on the floor of the senate, making it more affordable, stopping the price-gouging of americans, the challenges of access in communities across this country. we'd be addressing the shortage of housing that is driving a

homeless epidemic in this country, partly because of the economics, the structure of our economy, and partly because of mental illness and drug addiction. we'd be addressing education, because education is the full participation. and yet today we've seen a shrinkage of the opportunities through apprenticeships for working people and through college, affordable college for, if your dreams take new that direction, you weren't previously burdened by debt the size of a home mortgage. we'd be addressing infrastructure and jobs. we'd be addressing the environmental challenges our planet faces, if we restore the vision of our constitution. this for the people act is the most important piece of legislation because everything else we care about offfff ameris is going to fail if we let this

chamber be controlled by powerful special interests through this corrupted system. so let's take it on, let's take on the gerrymandering and the voter suppression and the dark money. let's have the courage to debate it on this floor because that's what we were elected to do was to work on the big challenges facing our nation, and there is perhaps no bigger challenge than this. i yield back to my colleague from new mexico. mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent for the finance committee to be discharged from further consideration of s. 949, the senate proceed to its 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. the presiding officer: is there objection?

mr. blunt: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: reserving the right to object, i'd like to talk about this bill for a minute. in march the house passed a bill that would give the federal government unprecedented control over elections in this country, despite the fact that for more than 200 years we've had a history of state-run elections and that very diversity is part of the strength of our system. i objected to the request at that time to pass that bill. senate bill 949 appears to me to be almost exactly the same bill. apparently the powerful special interests that my friend, mr. merkley, talked about are the state governments, because that's where we're taking authority from here. we're taking authority from the state governments. the for the people act is really for the federal government act. it represents a one-size-fits-all federal power grab that would take control of

election administration away from the states at great expense to the american people. it requires all the states to fit into frankly what house democrats saw as a narrow view of what elections should look like. and just as frankly what house democrats for 20 years have had in mind that would in every case in their view give them an advantage in the election process. the security of our elections comes in a large part from the very diversity of the way they're set up and the way they're administered. this bill would really undermine that decentralized system. i spent 20 years as an election official. part of it as the election official, the chief election authority in what was then the third-largest county in our state and the rest of it as the secretary of state, the chief election official. i know for a fact that people who conduct these elections are

unbelievably focused on a fair process before election day and on election day. and i also know for a fact that the very fact that they can't blame some faraway regulator on their inability to do what needs to be done makes a difference. i've seen that happen at 6:00 in the morning. i've seen it happen at 12:00 at night, as the last precinct comes in. i've seen it happen as people are doing everything they can to be sure that people that are trying to vote are able to vote. i've seen the development of the provisional ballot system that the states all use now if someone for some reason believes they should vote and the records aren't there a how that. -- aren't there to allow that. so there are a lot of things that senator merkley understands better than i do, i'm sure. there are a lot of things that senator udall understands better than i do. and i look better to the times when i have and will continue to seek advice from them on those issues. i am pretty sure that this is an

issue that at least from the point of view of the strength of the local election system and the state election system i have reason to have confidence. in fact, former president obama expressed the same view when he said -- and this is his quote -- there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig america's elections in part because they are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. he said that late-summer, early fall, 2016. i think that was true when he said it. i think it is true now. this bill still states how to run every aspect of their ex-wills. it takes away -- of their elections. it takes away their authority to determine their process of voter renal administration. it requires online voter renal administration and if you're trying to focus on election security, online voter renal administration would not be at

the top of that list. it requires automatic voter renal administration. it requires same-day registration. it requires states to accept registrations from people not old enough to vote yet. it dictates the criteria that people can be removed from the voter rolls or can't be. it tells states what type of equipment their states must use, how the ballot counts must be audited. it even goes so far as to tell states what kind of marks must be made on ballot-marking devices and what kind of paper, what kind of paper their ballots must be printed on. it tells states they must offer voter -- early voting sites. it tells them that those early voting sites, where they must be, what hours they must operate. the bill doesn't stop at election administration. it tells states how they

redistrict. how they establish redistricting commissions, who can be appointed that that commission, how the lines are drawn. this would be a major federal takeover of a system that would not benefit from that takeover. it also creates a program for public financing for elections, tax dollars to politicians to run elections with. and so, madam president, i do object to the unanimous consent request, and i think for good reason. mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. udall: madam president, this bill does just the opposite. it supports states. it doesn't take over from states. the states have asked us for help when it comes to actions like cybersecurity and other things that are happening out there. it roots out foreign interference in our elections, which happens in federal elections, it happens in state elections, and i think can only

be done at the federal level. and states -- the distinguished senator from missouri says that these things that they're being required, states are adopting all these. states are moving very aggressively forward with things like automatic registration and moving to make it easier to vote and we're trying to lay a consistent basis so the states know how to operate. so this is a good bill, it's a solid bill, it puts the american people back in charge. thank you, madam president. mr. blunt: i might just respond by saying if states are adopting these things because they're a good idea, that's one thing. for washington, d.c., to tell them they have to do them because we think it's a good tied -- it's a good idea, that's another thing. and if my friend from new mexico is right, and states are adopting many of these changes, i guess there would be no

particular reason to have the bill. and i am pleased that this is a bill that is going to take further study before it's ready to come to the senate floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, the substitute amendment to h.r. 3055 contains the appropriations committee reported versions of four bills, agriculture, interior, transportation, housing and urban development, one bill and commerce, justice, science and related agencies. i was very excited to see today's earlier cloture vote which passed 88-5 to mean that we can see those four bills to help fund government move forward. no, the commerce, justice, and

science portion or c.j.s. was reported out of the committee on a unanimous 31-0 vote. and i particularly care about this bill as ranking member on that subcommittee. this bill provides the -- the c.j.s. bill provides $78 billion to protect us from terrorists, to warn us about climate change, to enable fair trade, promote manufacturing and sustainable fisheries, partner with state and local law enforcement, and provide resources for the census to count every person in the united states fairly and accurately. c.j.s. subcommittee chairman moran and i took a collaborative approach to drafting this important bill. the c.j.s. subcommittee held substantive hearings, considered 1,564 individual and group

requests from 75 senators, and worked in a bipartisan way to meet the needs of the nation and our individual states. under the constitution since 1790, every ten years the united states has conducted the census. and we only get one chance every ten years to get it right. in addition to determining the number of representatives each state will have, federal programs rely on census data to distribute more than $900 billion annually. nearly $4 billion of that goes to my home state of new hampshire. chairman moran and i have worked together to make sure the census has the resources it needs. the bill provides $7.6 billion for the bureau of the census, nearly double the amount provided in fiscal year 2019. this fully funds the life cycle estimate for the 2020 census along with contingencies that

have been recommended by secretary ross but were not requested in the budget. the bill also directs the census bureau to invest in partnership and communication efforts in hard-to-count errors in order to increase self-response rates and offset the need for expensive door-to-door follow-up. and once again the subcommittee has provided increases to law enforcement and grant programs that fight gun violence and violent crime. the bill includes at least a 3% increase for justice department law enforcement agencies. more than $476 million higher than the f.y. 2019 level than the bureau, alcohol, -- the drug enforcement administration, the f.b.i., and the marshal service and especially important, we've provided $131 million for the f.b.i.'s national instant criminal background check system, the nics system, 24 million more than last year.

and this system is the key to making sure that firearms are purchased legally and to help keep weapons out of the hands of those who wish to do harm. the bill includes increases for states to improve record submission to nics and for mental health courts. and we continue to provide the full $100 million authorized for stop school violence act grants. but as we know, gun violence isn't just happening in schools. so we've included funding for other grant programs like $8 million for community-based violence prevention and nearly 10% more for the office of juvenile justice and delynn defensey prevention to help keep children and their families safe in their neighborhoods. now, we're also addressing another form of violence facing our law enforcement officers, and that is police suicide. i'd really like to provide more statistics regarding this important issue of police

suicide. but unfortunately i can't and neither can anybody in this body because no federal agencies collect date to on -- data on this subject. that's why in the c.j.s. bill we direct the justice department to begin a national data collection to report on police suicides so we can all better understand the scope of the problem. we also direct the department to report on best practices for officer mental health and wellness programs including peer mentoring. one thing we do know about police suicides, though, we lose more police to suicide each year than we do to officers killed in the line of duty. and our police officers need help now. so we've been able to add $3 million for grants to allow state and local law enforcement to provide improved mental health services, training to reduce the stigma of officers seeking help, and programs to

address resiliency for departments and officers to handle repeated exposure to stress and trauma. this is an issue, sadly, we know all too well in new hampshire where in the last couple of months in the city of nashua, our second largest city, we lost a very much appreciated, well respected and loved police officer to suicide. we were lucky because the chief of the nashua police department and the family of that officer were willing to talk about that suicide to raise the concern about this issue so that we can know and try and address it. another area of funding in this bill that will help our first responders in addition to the support to our state and local governments and community organizations is the $505 million in dedicated grant

programs to fight substance abuse including opioids and to fight drug trafficking. this amount is $37 million higher than the fiscal 2019 level and127.5 million higher than the budget request. now in part because of the resources we brought to bear on the opioid crisis in new hampshire and throughout new england, the substance use disorder epidemic is developing and changing, and we're now seeing a rapid rise in the use and trafficking of methamphetamines. when efforts are focused on preventing and stopping one drug, sadly we see others gain traction and that's what's happening. so after hearing from local law enforcement and community organizations, this bill provides more flexibility to allow communities to respond to a variety of substance abuse issues in addition to opioids and the comprehensive opioid

stimulant and substance abuse program. communities should not be turning away individuals who have substance use disorders because we have a narrow definition of the programs that can help. now, another way this bill seeks to keep granite state communities vibrant, and this helps other communities that depend on coastal economies, is we reject the elimination of grants that help our coastal communities and their ecosyste ecosystems. the bill keeps key weather satellites on track and provides increase for job-supporting programs like sea grant, coastal zone management grant, the national oceans and coastal security fund, and the nationallesnationalresearch sys. it includes continued funding to prevent a burdensome and costly at sea monitoring fee from being imposed on new hampshire and

other new england fishermen. i've heard directly from our fishermen in new hampshire that without this support, they would have to stop fishing and declare bankruptcy. and so many seacoast communities rely on a strong fishing industry. that's why the bill also includes $2.5 million for new england ground fish research, including looking at measures to improve stock assessments. and beyond the national oceanic and atmospheric administration or noaa, the bill also supports strong investments in research and development at the national science foundation, the national aeronautics and space administration, nasa, and the national institutes of standard and technology, nist. the bill includes a 5% increase for nist which is an agency that promotes competitiveness through scientific and technological standards and measurements. and i'm pleased that the bill

provides $2 million for nist to study whether firefighters are subject to pfas exposure, a chemical that's been linked to serious adverse health implications. and what we have seen is that we think that the actual equipment that is used by so many firefighters has pfas chemicals in that equipment so that while risking their lives fighting fires, firefighters also may be exposed to a dangerous chemical that can also affect their health. and the last thing our firefighters need when they're on duty is to be concerned about the safety of their own firefighting gear. now, within nasa, we've provided balanced funding that enables science supported by decadal surveys supports the international space station, it continues developing and flying new transportation systems, and it allows for an eventual return

to the moon by humans. and we've also provided more than $900 million to restore widely supported programs that the administration proposed to eliminate, programs like space grant, especialscore, the wide field telescope, the ocean system mission and restore l. what's important about these programs is they allow young people, students in every state to be involved with nasa and to implement high priority science objectives and to get excited about space and the opportunities that space investment offers us. now, these are some of the highlights of just the commerce, justice, and science portion of this mini bus. i believe it's a strong, comprehensive bill. i'm proud it's on the floor. i hope it's going to was with as strong a margin as we saw this

morning's vote give us. and i hope that we will be able to enact this bill into law before the current continuing funding resolution expires on november 21. and i want to give credit to all of the members of both the majority and the minority appropriations subcommittee that helped negotiate this -- our c.j.s. bill and all of the bills that are on the floor. they do tremendous work and they deserve our credit for all of their effort. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. romney: i rise today to talk about two problems that are related. these two problems have been spoken about for i think virtually decades here in this chamber and across the political spectrum. one relates to preserving our extraordinary entitlement

programs, social security, medicare, our highway trust fund, and the like. these programs are very much under threat because within 13 years each of these trust funds, each of these programs will face insolvency. the other problem i want to talk about is the massive overspending, the deficit, and the debt that we have. that's something which republicans and democrats have been speaking about for a long time, although speaking about it less frequently as of late. these two problems are related because two-thirds of our spending at the federal level is automatic. it's associated with our entitlement programs. so let me start with the debt. when i was running for president when i had the chance also to run in the senate, the number one issue among the people in my state was the issue of whether we would stop spending more money than we took in. we took in about $3 trillion last year in tax revenue, but we spent about $4 trillion.

now, there's some people who decided to stop thinking about the deficit, to stop worrying about the debt. but as the debt reaches almost $23 trillion, it's beginning to be a real issue. now, i don't think we're about to face a failed auction where people won't be willing to buy our debt. we are left after all the reserved currency of the world and people want to have american dollars but i'm concerned that the interest is beginning to have an enormous impact on our capacity to meet our priorities. last year we spent almost $300 billion on interest on the federal debt. and over time this debt as we add to it year after year after year is going to mean the burden of interest payments on the american people, gets larger and larger and larger. now, there's a small group of people who say, well, this isn't a problem because interest rates are so low. well, it's not a problem until it ceases being a problem. because if interest rates start creeping up at some point, it can become an extraordinary burden on the american people.

if we're sending hundreds of billions of dollars to people like the chinese and when they use those dollars to confront our military, we have a real problem leading the free world. and so the issue is how come we can't deal with the debt and deficits and why haven't we been able to do so? and there's been effort to do that, though recently it's been quiet. it relates to our trust funds, with medicare, with social security, our retirement programs, social security, the disability program, as well as the highway trust funds. these are scheduled to run out of money within 13 years. and so to deal with this issue, senator joe manchin and myself and senator todd young, senator doug jones, senator kiersten sinema have proposed something called the trust fact. it is designed to save the trust funds associated with these

major programs. it's designed to make sure that we have a process for finally getting balance in social security, both trust funds in social security as well as medicare, as well as the highway trust fund. this is an effort which has been undertaken in the past unsuccessfully, and there are a lot of people who say, well, it can't be done now. but it's got to be done now because if it's not done now, the burden that will fall on our seniors eventually will become extraordinary, and the burden that'll fall on the next generation as they don't know whether social security and medicare can be depended upon is unthinkable. the approach that senator manchin and myself and these other senators have taken is pretty straightforward. we're not laying out a specific plan to change these programs. instead, we have laid out a process for modernizing these programs. and so for each one of these trust funds, our act proposes that the leaders, republicans and democrats in both chambers,

house and senate, both parties, republican and democrat, put together a rescue committee so that goes to work to see if on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, week guest these trust funds on a solvent basis for at least 75 years. that's an effort that will only be successful, again, if both parties agree. if we do get that agreement in any one or each one of these different rescue committees, out of privileged basis, their recommendation, their proposal, their act will be brought to the floor of the house and the senate and voted upon. on that basis, we have a process for actually resolving the insolvency issue that faces social security, medicare, and the highway trust fund, and we also have a pathway to finally get our budget balanced and end the extraordinary growth in our

debt and the burden that interest payments are having on the american people today and in the future. and so i look forward to hearing from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i hope we get great support from people both sides of the aisle to go to work to resolve the impending challenges that we have in these trust funds and in our overall financial status. so i mentioned the name of the senators who are -- i've been working together to put together this trust act. i'd also want to mention a number of congress people who are helping out and original cosponsors, mike gallagher, ed case, and ben mcadams. so again, republicans and democrats, house and senate, together i think we can finally save these essential programs. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, i just want to thank my good

friend, senator romney, for taking this initiative and basically all of us working together. let me say this. we were governors together. governor from massachusetts, governor from west virginia. the bottom line is we had the same balanced budget amendment. we had to work on a daily basis, weekly basis, whatever it took to stay within our budgets, we had to stay within our means and we couldn't put our people in debt. that was something i thought was pretty simple because it is the same thing do you in your personal life, in your small business or large corporation. you live within your means. and if you're going to grow, then you grow basically in a balanced way. as senator romney has said, our debt is almost $23 trillion. you can look back through history when we have hit these numbers, but then if you look back during the war, we weren't worried about balancing the budget during the war, we were worried about do we survive as a

nation? and we did. we were able to bring the debt back down and work within a very prudent manner. then it ballooned up. let me tell you how i signed on to the bowles-simpson. the only time for 40 years when we balanced the budget was up to 2001. that was erskine bowles and john kasich working together. they sit down and worked out a plan and a tax system that worked for america and at it wod so well that we were send out basically surpluses. we were told that by 2006 we would be debt-free on the path we were going. well, we had 9/11 come up, we had two wars we never paid for the first time. and i tell people, i said, if you're a democrat and you want to blame republicans, go ahead. they're guilty. if you're a republican and you want to blame democrats, go ahead, they're just as guilty. so there's basically blame for

both sides. but sooner or later, you've got to do something. so when erskine bowles and al simpson came together, and said we've got to get our financial house in order, it made sense to me. i just got elected. it was in early 2011. i got elected november 2001 and i started looking. it made a lot of sense. we came so close that that would have been forced to a vote. we think someone has got to have their eye on the ball here because when these interest rates balloon -- and they will -- and people will not put their money in and buy our paper for the low return that we're giving them or no return at times and demanding more, then we're going to have to outbid and it's going to cost us a lot more to do business in our own country. sooner or later we're basically writing checks our kids can't cash. that's about it in a nutshell. and if the children we're putting in -- and we're responsible to leave our children and next generation in

a better shape than we received it -- we've done a truly poorly job. i thank the good senator from utah for basically bringing his fiscal plan that we can work together on and looking at where we are. the road map is pretty clear. if you haven't learned from history, you will make history. and i.t. not going to be a good -- and it's not going to be a good kind of history you're going to make. we've learned that these recessions, these tough times that we've hit -- and let me tell you who it hits the most. in my state i have a very hardworking state, a very rural state, and a state that's not of the highest per capita income in the country by no means. with that, they're the first ones to get hurt. and if we don't really care about social security, if we don't care about the highway trust fund and infrastructure, if we don't care about medicare, this is a life-sustaining influx of money that they have because very few people that work from paycheck to paycheck is roundtable to put money aside --

is able to put money aside to where they don't need the social security and they can pay their own medical bills. i have seen the effects of this, and i can tell you it is not pleasant. we're looking at how do we make sure -- i have people on my side of the aisle to talk about medicare for all. that's aspirational. we can't even pay for medicare for some. the some that have already paid for it and earned it. we're going to be in default by 2025. we're going to be out of funds. social security by 2032 could be out of funds. these are things that are fixable now. they won't be fixable in 2026 for the medicare. it will be too late. social security in 2030-2032, it will be too late. that's just around the corner. highway trust fund, look at the infrastructure. everybody that's run for president within the last decade or so basically have talked

about a big infrastructure package. it's going to be the first thing they do. they get elected and guess what happens? nothing, we don't see an infrastructure package. and i've said this. it's the most politically right thing you can do. a pothole doesn't have an "r" or "d" on it. it will bust your tire and break your rim. doesn't care who you are. these are things we can do to gain the trust of the public, yet we fail to do that. we continue to divide this country an push us apart. this trust act is what brings us back together, it puts our priorities where they should be. all of us have run for political office. we've put our name out there. we go out there and explain to them. we're protecting your social security. if you want to protect the social security, then do something. the trust act does that. we're going to take care of your medicare. you want to take care of medicare? support the trust act. that'll do that. these are things that we can do and do them now.

and we shouldn't wait. we should bring it back to the floor and you should go on record to vote. are you really go to support social security? are you really going to support medicare? then vote. then vote. and if you don't have the guts to vote, that means you don't support social security and don't support medicare and don't quit being a hypocrite going out there campaigning saying you do. that's what it comes down to. we're just trying to fix something in an orderly fashion where everything v. -- where everybody has it. bipartisan, bicameral. if we can't do this, we can't do anything in a bipartisan, bicameral way. i thank my friend, i really do. i thank my friend, senator romney, for doing this. i'm on board. count me in. we have other senators, more than -- not surprising, we have former governors. because this is how we had -- this is how we had to operate. this was our day-to-day operations. during the crisis of 2007-2007,

-- during the crisis of 2007-2010, i used to meet once a week with my finance director. with a recession coming on as hard as it was, we were meeting twice a day trying to stay is ahead of it, figure out how we could go in the hole. but we made it. i've never seen that type of attention here. i've not seen one presidential candidate right now with all of them out there talking about the finances of our country, talking about what the children and the next generation is going to inherit, how they are agriculture go going to be able to -- how they're going to be able to manage. how the mothers and farmers will have social security secured, medicare taken care of. i haven't heard that at all. maybe we can get the dialogue started now. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today to support the funding bill for the defense of our nation. this funding package provides a well-earned, well-deserved pay raise for our troops, the men and women in the -- in uniform, the men and women that i had the privilege of visiting earlier this month, part of the wyoming national guard deployments in multiple places around the world. yet democrats have blocked a key vote. they did it last month. i want to make sure they don't do it again, and it seems that they're doing it for purely political reasons. a partisan blockade of our nation's troops pay raise. it is hard to believe they're doing it but they did it, and it regimes they want to do it again. -- and it seems that they want to do it again.

both parties support our military. they support our military families as well, and they made that promise three months ago. then they went back on the promise. you know, it was part of that bipartisan budget deal that was signed in august. by moving this defense funding measure, republicans are keeping our promises, the democrats are breaking theirs. so now it's time once again to vote. it's time for democrats to stop blocking the bill. it's time to stop playing politics and especially with our troops' paychecks. madam president, we need to pass this bill to fully fund the defense department. it honors our commitment to our troops. it delivers critical resources that our military needs to keep us safe. to keep us strong, keep us prosperous. the bill protects america's standing among our allies and our adversaries. we need to get this done. it also funds health and human

service -- that's what we're looking at as well -- it includes our nation's medical research, it is time for the democrats to get to yes. it's time to keep our promises to the military, it's time to honor our commitment to our troops, and it's time to get on with the business of our nation. it is time to pass the bill. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mrs. blackburn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. a few moments ago senator romney and senator manchin were -- i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. we just heard senators romney and manchin talking about our nation's economic woes and legislation they're handling on a bipartisan basis. and i think it's always a good positive thing when we can approach our work in a bipartisan way. it's what the american people are expecting us to do. and yesterday in our commerce, science, and transportation committee, we had bipartisanship at work again. we had -- we were carrying out

one of the duties we have here in congress, which is to conduct oversight and to make certain that not only the processes of government and the fiscal health of our government are on a firm footing, but also to look at things like consumer protection and public safety. and our hearing yesterday dealt with these deadly and disastrous crashes that had happened with the boeing 737 max. and we know that those crashes occurred and remember that they occurred, one in indonesia and one in ethiopia. and i will tell you, mr. president, in my opinion, the executives from the boeing company tried and they failed to explain to members of the senate commerce committee why they allowed the 737 max aircraft to

reach the commercial market. we discovered that the company's highest echelon neglected the responsibility to ensure that the aircraft met their highest safety standards. it was of concern to us. i don't know, and i think many of us were left trying to figure out was this something that was a corporate culture problem, was it a communication problem, was it a negligence issue. until a few weeks ago executives, including presidentd c.e.o. had not read e-mails revealing how boeing officials convinced the f.a.a. to include training materials and delete troublesome flight systems data and had not read text messages showing that employees lied to

regulators about safety problems with the plane's unique max system. the mcas system that's maneuvering characteristics augmentation system or mcas, they had not read the text messages that spelled out there was a problem. when asked at the hearing for technical systems, he and his cohort were unable to give a straight answer. questions on their process, test pilots, similarities, we did not get the answers that we needed. yesterday's hearing made it clear that boeing leadership cannot provide the answers that we are looking for, not for ourselves but on behalf of the victims and their families, on behalf of the flying public

who, yes, safety is their priority. mr. president, the senate really needs to look again at this issue. our commerce committee should schedule another hearing on the people in and the procedures and hear from the engineers and the test pilots behind boeing's max program. perhaps these engineers and pilots will be able to do a better job than the executives did yesterday, and perhaps they can explain to the families of these 346 crash victims how so many people ended up dead after choosing one of the world's safest modes of transportation. i yield the floor.

mr. braun: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. braun: thank you. first of all, thank you for your flexibility in the chair today. the purpose for me rietionsing today is to advocate on behalf of our military, the men and women, the bravest in the world. i felt compelled to do so

because i can imagine these days of hyperpartisan politics some of them may feel like some of us are abandoning them and we are not. we all took an oath to the constitution, and the highest priority in the constitution for the federal government is of course to provide for the nation's defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic. unfortunately, madam president, my democratic colleagues seem to be shirking from this responsibility lately. they're willing to settle for seemingly mediocrity. and right now we have excellence, the best. first of all, they're planning to come to this chamber tomorrow to block the all-important defense appropriations bill. that is to say block the funding for our military. that is to say to block the largest pay increase for the men and women of our military in over a decade, just to name one topic that would be funded by this appropriations bill that they're going to block. back in july the house and the

senate on a bipartisan basis, madam president -- you just gave a wonderful speech about the importance of working together. on a bipartisan basis we passed a major budget deal. it was a win for our military, a win for our country because it was supposed to provide them with certainty and an important path forward as they chart that path, that strategic path for america's superiority. to echo the house speaker and the democratic leader at the time, a bipartisan agreement has been reached that will, quote, enhance our national security. these are not my words, although i agree with them. these are the words of the democratic leadership of congress. after passage the democratic leader went on to say this deal would quote strengthen our national security and provide our troops with the resources they need. i agree with the democratic leader. please, please change course while you still can and support this important funding bill tomorrow. i agree with my colleague from

new york and i supported that legislation for the exact reason to, quote, strengthen our national security and provide our troops with the resources they need. this deal passed with strong bipartisan support. it was widely applauded. and yet here we are today, this week with our colleagues preparing to block the funding for our troops that they were just a couple of months ago patting themselves on the back for. this whole process shouldn't even be this complicated. in fact, i'm convinced that the american people are tired of us complicating simple things. we agreed to this two-year budget agreement just a few months ago. i voted for it. party leadership pushed for it. the president signed it. then we voted for a short-term continuing resolution to get it in order before getting to the final appropriations deal. i reluctantly voted for the short-term c.r. but the only thing worse than a c.r. is of course a government shutdown. that is what we were confronted with.

if one asked the military community how they feel about continuing resolutions, they'd be quick to tell you that they don't work. they don't work at all. they provide not certainty but uncertainty. they don't allow new programs to be launched. they don't allow the pay increases that our appropriations bill does. so it's not been a priority evidently for our democratic colleagues. but they do have priorities, as we know. i mean, this impeachment craziness, this obsession with eliminating, getting rid of our commander in chief a year before the election of the commander in chief is what their priorities are clearly, not the priorities stated in the constitution or that they were bragging about a couple of months ago. in addition, of course in addition, they are now standing nonpartisan way of us passing a

reconciled national defense authorization act. the authorization that provides the guidance for these priorities that are also part of our appropriations bill. we went through all that. and for what? i didn't agree to the deals that we made or take these tough votes just so that democrats could block defense appropriations and leave our military stuck with political gridlock that they've imposed on us now. so by failing to pass this appropriations bill, by failing now, standing in the way now of reconciling in conference committee the national defense authorization act, they really are standing in the way of our military. and now there's talk of a, quote, skinny ndaa. that is to say a watered-down, skinny version. for 58 years in a row, madam president, we've done what you just talked about, what the previous speakers talked about. we've worked in a bipartisan way

to pass an ndaa. 58 years in a row. as the first north dakotan ever to sit on the senate armed services committee, i treated this ndaa with the utmost importance, and still do. we made some significant progress from nuclear deterrence to establishing space wars and honoring the sailors of the u.s.s. frank e. evans, that the democratic leader and colleague from new york supported. bowgget the house and senate -- both the house and senate versions advanced my state and others. we should be working to pass the best plan possible for our military. instead our work is being sacrificed at the altar of partisan politics, caught up in a partisan impeachment process that makes no sense. now let's make something clear about this skinny ndaa. our chairman is not introducing it with haste or without great consideration.

he first warned that this could happen. well over a month ago. he said it would happen if our democratic colleagues proved to be so incapable of setting aside their problems with president trump that they could not advance interests of our nation's military, and ever the optimist, i thought they would. i thought they would, madam chair. but now my democratic colleagues are balking at any and all forward progress on the ndaa because of their opposition to president trump and his priorities for border security. they want to limit his authority to transfer any more funds in order to build physical barriers at our southern border. so i want to be clear. the president would not need to use that authority, use any military construction funds to build the wall if our democratic colleagues would simply provide the necessary funding to the normal appropriations process, as they always have, as we always have. and i for one will not be so

unreasonable in negotiating it. for example, if -- and i mean only if my democratic colleagues would fund the administration's border security request through the appropriations process, then count me in for limiting the president's transfer authority. i'm willing to compromise. but you can't have it both ways. you can't say we're going to take away the president's constitutional authority on the one hand and then on the other hand make sure you don't fund the priorities that he needs to fund, which is, again, the highest priority of our government. to reiterate my earlier point, i applaud the chairman for his handling of this process. he has been vigilant and focused on completing the ndaa, and i don't blame him for where we are today. no, house democrats have not been willing partners and have forced the chairman to device a backup plan for their intransigence. and that is what i find so disappointing. surely, madam president, our democratic colleagues know the threat that our foreign

adversaries oppose. we just came from a classified briefing. if it's not clear enough yet, i don't know when it will be. and whether it's the crisis at the southern border or the critical missions that bring terrorists to justice, i am sure my colleagues want to do whatever it takes to keep our sun cafe. sewerly they are capable of putting partisan politics aside in order to pass the 59th straight national defense authorization act. anything to the contrary would be unprecedented, madam president. and yet here we are. and i find it astonishing that with all the wannabe commanders in chief right here in the senate, they are playing politics with the funding and authorities of the troops that they hope to lead. can you imagine one of these presidential candidates becoming the commander in chief and the first talk they have with the troops is yeah, i held up your funding, your pay raises? not a great way to start. if it were up to our committee,

this bill would have already passed. if it were up to our conference, this ndaa would be on its way to the president's desk, but unfortunately it's not. madam president, that is the unfortunate reality we face today. the democratic party is continuing to put their hatred of president trump and his agenda above, above the needs of our nation's military, and thus our nation's defense. it's a dereliction of duty. i find it sickening, and i find it embarrassing. we are better than this. this institution deserves better than this. the american people expect and deserve better than this, and i want to make one last plea before they block tomorrow's vote, please put our military men and women, our highest priority ahead of partisan politics. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana.

mr. kennedy: i ask that he woo come out of quorum call, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. i want to talk for just a very few minutes today about something that's been on my mind and on my heart. we so easily forget how fortunate we are to live in a country like america. i wish all of our world's neighbors were as fortunate as we are, but they're not. and we can't lose sight of that fact. i don't know why bad things happen to good people, and i'm not suggesting that i have a complete solution to it, but trying to understand it is at least a good first step. i'm talking about the ongoing crisis in south sudan. as you know, south sudan is a

landlocked country in east central africa. it's a fairly new country. in the seven years since south sudan was plunged into a very bloody civil war, not only have millions of people been displaced from their homes but over 400,000 -- think about than have been killed in the crossfire. 400,000. i would like nothing more than for the recent negotiated cease-fire between the government and the rebels to hold. we all would. but if we're being honest, we have to express our sincere doubts. i don't have any doubt that the people of south sudan yearn for peace. unfortunately, there are some

who are taking advantage of this sad situation in south sudan. they're taking advantage of south sudan's conflicts and widespread corruption within its government in order to steal the nation's and the people's natural resources. i'm talking about kleptocrats, i'm talking about war criminals, i'm talking about corrupt multinational corporations that are pilfering south sudan's natural resources regardless of the chaos that they are causing and the extraordinary human cost. until good people, mr. president, in this world take a stand and say enough is enough, the people in south sudan will continue to be at the mercy of the corrupt.

the predatory extraction of south sudan's resources not only directs vital capital outside of the war-torn nation where it's desperately needed inside, but it makes meaningful investment in sustained peace simply impossible. that's why, mr. president, i am respectfully calling on the united states senate to stand with peace. to stand with right. not with might. with right. and to stand with the people of south sudan. the people of south sudan are a proud people, they are a resilient people, they are tired of being ruled by a government that is rife with corruption. they are tired of seeing their nation torn apart by war. the united states senate ought to condemn the marauding, the stealing of resources, the widespread corruption within the

south sudanese government. furthermore, i also called on the united states to support sanctions against those companies and those individuals outside of south sudan that continue to profit off of the ongoing conflicts and instability in the region. now, we're a powerful nation, mr. president. i just listened to your very eloquent talk about men and women in our military that protect our country. not only do we have the world's most powerful military, let me put it another way, we have the most powerful military in all of human history. we also have the strongest economy the world has ever seen, and for that we are blessed. and it's the latter, mr. president, that we have to wield against the internal and the external bad actors taking

advantage of the people of south sudan. much like our sanctions against the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, i am, of course, talking about iran, much like those sanctions have resulted in a successful economic pressure campaign, i hope that the same can be done targeting crooked government officials and the unethical multinational corporations that target vulnerable nations like south sudan. mr. president, it's been well documented that there are a number of multinational corporations with ties to nations like china, to nations like malaysia that have taken advantage of the widespread corruption in the region in south sudan and the surrounding region to spur their own economic and political gain.

it's been reported and it's been independently verified that one of south sudan's largest multinational petroleum consortiums from outside the country operating in the country, a company called dar petroleum operating company has actively funded militia and paramilitary groups within the region. in fact, when dar petroleum isn't funding militia or brokering weapons deals, it keeps busy polluting local communities in south sudan and water supplies with its industrial waste. if a petroleum company has dumped, quote, high levels of heavy metals and dangerous chemical compounds, close quote into the surrounding country side with no regard, none, zero,

no regard for local populations. in fact, the contamination from the joint chinese-malaysian-owned corporation has extended well beyond merely the soil surrounding dar petroleum's production and processing plants. the soil contamination is found to be so widespread, so extensive, mr. president, that over 600,000 of the good people in south sudan are expected to be affected by it. from bribery, from pollution, and even murder, these unsavory actors have found a home in south sudan, ruining the environment, raping the natural resources of the country, and they're going to continue to find a safe haven and continue business unless we act. unless sanctions against countries and individuals that

are known to have long taken advantage of south sudan's weak or almost nonexistent rule of law, unless those are implemented, stability in the region is going to be nothing but a dream. nothing but happy talk. the united states should not remain sigh length as untold billions are stolen and the money's being stolen, the natural resources are being stolen from the people in south sudan, and the people of south sudan are also being murdered in the process. we should not stand by, mr. president. by empowering the united states government to target the illicit financial activity that serves as the root cause for many of the atrocities that i have talked about, the south sudanese can begin rebuilding their nation without fear of violence and without fear of corruption. the united states is far from the only government on the world stage that has the ability to do

this. now, we both know that, mr. president. but as is so often the case, we might be the only government with the will and the moral conviction to do what is right. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. fischer: mr. president, i rise to speak about the importance of the senate providing the resources needed by our sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines. we are seeing increasing threats to the homeland from around the

world. we need look no further than the recent elimination of al-baghdadi by u.s. special operation forces to show us there are evil people out there who continue to devote their lives to killing american citizens and glorifying the fall of our nation. the rise of isis proved that radical terrorists ideologies remain dangerous. despite the elimination of its leader, groups like isis will continue to remain a serious challenge across the globe. we've also seen the emergence of a great power competition with china and russia. they are investing massive amounts of resources to erode the international order that the united states and our allies have worked so hard to create and protect. leaders of these nations don't want societies based on liberty and free enterprise.

instead, they are focused on promoting the iron precepts of you a authoritarianism and atoc racy. without american engagement and strong investment in the nation's military, our children could live in a world transformed by these maligned forces. we cannot allow that to happen. clearly the threats we face abroad are increasing. on that fact, we have bipartisan support. these past few weeks many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spoken about the situation in syria and the danger that an expansion to russia poses to nations like ukraine. we agree about the need of the united states to address these challenges, but i'm not convinced that my democratic colleagues are truly serious about sustaining american leadership and retaining our

position in the world. if they are, it is time to show it by advancing the defense funding legislation. funding the military in a timely, predictable fashion is one of the most important things we can do in congress. a failure to do so awards china and russia with an advantage at a time when we can least afford it. we need to work together to pass our defense appropriations bills for the coming fiscal year and to focus on implementing the national defense strategy to effectively confront these threats. it's also worth highlighting how many provisions contained in this bill are absolutely critical to our military. this legislation provides significant investments in both basic research and future technologies to allow for continued innovation at d.o.d.

it includes areas pivotal to implementing the goals of the n.d.s., including hypersonic 5-g artificial intelligence, missile defense, and cybersecurity. importantly it provides robust fundingor all three legs of the triad and appropriates funding to enable the modernization of our nation's nuclear deterrents. there is no question that this is a top priority of mine as chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee on the senate armed services committee. in addition, we cannot forget that the department of defense still has not recovered from the impacts of several natural disasters that affected multiple installations across the country. this includes aford air force base in my own state of

nebraska, as well as several others. without the relief funding in the defense appropriations bill, these bases and their ten enter units will not be -- tenant units will not be able to fully recover from these disasters. that poses a major threat not just to the bases themselves but to all of the missions that we rely upon them to support. for that reason, it is critical that we move forward with the defense funding process to allow full recovery to take place at these bases. all of us here also recognize that our military is about more than hardware. it is our men and women in uniform and their families who make our armed forces strong, and that's why it is so essential that we provide the pay and benefits that are critical for our service members and their families.

the defense appropriations bill delivers a military pay increase of 3.1%. that is the largest in a decade. if we are truly serious about supporting our war fighters, if we mean what we say when we talk about supporting the troops, then step up. we must move forward with the defense appropriations bill. now, is not the time to put political grandstanding ahead of serious legislating. i hope that we can look back at the senate's bipartisan tradition of uniting behind the common defense as inspiration. let's take up and pass the defense appropriations bill. in doing so we honor our commitment to america's war

fighters. we have seen over the past week how the bravery and commitment of our service members can deliver the world's most wanted terrorist to justice. we must honor their service and the service of all our men and women in uniform which moving this process forward. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. i rise to sound the alarm of the trump administration's expected announcement of its withdrawal of the united states from the paris agreement within the united nations framework convention on climate change to reduce global greenhouse gas gas emissions in an effort to eliminate global degrees to

2-degrees above -- to limit it even further to 1.5-degrees. article 28 of the paris agreement that was entered into in 2015 specifies after joining, no country can withdraw after three years, after which a one-year waiting period must occur before the withdrawal takes effect. the united states entered into this historic agreement on november 4, 2016, the earliest date that the united states can issue a withdrawal is january of 2019. after the documents are filed, the one-year waiting period begins making november 2020 the first time that the united states can fully and i might add recklessly get out of this agreement. i urge my colleagues to support a senate resolution that i will shortly be filing expressing our need for u.s. climate diplomacy.

withdrawal is terrible. the cost of inaction is high. for example, in my state of maryland, by the year 2100, climate change could force the navy to relocate the u.s. naval academy from where it has made its home in annapolis, maryland in 1845. surrounded by water, it is especially vulnerable to sea rise. the seven river runs along the east and college creek runs along the north. parts of the academy adjacent to the water stand three feet above the water line. sea level around annapolis has risen one foot over the past 100 years. the naval academy is one of scores of u.s. military bases that may be inundated by rising seas. unlike this administration, the academy is taking action. in 2015, the sea-level rise

council made decisions about flood-related matters. staffs are installing door dams, flood barriers on doorways, repairing sea walls an installing black-flow preventers and storm drain systems to reduce flooding. newly constructed buildings will have elevated entrances to keep rising water out. these actions have high costs that are compounded by inaction. on october 20 of this year, a combination of seasonal high tides, a full moon, a tropical storm stalled off the eastern seaboard disrupted the annual boat show and closed streets. one week later the chesapeake foundation, the key partner in the restoration effort, announced that it will close the

fox education center due to rising sea levels, a casualty of our failure to address climate year. for 20 years the fox center educated students on the importance of a healthy chesapeake bay watershed. this is an essential goal of the watershed agreement and institutions like the fox island center serve a key role. the mashes and wetlands are dedicated to mitigate the effects of climate-related impacts like frequent storms and rising sea levels. this is a reminder of the presence of changes to the bay and our communities the urgent need to prepare. on october 17, the federal reserve bank of san francisco released a report. the collection of 18 papers by outside experts amounts to one of the most specific and dire accountings of the dangers posed

to businesses and communities in the united states. a threat so significant that the nation's central bank are increasingly compelled to act. climate change has begun to affect the real estate market. according to one expert from the university of colorado, his research shows that his property is likely to be under water if sea rises one foot now. our failure to act on climate change has a real economic impact on american families. coastal cities are already unable to pay for the -- this type of projects that could prevent them from the growing effects of climate change. on october 23, noaa's oceangrapher said to the state environment health affairs committee is that annapolis is on pays for another record-breaking year in 2019

with ten high-tide flood days so for. by 2030, there could be 15 to 25 high-tide floods a year and by 2050 that could rise between 50 and 170 and that compares to the turn of the century when we only it two such events. in addition, noaa heard from howard county. howard county is a land locked land in maryland. they are 35 miles inland from annapolis where flash flooding has claimed the lives of three people since 2016. officials discussed their $140 million plan which includes demolishing buildings an con strucking a tunnel and 1,600 along the north i'd of ellicott city's main streets. expensive project, will it keep

ellicott city safe? it will keep it safer but the threat will still be there because of our inaction to deal with climate change. that is $140 million we would not need to find as fast if we were slowing the rate of sea-level rise if we were reducing the u.s. carbon emissions in accordance with the paris agreement. many small businesses had to take out loans in 2016 and are now struggling to repay them. these are not international competitors with an agenda hurt by inaction of climate change. these are local residents, constituents, americans. we need to act. i am proud to lead a bipartisan legislation to help critical water infrastructure adapt to natural hazards. we need to do adaptation, i'm for that, and it's bipartisan in this chamber. but adaptation mitigation must go hand in hand from the local to international level.

i led the international delegation with nine of our colleagues in the united states senate. we had a delegation of ten strong in paris and cop 21 and 2015 when the u.s. committed to lower greenhouse gas emissions 28%. entering the 25th conference of the carbon dioxide emissions roseanne estimated 3.4% in 2018, -- it comes as as the ipp special report tells us that the world needs aggressively cutting its emissions to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change. the findings published by the economic research firm means that our nation now has a diminishing chance of meeting its pledge which it made in paris. this is an -- a horrible embarrassment for our country.

once a global leader on climate change and when the united states doesn't lead, other countries are going to step in to take over that leadership as we've seen in regards to china stepping forward in regards to climate issues. china should be the united states. i urge this administration to reassert strong leadership in implements the paris agreement. i urge the senate to act to return america's leadership to this critical global challenge. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. i'm thrilled and delighted to follow my outstanding colleague from maryland coming here to talk about climate change. that is the topic that brings me to the floor today as well.

those of us who are from coastal states not only have the experience of worse flooding in our coastal communities and those coastal communities getting new conversations with their municipal bond folks about what the flooding risk means for their bond ratings but we're also looking at projections like maryland is of what happens if we don't act. and the very maps of our state will change. when historians look back at why the united states failed so badly to take on climate change, they will of course focus on the political efforts of the world's largest oil companies, exon, chevron, bp, and shell. they'll note the objective role of leading trade associations like the u.s. chamber of

commerce, the national association of manufacturers, and the american petroleum institute. they'll chronicle the network of phony front groups set up by big oil, big coal, and the koch brothers to s sow doubt of the science and fear of climate action. big oil, the kochs, the trade associations, the front groups all will deserve plenty of blame. their climate denial apparatus and their capture of the modern republican party is a direct and deliberate cause of america's failure. but there are other less heralded but equally bad actors. i come to the floor today to discuss one of them. future historians take note of marathon petroleum.

marathon petroleum is the largest oil refiner in the united states. it refines oil into gasoline, other fuels and lubricants. it owns pipelines and gas stations. its 4,000 speedway locations and almost 8,000 independent gas stations selling marathon-branded fuels reach across the country. it is number 31 on the fortune 500 list of u.s. companies, and it has almost $100 billion in annual revenue. this is a big company with a big stake in blocking climate action. what does marathon want? well, it's annual report filed with the securities and exchange commission makes one thing very clear. marathon sees laws and regulations that reduce carbon pollution as a threat. one threat marathon specifically

cites in its annual report is fuel economy or cafe standards. why? marathon's 2018 annual report reads, and i quote it here, higher cafe standards for cars and light trucks have the potential to reduce demand for our transportation fuels. simple as that. fuel efficient cars burn less gas and that's bad for a big refiner. well, in 2012 automakers and the state of california and the previous administration got together and they agreed to significantly better fuel economy standards. that was a good deal for almost everyone. consumers were estimated to save more than $1.7 trillion in reduced fuel costs, up to $8,000 per vehicle for vehicles

purchased in 2025. the air would be cleaner. carbon emissions from cars and light trucks would be cut in half by 2025. and automakers would have a competitive spur to keep pace with new vehicle technologies being developed in europe and china. win, win, win, win, win. well, in 2017 these automakers came back into the trump administration and asked the trump administration to revisit the fuel economy standards. it looks from everything i've seen like the auto industry primarily wanted technical changes to make the standards easier to meet. i have found no evidence that the auto industry asked the administration to totally freeze the standards or that they asked the administration then to revoke california's authority to

set its own standards under the clean air act. when automakers asked the administration for these changes, someone else was watching. the oil industry sensed opportunity. the standards may have been good for consumers, the auto industry, state, our global climate, but that $1.7 trillion in reduced fuel costs that consumers would save, that would come directly out of oil industry revenues. so the oil industry sprang into action to hijack the rule-making process. the oil industry demanded weakening of the standards to the max, i.e., a freeze. and even demanded revocation of

california's long-standing authority to set its own standards leading more than a dozen other states including my home state of rhode island. we follow the california standard. an administration marbled through with fossil fuel lobbyists and attorneys heard the industry call. it must have been a strange experience for the automakers. one minute they're asking for technical changes to a regulation they had agreed to. the next minute the whole process has been run off with by a completely other industry. marathon was the ring leader. i obtained an electronic draft of a letter to the deputy administrator of the national highway traffic safety administration urging her to weaken the fuel economy standards. the metadata of the letter was

still in the letter because i got it electronically. and according to the metadata in this document, it was written by a marathon petroleum inhouse lobbyist. marathon then shopped this letter around to members of the house of representatives to convince them to send letters backing the weakened standards that they wanted. we got those house letters and we ran them through plaguerism software against the marathon lobbyist's draft. here's what we got. when we compared the marathon letter with the letter sent by members of pennsylvania's congressional delegation, an 80% match. the red here is all the language that's identical. members from indiana and west virginia sent similar letters

also with text lifted directly from the marathon lobbyist's draft. if you want to give this political stunt a name, you could call it a point of vie prr scott pruitt who distinguished himself for the trump e.p.a. administrator's position by copying a devon energy letter, devon energy text on to his own official letterhead as attorney general of a state and sending it on as if it was his letter. so back to marathon pulling a pruitt with these congressmen was not enough. we know from marathon's own reports that it directly lobbied on the standards. and we know that its trade association, the american fuel and petrochemical manufacturers,

afpm, also lobbied on the standards. we know afpm also launched a campaign on social media urging people to support a freeze. marathon is a member of a front group that's called the american legislative exchange counsel also known as alec. this front group pushes the agenda of the koch brothers' apparatus in state legislatures. it's the tool for the koch brothers to try to work their will in state legislatures. well, alec passed a resolution in favor of weakening the standards and revoking california's state authority. we know that senior executive from marathon met personally with e.p.a. leadership and with senior officials in the white house to push for weakening the standards and revoking california's authority.

there's a lot we don't know. we don't know which front groups marathon and other oil companies fund because neither of them disclose their donations or their donors. we don't know how many other groups were deployed in this effort. we don't know the extent to which marathon coordinated its campaign with the trade association and the front groups so we cannot assess whether this lobbying effort violated the front group's 501-c3 tax exempt status. we don't know what role marathon or its front groups had in the mysterious antitrust letter that came popping out of d.o.j. shortly after the automakers negotiated separately with california. when the automakers realized that their negotiations, the process they were involved with, had been hijacked by marathon,

that they were just passengers on the marathon train at this point, they bailed. they knew the conversation was bogus. they bailed. they negotiated directly with california. and they came up with their own deal with california. now, that obviously really ticked off the oil guys who thought they had this thing all scoped and it ticked off -- apparently it even ticked off the president. it went all the way up to president trump. and the next thing you know comes this truly bizarre letter out of d.o.j. that appears to ignore basic tenets of antitrust law like when you're negotiating with a state government, it's not an antitrust violation. and it appears also to violate d.o.j.'s own very elaborate antitrust investigation procedures. so who pulled those strings? we don't know. and more broadly, if marathon

and other fossil fuel companies are purposefully paying a web of phony front groups and trade associations to spread deliberate known disinformation about climate change in order to obstruct climate action in congress, does that not warrant congressional investigation? might it not in fact be fraud? it was fraud when the tobacco industry did it. well, over the past two weeks two different subcommittees, the house committee on oversight and reform, held hearings that examined how the fossil fuel industry deploys front groups and trade associations to spread disinformation about climate change and block legislative action. yesterday the senate democrats special committee on the climate crisis held our hearing on how dark money front groups hide the

industry's role in climate denial and legislative obstruction. fat chance we'll have senate committees investigate this masquerade in a chamber under republican control but for our friends in the house, the time is ripe for congressional oversight. follow the money and the facts wherever they lead. let the subpoenas fly. congressman henny waxman led a -- henry waxman led a successful investigation of lies and deceit from a corrupting industry, big tobacco, and that precedent served our country well. served the american public well. it ended up likely saving lives. so back to marathon again. marathon shareholders are interesting, too, in all of this.

last month 200 major investors who have $6.5 trillion in assets under management sent a letter to 47 u.s. companies, including marathon, urging that the companies' lobbying align with the paris agreement goal of global average temperature increase below 2 degrees celsius. and warning the companies that lobbying against that goal they see as an investment risk. the letter went to that i remember on -- the letter went o marathon, but interestingly none of marathon's biggest investors, blackrock, van guard, state street and j.p. morgan asset management -- signed the letter. collectively, these four investors own roughly 25% of marathon.

blackrock lists climate risk as one of its engagement priorities in 2019, so it says. and blackrock published a report this year that by 2050, 58% of u.s. metro areas will see area average climate-related losses of at least 1% of g.d.p. with some projects to lose a staggering 15% of g.d.p. j.p. morgan's c.e.o. jamie dimon has said, and i quote him here, business must play a leadership role in creating solutions to protect the environment and grow the economy. so it's interesting yesterday in our senate select committee hearing to have a witness put up this slide. this slide shows the positions on climate change, regulation,

and registration of climate change legislation. green is supporting climate change legislation. opposition is red. we were talking about the u.s. chamber of commerce, which has been identified as one of the two worst climate obstructers in america as a trade association, the u.s. chamber and the national association of manufacturers take the prize. and we were looking at how strange that is because their membership doesn't have the position that they take, so we're going to continue to explore why it is that the board members of the national association of manufacturers and the board members of the u.s. chamber of commerce appear to have let their organizations be run away with by the fossil fuel industry as well. but here's what was notable. this is where on that graph the u.s. chamber of commerce is, one of the worst climate obstructers. but look who's worse. in fact, look at who's the worst

of all of them -- marathon. what do you know? and you have these four investors who own 25% of this company that is at the worst side of this spectrum, and they claim to care about solving the climate problem, and yet they are 25% owners in the most opposed of all of these entities to the climate improvement -- the climate regulation, the solution to the climate crisis that they claim to seek. they got to get their act together. it is not fair to be j.p. morgan c.e.o. jamie dimon and say, business must play a leadership role in creating solutions that protect the environment and grow the economy and then be part of a 25% largest shareholders of the company that's the worst at this.

you got to line this up, guys. you can't say one thing to the public and then do the opposite through the companies that you own. and the stakes here are high. there are credible warnings of a carbon asset bubble and of crashes in coastal property values. but blackrock hasn't introduced a single climate-related shareholder resolution since 2001. in 2018, blackrock and van guard, two of these big marathon owners, voted in favor of only 10% and 12% of climate-related shareholder resolutions. they say they're good at this. blackrock 10%, vanguard, 12%. the other once they didn't support. -- the other ones they didn't support.

and at marathon, at marathon -- the worst -- in 2017, blackrock voted against a shareholder proposal for marathon to test its business operations against the 2% celsius threshold that blackrock claims to target and support. by the way, if blackrock had voted its shares for this proposal, it would have passed. just this month, marathon finally published a report examining its own prospects in a carbon-contained world. in one scenario, demand for petroleum-based liquids plummets 26% by 2040, with demand for vehicle fuels, marathon's primary market, vehicle fuels falling even more steeply. if marathon estimates the market for its main product could

shrink by a third or more, first you can understand why it got in there to manipulate the auto fuel efficiency standard process; but you can also understand why it is that economists and sovereign banks are issuing these warnings about a carbon bubble. well, we will get serious about climate change. we must. we have no choice. the costs of inaction are, as donald trump once said, catastrophic. eventually, all the fossil fuel money and bullying in the world won't stave off action in the face of mounting climate calamities. this should be obvious to everyone and certainly to sophisticated investors with

supposedly good climate policies, like blackrock and j.p. morgan. so why aren't they pushing marathon to adapt to a low-carbon economy? why are they happy to own 25% of that, of the worst? that's what they want to own? doesn't have to be this way. look at d.s.m., a dutch multinational with roughly $10 billion in revenues and over 23,000 employees around the world. including many here in the united states. d.s.m. began as a coal mining company over a century ago. it's leaders realized coal mining in the netherlands would someday end, so they reinvented the company. when the last mine closed in the 1970's, d.s.m. had diversified.

it is today a vibrant producer of nutritional additives for food, of pharmaceuticals, and of high-tech materials for electronics, automobiles, and construction. by contrast, murray coal, an american coal mining company that did not diversify, filed for bankruptcy this week. so the fossil fuel industry, i say, you ought to begin adapting now. you can't ignore what's coming at you. you owe it to your shareholders, and you owe it to your employees, and, by god, you owe it to your children. blackrock and the other big investors, this means you have to pay attention, too. you say you're for climate action. show that you mean it. demand change at marathon and at other fossil fuel companies that you own.

start with mandating that these companies disclose their climate-obstruction funding. there is no excuse for that being secret, and if they won't do it, congress, let's investigate. we have slept through this mess long enough, in a state of induced narcolepsy. we have slept-walked far too long. it is time we woke up. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with and that i be permitted to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr.

president. mr. president, the passing of former senator kay hagan was sad news to all of us who were privileged to serve with her and counted her as a friend. in her final address to the senate five years ago, senator kay hagan reminded us of our obligation to work together on behalf of the american people with these words. to whom much is given much is expected. kay hagan was given much. she had energy, intelligence, dedication, and compassion. and she gave back to her home state over many years of public service. as a person of deep faith, she

fully understood the new testament parable of the talents. its message that gifts must be put to use in service of others guided her life. in this time of sorrow, i offer my deep condolences to kay's family. i hope that they will find comfort in knowing that kay left an inspiring legacy. she left the world a better place for her service. the loss felt by the people of north carolina and by her family in particular is felt by people throughout america. i was privileged to serve with kay for six years. we served together on the senate armed services committee, and i

always appreciated her focus on solutions rather than partisan advantage. she was passionate about many issues, particularly those affecting children. in 2011 kay and i introduced legislation to commemorate the work of the march of dimes by minting a coin to celebrate the 75th anniversary of this organization and directing the proceeds to the march of dimes prematurity campaign. as author of the newborn screening saves lives reauthorization act, kay reaffirmed her belief that we in congress must always remember whom we are advocating for. when kay took office in 2009, she was very proud to be one of

17 senators who were female. it is significant that her very first speech on the senate floor that january was in support of the lilly ledbetter fair pay act to strengthen protections for women against wage discrimination. it was so refreshing to hear her assert that neither party had a monopoly on good ideas. throughout her time in this chamber, she proved the truth of bad maxim. mr. president, in the parable of the talons, the master leaves on a journey and entrusts a servant with a portion of his treasure. upon his return the master is delighted to find that his wealth has been wisely invested

and multiplied. kay hagan was entrusted with the great treasures of principles, determines nation, and -- determination and spirit. she invested that treasure wisely and multiplied its benefits for all. like the master in the parable, to kay hagan we say well done, good and faithful servant. may god bletio bless her and hey and may we all keep her memory in our hearts. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i'm about to offer the managers' package for the four appropriations bills currently before us -- commerce, justice, state, agriculture, interior, and the transportation, housing and urban development bill. this managers' package includes 45 amendments, many of which, indeed most of which have been

offered on a bipartisan basis. they have been cleared by both sides. the appropriations committee has worked very hard with members to accommodate as many amendments as possible. for the t-hud appropriations bill, for example, both senator jack reed and i worked to review, approve, and clear managers' amendments in our part of the bill. this package reflects a positive step forward as we move toward final passage of this appropriations bill. it is imperative, mr. president, that we move these bills and go to conference with the house. therefore, i would urge all members to support this managers' package. mr. president, i now ask

unanimous consent that it be in order to offer the following amendments -- lee amendment number 1209 and jones amendment number 1141, as modified. i further ask consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to these amendments prior to the votes, and that at 11:30 a.m. on thursday, october 31, the senate vote in relation to these amendments in the order listed. finally, i ask unanimous consent that upon resumption of the bill on thursday, october 31, the following amendments be called up and agreed to en bloc and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table. tester amendment number 953, smith amendment number 1023, hirono amendment number 1037, brown amendment number 1088, as modified, baldwin amendment number 1099, murkowski amendment 1121, thune amendment 1133, capito amendment number 1143, smith amendment number 1149, rosen amendment number 1161, mcsally amendment number 1163, reed amendment number 1217, stabenow amendment number 1223,

cornyn amendment number 1224, warner amendment number 951, capito amendment number 1077, cantwell amendment number 1094, toomey amendment number 1129, durbin amendment number 1146, gardner amendment number 1150, mcsally amendment number 1234, sinema amendment number 1025, ernst amendment number 1079, ernst amendment number 1081, cornyn amendment number 1151, cardin amendment number 1159, rosen amendment number 1160, thune amendment number 1162,

peters amendment number 1182, cornyn amendment number 1193, menendez amendment number 1199, blunt amendment number 1211, mcsally amendment number 1215, collins amendment number 1220, schumer amendment number 1227, hassan amendment number 956, collins amendment number 1002, shaheen amendment number 1005, kaine amendment 1010, cortez masto amendment number 1061, cortez masto amendment number 1062, heinrich amendment number 1114, shaheen amendment number

1130, hoeven amendment number 1214, and portman amendment number 1235. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22, following the disposition of the jones amendment, the postcloture time on amendment number 948 expire, the pending mcconnell amendment be withdrawn, and amendment number 948 as amended be agreed to. further, that the cloture motion on h.r. 3055 be withdrawn, the bill be read a third time, and there be two minutes of debate equally divided and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on passage of the bill as

amended with a 60 affirmative vote threshold required for passage. finally, i ask that the cloture motion -- that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2740 occur at 1:45 p.m. on thursday. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators being permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i understand that there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time.

the clerk: s. 2755, a bill to require a report on the plan to secure the enduring defeat of the islamic state of iraq and syria. ms. collins: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 3 377. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 377 designating october 30, 2019, as the national day of remembrance for the workers of the nuclear weapons program of the united

states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. collins: 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. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 389 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 389 calling on congress, schools, and state and local educational agencies to recognize the significant educational implications of dyslexia that must be addressed and designating october 2019 as national dyslexia awareness month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to

the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. collins: mr. president, 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 do have it. the resolution is agreed to. ms. collins: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 390 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 390 honoring the life,

accomplishments and legacy of senator kay hagan. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. collins: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, october 31. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be 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 h.r. 3055 under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the provisions of senate resolution 390 as further mark of respect for the late kay hagan, former senator for the state of north carolina. the presiding officer: under the previous order and pursuant to s. res. 390, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, october 31, and does so as a further mark of respect to the late kay mark of respect to the late kay

thursday, the house will vote on the next phase of the impeachment inquiry. resolution for firm the committee work so far and expand for the investigating committee. also lays out the process on which hearings will be open to the public. past meets thursday morning at 9:00 eastern, live in our network c-span. >> live to the national press club. including former cia director, john, former acting cia director, michael. poor acting fbi director, on the security of u.s. elections. >> everyone needs to be on heightened alert care. they also try to break into companies that make software for voting machines, that's another area where we have to put up roadbl