[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 126 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5394-S5411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, FINANCIAL SERVICES, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 6147, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6147) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Shelby amendment No. 3399, in the nature of a substitute.

[[Page S5395]]

       Murkowski amendment No. 3400 (to amendment No. 3399), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


   Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act Reauthorization

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I am proud to be here this morning to 
talk about a legislative matter that has taken many years to come to 
fruition. We were able to work together in a bipartisan manner to 
reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and 
make important updates that will support high-quality programs, foster 
innovation, and improve access for all students. I am very proud to be 
joined by Senator Enzi, who worked for years on this issue. I will say 
more about Senator Enzi in a moment.
  Perkins CTE--``CTE'' standing for ``career and technical 
education''--is critical to creating jobs and growing wages and 
ensuring our workers have the tools to outcompete wth anyone in the 
world. This legislation will empower States and local districts to 
create programs that provide better outcomes for all students, 
educators, and our economy.
  Since the last reauthorization in 2006--you heard that right, 2006--
there have been significant changes to both technology and our economy, 
and we have a growing skills gap. In Pennsylvania, for example, jobs 
requiring some postsecondary education and training but not a B.A. 
account for 54 percent of Pennsylvania's labor market; however, only 43 
percent of workers in the State are trained to fill these jobs. This 
bipartisan legislation will help to close the skills gap by allowing 
programs to better align with industry needs, ensuring that programs 
serve as a pipeline to the high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand jobs of 
today as well as the jobs of tomorrow.
  In addition, this legislation creates more alignment with Federal 
laws, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act--known 
around here by the acronym WIOA--which deals with our workforce, and 
better alignment with the Higher Education Act, as well as better 
alignment with the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was the elementary 
and secondary education law passed in 2015. All of that will help to 
ensure that our education and workforce programs indeed work together.
  Similarly, this legislation improves collaboration between secondary 
schools, institutions of higher education, employers, and other 
community partners. It increases stakeholder engagement and ensures we 
have a workforce to support high-quality programs by increasing 
recruitment of and improving professional development for CTE--career 
and technical education--educators.
  I am particularly proud of provisions in this bill that will promote 
equity and ensure that all students, including students with 
disabilities, have access to high-quality programs.
  I am also pleased that provisions in the bill will allow for more 
career and technical education exploration in both middle and secondary 
grades. Exposing students to different career and academic pathways 
early gives them more options and opportunities to succeed.
  We have come together and passed a strong bill that is responsive to 
the needs of our communities and will help students, programs, and 
industries across Pennsylvania and across our Nation to thrive. I look 
forward to continuing to work on these issues. Now that the House has 
also passed this legislation, we are looking forward to having the 
President sign it into law.
  I want to say how much I appreciate the work that was done over many 
years by Senator Enzi and his staff, working with my staff and working 
with me, and the direct involvement of both the chairman of the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Chairman Alexander, and 
Ranking Member Patty Murray. We are grateful for their direct help in 
getting this legislation through the Senate.
  With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I want to begin by thanking my friend from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, for his commitment to the students who 
will benefit from the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and 
Technical Education Act and for the bipartisanship that helped us to 
reach this point. I also want to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking 
Member Murray for prioritizing the effort to reauthorize Perkins CTE. 
Their recognition of the importance of this work was key to getting 
past an impasse that only a few months ago looked unlikely to break.
  Senator Casey and I have had a lot of hours of working together to 
come up with a bill that would make a difference for people who want to 
work with their hands. I have a favorite book that talks about this, 
and part of the title is ``From Coal Miners to Cowboys,'' referring to 
the people who get their hands dirty every day to provide what we 
need. This is a segment of the economy we really need. I know that if 
you need an electrician or a plumber, you want them right away, and you 
want them trained. That is what this bill emphasizes and provides for.

  I do need to thank the administration, and Ivanka Trump Kushner, in 
particular, for putting the spotlight on the reauthorization of Perkins 
CTE and workforce development generally. With a laser-like focus on 
strengthening the economy, the President and his administration have 
rightly recognized that a strong and prosperous economy requires a 
skilled and ready workforce. This combined, bipartisan effort resulted 
in the Senate unanimously passing its amendment to the House's own 
bipartisan bill. We did it by voice vote, and that is as bipartisan as 
it gets around here.
  Now the House has taken that bill and approved of the changes that 
were made, which we coordinated with them during the time that we were 
negotiating, and they have taken the same action. So that bill is now 
on the way to the President, who emphasized that we need to do it.
  Passing this reauthorization is particularly important to Wyoming, 
where one-sixth of school districts have chosen not to participate in 
Perkins CTE because the compliance and reporting burdens were too heavy 
to justify the funds they would receive. That changes with this bill.
  For years, States have been leading the effort to tackle the national 
workforce skills gap and ensure that they, and our country at large, 
have a workforce that is capable of meeting the challenges of an 
increasingly dynamic, competitive, and global economy. Unfortunately, 
States have been meeting these challenges under a program that was last 
authorized in 2006.
  By modernizing Perkins CTE, we are taking the important step of 
better aligning the primary Federal career and technical education 
program with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the Every 
Student Succeeds Act. We like these all to work together--and these are 
all achievements that have been done in recent years--because, far from 
working independently, these programs are all pieces of the larger 
workforce development puzzle.
  Because it can be hard to know what programs to provide when you 
don't know which ones are needed, this legislation also promotes 
collaboration between the stakeholders so that local businesses are 
brought to the table to communicate their needs to States and local 
educators as strategies and programs are developed. We want people 
hired after they get training. So the training needs to be for the jobs 
that are going to be available.
  Crucially, by enabling the limited funds provided by this program to 
be more effectively spent on education and less on complying with 
Federal reporting requirements, this legislation will better reflect 
that the investment made by the Federal Government in career and 
technical education represents pennies on the dollar when compared to 
the investment of money and effort made at the State and local levels. 
This bill takes the important step of providing States with greater 
authority to determine the levels at which they will be held 
accountable under this program.
  However, as States continue to compete for investment, accountability 
will ultimately come in the form of employers who will vote with their 
feet and their capital, hiring people. Ask any businessperson what 
their biggest challenge is, and they will likely tell you it is finding 
workers with the right skills and knowledge to fill their open jobs. 
States and communities that recognize this need and rise to the 
challenge of preparing their residents for

[[Page S5396]]

those jobs are the ones that will succeed in this economy.
  These improvements, along with many others included in this bill, 
underscore why passage of this legislation has long been a priority for 
so many people, and it is only appropriate that one of the clearest 
displays of bipartisanship in the 115th Congress would be in support of 
our workforce and the students preparing to join it.
  I once again thank my friend Senator Casey for his support in this 
effort, and I will also express my disappointment in how little 
publicity there has been. If there is a controversy, if people are 
cursing each other or making unusual comments, that makes the paper. 
But to actually do something--to actually get something done and to get 
it done in a bipartisan way with people working together virtually 
unanimously--well, that must have been too easy. If it were easy, we 
wouldn't have been working on it for three years, but we got it done. 
It is on its way to the President, and I am proud of it. Again, I thank 
Senator Casey for his superb effort in reaching agreement on this.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I want to briefly add my personal thanks 
to the Senators from Wyoming and Pennsylvania, who just spoke. Their 
work on getting this bipartisan solution to the Perkins CTE 
reauthorization is nothing short of admirable. I have worked with the 
Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, for 7 years on an education 
demonstration program called the American Dream Accounts. Both of these 
terrific Senators were gracious in including it in this bill.
  This is a bill that is going to make possible programs all over this 
country that will smooth and clear the pathway toward meaningful 
employment for young Americans. I wish more people knew about this kind 
of work, this kind of effort that these two Senators have made to move 
forward the sort of bipartisan, responsible solutions to the real 
problems facing Americans, which we need, and I just wanted to take one 
moment and thank them both for their tireless work to achieve this good 
result today.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, both parties used to agree that the 
thorough review of a Supreme Court nominee's record was essential to 
fulfilling our constitutional advice and consent obligations as 
Senators.
  When Elena Kagan was nominated 8 years ago, even though Democrats 
were in the majority and Republicans were in the minority, Chairman 
Leahy joined with Republicans to request all of Elena Kagan's records 
from her time in the White House. Now the shoe is on the other foot. We 
are in the minority; they are in the majority. But rather than applying 
the previous, bipartisan standard, the Republican majority is refusing 
to join with Democrats in requesting Brett Kavanaugh's complete record.
  At issue is Brett Kavanaugh's time as Staff Secretary in the Bush 
White House. Republicans argue we don't need to see papers from that 
part of his career; Democrats argue we most certainly do. Republicans 
are being hypocritical and sophistic.
  In both cases, we said that we needed all of the papers. Why? Because 
this is such an important job, and we ought to see the complete record 
of whoever the nominee is.
  Now they are saying: Well, counsel is OK, but Staff Secretary isn't, 
and Kagan wasn't a Staff Secretary. So what? So what?
  The relevant standard is all of the records, no matter what jobs they 
had, and Republicans are trying to come up with a difference for 
reasons that people are asking why. Are they hiding something? Is 
Kavanaugh hiding something? What did he do when he was Staff Secretary 
that he doesn't want the American public to see?
  The Republicans say that the job of Staff Secretary wasn't so 
important, merely a paper pusher. Bull. The Senate doesn't need to see 
anything from that period, they say, because the job was unimportant. 
Second, they say that his years as a judge should preclude him from 
having to provide paperwork from his earlier work as a top White House 
official.
  The Republicans keep moving the goalposts. They keep changing the 
standards to suit their needs to accomplish their goal--a hard-right, 
anti-middle-class, anti-choice, anti-healthcare Supreme Court. That is 
their goal. They can't accomplish it here; they can't accomplish it in 
the House; they can't even accomplish it with President Trump because 
those are elected branches of government, and the public pushes back. 
But with judges, they can, so they keep moving the goalposts and 
changing the rules time and again.
  Their arguments don't withstand scrutiny. Let's take the first one: 
The job of Staff Secretary wasn't so important. That is a laugher. 
Brett Kavanaugh himself has said that ``my three years as Staff 
Secretary for President Bush--were the most interesting and in many 
ways among the most instructive.'' If he feels they were most 
instructive, why shouldn't the American people see what instructed him? 
By his own account, during his time in the White House and as Staff 
Secretary, Judge Kavanaugh attended meetings with world leaders from 
the Pope to Vladimir Putin. He participated ``in the process of putting 
legislation together,'' and he talked to the President of the United 
States about how he should pick someone for the Supreme Court. In fact, 
Judge Kavanaugh said his time as Staff Secretary made him a ``better 
interpreter of statutes.''
  Over and over again, Judge Kavanaugh has said that this was an 
important position and it critically informed who he is as a judge and 
who he will be, should he be confirmed--I hope he isn't--to the Supreme 
Court. So the argument the Republicans have made that Staff Secretary 
isn't an important job is virtually laughable and a coverup for their 
fear of letting all the records out.
  The second argument we are hearing is that it is gratuitous and 
unreasonable to ask for documents from Brett Kavanaugh's career before 
he became a judge. Well, they have amnesia on the other side. Nine 
years ago, when this body was considering the nomination of Sonia 
Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans on the Judiciary 
Committee requested all of the paperwork from her tenure at the Puerto 
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
  Sotomayor was a judge for 15 years--3 longer than Judge Kavanaugh--
and still Republicans, just 9 years ago, said they needed ``minutes 
from the board meetings'' that Justice Sotomayor attended as far back 
as 29 years before her confirmation hearings. Here is what Senator 
Sessions said in 2009:

       The [Puerto Rican legal defense fund] documents may provide 
     insight into [Sotomayor's] judicial approach. . . . The 
     American people have a right to know this important 
     information about President Obama's nominee.

  Guess what. Senator Leahy, then chairman, joined Sessions in 
requesting those documents. Democrats have been very open about their 
nominees--our nominees--and we have let the full records come out. We 
are not afraid of who they are. But when the Republicans are in charge, 
they come up with all of these elliptical, sophistic, and fundamentally 
hypocritical arguments about why that record shouldn't be made 
available. We have never heard those from Democrats. It is just unfair.
  So when my friends from the other side say that we don't need all of 
Kavanaugh's documents because White House Staff Secretary isn't an 
important job, we ask: Isn't it a more important job than being part of 
the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, from which you 
demanded records? Of course it is.

[[Page S5397]]

  It seems each time Democrats demonstrate that our request is 100 
percent consistent with the Senate's bipartisan precedents, we hear 
some new, strained, contorted rationalization from Senate Republicans 
as to why a new, partisan approach is called for now and why the Senate 
should avert its gaze from Judge Kavanaugh's work as one of the most 
senior officials in the White House. Republicans keep moving the 
goalposts in what I can only characterize as a flimsy and transparent 
attempt to mask their own hypocrisy.
  Again, there is an obvious, looming question: What are Republicans 
trying to hide in Judge Kavanaugh's record? What don't they want the 
public to see? Why are they making such hypocrites of themselves in 
coming up with these solipsistic arguments that when they were in the 
minority and President Obama nominated people, they should get all the 
records, but not now?

  If there is nothing to hide for Judge Kavanaugh, then let the 
sunlight shine. Let the records come out.
  My Republican friends seem to think that some Democrats have 
announced their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh, and that means the full 
Senate doesn't deserve to have access to his records. Frankly, it is 
rich to hear this from the Republican leader. People are rolling their 
eyes. He refused to consider any nominee by President Obama--it didn't 
matter who it was--mere hours after we received the news of Justice 
Scalia's death. It was one of the most shameful chapters in the Senate. 
I know there is gloating on the hard right: Wasn't that a brilliant 
move?
  It is going to go down in history as one of the low points of the 
Senate, and Senator McConnell will have to bear that on his shoulders. 
I say that even though he is my friend.
  I say to my Republican colleagues: This is not about Democrats. This 
is not about individual Senators and how they might vote. It is about 
the American people. We have an open government. The American people 
deserve a chance to hear the full record, make their judgments, and let 
their elected representatives know now, before the nominee is voted on 
and in November.
  When Elena Kagan's documents were requested by the Senate, they were 
almost immediately posted online for everyone to see, and they are 
still there. You can look them up. This isn't about how some of my 
Democratic colleagues may vote on Judge Kavanaugh; this is about hiding 
critical information about a Supreme Court nominee from the American 
people.
  This is simple. Senate Democrats are following a bipartisan 
precedent; Senate Republicans are not. Republicans are playing a 
partisan game in hopes of withholding and hiding relevant information 
from the Senate and the public.
  I will make one final plea to my colleagues on the other side, who 
seem to think the whole thing is just a political game and that there 
is nothing deep or sincere about the foundation of this Republic. This 
is not a game. This is a nomination for a lifetime appointment to a 
seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is one of the most 
important votes any of us will ever cast. The American people expect 
and deserve that the Senate take its constitutional duty seriously. I 
hope our Republican colleagues will stop their partisan, self-serving 
games and let the Senate do its job.


                               Healthcare

  Madam President, on healthcare, a year ago this week, the Senate 
defeated a partisan attempt by President Trump and Senate Republicans 
to repeal the healthcare law. Since that ignominious defeat, where John 
McCain showed such courage and looked so much better than so many of my 
other colleagues across the aisle in what they are doing now, the Trump 
administration and congressional Republicans have sabotaged our 
healthcare system, raising costs on American families, driving up 
premiums, reducing the quality of care. For what reason? There seems to 
be hardly any reason, other than political spite.
  President Trump is an expert on political spite. We all know that. 
Our Republican colleagues just march blithely behind him. They hate the 
Affordable Care Act so much that they are willing to take a torch to 
our healthcare system, even though it hurts millions of average 
Americans.
  The Trump administration is trying to gut protections for Americans 
with preexisting conditions through the courts. The administration has 
directed the Justice Department not to defend the constitutionality of 
preexisting conditions and at the same time is pushing Judge Kavanaugh 
onto the Bench.
  Remember, President Trump said that his ``judicial appointments would 
do the right thing, unlike Judge Roberts on health care.'' Make no 
mistake about it, America, Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme 
Court puts the future of protections for preexisting conditions in the 
spotlight.
  I would like every Republican Senator to go home and defend that. Go 
home and defend that they want to repeal protections for preexisting 
conditions; go home and defend that they want to put on the Bench a 
nominee who is likely to do so because President Trump said so.
  In a recent Kaiser poll, voters ranked continuing preexisting 
conditions as the most important healthcare issue in the upcoming 
campaign. By 58 to 27, voters said that since President Trump and 
congressional Republicans have made changes in the law, they are now 
responsible for any problems with our healthcare system moving forward.
  Almost a year after the Republican healthcare bill went down, those 
numbers should be a stark warning to my Republican colleagues. The 
American people do not want endless political sabotage. They want lower 
costs, better quality, more stability, and, above all, they want to 
keep the protections for Americans with preexisting conditions.
  Republicans go down the road of sabotage at their own peril. I urge 
my colleagues, instead, to join Democrats in defending preexisting 
conditions in court, as Senator Manchin, Senator Casey--who has been 
such a leader on healthcare, whom we will hear from in a minute--and 
other Democrats have asked us to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


        28th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise for two purposes today, and I will 
start with the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This 
is the 28th anniversary of that landmark legislation.
  Former Senator Tom Harkin served the people of Iowa for more than 
three decades, if you include House and Senate service. He was a 
champion for people with disabilities, and I think that is an 
understatement. For many years, he was the champion. Senator Harkin 
used to say that the Americans with Disabilities Act was the last great 
civil rights law of the 20th century.
  The passage of what we know as the ADA helped to bring into focus a 
picture that started to develop 150 years ago with the ratification of 
the 14th Amendment. That great amendment guaranteed equal protection 
under the law for all.
  The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act confirmed that 
people with disabilities are included in that guarantee of the 14th 
Amendment. I think it is important to review the goals of the ADA. We 
have probably lost track of those goals with the passage of time. They 
need to be repeated.
  The first goal is equal opportunity. The second goal is independent 
living. The third goal is full participation. The fourth goal is 
economic self-sufficiency. That is what we want to achieve for people 
with disabilities: equal opportunity, independent living, full 
participation, and economic self-sufficiency.
  The goals are not achievable, of course, without great support. To 
achieve those goals, we need actions from governments, actions from 
businesses, actions from schools and universities, and, indeed, actions 
from every sector of our society. We need actions to promote and 
protect the dream that is at the core of the ADA.
  The ADA affirmed rights outlined in the 14th Amendment. Despite those 
guarantees, this past year we have seen substantial and, I would argue 
in many instances, very cruel efforts that threaten equality for people 
with disabilities.
  Earlier this year, we saw that the House of Representatives passed a 
bill that would have gutted title III of the ADA, making public access 
an afterthought for people with disabilities. In

[[Page S5398]]

the Senate, with many of our colleagues joined together, we stopped 
that effort. If they try it again, we will have to stop them from doing 
it. These threats continue.
  In the past couple of weeks, we heard officials of this 
administration claim that segregation and institutionalization with 
regard to those who have a disability should be acceptable for these 
Americans with disabilities.
  The law of our land, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 
1999 Supreme Court Olmstead decision say otherwise. They say that the 
values and policy of the United States are for the inclusion--the 
inclusion--of people with disabilities. That statute and that Supreme 
Court decision do not say that the United States supports segregation, 
isolation, and institutionalization of people with disabilities.
  I hope the administration will further clarify what their position is 
because it is contrary to law, but it is also an insult to our values. 
It seems that on many days in the last year and a half, if not longer, 
the Republican majority, both here in the Senate and in the House, has 
been focused on three objectives when it comes to healthcare: rip away, 
decimate, and sabotage. Ripping away protections like those for 
preexisting conditions in the Affordable Care Act, decimating the 
Medicaid Program, and sabotaging our healthcare system are actions by 
the administration that some Republicans have not interfered with. You 
have an administration that on a daily and weekly basis over many 
months now has sabotaged our system--sabotaged the individual market 
and sabotaged people's ability to get healthcare.
  We are going to continue to fight against that. One of the biggest 
fights we are going to have is on Medicaid. Medicaid in Pennsylvania 
affects more than 2 million people. It has an impact because of the 
healthcare benefit it provides on 40 percent of the children of my 
State, 50 percent of the people with disabilities, and more than 60 
percent of folks trying get into nursing homes.
  When it comes to Medicaid, I am going to fight to the end of the 
Earth to protect it, not to sit down and have a nice discussion about 
it but to protect it. If they want to take it on, we are going to 
continue to fight against them as long as it takes. No matter how hard 
or how long that fight is, we are going to fight it.
  Despite the progress we have made with the Americans with 
Disabilities Act and a lot of other progress in the interim, we still 
have a ways to go for the promise and the dream that many Americans 
with disabilities have had. We need further action, further 
legislation, further work in a bipartisan manner. I hope that will be 
the case on two of my bills.
  Let me outline them quickly. No. 1, I just introduced a Disability 
Employment Incentive Act, which encourages businesses to hire more 
people with disabilities. The disability workforce is robust, creative, 
reliable, loyal, and productive. We need more people with disabilities 
in competitive, integrated employment to strengthen our economy and to 
enhance the capacity of our businesses.
  The second bill I have is to protect people with disabilities and 
their families, so we have introduced the Office of Disability Policy 
Act.
  As sabotage continues to occur by the administration, we need 
accurate, nonpartisan information about proposals that could harm 
people with disabilities and the infrastructure that makes it possible 
for them to participate in our society.
  We have a responsibility to know when a law that is being proposed--
or an action by an administration--will benefit or adversely affect 56 
million Americans with disabilities. During this month, when we 
celebrate the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the 14th 
Amendment and the 28th anniversary of the signing of the ADA, we need 
to remember we all have a responsibility to complete the picture and to 
help Americans with disabilities to realize the dream.
  As a nation, our duty now is to take the actions that protect and 
enhance the rights of all Americans, including those with disabilities, 
and to make equality for all a reality.


                               Healthcare

  Let me conclude with some thoughts about the recent debate about 
protections for preexisting conditions. As I said before, it seems that 
Republicans in Washington have a maniacal obsession with decimating 
Medicaid, wiping out the ACA protections, including protections for 
preexisting conditions.
  Now that we have changed the law, we said: ``If you have cancer, you 
can still get coverage or treatment.'' Now I guess some here want to 
take us back.
  We have 5.3 million people in Pennsylvania with preexisting 
conditions; 643,000 of them are children. We are not going back. We are 
not going back to those days when those 5.3 million people in 
Pennsylvania don't have protection. We are not going back. If they want 
to have a fight about it, we will fight about it.
  Last year, I heard from Liz from West Chester, PA--suburban 
Philadelphia--who was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 26. Here is 
what she told me:

       For years I worried about losing my job and with it my 
     insurance because I have costly preexisting conditions. This 
     stress added to the stress of my diagnosis, treatments, and 
     work/life balance.

  Then she goes on to say:

       Weight lifted off my shoulders when the preexisting 
     condition protections became law. Now those protections are 
     threatened.

  So a weight was lifted off her shoulders because of an advancement in 
law because we protected people with preexisting conditions. Now some 
people here want to add that weight back onto her shoulders. That has 
to be stopped at all costs, and we will stop it.
  This latest scheme, this court case trying to overturn preexisting 
conditions protections, is why Senator Manchin and I are leading the 
effort on a resolution to authorize the Senate legal counsel to 
intervene in the case of Texas v. The United States.
  This would be devastating for millions of people across the country. 
I mentioned 5.3 million in Pennsylvania with preexisting conditions--
133 million across the country. Any of us--all of us--are vulnerable 
when the preexisting conditions protections are targeted. It is 
outrageous--outrageous--that the Department of Justice is weighing in 
against the law of the land and arguing that these protections for 
individuals with preexisting conditions should be struck down. We must 
defeat--defeat--this cruel attempt to rip away these protections. I 
will fight every day to make sure every American--no matter where they 
live or what their health status is--has access to the healthcare they 
need.
  It is good that we are celebrating the 28th anniversary of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. We are happy about that, but at the 
same time, we need to be vigilant against attempts to undermine 
progress we have made since the ADA and progress we have made more 
recently.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, who wants to eat bugs for lunch? I am 
hearing crickets, even among the pages here.
  Now, there is a reason for that, but the National Institute of Food 
and Agriculture at the USDA is spending more than $1.3 million to 
support cricket farming in the development of bug-based foods for human 
consumption. This sounds like a headline straight out of The Onion, but 
it is not. It is your hard-earned taxpayer dollars being used to try to 
develop a taste for crickets and other bugs.
  This initiative is trying to determine which bugs taste best, which 
bugs are most nutritious, and the best methods for farming bigger, 
tastier crickets.
  Now, while the USDA has no plans to inspect cricket farms and the FDA 
has ``no special rules for edible insects'' at this time, multiple bug-
based companies have received Federal funds to research and develop 
techniques to put bugs in your food.
  For example, Bugeater Labs--I am not joking here--Bugeater Labs of 
Nebraska has received $100,000 of taxpayer money--this is a grant--to 
identify the most edible insects. With support from the USDA, Bugeater 
is testing bug-based pasta, ramen, and macaroni noodles.
  Now, to get bugs into the food, the crickets are ground into a powder 
and mixed into pasta dough. Bugeater hopes to secure another $600,000 
in Federal funds to cover the cost of developing and manufacturing a 
commercial-ready product made from bugs.

[[Page S5399]]

  Now, separately, All Things Bugs of Georgia--I am not kidding. Again, 
that is a real company--has received nearly $1.3 million for reducing 
the cost and improving the efficiency of farming crickets as food 
ingredients. They currently produce and sell cricket powder with ``mild 
aroma, neutral flavor, and minute particle size that can be added to 
recipes.'' Four pounds of crickets are required to produce 1 pound of 
powder. A pound of cricket powder produced by All Things Bugs, which 
boasts ``the most affordable wholesale price,'' sells for about $35 a 
pound. By comparison, the average retail price for 100 percent ground 
beef is about $3.80 a pound.
  The United States has more than 2.5 billion pounds of beef, pork, 
poultry, and turkey being stockpiled. This is a record level. Clearly, 
a new source of protein is not needed and, in this case, likely not 
wanted.
  In fact, the CEO of one of these cricket cuisine companies said 
yesterday:

       Realistically, as much as we wish people would behave 
     differently, Americans won't buy significant amounts of 
     insect protein. If most were asked to volunteer to eat a bug, 
     the response would be--

  As we heard here--

       crickets.

  With, I should note, the annual commemoration of Pioneer Day in Utah, 
I think I can speak for many of my own ancestors, who nearly starved 
thanks to swarms of crop-destroying crickets, when I say inspect-based 
food development will not be stomached well by taxpayers.
  Today I am proposing an amendment to end the Federal agriculture 
subsidies for farming of insects and to prohibit spending taxpayer 
dollars to develop bug-based food for human consumption. I can't 
believe it takes an amendment to do this kind of thing. It is my 
understanding it is being included in the manager's amendment and will 
likely succeed if it is.
  I would just say this is not going to balance the Federal budget, but 
at a time when the Office of Management and Budget is projecting 
trillion-dollar deficits in 2019 and beyond, how can we pay money and 
have grants of over $1 million to pay companies to try to get people to 
eat bugs? It doesn't pass the laugh test, and people simply have to 
have more faith in their government than that.
  I hope this amendment will pass. I hope we aren't forced to eat 
crickets. That doesn't seem like anything anybody wants to do, and we 
shouldn't be forcing taxpayers to pay for it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see nobody seeking the floor. I will 
speak briefly, but I would urge the Congress--both bodies--to heed the 
clear warnings of our intelligence community, and I urge them to take a 
meaningful step, an important step, toward defending our democracy.
  If we do nothing, we leave our elections vulnerable to an aggressive 
foreign adversary fully intent on destabilizing our country. To this 
Vermonter, and many of the Senators in the Chamber, it is a simple 
choice. It is a solemn responsibility.
  Today, the Senate should vote on my amendment to provide $250 million 
in grants to the States to help secure their election systems. We have 
to send a clear message to Russia and other foreign adversaries that 
tampering in our elections will not be tolerated. Simply giving a 
speech about it is not enough. We should vote on this.
  If there was a missile attack against any of our States, we would 
respond immediately. Our democracy is a sacred part of what we cherish 
as Americans--all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike--and our 
States are under attack.
  In fiscal year 2018, Congress came together--Republicans and 
Democrats, the House and the Senate--and we appropriated $380 million 
for State election security grants in response to our intelligence 
community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
  In just a few months since then, States and territories--55 in all--
have requested funding, and 100 percent of these funds have been 
committed; 90 percent of them having been disbursed to the States.
  The need is clear, and we have only scratched the surface. This week, 
21 State attorneys general signed a letter pleading with Congress to 
appropriate more money to address this imminent threat. Experts agree 
that aside from our appropriation last year, Congress has not provided 
any new spending on election security grants in years. By not providing 
these funds, Congress has allowed our election infrastructure to lag 
behind the times and the threat. We are leaving our country vulnerable 
to a clear threat to the foundation of this very institution and the 
other institutions of American Government.
  We spend hundreds of billions of dollars in defending against missile 
threats, as we should, or threats from the sea, the air, and the land, 
as we should. But here is a very direct threat we can begin to address 
with a tiny fraction of what we spend on these other threats.
  My amendment will provide the funding needed to help protect our 
elections. Our intelligence community has warned us publicly that we 
are, once again, being targeted. The Senate should not allow that. We 
should vote to defend this institution, the U.S. Senate, and our own 
democracy.
  In a world where the President of the United States stood shoulder to 
shoulder with Vladimir Putin and refused to condemn Russia's attack on 
our election and attacked our own law enforcement intelligence 
agencies, my amendment is a necessary first step.
  I believe in America first, not Russia first. I believe in protecting 
America. Our State works very hard to protect our elections. We elect 
Republicans and Democrats in our State. In the last election, 
Republicans elected a Governor, and I was reelected as a Senator. It is 
obvious we split votes, but we count our votes, and we do not have 
interference from another country.
  Vermont is a small State, and we go under their radar, but anybody 
who reads the intelligence knows there is no question Russia has 
attacked us before, Russia is continuing to attack this country today, 
and Russia will attack this country in November. We must protect it.
  I don't believe anybody is seeking recognition.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Tariffs

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, over the years I have been on the Senate 
floor many times bringing up the challenges of rural America, whether 
it is delivering quality healthcare or investing in vital 
infrastructure that supports our businesses or connecting our schools 
to the 21st century. I have worked hard to make sure that rural States 
like Montana have a voice in the Senate.
  That is why I am so frustrated by the recent comments made by 
National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro. Mr. Navarro last week 
characterized the economic uncertainty that tariffs are causing to the 
American farmer and rancher as nothing more than a ``rounding error.''
  Mr. Navarro has an important position. He is a trade adviser, and he 
is a strategist for the President of the United States. He believes the 
tariffs that are harming Montana producers equate to nothing more than 
a ``rounding error.'' This statement is inaccurate, it is insulting, 
and it is dismissive of rural America. If Mr. Navarro truly believes 
that his comments are true, he has a lot to learn about what is going 
on across this country.
  I am willing to bet that he hasn't been to a farm, a ranch, a 
stockyard, or a grain elevator facility recently--maybe ever--and I am 
sure he hasn't picked rock in North Central Montana. I don't think he 
would call the administration's trade war a ``rounding error'' if he 
met with Montana's homebuilders, construction workers, small business 
owners, farmers, and ranchers,

[[Page S5400]]

who are being squeezed by the rise of the cost of doing business now 
because of these tariffs.
  I urge Mr. Navarro to leave the swamp, and come to Billings, Fort 
Benton, or Dutton, MT, and get an accurate perspective of how these 
tariffs are impacting family farms, ranches, and businesses across my 
great State. If he or anyone else in Washington were to speak with the 
folks who are most impacted by their trade policies, here is what they 
will hear. In ag country, they will say: Do you know what? Our 
commodity prices weren't that cherry to begin with, and now we are 
seeing them drop even more. We are seeing our input costs go up.
  The head of the Montana grain growers, a lady by the name of Michelle 
Erickson Jones, testified recently that they didn't buy a grain bin. A 
grain bin is a facility that is made out of steel that stores grain. 
The costs went up on that very simple structure by 20 percent over the 
last year.
  Forterra, in Billings, MT, builds bridges and has seen bridge 
component structures such as I-beams and rebar go up double digits just 
recently. In fact, in Missoula, MT, where they are building a new 
library to export information out of--a very good thing for that 
community, and for any community, as far as that goes--they passed a 
bond issue. Their costs went up more than $700,000 just because of the 
increased cost of steel. Those are the input costs.
  We have been working for generations and generations to develop 
markets all around the world, as we live in a world that is getting 
smaller every day, and we are losing those export markets. We are 
losing certainty, and without certainty you cannot plan for the future.
  Many of these agricultural farms and ranches have been in the family 
for generations, as mine has been. We hope to pass it along to the next 
generation, but if you create enough uncertainty, that will simply be 
impossible. That is exactly what is going on in this country today.
  In the 1980s, we saw family farm after family farm go broke. That 
started, by the way, with a grain embargo. We will see that same 
scenario being repeated today if we don't change the way we are doing 
business.
  So I ask: What is the endgame? I don't know that what is going on in 
the White House right now gives me any sort of hope that there is an 
endgame.
  Here are the facts. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
ongoing trade war will threaten $20 million in Montana exports alone--
just Montana exports--and, in fact, 140,000 Montana jobs. We have just 
over 1 million people living in Montana, and 140,000 jobs is a lot of 
jobs.
  Only in Washington, DC, is a $20 million drop in Montana's exports 
and the potential impact of 140,000 jobs considered a rounding error.
  Just 5 days ago, after he called the impact of the tariffs a 
``rounding error,'' the administration announced that taxpayers are 
going to have to pay $12 billion to offset the financial impacts of 
these trade policies. Unlike drought, hail, floods, insects, or disease 
and other challenges that farmers and ranchers must deal with each 
year, this disaster is man-made. It is government-made. Make no 
mistake, this is a self-inflicted problem, and it is a financial 
problem that is a direct result of tariffs and irresponsible policy.
  Now in order to try to ease the pain caused by these reckless 
tariffs, the administration has decided to further rattle the 
marketplace with an infusion of $12 billion of taxpayer money.

  I will state that folks in production agriculture want to sell their 
products, not depend upon undependable erratic payments from the 
government. I never, ever met a farmer who wanted to receive their 
paycheck from the government. They want to earn their paycheck. They 
want to earn it from the free market. They want a free market. They 
want places where they can sell their products. They want to raise the 
products--and in my case and Montana's case, some of the finest 
agricultural products in the world--and they want to sell them to 
customers both at home and in markets around the world.
  They don't want to collect cash payments from the government. That is 
not why they got into business. They want to get it from the 
marketplace. They want to get their living from the marketplace.
  These dollars are being used as a bandaid to stop the bleeding that 
is being felt by America's farmers and ranchers as a direct result of 
these trade policies. This $12 billion is not going to help hold on to 
any markets. It will simply be a patchwork to get through the problems 
that the government--this administration--has created. It will not 
provide them long-term certainty. It will not provide them the ability 
to make long-term investments. It will not provide them the opportunity 
to pass the farm on to their children.
  It will provide temporary relief, and because of these trade 
policies, that temporary relief is important, but it is far from a real 
solution for the folks who give us food security and the folks who feed 
the world--our family farms and ranchers.
  I will just say this. I have had conversations across the State of 
Montana over my tenure in the Senate. I can tell you that folks work 
hard. They work hard for their money, and they expect to be given a 
level playing field, but what we are seeing right now are markets that 
we have worked a generation to create and to mold being given away to 
other countries. We are seeing infrastructure in other countries that 
is not being focused on the United States and the products we produce, 
but it is being developed to do trade with other countries, in their 
markets. They produce sometimes the very same products that we produce.
  I was at a meeting the other night and talked about the fact that in 
regards to Mexico, which buys more barley from Montana than any other 
nation in the world, and Canada, our No. 1 trading partner, Mexico is 
sitting down and they are negotiating and Canada isn't. It is 
interesting because we have heard this before. As Mexico negotiates, 
they also have signed a trade agreement with Argentina. To my 
knowledge, this is the first one ever to be able to supply their people 
with food. That is a market that we need.
  As far as Canada goes, I have had plenty of issues with Canada--the 
Canadian Government knows that--whether it is softwood lumber, grain 
grading for our products going north, or whether it is issues that 
revolve around the Columbia River Treaty. The fact is that this is our 
best friend in the world. We need to treat them fairly and, in the 
process, make sure we have markets for the people in the United States.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is 
one of the Nation's premier conservation programs. In fact, I believe 
it is the crown jewel of our conservation programs. The Land and Water 
Conservation Fund has been an incredible program across the country, 
saving land for future generations to enjoy, saving land that otherwise 
might be lost and neglected for future generations--parts of our park 
systems, our trail systems, parts of our communities.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been around for many years. 
Yet it is set to expire on September 30.
  The challenge we have in this Chamber is that it never seems to be 
the right time to debate permanent authorization of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. Again, it is a program that has incredible 
bipartisan support. The Land and Water Conservation Fund expires 
September 30. We need to not only reauthorize the program but to 
permanently authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Yet it is 
still not the right time to debate it. It is not the right issue, not 
the right bill, not the right moment.
  I hope we can find a way to do exactly what we need to for our great 
outdoors, for our economy, and for our environment to continue the 
incredible work of this crown jewel of conservation programs. That is 
why I have authored a bill with a number of my colleagues around the 
country, including Senator Burr, who has been a longtime champion of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund--permanent authorization, full 
funding for the Land and

[[Page S5401]]

Water Conservation Fund. That is why we put together an amendment to do 
exactly what the American people want us to do, and that is permanent 
authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  I would ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and 
call up my amendment No. 3424. I further ask that there be up to 1 hour 
of debate equally divided in the usual form on the amendment and that 
following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the 
amendment with no intervening action or debate.
  Before I enter that request formally, I would like to yield to 
Senator Burr for a few comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I rise in support 
of his amendment.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund--you may remember, last month 
when I tried to get a vote on its reauthorization, I had just come from 
a press conference marking 100 days until it expires. We have been here 
before. I am sort of shocked sometimes how hardheaded we are in this 
institution.
  This program has now reached a point where it is 66 days away from 
expiration. In the 115th Congress, we actually let it expire. The 
reason Congress passed legislation to reauthorize it was the pressure 
of the American people.
  Let me say at the start that I have unbelievable respect for the 
chairmen of the committees whose bills make up this package, and I have 
deep respect for the ranking members. I hold in high esteem the 
chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. This is no beef 
with them. This is a beef with what we have set up as the process for 
the very choreographed movement of a piece of legislation--in this 
particular case, the appropriations bill.
  Some have told me this is just not germane to this bill. The only way 
it wouldn't be germane, in my book, is that we are debating legislation 
on the use of taxpayer money to fund government, and the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund uses zero dollars of taxpayer money. You see, it was 
created to take a percentage off the royalties of exploration by 
visionaries who said: We want a perpetual fund that taxpayers aren't 
obligated to--that is self-generating off of the resources we take out 
of the land--to be pumped back in to protect the treasures for 
generations yet to come. Masterful. Absolutely masterful. As a matter 
of fact, it was so smart that over 60 Members of the Senate--if we 
called for a vote right now, up or down, with nobody objecting or 
making a motion, it would pass. It would meet the highest threshold in 
the Senate to actually move out of this body. With over 240 cosponsors 
in the House of Representatives, it would pass in the House. The 
President would sign it into law, and this would be behind us.
  We would set the example for the next generation, as parents and as 
leaders, that there are some things you have to save for generations 
who need an opportunity to be exposed to them. It is not as much about 
what we get out of it; it is about the example we set on how we get 
there. That is why it troubles me.
  I look at this as a tremendous opportunity. Although by standards, it 
is not germane, it is germane because we are not using taxpayer money. 
We are actually protecting treasures for generations to come, which is 
our responsibility as adults.
  As I said, it is likely that there will be an objection. I hold no 
personal disrespect for those who are forced to object to it. If we 
were to table this amendment--I have already conceded to the chairman 
that they would probably win, not because a majority of the body isn't 
for it but because of the pressures that come with that vote; that 
actual sponsors of the legislation--people who would vote for it--might 
actually vote to table this for another day.
  I have tried since the beginning of this Congress to bring up this 
legislation. I only ask for an up-or-down vote at a 60-vote threshold. 
I am not trying to short the process in the Senate by one vote. I am 
not trying to piggyback and hide behind something. I just want the 
Members of the Senate to actually have an opportunity to debate this 
and to have a vote.
  At the end of the day, I think what we would find is that a majority 
of Senators--I think over 60--would support it and a majority of House 
Members would support it.
  There is one assurance I can give my colleagues: A majority of 
America agrees with us. They believe we should pass this. We can have a 
debate as to whether we change it. We are the U.S. Congress; we can 
change a program at any time. But why would we not provide the 
certainty that the program is going to be extended?
  Many that remember the creation of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund--it was authorized and capped at $900 million a year. It has never 
received $900 million a year because every dime that we get off of 
royalties is funneled through the same appropriations process in which 
we are currently engaged.
  Another reason I would claim that common sense would say this is 
germane to what we are doing is because it is money that is controlled 
by the Appropriations Committee, and for whatever reason--and I am not 
questioning it--they never appropriated it at $900 million. No 
administration ever requested $900 million. But nobody can prove to me 
that there is not $900 million worth of worthy projects out there.
  Much of this land ends up back in the inventory of States' parks, and 
the residents of those States get to enjoy hunting, fishing, and 
recreation on that land. They are not relying on their ability to buy a 
piece of property that they can do it on; they share it with others in 
their State.
  In my State of North Carolina, we have some national treasures that, 
thank goodness, founders before me recognized and protected. One of 
them is called the Blue Ridge Parkway, the most traveled piece of 
Federal road structure that we have in this country. When we cut it 
through the mountains from Virginia to North Carolina in the 1950s--and 
we created the greatest jobs program at the time; that is what it was 
designed for--there were private landowners who had property adjacent 
to that road. What is the prudent thing? The prudent thing is to 
occasionally buy a piece of property that is not adjacent to the road 
and trade with the landowner who is on the road so that we can protect 
the roadway. That is the type of project that Land and Water 
Conservation Fund money goes to. It is not to create a bigger Great 
Smoky Mountains National Park, which is also in my State. It is the 
most visited park in the United States. I am not asking to enlarge it. 
I am asking for us to provide these funds so that great decisions can 
be made in coordination with local officials about what treasures 
should exist down the road for our children and our grandchildren.
  We are not going to have an opportunity to acknowledge today that we 
are going to move this legislation. I believe that is incredibly 
unfortunate. I think it is tough because I think there are a lot of 
people who would be supportive who sound a little bit like crickets 
today.
  Here is the only promise I can make to my colleagues today: You are 
going to have an opportunity to vote on this time and again. As long as 
the Senate goes into session, if we intend to move legislation, you 
will have an opportunity to vote on the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund reauthorization. When this floor opens in the morning, on a 
regular basis, I will come down here, and I will not encumber the 
Appropriations chairman in every case; I will probably pull every 
chairman into this. And I won't just rely on chairmen's vehicles of 
legislation that they are very passionate on. I have an Intel 
authorization bill that I can't even get to the floor for 
authorization, and I can't think of anything that is more important. I 
think the chair and the ranking member of the full Appropriations 
Committee both served on the committee in the past, and they know the 
importance of the Intel authorization bill. I can't get it up because 
sometimes we get more hung up on the power of one person in this 
institution than we do on the importance of what it is we are doing.
  Well, if that is what we want to do, I will come down as one person, 
and I will ask unanimous consent that we consider the reauthorization. 
I am sure somebody will stand up and object.

[[Page S5402]]

They always do. They are objecting to what the American people want us 
to do. They are objecting to a program that has a proven track record 
of success and requires zero--nada, not a dime--of taxpayer money. If 
there has ever been a thing that we have presented to the American 
people that we should be applauded on--and that doesn't happen often--
this has been one of them.

  Yet, because we have chosen convenience over debate, because we are 
trying to fit this in a really small box, let me suggest to my 
colleagues that we are making a foolish mistake for the long term in 
this institution. This is an institution that was created for this 
moment. It is an institution that was created so that we could come to 
this floor and debate, so that we could come in and believe one thing, 
hear the debate, and actually go out and say: It changed my mind.
  Maybe some people will listen who are now supporters, and maybe some 
supporters will listen to what I have said and will now vote against 
me. Here is the troubling thing: They will not have the opportunity. 
With the promise I will make to them, they will get that opportunity. 
So watch what you say because before I leave this institution, you will 
be given the opportunity to vote time and time and again if, in fact, 
procedurally, we are blocked from letting the American people's voices 
be heard with a vote in the Senate.
  I yield back to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Carolina, 
who has been a true champion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
for years. You can hear his passion, and you can sense the passion, and 
you absolutely have an idea of his commitment. I am right along with 
him in this effort to make sure that we do our job here and let the 
American people's voices be heard for their support of this program and 
through our action, which is moving forward with the permanent 
authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Every corner of this country has benefited from the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. There were 330 million park visits in 2017. Every 
State and many countries around the world have benefited from this 
conservation program--from what this means to our country, what this 
means to our economy, and what this means to conservation and to the 
protection of our environment.
  I look forward to fighting alongside Senator Burr as we move this 
most important piece of conservation programs forward in the permanent 
authorization and funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up my amendment No. 3424. I further ask that on the 
amendment there be up to 1 hour of debate, equally divided in the usual 
form, and that following the use or yielding back of that time the 
Senate vote on the amendment with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from the great State of Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to reluctantly reserve the right 
to object. I will object to amendment No. 3424, which would permanently 
authorize the revenue collection and deposit functions of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  I thank my colleague from North Carolina, and I thank my colleague 
from Colorado. I, too, know, hear, and understand the passion that they 
have expressed not only at this time but that they have expressed for 
quite some time in their support for this important conservation 
program. It is something about which we, as Americans, have much to be 
proud.
  I have expressed some of my concerns about how, historically, certain 
aspects of the Land and Water Conservation Fund have shifted from there 
being less for stateside acquisition and more for Federal acquisition. 
I would like to see some of that reallocated and rebalanced. In 
concept, what we have designed with the LWCF is something that has 
brought strong and good benefit to our States and, really, to 
conservation efforts throughout the country.
  When the Senators speak about the merits of the program, I find 
nothing that I can disagree with in terms of the benefits that we see. 
Why I rise to express my objection in advancing the amendment is that 
the issue they have raised is to permanently seek to authorize this 
program. The collection and deposit provisions within LWCF are 
currently authorized, and, as they have pointed out, they are 
authorized through September 30 of this year. The measure they bring 
before us would be to permanently authorize those expiring provisions. 
It is, in its very nature, authorizing on an appropriations bill. We 
have an annual spending bill that basically directs that spending for 1 
year. This measure would be significant in the extent of its 
authorization.
  We have sought to advance the 12 appropriations bills through to the 
floor in a manner that we have not seen in years. I mentioned, when we 
started this debate on Monday night, that we haven't had an Interior 
appropriations bill on the Senate floor since 2010. That is not the 
Senators' fault. That is a failure of our process. One can assign a lot 
of blame, and one can point a lot of fingers. The fact of the matter is 
that we had moved from that responsibility of ``What are the annual 
spending priorities that the appropriating committees are tasked to do 
every year?'' to, effectively, bringing in a lot of the authorizing 
that the authorizing committees themselves needed to do, and it was not 
working. We stalled ourselves out. We had big omnibus bills that nobody 
liked. So we are trying to get back to a process that we can stand 
behind, that really defines what the appropriations process is designed 
to do.
  At the direction of Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy, we have 
agreed to really try to come together to work to restore what we fondly 
refer to as ``regular order'' and what some don't even know to be 
regular order because they have never really experienced it. Because we 
made that commitment, we were actually able to move an Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee bill through the full committee by 31 to 
0--unanimous. I don't know if there has ever been a unanimous vote on 
an Interior appropriations bill out of the subcommittee, much less 
being able to bring it to the floor.
  So much of this objection is due to the fact that the Senator's 
amendment would seek to permanently authorize on an appropriation's 1-
year annual spending bill. I think it is also important to point out to 
colleagues that while the current authorization does extend through 
September 30, the authority to collect and deposit revenues in the 
funds is what expires on September 30. The ability and the authority to 
appropriate money continues indefinitely.
  For those who may be concerned that if we fail to authorize this 
before September 30 the sky is going to fall on the LWCF and that all 
the good that is in the works will stop, that is not accurate. Within 
this year's spending bill, we have authorized the LWCF to the 2018 
level of $425 million. Within this amount, the stateside assistance 
programs are about 50 percent of the funding. There was $124 million in 
2015 for NPS stateside and also additional funding for the American 
Battlefield Protection Program--an increase this year to the highest 
level ever within this account.
  I want to make sure that my colleagues do know that my commitment 
here and the commitment of many in this body is to work with our 
colleagues--to work with the Senator from North Carolina, to work with 
the Senator from Colorado, and with the many others who care deeply and 
rightly about the future of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--to 
ensure that it is able to continue the good work that it does.
  I remind my friends that it was just about a year and a half ago when 
we moved an energy bill out of the authorizing committee, the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee. Included as part of that measure was a 
permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This 
is something that the Senator from Colorado had worked on with us, and 
Senator Cantwell, the ranking member on the committee, made sure that 
it was a priority. Now, that measure has not seen floor time this year. 
We were able to

[[Page S5403]]

move it out in the last Congress. We were able to move that bill out by 
85 to 12.
  When the Senator from North Carolina says that there is good support 
for the LWCF within this body, we have demonstrated it. We have 
demonstrated it through votes on the floor, and we have demonstrated it 
through the support in the authorizing committee.
  I do think there is a path forward, but I ask my colleagues to honor 
the commitment we have made to try to advance our appropriations bills 
in an order that respects the authority that we have as appropriators, 
which is to appropriate these dollars to the designated priorities and 
to stand down when it comes to authorizing on these appropriating 
bills.
  The Senators have my commitment, most certainly, to continue to work 
on a positive path forward--a path that is not months in delay. I 
absolutely believe that the Senator from North Carolina is very serious 
in his commitment and his resolve that we will see this issue before us 
on every vehicle out there. It is in my best interest--I think it is in 
our best interests--to figure out how we are able to come to an 
agreement to support a program that most of us can get behind, to do so 
in a manner that allows us to do our legislative business, and to do so 
with the level of comity and civility that this process demands.
  With that, again, I reluctantly and respectfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority whip.


                            Economic Growth

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday, during the lunch hour, Kevin 
Hassett, Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, 
brought a number of charts and a very welcomed message, which was that 
the American economy is very strong and that many of the predictions 
that have been made during the course of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
debate have proven to be true--the positive comments. The negative 
comments have proven to be false in terms of what the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act would do to restart this great economic engine known as the 
American economy.
  Back home in Texas, we issued our monthly employment report, and it 
included good news, which I would also like to share. First, Texas 
created 27,000 new jobs in June. That is a whole lot of people who are 
moving up, pursuing new opportunities, and moving into our State from 
places in which they don't have those opportunities. A single new job 
can mean a lot of things in a person's life, but at the very least, it 
means a fresh start, a chance to be challenged, to grow, and to put a 
few extra dollars in the bank. Now multiply the 27,000 new jobs by 12, 
and you can see that the impact on workers, families, and our entire 
State is huge.

  I am glad to say that this is the 24th consecutive month of job 
growth in Texas, and the folks I have talked to around the State in 
places like College Station, Austin, and Amarillo, just to name a few, 
are pretty excited. They are also relieved. They are relieved that the 
Texas unemployment rate continues to decline and are excited that once 
again we have been called the top State for business. All told, Texas 
has added 360,000 new jobs over the last 12 months. That is 360,000 new 
jobs in Texas over the last 12 months.
  Mayor Jerry Morales of Midland, TX, who is also the owner of several 
restaurants there, said recently: ``This economy is on fire.'' 
Apparently the fire has reached as far as his kitchen because he is 
having trouble retaining cooks at his restaurant. In other words, the 
economy is running strong, unemployment is low, and the labor 
participation rate continues to go up, but employers are having a hard 
time finding qualified workers to perform the good, well-paying jobs 
that do exist. That is exactly what a competitive labor market looks 
like. Other employers in the Permian Basin around Midland have doubled 
the previous pay of new employees because of the competitive labor 
market there. Those are just a couple of stories in one area of my 
State. There are many more.
  I continue to hear from my constituents about the positive impacts of 
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--landmark legislation we enacted at the end 
of last year. Just to remind everybody, we cut tax rates; we doubled 
the standard deduction, meaning that fewer people will actually have to 
fill out the long-form tax return; and we doubled the child tax credit. 
What is more, we encouraged companies that had billions of dollars in 
cash parked overseas that they didn't want to see taxed twice to bring 
that money back home, and they have been bringing hundreds of billions 
of dollars of money previously parked overseas back here to the United 
States and putting it to work.
  Earlier this summer, we hit the 6-month anniversary of the passage of 
the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. During that time, I have heard from men and 
women--William Alderman, for example. Mr. Alderman is a retired, 
disabled soldier who said that the new tax law increased his monthly 
income enough to ease the rising cost of his living expenses. Maybe 
that will not make headlines in the New York Times or the Washington 
Post, but that is a big deal to Mr. Alderman. I heard from Kim Ewing in 
Mesquite, who hadn't seen a pay raise in 7 years. Now she has one, and 
you can imagine she is grateful for it. She wrote that she is glad her 
Federal Government is finally getting what she calls a little ``common 
sense.''
  The good news is not limited to Texas. We have seen the country on 
fire when it comes to our economy. We have seen newfound optimism and 
confidence in the future. That is a good thing because during the 
preceding 8 years, before the current administration, before we had 
done this, we had been told that we have to accept slow growth and 
stagnant wages as the new normal. We know that is not true because 
people can hope for and aspire and work for better, and with the right 
policies in place, they can be rewarded more generously for their hard 
work and their diligence and their self-discipline.
  We have also heard from large companies in large cities. We have 
heard from small businesses in small cities. We have heard that some of 
the big businesses are handing out bonuses and raises and 401(k) 
increases. We have heard about the effects in some of our rural areas 
and the effects on people who sometimes get overlooked in the national 
conversation.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued a report showing that 
the estimated effective tax rates declined for all farms of all sizes 
and that farm households could pay close to 20 percent less in taxes. 
During a time of tough commodity prices, that is welcome news, that 
their bill to the Federal Government--Uncle Sam--is going to go down by 
20 percent.
  Unsurprisingly, most Americans now believe that economic conditions 
are good or excellent and that the economy is improving. As I said, 
optimism is high. To be specific, it is at a 14-year high.
  After years of stagnant wage growth, after the previous 
administration ignored the plight of the average American worker and 
paid short shrift to his or her real circumstances--the bills they had 
to pay, the salary they earned each month--it is about time somebody 
got the message that Kim Ewing was talking about. In her words, this 
Congress got a little bit of ``common sense'' and passed the first 
major overhaul of the Tax Code in 30 years. Was it perfect? Well, of 
course, not. Are we still working to make those reforms bigger and 
better? Absolutely. But the main point is that we knew that American 
workers elected us to actually do something, not to just talk about it, 
and we sure weren't going to turn our backs on their everyday concerns, 
things they talk about around the kitchen table.
  What are the results 6 months later? The United States as a whole 
added 213,000 jobs in June--more than expected. Average hourly earnings 
are up close to 3 percent. Manufacturers are more optimistic than at 
any other time in modern history. It is not just me saying it; it is 
the chief economist of the National Association of Manufacturers.
  This week, Leader McConnell has been talking a lot about the 
difference between rhetoric--what President Obama offered--and the 
results we have been able to deliver. I agree with that contrast. As 
the majority leader put it, all of us agree with the rhetoric about 
creating jobs, ``[b]ut not everybody supported the policy agenda that's 
helped deliver results for the

[[Page S5404]]

American people.'' That is a chronic problem here in Washington, DC--
saying one thing and doing another. So we not only tried to say the 
right thing, we tried to do the right thing by the American people, and 
I think we have succeeded.
  Unfortunately, like so much of what happens here in Washington, DC, 
even creating this newfound optimism, this confidence in the future, 
more take-home pay, and a lower tax burden--in spite of those benefits, 
it still surprises me that not a single Democrat voted for tax reform. 
It was a party-line vote. Every single Democrat in the Senate voted 
against tax reform. I bet the commonsense men and women, such as Kim 
Ewing, the lady from Mesquite, TX, whom I mentioned, are taking note.
  (Mrs. FISCHER assumed the Chair.)


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Madam President, on to one more topic, earlier this month, I was 
privileged to be at the White House when President Trump announced whom 
he would nominate to serve in the seat being vacated by Anthony Kennedy 
on the U.S. Supreme Court. The President had a great roster of judges 
to choose from, but he settled on Brett Kavanaugh, who I have been here 
on the floor saying I believe is a stellar pick.
  His nomination continues what we in the Senate have been doing in the 
last 18 months--voting on well-qualified nominees to fill the Federal 
bench, and we have been confirming them at a record pace. These are 
people who, by definition, will serve for a lifetime. That is what 
Federal judges do in our country. They have life tenure. They are not 
subject to election, and they get the independence that goes along with 
it and a unique job in our system of government of calling balls and 
strikes, applying the law to the facts of an individual case. It is an 
incredibly important role to play.
  Sadly, during the discussion about Judge Kavanaugh that we will take 
up here soon--it increasingly appears that some of our Democratic 
colleagues aren't particularly interested in the qualifications of the 
nominee. They don't seem particularly interested in whether they will 
or will not rule in accordance with the law and the Constitution as 
written. Instead, they have made very clear that they are looking for 
judges whose views line up with the political opinions and views of the 
Democratic Party.
  I am glad to see that a few of them are breaking rank. The minority 
leader has issued an edict to his Members saying: Don't meet with the 
judge until we work out something on the documents that we want to see 
from his time working at the White House Counsel's Office, as Staff 
Secretary, or as a member of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But 
fortunately some of the Democrats have broken rank and decided that 
they want to visit with the judge, which I think is entirely 
appropriate.
  As I said, the minority leader wants to get into a contest over how 
many documents are going to be produced. Well, let me put this in 
context. Our Democratic colleagues have requested at least 1 million 
pages of documents on Judge Kavanaugh. How many were produced for 
Justice Kagan, who sits on the Supreme Court? Well, it is about 173,000 
pages versus 1 million. Like Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Kagan actually 
worked at the White House, at the White House Counsel's Office.
  But what strikes me as so ironic and maybe just a little bit 
hypocritical is that when Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed to the DC 
Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, they didn't want to see any of those 
documents. They couldn't have cared less. Now, all of a sudden, they 
have become the most important things in the world they could get their 
hands on during this confirmation process. That ought to tell us 
something.
  As I mentioned, the minority leader has told his colleagues to stop 
meeting with the judge, but a few have broken rank, and I know Judge 
Kavanaugh is grateful for their political courage.
  Our colleague from Indiana, the senior Senator, said that he 
``always'' planned to meet with Judge Kavanaugh. The junior Senator 
from Delaware said that ``of course'' he will meet with the nominee. 
And the senior Senators from West Virginia and North Dakota have said 
they will too. Good for them. I hope this means that the dam of 
resistance is finally breaking and that more of our colleagues across 
the aisle will follow suit. I am sure they will learn something by 
visiting with Judge Kavanaugh, and I am sure they will be impressed, as 
I was when I met with the nominee and heard more of his story, because 
the truth is, Judge Kavanaugh is eminently qualified and well respected 
by everybody who knows him.
  I look forward to voting both in the Judiciary Committee and then on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate early this fall and confirming him for the 
vacancy left by Justice Kennedy's retirement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


           Career and Technical Education Act Reauthorization

  Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of 
career and technical education, also known as CTE.
  As cochair of the Senate CTE Caucus, along with Senators Baldwin, 
Kaine, and Portman, I am very proud of the work we have done in the 
Senate to advance CTE and to ensure that our students have the training 
and the skills needed to succeed in today's ever-changing workforce.
  The career and technical education statute was last updated in 2006--
over a decade ago--and it was due for reauthorization 6 years ago. 
Earlier this week, the Senate passed a historic agreement to update the 
law and to make a number of important changes. I was proud to help pass 
this legislation out of the HELP Committee and through the full Senate. 
Yesterday, the House also passed this reauthorization, sending it to 
the President's desk.
  Here are just a few reasons why investing in CTE is so critical to 
our country. By 2020, 30 percent of job openings will require some 
college or a 2-year degree. In the next 10 years, 3 million workers 
will be required for the Nation's infrastructure needs. We know that 
high school students who take CTE classes have higher graduation rates, 
and they are more likely to find employment or attain higher 
education. Postsecondary CTE programs are also a proven, cost-effective 
means to obtain a credential or other form of degree.

  So it is worth noting that this reauthorization of our Nation's 
career and technical education law includes important components from 
legislation introduced by our Senate CTE Caucus.
  The Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act and the Perkins Fund for 
Equity and Excellence Act are just two key bills that help align CTE 
programs with the jobs of tomorrow and ensure that quality is 
maintained and strengthened in our CTE programs.
  The reauthorization also includes provisions from a bill I helped 
introduce with Senator Peters to support training for career guidance 
and academic counselors so they can help inform students of 
opportunities in the workforce, and it includes a measure Senator 
Gillibrand and I worked on to encourage professional development change 
and hands-on learning approaches like makerspaces, which provide 
students the tools and space needed to build, create, and learn 
critical skills.
  In conclusion, we critically need to update the law to reflect the 
current and future workforce. I am pleased the House overwhelmingly 
passed the Senate CTE bill, and I look forward to it becoming law very 
soon.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Madam President, I wish to commend the Senator from Indiana 
for bringing our attention to this important subject. It is important 
in all of our States. Career technical education is an incredibly 
important part of helping to grow our economy, so I wish to express my 
appreciation to the Senator from Indiana for his leadership on this 
issue.


                               Healthcare

  Madam President, I rise to speak about a different issue; that is, 
healthcare and what is happening to the Affordable Care Act and to the 
availability of healthcare and health insurance in our society.
  I rise genuinely puzzled about what appears to be an obsession or a 
mania with removing health insurance from

[[Page S5405]]

people, with keeping people from having health insurance. I just don't 
get it.
  The data is very clear over the years that having health insurance 
saves lives. There can be debate about exactly how many, but the 
reality is--and it is perfectly logical--if you have health insurance, 
you are more likely to be treated, you are more likely to be treated 
earlier, and you are more likely to survive, particularly with regard 
to diseases like cancer, where early detection and treatment is the 
best defense against this dread disease.
  I just don't understand why we cannot face the reality that health 
insurance or health coverage or access to healthcare is a fundamental 
right. It is a fundamental part of being a human. The idea of rationing 
healthcare by wealth just doesn't make sense, particularly in a country 
committed, as we are, to equality and equal justice under law.
  The other reason I am surprised at this continuing effort to 
undermine the Affordable Care Act is that its eventual sabotage will 
only lead to greater demands for some kind of more intrusive change to 
our healthcare system--a single-payer system or healthcare for all. 
There are already millions of people in this country building a 
political movement to support Medicare for all, which is essentially a 
single-payer system. So those who are trying to cripple the Affordable 
Care Act, which really was a conservative proposal from the 1980s and 
1990s, are only paving the way for a much more radical transformation 
of our healthcare system than they would ever desire.
  The ACA simply builds upon the current system we have of private 
health insurance and provides health insurance to those who aren't 
fortunate enough to work for a company that provides a subsidy for 
health insurance or provides health insurance to its employees. That is 
all it is. It is really an effort to fill the gap in this country 
between those who have insurance through their employer or through 
Medicare or through Medicaid and those who have no insurance.
  The ACA was a remarkable success for a period of years because it 
vastly cut the number of uninsured people in this country. So why we 
are trying to kill it, to strangle it, to mug it, to sabotage it just 
doesn't make sense from any point of view--either from the point of 
view of providing healthcare and health insurance to people, which 
saves lives, or the point of view of trying to maintain the semblance 
of the current system.
  So here we are in the midst of an ongoing attempt to basically 
sabotage this system. Back in October of 2017, the administration said 
they are no longer going to make cost-sharing reduction payments to 
help insurance companies provide lower copays and deductibles to low-
income individuals. Premium increases. I sat on this floor and listened 
to Members decry premium increases because of the Affordable Care Act. 
This is an action which is sure to provide premium increases, and it 
was a voluntary action of the administration taken last fall.
  Back in January of 2017, within weeks of taking office, one of the 
first things the new administration did was cut advertising to notify 
people of the availability of reasonably priced insurance under the 
Affordable Care Act--an initial step to cut access.
  Of course, leading up to the tax filing deadline in 2016, for 2016 
returns back last year, the administration said the IRS was no longer 
going to enforce the individual mandate.
  Then, of course, this body, in a provision which I can only deem as 
cruel because of the effect on insurance premiums and the effect on the 
insurance market, generally, eliminated the individual mandate as part 
of the tax bill last December.
  In 2018, the open enrollment period was reduced from 12 weeks to 6--
cut in half. No reason was given. Let's cut it in half so fewer people 
can sign up. Interestingly, almost the same number of people signed up 
because they realized how important this is.
  Then, last winter, during the open enrollment season, HHS, on 
Sundays, shut down the website where people can sign up, ostensibly for 
maintenance. It happened to be the 12 hours on a Sunday when most 
people would have an opportunity to navigate the website.
  Speaking of navigation, in, I think, what is one of the most blatant 
attempts to sabotage and undermine people's ability to gain this most 
basic and important health insurance--to provide them with healthy 
lives--CMS recently announced they are cutting grant funding for 
navigators, the people who help people get the coverage. They cut it 
dramatically. It has gone from $62.5 million to $36 million, to $10 
million.
  This is complicated stuff. I have gone on the website myself in order 
to get my coverage. As the Presiding Officer knows, we are in the 
Affordable Care Act. We have to go on the website. We have to get our 
care through it. If you have done it, you know it is hard. It is 
complicated. You are comparing policies. You are comparing deductibles. 
You are comparing premiums. It is a difficult, complicated process. The 
navigators I know in Maine have been enormously helpful in just guiding 
people through the process so they don't give up, and they end up 
getting healthcare and health insurance for the first time in their 
lives. The amount of funding available in Maine has been reduced from 
$550,000 to $100,000. It was cut by 80 percent. This is just arbitrary 
and cruel because the result is--which is, I guess, what they want--
that fewer people will be able to access coverage.
  It also said the navigators no longer need to be based in the State 
where they are working. That means you can't go to on-the-ground 
efforts or face-to-face efforts, and that is what often makes the 
difference.
  The Department of Justice last month said they are not going to 
defend the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act--particularly 
preexisting conditions. This has enormous ramifications for the people 
of this country. About half the people in the country have preexisting 
conditions. Under the old law--not in Maine, I might add; Maine dealt 
with this issue years ago. Under the old law, in most of the country, 
an insurance company could either deny you outright for a preexisting 
condition--which is basically any time you had been sick previously in 
your life--they could either deny you coverage or charge you an 
outrageous rate, which is, in effect, a denial of coverage for so many 
people.
  Finally, the administration is now pressing what they are calling 
short-term association plans, which are really largely junk insurance--
insurance that is hardly useful, doesn't cover everything, has very 
high deductibles, and really gives people a feeling that they have 
insurance, but when it comes time to use it, it will not really provide 
coverage.
  I would like to conclude with this picture of these wonderful people 
from Maine whom I was with last week. I don't know who this guy in the 
middle is, but these are the people who staff something called the 
Leavitt's Mill Free Health Plan. Every single person in this picture, 
with the exception of one part-time administrator, are volunteers. 
These are people coming in and volunteering. They are nurse 
practitioners, physicians who come in and volunteer for a couple of 
hours a week to provide healthcare to people who don't have insurance.
  I just talked to the director, Patsy Levin. She repeated what she 
said to me when I was there last week: They want to go out of business. 
We can't provide healthcare to the millions of uninsured people of this 
country by volunteers. It is wonderful, what they are doing, but it is 
impossible. This is like having bake sales to support the Air Force.
  We have to provide health insurance to people. We will have a 
healthier country. We will have a more productive country. We will have 
a more economically successful country. We will have a more humane 
country.
  These people are fantastic. I spent time there. I visited with one of 
their clients. He has to go to town assistance to buy his insulin. That 
is wrong. He needs it. He is a diabetic. It is part of what he has to 
have to survive, and he is having to go for general assistance to the 
town to provide the lifesaving insulin that he needs.
  These are wonderful people. They are doing great work, but we 
shouldn't have to rely on people taking their own time, their own 
energy voluntarily, to come in. It is wonderful for this region where 
it exists. There are several of these around Maine and they are 
terrific, but they can't fill the need. They can't fill the need for 
the millions of

[[Page S5406]]

people who are uninsured in this country.
  We have a responsibility. We have a responsibility when we see a 
problem to fix it. I know the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. I 
know it has problems. I know it has limitations. We should be fixing 
it, not sabotaging it.
  As I said at the beginning, if the sabotage is ultimately successful, 
the result will be heightened demand for more radical restructuring of 
our healthcare system in this country because, ultimately, people are 
going to rightfully demand that they have a right to health insurance 
and to healthcare coverage and access to healthcare that is not 
dependent upon their income.
  So I call on the administration to stop these petty efforts to 
undermine this law that has done so much good, and let's come together 
and talk about what the problems are. I know Members on this side are 
absolutely ready to do so.
  Let's talk about fixing it, not continue to undermine it--to what 
purpose? To a purpose of diminishing healthcare access to millions and 
millions of Americans, not only those at the low end of the income 
spectrum but particularly those in the middle income who aren't 
fortunate enough to have coverage through where they work.
  We can do better. I believe we will. I hope the administration will 
join us in this effort instead of continuing its efforts to 
systematically undermine the law that is working for the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, first let me thank my colleague and 
friend from Maine. If you ask the American people from one corner of 
this country to the other, what are they worried about, what are they 
concerned about, what you have just talked about is the top 1, 2, 3 
issue: the accessibility and affordability of health insurance, time 
and again.
  Some of us have been in a predicament in life when someone we love 
was very sick and had no health insurance. People never forget it as 
long as they live--people who live every single day with that prospect 
of not having health insurance or it is so darned expensive they can't 
pay for it.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for the comments he made regarding the 
efforts by this administration to undermine and sabotage health 
insurance. It is one thing to say you are against ObamaCare, you are 
against the Affordable Care Act; the obvious question is, What would 
you replace it with? When given a chance, the other side of the aisle 
had nothing. That is why, thankfully, we stopped their efforts to 
repeal it.

  You and I, and everyone on this side of the aisle, is open to talking 
about making it better, make it work more efficiently, and reach more 
people in a more efficient way. But just saying we are going to get rid 
of it and then we will talk about it later is not an answer. I thank 
the Senator for the comments that he made.
  Madam President, I am going to address the second issue that comes up 
when you talk to people across America who are concerned with it, and I 
will start with a question: Have you ever, ever, in your whole life, 
seen an ad on television for prescription drugs--ever? If the answer is 
no, I know one thing for sure: You don't own a television because the 
average American sees nine--nine--television prescription drug ads 
every single day. They see nine every day.
  You know what I am talking about; they mumble as fast as they can: If 
you take this you may die; don't take it if you are allergic to it. All 
of those ads, all of those names of all those drugs--it took about 20 
times for me to watch the XARELTO ad to get to the point where I could 
spell XARELTO. I am not sure I have it right still.
  But here is what it is all about. Why does pharma--pharmaceutical 
companies--spend so much money on television advertising? What is this 
all about? You can't buy most of these drugs over the counter; you need 
a doctor. Here is why they do it: They believe, if they keep suggesting 
to you that this is a drug that might help you, when you go to the 
doctor you will ask him or her: Doctor, should I be taking XARELTO?
  Well, the doctor may say to you that you don't need it--or may say to 
you that you can take a generic that is a lot cheaper and does the same 
thing. But in many, many cases, the doctor says ``Let me write a 
prescription for XARELTO for you,'' and what we have happening across 
the United States is the increasing cost of healthcare for everyone, 
which is being driven by the increasing costs of prescription drug 
prices.
  You see, in the United States of America, there is no control over 
the increases in prescription drug pricing. So these companies that 
spend billions of dollars advertising on television end up getting more 
of their drugs prescribed, making more money, raising their prices, and 
it goes on and on, and we see the cost of healthcare increasing.
  How many countries in the world today allow drug companies to 
advertise on television the way they do in the United States? There are 
two--the United States and New Zealand. That is it. What does the 
American Medical Association--the doctors of America--have to say about 
this television advertising of prescription drugs? They say it is a bad 
idea because what it does is incentivize first the patients and then 
the doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs than are necessary, and 
that drives up the cost of healthcare. So I decided to try to address 
this.
  There are lots of ways you could address it. I decided one of the 
things we might do is simply do something that is fair and open and 
honest: Ask the drug companies in their ads to disclose the price of 
the drug. Simply that: How much does it cost? Put it in the ad. Well, 
you might be surprised.
  Here is one for you. Have you seen the ads for the drug HUMIRA? 
HUMIRA. I bet you have. I have--plenty. It was a drug originally 
designed to treat rheumatoid arthritis, but then they found that it 
also could impact psoriasis. Most of us know, psoriasis is a skin 
problem. For many of us, it is just a tiny little patch on the elbow; 
for some people, it is more serious. But they now advertise that HUMIRA 
could be used for psoriasis. That is good to know.
  Here is what they don't tell you. Do you know what HUMIRA costs? Do 
you know how much it costs each month for HUMIRA? $5,500. They don't 
advertise that because, for $5,000 a month, I think I can live with 
that patch on my elbow.
  What I think, and many agree, is that we ought to move to the point 
where the pharmaceutical companies tell us the cost of the drug in 
their advertisement. That is not unreasonable, is it? In fact, it is so 
reasonable that--hang onto your hats--President Donald Trump and this 
Senator happen to agree on it.
  The President, at a press conference a couple months ago, said: Let's 
have pharma advertise in their advertising the cost of the drug.
  I thought to myself, Well, that is an issue that I have been working 
on for a while. I agree with the administration. Maybe we can do it 
together.
  So I went to my colleague and friend, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, 
and I asked him: Will you cosponsor an amendment to the bill on the 
floor today that gives appropriations to the Food and Drug 
Administration to support asking pharma to disclose their prices on 
their advertising?
  We introduced this amendment, and, frankly, with 76 percent of the 
American people supporting the idea, we have an interesting coalition: 
Durbin, Democrat of Illinois; Grassley, Republican of Iowa; President 
Donald Trump; and--I came to learn last night--the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Azar. He called me. I 
don't know him. I have never met him. But he said: I want to tell you 
that we support your amendment, the Durbin-Grassley amendment for the 
disclosure of the cost of drugs. We think it is a good thing. We think 
it will start to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. That is a 
great thing. It turns out the Commissioner of the Food and Drug 
Administration also supports it.
  So now we have kind of an amazing coalition: Democrats and 
Republicans--here in the Senate, as well as in the White House, the 
administration--coming together. How often does that happen around 
here? Not that often. Sadly, it doesn't. So let's seize this 
opportunity.

[[Page S5407]]

  I am asking those who are managing this bill to include this 
language--this appropriations language in this amendment in the bill as 
a step toward giving us some control over the increasing cost of 
prescription drugs.
  Pharma hates this amendment like the devil hates holy water. They 
don't want to tell people that HUMIRA costs $5,500 a month. It kind of 
spoils your ad when you are talking about psoriasis, and it comes out 
to be over $5,000 a month for their drug. So they don't want to tell 
you. They hope it gets lost in the system. I think it is better for 
Americans to know what they are getting into.
  Why is pharma afraid to tell the consumers how much their drugs cost? 
We shouldn't wait to be surprised when we go to the pharmacy, when we 
stand by the register to pay for what we are buying. People have a 
right to know. You know the price of a car before you buy it. Don't 
you? How about the price of that washer and dryer? I looked at those 
over the weekend with my wife. We know those prices right now. Why 
shouldn't we know the price of those drugs?
  So I am calling on my colleagues--we have amendments Nos. 3611 and 
3612. Let's put them on this bill. Let's do something. Let's do the 
first thing we have done this year--the very first thing we have done 
this year to address the serious concern which Americans have on the 
cost of prescription drugs.
  I see my colleague and friend, Senator Grassley, is here. I thank him 
for joining me on this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                Remembering Clemmie Dixon Spangler, Jr.

  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I rise today to honor and celebrate the 
life of C.D. ``Dick'' Spangler, a great North Carolinian who passed 
away earlier this week.
  The true mark of a great man, a great contributor to our society is 
the fact that there are several acts in that individual's life, there 
is no one single attribute to which to ascribe that contribution, and 
Dick Spangler was such a man.
  In that first act, Dick built an impressive wealth, at the time 
making him one of the wealthiest individuals in this country in the 
family construction and real estate business. The son of a Charlotte 
contractor and real estate investor, Dick attended Woodberry Forest 
School, then the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and 
Harvard Business School. After serving 2 years in the Army, he moved 
back to his native North Carolina to work in the family business, C.D. 
Spangler Construction.
  In 1973, while continuing to serve in the family's construction 
company, Dick became chairman of a little bank at the time, the Bank of 
North Carolina, and was subsequently elected director of NCNB, which 
would eventually be sold to Bank of America.
  Although he was a brilliant businessman, in my mind Dick Spangler 
will best be remembered in our State for his commitment to education 
and what it means for lifting individuals out of poverty, giving them a 
path for learning, and expressing their individuality. He did this by 
advocating for a return to an emphasis on teaching the basics, higher 
salaries for teachers, and programs for training high school principals 
for a very challenging job. That second act and the energies and 
personal contributions he made to it are what made Dick the remarkable 
man he was.
  During his time as president of the University of North Carolina 
System, a position he held for over a decade, Dick was laser-focused on 
keeping North Carolina's public university system affordable and low-
cost for all seeking postsecondary education. It is because of his 
dedication so many years ago to low-cost tuition in the UNC System--a 
mission he pursued without a paycheck during his time as president--
that current North Carolinians today receive an affordable, great 
university education. Dick Spangler once said:

       Low tuition is not a gift. It's an investment in these 
     students. They go to work and pay that back over a lifetime.

  The number of individuals who have chosen to do just that by making 
North Carolina their home after graduating from one of the UNC System's 
great schools is a testament to that effort.
  He viewed leading the UNC System as one of the truly great jobs 
anyone could have. On the eve of his departure, he said, when talking 
about the UNC System:

       We're on the side of angels. Spending time with our 
     students--to be with them is one of the great joys a person 
     could experience. . . . I live in a community that is 
     vibrant--not asleep. It's wide awake and there's always 
     turmoil because people are bright with viewpoints sometimes 
     in conflict.

  But for those who know the Spangler family and Dick's commitment to 
the State, I will always remember Dick for his philanthropy and the 
commitment to bettering our State through his personal efforts and his 
personal giving.
  The C.D. Spangler Foundation dedicated hundreds of millions of 
dollars over the past several decades to better public education in our 
State. Through this work, over 120 distinguished professorships, 
purposed toward improving instruction in our public education, were 
funded, providing generations of North Carolinians with the benefits of 
a quality education.
  For those unfamiliar with the racial history of North Carolina's 
schools, Dick Spangler was prompted by Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 
Board of Education, that seminal Supreme Court decision which said it 
wasn't enough to simply say desegregation of public schools was the law 
of the land; towns needed to commit to it and follow through on 
educating minorities next to their White peers. It is no exaggeration 
to say that without Dick's leadership in Charlotte during the 1970s and 
1980s, racial desegregation of Charlotte's schools might not have 
happened the way it did, serving as a national model for other 
communities grappling with racial tensions in their schools.
  Dick was so adamant about this fact, he decided not just to put his 
tremendous personal wealth to work, but to put his time on Earth to 
work as well. So he ran to become vice chairman of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Schools in an effort to ease the racial tensions that 
existed at the time in Charlotte, NC. Although he could have afforded 
to send his children to private school, he chose to lead by example, 
and he sent them to the Charlotte public schools to prove what is 
obvious to us now but was seemingly so controversial at the time.
  When I hear Dick Spangler's name, there are words I think of:
  ``Honest.'' He was never questioned about his honesty.
  ``Passionate.'' Dick Spangler was committed to every effort that he 
joined into, and he never sold it short.
  ``Opinionated.'' He made you listen, whether you wanted to hear it or 
not.
  ``Fair.'' He never let his wealth influence his outcome.
  ``Daring.'' He took on things that other people ran the opposite way 
from.
  ``Demanding.'' I am not sure I have been in many meetings with an 
individual who controlled attention the way Dick Spangler did. He saw 
time as a precious thing, and he knew we were limited on the amount 
that we would be here to use it. Dick Spangler used every minute of his 
life to make our State and this country better.
  Last one, Dick Spangler was committed. He was committed to this 
country. He was committed to this State. He loved his UNC Tar Heels. 
More importantly, he loved his family.
  His leading by example rather than simply words will remain in my 
mind as we mourn and we celebrate the loss of a great man. Today, I 
wish to extend my condolences and deep appreciation to his wife of 58 
years, Meredith, to Abigail, to Hannah, to Tom, and to the extended 
family. Their loss is not only our State's loss but our country's loss.
  I can feel confident, as I think Dick Spangler does today in Heaven, 
that Dick did everything he could to set the example for every 
generation to come; that you have to invest something to get something. 
I, for one, am moved, inspired, and committed to live on that 
commitment.
  I yield to my good friend from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I also rise to make some comments about 
C.D., or as we all know him, Dick Spangler. I met him about 11 years 
ago--when I first got into the State legislature--in his office, which 
is just outside of downtown in Charlotte.

[[Page S5408]]

From every encounter from that point forward, I never left without 
learning something more. It could be on any number of topics.
  I appreciate Senator Burr and all the comments about his legacy. He 
was amazing. He transformed the university system, made it one of the 
greatest in the Nation. He was a huge Tar Heels fan. I remember when we 
had a memorial service for a former University president, and C.D.--or 
Dick Spangler--spoke. Everybody had been saying this is a celebration, 
this is a celebration.
  He got up and said: Folks, this is a very important memorial service, 
but a celebration is what you do just after the Tar Heels beat the tar 
out of Duke.
  He loved the Tar Heels, and he loved the university system. He loved 
a modern North Carolina, an inclusive North Carolina, a North Carolina 
as a leader, leading on the integration of schools. I think what I 
remember most about Dick were those experiences I had in his office. It 
was easy for me to get to. Oftentimes, I would go there on a Monday 
before I would go to the airport to come here.
  Every Monday for about 30 years, he had lunch for all of his 
employees, and he would be there. He would serve them lunch, and they 
would spend time together. I had the opportunity to do that on a few 
occasions. There were a couple of special times, after, we met in the 
conference room, and he would coach me on how I should present myself 
or on issues that were important for education and any number of 
things. He was truly a mentor.
  He said: Would you like to see my shop?
  This office out on Morehead Street is an unassuming office, just as 
humble as the off-the-rack suits this man wore all of his life or the 
old beat-up station wagon he would drive to the office. This was an 
amazing experience. You go into this office in the back, and it is 
nothing but a workshop. He loved fabricating metals, fixing the 
clockworks on grandfather clocks. He loved creating tools to teach kids 
how to learn. In fact, he gave me a homework assignment, which was 
basically a pyramid of ping-pong balls, and I had to use geometry to 
figure out the dimensions of the pyramid. He was always trying to get 
people to learn and get people to engage.
  He engaged politically all of his life. Senator Burr said that you 
knew what was on his mind. If you were doing something in the 
legislature that was at odds with what he thought was in the best 
interest of the university system, I guarantee you, you were going to 
spend quality time with Dick Spangler, and you were more than likely 
going to embrace his opinion or his position because, in reality, he 
always made the university system better.
  There is one quote I want to read. I think this was during an 
inaugural address. This is classic Dick Spangler: ``Some unpopular 
ideas, of course, don't deserve to be popular, ever, but they deserve 
to be aired.''
  He believed universities were a place where all ideas should be 
considered, not because they have merit but because someone has a 
deeply held belief and should hear about them, and you should have 
discourse. That is something we can continue to learn from to this day.
  I join Senator Burr and offer my condolences to Meredith, Anna and 
her husband Tom, and their other daughter, Abigail. He has left a great 
impression. His earthly presence is no longer here, but his legacy and 
impact in North Carolina will live for decades to come.
  He has a daughter who has clearly been raised right because Anna 
serves on the board of governors, has served on the board of governors 
in the university system. She is actively involved in education 
pursuits in North Carolina.
  Dick Spangler is still living among us, and his works will continue 
under his family's leadership and their belief in North Carolina.
  Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
  To Meredith, to Anna, Abigail, and Tom, our thoughts and prayers are 
with you. Thank you for blessing us and having some time to share with 
Dick Spangler.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to visit with my colleagues for 
the same reason Senator Durbin, about 15 minutes ago, spoke to my 
colleagues about the high price of pharmaceutical drugs and maybe at 
least one little thing we can do to help moderate that price or at 
least inform the public, accordingly, in a better way than we have so 
far.
  Every American within earshot of a television has heard ads for 
prescription drugs. Almost every night, as I watch television, I see 
something along that line. These ads promise patient relief from nearly 
every medical problem, and informing the public is important for us to 
do in many areas.
  The pharmaceutical companies want you to know that their drug is on 
the market to help you. They want you to talk to your doctor about the 
newest drugs.
  As many of my colleagues know, I am an outspoken supporter for 
transparency. I hope it is one of my attributes I bring to the U.S. 
Senate. From the Physician Payments Sunshine Act to whistleblower 
protections, I am a strong believer that transparency keeps citizens 
informed, and, for sure, transparency in government brings 
accountability from those of us in government.
  Senator Durbin and I have amendments to the current funding bill 
which would shine transparency light on prescription drug prices. These 
amendments would allow patients and their doctors to make informed 
decisions. Drug advertisers want to tell consumers all the benefits of 
the drugs. At the same time, drug advertisers are required to tell you 
about the side effects. In fact, half of an ad has something about side 
effects. That is usually in the small print and when somebody is 
babbling something very rapidly about the side effects, but they aren't 
as gung-ho to show how much that particular drug would cost. I believe 
it is something the public would like to be well-informed on when they 
are considering the advertisement and the purposes of the drug.
  Six billion dollars is what pharmaceutical companies spent on direct-
to-consumer advertising last year. Why would they spend that amount of 
money on TV commercials? Because it works. By bypassing the trusted 
physician and the ability of patients to decide for themselves, TV ads 
increase prescription drug utilization and, with it, drug spending. 
This increases drug costs to patients and taxpayers. In one case, a 
single drug in Medicaid costs the taxpayers an additional $207 million 
just because of ads.
  The President's blueprint to lower drug costs includes a provision 
for FDA to require the inclusion of the list price in these drugs. 
Senator Durbin and I agree on that. I hope, since it is in the 
President's blueprint as one step to bring the high cost of drugs, it 
would be easy to get bipartisan support for the Grassley-Durbin 
amendment. This is a very simple, commonsense step to get drug prices 
down for consumers.
  I have to confess to you, it is not the only answer, but it is a 
concrete first step. If you want to know other steps to get drug prices 
down, I would point out enacting the CREATES legislation, introduced by 
Senators Leahy, Lee, Klobuchar, and this Senator; or we could enact Pay 
for Delay, introduced by Senator Klobuchar and this Senator; or 
Commissioner Gottlieb of FDA could come up with a plan for the 
importation of safe prescription drugs from Canada and other trusted 
countries.
  Consumers today are promised the Sun, the Moon, and the stars if they 
will simply get a prescription filled. Senator Durbin and I want to 
improve transparency and prescription drug advertising so consumers can 
decide for themselves. Our amendments would simply clarify that the 
Secretary of HHS has the authority to require drug companies to report 
the list price on advertisements.
  I had a telephone conversation this morning with that Secretary of 
HHS, at his instigation, and he suggested that this would be very 
helpful, not only for him to accomplish the goals he wants to but to 
carry out the President's blueprint. One of several steps in that 
blueprint is to get the price of pharmaceuticals down for the consumer.
  Consumers know the price of every other item they purchase before 
they

[[Page S5409]]

make their decision. Just think what a benefit it was to the consumers 
of this country when, maybe four decades ago, the Congress decided that 
we ought to have on the windows of a car what the cost of that car was 
so everybody had to play by the same rules of the game. This is a very 
simple free-market principle. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this effort that will lower drug prices for all Americans.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise again to read letters from West 
Virginians about the concerns and fears they have over the ongoing 
lawsuit being led by 20 U.S. attorneys general, including West 
Virginia's own attorney general, that threatens to once again allow 
insurance companies to deny coverage to West Virginians with 
preexisting conditions.
  In my State, 800,000 West Virginians, including 90,600 children, have 
a preexisting condition. Let me go over some of the things that qualify 
as a preexisting condition and insurance companies can rate you on: 
organ transplant, anxiety, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, 
Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis, pneumonia, 
epilepsy, anemia, depression, lupus, obsessive compulsive disorder, 
pregnancy, anorexia, diabetes, kidney disease, sleep apnea, obesity, 
bipolar disease, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, stroke, bulimia, 
asthma, and tuberculosis.
  I have always said that our Nation's current healthcare system is in 
need of repair, but every West Virginian deserves access to quality, 
affordable healthcare, and I am very concerned that our country is at 
risk of moving backward instead of forward.
  When people ask why I voted against repealing the healthcare law, I 
always say that it is because we need to make sure that those with 
preexisting conditions don't go bankrupt paying for basic healthcare.
  What is happening today is an unfortunate political move. The only 
reason this lawsuit is moving forward is because they have failed to 
repeal the law through this process here in the Senate. Congress has 
voted more than 50 times to repeal, and it has not passed. So what you 
are telling us loud and clear is to fix it, repair it. It can be fixed 
and made better for everybody.
  What makes this worse is that we do have this bipartisan compromise 
led by Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, and 
Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from the State of Washington, with 12 
Republicans and 12 Democrats. I am proud to say that I am one them.
  This bill includes important steps that will help to reduce 
healthcare costs for West Virginia families, and this agreement shows 
what is possible when we put people before politics. Shame on us for 
not voting on that.
  This is impacting real people. Last week I asked West Virginians to 
share their stories with me, and my office has been flooded with 
stories. I am going to share just a few of these stories with you 
today.
  This is Whitney from Morgantown, WV:

       Dear Senator Manchin,
       Please protect our pre-existing conditions.
       In August 2016, my then 15 year old child suffered a stroke 
     as a result of a brain AVM. He had to have emergency brain 
     surgery which left him in a medically induced coma for 
     several months.
       When he woke up, he was unable to walk or talk. He had to 
     have continuous medical care including expensive MRI's and 
     angiograms.
       This doesn't include his multiple therapies. If we did not 
     have insurance coverage I do not know what we would do.
       I cannot afford all these medical bills without the help of 
     insurance. Due to the extensive medical needs I know if his 
     pre-existing condition is not protected he will eventually 
     lose benefits.
       I beg you to stand up for my child and all those who 
     deserve a right to ongoing medical care. Please feel free to 
     contact [me] with any questions or follow up [concerning our 
     needs].

  This is William from Martinsburg, WV:

       Dear Senator Manchin,
       It was imperative that insurance companies are not allowed 
     to screen members for pre-existing conditions.
       I am a 20+year Type 2 Diabetic. I am currently taking five 
     medications for my diabetes. If I did not have coverage I 
     would be paying over $1000 a month, OUT OF POCKET, for just 
     my diabetes meds.
       If insurance companies are allowed to start screening for 
     and disallowing pre-existing conditions I would not be able 
     to afford my medications and my diabetes would not be 
     controlled which could possibly lead to loss of limbs, loss 
     of vision and I could die.
       How much would I cost the government if I was disabled? How 
     much would I cost an insurance company then if I had to have 
     feet, arms, and legs amputated because of my condition?
       Bottom line, I cost my insurance company a lot less money 
     when they help me to keep my diabetes under control.
       Thank you for taking a stand for those of us with pre-
     existing conditions.

  The final letter is from Kevin from Hinton:

       Dear Senator Manchin,
       I have lived with Crohn's Disease, a severe chronic illness 
     of the immune system that attacks the digestive system. The 
     condition is painful and treatments are expensive.
       Like many West Virginians, I have dealt with insurance gaps 
     and few jobs with good pay and benefits.
       Though many Americans struggle with the expenses of 
     healthcare, we remember the unfair practices before ACA [the 
     Affordable Care Act] was passed and improved the healthcare 
     system by ridding us of pre-existing conditions clauses, 
     which allowed insurance companies to overcharge sick people 
     for care or block them completely from getting coverage.
       Please work for us to make sure that the steps taken in the 
     ACA are improved upon instead of allowing such beneficial 
     measures to be cut.

  Those are just a few of the letters I have received, and I know we 
all have these preexisting conditions with people that are scared to 
death all over our country.
  I hope that we can come together for the sake of America and maybe 
get off of this political roller coaster where we are blaming everybody 
and trying to find out who we can blame, especially when we can fix it.
  What I am asking for is for all of us to work together as Americans, 
to forget whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, and to just help 
the people you represent.
  These diseases don't have a home. They are not just because of a 
Democrat or a Republican. That is who they attack. They attack all of 
us.
  So this needs, basically, the help and the cure from all of us also.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, in my home State of Florida, we have a rich 
history in manufacturing hand-rolled premium cigars. For those who 
aren't familiar with them, a hand-rolled premium cigar is not the same 
thing as a cigarette.
  Number one, premium cigars are an expense product, and they are 
consumed very differently from a cigarette or some other tobacco 
product. I would say that they are more like wine than they would be 
like a cigarette, for sure.
  The interesting thing about the cigar industry and its history--not 
just in Florida but in this country--is that, almost exclusively, the 
manufacturers of premium hand-rolled cigars are small family-run 
businesses. By the way, so too are the retailers that sell them. This 
is not the kind of thing you go and buy at 7-Eleven. There are stores 
that specialize in the sale of premium cigars. They cater to a 
clientele that can afford to buy these things. They are significantly 
older than someone who would walk into a convenience store and buy a 
pack of cigarettes from behind the counter.
  The companies that are involved in this endeavor are not the big 
companies that we see involved, generally, in the tobacco industry. 
They are family-owned business, both at the retail level and also at 
the manufacturing level.
  In addition to all of this, they represent a rich part of the 
cultural history of the Cuban community in Florida. Ybor City in Tampa 
is an example of it. It was an area that was settled over 100 years ago 
by Cubans that came to Tampa to start a very vibrant hand-rolling cigar 
industry. Again, these are hand-rolled premium cigars. These are people 
literally sitting down and rolling the leaves, and these are high-end 
products.
  This industry is on the verge of extinction, and I will tell you why. 
In 2016, the previous administration finalized a rule based on a 2009 
law, and, by

[[Page S5410]]

the way, its intended target was not premium cigars. They meant to go 
after tobacco products that we mass marketed and mass produced.
  This 2009 law was interpreted in a way in the rule that would require 
premium cigars to regulate the manufacture, the import, the packaging, 
the labeling, the advertisement, the promotion, the sale, and the 
distribution of their products. With each new product, they would have 
to do it over again.
  From year to year, the premium cigar industry may change the blend 
inside the hand-rolled cigar. They come in boxes of 8 or 12, and every 
time that one of these things is changed, you would have to redo the 
labels, redo the packaging, and everything would have to be completely 
redone, which is simply cost prohibitive because these blends change 
constantly, especially as you bring new markets.
  I have offered an amendment to the minibus that is before us that 
would exempt premium hand-rolled cigars from the FDA regulations, not 
just so that the industry can survive but so that it can thrive and 
also to free up the FDA to go after what it is intended to go after--
what everybody thought this was about--which is common tobacco 
products, like cigarettes and some of the others things that we are 
aware of.
  Now, anytime you talk about this, it gets a little tricky because 
people talk about tobacco use causing cancer. I am as sensitive to that 
as everyone. My father was a lifelong smoker. He lost his life in his 
early eighties because of cigarette smoking.
  I think we need to do everything we can to discourage people from 
smoking and consuming tobacco, especially cigarettes that are consumed 
in mass quantity and are cheap to buy in large quantities.
  I would note that it is already illegal to sell tobacco products to 
anyone who is under the age of 18.
  I would also tell you that beyond that, the numbers have continued to 
decline in tobacco use. So we know that the laws that are in place and 
the programs have worked, but one of the things that we have focused on 
is that tobacco is a legal product and small manufacturers of premium 
cigars are being harmed by this, but the regulations were not intended 
for them. The regulations were designed to target cigarettes. They were 
designed for flavored fat cigarettes and other commonly used tobacco 
products, the kinds that could potentially be marketed to young people 
and that are not like a premium cigar--at $5, $8, $10 for each one, or 
$80, $90 a box--but the sort of flavored fat cigarettes and all the new 
stuff that is coming out that you can buy from behind the counter. They 
are very cheap to buy, and they are mass manufactured. That is what the 
rule was about. It was never intended to apply to premium cigars, but 
the way it is written and the way the rule is interpreted, that is what 
it is now doing. It is putting the same requirement on a completely 
different product, and it is a requirement they simply can't meet.

  The irony is that all of the things that are targeted under this new 
rule are going to survive. They are still going to be around. They may 
be a little bit more expensive, a little harder to bring to market, but 
they are still going to survive. All the mass-produced tobacco products 
will survive and continue to be more accessible to young people. They 
will be able to stay in business, but the premium cigar manufacturers 
are going to get wiped out.
  One more irony in all this: It is still illegal to mass-import Cuban 
cigars, but you can bring them in in individual quantities. Those are 
not impacted by these regulations at all--none whatsoever. Think about 
that for a moment. A product made in another country doesn't have to 
meet the same guidelines but has all the same attributes.
  I talked a moment ago about Tampa and in particular Ybor City, and 
today in Ybor City, after all this time, there is only one factory 
left, a company called J.C. Newman. It is within Ybor City, and it is 
known as Cigar City. They have been making premium cigars--not 
cigarettes, not flavored cigarettes, not JUULs so people can vape; I am 
talking about premium, expensive, hand-rolled cigars. They have been 
making them since 1895, and that is all going to come to an end in the 
near future if this rule goes through. They are a profitable company. 
They sell about $10 million worth of products annually. That sounds 
like a lot of money, but it is nothing compared to mass-produced 
products. It is going to cost them three times that amount just to 
comply with the FDA regulations--three times as much--upwards of $30 
million to comply with this rule, the way this rule has been 
interpreted.
  The sad part about it is that everyone knows this. You go to the FDA, 
and they say: Look, we get it. The law wasn't supposed to go after 
these guys. But that is the way it is written, and that is how we are 
going to have to apply it.
  It was never meant to be about them. Everyone admits it. Yet that is 
the way it is going to be, and that is going put not just J.C. Newman 
but also other companies out of business. The retailers, the specialty 
cigar stores, those that sell premium cigars that are contained in a 
humidor--that is going to put them out of business very soon, all 
because of a stupid regulation that was written as a result of a law 
that was not properly drafted and was interpreted inappropriately.
  The Federal Government is going to put these guys out of business. 
The irony is that the people they were trying to impact with the 
regulation are going to survive and remain in business and be as 
accessible as ever, and the people no one meant to harm are going to 
get wiped out. This is the epitome of government overreach and abuse.
  Regardless of whether the business is 10 years or 100 years old, this 
industry represents the livelihood of hundreds of American families. 
There are people who work in those factories. There are people who own 
those retail stores. They are going to be out of work, not because the 
market shifted, not because Americans no longer want to smoke premium 
cigars, they are going to be out of business because no one can stay in 
business if the cost to follow the law is three times as much as what 
you make. You can't do it.
  This is a legal product made by hard-working Americans who have been 
doing this for a very long time. They are not the intended target of 
this rule. It is unjust for these small businesses to be singled out. 
It is unjust, unfair, and it is wrong.
  The worst part about this rule is that it is written retroactively. 
So not only will they have to start complying moving forward--because 
you could argue, well, just change your blend in the future--it goes 
all the way back to 2007. They are going to have to go back and relabel 
and repackage everything they have been making for the last 11 years. 
That explains a little bit about the $30 million cost for just this one 
business.
  By the way, they have broken no laws. Yet they have been singled out, 
and this threatens their livelihood.
  This is a bipartisan, bicameral issue. A number of Members in the 
Senate from across the aisle agree with this. I have been working with 
Senator Nelson on this for a long time. This is not a partisan issue, 
not a Big Tobacco issue; this is a premium cigar issue. These are 
consumed differently than cigarettes by different groups of people in 
different ways. You don't smoke 10 cigars a day. We just know this. It 
is common sense. But this is what is going to happen. We are going to 
wipe these guys out because of a government rule and the way it was 
interpreted even though it was never meant to be about them.
  We have an amendment. We have a law that fixes all this. I am not 
going to offer it on this bill because it is already part of the House 
package that lines up with the appropriations bills that are before us, 
but I wanted to point this out because I know that people in Ybor City 
and people around the country who care about this issue are watching, 
and I want them to know that when this issue gets conferenced with the 
House, we are going to be fighting for this. This needs to get fixed.
  This is the last chance. That is the other point. This rule is about 
to kick in. The comment period is about to end, and the rule is going 
to kick in. This is our last chance. If we don't get it right here when 
we work this out, this is going to happen. You are going to be reading 
about it. Maybe it doesn't matter in some places. It matters a lot to 
Florida, and it matters a lot to this company in Ybor City in Tampa. It 
matters a lot to hundreds of thousands

[[Page S5411]]

of people across the country who work in the retail shops that sell 
them and who work in the places hand-rolling and making them.
  This is wrong, and we should do everything we can to stop it from 
happening. I hope we will deal with this issue in conference. I am glad 
it is in the House version. I wish we could get it in the Senate 
version. We are going to fight to include it in the final version. We 
are not going to watch as J.C. Newman and small businesses like it are 
put out of business by a rule that was never supposed to apply to them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Portman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________