[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 126 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5412-S5417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the 
Senate the conference report to accompany H.R. 5515.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 5515, which will be stated by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes on the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     5515), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
     military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, 
     having met, have agreed that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the 
     same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of July 25, 2018.)


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 5515, an act to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
     for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
     and for other purposes.
         James M. Inhofe, Thom Tillis, Johnny Isakson, Orrin G. 
           Hatch, John Hoeven, Bob Corker, James Lankford, Lindsey 
           Graham, David Perdue, Mike Crapo, Mike Rounds, Steve 
           Daines, Roger F. Wicker, John Boozman, Roy Blunt, John 
           Thune, Mitch McConnell.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum 
calls for the cloture motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, 
the next vote will be at 5:30 p.m. on Monday on cloture on the Grant 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                              A Free Press

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance 
of a free press and its role since the founding of our Nation in 
protecting the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans.
  I was on the Senate floor on July 12 talking about a recent tragedy--
a mass shooting at the Annapolis-based Capital Gazette. A man who had a 
longstanding grudge against the newspaper for accurately reporting news 
about him shot his way into the newsroom and killed five good people. 
These five men and women died doing their jobs--reporting the news and 
supporting a publication that is an important part of their community.
  One victim in particular, Wendi Winters, fought back and worked to 
distract the gunman in such a way that those who bore witness to her 
bravery described her actions in this way:

       Wendi died protecting her friends, but also in defense of 
     her newsroom from a murderous assault. Wendi died protecting 
     the freedom of the press.

  Wendi died protecting the freedom of the press.
  We think of violence against reporters as something that happens in 
other countries, in war zones and the like, but not here in the United 
States of America. All around the world, reporters work to gather 
facts, ask questions, and report the news in the spirit of the free, 
open, and transparent societies and governments that all people 
deserve. Too often, reporters are harassed, jailed, and even killed 
simply because of the nature of their work, which often exposes 
cronyism and corruption.
  From this floor, I have stood in solidarity with the Reuter's 
reporters who were detained in Burma for shining a light on the 
horrific abuses that occurred in the Rakhine State.
  I have stood in solidarity with the Ethiopian journalists and 
bloggers who are routinely arrested for criticizing the Ethiopian 
Government and exposing human rights abuses in that country.
  I have talked frequently about China--a country that engages in 
routine censorship and online blocking, harassment, reprisals, 
detention of journalists, and visa delays or denials for journalists.
  According to the Committee to Protect Journalists--an independent, 
nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide--more than 
600 journalists and media workers have been killed in the last 10 years 
while doing their jobs.
  Of the member states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation 
in Europe, Russia remains the deadliest country for journalists. 
Investigative journalist Maksim Borodin, who died in April, was the 
latest Russian reporter to be silenced by death.
  Turkey is the largest jailer of journalists in the world, and scores 
of media outlets have been closed since the attempted coup there. The 
heavyhanded measures used against media freedom in Turkey both before 
and during recent elections illustrate the lengths to which the 
government went to control the information available to voters. They 
also serve as a reminder of the essential role of a pluralistic media 
for free and fair elections.
  In May, a Helsinki Commission briefing on the murder of investigative 
journalists examined the unsolved murders of Daphne Caruana Galizia and 
Jan Kuciak.

[[Page S5413]]

  Daphne Caruana Galizia was a Maltese journalist known for her 
investigations into international organized crime and its connection to 
the Government of Malta. She relentlessly probed Maltese citizenship 
sales, revealed money laundering, and exposed sanctions evasion. At the 
Commission's briefing, her son, Matthew, described the years of 
harassment, intimidation, and threats she faced by those who sought to 
silence her. ``Growing up,'' he said, ``I thought these things were 
normal.'' She was murdered on March 16, 2017, by a bomb planted under 
the seat of her rental car.
  Jan Kuciak investigated financial crimes, organized crime, and high-
level corruption in Slovakia. He was executed by gunshot in his home on 
February 25, 2018, along with his fiancee. On May 6, some 3,000 people 
attended a holy mass in the small village where the two 27-year-olds 
would have wed.
  I am troubled that at a time when media freedom in Slovakia is 
already under a spotlight, a Slovak judge is suing journalist Peter 
Getting for writing about Communist-era judges who handed down 
sentences against people for attempting to emigrate. The crimes of 
communism should be reported, taught, and remembered. Somewhat 
ironically, a law reminiscent of the Communist past is being used to 
thwart scrutiny of the crimes of that very era.
  Unfortunately, Slovakia is not the only country where defamation or 
insult laws are used to limit free speech. In addition to laws that 
criminalize libel and make insulting the President or other officials 
an offense, Belarus criminalizes providing media services without 
accreditation and has recently moved to limit access to the media on 
the internet.
  Here at home, Donald Trump, as a candidate and as President, has 
mused about taking ``a strong look'' at our Nation's libel laws, 
calling them ``a sham and a disgrace.''
  Jason Rezaian, a reporter for the Washington Post who was falsely 
imprisoned in Iran for doing his job as a journalist, had this to say 
recently. He was talking about the attack I referenced earlier in 
Annapolis.

       Mostly I've covered attacks on the media taking place on 
     the other side of the world, usually in countries where the 
     flow of information is restricted, or conditions are such 
     that a sense of desperation or political or tribal 
     affiliation can compel individuals to take heinous action. . 
     . . Writing about a deadly attack that happened less than 30 
     miles away, in an idyllic town that I recently visited with 
     relatives from overseas, is a new experience for me. And I 
     have to say I don't relish the task.

  We Americans have certain rights and responsibilities granted to us 
through the Constitution, which established the rule of law in this 
country. Freedom of the press is one of those most basic rights, and it 
is central to the First Amendment of the Constitution.
  ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of 
speech, or of the press.'' This precious freedom has often been under 
attack, figuratively speaking, since our Nation's founding.
  Today, attacks on the American media have become more frequent and 
more literal, spurred on by dangerous rhetoric that has created an open 
season on harassing the media for doing its job--asking questions that 
need to be asked, investigating the stories that need to be uncovered, 
and bringing needed transparency to the halls of power, whether they 
are in Annapolis, Washington, DC, or elsewhere.
  Then-candidate and now-President Donald Trump's rhetoric--calling the 
media ``a stain on America'' and ``the enemy of the people''--certainly 
has caused damage.
  On July 13, while Donald Trump was in the United Kingdom, he 
continued his assault on the media, brushing off a reporter from CNN by 
saying ``CNN is fake news.''
  This was underscored yesterday by a question being asked by a White 
House press corps pool reporter at his meeting with the European 
Commission President. That reporter asked a question the President 
didn't like. Because the President didn't like the question being asked 
by CNN's Kaitlin Collins in her role as a reporter, she was told that 
she will be banned from the next event that is open to the press or 
otherwise open to all credentialed media.
  Then, Tuesday, at the Veterans of Foreign Affairs, the President said 
to the audience there to not believe what they see and hear. The 
President of the United States told a crowd of veterans: Stick with us. 
Don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. What 
you are seeing and what you are reading is not happening.
  That is the President of the United States saying those comments--
again, demeaning the press and the importance of our free press. Why is 
the President doing this? Earlier this year, CBS ``60 Minutes'' 
correspondent Lesley Stahl, an icon in the news business, shared 
comments from Donald Trump from an interview she did with him soon 
after his 2016 election win. Stahl recalled that she said to Trump 
about his attacks on the media: ``Why are you doing this? You are doing 
it over and over. It's boring and it's time to end that.''
  The candidate's response was straightforward and shocking. He said: 
``You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all 
so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you.''
  Let that sink in for a moment. A man who was about to assume the 
position of President of the United States explicitly acknowledged that 
he was purposely working to diminish the integrity of the free press.
  After the Capital Gazette shooting, Donald Trump said that 
``journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of 
being violently attacked while doing their job.'' But how do we 
interpret his sincerity when more frequently he is calling the media 
``fake news'' or ``totally unhinged'' and telling the American people 
and the world that reporters are ``truly bad people''?

  Donald Trump's constant, dismal refrain needs to end. He needs to 
accept that one of the press's most important roles is to speak truth 
to power--especially his.
  There is a reason why the leading newspaper in Helsinki bought 300 
ads that said: ``Mr. President, Welcome to the land of free press.'' 
The message is clear. They put that ad up to let Mr. Trump and Mr. 
Putin understand that one of the basic tenets of a democratic society 
is to embrace and respect the freedom of the press.
  In Russia, Putin routinely jails political opponents and journalists. 
Here at home, we are left to wonder whether Donald Trump is more 
inclined to agree with Mr. Putin's view of the press than that of 
Thomas Jefferson, who famously said: ``Were it left to me to decide 
whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers 
without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the 
latter.''
  Jason Rezaian wrote in the Washington Post that Donald Trump ``didn't 
create the problem of hostility to journalists, but he exploits it and 
exacerbates it. That's true, too, of the leaders in other countries who 
routinely call reporters enemies of the state, terrorists and national 
security threats. And we must be vigilant in standing up to these empty 
accusations.''
  After the tragedy at the Capital Gazette, Annapolis and most of the 
country rallied in support of the survivors of the mass shooting. They 
received tremendous outpourings of support, including by this body, and 
I know it was heartfelt. Yet the paper has reported that it has 
received new death threats and emails celebrating the attack. This is 
sick, and it is dangerous. It shouldn't happen in Annapolis, it 
shouldn't happen in America, and it shouldn't happen anywhere else in 
the world.
  Journalists, like all Americans, should be free from the fear of 
being violently attacked while doing their jobs, both figuratively and 
literally. The right of journalists to report the news is nothing less 
than the right of all of us to know. Media freedom and media pluralism 
are essential for the expression of or ensuring respect for other 
fundamental freedoms and safeguarding democracy, the rule of law, and a 
system of checks and balances.
  Every one of us in this body, Democrats and Republicans, has sworn an 
oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of 
America. As leaders of this great Nation, we have a responsibility to 
defend the rights of our citizens, including the freedom of the press. 
It is enshrined in our Constitution: ``Congress shall make no law 
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

[[Page S5414]]

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the 
press.''
  Just before the July 4 recess, I had the opportunity to discuss the 
state of media pluralism and the safety of journalists with the OSCE 
Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Desir. The 
Representative plays a key role in calling out threats to and attacks 
on journalists, including murders and violent attacks. He also assists 
OSCE participating states in fulfilling their commitments by providing 
them with expert opinions on media regulation and legislation. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Desir has his work cut out for him.
  In the aftermath of the tragic murders at the Capital Gazette 
headquarters in Annapolis, Mr. Desir sent his condolences and words of 
support.
  That mass shooting and the other incidents I have just mentioned are 
all stark reminders of the incredible work journalists do every day in 
big cities and small towns around the world, reporting on all of the 
things that are important in our lives--and the dangers they face doing 
it.
  I appreciated the sentiment from the OSCE Representative on Freedom 
of the Media. I am grateful to the other journalists at the Capital 
Gazette for carrying on their important mission even in the face of 
this tragic adversity. And I am grateful for journalists everywhere for 
their dogged pursuit of the truth.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the National Flood Insurance Program is in 
trouble, and everyone in this building knows it. Everyone in Washington 
knows it. It is fiscally unsustainable because it is by its nature 
structurally unsound. Yet here we are again, for the seventh straight 
time in just 6 years, considering a so-called ``straight'' 
reauthorization. ``Straight''--yes, that is the word that Washington 
uses. That is the word that Washington uses when Republicans and 
Democrats, after burning the midday oil for 2\1/2\ days a week for a 
few months, decide together that a dysfunctional program, $20 billion 
in debt, is, in fact, perfect. So we are planning to rubberstamp a 
continuation of its dysfunctional status quo. Swamp talk aside here, 
this is the opposite of ``straight.'' This is the definition of 
``crooked'' and ``swampy.''
  Here are the facts. The National Flood Insurance Program creates a 
government monopoly that insures some of the most expensive real estate 
in the entire world. We are talking about homes and homeowners that the 
private sector would be falling all over itself to insure if given the 
opportunity to do so. The incentives are there for flood insurance to 
be a vast, profitable industry, one that creates jobs and opportunity 
for thousands of Americans. But, no, in our unearned but infinite 
confidence, Congress has assured the American people: We got this. We 
got this. We, as in Washington. Except the problem is, we don't.
  Congress's answer to private insurance is $20 billion in more debt, 
just a few months after receiving a $16 billion taxpayer bailout.
  Why is NFIP losing money faster than Congress can spend it? Well, 
because the program doesn't charge policyholders market rates for 
insurance. It offers them a special, below-market rate despite the fact 
that we know floodplains are dangerous. That is why we call them 
floodplains and not puppy dog and ice cream plains. We also know for a 
fact that the subsidized premiums will lead inevitably to shortfalls, 
debt, and taxpayer bailouts.
  Here, one might recall the old quip: ``Insanity involves doing the 
same thing over and over and hoping for different results.'' But 
Congress isn't insane. We know exactly what we are doing and why. 
Recall the last time NFIP was reformed. It was about 6 years ago in its 
2012 reauthorization. That bill, for the first time in a long time, 
reined in some of the program's worst distortions. For reformers on the 
left and right, it was a sign of hope. The problem was, the reforms 
worked. NFIP and its artificially low premiums actually started to 
climb toward reality-based levels, market-based levels. We of course 
couldn't have that, so in 2014, Congress stepped in and repealed many 
of those same reforms that were working--reforms that were put in place 
in 2012. That is the broken status quo we are being asked to perpetuate 
today. If this bill were any more serious, it would be written in 
crayon. The question is, why?

  If the Flood Insurance Program is so obviously and terribly flawed, 
why is it so resistant to reform? Why are we so resistant to reforming 
it? The answer is that, like most inexplicably durable programs, this 
is a program that quietly serves the interests of the well-to-do at the 
expense of working and middle-class American families.
  Proponents of the program would have us believe that the NFIP is 
essentially there to protect innocent victims who just happen to live 
in low-lying communities and they can't afford flood insurance. But 
this argument is absurd.
  First of all, if homeowners can't afford to insure their homes, then 
in reality they can't afford those very same homes.
  Second, many of the areas Washington calls flood plains are really 
just property near water. Residences there are expensive for lots of 
reasons, but as anyone who knows anything about real estate can tell 
you, the biggest reason is location, location, location. These homes 
are expensive because lots of people want to live there, among them 
wealthy people who bid up the price. ``Wealthy people'' is another way 
of saying people who can afford high-risk insurance premiums without 
taxpayer subsidies covered by Washington, DC, over and over and over 
again.
  In fairness, other flood plains are not necessarily home to 
multimillion-dollar beach houses, but simply normal neighborhoods in 
low-lying locales. But in either case, the potential for flooding makes 
living in these areas more dangerous and more expensive. So in both 
cases, it is unfair to ask taxpayers to make expensive, dangerous 
homes--25 percent of which are vacation homes--artificially more 
affordable. It is unfair, and it is unsustainable for hard-working, 
poor, and middle-class American families.
  The failure of the Flood Insurance Program is not an economic theory; 
it is not a matter of ideological speculation. It is, in fact, a fact. 
No amount of money will change that. The problem with NFIP, as with 
almost all wasteful Federal programs, is not the pricetag itself but 
the underlying policy. It doesn't work as currently structured because 
it can't. Yet, despite decades of failure and folly, NFIP remains 
unchanged as nothing more or less than a subsidy for people to live in 
places we know are probably going to get flooded.
  It is tempting to call this a recipe for losing money. But as we 
know, Federal programs never actually lose money. Whether it is waste, 
fraud, or abuse, someone somewhere pockets that money, and in the case 
of the NFIP, as with so many other government programs, the winners 
are--well, see for yourself.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the median value of an 
NFIP-insured home is about twice that of the average American home. A 
2015 study by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth found ``an 
inverse relationship between insurance premiums paid . . . and total 
property value.'' In other words, ``The greater the average property 
value, the lower the average premium paid.''
  Likewise, a 2016 study from the University of Michigan Law School 
found data ``suggesting that zip codes with higher-valued homes receive 
higher per-policy subsidies.''
  We all know there are worthy and sympathetic beneficiaries of NFIP, 
as there are for every government program. But in the aggregate, in the 
big picture, the NFIP simply redistributes money from nonwealthy people 
to wealthy people, from less wealthy people to more wealthy people, and 
to believe otherwise is to indulge in what might be called an actuarial 
science denial.
  This isn't alchemy. This isn't voodoo. Actuaries already know how 
much flood insurance should cost. Of course, they also know how much 
ObamaCare, Medicare, and Social Security are going to cost, and 
Congress is getting terrifyingly good at ignoring actuaries--and 
actuarial science in general. But as with our entitlement programs, 
politicians just want to pretend that NFIP can magically charge less, 
spend more, and not leave future taxpayers holding the bag.
  It is long past time to set aside this farcical, magical type of 
thinking. Neither former President Obama nor King

[[Page S5415]]

Canute a thousand years ago nor the NFIP today has the power to stop 
the rise of the oceans. What we can do is prepare--through mitigation, 
through insurance, and through proven platforms of success.
  Senators Heller and Tester have a bill that would allow private 
insurers to compete with NFIP. I wholeheartedly support their bill and 
can cite Utah's successful embrace of private flood insurance as strong 
evidence in favor of that approach. Senators Crapo and Brown have a 
bill that would improve flood mapping and insist on community 
preparation for flooding as a condition of eligibility for NFIP 
coverage. This is not too much for the American people to ask, either 
of their affluent, flood-prone neighbors or of their sworn 
representatives in Congress. Nor is the amendment I am offering.
  My amendment would leave the program--broken as it is--exactly the 
same, only for today's purposes with one small change. It would cap 
eligibility for NFIP insurance at homes worth more than $2.5 million. 
For anything under that, fine, they can enjoy the cut-rate premiums. 
But the taxpayers should not pay any amount of coverage for the top 1 
percent, who can afford a new $2.5 million beach home. All my amendment 
says is that people who can afford a multi million-dollar waterfront 
home should be able to afford to insure those homes on their own, 
without a government subsidy paid for by America's poor and middle 
class.
  With the stock market near all-time highs, with a corporate tax cut 
driving up profits, I think it is eminently reasonable to ask 
multimillionaires to insure their beach houses without the welfare 
assistance of hard-working taxpayers who make a fraction of their 
income.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3128

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the 
Committee on Banking to be discharged from further consideration of S. 
3128 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the 
Lee amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered 
read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, nobody--
nobody in this Chamber has more respect for the junior Senator from 
Utah than I do. He is whip-smart, he is honest, he is a good guy, and 
we almost always vote together. I have some problems I would like to 
point out to the Chamber with respect to the Senator's request for 
unanimous consent.
  No. 1, it is a fact that 98.5 percent of all of the homes insured by 
the National Flood Insurance Program are not owned by a bunch of rich 
people; 98.5 percent of those homes are located in counties with a 
median household income below $100,000; and 62 percent of those homes 
are located in counties with a median household income below $54,000, 
which is the national average. So I would respectfully disagree that 
the purpose and the effect of the NFIP are to help people with their 
expensive beach homes.
  No. 2, if we adopt the motion by my distinguished colleague, the NFIP 
is dead on Tuesday. Let me say that again. If we do what the 
distinguished Senator would like us to do, on Tuesday, the 31st, the 
NFIP expires. The reason is that, even if I agreed with what my 
colleague wanted to do, we do not have time to pass this bill, get it 
to the House, and get it to the President in time to keep the program 
from expiring on July 31--and, by the way, the House has recessed.
  No. 3, I agree with my colleague that this program needs to be 
reformed, and we all, including my distinguished colleague, have been 
working toward that end. We are not there yet, but we are working hard 
toward that end.
  I slightly disagree with the proposition that we reformed the program 
in 2010. I think the last time we really, truly reformed the National 
Flood Insurance Program was never, and it is about time that we do it 
now.
  The final point I would like to make is that the amendment my 
colleague is asking this house to adopt today is not just about 
vacation homes costing $2.5 million. I have looked at the bill, and by 
my reading--and the reading of people a lot smarter than I--this bill 
would apply to any structure, period, that costs more than $2.5 
million. That structure would not be eligible to participate in the 
NFIP. It would prohibit assisted living centers, it would prohibit 
dormitories, it would prohibit hotels, it would prohibit apartment 
buildings from insurance coverage under the National Flood Insurance 
Program. If you can't get it from the private sector--and, in many 
cases, you will not be able to; that is why we have the NFIP--you are 
on your own. It would mean we couldn't have any more low-income 
housing. Low-income housing projects are required to have flood 
insurance from HUD. We all know that. They would be barred from 
insurance coverage under this amendment.
  Residents of Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico also know 
that if one of their communities is not participating in the NFIP, then 
Federal assistance can't be used in any of those areas.
  Finally, this amendment would jeopardize the ability of communities 
to receive community development block grants for disaster recovery.
  Let me say again, the junior Senator from Utah is absolutely correct: 
We need to reform this program. But we need to keep it alive. It is not 
going to do anybody any good to let this program expire on Tuesday and 
scare 5 million-plus Americans half to death. We don't have to do that.
  There is an instrument coming to us from the House. It extends this 
program by 4 months. It passed the House overwhelmingly. The House vote 
was 366 to 52. I am strongly encouraging the majority leader to bring 
this extension. All it does is maintain status quo for 4 months to 
bring this extension to the floor. Let's pass it, and let's keep this 
program alive.
  With all the due respect I can muster, I think the purpose of this 
amendment is to cause the NFIP to expire, and I just can't live with 
that. I couldn't sleep tonight if I did. For that reason, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand with enormous respect for my friend, 
my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Louisiana. I stand also 
with enormous respect for the amount of care and diligence he puts into 
each legislative effort that he addresses in this Chamber and in the 
committee on which we serve together.
  I wish to respond to a couple of points. My colleague is absolutely 
correct. Most of the people--the overwhelming majority of people who 
get insurance under this program--are not wealthy. It is one of the 
reasons this is a limited-purpose amendment. This amendment would deal 
only with properties, new properties, to be insured worth more than 
$2.5 million.
  The idea is, if you can build this structure, a home, or otherwise 
worth more than $2.5 million, there can and ought to be a way--there is 
a way for you to provide for the assurance in the event of a flood, for 
the addressing of whatever flood damage is done as a result of that. 
Anyone who has the ability to afford such a structure can address that 
structure without having to be subsidized by America's poor- and 
middle-class families.
  Secondly, I would like to respond to the suggestion that the purpose 
of this amendment is somehow to kill the NFIP program. If that were the 
purpose of it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We would 
simply be entertaining means by which to block their reauthorization of 
that program. Yes, the House of Representatives has adjourned just 
moments ago, but, yes, the House of Representatives has a pro forma 
session scheduled for tomorrow, and there are means by which the House 
of Representatives could and, I believe, would pass this amendment, 
this reauthorization, with the amendment intact.
  The House of Representatives has, in fact, in the very recent past, 
passed far more aggressive, far more significant reforms than this, and 
I believe they would do so in their pro forma session by their version 
of unanimous consent. This is not intended, nor would it have the 
effect of shutting down NFIP altogether.

[[Page S5416]]

  Finally, let me say this. Ten months ago, when we were asked to give 
another so-called clean reauthorization of this program, we were 
promised--I was promised by many distinguished Members of this body 
there would be reforms that we would put in place before the next 
reauthorization. It hasn't happened, and, in fact, we haven't had 
significant reforms for 6 years.
  It is, in fact, time to reform the program, and, on that point, I am 
very pleased that my friend and distinguished colleague from Louisiana 
and I agree on that point--reforms are needed.
  We can't continue to kick the can in perpetuity. As St. Augustine is 
quoted as saying during his conversion to Christianity, ``Lord grant me 
chastity, but not yet.''
  If we are always kicking the can, if we are always saying, yes, we 
need to be righteous; yes, we need do the right thing, but not yet, 
when will we ever get there? If not us, who? If not now, when? It 
saddens me that we can't pass even this minor reform today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with respect, I reassert my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is noted.
  The Senator from Hawaii.


                               Healthcare

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, last year, around this time, millions of 
Americans were mobilizing, marching, calling, and writing with a 
simple, straightforward demand. They demanded the U.S. Senate stand up 
to Donald Trump and protect the nearly 30 million Americans who were at 
risk because the Republican Party was hell-bent on destroying the 
Affordable Care Act, the ACA.
  With a vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act looming late in the 
evening, I came to the Senate floor that night intending to stand with 
the thousands of Hawaii residents who wrote or called my office with a 
sense of urgency to save their healthcare.
  I wasn't scheduled to speak that evening. I had already spoken many 
times previously about the importance of healthcare. As the debate wore 
on, much of it focused on healthcare in the abstract. I felt compelled 
to talk about the immediacy of healthcare because of what I was 
experiencing.
  Two months earlier, I had been diagnosed with kidney cancer during a 
routine examination. It is a moment everyone dreads, but it is also a 
moment nearly every family in this country has experienced at some 
point. Even as I reckoned with what came next--two surgeries and now 
ongoing immunotherapy--I knew I was fortunate. I had health insurance 
that allowed me to focus on my treatment rather than worrying about 
whether I could afford the care that would save my life.
  Every American deserves the same peace of mind because healthcare is 
a right, not a privilege just for those who can afford it. During my 
treatment, I was heartened by the kind words of support by my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Many share stories about how 
cancer touched their lives. For some, it was a personal battle. For 
others, it was a child, a parent, or a spouse.
  I was touched by their compassion. It meant a lot to me to know so 
many people were pulling for me. I was dismayed that evening on the 
Senate floor because the empathy my colleagues showed me did not extend 
to the millions of people who would lose their healthcare if the ACA 
was repealed that night.
  I rose that night and implored my Republican colleagues to show the 
same compassion to the American people that they showed me by voting 
against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
  In a dramatic late-night vote, we joined together across party lines 
to save healthcare for millions of Americans, but the fight was not 
over. There was the hope that we could come together to improve our 
Nation's healthcare system.
  We got off to a good start, with Senators Murray and Alexander's 
good-faith negotiations on a plan that would have helped stabilize 
insurance markets and provide a path forward to strengthening our 
country's healthcare system.
  Instead of embracing this bipartisan effort and proposal, Donald 
Trump and Republican leaders doubled down on their efforts to destroy 
and dismantle the ACA, no matter the consequences.
  Last October, Donald Trump announced he would halt all cost-sharing 
reduction payments that helped keep plans more affordable. In December, 
congressional Republicans eliminated the ACA's individual coverage 
requirement as part of a massive tax giveaway to the wealthiest 1 
percent of the people and corporations in our country--a tax break, by 
the way, they didn't even ask for.
  With that, 10 million Americans stand to lose their coverage, and 
millions more will see their premiums rise as a result. Earlier this 
year, the Trump administration made it easier for insurance companies 
to offer minimal--minimal--insurance plans to consumers. These plans 
are called junk plans for a good reason because they don't require 
insurers to cover some pretty basic essential health service benefits--
things as basic as annual physicals, trips to the emergency room, or 
prescription drug coverage. In other words, your junk plan will not 
provide coverage if you really get sick.
  Two weeks ago, the President announced a draconian cut to the ACA's 
navigator program--a program that helps people sign up for healthcare 
coverage. In Hawaii, funding for ACA navigators is a particularly 
critical tool for outreach to the COFA community, and these are 
citizens of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States 
of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau living and working in the 
United States as part of our Compacts of Free Association with these 
countries.
  COFA citizens live, work, and pay taxes in the United States but face 
significant health challenges and difficulty accessing healthcare.
  Under current Federal law, COFA citizens are ineligible for Medicaid. 
They are, however, eligible for subsidized healthcare coverage under 
the ACA. This is where the navigator program comes in. This program 
helps our COFA citizens navigate the enrollment process in their own 
language and helps to ensure they have access to the healthcare they 
need. Without access to the navigator program, the already underserved 
COFA citizen community will face new challenges accessing the care they 
need.
  Last month, the Trump administration joined Texas and 19 other States 
suing to invalidate the ACA's core protections for Americans with 
preexisting conditions--illnesses like diabetes, asthma, or cancer. If 
the President and Texas prevail in this lawsuit--which will end up 
before the Supreme Court--nearly one in four Americans with preexisting 
conditions will be at risk of either losing their healthcare coverage 
altogether or find it unaffordable.
  Healthcare is one reason I have deep reservations about the 
nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge 
Kavanaugh was nominated by a President who has openly bragged about all 
the things he has done to gut the Affordable Care Act and who expects 
his judicial nominees to share his views.
  In our democracy, every elected leader faces a reckoning with their 
voters. This year, the American people are sending us a clear message 
to protect their healthcare. They are standing up and speaking out 
because healthcare is not just some abstract concern for them. It is 
deeply personal for all of us. It is why healthcare is a top concern 
for our constituents all across the country--whether they are 
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, pro-Trump, or anti-Trump. Health 
insurance impacts every single one of us.
  This is not a game. Lives are at stake. Our constituents are watching 
and demanding we listen and act to safeguard their healthcare, and they 
will hold us accountable if we do not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Federal Workforce

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Senator Brown 
for organizing time for our speeches today and, of course, for his 
tireless fight on behalf of working people in this country.
  I rise today to join Senator Brown and my other colleagues in 
standing with Federal workers in Massachusetts and all around the 
country--Federal

[[Page S5417]]

workers who are under attack from all sides by the Trump 
administration.
  There are nearly 30,000 Federal workers in Massachusetts alone, and 
almost a quarter of them are veterans--thousands of men and women who 
have put themselves in harm's way to protect us and then come home and 
continue serving their communities in the Federal workforce. These 
Americans work at agencies like the Social Security Administration, to 
help older Americans receive the benefits they have earned, and they 
work at the VA, where they help us fulfill the promises that we have 
made to our veterans. They help to keep our communities safe, and they 
help them recover after a disaster hits. They fight deadly diseases and 
work day in and day out to improve the health of our fellow citizens. 
Those are just a few examples.
  But ever since taking office, President Trump has attacked these 
public servants, attacked their paychecks, attacked their working 
conditions, and attacked their retirement security in just about every 
way he could think of--freezing their pay and proposing draconian cuts 
to their wages and their hard-earned retirement benefits.
  His latest assault, in the form of three Executive orders, undermines 
collective bargaining rights that have protected Federal workers' 
voices in their workplaces since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 
passed this Senate 87 to 1. These orders disrupt the bargaining 
processes that Federal workers have used for decades, and they 
interfere with the ability of unions to represent their members. For 
example, one of President Trump's Executive orders severely cuts down 
on the time that unions can spend helping their workers navigate the 
process for filing a workplace sexual harassment claim or getting 
whistleblower protections in order to report fraud and corruption in 
the government.
  President Trump's attacks on these public servants and their rights 
undermine important government services and the rights of all American 
workers, and they are part of a clear pattern. Despite his campaign 
rhetoric from 2 years ago, the President's track record on standing up 
for workers has been absolutely miserable. From the day he nominated 
Andrew Puzder, an executive who delighted in mocking and belittling his 
own low-wage workers, to run the Labor Department, this administration 
has delivered one gut punch after another to American workers.
  But that was only the beginning. In the Trump administration, workers 
in all sectors and all industries and in all parts of the country are 
under repeated attack. President Trump has signed laws, ended 
commonsense protections, and nominated anti-union and anti-worker 
judges--all of which undermine the rights of American workers in more 
ways than I can possibly count.
  He has rolled back rules designed to make sure that Federal 
contractors don't cheat their workers out of hard-earned wages. He has 
delayed safety standards that keep workers from being exposed to lethal 
carcinogenic materials, and he has made it easier for employers to hide 
injuries and deaths that their workers suffer on the job.
  He has opened the door for shady financial advisers to cheat hard-
working Americans out of billions of dollars in retirement savings.
  He has put anti-worker corporate attorneys on the National Labor 
Relations Board, which has now mowed its way through a giant wish list 
of areas where giant companies were begging to be left off the hook for 
violating workers' rights.
  For the Supreme Court, he nominated Neil Gorsuch, a union-busting 
judge who was the deciding vote in the 5-to-4 Janus case, which was 
also an attack on public servants, nurses, teachers, firefighters, and 
police--the culmination of a years-long campaign by rightwing 
billionaires to damage unions.
  The list goes on. After a year and a half of corporate tax cuts and 
rolling back commonsense protections for workplace safety, collective 
bargaining, retirement security, and more, we know that President 
Trump's promises to fight for American workers aren't really worth much 
of anything.
  Like all of the attacks on working families that we have seen from 
this administration, President Trump's rolling back the rights of 
Federal workers will lower wages, worsen conditions, hurt retirement 
security, and squeeze middle-class families all around the country even 
tighter than before. But that is not all. By attacking the Federal 
workforce, President Trump is making it harder for them to do their 
jobs. That means he is undermining services that our seniors, our 
veterans, and Americans from all backgrounds rely on every single day.
  In Massachusetts and here in Washington, Federal workers are saying: 
Enough is enough. So they are joining together, standing up, speaking 
out, and they are refusing to back down. Like so many Americans, I am 
grateful for their service to our country and to our communities, and I 
am proud to stand and fight shoulder to shoulder with these dedicated 
public servants, with their families, and with their communities all 
around the country. I am proud to stand with them. Powerful interests 
have been trying to break the backs of working people and their unions 
for decades, but we are here to say: We are not going away. We are 
going to fight, and we are going to win.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________