[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 164 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6459-S6467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             SPORTS MEDICINE LICENSURE CLARITY ACT OF 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the unfinished business.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany H.R. 302, a bill to provide 
     protections for certain sports medicine professionals who 
     provide certain medical services in a secondary State.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill.
       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the amendment of the Senate to the bill, with McConnell 
     amendment No. 4026 (to the motion to concur in the amendment 
     of the House to the amendment of the Senate), to change the 
     enactment date.
       McConnell amendment No. 4027 (to amendment No. 4026), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I unfortunately don't have enough time 
right now to respond to everything the Democratic leader has said, but 
I do want to say this: The most accurate statement the minority leader 
made is, he was against Judge Kavanaugh from the start. No one should 
be confused about this being a search for the truth. This is about 
search and destroy.
  Now, I think the Judiciary Committee conducted itself appropriately 
in giving Dr. Ford a chance to tell her story. I have said all along I 
want Dr. Ford to be treated just the same way my daughters or my wife 
or my mother would be treated under similar circumstances, and I think 
we met that standard, but we know the goalpost continues to be moved by 
our colleagues. This idea that you can assassinate a man's character, 
resulting in threats against his family, ruin his reputation and his 
future, and expect him to be a human punching bag and not respond 
forcefully--it is incredible to me.
  This should be about a fair process, but a fair process means the 
people who ultimately decide should have an open mind at the beginning. 
You wouldn't want to walk into a courtroom and talk to a jury or a 
judge where the judge and jury had already made up their mind; you 
would want them to listen to the evidence. That is what a fundamentally 
fair process means.
  It also means, if somebody is going to make an accusation against an 
individual for a crime, which is what has been alleged against Judge 
Kavanaugh, they would have to come forward with more than just an 
allegation; they would have to come forward with witnesses, proof, 
evidence because under our Constitution, people are presumed to be 
innocent of crimes unless proven guilty. They are accorded due process 
of law, a fair hearing, a fair process.
  Unfortunately, as a result of the mishandling of Dr. Ford's 
confidential letter to the ranking member, contrary to her wishes and 
without her consent, leaked to the press, she has been thrust into this 
three-ring circus. She was not told by her lawyers that the Judiciary 
Committee had offered to send a bipartisan team of professional staff 
out to her home in California to interview her confidentially. Why 
would her lawyers not tell her that? Because they wanted this three-
ring circus. Despite Dr. Ford's wishes not to be thrust into the 
spotlight, they evidently thrust her into that spotlight, raising the 
question in my mind: For whom are they working? Are these lawyers 
actually working for Dr. Ford or do they have another agenda and 
another client in mind?
  Well, the idea that now this has all come down to what somebody wrote 
in their high school yearbook is beyond parody. I mean, you can't make 
stuff like this up. Oh, we know the judge is belligerent because he 
allegedly threw ice on somebody in a bar in college. Of course, the 
reporter who wrote that had previously sent out a tweet demonstrating 
his bias against Judge Kavanaugh, but now it is accepted as fact--and, 
man, we are going to defeat this man because he threw ice on somebody 
when he was in college.

  Or we are going to go through his high school yearbook. I wonder what 
the high school yearbook of every Senator in this Chamber says. I hope 
that is not the standard.
  The Senate as an institution is one that operates based on precedent. 
If this is the precedent for future nominees, woe be to us because we 
will not be able to recruit the best and brightest people to serve in 
the judiciary or be subjected to this inquisition of a confirmation 
process.
  As I said, there is more I want to say responding to the Democratic 
leader's comments, which I couldn't disagree with more. He had already 
made up his mind, so this is now about trying to build a case against 
the nominee. The problem is, there isn't any evidence, so in its place, 
what he wants to do is presume guilt: Because somebody said something 
in their high school yearbook, they ought to be disqualified; because 
they allegedly threw ice on somebody when they were in college, that is 
disqualifying. That is making this whole process a laughingstock. This 
is the opposite of the sort of fair and dignified process we should be 
following.
  Now, at the request of many Senators, the FBI is going to be 
reporting back to the Senate on their supplemental background 
investigation. Will that be enough to satisfy those who had said, ``All 
we need is one more week in order to allow the FBI to question more 
witnesses''? We see now that they have moved on. Regardless of what 
happens with this supplemental background investigation, they will not 
be satisfied because they had their minds made up already, even before 
Dr. Ford's letter became public.
  This is an embarrassing, disgraceful way for the Senate to conduct 
itself. We do not honor ourselves or this institution by handling this 
nominee, this nomination, and these witnesses--including Dr. Ford--like 
this.
  I don't know what it is going to take for us to change. But one thing 
that can't happen is we can't let these despicable tactics and this 
strategy win because if they are able to destroy the reputation of a 
sitting judge based on such flimsy stuff, that means this same 
precedent will be applied to future nominees. Woe be to us and what a 
terrible disservice, not only to the good men and women who want to 
serve in government but also to the American people.
  The thing I hate most about Washington, DC, and its insular culture 
is that some people don't just want to win the argument; some people 
don't want to just win the election or win the vote; they want to 
destroy their opposition--destroy them. That is why people are saying 
that, even if the judge is confirmed, maybe over in the House they will 
start impeachment proceedings. One of the Members of the Judiciary 
Committee said: If the judge is confirmed, it will not stop there; I am 
not going to stop. What does that mean?
  We need to vote. We need to get the FBI report and we need to vote 
because the longer this circus continues, the more embarrassing it 
becomes to the Senate and to the Senators who work here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                       Opioid Crisis Response Act

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, later today we are going to have an 
opportunity to vote on the Opioid Crisis Response Act. I want to take 
some time to compliment all involved in bringing this legislation 
forward.
  First, let me start by acknowledging the problem in Maryland. The 
problem we have in Maryland is throughout our entire country.
  Recently, I was at the MedMark Treatment Center in Baltimore City, 
and I had a chance to see firsthand the efforts being made by the local 
community, by the private sector, and by the government to deal with 
those who have addiction issues as a result of the opioid crisis. I 
must tell you, they are making progress, but the problem continues. The 
problem continues in every community in Maryland.
  I have had similar roundtable discussions in western Maryland, on the 
Eastern Shore, in the Baltimore and Washington metro areas, and in all

[[Page S6460]]

parts of Maryland. In every community, they tell me that the crisis of 
overdose is still increasing, despite efforts made by local communities 
to try to deal with the addiction issue on many fronts--on the front of 
law enforcement, looking at different ways of dealing with pain 
medicines, and looking at ways to deal with people with addiction 
issues.
  As we know, with the widespread use of addictive opioids, they hit 
the market, and people became addicted to the prescription opioid 
medicines that were not used for their proper purposes. Later, they 
used heroin, which was cheaper than the opioid medicines, and people 
became addicted to that. More recently, heroin has been mixed with 
fentanyl, which can be very deadly and is much more powerful than 
heroin or prescription opioids, and people end up in the emergency 
room. In many cases, they end up dead.
  Congress has responded. We passed the 21st Century Cures Act, which 
was a bipartisan bill that set up a framework and alternative ways of 
dealing with pain rather than using addictive opioids and dealt with 
providing significant resources to local governments to deal with the 
issues in law enforcement, in prevention, and in treating people with 
addictions.
  Of course, the passage of the Affordable Care Act provided healthcare 
coverage for people with behavioral health issues and addiction, which 
helped not only those in the exchanges on private insurance but also 
those in the Medicaid system. So we have done a good job in trying to 
respond to it.
  Now we have the legislation before us: the Opioid Crisis Response 
Act. I am very pleased about the provisions. Many committees have 
provided input. It is a truly bipartisan product reflecting the will of 
the House and the Senate and the different committees of jurisdiction.
  I am particularly pleased that we have provided additional resources 
and flexibility for local communities. The one thing I learned in 
visiting different parts of Maryland is that programs in some 
communities will work, and in other communities, these programs will 
not work. So we need to look at what works for each community involved.
  The legislation before us reauthorizes and improves the State Opioid 
Targeted Response Grants in the 21st Century Cures Act. In my State of 
Maryland, we received $20 million under that act in fiscal year 2017. I 
have been encouraged by the Governor, the mayor of Baltimore, and other 
local officials who support that reauthorization improvement. They know 
it will help them deal with the problems.
  Let me tell you what the additional flexibility means for people in 
Maryland. In both Baltimore City and the Upper Shore, local governments 
are looking at establishing what is known as a stabilization center. A 
stabilization center will serve as a safe place for those under the 
influence of drugs or alcohol to sober up and be connected to an 
appropriate setting, where they can get the help they need and the 
treatment they need for recovery. The problem with our emergency rooms 
is that many times people who have OD'd, once they are brought back, 
can become very disruptive, and they can adversely affect the 
healthcare in the emergency room settings for other people who are 
there for other purposes. In addition, they can't always get the 
services they need, particularly in the middle of the night, to deal 
with their addiction problems. The stabilization center is set up to 
deal with those issues and connect people to proper medical care and 
behavioral health and social services.
  The problem is there is no funding for stabilization centers. 
Fortunately, under this legislation, flexibility is given in regard to 
the grant program for Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers, under the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--SAMHSA--
where local governments and community organizations can apply for funds 
to deal with these innovative approaches dealing with the addiction 
issue. I was pleased that it was a recommendation I had made and it was 
incorporated into the final legislation.

  Another popular type of program in my communities is peer support. We 
find that people who have gone through addiction recovery are much more 
effective in reaching out to those who have an addiction need today and 
can provide the type of support they need to stay with treatment. The 
problem is that not all State Medicaid programs cover peer support 
services, certainly not in Maryland. So I was pleased that this 
legislation includes an amendment I offered that will get GAO to study 
State Medicaid programs that currently reimburse for peer support 
services and how those programs save money and improve outcomes for 
beneficiaries.
  I am also pleased that we remove restrictions on Medicaid 
reimbursement for inpatient treatment of substance use disorders. We 
give flexibility to IMDs by removing the cap on the number of beds, 
which can help us, again, deal with the needs in different communities 
around our Nation. I worked with other Members of the Senate to get 
that included in the final bill that we will be voting on later today.
  We also provided enhanced reimbursement for medication assistance 
treatment in the Medicare system. That is an issue I came forward with 
in this legislation, and I am pleased it was included.
  The legislation also provides reimbursement for Medicaid health homes 
that focus on individuals with substance use disorder. Further, this 
legislation provides flexibility to deal with addiction issues through 
telehealth. Many of us have worked on telehealth issues, and this 
legislation expands the use of telehealth services for Medicare 
beneficiaries with substance use disorders.
  The bottom line is I was pleased to work with colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle in order to provide the flexibility for local 
governments and local communities to do what they need to do in order 
to deal with this crisis and, at the same time, provide Federal 
Government partnership and resources that can really make a difference.
  We do more than just deal with the treatment issues. We deal with law 
enforcement, and I am pleased that is in the bill. Our Governor had 
asked that we deal with the challenges of fentanyl shipments coming 
through international mail into this country; that issue is dealt with 
in this legislation, and I was pleased to be part of that.
  I am also pleased that we are providing first responders with 
protective equipment and training to deal with fentanyl. Many of our 
first responders are being accidentally exposed to fentanyl as they 
respond to an OD episode, and I am pleased there is help in this 
legislation to deal with that. I am particularly proud about that 
because Smiths Detection, which is located in my State, is providing 
the technology to help our first responders.
  Maryland is a high-intensity drug-trafficking area designation. This 
bill reauthorizes many important programs to deal with the current 
opioid crisis, and there are moneys in this to support drug courts and 
task forces. All of this will help people in Maryland and across our 
Nation.
  The legislation also deals with workforce and student loan 
forgiveness for those who go into this field. That is something that is 
welcome and needed.
  Lastly, the bill deals with housing. Housing is a significant 
challenge for those who have addiction needs. This legislation will 
allow us to support innovative programs under Medicaid to deal with 
housing in conjunction with the opioid crisis.
  I am proud we were able to work together in committees on both sides 
of the aisle, in both Chambers, and I look forward to the passage of 
this legislation later today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, what is the order right now? It is my 
understanding, I say to my good friend from Illinois, that I was to be 
speaking and alternating back and forth. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order in effect. The unfinished 
business is the House message to accompany H.R. 302.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been waiting for 10 minutes. I 
didn't realize it was going to be an alternating situation, but I will 
defer to him because of his seniority and our friendship. I wish to ask 
how long he will

[[Page S6461]]

speak, and I wish to ask unanimous consent to follow him.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me ask my friend how long he would be, if I defer to 
him at this point.
  Mr. DURBIN. Ten minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right, I am going to defer to the Senator for 10 
minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks, I be 
recognized for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is hard to believe that it was 3 weeks 
ago when we first heard the name Christine Blasey Ford. It seems like a 
lot longer; doesn't it?
  In that period of time, a lot of things have occurred. The first 
thing was the announcement from Kellyanne Conway at the White House 
when she said that Dr. Ford's testimony and complaint would neither be 
ignored nor would she be insulted. Last night at a rally in 
Mississippi, the President of the United States mocked Christine Blasey 
Ford for her lack of specific memory about this terrible sexual 
assault, which occurred 36 years ago.
  I think most people realize that she testified under oath, gave us 
all the information she knew, and conceded there were things she 
couldn't remember. Neither she nor any victim should be in any way 
belittled because they can't remember all of the details of something 
that happened in the distant past, something they would much rather 
forget.
  Let me also remind those who are following this debate that it was 
Dr. Ford who stepped forward and called for an FBI investigation. She 
was willing to step forward before the FBI and tell her story. It was 
Judge Kavanaugh who resisted it, even when I asked him directly. Now 
the FBI investigation is under way.
  For the good of the Senate and for our Nation, I hope this is a 
complete, professional, nonpartisan investigation, and I hope we are 
given the time to at least read the report from the FBI before the 
Republican majority leader in the Senate plows through, as he said over 
and over, to a vote in this Senate.
  I hope those who come to this issue in good faith, regardless of 
their position, will be respectful of the process, which we may be 
using in the future and should respect as it reaches its conclusion.


                        Forced Family Separation

  Mr. President, on a separate issue, I wish to tell the Senate about 
an experience I had several months ago. I was at an immigration court 
in Chicago. I had never been there before. It was at a high-rise office 
building in the Chicago Loop. The corridors were packed with those who 
were waiting for an opportunity for a hearing.
  I went into this courtroom where a judge was sitting, and I saw the 
two people who were before the court that day to have their case heard. 
The judge called the courtroom to order. She was very respectful to the 
two individuals who were there, but she had a problem. One of the 
people before her could not get into the chair to sit down for the 
proceeding. The reason that young girl, whom I will call Maria, could 
not get into the chair was because she was 2 years old--2 years old. 
One of the volunteer attorneys lifted her up and put her in the chair 
and handed her a stuffed owl, which she clung to through the whole 
hearing.
  The other person who was being subject to a hearing that day had no 
trouble getting into the chair. He scrambled into the chair and sat 
down because he was anxious to play with the Matchbox car that was on 
the table. This young man, whom I will call Hamilton, was 4 years old.
  In the United States of America, in the city of Chicago, at an 
immigration court of this Federal Government, these two individuals 
were up for a hearing because they had been separated forcibly from 
their parents. There was no real conclusion to the hearing. They reset 
the next hearing date for these two children--2 years old and 4 years 
old--for 4 days before Christmas.
  How did we get to this point in America where we are actually having 
a Federal court hearing of an immigration court for a 2-year-old and a 
4-year-old--one too small even to get into a chair by herself and the 
other who, thank goodness, found a Matchbox car to play with during the 
proceeding? We reached this point because of the announcement of the 
Trump administration of something called zero tolerance and the 
decision to separate over 2,700 children from their parents at the 
border.
  Where are we today? We are in a situation where 136 of these 
children--months after this policy was started and then discontinued--
are still being held by the government. Ninety-six of them have parents 
who we believe to be outside the United States.
  Just this last week, the Department of Homeland Security inspector 
general came out with a report, which I commend to everyone, analyzing 
what the zero tolerance policy meant. I will tell you what it meant. It 
meant the absolute ultimate when it came to cruelty and incompetence. 
What they tell us in this report was that a decision was made by the 
Trump administration and by the Department of Homeland Security under 
Secretary Nielsen to separate children from their parents, even before 
these children had the ability to speak. They were called preverbal 
children. They separated them without any plastic bracelets on their 
wrists, without any fingerprints to trace them back to their parents. 
They were separated not by blocks or even a few miles but sometimes 
1,000 miles.
  I came to learn the story of a little boy I will call Hamilton 
because it was published in The New Yorker. It was a story about his 
mom from El Salvador and the little boy being taken from her in March--
taken from this mother. They left the mother in Texas in detention, and 
they transported the child to Chicago. Initially, a volunteer lawyer 
came in and bought a phone card and said to the mother: You can call 
him. And she did. They would talk for a little while and sing a little 
song.
  The next time she called him, he wasn't as responsive. It has now 
reached a point where this 4-year-old little boy will not speak to his 
mother on the telephone, will not communicate with her. The people at 
the shelter in Chicago had begged the mother: Tell him he has to eat.
  Did you ever see a little 4-year-old boy you would have to tell to 
eat? It says something about his state of mind. Sadly, this 4-year-old 
has now reverted back to diapers and will not say a word to his mother 
on the phone--separated by a zero tolerance program of this Trump 
administration.
  What they tell us from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector 
General's Office is that we are far from the end of this sad, 
disgraceful chapter in American history.
  Who is going to be held accountable for this? Will it be the 
President, perhaps in some election in the future? Will it be the 
Attorney General, who proudly announced this new program separating 
mothers from children? Will it be the Secretary of the Department of 
Homeland Security, who separated these children, according to the 
inspector general's report, putting them in confined spaces, which were 
unacceptable by humane standards, which we actually have been governed 
by for years in the United States?
  I believe Secretary Nielsen should be held responsible. I believe she 
should resign. Someone has to answer for this disgraceful chapter in 
American history, and we still must remember that 136 eligible children 
are still being held by our government under this policy. It is time 
for us to reunite these children with their parents. Except in the most 
extraordinary circumstances, it is time for us to try to put these 
families back together again. I want Hamilton to start eating again. I 
want him to be in his mother's arms again. I want him to try to get 
over this chapter in his young life. It can affect him for as long as 
he lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, amid all the unfounded, uncorroborated 
accusations and attacks on a fine jurist, I think it is important for 
us to remember that other things are happening here at the same time. 
For one thing, I will only make one comment about the comments of the 
previous speaker; that is, the program that is somewhat accurately 
described actually started not in the Trump administration but in the 
Obama administration.

[[Page S6462]]

  



                        FAA Reauthorization Act

  Mr. President, what I want to say is that something really 
significant is about to happen; that is, something we have been waiting 
for for a long time. If you are not on the Commerce Committee, you are 
not dealing with this issue--actually, there are three committees 
dealing with it--and you wouldn't be aware of how significant the vote 
coming up really is.
  We are going to be voting to reauthorize the FAA. This is something 
we have been trying to do now for many years. This is actually a 5-year 
reauthorization. That is significant. The last time we did a 5-year 
reauthorization of the FAA was in the 1980s. It is a huge win, not just 
for the obvious good things that are going on and what we need to be 
doing to update the system we are working with, but if you single out 
general aviation and pilots, it is a big, major deal.
  The legislation makes needed investments in our Nation's airport 
infrastructure and supports the general aviation community. It improves 
commercial service for the flying public and streamlines the FAA 
regulatory process, eliminating a lot of the redtape that goes along 
with any bureaucracy. It enhances aviation security and promotes 
responsible and safe integration for drones in our national airspace.
  As an active pilot, I am especially pleased that many pilot 
protections I have fought for are in this bill. In fact, I am very 
proud that I actually introduced in committee and was able to get in 
the bill six of my amendments that I know are very significant, and 
they mostly address general aviation. It is going to have more 
transparency in communicating with the FAA.
  We have heard the stories about some of the FAA enforcement 
proceedings. That is common to a lot of bureaucracies. It strengthens 
one area: the notice to airmen. That is called NOTAM. NOTAMs are 
notifications to people who are pilots to let them know if they are 
going to land on a runway and if there is a problem on the runway and 
it is under construction or something like that. It came from a 
personal experience I had when I landed on one where there was work. 
But there were no NOTAMs. So there was no way of warning people.
  I remember that I said: Well, where are the NOTAMs, if you say there 
are NOTAMs?
  They said: Well, that is for you to find out.
  This changes all of that. We have the NOTAM reform that is in there. 
It includes the Volunteer Pilot Protection Act. That is like the Good 
Samaritan act. I remember that about 30 years ago, when I was mayor of 
Tulsa at that time, on the island of Dominica--not to be confused with 
the Dominican Republic--there was a radio conveyor that reached the 
entire Central America and a lot of South America, and it was wiped out 
by a hurricane.
  I remember getting 12 pilots together and 12 aircraft together and 
going to take medical supplies and take food and all of these things to 
that island. I actually had to fly through a hurricane to get down 
there. There were four people who were going to go and did not go 
because they might incur some kind of liability or they might do 
something on the way that would create that problem.
  The Good Samaritan law that is in this bill is something we have been 
working on for a long period of time and will allow people not to be 
punished for their generosity, which has been the case before. The bill 
directs the FAA to update regulations and policies related to this 
selection and training and designation of pilot examiners.
  There is a big problem. I experienced this personally just about 3 
months ago. They are called DPE, or designated pilot examiners. There 
are not enough of them around. What we did with this bill was to add a 
new form of inspecting pilots that is going to allow one examiner to do 
twice as many pilots. Here it is in this bill.
  Without the proper examiners, the commercial pilots are prevented 
from obtaining the recurring qualifications, and flight schools are 
prevented from graduating students. There is a problem right now in the 
numbers of people who are out there who have passed and want to take 
examinations and are not able to do that. It also addresses the problem 
of contract towers. Contract towers are mostly towers you see around 
the country. The largest ones are called FAA towers. However, some of 
them are contract towers, so they are contracting with the private 
sector. Well, this is good. They do a good job. I would just suggest, 
though, that if we had not allowed for these contract towers, we 
wouldn't have, in my State of Oklahoma, some seven towers that would be 
out there. Two of those contract towers are in the cities of Stillwater 
and Norman, OK. Well, Stillwater happens to be the home of Oklahoma 
State University, and Norman is the home of Oklahoma University.

  I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, on game day, if you are in there, 
going in with sometimes up to a thousand aircraft, and if you don't 
have a tower there, how is that going to work? Well, that is a 
recognition that that is a problem which needs to be dealt with, and 
that is in this bill. It also affects a lot of the airports that are 
adjacent to military bases.
  It updates the FAA's dated benefit process, ensuring that communities 
invest resources without unnecessary paperwork.
  The FAA reauthorization unlocks the economic growth potential of 
aviation it provides to local communities. We have in Oklahoma--not far 
from Tulsa, actually--a very small community called Bristow, and 
Bristow had two large industries that wanted to move in there and were 
not able to do it and were making a decision to go not to another 
community in Oklahoma but to another State. It wasn't as far as Alaska; 
it was not too far away from Oklahoma. So what we were able to do was 
leverage the State funding to put in these improvements to the airport. 
I was there during the dedication. Those two very large industries are 
moving in. People don't realize what an airport means to a local 
community in rural America. So this has provisions in there that will 
allow that to take place.
  There is another one I want to mention. If you are in a general 
aviation airport environment--now, that is not like DFW or Dulles or 
one of those; it is the smaller ones. In the Chair's State of Alaska, 
that is about all they have up there. If you are in that type of an 
environment, if you get Federal funds--and they all get Federal funds--
if you don't use those in a general aviation airport, they 
automatically, under current law, go to DFW or one of the giant 
airports. Under this, it is guaranteed that they will go to another 
general aviation airport, which is a huge win.
  Our Nation's aviation industry is facing a dire shortage of pilots. 
We have language in here that is going to be helpful. We all know about 
the problem--particularly those of us who are serving on the Senate 
Armed Services Committee--about the pilot shortage we have. We have 
some 2,000 pilots right now who are actually fighter pilots, but we 
have a shortage of pilots.
  One of the problems is that during the 8 years of the Obama 
administration, in the process of starving the military, they were not 
allowing their pilots in the Navy and the Air Force to fly more than 12 
hours a month. This was something that can't be done, and consequently 
they were in the position of not being able to have them--well, in this 
bill, we are starting out and actually have language in a pilot program 
to allow students in high school to go through ground school, to get 
people interested in aviation. All that is in this bill. The programs--
there is a wide array of public and private sector stakeholders 
dedicated to furthering aviation and an accessible future career path 
for pilots.
  I applaud the reforms in the FAA's process for certifying aircraft 
and aircraft products.
  One of the problems we have had out there is that people are 
building--I am talking about major builders or experimental builders--
aircraft and then not being able to get them certified because of the 
long certification process. We have shortcut that and have the same 
amount of requirements in this bill, but we will be able to almost 
double the number of certifications.
  So that is happening right now. I thank Senator Thune and Senator 
Nelson and the committee for acknowledging that we finally have to do 
it. For 10 years now, I have been sitting around waiting for a 
reauthorization

[[Page S6463]]

bill and have been talking to people about the consequences. Now, 
finally, after about 30 years, we have a reauthorization bill that is a 
5-year bill. We are going to be voting on it shortly. It is going to be 
a great improvement.
  So other things are happening here. We are passing things. We are 
being productive. We will continue to do so as soon as this fiasco is 
over, the challenges to our fine Justice Kavanaugh.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I stood here to commend this 
body for developing and passing much needed legislation to help 
families and communities respond to the opioid overdose crisis. This 
crisis is a tragedy, a scourge, an epidemic that claimed an estimated 
49,000 lives just last year. It is one that knows no political, 
territorial or demographical boundaries.
  Soon, the Senate will consider a bipartisan, bicameral, consensus 
opioid package, which overwhelmingly passed the House of 
Representatives last week.
  Contained within the conference bill are several of my provisions 
from the Senate-passed legislation, including Opioid Milestones, a 
bipartisan bill I introduced with Senators Murkowski and Hassan to 
create a scorecard to measure our Nation's response to the opioid 
crisis. In other words, as we spend more money, how do we now give a 
grade to each one of the programs that we are funding so that in 2, 3, 
4 years, it is best practices across the whole country, so that we are 
ensuring that we learn the lessons of what is, in fact, occurring? So 
that is a milestone, a scorecard so that we know what is happening with 
the money, with the programs we are funding.
  The final package also retains important legislation I introduced 
with Senators Young and Baldwin to help address increasing rates of 
infectious diseases associated with injection drug use, such as HIV and 
viral hepatitis.
  Two weeks ago, while highlighting these provisions, I also called on 
my House and Senate colleagues to include in the conference legislation 
a critical policy that was noticeably absent from the Senate-passed 
bill: expansion of medication-assisted treatment, or MAT, for opioid 
use disorders.
  In 2016, I worked with Senator Rand Paul to expand access to MAT by 
enabling nurse practitioners and physician assistants to temporarily 
prescribe SUBOXONE. This year, I introduced bipartisan legislation with 
Senator Paul, Senator Collins, and Senator Hassan to provide permanent 
MAT prescriber authority for nurse practitioners and physician 
assistants. Our legislation would also extend this authority to other 
nursing professions already stepping up to address the opioid crisis--
certified nurses, midwives, clinical nurse specialists, and certified 
registered nurse anesthetists.
  As this consensus legislation was being negotiated, Senator Paul and 
I led a bipartisan, bicameral letter urging leadership to include the 
House-passed version of our legislation in the final bill.
  Today, I am pleased to report that we succeeded in this endeavor. 
Section 3201 of the conference legislation would permanently allow 
nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe MAT. It would 
also provide that authority to the other nursing professions for 5 
years. This policy will immediately save lives and improve our overall 
response to the opioid overdose crisis.
  I thank my partners in both the House and Senate for fighting to 
ensure that we reduce the demand side of this epidemic by enhancing 
access to treatment.
  In addition to expanding MAT, the conference package takes important 
steps to help connect vulnerable populations to healthcare, 
particularly substance use treatment.
  As we work to address our Nation's opioid crisis and right the wrongs 
of the failed War on Drugs, we must do all we can to remove barriers to 
care, including for those who have been incarcerated.
  Last month, I reintroduced my legislation, the Supporting Positive 
Outcomes after Release Act, which prohibits States from terminating an 
inmate's Medicaid coverage during incarceration. My legislation would 
instead require States to temporarily suspend Medicaid coverage, 
ensuring immediate access to healthcare services upon reentry into the 
community. In other words, when the prisoner is let out of 
incarceration and they go back into the community, they will have 
access to healthcare services. Otherwise, the likelihood of relapse is 
very high.
  I am pleased that the conference opioid package includes a version of 
my legislation requiring States to suspend rather than terminate 
Medicaid coverage for young people under 21 years of age during 
incarceration. This provision will help bridge the precarious time 
after release by ensuring that these individuals can access their 
benefits as soon as possible.
  I applaud the work of Senators Hatch and Wyden to include this 
important provision in the conference package, and I hope that this is 
a step forward in expanding this suspension policy to other Medicaid 
populations. I don't think it should be just 21 and under; I think it 
should be anyone who is leaving prison. A high percentage of people who 
are in prison have some drug-related problem, and if we don't provide 
them with the treatment they need as they are leaving, then it is 
almost--not a guarantee but a high probability that they will take a U-
turn and come right back with the same problem again.
  This final opioid package represents a critical component of our 
response to the Nation's opioid overdose crisis. I commend Senators 
Murray and Alexander on their incredible and tireless work to put this 
legislation together, and I thank them for working with me throughout 
the process on all of those provisions. However, this should not and 
will not be the end of Congress's efforts to tackle the opioid 
epidemic. There remain a number of other outstanding proposals, like 
mandating prescriber education and clearly labeling the risk of opioids 
on prescription bottles. That could pay big dividends in addressing 
this crisis.
  I would say in conclusion that it is a missed opportunity when we 
don't mandate physician education across the whole country on the 
prescribing of opioids. We should do it. There are a lot of physicians 
out there who are prescribing bottles of opioids who have never had the 
correct training in order to ensure that they understand what the 
consequences are.
  Simultaneously, Senator Hatch and I have introduced legislation that 
says, in the absence of mandatory physician education, the bottle cap 
of every opioid have a warning, as they are taking the bottle from the 
pharmacy, so that the mother, the wife, the father, the responsible 
party in the family can actually see that this is dangerous and that it 
is addictive. The warning is right on the bottle cap in a color--red, 
orange, green--that says ``this medicine is different from anything 
else you have in your cabinet.'' At least give the mothers and fathers 
and family members the tools they need or the information they need to 
say: The physician didn't tell us this because they weren't mandated to 
have the education, but at least I can read it and say to myself that 
this is something I should be very careful with in allowing my family 
member to take these pills.
  That is for another day, but I think it is important, and I think it 
is something that we are going to have to include, ultimately, down the 
line just to give families the information they need.
  Again, I thank everyone, Democrat and Republican. This is a perfect 
example of how bipartisanship prevails over paralysis. And there can't 
be a more important issue that would prove that this institution can 
work. I thank everyone involved.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the bipartisan, 
bicameral 5-year reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration 
Act that we will be voting on, and I believe passing, in about one-half 
hour.
  This is the first 5-year reauthorization for the FAA since 1982, 
providing long-term certainty for our aviation infrastructure while 
ensuring that we continue to have the safest, most efficient aerospace 
system in the world.
  The bill continues to provide stable funding for the Airport 
Improvement Program which supports the construction, rehabilitation, 
and development

[[Page S6464]]

of airports of all sizes, including the construction of the new 
Williston Basin International Airport in North Dakota, the first new 
air carrier airport built in the United States in over 9 years, and 
very much needed because it is right in the heart of the Bakken.
  We have had incredible energy development there. We now produce 
between 1.2 and 1.3 million barrels a day, second only to Texas, so we 
have a lot of people coming in, a lot of infrastructure being 
developed, and obviously our service is incredibly important. I can't 
thank the FAA enough for recognizing that we not only needed an 
expansion of airport facilities, but we needed to build a whole new 
airport because they were closed in by the community of Williston. This 
is the first new air carrier airport built in the United States in 9 
years, and it is tremendous. It is not just about serving Williston, it 
is about serving Northwest North Dakota, as well as parts of Eastern 
Montana, and a very important, growing energy industry area for our 
Nation. That shows the importance of the kind of provisions we have in 
this legislation and how it affects every part of our great Nation.
  Ensuring long-term certainty for FAA programs like the Airport 
Improvement Program are essential for our airport construction 
projects, as I have described, in the Williston Basin. It is 
particularly important that we have this funding and are able to 
utilize it in an efficient way. For example, in cold-weather States 
like my State or the State of our Presiding Officer, there is a 
relatively short construction season so we have to get out there and 
get after it and get it done when we can. That is what we are doing 
with this legislation, as well as in the appropriations bill, making 
sure the funding is there so we can deploy it cost-effectively, getting 
the funding out there and construction done when it can actually be 
done.
  The FAA reauthorization includes a number of provisions I worked on 
and authored to expand upon work we are doing in North Dakota on 
unmanned aircraft systems. This is a big part of the future of 
aviation. I thank the Commerce Committee chairman--the Commerce 
Committee being the committee of jurisdiction--and I would like to 
thank Chairman Thune, my good buddy from the other Dakota, and also the 
ranking member for their work on the UAS legislation with me that we 
have included in this bill.
  As my colleagues well know, North Dakota is one of the leading States 
when it comes to development of unmanned aviation systems technology. 
As a matter of fact, Eastern North Dakota has been referred to as ``the 
Silicon Valley for drones'' by one of the prominent media outlets. Our 
Northern Plains Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Site in Grand Forks, ND, 
is one of seven UAS research and development sites in the Nation, 
providing the proving grounds for a range of UAS testing from one-pilot 
operations and precision agriculture to military applications, defense 
applications, border security, as well as the energy industry--just a 
whole gamut of military, border protection, and commercial agricultural 
uses for unmanned aviation.
  For example, one of the golf courses in Grand Forks, the King's Walk 
Golf Course, which was actually designed by Arnold Palmer and is a very 
nice golf course, has begun delivering food to golfers on the golf 
course by drones. That is pretty cool. It is a sign of things to come. 
We have companies there such as General Atomics, Northrop Grumman, and 
leading aerospace companies developing applications such as Predator, 
Reaper, Global Hawk--all of these ISR military applications and so 
forth.
  We also have Customs and Border Protection there. We have 900 miles 
of border responsibility, and they are using unmanned drones on the 
border. I want to assure the Presiding Officer that is not just to keep 
an eye on Alaska, but we work with our good friends in Canada. So we 
have Customs and Border Protection and military applications but also 
these ag and energy applications, also this idea of small product 
delivery, where products can be delivered right to your home with 
drones. They are actually starting that on the golf course. You walk 
before you run, right? Here you are on the golf course getting food and 
beverages delivered. That is a first step in this process.
  I look at these young people, and I think about what we all carry 
now, our smartphones that are amazing computers that can do so much. 
Ten years ago, obviously, and when we were their age, we never dreamed 
of something like that. Even 10 years ago, we had no idea what this 
device could do. Think what unmanned aviation systems--drones, if you 
will--are going to do in 10 years, right?
  Looking at these pages--they will be developing these applications. 
We will be trying to keep up. You know, guys like me and the Presiding 
Officer, we will be trying to keep up with these young people. It is 
going to be amazing, and we have no idea about all the amazing 
applications that are going to be developed. That is why we worked so 
hard in this area, and that is why I am so pleased.
  Back in 2011, I actually worked on the legislation and authored a lot 
of it that set up the test sites we have. We were actually the first 
test site named. What we have been able to include in this bill is 
another 5-year extension of those test sites. That is really important 
because the work we are doing out there--as I mentioned, some of the 
great companies we have, they have to know they will be able to 
continue to operate on those test sites. We have a lot of special 
things going into making sure they have the airspace so they can fly 
these unmanned aircraft and do the testing and development. Whether it 
is high level, as I described with something like Global Hawk, which is 
a very large jet aircraft, all the way down to these small drones that 
are delivering food products on the golf course, we have to do it all. 
Having those test sites is a huge part of it.

  The second aspect of the legislation I was able to include in this 
bill really goes to spectrum. We actually have a program in there that 
allows us to help develop the spectrum, and that is very important as 
well. The amendment I offered will enable us to evaluate the best and 
safest spectrum for UAS use. We need that for command and control.
  It is amazing the things we have to figure out, including privacy, 
safety, how we do the command and control, high-level satellite, low-
level, is it communication towers, like cell towers, what spectrums we 
use. All of these things, including redundancy, sense-and-avoid--all of 
those things go into developing contract airspace use for manned and 
unmanned aircraft.
  Another provision we included has to do with the language that will 
allow us to develop the best spectrum for UAS use. It is important to 
ensure that UAS operates on a spectrum that provides the safest command 
and control of the aircraft and involves the least interference with 
other spectrum users. I thank Chairman Thune for working with me to 
include this provision in the final bill that enables us to move 
forward in that very important area.
  As we see growth in UAS development and use, it is also important 
that we address vulnerabilities. In the wrong hands, Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems can pose a serious threat to our country, our people, and 
property. So I was pleased this legislation includes the Preventing 
Emerging Threats Act legislation I helped introduce along with the 
chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, 
Senator Ron Johnson. I truly appreciate his work and the fact that we 
were able to include this provision in the legislation which Secretary 
Nielsen at the DHS wants. She was very clear that the Department of 
Homeland Security needs this legislation to have the authority not only 
to protect our Nation's borders but internally as well in case of any 
kind of unmanned aircraft attack on a facility and to be able to 
protect and prevent that. DHS needed this authorizing legislation to do 
that. So our bill will help protect important facilities from the 
security risks posed by anyone using unmanned aircraft improperly or 
dangerously. We do this by providing the Department of Homeland 
Security and Department of Justice with the authority to protect 
covered facilities and assets when there is a security risk posed by 
unmanned aircraft. I am pleased we were able to work in all these areas 
and include them in this large, important bill. These are all different 
areas of aviation that are so important to address for our Nation.

[[Page S6465]]

  Our Nation leads the world in aviation. We always have. We lead in 
technology development, whether it is manned or unmanned aircraft. We 
are pushing the boundaries whether it is rocketry or anything else. The 
President now is advocating a space force. Again, we are pushing the 
boundaries of aviation. We will continue to do that because of the 
innovation, creativity, ingenuity, and the adventurous spirit of the 
American people.
  We have to make sure we are doing our job in this body as well as our 
fellow Members of Congress. Our responsibility is to make sure we 
create the framework for our great companies, our great inventors, and 
our great scientists--for these amazing young people with all their 
brilliant and bright ideas--to have the forum and the opportunity to 
support the legal and regulatory environment so they can go out and do 
truly great things, where the sky is the limit. Right, guys? Where the 
sky is the limit.
  That is what this bill is about. It is not about the government doing 
it, it is about empowering the great people of this country to do all 
those great things and continue to lead the world forward with 
aviation. Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                      International Aid and NAFTA

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there is a lot going on in the world 
right now, and obviously there is a lot going on in Washington, DC, but 
I want to take a global look at what is happening in trade.
  I want to begin by mentioning what is happening in Indonesia. It is a 
part of the world where Americans don't travel too often or interact 
with. It is not in our typical sphere, but right now the people of 
Indonesia are digging out from a massive earthquake and tsunami that 
followed.
  The latest death toll numbers are over 1,400 people they identified 
right now. Many of the most remote villages that were deeply affected 
by the earthquake haven't been reached yet. We don't know how high the 
death toll is going to climb.
  Our State Department has already engaged, as we should, to help them 
in any way we can. We have already released some initial aid relief to 
them. We are offering our help in any way we possibly can to assist the 
people there as they try to make sense of how to go forward on relief 
efforts. There are private organizations, such as World Relief, that 
provide a global response that are already on the ground engaging to 
help. There are Americans helping the people of Indonesia--and 
rightfully so that we should. We should keep our focus on what is 
happening around the world, and where we can help, we should help and 
engage. So we should continue to pray for and reach out in practical 
ways to help the people of Indonesia. We will try to keep people 
updated on that in the days ahead on how people can stay engaged.
  The President made an announcement earlier this week dealing with 
international activities with our closer neighbors of Canada and 
Mexico. This is an issue that has been discussed for quite a while. The 
President brought it up in his campaign and immediately went to work on 
trying to reshape the NAFTA agreement.
  Interestingly, States have different opinions about NAFTA, but in 
Oklahoma our No. 1 and No. 2 largest export locations are Canada and 
Mexico. Our manufactured and agricultural products often are moving 
north and south to our closest neighbors, and NAFTA has been a win for 
us as far as building our own economy and reaching out to export our 
products.
  So I was very attentive when the President said he wanted to revisit 
NAFTA. Our team quickly engaged with the President and his team to talk 
about what can be done to help. It is one of the issues I brought up 
with Robert Lighthizer before he was even appointed to the position of 
U.S. Trade Representative. We talked about NAFTA; we talked about the 
importance of trade agreements as well.
  I met with Gregg Doud, the Chief Agricultural Negotiator, multiple 
times through this process. I met with the White House to talk numerous 
times. I met with the President and with the Vice President. I met with 
different individuals with their team to talk about how important trade 
is and how essential it is that we get to a good deal.

  Initially, the focus was on resolving it with Mexico, leaving Canada 
out. My conversations with the White House have been that I understand 
the pressure on Canada, but Oklahoma's No. 1 trading partner is Canada. 
So I encouraged them to finish this out, as well, because it is 
exceptionally important to us.
  There is this perception that only the people who border with Canada 
care about trade with Canada. That is not so. We continue to interact 
with them in letters, meetings, and phone calls.
  I was pleased to see a trade agreement that actually came forward 
this week. There is a lot to resolve. We are still going through the 
details on it, but the important thing to come through it is locking in 
some of the things we already have with trade agreements.
  When I speak with the people in my State about trade, they say: We 
want to resolve the trade issues with our friends, but the main focus 
we want to have is reaching out to make new friends internationally. 
Let's resolve the markets we already have and make sure those are 
stable. Let's try to find new places to sell our products and establish 
new trade agreements. It makes sense for our economy. It makes sense, 
quite frankly, worldwide for us.
  I was pleased to see the administration step forward, saying that we 
are resolving the issues with Canada and Mexico and resolving some of 
the unanswered issues.
  If you go back to the 1990s, we weren't talking a lot about e-
commerce when the NAFTA deal was first done. It was time for an update 
on that.
  It was time, quite frankly, for a State like ours that deals with a 
lot of wheat to have Canada acknowledge that the wheat we grow is 
quality wheat. Canada had a bad habit; every time we sent quality wheat 
to them, they would downgrade it as soon as it came across the border 
and say that American wheat was never the same quality as Canadian 
wheat. Sorry to say, our wheat is the same quality, so that is finally 
being resolved, back and forth, between Canada and the United States.
  There are simple questions, such as what are de minimis products to 
be able to carry across the border between Canada and Mexico? It might 
not seem like a big deal, but allowing an individual to cross the 
border from the United States to Canada--to go back and forth with a 
small number of goods they have purchased is significant to someone who 
is a normal consumer crossing back and forth across the border. That 
has been a problem for a long time that finally will be resolved.
  Dairy issues have famously been a problem. Opening up their market a 
little more to dairy products is very significant for us. This 
preserves and expands access for U.S. poultry and egg producers and 
makes updates to the areas where we need modern updates. I am pleased 
to see we are finally moving to resolve this.
  There are some areas that I think are still unresolved, such as the 
issue about an expiration date. I have spoken with the administration 
multiple times about that. I think trade agreements can be revisited at 
any moment. We don't have to set an expiration date on it. Clearly, 
they can be revisited because we are revisiting NAFTA right now to 
renegotiate the deal. I don't think we need to set a future date and 
say that this whole thing goes away. I think that sets an arbitrary 
deadline on a trade deal. If it is working, we can renegotiate the 
areas that need to be tweaked, but leave it in place. It creates 
greater stability.
  I look forward to having the debate about some of those issues and 
trying to resolve some of those things. But in the meantime, I want to 
thank the Trump administration for doing the work that was required, 
taking on the trade issues that have needed to be taken on for quite a 
while, and trying to actually get them resolved. Now that NAFTA is 
wrapping up, we look forward to seeing the details in the days ahead 
and coming before Congress for a vote, as we see all of the details, 
and all of the American people will be able to see this final 
negotiation.
  I look forward to the next year. The next year will include the new 
markets. We have trade issues, for instance, with Japan and U.S. beef. 
The whole world wants to have our beef.

[[Page S6466]]

They know the quality of the beef we put out. Japan has arbitrary 
tariffs that well exceed the norms against American beef coming into 
Japan, which other countries don't face. That needs to be resolved with 
Japan.
  We need to continue to expand our exports into multiple other 
countries. The Trans-Pacific Partnership that was discussed in the 
previous administration--this administration set aside it and said: We 
are going to do bilateral negotiations rather than multilateral 
negotiations. I understand that. It is time to take on those bilateral 
negotiations, deal with those trade agreements, and expand into new 
markets and new places.
  As the American economy is thriving right now, we are continuing to 
create greater efficiencies and greater products. The world continues 
to want our products, and the more we can negotiate those deals and 
find places to send them and people who want to buy them, let's do it.
  I would add one more thing. We have a unique relationship with 
England. As the UK, because of their Brexit vote, breaks away from the 
EU and from that trading bloc, they are working on negotiating a deal 
with Europe. We should be aggressively negotiating a deal with the UK 
to form a trading relationship. There is no reason the United States 
and the UK shouldn't be the first major trade negotiation that they 
take on and that we solve.
  We have a lot of products back and forth. Aerospace is one of those 
primary areas in which the UK and the United States should be able to 
cooperate extensively. Let's get that trade agreement going and make 
sure we can get that locked in.
  In the days ahead, we will want to continue to have our close 
alliance with the UK, including a close free trade agreement between 
us, to make sure we can knock down tariffs. This is a moment when the 
UK can walk away from Europe's high tariffs and high barriers to trade, 
and we can actually say: Let's establish a closer relationship with our 
close allies of the UK.
  There is a lot to be done in trade. There are a lot of new places to 
go, and there are some areas that I would tweak and do differently, 
even in this new deal on NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement. But I am proud of the administration; they have actually 
taken this on to be able to solve it.
  As I have jokingly said: They have the ability to break things; now 
it is time to prove they can fix some things. This is one they are 
fixing, and it will be good for the American economy in the days ahead 
to see it done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Americans are taking to the skies like 
never before. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a 
new high of 74.8 million domestic and international passengers flew in 
June of 2018, a 5.8-percent increase compared to last year and a 1-
percent increase compared to May. June was the fifth consecutive 
monthly increase in system-wide passengers. In the midst of this 
growth, Congress has been working on legislation to reauthorize the 
Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, which sits at the center of this 
tremendously important industry.
  Today we are sending a 5-year FAA reauthorization to the President's 
desk. While certainly not perfect, on balance, this is a good bill that 
takes positive steps for airline workers and customers and also 
reauthorizes funding for key programs that help rural airports. At a 
time when the Trump administration has sought to either eliminate or 
dramatically slash discretionary funding for the Essential Air Service, 
EAS, this bill sends a strong, bipartisan signal about the importance 
of EAS to rural communities across the country. In addition, this 
agreement will end the requirement that airports use toxic firefighting 
foam that can poison groundwater. Communities in Vermont have been 
forced to confront the aftereffects of the use of these dangerous 
chemicals. It is long overdue that we put an end to their use.
  I am also pleased that this bill contains a small but important 
provision I worked to include that will authorize reimbursement for 
preclearance activities in the rail environment. As a longtime advocate 
for preclearance, I appreciate the willingness of Chairman Thune, 
Ranking Member Nelson, and Chairman Grassley to work with me and 
Senator Johnson on this language, which is necessary for establishing 
preclearance facilities at Canadian rail stations.
  I am concerned, however, about one unrelated piece of legislation 
attached to this bill that grants vague and overly broad authority to 
the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to mitigate threats 
posed by drones. The Preventing Emerging Threats Act would allow the 
government to take control over, destroy, and wiretap drones that pose 
a ``credible threat'' to an undefined class of Federal property. 
Crucially, it exempts DOJ and DHS from the protections contained in the 
Wiretap Act and the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Act, opening the 
door to warrantless wiretapping.
  While there is undoubtedly potential for drones to be misused in a 
manner that could pose a serious threat to citizens and government 
buildings, this bill fails to achieve the right balance between 
granting DOJ and DHS reasonable authority to confront such threats and 
protecting civil liberties. The vague definitions of ``credible 
threat,'' ``safety and security'' and ``covered facility or asset'' 
leave the door open for serious abuse. It is imperative that Congress 
remain vigilant in conducting oversight to prevent misuse of this vague 
authority.
  Despite my serious concerns about the Preventing Emerging Threats 
Act, I am supporting this package because it brings stability and 
certainty to the FAA and includes other important provisions that 
benefit airline passengers, employees, and Vermont. I appreciate the 
hard work that went into crafting this compromise. I do not support 
everything in this bill, but on balance, it is legislation I will vote 
in favor of.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to provide clarification 
surrounding section 317 of H.R. 302, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, FAA, Reauthorization Act of 2018.
  New section 44737 of title 49, as added by section 317 of the bill, 
allows for the consideration of other means acceptable to the FAA 
Administrator that provide an equivalent level of fuel system crash 
resistance. I want to state clearly for the record that the intent of 
Congress in new section 44737 subsection (a), paragraph (1), 
subparagraph (B) is to provide flexibility for the FAA to consider 
innovative fuel system designs when determining an equivalent level of 
fuel system crash resistance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                        FAA Reauthorization Act

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, the Senate is going to vote shortly on 
legislation called the FAA bill. It addresses the concerns of air 
travelers across the country. The bill before us has some key safety 
and security aviation measures.
  We have worked across the aisle to bring to Congress a 5-year 
authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. This is the first 
5-year bill of the FAA that has passed and will pass this Congress 
since the 1980s.
  Why is that important? There needs to be stability for planning 
purposes for the aviation industry. Fortunately, this bill is a new 
mark of bipartisanship that would allow us to get an extensive bill 
charting the authorization for aviation for the next 5 years. Remember, 
there was a time during one year in which we had multiple extensions. 
That has caused an inability to bring bipartisan agreement to the FAA's 
governing of aviation.
  Well, we have that agreement, and it is going to be a 5-year bill. I 
have already commended Chairman John Thune in another hearing this 
morning on another topic in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
Committee. It is that bipartisanship that brings us to this point.
  Along with the FAA bill, the bill will also provide long-term 
stability and continued focus on security and safety at the 
Transportation Safety Administration, the TSA, and the NTSB, the 
National Transportation Safety Board, which is charged with determining 
the cause of aviation and other transportation accidents.
  This bill greatly benefits the flying public. It ensures the FAA's 
core mission remains safety, and it helps American aviation and 
aerospace companies remain competitive and produce good-paying jobs. In 
Florida alone, my

[[Page S6467]]

State, aviation and aerospace companies employ over 98,000 people. It 
is ``big time'' to us in Florida.
  Most important of all, we have heard weary travelers loud and clear 
with their cries for help, and help is on the way. That is why this 
bill contains a number of comprehensive consumer protections.
  We have all experienced the indignity and the frustration of being 
squeezed into smaller and smaller airline seats. Under this bill, the 
FAA will be required to establish minimum dimensions for passenger 
seats. For airline passengers who purchased airline services that were 
never received, the legislation requires prompt refunds. Remember how 
infuriating it is if your bag doesn't arrive or if it is completely 
lost--the indignity that you have already paid for that bag. You are 
going to get a refund.
  We also addressed the needs of traveling families by requiring early 
boarding during pregnancy, private space in airports for nursing 
mothers, and ensuring that strollers can be checked at the gate.
  By the way, do you know how cigarettes are prohibited on flights? 
This prohibits e-cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, on flights.
  The bill calls for the development of a bill of rights for passengers 
with disabilities.
  We also established an aviation consumer advocate within the 
Department of Transportation. The aviation consumer advocate will now 
be there to help travelers who have been mistreated by the airlines.
  Those are just some of the consumer-oriented reforms. It will be 
incumbent on the Trump administration to carry out these improvements. 
This Senate will be enacting our constitutional responsibility of 
oversight to see that the executive branch is doing just that.
  Aside from the consumer wins, I would also like to mention that the 
bill advances the TSA's mission of securing our transportation system 
by expanding the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, speeding up the deployment 
of technology, and addressing gaps in surface transportation security.
  The bill also addresses another topic, disaster recovery and 
response, by including protections for local governments that have 
experienced a natural disaster, by limiting the number of years the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, can demand repayment of 
disaster assistance in cases that don't involve fraud or abuse. That is 
a real problem in Florida, where years later--they call it a clawback--
FEMA is trying to clawback disaster assistance funds that it had 
already sent to the State or local governments and then claimed years 
later: No, you shouldn't have had that. Of course, those funds have 
already been spent. It is a very important issue for Florida and for so 
many of our cities and counties that are put in this economic, fiscal 
bind.
  For the residents of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, there 
is also an extension of disaster unemployment assistance. Believe me, 
after those island territories--our fellow U.S. citizens--had been hit 
by the hurricanes that roared through that part of the world last year, 
there is still a lot of unemployment, and they need that unemployment 
assistance as a result of the natural disaster that occurred.
  In the case of Puerto Rico, not just one but two hurricanes, Irma and 
Maria, hit and devastated that island. This is, certainly, going to 
help those who lost their jobs or those who were unable to work due to 
Hurricane Maria to get back on their feet.

  As the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, I have always sought 
to address the national challenges by reaching across the aisle to find 
bipartisan consensus, and this bill does that. As I said in my 
comments, Senator Thune has been a great partner to work with. I 
appreciate the opportunity to have worked with him, along with Senators 
Blunt and Cantwell, as well as with Representatives Shuster, DeFazio, 
McCaul, and Thompson, on this important legislation--5 years, an FAA 
bill.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________