Water Resources Research Amendments Act of 2017

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about something that is such an urgent challenge for our Nation and the world; that is, climate change. Over the weekend, we received the most recent and most dire warning of the costs of inaction yesterday when the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its report. It wasn't easy to break through the news in the last week. We all know there was a lot going on, but this one did.

Why did this break through the news? First of all, it was such a comprehensive report. It was a product of 91 scientists from 40 countries. They looked at more than 6,000 studies, and they concluded, absent major changes in our greenhouse gas emissions, the devastating consequences of climate change are coming much sooner than previously expected. I think that is why it made front page news--because of the timeline.

I think a lot of times people think of something that maybe their grandkids or great-grandkids are going to have to deal with, but, no, actually the pages in this room--young people today, people even in my generation--are going to have to be dealing directly with the frontline consequences of climate change.

The report predicted that the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels by 2040. That is just over 20 years. Think about the pages in this room. Twenty years from now might seem long, but it is not that long at all.

Just 20 years ago, we could see persistent droughts--we are already seeing a number of droughts now--food shortages, worsening wildfires-- think of what we have already seen in Colorado and California on the west coast--and increased coastal flooding, damage that could cost $54 trillion. This is about loss of life, loss of quality of life, and this is about loss of money and loss of people's incomes.

As the authors of the report make clear, it will take immediate action to avoid these catastrophic consequences for our country and our world. First, by 2030, we must reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 45 percent from 2010 levels. Second, by 2050, we must increase our use of renewable energy, such as wind and solar, by as much as 47 percent.

Do you know what? We can do this. If we don't do anything, we are going to face dire consequences.

When I first came to the Senate, we started hearing from military people and from scientists from all over the world about what we could see even in the next 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. So much of that has already come true. Imagine if we do nothing, and we keep on this trajectory.

The American people understand it. I hear about the climate issue everywhere I go in my State--from hunters in Northern Minnesota to people who like to snowmobile and cross-country ski, to business leaders in the Port of Duluth, to students at the University of Minnesota.

Increasingly, warmer temperatures are having dramatic effects all over the northern part of our country. Lyme disease has spread further north. Aspen forests are shrinking. Moose range is declining. There is thirty-seven percent more rainfall as a result of mega rainstorms than we saw 50 years ago. The ragweed pollen season has extended 3 weeks in the Twin Cities in just the past 20 years. Those are facts.

When you think about the effect that has on animals, think about the effect that has on our daily lives, and then think about what would happen if we kept going that way, not just this way but that way in the next 20 years. This is in stark contrast to comments made by some who still suggest the climate change debate isn't settled. I couldn't disagree more.

I know we had a vote in this Chamber where something like 98 or 99 Senators voted that climate change is occurring. There may not be agreement on what we should do about it, but there better be soon.

I am a former prosecutor, so I believe in evidence. As this U.N. report shows us, the facts and the science couldn't be clearer. I suggest that everyone read about it or read summaries, which are easily available. Every week seems to bring fresh evidence of the damage climate change is already causing, and Americans will feel the consequences.

My State may be miles and miles away from rising oceans, but the impacts are not less of a real threat to my State. Climate change isn't just about melting glaciers, although we sure have seen those. Anyone who visits Glacier National Park--I went with my family--can literally see over time, decade by decade, the changes to those glaciers. I once visited Greenland with a number of Senators, including Republican Senators, and you could see what is happening there as major icebergs and parts of their ice sheets are breaking off and disappearing. You can see the physical evidence of this. You can see the photographs of this. It is not just about that.

Recently, we have seen the devastating impact of natural disasters, like Hurricane Florence and the catastrophic flooding this summer throughout Southern Minnesota in Duluth. There may be some political division around climate change; that is putting it mildly. But there isn't any real scientific division because nearly all of the scientists in this world believe this is happening.

I will never forget an episode from the John Oliver show, which is a humorous program to watch, but it brings

real issues to light. To show that kind of scientific division, he decided to have a bunch of scientists on the stage with him. They were wearing their white coats. He had something like 97 or 98 scientists on one side in their white coats and 1 or 2 on the other side. That is the division. It is not real division if you are someone who believes in evidence. Climate change is occurring, and this latest report is from the scientists all over the world who would have no reason to do this except to warn people about the truth. That is why they are doing this.

As citizens, we have an obligation to learn about it, to understand it, and to support ideas that will not hold us back dramatically but will allow us to tackle this head-on. If we don't tackle this issue, we are going to continue to struggle with the far-reaching economic and environmental consequences. This report makes clear that those risks aren't far off in the future for your great-great-great-great-great- great grandchildren; no, they could become a crisis as soon as 2040.

Shifting global trends have the potential to wreak more subtle, long- term havoc on our businesses and industries. That is why so many businesses in my State support doing something about climate change. Sometimes it is because they have customers all over the world--all over the world in areas that are going to be the first hit by tsunamis and other weather events or it is because they simply want to be good corporate citizens or it is because they see their bottom line and how it is going to be affected if we don't do something about this.

The U.N. report details the economic damage that will happen if we fail to act, including losses of roughly 1.2 percent to our gross domestic product for every 1.8 degrees of warning. As it gets hotter, the GDP does go down.

As a Senator from a State with a strong agricultural industry and a tradition of hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, and skiing, climate change is not only a direct threat to our State's economy, it is also a threat to our quality of life, to the way we grew up, to enjoying the outdoors with our friends and our families.

When President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the international climate change agreement last summer, I heard a lot from people in our State.

As you all know, 195 countries made a pledge to come together to combat climate change, and in withdrawing, the United States was initially one of only three countries that would not be in the agreement. The other two countries that weren't in the agreement were Syria and Nicaragua. Well, now Syria and Nicaragua have signed the accord, so the United States is now the only country not to sign the accord.

Our decision to leave this agreement sent the wrong message to the rest of the world--the wrong message. The lack of leadership has led to other countries discussing backing out of the agreement. That is not leadership. That is not leading from the front. We can't have this happen. America should be leading and helping the world move forward.

By the way, there is such an innovation space here, so much money to be made by responding to this in a smart way and developing new vehicles and developing new energy and new ways to deal with this challenge. It isn't just a challenge; it is also an opportunity. If we don't seize that opportunity by getting our own act together, by admitting that it is a problem and giving incentives to our businesses to go in the right direction and to bring other countries with us, we are going to lose that opportunity to other countries that are part of this international coalition.

I have already talked to people who work in government or who work for businesses that have gone to international meetings and who have said: Do you know what some of these people in other countries say? I think we are going to work with China on this. They are part of that agreement. Hey, we are going to buy our solar panels from them, or we are going to do work with them on this.

You can't hide from the fact that we withdrew from that agreement, and it hurts not just our environment, it hurts our economic opportunities going forward.

Look at Minnesota and what has happened because we were out front on this. I am proud that our State has taken an incredibly proactive and innovative approach to energy use and sustainability, which is critical to addressing carbon emissions. Our State's renewable energy standard requires that 25 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2025. We passed that way back in 2007 with--get this--a Republican Governor, Governor Pawlenty. He helped lead the way on that and worked with the legislature of Democrats and Republicans to pass what was at the time seen as a very aggressive standard. We did it by combining it with doing something about biofuels--something that is important not just in Minnesota but in the Presiding Officer's State of North Dakota.

We were able to put together that kind of coalition--the leaders in our legislature and the Governor, farmers and workers, environmentalists--to move forward on biofuels so we would have diversity in our fuel supply as well as diversity in our energy supply. So we don't rely on just one type of energy, and we reduce greenhouse gases by having an ``all of the above'' energy approach.

The legislation back then in 2007 received overwhelming bipartisan support, passing the Minnesota House 123 to 10 and the Minnesota Senate 63 to 3. It has been a while since we have reached that kind of consensus on the Federal level when it comes to energy.

What has happened? We have more than met those goals. What has happened nationally? Well, there was progress made during the Obama administration. When I first got here in 2007, I personally thought that we should move to some kind of a renewable electricity standard for the whole country, maybe making differences by geographic areas and regions. Sadly, the decision was not made to go that way. I think we lost it by one vote. We lost it by one vote. Instead, the decision was made on one side that we wanted to be more aggressive--and we tried with cap and trade, but that didn't end up getting passed in the Senate--and then on the other side, to kind of say: Well, let's just see what happens. As a result, in my mind, we have not done nearly enough.

What has happened instead? Well, the States, our laboratories of democracy, have moved ahead--many of them, like Minnesota--and are coming up with their own standards or doing it by region. Our universities have moved ahead, our cities have moved ahead, and our businesses have moved ahead. By 2015, 154 companies, including companies I am very proud of--major companies in my State, such as Target, Best Buy, General Mills, and Cargill--had signed a pledge demonstrating their support for action on climate change that takes a strong step toward a low-carbon, sustainable future. These companies collectively employ more than 9 million people and represent more than $3 trillion in annual revenue.

Last month at the Alliance to Save Energy gala, I got to present an Energy Efficiency Award to Target because of the work they have done with sustainability and righting the impacts of climate change. They have created an electric car program that is up and running in 5 States, and they plan to expand that number to 20 in the next 2 years. They signed a virtual power purchase agreement with the Stephens Ranch wind farm in Texas as part of their goal of sourcing 100 percent renewable energy in their U.S. operations. Like so many companies in the United States, they have started a major solar program and are committed to establishing rooftop solar panels on 500 of their stores by 2020. As of last year, they had already finished 436 of their projects.

They are not alone. Xcel Energy, Minnesota's largest utility, was an early supporter of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.

If we had allowed that to go through and had that in place, imagine what a better position we would be in when we read headlines like those from this morning about the U.N.'s report and the dire predictions of what we are going to see in 20 years. But, no, we are in what I consider a state of paralysis. Maybe we are not making things worse, although when we took away those gas mileage standards--when the administration went back on that--we made them worse. We sure aren't making them better. Thanks to cities and

States, we are making progress, but we should be doing this together as a nation.

Xcel Energy is another example of a company that appears to be ahead of the Federal Government. They supported the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and announced plans to reduce carbon emissions by 60 percent in the next 15 years.

I look at it this way: If companies like Target and Xcel Energy understand the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels and embrace the energy of the future, then so should Members of Congress, and so should this administration.

We know that energy innovation can't take root--not in any serious way--without certainty and stability on what those incentives are. That is what that Clean Power Plan was about. It took what I considered a more moderate route than some people thought it was going to take, but then it got pulled back by this administration. It is very hard to start planning for the future if we don't have a route for these companies to go. The rest of the world is getting on board. We don't want to be following; we want to be leading in America.

As this week's report made clear, inaction is not an option for our economy, for our environment, for our country, or for the world. Military and security experts have repeatedly reminded us that climate change is a threat to our national security, increasing risks of conflict, humanitarian crisis, and damage to critical infrastructure.

We see the stories of some of the refugees who are not coming up from conflict but are coming up from parts of Africa where they used to do subsistence farming but can no longer do that kind of subsistence farming because it is too dry, there are too many droughts, and the world has changed. We are going to see these humongous movements of people because they can't live where they used to live.

It is much better for us if we take this on as a world and do something about it than deal with the repercussions of it--more severe weather, heat waves that could reduce our water supply, extreme rainfall that could damage critical infrastructure, and a decrease in agricultural productivity that could threaten my State's $20 billion agricultural industry. People around the country understand the stakes, but this place--I think it needs just a little more imagination.

If you ever visit my office, I have a picture on the wall, and it is a picture of an angel, and she is handing off the world to some outstretched hands. The words on the picture read: ``The angel shrugged, and she said, `If we fail this time, it will be a failure of imagination.' '' That is what we need right now in Washington, DC-- imagination to deal with a very clear threat that the scientists have put right in front of us. Twenty years from now, it is going to be worse than those wildfires we see raging in California and Colorado. Twenty years from now, it is going to be worse than what we are seeing when it comes to the hurricanes and the tsunamis and all of the icebergs melting and what we are seeing in our national parks. Why would we just let this happen? We are America. We are leaders. It is time to act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Water Resources Development Act, the cloture motion of which we will be voting on very shortly. I strongly support moving forward with this legislation, and I encourage this body's support of that important work.

I begin by thanking Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Senator Inhofe for their great work on this bill. On the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have the leadership of Senator Barrasso and Senator Carper, and on the subcommittee that deals with infrastructure, I work with Senator Inhofe. The four of us have worked very closely in, I think, the best traditions of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the U.S. Senate in order to bring forward legislation that really does represent the priorities of all 100 Members of the U.S. Senate.

From the beginning, I acknowledge the amount of work that was done in order to accomplish this. It was done in great measure by incredibly gifted staff people who have been working for a long period of time in order to bring this bill to completion. Obviously, there are rough edges, and there are problems that require a lot of negotiations. Yet I know that Senator Barrasso, Senator Carper, and Senator Inhofe will agree with me about the importance of our staffs' work.

I acknowledge Mae Stevens of my staff for the work she has done on this legislation to advance the priorities that are important for the people of Maryland and to make sure we have a well-balanced bill for our country.

As I think my colleagues know, the focal point of my environmental work has been to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay, which is considered to be one of America's greatest natural resources and is a national treasure. The Chesapeake Bay is the Nation's largest estuary. It generates $1 trillion in economic benefit to the watershed region. The Chesapeake Bay is critically important with regard to who we are as a region, our quality of life, our economy, and because of its rich environmental treasures.

The shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries stretch over 2,000 miles. More than 100,000 streams and rivers and thousands of acres of wetlands provide the freshwater that flows into the Chesapeake Bay. If we do not protect the health of this incredible network of waters, we cannot hope to restore the Chesapeake Bay to its former glory.

Additionally, the effort to clean up and restore the bay creates new jobs and economic growth opportunities around the bay States. For example, work to repair and upgrade our urban and suburban wastewater and stormwater systems puts people to work as engineers and operators, and there are so many more jobs that are created.

Although we are making great strides in improving the quality of the Chesapeake Bay--I am very pleased of the progress we have made, and I think you see that when you visit the Inner Harbor of Baltimore or our shorelines--we still have a long way to go.

America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 supports the health of the Chesapeake Bay. In doing so, it helps our Nation's economic competitiveness, our environment, and the health and welfare of our citizens. In particular, I am pleased that America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 will help both Poplar Island and the Mid-Bay project to continue what is a win-win for both the Baltimore Harbor and the Chesapeake Bay. Both of these projects are located in the State of Maryland. Both are critically important for us to maintain the environment and economy of the Chesapeake Bay.

I have seen firsthand the results of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' efforts around the State. The Corps' ingenuity and expertise have spearheaded the replenishing and expansion of Poplar Island in the Chesapeake Bay. This massive sustainability project is quite literally bringing life to our region in its restoration of a habitat which for years suffered from erosion and environmental degradation.

We are taking Poplar Island, which used to exist in the Chesapeake Bay but had been down to just a few acres, and restoring it in an environmental restoration project. We are bringing back wildlife and species diversification into the Chesapeake Bay. At the same time, it is a location for dredged materials. I can tell you, in my having been in Congress, it is not always easy to find locations to put dredged materials. Poplar Island is also popular with the community, so it has been a win-win-win situation.

The expansion of the island now to 1,715 acres has the long-term benefit of creating a place for our native plants and animals to thrive and the short-term benefit of efficiently utilizing dredged materials from the maintenance of the Port of Baltimore to rebuild the island beyond its original footprint. We are now back up to over 1,700 acres from just the few acres that existed not too many years ago. This creates a system that helps to improve the vitality of both our treasured ecosystem and our commercial waterways, and it sets a precedent for beneficial practices in the future.

The Army Corps has collaborated with Federal and State agencies, local communities, and businesses for input on this project, ensuring that its benefits will extend to all within the region.

The Mid-Bay Project is a continuation of the very successful Poplar Island project, and I am pleased that both projects are supported in this bill. Poplar Island will reach its capacity in the next few years, which is what we planned on. Yet, in order to make sure we have another site that is available, we have to move that project now so that the planning process can be completed in time and engineering work can be completed in time so that there is no loss of activity in keeping the harbors at the needed dredge levels for shipping and have a site where the dredged material can be located. That is why it is so critically important to move forward with Mid-Bay now.

We need policies that will keep up with the demand of our infrastructure backlog while we address the needs of our communities and our environment. We can and we must do both. I am pleased that America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 would help projects in the Anacostia River watershed in Prince George's County get off the ground.

This is the third WRDA bill in a row. Congress is including updates to our Nation's drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, including much needed funding.

The American Society of Civil Engineers has yet again given our drinking water and wastewater a grade of D for 2016. States will need $32.75 billion a year every year for the next 20 years just to get our infrastructure in working order, which is more than $1 trillion. Yet we are currently only spending about $2 billion per year on both the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds combined. Every community--urban, rural, and suburban neighborhoods--has a right to expect that water that comes from its tap is safe to drink and that Congress will do everything within its power to ensure that it happens. Clean water means good jobs and better health throughout Maryland and our Nation.

Clean water is not a partisan issue, and I have been proud to work with my colleagues to develop legislation that will benefit our aging water resources and infrastructure. Congress has the responsibility to be a strong partner with States and localities to repair our Nation's hidden water infrastructure and open waterways and to always remain unwavering in our commitment to improve the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

One of the problems is that a lot of our water infrastructure is hidden. You don't see it, but you sure do notice it if you don't get clean water to drink, and you sure notice it when it affects the water quality of the bay or of other critical waters in this country. We really need to pay attention to this. We need to increase our capacity to be a partner in modernizing our water infrastructure, and this legislation absolutely takes a major step forward in carrying out that commitment.

Let me talk about some of the specific provisions that are included in this act.

First, the bill includes S. 1137, the Clean Safe Reliable Water Infrastructure Act, which was introduced by me and Senators Boozman, Inhofe, and Duckworth. It addresses the need to invest in our Nation's drinking water, sewer, and stormwater systems, and it provides for increased water efficiency.

The Clean Safe Reliable Water Infrastructure Act specifically includes $450 million to protect the sources of our drinking water and the funding to repair and eliminate combined sewer overflows, which dump water sewage into our Nation's waterways every time it rains. This is especially timely as the Mid-Atlantic region has seen historic precipitation events increasingly in the last decade. These 100- or 1,000-year events cause wastewater treatment plants to take on more water than they can handle. Millions of gallons of untreated water are diverted into our local waterways--the same water that supplies our drinking water and the fish, crabs, and oysters that Marylanders love to eat.

In fact, there was a storm so massive in Frederick, MD, just a few months ago that city officials asked residents to stop using the water in order to prevent equipment failure at the wastewater treatment plant. This is a crisis situation. This $450 million will go far toward helping to divert stormwater away from the wastewater treatment plant in Frederick as well as those like it all over the State of Maryland and our Nation.

The Clean Safe Reliable Water Infrastructure Act also formally authorizes the voluntary WaterSense Program, which identifies and promotes water-efficient products through voluntary labeling. The WaterSense label makes it simple to find water-efficient products, new homes, and programs that meet the EPA's criteria for efficiency and performance. WaterSense-labeled products and services are certified to use at least 20-percent less water, save energy, and perform as well as or better than regular models. The program should help individuals reduce their water demand while protecting water quality. This benefits all of us, as we save water, we save energy, and we save costs.

The EPA's WaterSense Program partners with manufacturers, retailers, distributors, home builders, irrigation professionals, and utilities to bring efficient products and services to our communities, and their partnerships encourage innovation in manufacturing and support sustainable jobs for American workers.

Secondly, the WRDA bill creates a multi-agency Federal task force to study the problem of funding and financing stormwater infrastructure. The task force will, with the feedback from State and local governments and other program stakeholders, provide in a report to Congress suggestions for improving the funding and financing of stormwater systems--especially important as Maryland sees more frequent and severe storms, like the deadly floods in Ellicott City that were 22 months apart.

I have already spoken on the Senate floor about what happened in Ellicott City, MD. Within 20 months, we had two 1,000-year floods. These floods were unprecedented. What do I mean by that? We have had flooding in Ellicott City before because the water rises in the river that goes through Ellicott City. These are the first floods we have had as a result of the stormwater runoff that literally ran down the main streets of Ellicott City. It destroyed homes and cost people their lives.

We need to deal with this. Stormwater pollution is not only an urgent and deadly threat but a long-term one as well. Stormwater pollution is the fastest growing source of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Yes, we talk about our farmers, and we have to do better for our farmers. We talk about the other problems we have, including the airborne pollutants that go into the Bay. But the fastest growing source in the Chesapeake Bay is storm runoff, which is a result of more people

living in the community, a result of more concrete, and a result of more severe weather events.

Third, the bill addresses the need for information about onsite wastewater recycling as one alternative for communities that cannot afford the upfront costs or ongoing maintenance costs of traditional wastewater infrastructure. This is especially important in the rural parts of my State, like Maryland's Eastern Shore.

Fourth, the bill includes S. 451, the Water Resources Research Amendments Act, introduced by me and Senator Boozman, which addresses the need for additional research into increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of new and existing water treatment works. Funding from this program helps to support the Maryland Water Resources Research Center and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park. We want to add the latest technology. We want to be the best in the world, as far as technology, when dealing with our water. This particular provision in the bill will help us achieve those objectives.

Fifth, the bill reauthorizes WIFIA, a low-cost financing mechanism for water infrastructure projects. We first started with WIFIA in our transportation bill, coming out of our Environment and Public Works Committee, where we found creative ways in order to leverage the Federal participation so we can have larger infrastructure projects for roads, transit, and bridges. Now we are doing the same with water infrastructure. This bill reauthorizes the WIFIA program.

Baltimore is on the list to receive one of the very first low- interest WIFIA loans. Baltimore's $200 million loan will complete a set of projects to repair, rehabilitate, replace, and upgrade its wastewater collection and treatment, water treatment and distribution, and storm water management systems.

These projects will help to improve the city's sanitary sewer collection system, ensure the reliability and performance of the drinking water and wastewater systems, and improve storm water management to meet Clean Water Act permit requirements.

This will help the 1.8 million people served by the Baltimore Department of Public Works to continue to have some of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable drinking water in the country. There is no more fundamental responsibility of government than to make sure they provide safe drinking water to its population.

Sixth, this bill creates the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Program, from a bill that I have long championed to help drinking water plants combat the effects of climate change. This program will award grants to increase the resiliency and adaptability of water systems to increasingly severe storms and droughts, as well as sea level rise--all caused by climate change.

Water utilities can use the grants to assist in the planning, design, construction, implementation, operation, or maintenance of the plant-- really, anything they need to increase their climate preparedness.

I applaud the great work that has been accomplished through this legislation, and I look forward to continuing the work to advance water infrastructure investment, including integrated planning and affordability.

From the very beginning, I said that this was a bill that was done in the right process in the Senate. Input was solicited from every Member of the Senate. The committee reached out to all of the Members. All the members of our committee have had input into this legislation. It is bipartisan. It is fiscally responsible, which was a key requirement of the bill.

It will benefit of our communities. It will help us to meet our fundamental commitment to provide the citizens of this Nation with clean and safe drinking water. It will deal with the challenges we have in storm runoff, as it deals with environmental challenges we have. It is a well-balanced bill.

Once again, I applaud the leadership of Senators Barrasso and Carper and my colleague on the subcommittee, Senator Inhofe, for their tremendous work.

I look forward to voting for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, hopefully, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to concur on the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018. In preparing to take this vote, I want to remind our colleagues why this bill is so important not just for our country's economy but for our environment as well.

The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, will mention shortly that this is a comprehensive bill that supports the Army Corps of Engineers. It supports EPA's drinking water and wastewater programs. It authorizes the Corps to construct, modify, study, and expedite more than 100 water resource development projects. It prepares our country's water infrastructure for extreme weather events to avoid devastation caused by storms like Hurricane Florence by reauthorizing levee and dam safety programs through 2023.

It also establishes programs to make communities more resistant to sea level rise. It reauthorizes, for the first time in 22 years, the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, which provides for needed investments in water and sanitation infrastructure all across our country.

This bill would also nearly double the size of this critical loan program from $1 billion to almost $2 billion by 2021. It expands the existing $60 million annual small and disadvantaged communities program to allow for the testing and treatment of contamination in drinking water systems. It provides schools with the resources needed to address lead contamination.

This bipartisan bill is a major win for families across the country. It passed both the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House unanimously, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote yes on this cloture motion.

Before I yield, I just want to say to my friend Senator Barrasso how proud I have been to work with him. Our staffs are really a model of the way this place should work. We worked well not only with our colleagues on our committee and outside of our committee but also with the folks over in the House of Representatives. I will talk about them later today. To my chairman, it is a real pleasure to work with you on this one.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with the chairman, Senator Barrasso, to further discuss the important piece of infrastructure legislation that he has outlined that will positively affect the States of every Member of this body. I want to encourage each of our colleagues to support it.

Over the course of August and early September, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reached an agreement with our counterparts in the House to advance America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018.

Our chairman, John Barrasso, and I coauthored this bill and did so with the help of the majority and minority staffs of the Environment and Public Works Committee over the better part of this past year. I want to take a moment to thank our chairman, as I have earlier, for his leadership. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW, Jim Inhofe and Ben Cardin, for their leadership in producing this critical bipartisan legislation.

I want to thank the members of their staffs and especially the majority and minority member EPW staffs, without whose help this bill would not be before us today. Collectively, you have done a terrific job. I am proud of you. As we say in the Navy, Bravo Zulu, which means ``well done.''

As some of you may recall, the Senate's version of the bill was reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously a few months back. On September 13, the bill passed the House of Representatives unanimously on a voice vote.

People back home say to me: Why can't you just work together? Well, in this case, we have, and I think the results speak for themselves. I am hopeful and encouraged that this bill will receive the same strong support in the Senate this week.

In a Congress and a country that are all too often divided, it is refreshing to me and I think to others as well that we have been able to come together to authorize water infrastructure and drinking water programs that are both vital and critical to the American people's way of life.

America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 is a win-win for our Nation's economy and for our environment. This bill should serve as a model for how we can get meaningful legislation done in Congress, and I hope it will serve as a model.

This legislation supports the ongoing work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It does so by reauthorizing the Corps' program for flood control, for beach and shoreline maintenance, and for the maintenance of inland and coastal waterways through which the goods that enter and depart from American ports travel.

The Corps' Civil Works Program is our Nation's largest and I believe the world's biggest water resources undertaking. This program addresses a wide variety of priorities, including ship navigability; flood risk management; beach and shoreline protection; renewable energy, such as hydropower; water supply; and environmental restoration and stewardship. In fact, over 99 percent of U.S. overseas trade moves through the waterways which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining. Think of that--99 percent.

In fact, this bill supports the Corps' operation and maintenance of 13,000 miles of commercial deep-draft ship channels and 12,000 miles of commercial inland waterways. These ports and waterways serve a combined 40 States and transport much of our country's waterborne cargo.

The new authorizations that this bill provides are critically needed. Much of the infrastructure that the Corps is responsible for across the country now exceeds its useful lifespan. As a result, we have an enormous construction backlog of needed infrastructure investments. The latest estimates from the Army Corps indicate that the overall construction backlog is in the neighborhood of $96 billion, while the annual budget of the Army Corps hovers around $4.6 billion. Think of that--$96 billion on the one hand and $4.6 billion on the other hand. Those two numbers reflect the extraordinary challenge the Army Corps faces--a challenge we begin to address with this legislation. This bill addresses that backlog by providing new tools that will allow the government to partner with the Corps and leverage existing resources to make sure we get the most bang for our buck.

This legislation also increases local participation, transparency, and accountability in developing the Army Corps' annual budget. It is my hope that enhanced local participation will allow for a more transparent and long-term look at the Corps' activities and help build a greater groundswell of support for increased appropriations to fund the agency's initiatives.

The measure before us also authorizes critical Corps of Engineers disaster programs. When disaster strikes, the Federal Government often steps in and helps, as it did last year in Puerto Rico, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and this year in the Carolinas. A large part of that help is provided by the Army Corps of Engineers--something that may come as a surprise to Americans who don't realize the critical role the Corps plays in responding to all sorts of emergencies.

In addition, this bill includes new authorities to help protect communities and ecosystems in coastal States like Delaware and Maryland and States across our country from some of the worst impacts of extreme weather events. This measure includes provisions that allow communities to recover more quickly, too, when disaster does strike and facilitates rebuilding facilities in ways that are more resilient to future storms.

This legislation also makes key changes in emergency response, post- disaster recovery, and resiliency efforts so that the Army Corps thinks long-term instead of short-term when it selects solutions that it will implement. But the bill goes even further. It enables the Corps to pursue the best possible solutions to make communities more resistant to storm damage, whether those solutions are a traditionally constructed levee or a natural alternative, like the reconstructed dunes we are using along the Delaware coast and other places too.

Earlier this year, NOAA announced that the total cost for extreme weather and climate events in 2017 exceeded $300 billion. That is a new U.S. annual record--$300 billion in 1 year, last year. It is not a matter of if the next extreme weather event is coming, it is a matter of when. As storm events, such as Hurricane Florence, grow more powerful and prevalent, threatening American lives and infrastructure, the passage of this bill--a bill that will help protect coastal communities from the risk of flooding--has never been more important.

In addition to strengthening key Corps programs, this bill also addresses key programs at EPA for major drinking water and wastewater needs across our country. For the first time in over 20 years, this bill reauthorizes the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, too. That program provides Federal assistance to help communities with clean drinking water. It does so through no-interest, low-interest, and

forgivable loans that help communities in a variety of ways gain access to capital that would otherwise be unavailable. It is my hope that one day we can eventually add grants back into this program for communities that need the help the most, but that is probably a longer conversation somewhere down the line.

The ongoing crisis in Flint that we are now seeing play out in far too many communities across our country is tragic but avoidable if we invest in water infrastructure more wisely. This bill makes it clear that we have learned our lesson, and we are beginning to take some steps to address this enormous challenge.

Some of our colleagues may recall that earlier this year Senator Duckworth and I hosted a drinking water roundtable here on Capitol Hill. The image of her holding up in her hand a baby bottle with formula made from contaminated drinking water is an image that is hard for me to forget.

This bill authorizes more resources for EPA to make sure that every parent, no matter what their ZIP Code is, where they live, can be confident that the water coming out of the tap at home or at their children's school is safe for their kids to drink. Toward that end, this legislation not only reauthorizes the safe drinking water revolving loan program, it nearly doubles its funding. By fiscal year 2021, the program will grow from the current authorization of $1 billion to almost $2 billion.

Perhaps most notably, especially in light of the avoidable devastation and tragedy we saw in the wake of Hurricanes Maria and Harvey, this bill authorizes $100 million to repair drinking water systems damaged by storms and creates a new program that helps protect drinking water systems from extreme weather events.

This legislation allows States that detect contaminants in drinking water to provide assistance to residents who depend on private water wells. This provision should matter to every Member of Congress whose residents rely significantly on wells for their water consumption needs, and we have them in every single State across America. I don't know about other States, but one in six Delawareans depends on private wells for their drinking water. It is not fair that if contaminants end up in their water through no fault of the resident, the resident has to find a way to rectify that situation on their own. Without this bill, these taxpayers get no support, and that is not right.

This bill goes way beyond addressing emergency situations. It provides a framework for updating and expanding water infrastructure systems throughout our country at both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill authorizes $50 million for technical assistance to help schools and daycare centers deal with lead contamination in their drinking water and another $5 million per year in grants for modernizing, testing, and replacing the lead components that are causing the water contamination. This provision is going to be particularly helpful in places like Chicago and Baltimore, where there are schools operating with no usable drinking water fountains.

Oftentimes, our water infrastructure is the forgotten leg of the infrastructure stool. We rightly worry about the infrastructure we can see, such as bridges, highways, airports, and railroads, but our water infrastructure--our pipes, shipping channels, flood control structures; the infrastructure we don't see but rely on every day--is also in desperate need of investment in many parts of America.

Before I yield the floor today, I want to again thank our chairman, Senator Barrasso, and our Senators from Maryland and Oklahoma who are the cochairs of the Infrastructure Subcommittee of Environment and Public Works and other members of our committee and frankly those who are not fortunate enough to serve on our committee. I thank them for their hard work throughout this process.

I thank our colleagues over in the House--Congressmen Shuster, DeFazio, Walden, and Pallone--who were great partners of ours. When we work together as Democrats and Republicans in both Chambers, we are stronger, and when we are stronger here, we are stronger across our country.

Finally, I thank the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, R.D. James, who has made this legislation a priority for the Army Corps and for the administration. He and his team worked with us to craft a bill that I think we can all be proud of, and I am.

I want to mention again that as smart as John Barrasso and I and the other Senators who serve on our committee and here in the Senate are, this bill wouldn't be before us if we didn't have some very smart people on our staffs. One is sitting right here next to me today, and some others are standing behind me. I see over on the Republican majority side some terrific members of staff who work under the leadership of our chairman. I want to take a moment to take my hat off--I wish I were wearing my hat. If I were, I would take it off to all of you, as well.

Let me end today with an African proverb that I think is particularly relevant. It goes something like this: If you want to go fast, travel alone. If you want to go far, travel together.

By working together, we crafted legislation that is both substantive and needed. This proposal stands as a timely example of how we can set aside our differences and get meaningful work done for the people who sent us here and expected us to accomplish really important things like this on their behalf.

The underlying bill before us is one that delivers a lot of good to the American people. At the same time, it represents good public policy that is fiscally responsible. It is deserving of the support of our colleagues in the Senate. I hope they will join us in supporting its passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, while it is perhaps not in line with official and genuine Senate protocol, I also want to use this opportunity to congratulate my good friend in the Chair on the wonderful events of last weekend for his family.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss my colleague Senator

Baldwin's resolution that would protect the millions of Americans in Wisconsin and Oregon and all across the land who are faced with preexisting health conditions.

This has been an area I have focused on since my days as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers because preexisting conditions is kind of fancy lingo that people talk about as it relates to healthcare policy, but really what it is all about is, if you have cancer or diabetes or heart disease or asthma or any one of a score of healthcare conditions, before the Affordable Care Act, you were just in a world of hurt, literally and figuratively. In effect, the healthcare system then was for the healthy and the wealthy. If you were healthy, there was nothing to worry about--no preexisting condition. If you were wealthy, you just paid the bills, but if you had preexisting conditions, as millions and millions of Americans have, then you were really out of luck.

So then, along came the Affordable Care Act. I had written a piece of legislation, the Healthy Americans Act, with seven Democrats and seven Republicans as cosponsors. It had airtight, loophole-free protection for Americans against discrimination if they had preexisting conditions. That provision from the Healthy Americans Act, to a very great extent, made its way into the Affordable Care Act. That is why millions of Americans were able to go to bed at night with a sense of comfort and a sense that if they did have healthcare conditions, the insurance companies wouldn't be able to just clobber them with higher costs. Unfortunately, we have the Trump administration's wanting to bring back the days when healthcare was for the healthy and wealthy and allow discrimination against people with preexisting conditions.

The flip side of the preexisting condition coin is junk insurance-- selling junk insurance that really isn't worth a whole lot more than the paper it is written on. Boy, do I know something about junk insurance because that is how I started my time in public service, when senior citizens were sold 15 to 20 policies. Again, the rip-offs were built in. Back then, if you had one policy and you had another policy that offered similar coverage, they canceled each other out, and the senior got nothing. It was junk insurance. If we go back to the days when they discriminated against people with preexisting conditions, we are going to have junk insurance all over again.

I am going to begin with the Trump administration's record on this.

First of all, if you are a scam artist who is peddling junk plans, the Trump administration has your back. If you are a person with a preexisting condition, the Trump administration is advancing policies that will make both your health and your wallet in far worse shape. Now, the Trump officials get up and talk about the benefits of short- term plans. They will use buzz words like ``flexibility'' and ``patient-centered care,'' but I want everybody to be clear that it is junk insurance, plain and simple. It is putting a whole lot of lipstick on a frog.

These junk insurance plans the Trump administration has revived represent the very worst of industry tricks and abuses. They punish Americans who really need healthcare. If you are young, if you are healthy, and if you are wealthy, as I have said, there is nothing to worry about. With junk plans, you have a glide path to put scams on those with preexisting conditions like heart disease, cancer, and mental illness. They exist to prey on older Americans--on women, on the less fortunate--particularly a group that I have thought was the heart of where healthcare reform ought to go--to the folks between 55 and 65.

As I have indicated, junk plans are not new. Congress and the American people have rejected them before. I mentioned my history with the Oregon Gray Panthers. Big, thick stacks of legalese that nobody could understand were always hyped to the seniors. They were going to fill the gaps in Medicare. It was called Medigap. Back then, it was really just A and B. It didn't have D and Medicare Advantage and all kinds of other things. It was just A and B.

You had seniors frightened that the gaps in Medicare were going to consume any savings they might have. So every time a fast-talking salesperson came through, a senior would buy a policy. When I was the director of the Gray Panthers, it was common to go to seniors' homes, and they would actually go to a closet and pull out a shoebox full of these worthless policies. I really fear we are looking at going back to those days.

The fact is that Congress finally cracked down on those Medigap rip- offs. I had an opportunity to be a part of that effort as a Member of the other body, the House, but a lot of people got hurt in the process.

Junk insurance was not just a problem for seniors. A few years ago, the Affordable Care Act was designed, as I mentioned, in terms of the Healthy Americans Act, to make sure that junk insurance would be eliminated across the board. Across the board, we would say in our country, we are going to have ironclad, loophole-free guarantees that no American would ever face discrimination over a preexisting condition.

By the way, that used to be a bipartisan proposition. The fact is that still serving in this body are a number of my colleagues on the Republican side who are cosponsors of the Healthy Americans Act, with that ironclad, loophole-free protection for those with preexisting conditions. So it is not as if somebody just kind of brought this up as a partisan issue. It was bipartisan then. Republican Members of this body, distinguished colleagues, were cosponsors of that Healthy Americans Act proposition. Now the Trump administration is trying to turn back the clock. It wants to make junk plans great again--a forced march back to those days that I described that were only for the healthy and the wealthy.

The open enrollment plan for health insurance is coming up very quickly. The Trump administration has cut it in half so that it is going to last only a few weeks this year. That means, during the holidays, when Americans are traveling, shopping, and spending time with family, they will also have to make some judgments about health insurance. Because of the Trump administration's actions, these junk insurance policies are going to be peddled at the same time as insurance that would actually cover, meaningfully, the healthcare that our people need.

What they are going to be doing with these Trump changes is making life easy for the scam artists but a nightmare for so many Americans who, day in and day out, walk an economic tightrope just trying to pay for essentials. These rip-off artists under the Trump plan are going to have a green light to steal the money Americans pay in premiums and for other expenses. According to a recent study, sometimes as much as $2 out of every $3 is wasted on overhead with these administrative costs and junk insurance profits in these flawed policies that the Trump administration wants to foist off on Americans.

The disastrous effects of junk insurance aren't limited to those who get conned into buying it. By bringing junk plans back, the Trump administration, in effect, goes out and swings a wrecking ball into the private health insurance markets in our country. It raises costs across the board, and Americans waste their hard-earned dollars.

Senator Baldwin has a resolution, and I commend my colleague from Wisconsin on her effort on this. She came and talked with me about this early on, as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. We have jurisdiction over something like $1 trillion worth of health spending. I really appreciate the expertise and the passion that Senator Baldwin has brought to this issue, and we saw it in her very first presentation on what she wanted to do. Her resolution is the Senate's best opportunity to put a stop to the scams that I have described. It would throw the Trump administration's junk insurance rules out, and with Senator Baldwin's proposal, it would restore the protections that millions of Americans count on each day.

The Democrats in the Senate are going to stand up for Americans with preexisting conditions, and I hope colleagues on the other side will join us. I recognize that the Trump administration will not, but my hope is that we will have colleagues on the other side supporting us for Senator Baldwin's resolution.

In addition, as if this were not enough of an injury foisted on vulnerable Americans, the Trump administration has put forward a nominee for a seat on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals who made healthcare sabotage one of his top priorities at the Trump Justice Department. Chad Readler, currently the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, in my view, is the wrong choice to be a Federal judge.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration decided it just wanted to get out of the business of enforcing the rules that protect Americans with preexisting conditions. In fact, it had to argue in court that it could abandon that essential part of the Affordable Care Act, which was still the law of the land the last time I looked. Who did the administration turn to when it needed to cook up a dubious legal argument that it had no obligation to enforce the law of the land? Chad Readler. In fact, three career attorneys from the Department of Justice looked at his argument, and they actually withdrew from the case. Three career lawyers from the Department of Justice refused to participate.

The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Mr. Readler's nomination earlier this month. His nomination could be sent to the floor of the Senate in the coming weeks, but it ought to be clear that this is a nominee who is not an impartial individual who has the judicial temperament Americans expect. He is not somebody who ought to be handed a seat on the Federal bench and have the power to sign off on the Trump administration's agenda of healthcare sabotage.

I close with this. The Senate has an opportunity to stand up this week for the millions of vulnerable Americans who have these preexisting conditions, for the millions of Americans who under the Affordable Care Act can go to bed at night knowing that if they have preexisting conditions, they are not going to lose everything. I am serious when I talk about losing everything. Once you go back to discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, you are going to go back to job lock and all of the problems we saw associated with discrimination. If you were in Montana or if you were in Oregon and had a preexisting condition and you got offered a better job on the other side of town, you couldn't go get it because you would not be able to get coverage because there was discrimination against people with preexisting conditions.

This week the Senate is going to have an opportunity to stand up to the Trump administration and go to bat for the millions and millions of Americans who are watching this debate who have preexisting conditions and who are just counting on this body not to turn back the clock and leave them vulnerable again. Senator Baldwin's resolution would prevent the Trump administration from bringing back the worst abuses of junk insurance. If it doesn't pass this week, this will be an issue that, in my view, will come up again and again and again until it is fixed.

Finally, the Readler nomination, in my view, ought to be stopped in its tracks. The Senate ought to tell the administration that it is not going to rubberstamp judicial nominees who have proven, demonstrable track records of twisting the law in a way that harms the most vulnerable of our citizens.

I note that the majority leader is here.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on two different subjects. The most important one is the first one: to thank a lot of people who helped me to chair and oversee the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

I should have given this speech 72 hours ago, but I was in a hurry to get to the airport. So I am making up for lost time now.

As everyone knows, on Saturday the Senate confirmed Judge Brett Kavanaugh as our newest Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I come to the floor to thank the Senate staff who helped to make that confirmation possible.

Senators don't always recognize their staff as much as we probably should, but I am proud of the work my staff accomplished over the last 3 months as we considered the nomination of Kavanaugh. They have worked very diligently on this confirmation process of our new Justice, and most of it was behind the scenes. They put in the long, long work hours required, and they did it 7 days a week, if needed. The chairman's team tackled the heavy workload before them, and I am tremendously grateful for all they did to make this nomination a success.

First, on my staff, I would like to recognize my Judiciary counsel staff director, Kolan Davis. Kolan's experience and sound judgment keeps me out of a lot of trouble. I value his counsel today, just as I have for the last 33 years that he has been on my staff.

By my side right here today is Mike Davis, the Judiciary Committee's chief counsel for nominations and also an Iowan. He graduated from the University of Iowa and Iowa Law. Mike brought the tenacity, diligence, and everything else that was needed to lead Kavanaugh's confirmation.

The permanent nomination unit for the Senate Judiciary Committee, working with Mike Davis, includes Lauren Mehler, Steve Kenny, Katharine Willey, and Jessica Vu. Each of them worked incredibly hard. They have worked hard on all nominations of lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary and over a long period of time, not just on Kavanaugh. Their hard work is shown by the record number of judges the Senate has confirmed this Congress. I think the number is 67 so far, besides 2 Supreme Court Justices. I believe there are 41 on the calendar right now.

In addition to this team, Andrew Ferguson joined my staff to lead the team of special counsels to specifically assist with the Supreme Court nomination. Andrew led by example with his tireless work ethic and, of course, his legal talent.

I also want to thank special counsels Tyler Badgley, Lucas Croslow, Colleen Ernst, Megan McGlynn, and Collin White. This team read every word of Justice Kavanaugh's more than 500,000 pages from his time as an executive branch lawyer, the 307 opinions he authored on the DC Circuit Court, and all other documents relevant to his nomination.

Rachel Mitchell was part of this special counsel team, offering her expertise and many years of experience at a time when we needed extra help when we had Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh before our committee for a second set of hearings.

Law clerks Tim Rodriguez, Camille Peeples, Abby Hollenstein, Dario Camacho, Elizabeth Donald, Michael Talent, Bob Minchin, Nathan Williams, Sam Adkisson, and Asher Perez had the opportunity to contribute and learn during this nomination. I thank them for their hard work and service here in the Senate, on top of their rigorous education. I thank the intern Jacob Ramer for his contribution as well.

Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation process resulted in a record number of pages available to Senators, including questions for the record. This team handled it all.

Over the course of my Senate service, I have established a reputation for my oversight work. I am equipped with a permanent staff of experienced investigators. When allegations of sexual assault were brought to my attention on September 13, I was fortunate to have this experienced and highly regarded division of my staff already on the job

to help run down every question and allegation we received.

I thank DeLisa Lay, Patrick Davis, Josh Flynn-Brown, Katherine Nikas, Daniel Parker, and executive branch detailee Andy Hromyak for their dedication to investigation, oversight, and accountability.

I also want to thank my talented communications team: Judiciary Committee communications director Taylor Foy and Judiciary Committee press secretary George Hartmann, as well as Michael Zona, Nicole Tieman, and Alexa Den Herder for their hard work. October 6 will be a memorable date for Taylor, marking both his wedding anniversary and the day Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed.

I am thankful for my personal office staff, led by my chief of staff, Jill Kozeny. She has been on my staff for 31 years. I have long appreciated Jill's advice and all of her hard work on my behalf.

I am also grateful for Jennifer Heins, who makes a tremendous contribution every day, and every staffer who was part of this confirmation process, including Penne Barton, Zach Schultz, Katelyn Schultz, Josie Wagler, and my State staff, who had to answer a lot of telephone calls over a period of 3 months, just dealing with people for and against the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh.

I very much appreciate the rest of my Judiciary Committee staff, including my deputy staff director, Rita Lari, who took care of things while I was on the floor and during the long hours in the hearing.

Finally, I appreciate the work of Leader McConnell's staff, most importantly, John Abegg.

Religious Freedom in China and Taiwan

Mr. President, tomorrow, October 10, is the 107th national day of the Republic of China on Taiwan.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the people of Taiwan on this very important occasion and to express my appreciation for the U.S.-Taiwan relations. We were allies in World War II and have been close strategic and economic partners for a very long time. However, as the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan has evolved into a thriving free-market democracy that is today, our relationship has even deepened and strengthened in a way that can only happen when two countries share core values.

There are times when the economic or geopolitical interests of the United States are aligned with those of another country that does not fully embrace freedom as we do--whether that freedom is in the marketplace of goods and services or the marketplace of ideas in a democratic context. We can and should seek to engage with countries that do not share our values where it is in our national interest, and we do that.

Still, those relationships remain contingent on weighing economic and security costs and benefits. On the other hand, with free-market democracies like Taiwan, there is at the heart of our relationship a very high degree of mutual understanding underpinning all of our interactions. Our shared values mean that our long-term economic and strategic interests are likely to remain aligned. For instance, market economies are more likely to seek mutually beneficial free and fair trade. Democracies tend not to seek hegemony but cooperation. In short, our shared values provide the basis for an enduring and stable bond that can only exist between free people.

One of those fundamental values that is dear to my heart is religious freedom. I know my colleagues are aware of the disturbing reports out of the People's Republic of China about the closing and destruction of churches and the burning of Bibles. That is something we in the United States just do not understand how anybody, any country, could take this situation and think: Who is afraid of worshiping God? Well, it seems they have some problem in China.

In Xinjiang Province, the Chinese Government has rounded up over 1 million Uighurs and Kazakh Muslims. Tibetan Buddhists and practitioners of Falun Gong have also long had their freedom to practice their beliefs suppressed. This should disturb all free people.

Of course, the Communist leaders of China have excuses for their behavior. One of these is the need for sinicization of nonnative religions. In other words, they think religions like Christianity as freely practiced are somehow not compatible with Chinese society. Of course, from our point of view, that is strictly nuts.

Just look at Taiwan. It has the same Chinese history, the same Chinese language, the same Chinese culture as mainland China. Yet, on Taiwan, Christians and other religious groups practice their faith freely. No one gives even a second thought to whether this is compatible with their history and tradition because it is a matter of conscience, not a matter of undercutting the government. That is why I don't understand why it is a problem for Beijing.

In fact, Taiwan has arguably preserved traditional Chinese cultures better than on the mainland. Chiang Kai-shek was able to rescue and bring to Taiwan some of the most valuable treasures from Chinese history. Of course, these items in Taiwanese society, in general, were spared the horrors of the cultural revolution. Of course, the cultural revolution was when the Communist Party of China destroyed an untold number of historical artifacts as well as cultural and religious sites. Ancient Chinese texts were burned, and there were massive human rights abuses.

Some have suggested that recent developments in China are the beginning of a new sort of cultural revolution. I hope not because we know what the results of that were 50 or 60 years ago.

Whatever the Communist Chinese Government is thinking, its actions have shattered many illusions. The hope held by many in the United States was that robust engagement with the People's Republic of China on an economic and political level would help it to evolve into a free market democracy. That hope has now dimmed significantly. Things seem to be going quite in the opposite direction.

This is a bad sign, then, for U.S.-China relations. If the Chinese leaders would like to correct their current course and improve relations with the United States, just take the example of Taiwan. Just look across the Taiwan Strait for that model: Chinese people, just like they are in Beijing.

As the people of Taiwan celebrate their national day, I would like to thank them for their friendship with our great country. The Republic of China on Taiwan continues to be a strong partner in trade, security, and human rights. In fact, I should note that a delegation from Taiwan recently visited my home State of Iowa to increase their purchases of soybeans, and I greatly appreciate that, along with 88,000 Iowa farmers.

Finally, I would like to thank Taiwan for being a model of a free and democratic society when it can have a mutually beneficial partnership with the United States.

I yield the floor.