A resolution commending the Department of Justice for its investigation into the interference by the Russian Federation in the 2016 United States presidential election, and maintaining that the Russian Federation must be held accountable for its actions.

Mr. President, Senator Wicker of Mississippi and I have a bipartisan amendment that means a lot to thousands of people who use Amtrak. It has been 10 years since we asked the inspector general of Amtrak to do a study of on-time performance. On-time performance has a direct impact on the number of people who ride on Amtrak trains, how frequently they use them, and how much they rely upon them. There is a problem. Amtrak owns very few railway tracks in America. They share the tracks with freight trains, and the freight trains have been pushing ahead of them and making the Amtrak trains wait.

How long did they wait? Between 2016 and 2017, in 1 year, there was 17,000 hours of delay on Amtrak trains directly attributable to freight trains that didn't yield the way to the Amtrak trains. That is just one factor.

Senator Wicker and I have asked the inspector general to do a report on on-time performance that we can consider in making Amtrak more efficient, more profitable, and more popular with Americans.

I hope our colleagues will support our bipartisan amendment.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, you couldn't follow this President's tweets with a roadmap, a GPS, a flashlight, and a program. It is impossible to understand the policy of this administration for this country, and when you try to follow his actions instead of his words, it is even more confusing.

Over the past few weeks, President Trump's conduct when it comes to foreign policy has been head-spinning, even for him. To recap, he insulted our best allies of 70 years and then turned around and lobbied for Russia at a recent G7 meeting and again bullied our key allies at a summit on NATO. He then met privately with Russian President Putin and then held a press conference with him in which President Trump blamed America and defended Putin's words over the expertise of his own government intelligence agencies. Keep in mind that he also inexplicably met privately with President Putin at the G20 summit in Hamburg last year--an event which he initially denied.

Why all these private meetings between President Trump and President Putin? Why wouldn't he let his Secretary of State sit in the room? Why wouldn't he let his National Security Advisor witness the conversation? I don't know the answer to these questions, and neither does America.

Then the President tried to backpedal from some of his most outrageous statements. At the end of the day, after trying that and deciding it wasn't worth the effort, he backed around again and decided to side with President Putin. It is impossible to keep track of where this President has been or is going.

President Trump then questioned the bedrock NATO alliance, asking why the United States should come to the defense of one of its members. Incidentally, that is the heart and soul of the NATO alliance--article 5: We stand together. When the United States was attacked on 9/11, it was the NATO alliance that stood with us when we struck back at Afghanistan and al-Qaida. They stood by us because of article 5, the very basis of the NATO alliance, which this President has questioned.

He said that no U.S. President has been harder on Russia than President Trump. He argued: ``I think President Putin knows that better than anybody.'' Then he said he wanted to invite President Putin to the United States as his special personal guest. Go figure.

As President Trump weakens a great military alliance like NATO, bullies our allies of seven decades, cozies up to a foreign dictator, and talks in circles about his bizarre tweets and actions, what has been the priority of the Republican Party on the floor of the Senate since the summit--the disastrous summit--at Helsinki? Well, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, has not spoken on the Senate floor on this issue since the Helsinki summit, not even one time.

Why aren't we urgently moving legislation to protect America's membership in NATO, ensure the integrity of our upcoming election, and fully implement last year's Russian sanctions bill? I can't answer that. I don't think the Republican leader can answer it either. Those are national security priorities.

Maybe it isn't surprising because when Senator McConnell was told about the Russian intervention in our last 2016 election by the top intelligence officials of the U.S. Government and asked to make a bipartisan statement condemning it, he declined.

Why would a congressional leader not want to join in a bipartisan effort to warn a foreign power to stop its attack on democracy? Why the silence on this floor, on that side of the aisle, since the Helsinki summit conference?

There is not absolute silence. I will commend my ailing but respected and often-quoted colleague John McCain in Arizona, who sends messages from his home to this Chamber, to the U.S. Senate. What did he call the Helsinki summit? ``[O]ne of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.'' John McCain has never been one to mince words. I have to say that quote hit the nail on the head.

I want to put another word in here. Every time I hear politicians and all the smartest people on Earth on television referring to what happened in the 2016 election as the Russians meddling in our election--you heard that term, ``meddling'' in our election? If a seasoned criminal broke into your home to case it for a later burglary, would you say that burglar was just meddling? No. ``Breaking and entering'' might be the proper term. That is what happened with the Russians in the 2016 U.S. election. They broke and entered our election system across the United States.

The reason I know that, one of the targets happened to be my home State of Illinois. They found a way to sneak into the computers of the Illinois State Board of Elections and, according to the Special Counsel's recent indictment, stole information related to approximately one-half million voters in my State of Illinois. The State discovered it and sent out warnings to voters whose registration data may have been accessed.

Was that meddling? Not in Illinois. Those were fighting words. That was a cyber attack by the Russians on the State of Illinois Board of Elections, and they followed up by trying to hit 20 other States as well.

Meddling? Give me a break. This is a cyber act of war by the Russians, and our intelligence officials of the Trump administration-- like Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence--have warned us, the red lights are blinking again. They are coming back.

What are we doing about it? Nothing. There will be a chance for my Republican colleagues to join the Democrats in a bipartisan effort to take this seriously before it is too late. What do we have left, 105 days until the election? It

is not much time. The question is whether we will do something to try to protect our election system. Every Member of this Chamber will have an opportunity to vote to ensure that State and local election officials have the resources to stop any other effort by the Russians to interfere in our election.

Earlier this year, we came together and passed a bill--a bipartisan bill--that provided $380 million in fiscal year 2018 omnibus spending for States to modernize and secure their election systems. Funding gave the States flexibility to tackle the most critical priorities: replacing outdated voting machines, for example, that have no paper trail, updating election computer systems to address cyber vulnerabilities. The Election Assistance Commission reports that 55 different entities, including all the States and territories, have requested funding from this grant program. That was an important first step. It was bipartisan. It should be done. It was done, but it is not enough.

After the 2000 election, and months of news coverage about hanging chads and butterfly ballots, Congress passed a Help America Vote Act to address the outdated election infrastructure in America. We authorized $3.8 billion to respond to this issue. A few months ago, we authorized one-tenth of that to respond to the Russian threat. We need to respond to that threat in a much more robust manner.

I received a memo from our election authorities in Illinois specifying how they plan to spend their grant funds and what they need to do to be more certain that their election operations and machinery are intact, and virtually every State can provide me with a similar memo.

We need to respond to this threat in a meaningful, robust manner. We know full well in Illinois what the Russians could have done to us. If they had taken 500,000 voter registration records and simply changed one number in the street address of each voter, let me tell you what would have happened. When I turned up to vote in Springfield, IL, and listed my home address, they would have said: No, that address doesn't match our records. You can vote a provisional ballot if you wish. We will look into it later.

That could have happened thousands of times. Thank goodness it didn't, but that is the extent of our vulnerability. It is a suggestion of what we might face again from the Russians, according to our own Intelligence agencies.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security notified election officials in 20 other States that Russians attempted to hack into their systems, including Texas, Iowa, and Florida--Mr. President, your home State of Arizona--Oklahoma, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Colorado, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

We have to make sure we are prepared for future attacks on our democracy. That is why I have joined Senator Leahy--who is on the floor with me today--and Senator Klobuchar, preparing an amendment to the appropriations legislation we are going to consider, offering an additional $250 million in election security grants to our States.

When a similar amendment was offered at a committee markup last month, we heard it was too early to talk about additional funding; we need to wait and see how the $380 million earlier appropriated would be spent.

We know the answer. At a recent Senate Rules Committee hearing, Cook County Director of Elections Noah Praetz explained that though the $380 million was greatly appreciated, more resources are desperately needed. He said: ``Given the costs of regular technology refreshes and support for human resources with cyber capacity, the needed investment is very large.''

Last week, when asked if the $380 million was enough to address the problem, the President of the National Association of Secretaries of State said: ``[N]o, to put it bluntly . . . Congress needs to come up with some kind of a funding mechanism that is sustainable and year-in, year-out, not once every 10 years.''

Just yesterday, a bipartisan group of State attorneys general asked Congress for increased funding because many States lack the resources and tools they need to protect their polling places.

I urge the adoption of the Leahy-Klobuchar amendment.

It is also time for the majority to heed former Senator Bill Frist's sage advice when he wrote recently in the Washington Post: ``[P]atriotism should always take priority over party.''

I say to the Presiding Officer, I know you know that, personally, and you have proven it.

Senator Frist went on to say that ``staying silent is no longer an option.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is interesting--I listened to my colleague from Wisconsin, which is my neighboring State, talk about her personal and family experience with healthcare. I think every one of us has a story--it is our own personal story--or knows somebody in our family who has a medical history, tells a story of whether they had the proper care at the proper time, whether the family could afford it. And then there is the big question: Can you buy health insurance if you have a child with diabetes, if you have a wife who is suffering from cancer and survived? Can you buy health insurance?

The interesting thing--I bet the Senator found this because I know she is traveling all over her State of Wisconsin--this issue doesn't go away because people's worry over it doesn't go away. They are worried about whether they can afford to buy good health insurance. They are worried about whether they can afford to buy prescription drugs. It is that insecurity, that economic insecurity about healthcare that really continues to make this the biggest issue year in, year out in America.

I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for telling her story and for really giving my speech. So I am going to condense it and just say a few things she might not have touched on. And I thank her for her contribution earlier today.

It happened in my life at a very early age. My wife and I got married. I was in law school. God sent us a beautiful little girl, and she had a very serious medical problem. We were living here in Washington, DC, and didn't have health insurance. I want to tell you that you have never felt more helpless in your life than to be a new father with that brand-new baby who desperately needs medical care and not have health insurance. I will never forget it as long as I live. I lived in such fear from that point forward of not having health insurance coverage that I did crazy things--getting health insurance at two different places of employment just to make sure I never lost it. It scared me that much, and I still remember that fear. I wonder if the people who are debating this issue about the Affordable Care Act ever lived through it themselves, because if they did, they wouldn't be standing here saying that we can do away with the Affordable Care Act.

We know what happens if you eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Millions of Americans lose their health insurance. Millions of Americans find health insurance not affordable. Millions of Americans are desperate for protection, no longer have it, and can't access the most basic, quality healthcare that every American should expect.

We had this debate. A new President came in and said: The first thing I am going to do is to get rid of ObamaCare, to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Well, the obvious question was this: Could he do it?

It looked like he might be able to. The Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, and when they were in the majority with a Democratic President, at least on 50 or 60 different occasions, the House Republicans voted to abolish ObamaCare.

It was pointless because the Senate wasn't going to take it up, and the President would never sign that bill into law, but you knew what the sentiment was. We are getting rid of it. We are getting rid of it. We heard about that year after year. We passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and for year after year all the Republicans could say was this: Get rid of it. Get rid of it.

Then came that moment when, figuratively, the dog caught the bus, and they had an opportunity to present on the floor of the Senate an alternative. What is it that you want to replace the Affordable Care Act with? We said to our Republican friends: You are elected to this body as legislators. Let's see your legislation.

It turns out that they didn't have any. They just wanted to make sure ObamaCare was gone, but they couldn't find a replacement, and they couldn't answer the basic question as to how they would provide health insurance--or affordable health insurance--for the millions of people who would lose coverage.

I remember the night--it was early in the morning it was--when we had the vote--the vote--on whether to eliminate ObamaCare. Two Republican Senators had already voted with us, but

the critical third vote walked in that door, and his name was John McCain. He stood in that well and give a ``no'' sign with his thumb, and that was it. The Affordable Care Act lived for another day.

Thank goodness he did it. Thank goodness he and two of his colleagues had the courage to do it, to stand up and say: If you can't replace ObamaCare with something better, for goodness' sake, stick with it, fix it. That didn't happen.

After that vote, there was a determined effort at every level of the Trump administration to do away with ObamaCare. If they couldn't kill it on the floor of the Senate, they were going to kill it in many different ways.

They limited the period of time when you signed up to renew your health insurance. They wanted to have fewer and fewer days available, hoping fewer and fewer people would take advantage of it.

They eliminated the navigators, the advisers who help people pick the right health insurance plan. They didn't want to give advice. They closed down the telephones to the agencies, where people would call saying: Well, what is my right under the Affordable Care Act?

They did everything they could think of to eliminate ObamaCare and make it more difficult for people to sign up for it, but still people signed up. Many people realized it was their only chance--their only chance--to get health insurance.

The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are determined to this day to get rid of it, and they have a new approach. If they can't kill it outright in the Senate and they can't kill it by President Trump's tweets, they are going to kill it in court.

Here is what they decided to do. Twenty attorneys general, starting with Texas--and I see my friend from Texas on the floor; the leading attorney general is from Texas--filed a lawsuit. Here is what they said. It is unconstitutional to say that you cannot discriminate against people because they have preexisting conditions.

Now, those are three negative words. So let me try to translate this Helsinki style into something you might understand.

What they basically said is this: We don't believe the Constitution can stop an insurance company from discriminating against people with a medical history, and we are going to court to prove it. And they have, with the support of the Trump administration.

They are trying to find a way to eliminate the protection of people with preexisting conditions so that they can buy affordable quality health insurance.

What an amazing mission that is--that these attorneys general and this administration want to find a way to deny health insurance coverage to millions of Americans or make it so expensive that they could never afford it.

What are they thinking? Don't they represent the same flesh-and-blood Americans as everyone else? Don't they represent families, as I do, and all of us do, who have someone in their family with a medical history? I guess a third of American families qualify for that. Yet they want to say that those people should be discriminated against. Why? Because of the misfortune they had of being born with a congenital birth defect or the problem they had because they conquered cancer but always worry about its coming back.

These are the things that my Republican friends say: Well, that is the way it goes. Good luck in the insurance market. We are not going to protect you.

They say what it is all about is choice. It is pretty easy to have good choices in life when you are healthy or wealthy. But if you don't fit in those two categories, your choices are extremely limited. People find themselves with only bad choices if they are not healthy or wealthy and they don't have the protection of the law. They find health insurance premiums they cannot afford. When they find a premium they can afford and start to look at the health insurance policy, it turns out that it doesn't cover much.

They also find themselves in positions where, as I mentioned earlier, someone in the family has a medical history. The wife has a medical history and you can't buy a family plan that you can afford for the rest of the family. That is the reality of the world the Republicans envision us moving to. Oh, it may be some great economic market model, but it doesn't work in reality--not in the reality of people who are born with illnesses they have no control over and who spend their lives fighting them and need a helping hand.

The Affordable Care Act gave them that helping hand. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have been determined from the beginning to put an end to this protection, to eliminate health insurance for more and more Americans, and to make it unaffordable for so many families. Is that why they ran for Congress? Is that why they ran for the Senate--to go home and say: Well, sorry folks, but because of my principles, you don't get health insurance. You can't afford the health insurance being offered to you, or you can buy a junk policy that just will not be there when you need it.

Is that what America is all about?

This is interesting to me, and I will close with this. The Chicago Medical Society represents the doctors in the greater Chicagoland area. I have come to know it. It is one of the best medical associations in our State. It is more progressive than most and more thoughtful than most. I really salute them time and again.

They did a poll of their members, and they asked them: Where do you think this is going?

Well, first they said: We believe that people have a right to quality, affordable healthcare--these are doctors--a right to quality, affordable healthcare. Second, they said there are programs that work, like Medicare, programs that people trust.

The premise behind Medicare is very basic. If you are of an eligible age, you get health insurance. We make sure of it. We guarantee to you that you are going to get quality care through a government-run insurance program. There are a lot of Republicans who would like to see Medicare and Medicaid go away, too, but America wouldn't. America believes in it. I believe in the principle behind both of those plans-- that, as Americans, we should care for one another, give each and every family a chance, and make certain that, at the end of the day, healthcare is not just a privilege for those who happen to be wealthy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the latest efforts to derail the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I would like to focus today on a few areas where attacks have come up.

Judge Kavanaugh's critics, faced with an exceptionally well- qualified, baseball-loving, carpool-driving nominee, are struggling to find anything that might slow or even stop his confirmation. Let me focus today on a few areas where their attacks have come up short.

It seems that some folks can't mention Judge Kavanaugh without suggesting in the same breath that his confirmation would somehow be the death knell of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. It can be difficult to keep straight critics' dizzying array of claims on these separation of powers issues, but it is worth taking a closer look to set the record straight.

It was hard to miss the headline, ``Brett Kavanaugh Once Argued That a

Sitting President Is Above the Law,'' or the article that suggested Judge Kavanaugh ``has been an open advocate for precisely the sort of imperial presidency that the founders of the American experiment feared.''

Democrats soon piled on, but never in the law review article that spurred this hysteria did Judge Kavanaugh suggest that a President would be immune from civil or criminal liability. Rather, he suggested that, as a policy matter, it might be wise for Congress to enact a law that would defer such litigation until the President leaves office, and, of course, Congress could accelerate that timeline through impeachment.

Judge Kavanaugh's law review article represents an interesting policy proposal--and one, it is worth noting, that he offered while a Democrat was in the White House. The critics' attempts to equate his policy recommendations with his views on the constitutional limitations on prosecutions of sitting Presidents are simply wrong. If anything, Judge Kavanaugh's recommendation that Congress enact a law suggests that in the absence of any such legislation, a sitting President can be investigated and perhaps even prosecuted.

Then there was the hoopla over Judge Kavanaugh's statement that he would ``put the final nail'' in the ruling that upheld the constitutionality of independent counsels; never mind the fact that the independent counsel statute expired nearly two decades ago and was described by Eric Holder as ``too flawed to be renewed.''

Today, special counsels, such as Robert Mueller, are appointed pursuant to Department of Justice regulations. They do not represent the same constitutional concerns as the independent counsel statute. By conflating independent counsels and special counsels, Judge Kavanaugh's critics ignore his own record on the matter.

In a dissenting opinion he wrote last year, Judge Kavanaugh himself observed: ``The independent counsel is, of course, distinct from the traditional special counsels who are appointed by the Attorney General for particular matters.'' But Democrats just figure that the average American will gloss over the distinction between independent counsels and special counsels and tune out legal experts who say that Judge Kavanaugh's views on the independent counsel law have absolutely nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. By the time we are on to them, Democrats will have already moved on to a new line of attack.

The latest was the minority leader's suggestion that Judge Kavanaugh ``would have let Nixon off the hook'' based on comments Judge Kavanaugh once made about the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the United States v. Nixon. They forced President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, but those comments--read by some who would suggest that Judge Kavanaugh thinks the case was wrongly decided--ignores the context of those specific remarks and the mountain of evidence that Judge Kavanaugh agrees with the Court's ruling in Nixon.

There is the law review article in which Judge Kavanaugh wrote that there was ``no need to revisit'' Nixon and that the case ``reflects the proper balance of the President's need for confidentiality and the government's interest in obtaining all relevant evidence for criminal proceedings.''

More recently, he has cited Nixon as one of ``the greatest moments in American judicial history . . . when judges stood up to the other branches, were not cowed, and enforced the law.''

Those sure don't sound like the words of a judge who is critical of the Court's decision in Nixon, much less a judge who would vote to overrule it, but this more fulsome look at Judge Kavanaugh's writings on the issue is at odds with the Democrats' campaign to paint Judge Kavanaugh as an existential threat to the Mueller investigation. So they are content to cherry-pick and mischaracterize Judge Kavanaugh's record.

On the subject of Judge Kavanaugh's record, I would also like to talk about the Democrats' fixation on the issue of Judge Kavanaugh's documents from his years of service in the executive branch. It has only been 2 weeks since President Trump nominated Judge Kavanaugh, and yet Democrats seem more interested in using their time talking about documents they do not yet have rather than carefully reviewing the unprecedented number of documents that are already available to the Senate and the American public. Specifically, we aren't hearing much from Democrats about the more than 300 opinions Judge Kavanaugh has authored during his time on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In these opinions, Judge Kavanaugh has addressed a vast array of hot-button issues Democrats claim to be so interested in: separation of powers, administrative law, national security, religious liberty, immigration, and so many more.

Something Judge Kavanaugh told me when I met with him recently really stuck with me. He told me, he hoped people would actually read his opinions, not just articles about his opinions but actually read the opinions themselves. So I would urge my Senate colleagues to indulge Judge Kavanaugh on this point. These opinions are gold for any Senator making an honest effort to evaluate Judge Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy.

Judge Kavanaugh has spent the past 12 years in public service and as a Federal appellate judge. Now, he has been nominated to be--you guessed it--a Federal appellate judge. I can think of no better evidence of Judge Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy or his qualifications to serve on our Nation's highest Court than the thousands of pages and opinions he authored during his time on what is arguably our Nation's second highest Court. If Democrats actually took the time to follow Judge Kavanaugh's advice and read his opinions--not just articles about them or summaries prepared by staff--they might be disappointed to learn that there is nothing to suggest that people will die if he is confirmed, and they might actually learn how Judge Kavanaugh interprets the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Isn't that what all of this commotion is about? It is about documents. Isn't that really what it is about?

I suggest Judge Kavanaugh's opinions should be more than enough to assess his qualifications and judicial temperament, not to mention the thousands of pages from his time in the executive branch that are already publicly available. I understand this represents just a fraction of the documents the Senate will ultimately receive--likely to be far more than those received for any other Supreme Court nominee in history.

Senator Grassley has pledged that relevant records will be made available through a fair and thorough process, but, for some, it is never enough. We have heard Democrats claim they are not demanding every scrap of paper that crosses Judge Kavanaugh's White House desk, but they have also said the standard for determining what is relevant and subject to production should be whatever Senators--in other words, Democrats--think is relevant. Some have even claimed that all the documents are ``extremely relevant.''

Well, if Democrats think the standard for document production should be whatever Senators think is relevant--and they think everything is relevant--then it sure sounds like they are asking for every scrap of paper.

Now, it is true that Republicans sought White House documents for Justice Kagan's nomination, but these two nominations--Kagan and Kavanaugh--are hardly comparable. At the time of her nomination, Justice Kagan had no judicial record to speak of whatsoever, having never served as a judge at any level. She had no written opinions. There was almost nothing we could use to assess her judicial philosophy.

The White House record was among the very limited information we had to gauge her fitness to serve, so, of course, we asked to see it. By contrast, Judge Kavanaugh has 12 years of experience on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the second highest Court in this country, and that is not even to mention over 300 opinions.

Again, thousands of pages have been written clearly outlining Judge Kavanaugh's views on the Constitution. If Judge Kavanaugh's extensive record is not enough to paint a clear picture of judicial philosophy, then what is? What more do Democrats need to know that this is a man who is eminently qualified to serve on our Nation's highest Court?

I can only think of one reason a Senator would need every scrap of paper to evaluate the qualifications of a judicial nominee--any nominee, for that matter--that is, if they are going on a never-ending fishing expedition, which is clearly what the Democrats have been doing since the day Judge Kavanaugh's nomination was announced.

I urge my colleagues to follow Judge Kavanaugh's advice. Read his opinions. You undoubtedly will learn something about how Judge Kavanaugh interprets the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Then, by all means, continue your fishing expedition, but at least you will have consulted the record that matters the most.

All I can say is, this man has an excellent record. There are plenty of things to look at. The more you look at them, the more you realize this fellow does really belong on the Supreme Court, and he will make a difference in the future.

Pioneer Day

Mr. President, on another matter, I wish to speak today in celebration of Pioneer Day, a holiday my home State of Utah observes each July 24 to commemorate the arrival of the Mormon pioneers to the Great Salt Lake Valley. On this special day, Utah and communities in other States remember the extraordinary history of the Mormon pioneers who endured tremendous hardship in search of religious freedom in this great country that is set up for religious freedom, but they were mistreated and fought against from day one.

In honor of Pioneer Day, I submitted a Senate resolution recognizing the sacrifices of the Mormon pioneers in their pursuit of religious liberty and their invaluable contributions to the settlement of the American West. I hope the Senate will join me in commending the pioneers for their example of courage, industry, and faith that continues to inspire people throughout the world.

In the years following the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830, the Latter-day Saints--or Mormons as they are more commonly known--encountered much religious persecution in this freest of all lands. They suffered physical assault, threats of violence, death, in some cases, and war, prison, rape, and murder. Violent mobs damaged their houses and businesses, stole their property, and drove them from their homes. Especially devastating was the martyrdom of their leader and beloved prophet, Joseph Smith, who was shot and killed with his brother as well, by an armed mob.

Despite the discrimination and abuse they endured--sometimes at the hands of government officials who should have protected them from violence and injustice--the Latter-day Saints remained a patriotic people who loved and revered the Constitution of the United States. Still, they recognized they would need to seek refuge in an unknown territory to live in safety and practice their religion free from hostility and abuse.

In search of such a haven, the Mormon pioneers fled Illinois in the winter of 1846 and proceeded westward on a journey that would cover more than 1,300 miles of wilderness, across arid deserts, jagged mountains, and turbulent rivers.

Along the way, the Mormon pioneers erected bridges, built ferries, and cleared trails to assist those who would follow their path. They established communities, planted crops, and expanded trade posts that provided the crucial supplies necessary to survive expeditions onward. They learned how to irrigate and make the desert blossom as a rose, and their irrigation principles have been followed all over the world.

They set up trail markers and charted maps that guided thousands of settlers westward. The United States certainly owes a debt of gratitude to those pioneers for their contributions to our Nation's settlement of the West.

Their service to our country did not come without significant personal cost. Throughout the arduous trek, the pioneers battled harsh climates, illness, hunger, and exhaustion. Many lost their children, spouses, parents, and friends to exposure, disease, and starvation. Yet they confronted crippling sorrow and hardship with incredible grace and a steadfast trust in their Heavenly Father. They expressed gratitude for the strength to surmount each challenge and gloried in life's daily miracles. What could have broken their spirit only fortified their convictions and drew them closer to the Divine.

Upon entering Utah's Great Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847, their new leader, Brigham Young announced: ``This is the right place.'' This prophetic declaration foretold how the valley would become home to many Latter-day Saints and their posterity.

Unfamiliar with the area and with few resources at their disposal, the pioneers worked together to plant their crops, irrigate fields, and build houses and businesses, thus transforming the barren desert into a thriving set of communities.

Two years later, on July 24, the Latter-day Saints first commemorated their arrival to their new home with a procession to Salt Lake City's Temple Square for a special devotional followed by a feast of thanksgiving. Today, Pioneer Day is one of the largest regional celebrations in the United States, where we remember the early settlers with parades, flag ceremonies, reenactments, devotionals, sporting events, feasts, dances, concerts, festivals, rodeos, and fireworks.

The rich heritage of the pioneers is shared not only by Utahns and those of the Mormon faith but with people throughout the world, regardless of religious affiliation. These pioneers demonstrated what can be accomplished when industrious and resilient people stand together as one to build a brighter future. Their determination and ingenuity encourages our own pioneer spirit, calling on us to strive toward further progress and innovation. Their example of courage empowers us to triumph over adversity and inspires us to press forward with unconquerable faith and undaunted hope.

On Pioneer Day this July 24, I hope we not only remember these remarkable pioneers but reflect on what we can do to follow in their footsteps and ensure their legacy lives on in us and in future generations.

I am proud to be a descendant of these pioneers. My family was part of the pioneers. Yes, I was born in Pittsburgh, but I couldn't wait to move to Utah. I love Pittsburgh, but I love Utah more. I have to say, part of that is because of my pioneer heritage and my desire to see that Utah continually improves itself and continually makes its case on how important these pioneers really were and are to us even today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am almost embarrassed to talk about what I am going to have to talk about today. Once again, in the U.S. Congress, we find ourselves only days away from causing a lapse in the National Flood Insurance Program.

The majority of Members of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives understand the importance of extending this program but sadly some don't. You can lead some people to water, but you can't make them think.

Without congressional action, ordinary Americans--the people who get up every day, go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and try to do the right things by their kids--are going to suffer. These folks work pretty hard to earn money to cover their mortgages, to pay their insurance premiums, to put food on the table, and to hopefully have a little extra when all is said and done.

The U.S. Government made a promise to these people, these taxpaying Americans, that if they pay their flood insurance premiums, we will have their backs when they have a flood. We are about to tell them we lied. When you lie to Congress, it is a felony. When Congress lies to you, it is just politics, and that is not right.

Unless we do something, the National Flood Insurance Program, the NFIP, is going to expire on July 31. Now, unless you are a rock--only dumber--that is in 8 days, including today.

Every once in a while, Congress seems to just decide that keeping our promise to the American taxpayer isn't worth the effort. What planet did we parachute in from that we can't even maintain the status quo on something that affects the lives of millions of people and helps more than 22,000 communities across this great country?

I am standing here today because the reauthorization of the NFIP has never been more urgent. Let me say it again. We have 8 days until disaster. If the NFIP is allowed to expire on July 31, Congress is going to be sending a clear message to the 5 million hard-working Americans who count on this program, and that message is three words: We don't care. We don't care. The unfortunate thing is, I think some-- it is a small minority, but some don't.

Last September, when Texas and parts of Louisiana were still reeling from Hurricane Harvey, one Member of the U.S. Congress actually said: ``The federal government is encouraging and subsidizing people to live in harm's way . . . at some point, God is telling you to move.''

Give me a break. Are you kidding me?

The fact is, 50 percent of our country's population and 50 percent of our country's jobs are along our coasts and waterways. Do you really think they ought to just move? Living near water is an economic necessity. People have been doing it since the beginning of time. It is as true for us now as it was in Biblical times that our economies and our livelihoods are tied to water.

Let's take the Mississippi River that runs through my State. Each year, it sustains more than 1.3 million jobs and generates more than $405 billion in revenue. How many jobs are tied to the 12,000 miles of U.S. coastline? What do you think would be the economic impact if everyone who lived near one of the 3.5 million miles of rivers in this great country just picked up and moved tomorrow--as if they could afford to do so. Give me a break. I hope we never have to find out what would happen, but one thing is certain, nobody is going to move before July 31, when the NFIP expires, just because some Members of Congress erroneously think they ought to.

I want to make two other points. First, if Congress allows the NFIP to expire, it is going to stall thousands and thousands and thousands of home closings. That is right. Because the law requires it, many lenders require homeowners to carry flood insurance. If there is no NFIP, then there is no flood insurance. If there is no flood insurance, then there is no home sale.

The last time Congress chose to do nothing and let the National Flood Insurance Program expire, the NFIP lapsed for a total of 53 days. That was in 2010. Over those 2 months, each and every day, 1,400 home sales were canceled. That is every day. That is not total. That is every day. Think about how that is going to impact our economy. Isn't that special?

Just when we finally get the U.S. economy moving again, we are going to step on it by letting the National Flood Insurance Program expire. No wonder many Americans say--and I hear it all the time--yes, there are some good Members of Congress. We just can't figure out what they are good for.

I am also tired of hearing that the NFIP is being abused by rich people for their beach homes. I hear it all the time. That is a bunch of bovine waste. As a matter of fact, 98.5 percent--almost 99 percent-- of all NFIP policies are in counties with a median household income of less than $100,000, and 62

percent are in counties with a median household income below the national average of $54,000.

You don't have to live near a body of water. If you get 22 inches of rain in 2 days, you are going to flood, even if you live on Pikes Peak. For those who live in a coastal State like my State or elsewhere on a floodplain, the reality is, the NFIP is the only place you can turn to protect your property. Floods are the most common and the most costly natural disaster. The damage that is done by hail, fire, wind, or a fallen tree is covered by a homeowner's insurance but not a flood. If you have a flood, it is not covered by your homeowner's policy.

The Federal Government made a promise. We promised more than 5 million Americans--half a million in my State alone--that we would have their backs. We promised them that if they would pay their hard-earned money into the National Flood Insurance Program through premiums, if they flooded, we would cover it. It is time we get our act together and keep that promise. The NFIP is just too important to be used as a political football. For millions of people in this country, in my State and elsewhere, this program is the only way they can protect their most valuable asset--their home--and, at a minimum, we owe those hard- working Americans some peace of mind.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 3128, my bill and the bill of Bill Cassidy, the senior Senator from Louisiana. It will extend the National Flood Insurance Program for 6 months to get us through hurricane season. That is all it does. It just maintains the status quo. It doesn't change anything. It just says the National Flood Insurance Program we have today is going to be extended for 6 months to get us through hurricane season, while we in the Senate and in the House continue to work on a reform bill that would rework the NFIP and turn it into a program that looks like somebody designed it on purpose. That is all my bill and Senator Cassidy's bill does.

We simply can't afford to let the folks in our at-risk communities down, especially those exposed during hurricane season. Truthfully, they deserve better from us.

Nomination of John Fleming

Mr. President, I want to speak very briefly about a friend of mine who has been nominated by President Trump for a very important position in the Federal Government. This friend's name is John Fleming, and he has been nominated by the President to be Assistant Secretary for the Economic Development Administration at the Department of Commerce.

Dr. Fleming currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health IT Reform at the Department of Health and Human Services, and he has done a wonderful job. He has done such a great job that the President has asked him to take on this program at the Department of Commerce.

Dr. Fleming is a public servant's public servant. He is a four-term Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a physician. He went to the University of Mississippi, undergraduate and medical school. He is an entrepreneur and businessman. Aside from his family medical practice, his businesses support about 600 jobs in my State.

After Dr. Fleming finished at Ole Miss and finished med school, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He served there in the Medical Corps.

During his time in the House of Representatives, Dr. Fleming was a champion of our economy, a champion for families, and a champion for our veterans. He is a skilled physician, he is an experienced entrepreneur, and he is a good guy. I know Dr. John Fleming and his family well, and I am honored to be able to endorse his nomination.

Just to show you that he is well-rounded--I forgot this--John also has a black belt in karate. I am not sure when he has time, but he is a well-rounded guy.

I have no doubt--none whatsoever--that Dr. Fleming is well qualified to be a very fine Assistant Secretary of the Economic Development Administration, and I endorse his nomination categorically and unconditionally.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I want to talk for a second about an amendment I have to the minibus appropriations package.

I am going to talk very briefly about the amendment, but, first, I want to respond to some of the comments of my friend the Senator from Illinois, for whom I have great respect. I just disagree with him on this subject of the Affordable Care Act, and I want to respond briefly.

Let me tell you what Republicans believe, at least most Republicans whom I know. Most Republicans I know believe what Americans believe, and that is that in our country, if you are hungry, we feed you. If you are homeless, we house you. If you are too poor to be sick, we will pay for your doctor. We in America, Republicans and Democrats, put our money where our mouth is. We spend $1 trillion a year helping people who are less fortunate than we are, and that separates our country from every other country in the world.

Frankly, that is why so many of our neighbors across this great planet want to come to America. It is because we care about other people. I mean, when is the last time you heard of anybody trying to sneak into China or Russia? That is why they want to come to America.

But when a government program, though well intended, isn't working, we owe it to the American taxpayer to explain to them why, and the Affordable Care Act has not worked. I wish it had.

I had the highest hopes. I remember when the Senate debated it. Call me a nerd, but I watched it on C-SPAN. I wanted it to work. We were promised: Look, as a result of this act, we are going to make health insurance accessible, and we are going to make it affordable.

I said: Man, I will take a dozen of those. We have been trying to do that for 50 years around here. Maybe this time we will get it right.

It was offered with the best of intentions. You will never hear me criticize

President Obama for an act of patriotism. He was very well intended. He wanted it to work. It wasn't a question of bad motives. It was just a bad idea.

You know, 150 years ago, doctors used to bleed their patients with the best of intentions, but they stopped doing it because it was a bad idea.

Now, we can do better. I agree with the objectives from the Senator of Illinois. Let me say it again that I have great respect for him, but the American people deserve a health insurance program that looks like somebody designed it on purpose, and that is not the Affordable Care Act. I wish it were, but it is not. We can do better.

Amendment No. 3430

Mr. President, let me hit a lick about my amendment to the minibus appropriation package, H.R. 6147.

Here is the problem. We have a lot of foreign seafood imported into the United States, and some of it is very dangerous. I am afraid to say that a lot of it is very dangerous. I am unhappy to say that.

Our FDA is in charge of making sure that this foreign seafood is safe. It spends $11.9 million a year to do that. My amendment would give the FDA an additional $3.1 million, and here is why it is important.

Last year, the United States imported $21.5 billion worth of seafood--not million, but $21.5 billion. Now, the FDA is supposed to inspect it to make sure that it is safe before you eat it. The FDA does the best it can, but they are only able, with the small amount of money, relatively speaking, that it has, to test a very small sample, 2 percent.

Ninety-eight percent of the foreign seafood coming in is not even tested. When it is tested, the FDA often finds that it contains salmonella, it contains listeria, it contains dirt, and it contains illegal drugs, like antibiotics.

What does that mean?

Well, if you eat enough of the stuff, aside from the fact that you could grow an extra ear or glow in the dark, then, you develop a resistance to antibiotics. If you eat bad seafood, particularly shrimp full of these antibiotics, and you get sick, you get an infection, maybe an abscessed tooth. You go to the doctor, the doctor gives you antibiotics, and they don't work anymore.

Now, remember that we are only examining 2 percent of all seafood imports. If you run the numbers, you will see that barely 0.2 percent of seafood imports are rejected every year. The vast majority, 98 percent, were not even checked. This isn't just about public safety, although that is certainly important. It is also about public policy.

As for American shrimpers, let me tell you what they have to compete against in my State and in other States. They are being asked to compete with foreign fishermen who are unfairly subsidized by the Federal Government and who face little to no environmental regulations and little to no quality control. They fish where they are not supposed to. They ignore international quotas. They pump much of their fish full of illegal drugs, and they don't look out for the health of local ecosystems, as our domestic fisher men and women do.

The result is dangerous. It is unsafe for the American people, and it is unfair to the American shrimpers who do it the right way.

I don't want my family eating it. I don't want my son eating it. I don't want my wife eating it. I don't want my dogs eating it. If the American people are listening, be careful if you eat it.

That is what my amendment does.

With that, I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 3407

Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment that I look forward to advancing as a member of the relevant Appropriations subcommittee--in fact, the ranking Democrat. I was pleased to work in a bipartisan way to secure $380 million in the last fiscal year that has been distributed to the States to secure our elections.

As you may have heard, some who opposed this in the Appropriations Committee, when we took it up and debated it, asked a few simple questions, which I will try to address quickly.

Aren't elections a State and local responsibility? Why should the Federal government be providing funding for States and localities to secure their elections? It is true that elections are overwhelmingly run at the State and local levels. The cost of securing and modernizing our voting machines and voting systems will be overwhelmingly borne at the State and local levels.

Second, this $380 million was just made available, and I don't think it has even gone out yet. Have they used it well, and have they used it properly?

Third, why is this something we need to do now? Is there any indication that our upcoming elections are actually under threat?

Let me briefly speak to those three questions.

This morning, it was publicly reported that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, outside of a classified setting for the first time, revealed that not one, not two, not a dozen, but more than 100 American power utilities had been successfully hacked by Russian military intelligence and that air-gapped control rooms--meaning control rooms that are designed so they are not connected to the internet--in power- generating or distributing utilities around the country had been compromised by Russia. There is a level of sophistication in their invasion and interference in our physical infrastructure that is matched by their sophistication in interfering and intruding in our election infrastructure. I think the present danger is very clear and very real.

As my colleagues stated at great length, our Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, our former colleague, has said repeatedly that our election structure is at risk.

On July 13, Special Counsel Mueller indicted 12 Russian military officials for cyber attacks on our 2016 elections, and we know those attacks are coming again.

Michael Chertoff, the former Bush Department of Homeland Security Secretary, and Grover Norquist, long known as an advocate for reduced Federal spending, jointly wrote an editorial earlier this year--I think it was in the Washington Post. They said, and I quote, that ``we can replace all paperless voting machines in the country for less than the cost of an F-22 fighter jet.''

As Senator Klobuchar has said repeatedly and correctly: ``Election security is national security.''

Chertoff and Norquist concluded with this thought: It is not practical to expect State and local election administrators in rural Missouri or small town Maine or in my State of Delaware or in my colleague's State of Iowa to go toe-to-toe with the premier government- backed cyber mercenaries of Russia or China or North Korea. Just as Federal agencies prudently provide support for State law enforcement in dealing with terrorism, Federal officials should give guidance for support of the election cyber security threat.

My home State of Delaware is one of five with no paper trail for our election systems, and our election systems are air-gapped. I just received a letter from our State election commissioner, Elaine Manlove, who has made clear that with the $380 million already distributed through the money made available last year, they will begin to make a downpayment on replacing our current, antiquated election machinery with those that will have a verifiable paper trail.

I have many more examples I can cite, but I will be brief because I have a colleague who has waited long for his opportunity to speak.

All States have now requested the funding, and 90 percent of the funding has been disbursed. The EAC is working with States to make sure that they are addressing cyber security issues and, in particular, replacing outdated, antiquated systems.

I will give you one of many examples. The State of Louisiana last purchased voting equipment in 2005. Its 10,000 voting machines are antiquated, and their spare parts are dwindling and are no longer being manufactured. Louisiana's secretary of state estimated the replacement cost would be between $40 million and $60 million. A $3 million downpayment of Federal money is just barely enough to get Louisiana started, not enough to complete the job.

Let me close by saying that election security is not a partisan issue; it is about protecting who we are as a nation. Free and fair and regular elections define us as a democracy. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--all Americans--who want to know that their votes are counted and our elections are free and fair should care about a Federal role in supporting States and localities as they work to ensure that our election systems are protected and our equipment can't be compromised.

This is an issue not just for the November 2018 elections but for the 2020 elections.

The amendment we hope to call up later today should not be controversial. This is about protecting our democracy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Washington and Connecticut for being here, for speaking out, and for being so remarkable in their persistence in defending America's concerns about healthcare. I want to add my voice for just a few moments, if I might.

Let me look back 8 years to when I first joined the Senate in 2010. At that point, the Affordable Care Act was barely a year old. Since then, in the early years of the Affordable Care Act, we saw some very positive patterns: More Americans gained access to health insurance; the growth of healthcare costs slowed; insurance markets put in place under the ACA proved to be resilient, despite repeated challenges. As a result of the ACA, 20 million more Americans, including 38,000 Delawareans, gained access to high-quality, comprehensive healthcare coverage.

It is through the ACA exchange that my own family and I get our healthcare, and so many others in Delaware have a chance to get access to healthcare. The 190,000 people, in my little State of 900,000 people, who have preexisting conditions no longer had to worry about being denied coverage, and lifetime caps were a thing of the past. This matters; it has saved lives.

Just listen briefly to the story of Nicole from my little hometown of Hockessin, DE, a small farming town of just a few thousand people. Nicole's 3-year-old daughter was born with cystic fibrosis, a horrible disease that robs children and people of the ability to breathe. Nicole's 3-year-old daughter with cystic fibrosis spent at least an hour a day getting breathing treatments from her mother. At $5,000 a month for her medications--not cheap--Nicole was confident that without the ACA she would have exceeded her annual caps and her medical expenses well before the end of the year.

Nicole, in reaching out to me, made it clear that without the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act, she would have had one of three choices: hope she would qualify for Medicaid--unlikely, due to her income; go into debt to pay for her daughter's treatments; or stop giving her daughter some of the medication she depends on to save her life. All of that assumed that her daughter's cystic fibrosis wasn't considered a preexisting condition that would prevent her from getting any insurance at all. Because of that circumstance, Nicole's story exemplifies the life-changing gains and positive trends that the ACA provided.

Unfortunately, there were some other challenges as well, which I will summarize quickly, that have developed over time.

Let me transition to where we are today. Today we are in a place where, just a year ago, consistent, repeated efforts after the 2016 election by Republicans in Congress to repeal without a plan to replace the ACA resulted in a situation where, as my colleague from Connecticut has laid out, the Trump administration has done its best to roll back ways in which progress was made to extend quality, affordable healthcare to more Americans.

After a number of efforts to repeal the law failed last year, thanks to the American people who stood up and had their voices heard, the administration has decided to take a different approach--a slow and steady unraveling and undermining of the protections that made the ACA work.

It started with a decision to stop cost-sharing reduction payments, which help working families afford their premiums and access care. It continued when they changed the rules and encouraged people to sign up for plans that didn't have all the benefits and consumer protections of the ACA--really, junk plans--which made it possible to bring back discrimination against women and those with preexisting conditions. It culminated last month with something that was done in a fly-by-night way and may not have been visible at all to my constituents and viewers: a decision to no longer defend the core components of the ACA in court, including protections for those with preexisting conditions, in a lawsuit brought by 20 attorneys general from States that overwhelmingly opposed the ACA. This decision was so shocking that three career Justice Department attorneys withdrew from the case, and one with over 20 years' experience resigned from his job. Make no mistake, this was the administration sabotaging the ACA and our healthcare system. President Trump even admitted at a campaign event, just cited by my colleague from Connecticut, that he had gutted the

Mr. President, I just want to offer my response to the very disappointing renewed objection to the resolution that Senator Flake and I have attempted to move through this body now twice.

Last week, Senator Flake and I came to call on our Senate colleagues to speak clearly in support of our intelligence community, our Federal law enforcement community, and to state unequivocally that Russia's attacks on our democracy will not be tolerated and that we will take action in a firm and bipartisan and swift way.

Some have said this is merely a simple or symbolic message. I say there are powerful symbols that motivate our Nation, like our flag, and that, although symbolic, are substantive in their consequences.

After the narrow objection of one Senator to this resolution last week, we hear another objection tonight saying what we should be focused on is confirming nominees and funding the Federal Government. I, frankly, don't get the point. If this symbolic resolution, which calls on this Senate to act on hearings, on receiving notes, and on imposing sanctions, in order to push back against Russia's attack on our democracy--if we cannot find 2 minutes to adopt by unanimous consent this simple resolution, then I worry that we continue to have a problem. We continue to have a problem of lack of clarity about what actually happened in 2016 and what may happen in 2018.

I will remind my colleagues, briefly, that President Trump's own Director of National Intelligence has warned that Russia's attacks on our digital infrastructure are ``persistent, pervasive, and they are meant to undermine America's democracy.''

I know I don't need to remind my colleagues that what defines us as a democracy is free, fair, and open elections that our people find credible.

Just this morning, the Department of Homeland Security publicly released that air-gapped control centers for utilities in more than 100 places across our country had been penetrated successfully by Russian military intelligence.

The threat to our 2018 election continues to build, the clarity that we have been attacked in our 2016 election continues to build, and the sanctions that our President could be fully exercising were passed by this body by a vote of 98 to 2 last summer through the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.

This resolution is simple. Because of a lack of clarity at the Helsinki summit between President Trump and President Putin, it calls for prompt hearings, the release of relevant information and notes to better understand the impact of what was committed to in that meeting in Helsinki, and the full implementation of the sanctions adopted by this body by a vote of 98 to 2.

Either we mean it or we don't. Either we care about knowing what happened in Helsinki or we don't. Either we get the threat to our upcoming election or we don't. In my view, we continue to face threats to our elections and to our critical infrastructure, and it is long past time for Congress to work together to secure our democracy.

I will close by thanking my colleague and friend from Arizona for being a partner in this effort, for seeing clearly what is happening, and for standing up and asking this body to act. He gave, I think, a haunting opening quote from ``1984.''

I am concerned that if our President thinks it is appropriate to invite President Putin of Russia to meet with him in our White House or in our Nation's Capital, that he may not yet fully get the point. I am encouraged that Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell said clearly earlier today that President Putin is not welcome in this Nation's Capitol, in this building, in the Capitol where this Congress meets. I wonder what more it will take for there to be clarity on the part of the administration that President Putin is our adversary, has attacked our election, is a threat to our democracy, and should not be welcome in this Nation's Capital as a whole.

I call on my colleagues to support this resolution, to stand with our intelligence and law enforcement communities and against this dangerous foreign adversary, Russia.

Again, I thank and compliment my colleague from Arizona for joining me in this important effort.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am here for the now 214th time to urge that we wake up to the effects of carbon pollution on the Earth's oceans, atmosphere, and climate.

One obstacle to action on the threat that we face from climate change, however, is the manufactured doubt that so often surrounds this issue. We find this manufactured doubt a fossil fuel industry product-- just as oil and gas are fossil fuel industry products--flowing even from the editorial page of one of our Nation's leading publications, the Wall Street Journal. Whenever the issue is harmful industrial pollutants, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page has a long record of misleading its readers, denying the legitimate science, and even ignoring its own news reporting, all to shill for the polluting industries.

A pattern of science denial repeats itself in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal on environmental issues--issues such as acid rain and depletion of the ozone layer and now, and for years, climate change. This editorial page has persistently published editorials against taking action to prevent manmade climate change.

In June 1993, the editors wrote that there is ``growing evidence that global warming just isn't happening.''

In September 1999, the editorial page reported that ``serious scientists'' call global warming ``one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.'' If that is what they are saying, I suspect that what those scientists are serious about is the money they get from the fossil fuel industry.

In June 2005, the page asserted that the link between fossil fuels and global warming had ``become even more doubtful.'' This was June 2005, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page was questioning whether there is a link between fossil fuels and global warming?

Even more recently, a December 2011 editorial said that the global warming debate requires what the page called ``more definitive evidence.'' I guess having essentially all the serious scientists in the world lined up on this is not serious enough.

In October 2013, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal warned that in addressing climate change, ``interventions make the world poorer than it would otherwise be.'' I guess if the world of Exxon shareholders is your world, then it does make it poorer, but in any real world, that just ain't so.

You would think that as the evidence mounted over the past several decades, the Wall Street Journal editorial page would have at some point woken up and begun to publish editorials based on real science and data. To put it mildly, that has not been the case. Instead, the editorial page has doubled down on climate denial.

Just last month, the Journal published a piece titled ``The Sea is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change.'' This piece is riddled with readily fact-checked scientific errors, and it ignores all the legitimate science on climate change and sea level rise. Not surprisingly, the author of this article, Fred Singer, is a notorious and longstanding climate denier who has for years been affiliated with or funded by the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and others. He has been funded by a rogues' gallery of climate denial front groups that have themselves been funded by ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers' network.

Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrea Dutton--both actual legitimate climate scientists--wrote a response to the Wall Street Journal. Their article, titled simply ``Water's Rising Because It's Getting Warmer,'' directly addresses the factual problems with Singer's piece.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

In response to Singer's claim that ice sheets are getting bigger, the actual climate scientists wrote:

No, ice is not accumulating on Earth--it is melting. No,

Antarctica isn't too cold for melting--warming oceans are

eroding the ice from beneath, destabilizing the ice sheet.

And no, legitimate scientific conclusions are not reached in

op-ed pieces, but through careful peer-reviewed research.

Climate denial, by the way, tends to avoid peer review like the plague. It goes straight to FOX News, straight to hearings, and straight to the talk shows, because there it gets the audience it wants without having to face the rigor it would not survive.

Singer also erroneously claims that sea levels are not rising due to warming temperatures. In response, Drs. Mann and Dutton explain:

That research shows that sea levels are rising and human-

caused climate change is the cause. Don't take our word for

it; help yourself to the mountain of scientific literature

showing as much. When water warms, it expands. When ice

warms, it melts. To deny these facts is not just to deny

climate change. It is to deny basic physics.

But in the spirit of climate denial, there is very little that these denialists won't say.

The Trump administration's own ``Climate Science Special Report,'' issued by the Trump administration, found that ``it is virtually certain that sea level rise this century and beyond will pose a growing challenge to coastal communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems.'' The ``Climate Science Special Report'' will serve as the scientific backbone for the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which is due later this year. The authors list is a who's who of top university scientists--many from universities in the home States of Senators here in this body--and experts from NOAA, the EPA, NASA, our National Labs, and the National Science Foundation. By the way, those NASA people have a rover driving around on Mars. They may know a little something about science. The report is backed by the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Commerce, Interior, and State--in all, 13 Federal Agencies and Departments. Or you can believe the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and its phony baloney fossil fuel-funded scientists.

The Journal actually continued its climate denial spree in June, publishing another piece titled ``Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?'' In this one, Patrick Michaels and Ryan Maue argue that Dr. James Hansen's 1988 climate change warnings were overestimated.

Well, let's start by pulling the curtain back on these two characters who wrote the piece. You will quickly see that they are, to put it politely, aligned with the fossil fuel industry. Patrick Michaels is a senior fellow at the Koch-founded and Koch-funded Cato Institute. Michaels at one point admitted that 40 percent of his funding came from the fossil fuel industry. His

coauthor also joined the Koch-funded Cato Institute last year.

Believe it or not, yes, the fossil fuel industry still pays for this nonsense even as fossil fuel CEOs claim to recognize: Climate science is real, and we support a carbon fee. That, of course, being the latest chapter in the fossil fuel industry's long and ongoing campaign of fraud--now pretending that they support a carbon fee, when all of their political apparatus is dedicated to opposing the very result they claim to seek.

Thirty years ago, Hansen's testimony outlined three scenarios. Remember, this was 1988. The first scenario was a business-as-usual projection with accelerating emissions, yielding 1.5 degrees Celsius warming by 2017. The second scenario showed drastic emissions cuts, yielding 0.4 degrees Celsius warming by 2017. Hansen proposed a middle scenario of continued but not accelerating emissions, resulting in 0.84 degrees Celsius warming by 2017. In his testimony, Dr. Hansen stated that the middle scenario was the most likely.

Michaels and Maue claim that the scenario with the least amount of warming turned out to be correct, and therefore Hansen was wrong, and therefore climate models can't predict climate change. Unfortunately for them, the facts are otherwise.

Hansen's analysis projected that global surface air temperatures would increase by approximately 0.84 degrees Celsius between 1988 and 2017 in his middle scenario, the one he said was most likely. Once you account for the effects of a slight cooling that resulted from the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons, Hansen's projected warming is 0.6 to 0.7 degrees Celsius by 2017.

That, in blue, is the adjusted Hansen projection. I don't think you can fault him for not predicting the Montreal Protocol that happened after his prediction. It is fair to adjust his prediction for the Montreal Protocol and the effect of reduced chlorofluorocarbons. Once you do that, it shows that observed temperature in red tracks pretty darned well with his projections.

If that were my work, I would be pretty proud of it. Here it is 30 years later, and we are off by a gap that my finger can cover on the graph.

Michaels and Maue did not bother to mention that Hansen also predicted which parts of the globe would warm more quickly than others. Thirty years ago, he calculated the Arctic would warm faster, and there would be more warming over landmasses than over the oceans. All of these things are happening. Even Hansen's early climate models were accurate and reliable. And global warming is proceeding, just as the scientists have warned.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial page continues to publish its fossil fuel-funded nonsense--stuff that is written by pseudoscientists, funded by the industry with a massive conflict of interest about this question--it has been 30 years since the warnings of Hansen. Despite all of the evidence that has piled up, consistent with his warnings, despite the regular litany of current events driven by climate change now, Congress has been taking no action. We have been stilled by the forces of the fossil fuel industry.

The real irony here is that the Wall Street Journal claims to be the news source for businesses and financial investors. Off the editorial page, out in the real world of business and finance, real decisions are being made by real executives, backed by real money.

Are they buying what the Wall Street Journal editorial page is selling? No. No, indeed. They are telling their clients and their companies: You must take climate change seriously, and you must take carbon pricing seriously.

In the real world, businesses are demanding better climate policies and investors are demanding better reporting of climate risk. The giant investment firm BlackRock led a group of major investors and broke the back of ExxonMobil's opposition to answering to its shareholders about climate change. They are demanding this. Many companies are even setting their own internal price on carbon to account for the real- world costs of climate change. The business community and the investment community are acting because they know climate change is real, is affecting their prognosis for their companies, and carbon pricing is a key part of the solution.

Increasingly, economists and financial regulators warn that we are actually hurtling toward an economic disruption--that we need to prepare for a possible crash of what they call the carbon bubble. This carbon bubble collapses when fossil fuel reserves, now claimed as assets by the fossil fuel companies, turn out to be useless as renewable energy sources grow more competitive, and those useless assets become what are called stranded assets. How much gets stranded?

A publication by economists in the journal Nature estimated the following impacts in a 2-degree Celsius world: ``stranded assets . . . around 82 percent of global coal reserves, 49 percent of global gas reserves, and 33 percent of global oil reserves.''

Imagine that--82 percent of global coal reserves gone, wiped off the balance sheets; 49 percent of global gas reserves gone, wiped off the balance sheets; and 33 percent of global oil reserves gone, wiped off the balance sheets because they are no longer economically producible.

Is this nuts? Even the Bank of England in an official statement has warned that investments in fossil fuels and related technologies may ``take a huge hit.''

At some point, there has to be a grownup in the room. The fossil fuel industry, obviously, is not capable of being that grownup. They still pay for denial and obstruction. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page is obviously no use. That page is still yapping on the industry's leash.

There is some good news. This week, two House Republicans, at long last, introduced a bill that would put a price on carbon emissions. But we still await one Republican in the Senate, just one--anyone who will face up to this problem, who will stand up for science, who will acknowledge what their own home State's universities are teaching and take some real action. Climate denial is a dangerous and ultimately doomed game, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page should know better.

It is time to wake up.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.