Floor Statements

Madam President, the last thing one does in life is not necessarily the best. I have come to respect Claire McCaskill over a long period of time. I have watched her walk in a room and watched heads turn. I have listened to her up front, answering questions: no nonsense, direct, truthful, to the very best of her ability. I found in her a great sense of conscience. She has this marvelous exterior. I think the interior is a little different.

There is a sensitivity there that is very special, Senator. I hope you never ever lose it because it is what gives you the ability to do what you do. Now I expect to turn on my television set and turn on my radio and hear you many times and take a lot of good advice and have a few laughs listening to you.

I want to say thank you. You have represented your State well. You have stood tall. You have spoken out in our caucuses. You have let people know what you feel. You wear your heart on your sleeve, and you are one great woman.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a Senate Resolution honoring the victims of the mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, California.

On November 7, 2018, a shooter armed with a semiautomatic pistol and high-capacity ammunition magazine attacked the Borderline Bar and Grill. Borderline is known as a popular meeting place for residents and country music fans. That night was a ``college night,'' and students had gathered there for a night of music and dancing.

What happened next was the deadliest mass shooting in California since the 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino. Twelve people lost their lives that night in Thousand Oaks. They included students, military veterans, and 27 year old Telemachus Orfanos, who was a survivor of the October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas.

Just think about that for a moment. A survivor of the deadliest mass shooting in our Nation's history lost his life in another mass shooting a year later.

Ventura County Sheriff Sergeant Ron Helus also lost his life that night. He was one of the first law enforcement officers on the scene, and he gave his life confronting the assailant and protecting his community. Thousand Oaks is one of the safest cities in America. If an attack like this can happen there, it can happen anywhere.

This Resolution condemns the terrible violence experienced by the Thousand Oaks community and honors the memory of those who we have lost. This Resolution also recognizes the efforts of law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical teams, whose steadfast dedication and service to the victims and survivors in Thousand Oaks undoubtedly saved lives.

Finally, this Resolution reaffirms our commitment to ensure that the victims' families and those who were injured receive the assistance they need.

Mr. President, our Nation suffers one mass shooting after another. We no longer have time to grieve before gun violence devastates another community. Thousand Oaks has now joined the ever growing list of communities across America that are mourning the loss of loved ones from this ongoing epidemic. I call upon all of my Republican colleagues to work with us and do everything we can to prevent another attack.

I also ask that each member of this chamber remember the victims, their families, the survivors, and the entire community of Thousand Oaks, and continue to hold them in their hearts.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.

Yes, we are already feeling dramatic changes in California.

Let me give you an example. Off our coast, the ocean has become 25 to 45 percent more acidic. It has 20 percent less oxygen, and it is nearly a full degree warmer than previous decades. All of that is according to the National Climate Assessment.

These conditions have led to harmful algal blooms, a marine heat wave from 2014 to 2016, invasive Humboldt squid, the disruption of the crab, shellfish, and fishing industry. So it is being felt.

In fact, the impact has been so great, a number of Pacific coast fishermen are now suing 30 fossil fuel companies for damages.

At the same time, the seas are rising. The longest running tidal gauge in the Western Hemisphere is at the Golden Gate Bridge, and it has been recording sea levels since 1854.

Now, as this chart shows--and this is sea level rise at the Golden Gate Bridge--the sea has risen 9 inches in that time, which the National Climate Assessment attributes mostly to thermal expansion of ocean water and the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets. This is already threatening San Francisco's historic waterfront. The seawall is seriously deteriorating and must be upgraded to handle the stronger storms and higher tides we are already seeing and will continue to see in the future.

I just met a week or so ago with the head of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System, and that is BART II, and they are talking about increasing the number of trains in the II by some three times. One wonders what is going to happen if the seawall continues to deteriorate. The city will move. It is going to be very costly, but it will be repaired. But it is a signal of what is coming.

Last month, our city's residents approved a $425 million bond to help pay for the project of restoring the Embarcadero Seawall. As you can see, we are looking at another 2.5 to 3.5 feet of sea rise by the end of this century. If you just look at this chart, you see the amount of sea rise.

Worse, if ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica collapse into the oceans, the ``Climate Science Special Report'' last year warned that sea levels could rise as high as 8 feet by the end of this century. That is an 8-foot rise by the end of this century. That would truly be catastrophic.

Scientists are carefully studying the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, as the Senator from Rhode Island well knows, to understand whether we can slow or avoid their collapse into the ocean. Last year alone, we saw an iceberg larger than the size of the State of Rhode Island break off of Antarctica's Larsen C ice shelf. Events like this could give us clues into what large-scale melting may look like.

Antarctica holds 90 percent of the world's ice, and the rate of ice melting and calving increased six-fold from 1994 to 2012--a six-time increase in 10 years. It is amazing.

According to an eye-opening report from National Geographic last year, if the West Antarctic ice sheet collapses, as some researchers think may already be happening, it will eventually raise sea levels worldwide by 10 feet. This is a picture right out of National Geographic. A whole issue is devoted to this and the rifting of this huge glacier and what happens when it breaks out. That is where there are different views, of course, but some say the seas could rise as much as 10 feet.

I really suspect, between you and me and the outside world, that it is going to be some calamitous effect that shakes us up enough to do what we need to do about it. We have been very slow to respond.

National Geographic reports, as well, that 90 percent of the 674 glaciers in this area of the continent are now in retreat--90 percent of them--and calving more icebergs into the sea; that means they are splitting and breaking off, including the one that is photographed right here. A full collapse of the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica would eventually raise sea levels about 35 feet, it is estimated.

I drove through the San Francisco Marina District, and I thought, Oh, my gosh, what can happen in 15, 20, 50 years--our grandchildren--and it is really startling.

But rising sea levels are far from the only problem. Wildfire and drought are already reshaping my State. The California drought from 2011 to 2016 was made worse because of climate change: higher temperatures, depleted groundwater, and reduced snowpack. Large parts of California, including the Central Valley, which produces the majority of our Nation's fruits and vegetables, had to depend on groundwater pumping that will not always be available, and the National Climate Assessment warns that global warming will reduce the rate that groundwater replenishes aquifers by 10 to 20 percent. So we have a real problem.

I want to add to that. I have been to big fires; as a matter of fact, I traveled with President Bush to a San Diego fire in a subdivision, and then, years later, I went to the Sonoma fire. It was a fire that burned so hot that the subdivision I visited, which was the Coffey subdivision--the block that had houses on all four sides was entirely burned down, and the ground had turned to sand. There wasn't a metal structure; there wasn't a brick chimney; there was nothing that was above ground.

I called one of the chiefs, the head of State fire, and I said: Tell me what is happening.

He said: The Santa Anas have reversed. The winds are blowing 40 to 60 knots. The fire outruns us, and we can't lay line.

So what happened--and the meaning, of course, is that you depend more and more on air, which means C-130s, and having to get them. Fortunately we got seven, and I went and saw that two are being repaired and adjusted to carry water. But that is what is happening, and we really have to come to terms with it.

This new, big fire, which is the largest fire California has ever had, burned down 15,000 homes, if you can believe it. This is a picture of what the area looks like. Wildfire alone has burned nearly 2 million acres now--15,000 homes. It has killed 94 people. And wildfire is the deadliest and most destructive season we have on record this year.

This picture was taken by a member of my staff in the city of Paradise, which was absolutely devastated, as you can tell--hulls of cars. I have even been to a fire that has burned so hot that you don't see any of the surrounding door metal, and you don't see any tires left.

So the terror of fire--and just as an anecdote, I read one story about an elderly couple who left their home and jumped in the pool, and he held his wife in the pool all night, and she passed away in his arms. This is the kind of thing we face in California.

Let me ask the Senator from Rhode Island this: Wildfires are a problem for more than just Western States. Haven't fires affected even Rhode Island on the other coast?

I am sorry; what kind of?

There are all kinds of exciting developments and innovation. Let me talk a little bit more about it.

My understanding is that for 2018, researchers expect that emissions will grow by 2.4 percent, and the United States is part of this trend, showing a 2.5-percent increase in emissions due to our oil and gas use.

So the first thing is that we need to move away from carbon, and we need to do it quickly. California is producing--you can use noncarbon electricity, and it works.

One of the things I have been really concerned about as a grandmother is, as time goes by, what is the impact? If I understand the history well, the Earth has warmed, since the Industrial Revolution, about 1 to 2 degrees. They say that if it warms another 1 to 2 degrees, it is handleable, but it will be difficult. If it warms 4 to 9 degrees, we will have the potential to destroy the planet. I think those figures, as they become more refined as time goes on, really send us the challenge.

It is hard here because--it was hard in California. Until I went home on this last break, I had never seen people on the streets with masks on. Yet there it was in San Francisco, by the Golden Gate, with the wind blowing, and the smoke was so thick in the morning that when you looked out a window, you were lucky if you could see two blocks. Those are the kinds of fires that warming encourages.

So I want to salute you for your work. You have been our leader. I think you have been terrific. I think what we really need to do is to set some standards for our government to follow as they set regulations for the future. It is going to be difficult, people won't like it, and there will be differences between us, but we should have that discussion, and we should recognize the fact that we can't keep going as we are now.

Now, California is responding. As I drove and campaigned there through many different counties and saw some of the alternatives to carbon in terms of the towers and wind and those kinds of things--you see where it is happening, but it is not happening enough, and it is not taken as seriously as it should be.

So what I want to say is that I really want to work with you. I believe the people of my State--all 40-plus million of us--want a solution that will work. I thank you, and I am delighted to be part of this small dialogue.

If I may respond just briefly, the State has mandated that 50 percent of its electricity must come from renewable sources by 2030. We are actually ahead of schedule and on track to reach that deadline by 2020. If we do, we will both be here. I hope that will be a real signal to people that standards can be set and they can be met and that we can save this planet.

I thank the Senator very much.

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Is there a time limit?

Thank you. I know there are others waiting, so I don't estimate I will take more than 10 or 12 minutes.

I rise in opposition to the nomination of Tom Farr to the Eastern District of North Carolina. I do so as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

The vote for Mr. Farr's nomination, as Members know, had been scheduled for today, but it has been postponed. Mr. Farr's long career indicates that his history raises serious questions about his ability to safeguard voting rights for all Americans. In fact, he has a history involving voter suppression efforts, which leads me to question his qualifications to even be a Federal judge.

Farr's hostility toward voting rights can be traced back to the 1980s and 1990s when he worked as a lead attorney for Senator Jesse Helms' reelection campaign. Media reports indicate that he was not truthful in his responses to questions for the record about his involvement in voter suppression efforts that were orchestrated by the Helms campaign and by the Republican Party of North Carolina.

Here are the facts:

In 1990, Helms was in a tight race with the mayor of Charlotte, Harvey Gantt, and the campaign implemented a strategy to suppress and confuse African-American voters. The Helms campaign and the North Carolina GOP implemented a so-called ballot security program. That program included sending more than 120,000 postcards almost exclusively to African-American voters, saying they were required to live in a precinct for at least 30 days prior to election day and could be subjected to criminal prosecution.

This information was, in fact, false. In fact, one African-American voter in the State who received a postcard that informed him that he could not vote if he had not lived in his voting precinct for at least 30 days had lived at the same address for more than 30 years and had been registered to vote that entire time. So clearly these postcards were designed to intimidate African-American voters.

In committee, I asked Mr. Farr about this program and his participation in it. He told me that he did not provide any counsel and was not aware of the postcards until after they were sent. Former Federal prosecutor Gerald Hebert, who had worked on voting rights issues at the time, contradicted these statements.

To get to the bottom of it, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee requested a copy of a Justice Department memo that reportedly detailed Farr's role in this voter suppression incident, but the Department would not provide a copy of the memo. The Washington Post has now obtained the memo, which clearly shows that Farr was, in fact, involved in these voter intimidation efforts.

I ask unanimous consent that the appropriate parts of the Washington Post article and a memorandum be printed in the Record.

The memo includes Farr's own retelling of meetings in which sending postcards to voters was discussed. In fact, Farr told colleagues that postcards might not be as effective in kicking voters off the rolls as they had been in 1984. It is impossible, though, to square this memo with Farr's denial to the Judiciary Committee that he had any knowledge of these actions.

In addition, since that time, Mr. Farr has remained active in efforts to depress and dilute African-American voting. In several cases, Farr defended North Carolina's congressional and legislative districts that were drawn after the 2010 Census against allegations that the State legislature drew them to dilute the vote of African Americans. Farr has defended these districts before North Carolina's State courts, Federal courts, and the Supreme Court. However, in each instance, his arguments have been rejected.

In North Carolina v. Covington, a three-judge panel in the Middle District of North Carolina found that ``race was the predominant factor motivating the drawing of all challenged [state legislative] districts.''

In Harris v. McCrory, two of the three Federal judges on a panel held that the State's congressional redistricting plan violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

In 2016, Farr also defended North Carolina's restrictive voter ID law in the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory. He had served as an adviser to the State legislature as it was considering that legislation. In arguing before the Fourth Circuit, Farr strongly denied that racial animus toward African Americans was the motivation for the voter ID law. The court, however, strongly disagreed. In striking down the law, the court strongly rejected Farr's arguments, noting that the law's requirements ``target African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' That is the Fourth Circuit's confirming that racial animus was part of this.

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation expressed its strong opposition to Farr's nomination, writing that ``Farr has amassed a record that puts him at the forefront of an extended fight to disenfranchise African-American voters.''

Opposition to Farr's nomination has been compounded by the history of this particular vacancy, which has been open for a long time--actually, since 2006. President Obama nominated two highly qualified African- American women to fill the vacancy. Either would have been the first African American to serve on the court--a long-overdue milestone in a district in which more than 25 percent of the population is African American.

The first nominee, Jennifer May-Parker, served as chief of the Appellate Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of North Carolina. By that time, she had served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for 14 years. Her nomination did not move forward because she didn't receive a blue slip from the State's Republican Senator even though he had initially recommended her to the White House as a potential nominee.

The second nominee, Patricia Timmons-Goodson, served as the vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She had previously served as an associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court and as an associate judge for the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Again, Republicans did not allow her nomination to move forward.

While the Republicans have undermined the blue-slip policy to confirm President Trump's judicial nominees, it is important to know that the only reason Tom Farr's nomination is under consideration today is that Republican blue slips were honored by the Democrats during the Obama administration. In short, the Republicans blocked two highly qualified African-American women from filling the vacancy in order to hold the seat open for a White nominee with a history of disenfranchising Black Americans. I am sorry to say that, but that is the way it was.

It is impossible to see how the people Tom Farr would serve in the Eastern District of North Carolina would ever believe they would be getting a fair shot in his courtroom. The Senate should reject this nominee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Sanders-Murphy resolution. It is time to end our involvement in the war in Yemen.

In 2015, I was notified by a senior Saudi official of the Kingdom's intention to take military action in Yemen. I was assured the conflict would not last long. I was told it would be precise and focus on ousting the Houthis and restoring the Hadi government.

Nearly 4 years later, the war in Yemen has dragged on. All we have seen is widespread death and destruction with no end in sight.

For nearly 4 years, the coalition has bombed Yemen once every 100 minutes, and one-third of those strikes targeted nonmilitary sites.

So far, the war has directly killed more than 16,000 civilians, with tens of thousands more injured. Without a resolution to this conflict, many thousands more will undoubtedly die.

But those deaths don't paint the whole picture. The ongoing war, with our support, has created the world's worst humanitarian disaster.

Nearly 85,000 children have died of severe malnutrition, and another 400,000 are at risk of the same fate.

Fourteen million people require emergency food aid just to see another day.

A majority of Yemen's population does not have access to clean water, sanitation or adequate public healthcare.

Cholera and other diseases are rampant throughout Yemen as public services have collapsed.

There have been 1.2 million suspected cases of cholera, resulting in 2,500 fatalities from this entirely preventable disease.

Today, nearly three-quarters of the population--almost 22 million people--need some form of humanitarian assistance.

That is because more than half of Yemen's healthcare facilities have been purposefully destroyed by the Saudi coalitions' relentless bombing. The few medical facilities that remain lack sufficient staff, equipment, and medicine to serve the millions of Yemenis who require their help.

The conflict is getting worse. Since the coalition's assault on the port city of Hodeidah, civilian deaths have increased by 164 percent.

The United States can no longer turn a blind eye to this conflict because we are a party to it. The United States provides targeting assistance, military advice, and until recently, aerial refueling for the Saudi-led coalition. We

do all that despite the lack of a military solution to end the war. The longer we enable the conflict to continue, the more innocent men, women, and children will die.

Instead of facilitating endless fighting, we must push for reconciliation. I have personally urged Saudi and Iranian officials to meet to discuss their differences. To my great disappointment, they refuse to do so. I welcomed Secretary Mattis's announcement that the United States will no longer refuel the coalition's aircraft, but more must be done.

Until there is a congressional authorization, all U.S. forces supporting the coalition's war should be withdrawn. That is why I support the Sanders-Lee resolution. Voting to remove our forces will send a clear message that we will no longer be complicit in this conflict. Secretaries Mattis and Pompeo have publicly called for a ceasefire, which has been ignored.

By ending our participation in this brutal war, we will send an unambiguous message that we will not accept continued bloodshed.

I am voting for the Sanders-Lee resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I wish to raise concerns about the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, known as VIDA, which is included in the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Act of 2018.

I voted in favor of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Act of 2018, along with 93 of my colleagues, because I strongly support the Coast Guard and its mission. The women and men of the Coast Guard provide invaluable services to our Nation, which include homeland security, maritime safety, drug interdiction, search and rescue, and marine environmental protection.

However, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act title in the Coast Guard authorization bill is a rider that I have long opposed. VIDA imposes a uniform national standard and preempts California law in a way that weakens California's ballast water management program, which protects coastal waters from pollution and invasive species.

California has one of the most stringent ballast water discharge and management standards in the Nation. It is home to three of the country's largest and busiest ports with extremely high-volume traffic.

California's ports are often the first stop for vessels from Asia before they travel up the West Coast. Therefore, California is often the first line of defense against the spread of invasive species and other types of pollution. That is why it has led the Nation in one of the most advanced, stringent ballast water and invasive species management programs--and with much success.

Invasive species wreak havoc on ecosystems and infrastructure, with wide ranging effects from damaging levee systems to crippling commercial fisheries. Due to climate change, warming waters and shifting currents will increase the spread of invasive species, and strong safeguards are needed now more than ever.

This is why I strongly oppose VIDA's preemption of California's ballast water program.

For all these reasons, I supported the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Act of 2018, but do not support the VIDA provision contained therein. Thank you.

Mr. President, due to an excused absence on October 11, 2018, I was unable to vote on several judicial nominations. Had I been present I would have voted in the following matter:

On Executive Calendar No. 1007, on the nomination of David James Porter, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, I intended to vote nay.

On Executive Calendar No. 1081, on the nomination of Ryan Douglas Nelson, of Idaho, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, I intended to vote nay.

On Executive Calendar No. 1082, on the nomination of Richard J. Sullivan, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, I intended to vote yea.

On Executive Calendar No. 627, on the nomination of William M. Ray II, of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, I intended to vote nay.

On Executive Calendar No. 628, on the nomination of Liles Clifton Burke, of Alabama, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, I intended to vote nay.

On Executive Calendar No. 629, on the nomination of Michael Joseph Juneau, of Louisiana, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, I intended to vote nay.

On Executive Calendar No. 634, on the nomination of Mark Saalfield Norris, Sr., of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, I intended to vote nay.

On Executive Calendar No. 638, on the nomination of Eli Jeremy Richardson, of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, I intended to vote nay.

On Executive Calendar No. 894, on the nomination of Thomas S. Kleeh, of West Virginia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, I intended to vote nay.

(At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 63, a resolution of disapproval on the Trump administration's final rule allowing the expansion of short-term junk health insurance plans.

My home State of California recently passed a law prohibiting these short-term plans to protect consumers because these plans do not offer real coverage and are allowed to only take healthy consumers.

One hundred thirty million non-elderly Americans have a preexisting condition, including 16 million in California. Among the most important provisions in the Affordable Care Act are the consumer protection requirements for health insurance plans that ensure preexisting conditions no longer dictate access to health coverage and essential benefits that ensure coverage is meaningful and comprehensive.

It does a cancer patient little good to have health insurance that doesn't cover chemotherapy, just as coverage without maternal care is meaningless to an expectant mother. In fact, before the Affordable Care Act was passed, three out of four plans on the individual market did not cover labor and delivery.

An analysis by Kaiser Family Foundation just this last April found that of the more than 600 short-term plans offered through two major insurance websites, eHealth and Agile Health Insurance, across 45 States, none included maternity care. It gets worse: 71 percent offered no prescription drug coverage, and 43 percent of these plans didn't cover mental healthcare services.

To be frank, these plans are junk insurance. The major protections in the Affordable Care Act are basically tossed out the window, and we are reminded of why health reform was needed so badly in the first place. These plans can include annual and lifetime limits on care, meaning that, if you need an expensive medical treatment, you may be out of luck, even after paying your premiums. Women can once again be charged more than men for the same plan.

Insurance companies don't have to comply with medical loss ratio rules that limit administrative costs. In fact, short-term plans covering 80 percent of the market in 2016 only spent half of premium dollars on actual medical care.

Short-term plans have traditionally been used by some consumers for what the name implies, to bridge short gaps between long-term coverage for a matter of months. The final rule changes this to years. Given the severe shortfalls these plans have and significant consumer risk, they are simply not meant to be a substitute for real health insurance.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to protect consumers and look forward to working together to improve health coverage, not make it worse.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the pending bill, America's Water Infrastructure Act.

I congratulate Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper of the Environment and Public Works Committee for completing this vitally important bill on time. It is critical that we reauthorize Army Corps projects and other water financing authorities every 2 years, as they have done.

The bill before us authorizes construction of 12 new water resource development projects and 65 studies.

America's Water Infrastructure Act also includes a number of provisions that will benefit California.

The bill includes a provision I authored that will require EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into an agreement within a year. The agreement must specify how the two agencies will jointly administer a Treasury-rate loan program for storage, water recycling, groundwater recharge, and other water supply projects.

This provision builds off EPA's success using Treasury-rate loans to fund projects under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, WIFIA. The idea is to extend these Treasury-rate loans to water supply projects.

There are three significant ways WIFIA loans will lower costs for local agencies wanting to build storage, water recycling, groundwater recharge, or other water supply projects:

No. 1, they will pay only 3.2 percent interest rate on their loans based on today's rates, versus 4 percent or greater rates for municipal bond financing;

No. 2, the districts would not need to start paying interest until 5 years after substantial completion of the project; and No. 3, loans are for 35 rather than 30 years, lowering annual debt service costs.

The combination of these benefits could reduce the costs of building a project by as much as 25 percent. For example, if a consortium of water districts takes out a loan to build Sites Reservoir, they would pay only $512/acre-foot instead of $682/acre-foot, a 25 percent saving.

These water district savings of up to 25 percent are a highly cost- effective use of taxpayer dollars because they can be obtained by appropriations of only 1-1.5 percent of the cost of the loan, as validated by OMB.

OMB has approved loans of $5 billion backed only by appropriations of only 1 percent of that amount, or $50 million for WIFIA, because there is a virtually nonexistent default rate for water projects.

Only four in a thousand water infrastructure projects default, based on a study conducted by Fitch credit rating agency.

Moreover, WIFIA loans include substantial taxpayer protections. Private sector loans have to cover at least 51 percent of the project cost, and the Federal loans would have senior status in the event of any default. These provisions protect the taxpayer in the event of any default.

The provision in the bill before us is a compromise, different in some significant ways from the provision I included in the Senate bill. Like the Senate bill, the bill before us requires EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation to enter into an agreement within a year on how they would jointly administer a Treasury-rate loan program for water supply projects.

However, the House was unwilling to allow the Bureau of Reclamation to recommend water supply projects for loans within EPA's existing WIFIA authority. As a result, additional legislation will be needed to authorize Reclamation loans for water supply projects once EPA and Reclamation reach their agreement.

While further legislation will be needed, the legislation before us today provides an important step forward. EPA has developed expertise in processing and administering water supply loans, so it is more efficient if Reclamation can recommend the loans and EPA can administer them. Without the legislation before us, EPA and Reclamation would not reach an agreement on how they would jointly administer these water supply loans.

Now that we know that Reclamation and EPA will reach this agreement within a year, Congress can shortly thereafter move legislation with both agencies' support to extend the successful and cost-effective WIFIA loan program to water supply projects. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this additional legislation.

I am also pleased that this bill authorizes construction and studies and provides other needed modifications for many important water infrastructure projects in California.

One such project that received a construction authorization is the Lower San Joaquin River project, which provides critical flood control to the Stockton metropolitan area.

Additionally, this bill doubles Federal funding for the Harbor South Bay water recycling project, authorizing up to $70 million in Federal funds.

This increase in Federal funding will meaningfully expand this project's capability to provide recycled water to surrounding communities. I am pleased to see Army Corps funding utilized for water recycling, which is truly a key for sustainability and water security in drought-prone California.

Other key California projects in this bill include authorization for a flood risk management, navigation, and ecosystem restoration project in the San Diego River and directing the Army Corps to expedite flood risk management, water conservation and ecosystem restoration studies at the Coyote Valley Dam, Lower Cache Creek, Lower San Joaquin River, South San Francisco, Tijuana River, Westminster-East Garden Grove, and San Luis Rey River.

Lastly, I would like to mention the two other very important provisions for California as well as the Nation that I strongly support.

This bill increases funding for the Army Corps' dam rehabilitation program for structures built before 1940 from $10 million to $40 million until fiscal year 2026. The United States is facing many challenges due to aging infrastructure, and in California, we saw the serious ramifications of that with the Oroville Dam disaster.

Additionally, this legislation reauthorizes and expands the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund for the first time in 22 years to address aging or damaged drinking water infrastructure in communities across the country.

For all these reasons, I support the America's Water Infrastructure Act before us today. Thank you.

Madam President, I understand that in the order I have 15 minutes; is that correct?

Thank you very much.

Madam President, this has been my ninth Supreme Court nomination hearing, and I must say, I have never experienced anything like this.

Never before have we had a Supreme Court nominee where over 90 percent of his record has been hidden from the public and the Senate. Never before have we had a nominee display such flagrant partisanship and open hostility at a hearing, and never before have we had a nominee facing allegations of sexual assault.

The nominee before us being considered for a pivotal swing seat, if confirmed, would be the deciding vote on some of the most important and divisive issues of our day.

I would like to start by speaking about some of the issues in relation to Judge Kavanaugh.

President Trump promised to nominate to the Supreme Court only individuals who would be pro-life and pro-gun nominees and who would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade. In my judgment, Judge Kavanaugh clearly meets the test.

In a speech in 2017, Judge Kavanaugh focused on praising Justice Rehnquist and his dissent in Roe v. Wade, where he challenged the right to women's privacy as protected in the Constitution.

Also, last year, Judge Kavanaugh argued in a dissent in a Texas case that a Jane Doe should not be able to exercise her right to choose because she did not have family and friends help her make the decision. If adopted, this argument could rewrite Supreme Court precedent and require courts to determine whether a young woman has a sufficient support network when making her decision, even in cases--as is in this one--where she had gone before a court.

His reasoning demonstrates that Judge Kavanaugh not only is willing to disregard precedent, but his opinions fail to appreciate the challenging realities women face when making these most difficult decisions.

When I asked him about whether Roe and Casey were settled law and whether they were correctly decided, he refused to answer. He would say only that these cases are ``entitled to respect.''

As we all know, Roe v. Wade is one of a series of cases that upheld an individual's right to decide who to marry, where to send your children to school, what kind of medical care you can receive at the end of life, as well as whether and when to have a family. According to these cases, the government cannot interfere with these decisions.

Another issue that gives me great pause is Judge Kavanaugh's extreme view on guns. In reviewing his record and judicial opinions, it is clear his views go well beyond simply being pro-gun.

During a lecture at Notre Dame Law School, Judge Kavanaugh himself said he would be ``the first to acknowledge that most lower-court judges have disagreed'' with his views on the Second Amendment.

Specifically, in District of Columbia v. Heller, Judge Kavanaugh wrote in a dissenting opinion that ``unless guns were regulated either at the time the Constitution was written or traditionally throughout history, they cannot be regulated now.''

In his own words, he said gun laws are unconstitutional unless they are ``traditional or common in the United States.''

Judge Kavanaugh would have struck down DC's assault weapons ban because they have not historically been banned. This logic means that as weapons become more advanced and more dangerous, they cannot be regulated at all.

When I asked Judge Kavanaugh about his views that if a gun is in ``common use,'' it cannot it be regulated, he replied this way:

There are millions and millions and millions of semi-

automatic rifles that are possessed. So that seemed to fit

``common use'' and not be a dangerous and unusual weapon.

Think about that. Judge Kavanaugh made up a new standard that had nothing to do with ``common use'' but instead relied on whether a gun is widely possessed and owned as determinative of whether it is subject to any regulation.

The United States makes up 4 percent of the worldwide population, but we own 42 percent of the world's guns. By Judge Kavanaugh's standard, no State or locality will be able to place any limitation on guns because of widespread ownership in this country.

I am also concerned about his views on Presidential power. Specifically, he has said that sitting Presidents cannot be indicted, cannot be prosecuted, should not be investigated, and should have the authority to fire a special counsel at will. In other words, the President of the United States is above and outside the law.

These views raise serious concerns that should concern us all, especially at a time when the President continually threatens to fire the leadership of the Department of Justice for failing to be loyal and reigning in the Mueller investigation.

These views alone are sufficient for me to vote against Judge Kavanaugh, but what we have seen and experienced in the past several weeks has raised serious new concerns--concerns I believe should worry us all.

Judges are expected to be ``evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, [and] courteous''; however, at the hearing last week, we saw a man filled with anger and aggression. Judge Kavanaugh raised his voice. He interrupted Senators. He accused Democrats of ``lying in wait,'' and replacing ``advice and consent with search and destroy.''

He even went so far as to say that Dr. Ford's allegations were nothing more than ``a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election,'' and ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' How could he?

This behavior revealed a hostility and belligerence that is unbecoming of someone seeking to be elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court. His display was so shocking that more than 2,400 law professors from around the country have expressed their opposition.

They wrote: ``Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.''

The professors concluded: ``We have differing views about other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.''

Madam President, finally, I want to mention the serious and credible allegations raised by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the two women who came forward to tell their experiences facing sexual assault.

When Dr. Ford decided to make her story public, she faced all her worst fears. She was harassed. She received death threats. She had to relocate her home, her husband, and two children. Yet, in less than a week, she came before the Senate and told 21 Senators she had never met, along with millions

of Americans, about the most tragic, traumatic, and difficult experience of her life. She did so with poise, grace, and, most importantly, bravery.

Unfortunately, she was met with partisanship and hostility. My Republican colleagues have largely chosen to ignore her powerful testimony.

Senators weren't allowed to hear from any witnesses who could corroborate or refute her account. They refused to gather evidence or do an impartial investigation into her allegations.

Deborah Ramirez also reluctantly came forward to tell her story. Like Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez offered to speak to the FBI. Both Ford and Ramirez submitted evidence to support their allegations, including naming over two dozen witnesses each.

Unfortunately, the limited investigation that was conducted by the FBI failed to interview any one of the witnesses these who women identified who could support her account.

Let me say that again. They refused to investigate--to talk with--any of the 24 witnesses that could have supported their accounts.

I think it is important to remember why we are here today. We are here to determine whether Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated the impartiality, the temperament, and the even-handedness that is needed to serve on this great High Court of our land.

If confirmed, he will join eight other individuals who are charged with deciding how the laws of the land are interpreted and applied. He would be a deciding vote on the most important issues affecting our country and every American for generations to come.

Based on all of the factors we have before us, I do not believe Judge Kavanaugh has earned this seat.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak on S. 994, the Protecting Religiously Affiliated Institutions Act of 2018.

First, I want to thank Senator Hatch and the other supporters of the bill. In particular, I would also like to thank the House sponsors of the bill, Representatives Kustoff and Kilmer, for their work in shepherding it through that chamber.

I am glad to see this bill finally enacted into law.

Early last year, a string of bomb threats to synagogues, mosques, and other religious affiliated institutions, such as Jewish community centers, threatened this Nation and one of its core constitutional tenants: the free exercise of religion. In the wake of these threats, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on religious hate crimes.

Just 1 month after that hearing, two Islamic centers in northern California were attacked during Ramadan. At the largest Sacramento mosque, a burned Quran was also filled with bacon and handcuffed to a fence. That mosque alone has been targeted multiple times.

Despicable acts like these have become far too common. The statistics are startling. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from 2014 to 2016, anti-Muslim hate crimes increased 99.4 percent, from 154 reported incidents to 307 reported incidents. There has also been a rise in anti-Semitic incidents. The Anti-Defamation League reported 1,986 anti-Semitic incidents nationally in 2017, compared to 942 in 2015, an increase of 110 percent. We heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee that this increase came after the dangerous rhetoric that was used during the 2016 election cycle.

Unfortunately, this sort of persistent hateful rhetoric continues to plague our Nation and our political discourse. This was made manifest during a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville last summer that culminated in a young woman losing her life.

The clear lesson is that all of us must strongly condemn hateful acts and state in no uncertain terms that they have no place in our country. This legislation is one way for us to do that. This bill updates the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 to specifically prohibit threats of force made against religious real property, including the property of religiously affiliated institutions.

This update is critical because, while the current law prohibits the destruction of religious real property, it did not previously specify that threats against religious real property, such as threats of violence against Jewish community centers, are also hate crimes.

Finally, while this bill addresses religious hate crimes, we must remember that the motivations behind hate crimes extend far beyond religion. It does not matter if it is a crime based on one's religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or any other element of our shared humanity.

I am hopeful that the Judiciary Committee can continue to work together to protect all victims of hate, regardless of whom they are, whom they love, where they worship, or where they are from. Thank you.

Mr. President, today the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced the awarding of the Nobel Prize in chemistry to three outstanding scientists, Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith, and Gregory P. Winter, for using evolutionary principles to create new enzymes. Their work marks a remarkable leap forward in human knowledge and technology, and I salute these scientists on their honor.

The use of evolutionary techniques to create enzymes has led to new developments in numerous fields, from health to biofuel technology. Through the use of directed evolution, scientists and researchers have been able to speed up the processes of nature and to tackle some of our most challenging problems. These achievements would not have been possible without the leadership of Dr. Arnold, Dr. Smith, and Sir Gregory Winter.

Dr. Arnold hails from my home State of California and has worked as a professor at the California Institute of Technology. I am proud of the role that Caltech played in making this discovery possible. Dr. Arnold received

her Ph.D. from the University California, Berkeley, and I thank her for her contributions to the study of bioengineering and biochemistry.

On behalf of all Californians, I commend these three recipients on a well-deserved honor and for all that they have done to advance human knowledge of the power of evolutionary technology and bioengineering. Let us hope that this discovery will continue to expand the horizon of human knowledge and lead to new efforts in humanity's never-ending quest for enlightenment.

Again, I congratulate these three distinguished scientists and their families on this remarkable discovery and prestigious award.

Madam President, I rise today to object to the partisan effort to improperly ``stack'' two consecutive nominations for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC.

Peter Feldman has been nominated not only to fill the remainder of a term that would expire in October 2019, but also for an additional 7- year term on top of that.

Stacking these nominations contradicts the aim of the Consumer Product Safety Act, which established the CPSC as an independent agency with commissioners serving staggered terms to prevent any one Congress from having an outsized influence on the agency.

It also violates Senate practice of considering one nomination at a time, particularly when the first term would not expire for over a year.

Both Senate Commerce Committee minority staff and the Congressional Research Service were unable to identify an analogous nomination where the beginning of a term started this far into a new Congress.

To be clear, I do not object to Mr. Feldman's nomination to the Commission. In fact, I voted to confirm him to fill the unexpired term.

However, confirming Mr. Feldman to a second, 7-year term today would undermine the CPSC's independence and set a dangerous precedent for future nominations.

The CPSC plays a critical role in protecting the public from consumer product-related injuries, and we must do all we can to defend the agency from partisanship.

For this reason, I must regretfully vote no on Mr. Feldman's nomination to serve an additional 7-year term on the Commission.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to recognize September as ``Workforce Development Month.'' I thank Senators Hatch, Enzi, and Baldwin for supporting this bipartisan resolution.

As technological advances reshape traditional fields and fuel the emergence of new industries, it is imperative that our workforce development system remain agile and flexible in order to educate and train the next generation of workers and those needing additional on- the-job training skills to stay competitive.

In addition, it is vital that we recognize the importance of all career pathways and professional development--whether an individual pursues a four year degree or seeks to further their education at a community college, through an industry recognized certificate program, or as an apprentice.

In an effort to face this challenge head on, Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in 2014 (WIOA) with overwhelming bipartisan support. WIOA was signed into law by President Obama and has helped streamline the workforce development system while increasing and strengthening partnerships between regional businesses, workforce development boards, and educational institutions.

And more recently, Congress passed the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, which was later signed into law by President Trump. This law aims to increase collaboration between high schools, community colleges, and workforce development programs. In addition, this law supports work-based learning opportunities, provides industry-recognized credentials, and increases federal funding for CTE programs.

In fact, it is these partnerships that have proven to be key to regional success at addressing the workforce needs of businesses. By working together, local businesses and educators can ensure that not only do businesses have access to the talent they need to grow but that those seeking work can find it.

Nationwide, the more than 550 workforce development boards and 2,500 American Job Centers have become a driving force behind growing regional economies by providing training, resources, and assistance to workers aiming to compete in the 21st century economy.

These workforce development boards and American Job Centers work with job seekers and employers across industries ranging from healthcare and information technology to manufacturing and construction.

There are currently over half a million registered apprentices across the country, including nearly eighty-six thousand in California alone. Bipartisan support for earn-and-learn approaches, such as apprenticeships and paid internships, is critical for helping future workers gain the skills and experience they need while being able to provide for themselves and their families.

In recognition of workforce development month, Congress reaffirms its support for a comprehensive approach to workforce development, encourages partnerships between industry leaders and educators, and emphasizes the importance of all career pathways in pursuit of economic prosperity.

In closing, during this month it is essential that we acknowledge and commend the professionals who work every day to make these efforts a reality. America's workforce is the backbone of our economy and it is the expertise, dedication, and knowledge of these professionals that has helped develop such a robust system.

Mr. President, I hope this resolution will promptly pass the Senate. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution to ensure its passage and encouraging the continued growth of our workforce development system. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Madam President, eight Americans die of a drug overdose every hour.

In 2016, more Americans died from drug overdoses than during the entire Vietnam war.

The 2017 figures are even worse. Preliminary estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that over 71,000 individuals lost their lives to drugs. More than 5,000 of those individuals were Californians. Addiction has never had such a profound impact on our country.

On October 26, 2017, the Trump administration declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency. However, this has done little to stem the tide of overdose deaths or to effect this public health crisis that has a stronghold on our communities.

Our government can and must do more. It is not enough to declare the obvious, that this epidemic is an emergency.

As with any emergency, triage must begin immediately. That means swiftly executing and implementing whole-of-government strategy to end the devastation. That also means rapidly infusing funds to support this strategy and prevent more deaths.

The Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018 does just this. It provides a roadmap for action and authorizes the necessary funds to allow the government to better triage care for those in need while simultaneously providing resources necessary to keep these drugs off the street.

This legislation recognizes that there is no one size fits all approach when it comes to effectively addressing addiction. That is why it consolidates bills that span five committees, including six from the Judiciary Committee.

The bipartisan Opioid Crisis Response Act establishes a number of new drug prevention and treatment programs. It also extends other critical agencies and programs, including the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Drug-Free Communities, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, and drug court programs.

Moreover, the bill provides the Justice Department with new legal authority to hold opioid manufacturers and distributors accountable if they fail to identify, report, and stop suspicious orders of opioids.

The bill also preserves legitimate access to pain medications, while allowing the Drug Enforcement Administration to consider, for the first time, factors like drug abuse and overdose deaths when setting annual production quotas for certain opioids.

The Opioid Crisis Response Act effectively balances prevention, treatment, recovery, and law enforcement.

This legislation bolsters the efforts of our public health experts, gives law enforcement and first responders the authority and resources they need to combat illicit narcotics, and will help spur the development of alternative therapies and drugs to help decrease our nation's reliance on opioids.

The fact that this bill includes proposals that were sponsored or cosponsored by more than half of the members of this body illustrates that virtually no State, no community, and no family is left untouched by addiction. It is also indicative of the fact that we must act, and we must act urgently.

We must treat this public health crisis like the emergency that it is. We must stop the devastation.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that this important piece of legislation, which is supported by more than 200 organizations nationwide, is enacted into law.

Thank you.

Madam President, as the Senate debates the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act, S. 2554, I rise to offer my views on the need for transparency in drug prices and to offer my strong endorsement of this bill. This legislation that we are voting on today represents a serious, bipartisan effort to lift barriers that prevent pharmacists from informing consumers about how much prescription drugs cost. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

Every day, Americans buy prescription drugs without a true idea of how much those drugs cost. Pharmacists should be able to tell you if there is a cheaper way to buy prescription drugs, and yet they are unable to do so. Due to so-called gag orders, pharmacists can be prevented from providing this information proactively to patients. With prescription drug costs rising, Americans should have access to transparent pricing information, especially when it can lower their costs.

Today, the Senate takes a significant step toward improving drug price transparency. With the passage of the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act, S. 2554, pharmacists would be able to fully inform patients of the cost of the medications they are purchasing. It is ridiculous for a patient to not be told that their copay is actually more than the full cost of the medicine they need. By banning gag clauses, this bill ensures that customers have a right to know the lowest possible price available for a drug at the pharmacy. This is an important first step in advancing drug cost transparency.

In addition to price transparency, the actual cost of medicine continues to be a major issue. Pharmaceutical companies often price drugs as high as they believe the market will allow and have no other constraints on how much they charge. We see this happening not only in branded drugs but in price spikes among generics as well. For example, the recent announcement that major hospital systems and philanthropy organizations have banded together to create their own nonprofit generic drug manufacturing company, Civica Rx, shows just how concerning the problem of reasonably priced drugs, as well as drug shortages, has become. I'll watch with great interest as this endeavor moves forward to produce 14 common drugs used by hospitals--with the first due out next year.

The bill we are voting on today solves just one piece of a very large puzzle, and we must do more. In this distinguished body, we should advance legislation that would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices in Medicare. I am a cosponsor of the Choose Medicare Act, which includes this provision. We should also move legislation that provides real financial protection for consumers and limits their monthly copays for prescriptions. I am a cosponsor of the Consumer Health Insurance Protection Act, which includes a copay cap of $250 per month on prescription drugs.

Let's dig in to the real cost of prescription drugs and look for creative solutions that support innovation but ensure that lifesaving drugs can reach patients. A cure doesn't matter if it costs too much to reach those who need it.

The problem of prescription drug costs is real, and it impacts American families across our country. This problem forces seniors to choose between food and medicine. This problem prevents families from being able to care for their loved ones due to the high cost of expensive drugs. In fact, according to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 24 percent of people reported that they or a member of their family either did not fill a prescription, skipped doses, or cut pills in half due to the cost of the drug. And 44 percent of those surveyed said they worried about not being able to afford the medications they needed. This is

wrong, and it must be fixed. Today, we start to right that wrong by voting to pass the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act. But more is expected and more must be done. Let's build on the bipartisan work that helped us pass the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act tonight and make a real difference for American families.

Mr. President, today I wish to oppose the nomination of Elad Roisman to be a Member of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC.

Members of the SEC are charged with the critical tasks of protecting investors and their hard-earned savings and ensuring that capital markets are fair and transparent.

In the aftermath of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, these responsibilities are more important now than ever before.

That is why the Senate must confirm SEC Commissioners who have learned the lessons of the financial crisis and will prioritize investor protections and maintaining a fair marketplace for all.

Unfortunately, I am not confident that Mr. Roisman fits the bill.

As the majority chief counsel for the Senate Banking Committee, Mr. Roisman was instrumental in developing legislation that rolled back essential rules put in place after the financial crisis to protect consumers and help prevent another crisis from occurring.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, passing that legislation into law has increased the probability that a large bank will fail or that another financial crisis will occur.

During the last financial crisis, more than 2 million Californians were unemployed, and nearly 200,000 Californians filed for bankruptcy.

We simply cannot return to that time, and Mr. Roisman's work on the Dodd-Frank rollback bill should raise concerns about his commitment to protecting consumers and promoting fair markets.

In addition, the manner in which Mr. Roisman's nomination has proceeded breaks with a longstanding Senate tradition to confirm SEC nominees in bipartisan pairs.

The President has yet to nominate a replacement for a Democratic Commissioner whose term expired in June 2017 and is slated to step down later this year.

I believe the Senate should follow its tradition of waiting until the President nominates a Democratic Commissioner before advancing Mr. Roisman, a conservative pick, in the Senate.

Proceeding in a bipartisan fashion is critical for ensuring that no President can stack independent agencies like the SEC with a large partisan majority.

For these reasons, I must regretfully vote no on Mr. Roisman's confirmation.