[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 97 (Wednesday, June 7, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3303-S3321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COUNTERING IRAN'S DESTABILIZING ACTIVITIES ACT OF 2017--MOTION TO
PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 722, which the
clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 110, S. 722, a bill to
impose sanctions with respect to Iran in relation to Iran's
ballistic missile program, support for acts of international
terrorism, and violations of human rights, and for other
purposes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I understand that we had originally
scheduled for, in about 1 minute, a vote on cloture on the new Iran
sanctions bill. I understand that the cloture vote has been delayed
until early this afternoon.
This comes on the heels of an announcement of very sad news from
Iran. I would certainly be among the first to note that some of the
people in Iran, the Revolutionary Guard and some of their leadership,
support terrorism. They wish ill for us and for our country.
That same country had elections about 2 weeks ago, and the results of
those elections were surprising, even for me, but encouraging. The
results of the election found that President Rouhani, one of the
leaders of reform and one of the modern elements within that country,
was reelected by a resounding majority--close to 60 percent of the
vote. Although the Supreme Leader thought it would be a one-on-one race
for the Presidency, in spite of that, Rouhani was reelected, and we
congratulate him. There were a number of municipal elections across the
country, most prominently in Tehran where the hard-line mayor of Tehran
has been ousted, and moderate forces seem to have made real,
encouraging progress from my perspective and I think the perspective of
most Americans.
One of the things the Iranians do, which is troubling to me and I
think to others in this country, is continue to test ballistic missiles
in what we believe is in violation of the United Nations' decision.
Iranians are not violating the agreement that was entered into among
five nations, including the United States and Iran, roughly 2 years ago
in Iran's nuclear joint agreement. They are not violating that, but
they are violating other U.N. sanctions.
So this revised sanctions bill, which was scheduled to be debated
today and maybe voted on later this week--at least the start of the
debate on whether they are going to proceed to the bill--has been
delayed until this afternoon. I urge us to consider delaying further
action on this Iran sanctions measure today or this week.
The term ``adding insult to injury'' comes to mind. I try to use the
Golden Rule to figure out what I should do and how I should behave as a
human being, and I think maybe we ought to consider the Golden Rule in
this case as well. Iran is not necessarily our close friend. They are
not our close ally. I think the potential is there for having a much
better relationship as a young generation of Iranians grows up and
eventually assumes the leadership of their country.
It is a country of 80 million people, over half of them under the age
of 25. They had a revolution in 1979 and captured our Embassy. They
held our people for a year or more until after the 1980 Presidential
election. Our relations with Iran have been difficult since that time
but more encouraging of late--again, a young country of 80 million
people, more than half under the age of 25.
The younger generation there wants to have a good relationship with
the rest of the world, a better relationship with the rest of the
world, and certainly a better relationship with us. I have talked with
a number of American leaders, including senior American leaders, who
have been to Iran in recent years and were surprised by the warm
welcome they received.
It reminds me very much of the warm welcome I received leading a
congressional delegation to Vietnam in August of 1991 to find out what
happened to thousands of MIAs. We were expecting to be met by suspicion
and hostility, and we were warmly embraced at that time. Six of us--
Democratic and Republican Congressmen--were there to present to the
leadership of Vietnam on behalf of the George Herbert Walker Bush
administration a roadmap to normalize relations if they would do a
number of things to enable us to find out what happened to thousands of
our MIAs. We presented that proposal. John Kerry and John McCain worked
very hard on the Senate side and at the same time in Southeast Asia as
well. We ended up with normalized relations within a few years of our
visit. One of the members of my delegation, Pete Peterson, became our
first U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam.
I mention that today because of the hostility we felt toward Vietnam
for
[[Page S3304]]
many years during the war and after the war and the suspicion that they
were holding thousands of our MIAs as POWs, which turned out not to be
true. But our efforts, along with those of Senator McCain, Senator
Kerry, and others, ended up providing information about the missing and
the closure we hoped for hundreds of families of Americans who had lost
their loved ones in Vietnam and never recovered their remains--although
some of their remains were recovered and returned to the families.
I mention it today because a year ago in Vietnam, with President
Obama and Secretary Kerry, and at a time when the Vietnamese were
announcing they were going to buy billions of dollars' worth of our
Boeing aircraft--we are their top trading partner, and they were going
to be an integral part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that we
negotiated, along with other nations. Sadly, that has gone away. I
think one of the biggest mistakes of this Congress and the last was to
let the transpacific trade partnership die. But Vietnam was a key
member of that.
It is kind of ironic to me that a nation with whom we fought in a
war, where the names of 55,000 who died are at the Vietnam Memorial--
not even 2 miles from where I am standing right now--yet, since the
1970s we have let bygones be bygones and have a much better
relationship with Vietnam. They are still Communist, and they are still
a one-party system, but they have high regard toward Americans.
Rather remarkably, we learned last April when we were there that they
had two surveys done of the Vietnamese people this last year. One
survey found that 85 percent of the people surveyed had favorable
opinions of the United States, more than any other nation in the world.
In the second survey, we learned that about 95 percent of the
Vietnamese people had favorable opinions of the United States, more
than any other nation on Earth.
Again, we are their top trading partner these days, and they are
buying a lot of the products we manufacture and sell. If that
relationship can change, I think there is reason to hope our
relationship with Iran can change.
We have our pages here. If it were left to the generation the age of
our pages or maybe their parents, it would be a brandnew day in Iran.
But change is happening there.
The question is, on the heels of this attack by ISIS, with whom we
have bitter differences and a hotly contested armed conflict--for us to
somehow, on the heels of two attacks by ISIS in Iran, one on the
Parliament and the other apparently on the mausoleum for the former
Ayatollah, where a dozen or more people have been killed, 40-something
wounded--does it make sense for us to take up the Iran sanctions bill
today? I don't think so.
My reading of the Golden Rule, treating other people the way we want
to be treated, would suggest this might not be the right day to do
this--next week, maybe; today, no. I call on our leadership to hit the
pause button. There is not a need to rush on this.
The Iran sanctions bill, which is coming to us today, is a much more
thoughtful approach than was originally contemplated by the Foreign
Relations Committee. They have done a very nice job of improving what I
thought was a badly flawed earlier effort. But this might be a good day
to hit the pause button. Instead of rubbing salt into a wound, let's
wait a few days and consider what to do. If we were in their shoes, I
think we would appreciate that gesture. If we were in their shoes, I
think the idea of their taking this kind of action or step against us
on a day that we have been attacked by ISIS would not be well received.
It would be badly received. So I think we ought to treat them the same
way.
I think that is pretty much it. I appreciate the chance to come to
the floor and say a few words. I call on leadership to delay this vote
on cloture and to delay the vote on the underlying bill until next
week. When we do the underlying bill on Iran sanctions, let's couple it
with something that includes some of the very thoughtful work going on
with respect to Russia, which really is creating mischief in this
country--not just with elections but otherwise as well--and maybe do a
package that includes both together. That might make a lot more sense,
and the timing would be a lot better.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am strongly supportive of adding
sanctions against Russia to the bill that is scheduled to come up this
afternoon. As I think we all know, Russia actively worked to influence
our 2016 Presidential election and continues to try to destabilize
democracies around the world, including our own, and that is
unacceptable.
At the same time, I have serious concerns about the sanctions on Iran
contained in this bill. As we have heard from former Obama
administration officials, including Secretary Kerry and Ambassador
Sherman, these measures could undermine the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action, the very important nuclear agreement signed in 2015 between the
United States, our P5+1 partners, and Iran. But above and beyond that,
let us be aware and cognizant that earlier today, the people of Iran
suffered a horrific terror attack in their capital, Tehran, in which 12
people were killed and many more were injured. The Islamic State has
claimed credit for this attack.
At a time when tensions are extremely high in that part of the world,
our goal must be to find ways to bring people together to reduce
tensions rather than to exacerbate this very painful and dangerous
situation. Let us also remember that the leaders of Iran immediately
expressed condolences for the September 11 attacks against the United
States and that hundreds of Iranians held a candlelight vigil.
It seems to me to be the right thing to do--on a day when Iran has
been attacked by ISIS, by terrorism, now is not the time to go forward
with legislation calling for sanctions against Iran. I would
respectfully request that we delay our vote on this bill until next
week. Let us tell the people of Iran that while we have serious
disagreements with them on a number of issues, that today, when they
are mourning, when they are dealing with the shock of a terrorist
attack, today is not the day to go forward with this piece of
legislation.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor very briefly to make
what, I hope, is a reasonable recommendation to my colleagues on both
sides.
We are due to vote later today on moving forward on a piece of
legislation that I support. Last week, we voted out of the Foreign
Relations Committee a new sanctions bill against the Iranian regime for
its continued movement toward a ballistic missile program that,
ultimately, could threaten the security of the Middle East and could
threaten the security of our sacred ally in the region, Israel. It also
speaks to Iran's continued problematic human rights record and its
support for terrorism in the region.
We should move forward on this piece of legislation, but I would
recommend that we not do so today. There is reason to have this debate,
but given the terrorist attack that occurred in Iran, given the fact
that today we know that there are 12 dead and 40 wounded in 2 very
coordinated attacks, my worry is that, literally, at the moment of
grieving in Iran, this resolution would look as directed not at the
regime, as it is, but at the Iranian people. It would seem intemperate
and, ultimately, do more damage than good.
This is an important resolution to debate. We can find the time to
get this done, but given the unfortunate timing--obviously, not
intentional in our moving this forward this week--given the attacks
that just occurred and for which ISIS has claimed responsibility, I
would hope that we could find a way
[[Page S3305]]
to move this to another time. I think it is really important because,
ultimately, it is in the United States' national security interest for
the Iranian people to get their way, who are, broadly speaking,
Western-oriented and who, broadly speaking, want a democratic,
internationalist future.
In everything we do, we need to make it clear that we have deep
disagreements with the Iranian regime--its rhetoric toward Israel, its
inflaming of tensions, its funding of proxy wars in the region--and
that our beef is not with the people of Iran. From time to time, that
is a difficult distinction to make, but it is a very important
distinction to make. By choosing to postpone this debate and this vote
to another time, I think we will send an important message to the
Iranian people that we want to give them the time to grieve and that we
want to give them the time to understand the scope of this attack.
I do not think it comes at much of a cost or loss to us. It is
important to remember that when we were attacked on September 11, there
were vigils held throughout Iran. The regime itself was not sponsoring
those, but the Iranian people did stand up and, in substantial numbers,
displayed a common cause with the people of this country--again,
another sign that this disagreement is not with the people of Iran but
with the regime.
Despite my having some reservations about this piece of legislation--
I do not endorse it wholeheartedly, but I am a supporter of it and will
vote for it when it comes to the floor of the Senate--I would hope that
the leadership on both sides of the aisle might find a path so as to
give the people of Iran some grieving space, to make sure that we are
not sending the wrong message with this vote this afternoon, and to
find some time later this summer to take up a very, very important
issue.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the
Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, but first I
would like to offer my strongest condemnation of the terrorist attack
allegedly carried out by ISIS this morning in Tehran, which claimed the
lives of 12 people. Attacks on civilians in any corner of the world
must be strongly condemned by the United States, and I offer my
condolences to the people of Iran and the families who lost loved ones
in this latest act of terror.
If anything, these events remind us that the entire Middle East is
increasingly under siege, and the United States and the entire
international community must unite to confront terrorism and extremism
in all of its forms. That means holding governments that continue to
foment, fund, and encourage terrorism accountable.
While the people of Iran suffered a heinous attack today, the
unfortunate reality is that the violence, volatility, and profound
human suffering that imperils the Middle East are all too often linked
back to the Government of Iran. Across the region, this regime
continues to pursue policies that threaten the national security
interests of the United States. It continues to support terrorism and
exert influence through the growing power of proxy actors throughout
the Levant and Yemen. Even as it continues to supply terrorists across
the region with money, weapons, and resources, the people of Iran
continue to suffer under an oppressive regime with absolutely no
respect for basic human rights.
We all know the United States faces a multitude of threats at home
and abroad, from Russia's cyber attack on our elections, to North
Korea's continued belligerence, to new questions about America's
leadership in the world. But even as Congress rightly remains focused
on these challenges, we must not lose sight of Iran's ongoing, ever-
growing efforts to exert more control, more power, and more influence
throughout the Middle East. Whether we are talking about an adversary
like Russia or Iran or an international challenge like climate change
or the refugee crisis, we cannot let issues of such importance to our
future be obscured by partisan politics, derailed by divisive tweets,
or lost amid the revelations of our relentless 24-hour news cycle.
I have always believed politics must stop at the water's edge, and I
know many of my colleagues share that principle. That is why there is
such broad bipartisan support for the Countering Iran's Destabilizing
Activities Act. I am pleased to have worked with Senators Corker,
Cardin, and a number of other colleagues on legislation that has earned
the support of nearly 60 cosponsors. We crafted this legislation by
listening to an array of different voices with experience addressing
Iran's destabilizing influence.
But let me be clear. This bill is not--is not--about Iran's nuclear
program. This bill is not about the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
With the regime's tentacles reaching across the region--from its
support of a Shia proxy network in Iraq, to its growing influence in
Afghanistan, to its continued sponsorship of terrorist groups like
Hezbollah and Hamas--we need a strategic approach, one that energizes
our partners in the region and recognizes their capacity to counter
Iran's behavior. That is exactly what the Countering Iran's
Destabilizing Activities Act does.
Our legislation calls on the President of the United States to
develop a regional strategy to counter Iran's asymmetric and
conventional threats across the Middle East. We know that Iran, for
example, continues to develop sophisticated ballistic missile
technologies. They aren't exactly hiding it. Just a few weeks ago, a
semi-official news service for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
announced it had built a third underground facility dedicated to
ballistic missiles. Iran continues to test launch missiles, some of
which may be capable of reaching Europe or Israel--both critical allies
of the United States. In fact, some of the missiles launched earlier
this year had the words ``Israel must be wiped off the Earth'' etched
on their sides. That is why S. 722 requires the President to impose
sanctions on any person who knowingly engages and materially
contributes in support of Iran's ballistic missiles program.
Some argue that imposing new sanctions on Iran violates the spirit of
the JCPOA, but I would argue that actively building underground
ballistic missile facilities does little to promote good will or the
spirit of the JCPOA in the region.
Beyond its missile program, Iran remains actively engaged in
importing and exporting small and conventional arms to terrorist
proxies around the world and bad actors like North Korea. In January of
this year, the outgoing United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon,
expressed concern that Iran might have violated an arms embargo by
supplying weapons and missiles to Hezbollah. Yet, not all of Iran's
violations make high-profile news. We know Iran has ramped up its
supply of weapons to the Houthi rebels in Yemen and other proxies
throughout the region. That is why this legislation imposes sanctions
on any individual who knowingly engages in activity that materially
contributes to the supply, sale, or transfer of arms as defined and
established by U.N. standards.
Finally, when it comes to human rights, some try to paint a pretty
picture of reform in Iran, but a closer look reveals chilling and
deplorable human rights abuses. According to Human Rights Watch, by
October of last year, Iran had executed more than 250 people--that is 1
person sent to death every day--and many were executed for nonviolent
drug offenses. That is why our legislation expands the scope of
violations eligible for sanctions, including those behind the
extrajudicial killings of journalists and activists who seek to expose
the oppression of the Iranian people.
Finally, this bill calls for a comprehensive report on Americans who
suffer at the hands of the Iranian regime, including those who have
been unjustly detained and those who have remained missing in Iran for
more than a decade.
In short, this bill is a carefully crafted response to Iran's ongoing
aggression in the Middle East.
Let me turn to a provision that continues to be misrepresented, and
that
[[Page S3306]]
involves the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC is officially
responsible for Iran's internal security, with a ground force of about
100,000, but like many other quasi-military-political entities in
undemocratic countries throughout the world, the IRGC holds enormous
influence in Iran's economy and public affairs. On paper, the IRGC Quds
Force is the lead supporter of Iran's terrorist networks around the
world, and the United States has designated it as such, but the reality
is, the IRGC exercises tremendous economic and political power
throughout Iran. It pulls the regime's levers to fund and support
terrorists in the Middle East and beyond. That is why our bill
specifically calls for terrorism-related sanctions on the IRGC, but it
does not--let me repeat--it does not, as some have claimed, label the
IRGC a foreign terrorist organization. We heard the concerns of our
military and intelligence community. Let me repeat. This bill does not
label the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. What it does do is
require the President to acknowledge the role the IRGC plays in
supporting terrorism globally.
I know some of my colleagues have expressed concerns as well about
whether this bill gives a green light to the administration's decidedly
confrontational approach to Iran, but that is precisely why Congress
must step up and define our strategy in the Middle East. We need to
look at the big picture here. As the United States and our partners
work to build democratic governance structures--promote tolerance
across the region and protect civilians and refugees living under
siege--Iran remains aligned with Russia and Syria, actively working to
undermine U.S. security interests. Indeed, Putin, Assad, and the
Ayatollah continue to take advantage of the strife that imperils the
region. Meanwhile, the world continues to struggle with extremism, with
mass migration, and with the largest humanitarian crisis since World
War II.
With this administration unable to articulate a clear vision for
American leadership in the world, the time is ripe for Congress to
assert its influence in our foreign policy, to provide guidance and
expertise, and to develop a framework for securing our interests in the
Middle East.
Now is not the time for Congress to turn a blind eye to Iran's
hostile behavior. Now is the time for all of us to demand nothing less
than vigorous oversight, constant vigilance, and strict enforcement of
our entire arsenal of diplomatic tools, including sanctions on Iran.
That is our effort--outside of the nuclear proposal--to make it very
clear that you cannot get a green light to do all of these things just
because you signed on to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I
think it is important for us to send this message, and when the
appropriate time comes for this vote, I urge my colleagues to support
the measure.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Healthcare Legislation
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, for a number of years, we have been
debating healthcare in this country. Clearly, our healthcare system had
problems 8 years ago when they started to do healthcare reform. I saw
that as a doctor practicing in Casper, WY.
Well, then Washington Democrats tried their solution. It is a
solution that passed, and it is known as ObamaCare. Republicans said
that it wouldn't work and have been proven right. ObamaCare is too
costly. It is collapsing. It is interesting because yesterday, as we
were having our policy lunch meetings--Republicans and Democrats--word
came out that another one of the ObamaCare exchange companies, Anthem,
this time in Ohio, was pulling out, leaving about 18 counties, if not
more in Ohio, without anybody to sell insurance on the ObamaCare
exchange.
ObamaCare actually hasn't solved the problems of America's healthcare
system. In many ways, it has made matters worse. That is why the law
has never really had the support of the American people and continues
to be unpopular today. It is why more than 19 million people actually
chose not to sign up for ObamaCare coverage at all, even in spite of
financial incentives to do so and a fine or a tax if you didn't sign
up. So they either paid the fine or they got an exemption.
The Democrats, when they come to the floor to talk about healthcare,
refuse to talk about those 19 million people who have just said: We
want nothing to do with ObamaCare. We are not going to sign up. Give us
an exemption. Let us out.
They want to talk about people whom they actually have covered by
pushing them into a broken Medicaid system, and that is about what has
happened here. This expansion through the healthcare law and expanding
Medicaid put many people into a broken healthcare system called
Medicaid. It wasn't working well before ObamaCare, and it has gotten
worse. The numbers out there, in terms of physicians taking care of
patients, are about one-third--one out of three doctors will not take
new Medicaid patients, so it is not a system that is working. It is not
a solution, but Democrats put more people into that.
For people who didn't end up in Medicaid and who paid their premiums,
those premiums have gone up significantly. They have doubled in most
States, I think, across the board--up about 107 percent over the last 4
years. Thus, the statistics that have come out from the Department of
Health and Human Services recently are the statistics the Obama
administration, as it left office, didn't want the American people to
see--that rates have doubled across the country and, in some States,
much, much higher than that.
In my home State of Wyoming, they were up actually higher than the
national average has been. People are paying more and more. There were
two companies, at one point, that were selling insurance on the
ObamaCare exchange, both losing money. One lost so much that they are
no longer in business. The other is still losing money and still
selling on the exchange, but you wonder how long they will stay. Or
will they do the sort of thing that Anthem had to do in Ohio and the
sorts of things we have seen in the Presiding Officer's home State of
Iowa and we have seen in Nebraska and we have seen across the board?
Some Democrats say: This is a one-term correction; give it time. But it
doesn't seem that it is going to be working that way.
There was an article in the paper here, in Washington's Roll Call,
and the headline was--this was last week--``Insurers Seek Increases for
Obamacare Premiums in Early Filings.'' This is for next year. The
article talks about how the insurance companies are starting to say how
much they are going to need to charge people next year, which is much
higher than it is this year. They are talking about an average increase
of about 30 percent.
The average premium in the ObamaCare market in Wyoming right now is
already more than $7,000 a year for a family. So how much more can
people take? That is why I continue to come to the floor and talk about
what is the problem with the healthcare law--healthcare and the system.
People under ObamaCare have seen their deductibles go up, their copays
go up, and the choices that they have go down. This is the real problem
when we talk about ObamaCare.
Then, of course, the other thing is taxes. There are at least 15 new
or higher taxes under ObamaCare. So people aren't just paying higher
premiums; they are paying higher taxes, which were supposed to help
with the premiums, but it doesn't seem to be doing so for people all
across the country.
The Congressional Budget Office has looked at this, and it said that
Americans are going to pay more than $28 billion over the next 10 years
on just one tax on prescription drugs. Well, if we are trying to lower
the cost of drugs and trying to lower the cost of care, putting a tax
like this, as ObamaCare did on prescription drugs, just adds to the
problem.
It has raised taxes all across the board. I don't want to go through
each and every one of the taxes, but suffice it to say that when
President Obama said he would put this program into place and it
wouldn't cost a single
[[Page S3307]]
dime, he forgot the trillion dollars in new taxes that he added onto
the backs of hard-working Americans. So we have had higher taxes, we
have had higher premiums, we have had higher out-of-pocket costs from
people--this huge tax burden.
What has happened is that we need to do a reform. The House has
passed reform, and now in the Senate we are working on passing our own
healthcare reform bill. We have been meeting three times a week up to
over 5 hours a week for the last month and a half, going through piece
by piece of all the different components of the healthcare law, trying
to address the issues that are facing the American people, trying to
lower the taxes that top the list of what we hear about at home in
terms of trying to help people because they are paying more taxes,
trying to work to deal with premiums.
I am really encouraged by the debate we have been having. I think we
have been taking good steps in trying to address the issues the
American public is seeing in terms of higher premiums and fewer
choices.
I would like to work with the Democrats to solve these problems in a
bipartisan way, to talk about how people can actually get healthcare in
this country. But what have the Democrats done in response? Well, it is
interesting because they want to go to a single-payer healthcare
system. Some may deny it, but a majority of the Democrats in the House
have cosponsored legislation to go to a single-payer healthcare plan.
It is modeled, in some ways, after what you are seeing in California.
The California State Senate last week passed a bill, which seems to
be the drift and the direction and maybe even the tip of the sphere of
the Democratic Party efforts. It said: We want single-payer healthcare
in California.
I served in the Wyoming State Senate, and I know the Presiding
Officer served in the State legislative body in her home State of Iowa.
We do a fiscal note. We say: What is this going to cost? Is it a good
idea? Can we afford it? What are the costs going to be? And the cost
for what they proposed in California is $400 billion. Can they afford
it? What is the total budget of the State of California? What is their
general fund for the year? It is only $190 billion. So what they are
proposing for healthcare alone is over twice what the entire general
fund for the entire State of California is. Yet, it passed. It was a
party-line vote in the State of California in the State senate, but
that is now the position that they are working to do.
So it is hard to get cooperation from somebody to work on dealing
with a healthcare plan when their plan is to go with more government,
more spending, pledging money they don't have. When I looked at it in
California, I said: If they want to do this, they will have to, No. 1,
cut spending on other things. When you think about where general
funding goes, it is for teachers, law enforcement, public safety, and
firefighters. But they would also have to raise taxes significantly to
get the money for what they want to promise everybody in this single-
payer healthcare plan.
I am interested in working in a bipartisan way with people, but it is
hard to get cooperation from people when their solution is more
government, higher taxes, and less freedom. We need a solution, and
that is what we are working on. I am very happy to say that it has been
discussed at length in our conference. We had another good meeting
about it yesterday, along with the Vice President, focusing on
eliminating taxes, getting rid of the mandate that says that people
must buy a government-approved product, giving people additional
choices, and giving the States flexibility to make a number of these
decisions.
I am from a State where agriculture plays a significant role, as is
the Presiding Officer. I will be at our Wyoming stock growers' meeting
on Friday when I am back home in the State. I was there a couple of
years ago after ObamaCare passed, talking to people who had insurance
that worked for them and worked for their families, but they lost it,
not because they couldn't afford to pay for what they had but because
what President Obama and the Democrats forced through in Congress said
it wasn't good enough for them.
Under the mandate, as to what my friends and neighbors and folks
around Wyoming have been saying was good enough for them and they could
afford, President Obama said it wasn't good enough for them. Who is the
better judge of what is good for a family in Iowa or Wyoming--President
Obama and the Democrats or the family there in Iowa or Wyoming who is
making the decision about what works best for them and their families?
I am sure I am going to hear more about it at the stock growers'
meeting on Friday, when I hear from families who say: What we had
worked, but lost it because it wasn't allowed to be sold anymore. The
President said it wasn't good enough for me. One woman said to me: Tell
the President that I can make the decisions for myself. I don't need
his help--referring to President Obama.
So we will continue to work toward the goal of making sure that we
have people who can get the insurance and care they need from a doctor
they choose at lower costs. That is what we needed with healthcare
reform. That is what we didn't get with ObamaCare. We got higher costs
and fewer choices. Across the board right now, it looks like in 7 out
of 10 counties in this country, people are down to one or two choices--
hardly a market. In many places it is a monopoly now. After the news
that came out yesterday from Anthem in Ohio and some of the news that
we see from Iowa and neighboring Nebraska, we are going to find that
many places will find themselves with no options available. Even with
the subsidies that the Democrats had promised to help deal with the
high premiums they have caused, there may be nobody to sell the
insurance even when the subsidies are available.
So I come to the floor, as I do just about every week, to talk about
the situation with the Obama healthcare law, the challenges the
American people face, and our commitment to help provide relief and
rescue the American people from what has happened to them under
President Obama's healthcare law.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the most important words in our
Constitution are the first three--``We the People''--written in a
beautiful script and written in a font size so that one can see it from
across the room. They set out the mission statement for our
Constitution, for our vision of government--not government of, by, and
for the privileged and the powerful but government of, by, and for the
people, as President Lincoln so eloquently summarized.
It is our responsibility as elected officials to look out for
decisions that serve this mission of government of, by, and for the
people, to fight in times of trouble for policies that provide a ladder
of opportunity and a foundation for families to thrive. But at this
very moment, a secret group of 13 Senators is devising a healthcare
plan with the intention of bringing it to this floor with no public
debate, no committee meeting, and no public notice. They want to just
bring it to the floor, have a few hours of debate, and put it forward,
even though it will affect millions of Americans. It probably will hurt
millions of Americans, but the secret 13 want to craft this policy. And
why in secret? Because they are plotting a plan that will hurt so many
people, they don't want the public involved in the process. They don't
want to hear from the citizens from rural America or urban America who
are so concerned about the TrumpCare bill--the bill that will
immediately destroy healthcare for 14 million Americans; the bill that
will immediately undermine the solvency and success of our rural
healthcare clinics and our rural hospitals; the bill that breaks every
promise the President put forward on healthcare.
It breaks the promise that every person will be covered, breaks the
promise that people with preexisting connections will get the same
price as everyone else, breaks the promise that the
[[Page S3308]]
policies will be even better, higher quality. Instead, it guts the
essential benefits. It breaks the promise that the insurance will be at
a lower cost. In fact, for someone roughly 64 years of age earning
about $26,500, their healthcare bill would go from $140 a month to
$1,200 a month--a sum that is clearly impossible to pay on an annual
income of $26,500. That is why it is being done in secret--because it
involves broken promise after broken promise, destroying healthcare in
every town and hamlet across America.
That is quite a contrast to the way ObamaCare was forged. ObamaCare
had a yearlong debate. It proceeded to be in committee markup--that
means with amendments being offered--in the HELP Committee for about 5
weeks, with television cameras rolling and 150 Republican amendments
accepted during that process. Then the Finance Committee had its turn,
and it had a very long markup, and it had dozens and dozens, if not 100
or more, Republican amendments adopted. The debate was all over the
country. It was in the newspapers. It was in every forum. It was right
there, square center, nothing hidden. But this is quite different. The
majority leader today has started the rule XIV process, specifically
intending to bypass those Senate committees and bring the TrumpCare
bill to the Senate floor, completely bypassing government of, by, and
for the people.
This is unacceptable. I think my colleagues know it is unacceptable,
but they are hoping to do it so quickly and so fast that they will have
a minimum of criticism across the country. There should be a maximum
amount of criticism on the floor of the Senate. Every Senator who
believes that this democracy--this democratic Republic--is one in which
we do the people's work should see the light of day. The debate should
see the light of day in the forging of the bill, as well as the final
debate here on the floor.
We know another reason this bill--this replacement or addition or
modification of the House bill--is being crafted in secret. That is
because the very premise of it is to give a massive tax break to the
wealthiest Americans, another promise broken in which Trump said that
this would not be done. But there it is, TrumpCare out of the House,
$600 billion given away to the richest Americans while devastating
healthcare for working Americans.
Has no one noticed that we have an incredible gap in income in this
country, with massive numbers of people earning very little and a few
at the top earning massive amounts? Has no one noticed that we have a
huge wealth gap in this Nation, with those at the bottom having few, if
any, savings and those at the top having billions upon billions? If we
have noticed, then we should care that that is not a foundation for
families to thrive. Indeed, it is something that is only made much
worse in a bill that takes away the foundation of healthcare--
essentially, the quality of life for families across America--and, in
turn, takes the savings and gives it to the wealthiest families.
There is a reason to hide this bill. There are a lot of reasons to
hide this bill. But it is undemocratic to have this secret group
developing this bill with an intention to bring it to the floor without
a committee hearing, without public exposure.
Folks back home are very worried, and I would like to share a few of
their stories.
Lynda of Talent, OR, who survived her battle with stomach cancer,
thanks to the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion--Lynda's friend
wrote to share her story. Lynda was a self-employed plumber, working
hard to get her business off the ground, but she was diagnosed with
stage IV stomach cancer. Lynda couldn't afford insurance, and she and
her husband couldn't afford to pay for treatment out of pocket because
they were already paying off enormous debt from care her husband had
received.
So what did Lynda do? She ignored the symptoms. She tried to go about
her life as best as she could. As her friend wrote, ``She would have
died rather than take on more debt that she was not sure she could
pay.'' But that changed with the Affordable Care Act the day Lynda
found out she would receive coverage under the Oregon Health Plan--
Oregon's Medicaid expansion.
Now there is good news to share. Lynda received treatment. She has
been cancer-free for almost a year, and her friend describes this as
``nothing short of a miracle.'' ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act,
delivered a miracle to an individual who was planning just to die
rather than get treatment and then could get treatment, thanks to
Medicaid expansion, and is now in remission.
TrumpCare is being reworked in secret by 13 of my colleagues out of
public sight. It wants to strip away that expansion of Medicaid, wants
to rip away the chance for people like Lynda to receive lifesaving
care.
Yvonne from Elmira, OR, sent a note to us about the high-risk pools
that Republicans want to institute under TrumpCare. She says:
Before the ACA existed, I was in our state's high risk pool
because no company would insure me because I had Asthma and
had an ovary removed because of cysts.
The $1500 deductible and $550 per month was hard to pay and
then it only covered 70%.
When I was severely injured in an accident and required
reconstructive surgery I ended up bankrupt.
But then, 2 years ago, she qualified for the Oregon Health Plan. Now
Yvonne has her medical needs covered at an affordable price and can't
be denied coverage or charged a higher premium because of her
preexisting conditions. Yvonne, like so many others, would suffer under
the Republican plan to strip away the protection for preexisting
conditions. She has had an accident, she has had an ovary removed, she
has had asthma. It would be extraordinarily difficult for her to get
insurance without the protection of everyone being in the same
healthcare pool together. If she could get insurance--which is not at
all clear--it would be at sky-high, unaffordable prices.
Bernard from Portland wrote to us. He said that an important thing
that often gets lost in this whole debate over the future of the
Affordable Care Act is the support it gives for Americans to innovate.
In 2011, Bernard in Portland chose to leave his job and pursue his
passion of becoming a freelance artist. Here is what he said, in his
words:
With my departure, I left behind the security of medical
coverage. For two years, I was not covered by medical
insurance, and fortunately nothing happened, but that is a
gamble nobody should have to take. And it's a gamble that I
could take being under 40 years old, and in relatively good
health.
A person should not have to stay in a job they may not even
like, and could be better filled by someone else, just for
fear of not having medical coverage.
He is right. One of the powerful things that has occurred under
ObamaCare is that individuals worked for firms and wanted to become
entrepreneurs but were afraid to do so because of the loss of
healthcare coverage, but now, either through the expansion of Medicaid
or through the exchanges, they can acquire insurance without being part
of a large company. That has unleashed entrepreneurship across the
country. People are pursuing their dreams and contributing to the
economy in all kinds of ways because they can now access healthcare
without being part of a company that provides healthcare.
Eventually, Bernard was able to afford a basic coverage plan. But it
didn't provide much, and it cost a significant portion of his income,
but it all changed with the ACA.
An October 2016 survey of American small businesses and a January
2017 followup survey found that one-third of 5,400 small business
owners interviewed had the confidence to start their own businesses
because they had access to healthcare through the ACA. According to the
Department of Labor, between 2013 when the ACA went into effect and the
end of 2015, the number of self-employed Americans increased by 3.5
percent.
These are just different ways of noting what we hear about all the
time--people launching their entrepreneurial efforts, launching their
companies because of the confidence they have that they can get
healthcare. That is the powerful unleashing of creativity. It is an
economic engine. It is a small business driver.
Lisa from Phoenix also wrote to share her powerful story. Lisa's
daughter suffers from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, so Lisa has stayed
home and
[[Page S3309]]
cared for her for the last 15 years while her husband worked. Now,
thanks to ACA's Medicaid expansion, her family has been able to hire
in-home help and it has been transformative.
Lisa's daughter has become more connected to the community, gained
new skills and independence, is contributing to household chores, and
has shown a great deal more vitality and engagement since the family
was able to get some assistance. It has gotten to the point where Lisa
can start thinking about her own needs a bit more. In fact, for the
first time in quite a while, she is considering taking on a job outside
her home to help provide more income.
The ACA isn't just saving lives in emergency health situations or by
addressing diseases. It is improving the quality of life for millions
of American families like Lisa's.
I will share one more constituent story today. It is hard to pick
just one more because there are so many stories coming in each and
every day. As we continue to talk about the assault on the health and
peace of mind of millions of Americans, I will be coming back to the
floor to share those stories coming in from other Oregonians. But this
last story comes from Warren in Tigard, OR.
Warren and his wife Joyce have been happily married for over 60
years, but in the last few years, Joyce has been suffering from
Alzheimer's. Joyce's disease has progressed very far. Among other
things, she has lost her mobility, much of her cognition, and she is
wheelchair bound. Her condition has progressed so far that Warren and
the home caregivers who were helping him care for his wife just
couldn't meet the need requirements any longer, so they admitted Joyce
to a nearby adult care facility, where she is now secure, stable, and
comfortable. But, as we know, the kind of care Joyce is receiving is
expensive. Warren writes:
This care costs $4,000 per month. Our long-term care
insurance is currently covering most of this cost, but only
about 4 months' worth of insurance coverage remains. So we
will have to obtain Medicaid coverage for her continued care.
But proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act could
jeopardize this coverage. I have not anticipated this
disastrous change, but fear it would be a tragedy for both of
us.
Yes, it would be a tragedy for Warren and for Joyce to have TrumpCare
pass and dismantle Medicaid and dismantle the exchanges. It would be a
tragedy for so many others in similar situations across the country.
Many people don't realize that Medicaid helps pay for nursing home
care for more than half of the nursing home residents--residents like
Joyce. But here is TrumpCare, planning to cut $880 billion in direct
Medicaid spending. It is basically: Well, too bad Warren and too bad
Joyce. We want to save some money so we can give big tax breaks to the
wealthiest Americans.
I must say, there is not a lot of caring in that perspective. It
embodies a principle, but is it really the principle we want in the
United States of America--the principle that the goal of the majority
party is to take away from those who have little to give more to those
who have most? Is that really the principle my Republican colleagues
want to embrace on the floor of the Senate?
Is that really the principle the secret 13 with their secret meetings
out of public sight to develop a new version of TrumpCare want to
embrace? I would suggest that is simply wrong. It is wrong from the
point of view of providing an opportunity for all Americans to thrive.
It is wrong from a moral point of view to pull healthcare--and the
peace of mind that comes with healthcare--out of the hands of
struggling Americans and working Americans across our country.
Finally, I want to address one more issue. We heard earlier today
that Anthem is pulling out of Ohio. Why are they pulling out? Because
of President Trump. Why is that connected? Because he refuses to
confirm that his administration will make the cost-sharing reduction
payments that have been part of the Affordable Care Act. Those payments
reduce the premiums. Those payments proceed also to reduce the level of
deductibles so you get more care sooner. So insurance companies don't
know whether to raise their insurance policy a little or a tremendous
amount, and that instability means they simply can't price their
policies.
In addition, my Republican colleagues have assaulted the risk
quarters, or reinsurance programs, that make it possible for an
insurance company to go into a new market and know that if they get a
disproportionate share of sick patients, they will get compensated for
that risk and that result. So that reinsurance is essential for more
companies to be in a particular market.
Moreover, the administration proceeded to not spend the money on
advertising in the last stage of signups and reduced the number of
people who were in the markets. So that is another assault on the
stability of health insurance in America. This is a deliberate,
straight-out effort to undermine healthcare in America to the
disadvantage of millions of Americans. It is being done by the
President without any action even happening on TrumpCare here in the
Senate. It is wrong. It is hurting a lot of people, and the President
should stop.
With that, I conclude my comments.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask permission to speak under
leadership time for a brief moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
With respect to the pending vote on the Iran sanctions bill, I want
to be very clear. Democrats will vote to advance this bill to the floor
because most of us support the bill but also because we expect an
amendment process that will follow for a vote on a strong package of
Russia sanctions. I have talked to the Republican leader about this. He
is amenable to that.
Our Republican colleagues should realize it will be very difficult to
gather Democratic support for final passage of this bill until we deal
with Russia sanctions. We feel strongly that we need a tough, effective
package of Russia sanctions to move alongside the Iran sanctions. We
are currently negotiating to that end. I have faith that the majority
leader and I, along with Chairman Corker, Chairman Crapo, Ranking
Member Cardin, and Ranking Member Brown, will be able to agree on a way
forward that allows for a final vote on Iran sanctions alongside a
strong and effective package of Russia sanctions.
With that, I yield the floor.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 110, S. 722, a bill to impose
sanctions with respect to Iran in relation to Iran's
ballistic missile program, support for acts of international
terrorism, and violations of human rights, and for other
purposes.
Todd Young, Joni Ernst, Bill Cassidy, Ron Johnson, Tom
Cotton, Orrin G. Hatch, Roger F. Wicker, Pat Roberts,
Mitch McConnell, Richard Burr, Luther Strange, James M.
Inhofe, Mike Crapo, Shelley Moore Capito, John Cornyn,
Bob Corker, John Barrasso.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 722, a bill to impose sanctions with respect to
Iran in relation to Iran's ballistic missile program, support for acts
of international terrorism, and violations of human rights, and for
other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:
[[Page S3310]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]
YEAS--91
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Duckworth
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--8
Carper
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Merkley
Paul
Sanders
Udall
NOT VOTING--1
Cruz
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 91, the nays are 8.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Change of Vote
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 140, I voted yea.
It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the
outcome of the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
The President's Budget
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to
speak about the need to ensure that the policies that we make in this
Chamber work for and support rural America.
Senators Stabenow, Heitkamp, and I are all from the Midwest--the
heartland. We represent the people who are truly in the middle of this
country--the middle of the country economically, politically--and who
are often middle-income people who need representatives who are focused
on what matters to them.
Each year I visit all 87 counties in my State, and I hear a lot. I
hear about dads who can't be sure their sons or daughters will have the
support they need to take over the family farm when the time comes,
small business owners who can't get a broadband connection, moms who
can't figure out how to pay for their kids' prescriptions when the
costs go up, and manufacturers who can't find workers to fill jobs.
Rural America has been left behind. The poverty rate in their areas
for kids is higher than it is in urban areas. Businesses may not invest
when they can't get reliable internet access or they can't get the
right people to support their operation. Housing is hard to come by.
We should be focused on supporting our farmers and ensuring that
people can raise a family in a small town and have the healthcare they
need. We should be making sure that high-quality education is
attainable and that job training options are available and affordable.
We should be able to provide every person in this country with a clear
path to a good job.
Unfortunately, from the administration we have seen a disconnect
between rhetoric and policy. We have seen a budget that hits the
heartland with 21 percent cuts in the Department of Agriculture--cuts
to grant programs that support rural homeownership, provide clean
drinking water and wastewater systems, and promote access to critical
services such as rural hospitals. It eliminates rural business programs
that help create hundreds of thousands of jobs. If enacted, these cuts
would have a damaging impact on rural communities throughout the
country.
Rural communities help our country get ahead. They are the backbone
of our country. We need to work to find common ground on these issues,
and we need a budget that helps and not hurts the heartland.
I see my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, is here as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to first thank my friend and
colleague, the senior Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar. She is a
very important part of our Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee. She provides tremendous leadership. We both come from great
``M'' States. So it is always great to have an opportunity to be part
of sharing remarks on such an important topic. I am also pleased to
state that Senator Heitkamp will be joining us today, as well, from
another very important rural State.
Michigan small towns and rural communities embody much of our State's
way of life and drive our economy forward. I grew up in one of those
small towns, in Clare, in Northern Michigan. I believe that towns like
mine should be celebrated and strengthened. We want young people to go
to college and feel that there is a future to come home to, either back
to the farm or the small business or participating in the community or
maybe working at the local hospital, but being part of continuing this
important way of life.
People in our communities deserve every opportunity to be able to
raise their families with well-paying jobs and a high quality of life,
like everyone in every part of Michigan and all across the country
wants to have, but many rural areas and many small towns face unique
challenges in developing and maintaining infrastructure.
Broadband. We now need to make sure that the farm at the end of the
road is connected with high-speed internet. At one point in our
country's history, it was the telephone. It was electric poles and
being able to connect the farm at the end of the road to the rest of
the community. Now it is high-speed broadband, and it is critically
important that that happen.
Providing high-quality health services and education. My mother was a
nurse--the director of nursing--at the small hospital in Clare for
many, many years. So I know how important not only healthcare was and
making sure there were doctors in our town but also making sure there
were jobs, because one of the top employers in our community was the
hospital. That remains true today.
When the Trump administration released its budget proposal at the end
of the month, frankly, I was shocked to see the kinds of disinvestments
and sharp cuts that would hurt small towns like Clare and rural
communities all across Michigan and all across the country. No matter
which part you look at, President Trump's budget is bad for rural
Michigan, and it is bad for rural America.
First, the budget calls for a 21-percent cut to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, which is our second largest industry. One out of four
jobs in Michigan is connected to agriculture and the food economy. In
the President's budget, it was decided that the third largest cut to
any Federal agency would be in the Department of Agriculture. This will
dramatically reduce and eliminate very key rural development services.
The budget would zero out funding for water and sewer infrastructure
projects, which is amazing to me. I can drive from one end of Michigan
to the other and see communities in which rural development has made
all the difference in supporting the ability to have clean water and
water and sewer systems, as well as other important infrastructure.
This program has improved nearly 6,000 rural water systems, including
many in Michigan. There is an extremely high demand for upgrading water
and sewer systems across the country. Right now, the USDA has a backlog
of nearly 1,000 applications from small towns that need to improve
their water systems.
President Trump's answer, as part of his infrastructure package, is
to say that this will come from not supporting rural communities
ourselves but leaving it up to Wall Street investors or, maybe, foreign
countries to invest in our water systems, like Saudi Arabia or China.
The fact is that Wall Street investors are not investing in rural
communities. I would argue that that is not a good strategy anyway. We
know that, when you depend on that kind of a strategy--foreign country
investor or Wall Street investor efforts--
[[Page S3311]]
those investments are not being done in small towns like the one in
which I grew up. Towns with populations of a few hundred people cannot
afford the high interest rates--or the toll roads, by the way--that
come with a lot of the projects in this kind of approach.
The budget also undermines rural jobs and businesses in communities
in which unemployment is already too high. The USDA's small business
loans are eliminated under the President's budget. Again, I can go from
community to community around Michigan and see wonderful small
businesses operating with the support of rural development loans. These
are programs that have saved almost 800,000 jobs and have helped
finance more than 107,000 businesses in the last 8 years alone.
This proposal that the White House put out also jeopardizes what I
talked about earlier, which is rural broadband, or high-speed internet,
for communities in order to access education, rural healthcare, and
telemedicine, as well as addressing issues like resources to curb the
opioid epidemic. Last year, the FCC found that 39 percent of rural
Americans--that is, roughly, 23 million people--lack access to high-
speed internet service. This is astounding to me when we look at this
as a challenge that we have in 2017.
President Trump's budget also targets the farm bill directly for $231
billion in cuts. We work together on a strategy for a 5-year economic
development plan. We do it on a bipartisan basis. It will be time to
bring that up again next year. That 5-year process gives certainty to
our farmers and communities and those interested and committed to
conservation and bioenergy and all of the other provisions in the farm
bill. To see--outside of this 5-year period and our bipartisan
process--the Trump administration come in and target these funds for a
cut of $231 billion, again, is shocking to me. If that were to pass, it
would be impossible for us to write the next farm bill next year.
Cutting crop insurance by $29 billion would take away critical
support for farmers right at a time of low commodity prices. We moved
from subsidies to risk management in crop insurance in the last bill,
saving taxpayer dollars. We made a commitment to farmers purchasing
insurance, where they are writing a check for the insurance bill
instead of getting a subsidy during good times, but you have the
insurance if there is a weather event, if commodity prices are low, if
there is another challenge like we are seeing today for our farmers.
Our farmers also need export opportunities in order to sell their
products, which are in high demand around the world. We have to be able
to sell agricultural products. The budget eliminates important market-
access programs to help our farmers sell. Simply put, cuts to these
programs mean lower economic growth, less development, less
opportunity, and a lower quality of life in small towns in Michigan and
all across rural America.
Our small towns and rural communities deserve better, and we are
standing here today as advocates and voices for them. We know, as farm
prices are down nearly 50 percent from their highs just a few years ago
and producers are struggling to make ends meet, that these are
challenging times, and we need to understand that. We need to write a
farm bill and focus on those areas to support our farmers and growers.
We know there are those like our dairy farmers, in particular, who are
in challenging times, and we need to make sure we are addressing their
concerns as well.
Rural America is the economic backbone of the country. Somebody has
to grow something, and somebody has to make something. Otherwise, you
do not have an economy. That is what happens in rural Michigan and
rural America. Yet we also know that too many communities are still
struggling to recover from the great recession.
From my perspective, I join with the 500 groups from every part of
agriculture, the food economy, nutrition, and conservation groups--
everyone involved in the food economy--in saying that we cannot afford
additional cuts to agriculture, rural communities, and other parts of
the farm bill that support our ongoing economy.
It is critically important that we stand with those in every small
town in Michigan and across our country in saying that we understand
and are partners with you in making sure that, when you work hard, you
have the quality of life for yourself and your family that you deserve,
and we are going to do our part to make sure that support is there.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, while I join Senator Stabenow in her
remarks, I want to thank her for her tremendous leadership on the
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and for working across
the aisle with Chairman Roberts. The two of them, I have no doubt, will
be able to come to an agreement and keep working on getting an even
stronger farm bill. It took some Herculean efforts to get the last farm
bill done, and it would not have happened without her. I appreciate
what she said about the importance of the farm bill and the USDA.
I would also add another important pillar of strong rural economics,
and that is job training.
Starting with high school, I think we all have to come to grips with
the fact that not every kid wants to get a 4-year degree. In fact, we
have so many openings across this country--millions of job openings--
whether it be on a plant floor, whether it be as a plumber or as a
welder, that can be obtained with a 1-year or a 2-year degree. My own
sister did not graduate from high school. She went on, years later, and
got her GED, and then she went on to get a 2-year degree. After that,
she got 2 more years of training and became an accountant. There is not
just one path in America.
Part of this is investing in STEM--science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics--and doing it early so that kids get a jump start on
the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, this is not just your Ph.D.s and
Silicon Valley jobs. This also includes blue-collar jobs. I call it
blue STEM. There is a shortage, as I said, of welders and auto
mechanics, and those can be good-paying jobs. We need to talk about
them with dignity, and we have to realize that this is where the
openings are.
The other piece of this, in addition to training kids in high school,
is to make sure we have apprenticeship programs available. This year, a
report came out in my State that 68 percent of Minnesota manufacturers
found it was difficult for them to find workers with the right skills
and experience. That is up from 40 percent in 2010.
I see that Senator Heitkamp is here. As they are starting to add some
more jobs in the oil patch in North Dakota, it is going to become even
harder to find Minnesotans to fill some of our jobs because some of
them like to go over to North Dakota.
Senator Collins and I have introduced a bill called the American
Apprenticeship Act, which would expand tuition assistance for pre-
apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs. The President has talked
about workforce development as being a priority. Yet we have seen a cut
of 15 percent in Department of Education grants for career and
technical education, as well as a 36-percent cut to Labor Department
funding for training and employment services.
As I noted before, there is this disconnect between the rhetoric we
hear and what we are reading in the black and white of this budget. I
know there are people on both sides of the aisle here, including the
Senator from North Dakota, who want to work on bridging that difference
and getting a good budget done that really helps rural America.
I see Senator Heitkamp is here, and I thank her for coming. Senator
Heitkamp serves on the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee.
She was an integral part of the last farm bill and will be an integral
part of this as well as in really understanding the economics within a
rural State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I thank my good friend the Senator from
Minnesota. She just exists to the east of me. We share a common border,
but we also share a common belief that Washington is not devoid of
ideas. Somehow, it has just lost the capacity to bring those ideas to
fruition. As my great friend the Senator from Minnesota can attest,
there are hundreds--
[[Page S3312]]
and probably thousands--of great ideas for small business, for workers,
for improving the economic conditions of people in this country that
are here, ready for debate, and ready for passage.
What is not a formula for success for America is the budget. The
President's budget would devastate rural communities. I am not given to
hyperbole, and I am not given to exaggeration, but the absolute, bare
fact is that this budget will decimate economic opportunity not only
for American agriculture but for economic opportunity and security for
rural communities.
When we think about North Dakota, it is hard to imagine a State that
most of the people in this country would imagine more equated with
rural America. I tease Amy many times when I tell her: Oh, it is coming
up from the Cities, because our big opportunity to travel and to see
the sites of the big city really is Minneapolis and St. Paul. But a lot
of Minnesota--a lot of western Minnesota in particular, the area that I
know about--is engaged in agriculture, and we share a common border,
but we share a common purpose.
I wanted to start off by saying that in North Dakota, we understand
the value of rural communities. We understand the value of investing in
agriculture and infrastructure and how important those things are to
boosting our local economy. We see the direct impacts of it on our
families, businesses, and towns.
Most of us--me included--come from towns of fewer than 100 people. In
fact, I am proud to say that growing up, there were nine people in my
family, and my family was one-tenth of the population of the small town
I lived in. We are proud of that. We are proud of our rural roots, and
we are proud that from those life experiences growing up, we learned a
lot about compromise, we learned a lot about work ethic, and we learned
a lot about the importance of community and working together.
We also learned a lot about the importance of investment. Without
critical investment, our rural communities are at risk, and I think
that could have dramatic and drastic ramifications for our State, our
counties, our families, and our neighbors. Instead of lifting up rural
communities, the Presidential budget pushes us down.
Rural communities and the jobs there--including agriculture--are
vital to many of the families I know but really families across the
country. There are over 30,000 farmers and ranchers in North Dakota who
lead the country in producing spring wheat, durum, sunflowers, canola,
dry edible beans, flax, honey, and many more specialty crops and grain
crops. These farmers feed North Dakota, our country, and the world.
In 2015, agriculture contributed more than $9.1 billion to my State's
economy. That may not seem like a lot when we are talking about
California, but that is a huge amount when we are talking about North
Dakota.
About one-third of North Dakota's jobs are directly tied to
agriculture. There are implement dealers, veterinarians, agriculture
retailers, and many more who are closely associated with agribusiness.
There are countless other jobs that support these rural communities,
such as teachers, firefighters, police officers, and more.
Since the election, there has been a great deal of talk in Washington
about rural America. I think rural America reared up its head in this
past election and said ``We are not to be forgotten'' and they believed
they had secured an advocate in Washington in this current
administration, only to be basically told otherwise by a Presidential
budget.
So what does the budget mean, and why should we pay attention to it?
I think the first thing we need to know about a budget is that it is
about priorities. It is really a values document. Unfortunately, the
President's budget shows that the administration doesn't value North
Dakota or really, in fact, rural America. In fact, it targets both.
Today I want to talk a little bit more specifically about how
devastating this budget would be for rural communities across my State
and across the country.
This budget would slash USDA's budget by over 21 percent, cutting
$231 billion from funding from the farm bill over the next decade. It
would specifically cut $29 billion--$29 billion--from crop insurance
over the next decade. This is crop insurance our farmers rely on,
especially at a time of challenging weather and low commodity prices.
Crop insurance helps prevent family farms from going under when
disaster strikes. Without an affordable crop insurance program, a
drought or a flood could wipe out the wealth of an entire family and
basically bankrupt a family farm.
When ranchers and farmers do well, North Dakota does well, and so
will all the rest of the country. To challenge these farmers with a
crop insurance program that will be nonexistent is to take away the
opportunity for food security in this country--food security that is so
closely linked and important to national security.
By drastically reducing field staff, the President's budget also
prevents USDA from achieving its mission to support rural communities.
The budget calls for reducing staffing levels at USDA by 5,200
employees. Nearly 2,500 of those employees are with the Farm Service
Agency, Rural Development, and Natural Resources. What does that mean?
The Farm Service Agency's caseloads have increased in North Dakota, and
the current hiring ban has hampered efforts to administer the farm
programs--those efforts which are critical to farmers as they make
their business decisions.
I can't tell my colleagues the number of times farmers across my
State have come up to me and said how grateful they are that the Farm
Service Agency is available in their county and available to them to
provide advice and much needed documentation on their decisionmaking on
how they are going to implement the farm program.
In fact, I tease those farmers a little bit, because they always say:
You know, that Farm Service gal--usually a woman who has been with the
Agency over decades and knows that farm as well as that farmer, and
when that farmer walks through the door to get that advice and to get
that number, they know that not only do they have a friend sitting
across the table from them--probably a neighbor--they also have an
advocate sitting across the table. We don't want to lose that
connection to this vital service, the Farm Service Agency, by making
this about picking up the phone and pressing buttons and talking to
someone who would barely even understand or even know North Dakota or
the county the farmer is in. So at a time when farmers and ranchers are
already experiencing low commodity prices, these cuts to the Farm
Service Agency would limit the ability of that Agency to provide
timely, accurate, and useful services to our family farmers and our
ranchers.
The budget would create huge challenges for rural healthcare. On top
of the $800-plus billion taken out of the Medicaid Program by the
Republican healthcare bill, this budget would also cut $610 billion
from Medicaid by reducing it to a block grant program.
Medicaid is a lifesaving, cost-effective program that enables more
than 90,000 seniors, individuals and children with disabilities, and
low-income families to get affordable, quality care.
I want my colleagues to think about the enormous challenge of
delivering healthcare in a sparsely populated area. One of the
challenges my rural healthcare providers have not had in the last many
years since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is
uncompensated care. But when we go back to uncompensated care, on top
of operating on razor-thin margins, we are now going to say that not
only are you operating on razor-thin margins, but you are not going to
have your bills paid, making it impossible for you to meet payroll and
impossible for you to continue to provide these resources.
So we have real challenges in rural healthcare as a result of this
budget and the Republican proposal.
The President's budget also cuts nearly $400 million in Federal funds
for substance abuse prevention and behavioral health workforce training
programs at the same time that every part of this country--particularly
rural parts of our country--is facing opioid abuse. In North Dakota
alone, fatalities from opioid abuse have grown 125 percent.
I met just yesterday with the North Dakota Medical Association, which
told me that every day this week in Fargo, ND, there has been a death
as a
[[Page S3313]]
result of overdoses. It is hard to imagine that is happening in our
rural communities in places like North Dakota, but it is.
I talked to a healthcare provider in Dickinson, ND, who told me that
while his average percentage of Medicaid recipients in his hospital is
about 15 to 20 percent, as it relates to opioids and behavior and
mental health, it is well over 60, bordering on 70 percent. So the
population, without Medicaid dollars, would not be able to get
important rehabilitation and treatment services.
Last week, I also visited one of our rural airports that are
dependent on the Essential Air Service. That is absolutely critical to
maintaining air service in Jamestown, in Devil's Lake, and now in
Dickinson, which has gone back to Essential Air Service after years of
not needing that support because of the growth in the Bakken oilfield.
Last week, while talking to the folks in Dickinson, they told me
there are 475 jobs which are dependent on the airport, which helped
generate $76.6 million for the area in 2015. The Dickinson Airport
would receive about $4.2 million in assistance from the Essential Air
Service each year, but when we look at how that investment pays off in
terms of dividends, it seems like a small price to pay.
It would eliminate funding to protect water programs and
infrastructure in rural areas which have improved water and wastewater
systems for more than 40 North Dakota towns, Tribal reservations, and
water districts since 2010.
This budget would also eliminate the Community Development Block
Grant Program, which helped the State of North Dakota improve housing
conditions for low- and moderate-income families with $4.9 million in
investments in 2016.
It would eliminate the Economic Development Administration, which has
provided over $34 million in investments since 2009 to local economic
development organizations in North Dakota, particularly those in rural
towns.
The list goes on and on and on. We haven't talked about the reduction
in services for export markets. We haven't talked about research
reductions at USDA and what that would mean. We haven't talked about
eliminating trade assistance. All of these things have huge
consequences for large pieces of the United States of America.
What I would say to the administration is that rural America expects
better. Rural America thought they were going to get better than this.
Rural America has enough challenges. We have volatile commodity prices,
healthcare shortages, declining populations, and I will tell my
colleagues that today in North Dakota, there is a potential disaster
from drought. The President's budget would not only not help rural
America thrive, it would only make matters worse.
Rather than taking an ax to proven, successful programs that
strengthen our rural communities, we need strong investments in rural
communities, jobs, and families, that help support North Dakota's
future.
With this budget, the administration's priorities are clear for
everyone to see. It is now Congress's job to set spending priorities
and fund programs in rural America to a level so that we know rural
America can not only survive but can thrive.
North Dakota needs and deserves a strong voice at the table. I will
make sure that we tell the story of all of these programs, that we tell
the story of how critically important these programs are to maintaining
our opportunity to produce food in our country but also to raise our
children in rural settings. It is beyond belief to me that we are in
this situation given the level of support that rural America provided
to this administration and to this President during the last election.
We know we can do better, and we will do better. We know we can't
waste money. We know we have to deploy these valuable resources in ways
that actually produce results. I can show my colleagues result after
result after result and the importance of providing these services so
that rural communities can thrive.
I will close with this: A little-known fact is that so many of our
rural communities today are the most impoverished places in America.
When people think of poverty, they think of inner city poverty, they
think of other pieces of America they have seen, but we know that the
rates of poverty, the rates of challenges in terms of healthcare,
education--those challenges are much greater in rural America. The last
thing we need to do is saddle rural America with a 500-pound rock, put
it on their backs, and still expect them to thrive. This budget is a
500-pound rock on the backs of our farmers who work every day to put
food on their table, but more importantly, work every day to feed
America.
With that, I yield the floor and turn it back to my friend from the
State of Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Heitkamp for her
understanding not just of farm policy but also the importance of
keeping towns strong, manufacturing strong, and transportation strong.
I will note that the infrastructure portions of this budget are very
concerning. The point has been made by others that right now, under the
proposed budget, at a time when our deteriorating infrastructure is
costing our economy a lot of money--not just congestion, not just
potholes, but in delaying getting goods to market--unfortunately, this
budget proposal would cut funding for vital transportation programs.
It will eliminate funding for the TIGER Grant Program. Currently, the
program provides $500 million per year to help fund local
transportation priorities. It eliminates funding for Essential Air
Service, which helps support commercial air service to rural airports.
It eliminates the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment
Grant Program, which funds light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail,
street car, and bus rapid transit projects. We can't wait any longer to
make critical investments in our infrastructure.
Probably right up there with any of these infrastructure needs in
rural America is broadband. Internet access is a great equalizing force
for creating jobs and leveling the playing field. There is a big
digital gap when it comes to rural America. I know the percentages;
close to 40 percent of Americans in rural areas do not have access to
high-speed broadband. It used to be that slow speed would be OK if
someone were trying to email their kid in school maybe 10, 15 years
ago, but this is not true anymore. Now, if you want to do your work, if
you want to go to the hospital--whatever you want to do in rural
America, you are going to have to have high-speed internet.
I think about the doctor in Brainerd, MN, who for so long could look
at x rays in the hospital but couldn't look at them in his home. If he
had some emergency and wanted to talk to someone when he got home that
evening, he had to go to the McDonald's parking lot to be able to do
that.
There was a student at one of our reservations who got Wi-Fi in his
house, looked out the window, and all of a sudden all these kids were
doing their homework in his front yard. That is just not right. Rural
Americans deserve equal footing so they can launch new businesses,
export their goods, or just Skype with their loved ones.
This is about the farm bill, yes, but it is also about this budget
and making sure this budget works for all Americans and leaves no one
behind.
Sadly, these cuts are specifically targeted at rural America. That is
why we are going to fight to make sure, hopefully on a bipartisan basis
with colleagues on the Republican side, we produce a budget that is
fair to everyone.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
(The remarks of Mr. Flake pertaining to the introduction of S. 1305
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from New York.
(The remarks of Mrs. Gillibrand and Mr. Cassidy pertaining to the
introduction of S. 1313 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
[[Page S3314]]
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to bring two
baskets of hemp products onto the floor of this body.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
National Hemp History Week
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is National Hemp History Week, a
chance to recognize a product that has deep roots going way back in
America but faces some of the most anti-farmer, anti-job, unjustifiable
policies that are on the American legal books today. Because of its
relation to marijuana, hemp can't legally be grown in American fields.
Now, hemp is harmless. Hemp grown for industrial use simply does not
have marijuana psychoactive properties. You are going to get as high
off hemp as you will off a bag of vegetables. But, still, farmers in
Oregon and across the country can't legally grow it. So if America is
serious about banning harmless products like hemp, just because they
are related to drugs, then I have bad news for fans of poppy seed
muffins.
This is the third year I have come to the floor during this time--
National Hemp History Week--to talk about the importance of industrial
hemp, its huge economic potential for hard-working farmers, and the
indefensible ban that keeps so many American farmers from growing it.
As was the case before, I am joined by Malcolm McGeary from Southern
Oregon, where a lot of farmers have an interest in this, to showcase a
variety of hemp products in these baskets on the floor because, despite
the ban on growing hemp, you can legally import it for use in products
sold in stores across the country.
What really changed my mind on this was when my wife was pregnant--we
are older parents--with our third child, and we went into a Costco
store. We went into a Costco store on a weekend at home in Oregon, and
there were these big bags of hemp hearts, and it said: healthy, good
for the blood pressure, fiber--everything that one would expect in
Pennsylvania or Oregon. I know the Presiding Officer is one of the most
physically fit members of the body. I see him in the gym all the time
so he obviously cares a lot about nutrition. So Nancy and I were
walking through Costco, and it said this giant bag of hemp hearts could
be purchased there. You say to yourself: Let me see if I get this
straight. The hemp comes from Canada, so the farmers must just be
laughing all the way to the bank because they are making money. I get
what we do is we put it in bags, and it is sold in Costco. That led me
to the really intellectual concept of saying that if you can sell it at
a Costco in Oregon, why can't our farmers grow it? It is not much more
complicated than that.
When you are shopping for hemp products, it is not just potato sacks
and rough fabric by the yard. There is clothing, lotions and food, hemp
milk, nutritional supplements--all these products Mr. McGeary has--used
to make soaps, cleaners, and even deck stain. I understand Mr. McGeary
may even be wearing a hemp tie. None of these products can be called
100 percent American because every bit of the hemp in these baskets had
to be grown someplace else, which is essentially what I described as
the Wydens toured Costco at home.
When it was imported, it wasn't an American farmer earning money off
that sale. Despite the consumer demand for hemp products and the
ingenuity of so many producers who find uses for it, American farmers
are cut out of the hemp equation.
The ban on hemp is not anti-drug policy. I think that is what has
been confusing with respect to this issue. The ban on hemp is not going
to advance the cause of being against drugs. It is not anti-drug
policy. It is anti-farmer policy, and it is anti-American jobs policy.
As I indicated, if you can buy it in a local supermarket, the
American farmer ought to be able to grow it. Yet year after year,
despite a lot of work from Members on both sides of the aisle in this
body and in the House, hemp remains on the controlled substance list.
Hemp is not a drug. It is a big opportunity for our farmers. So it is
long past time to end these statutory relics of history that cut
American farmers out of a valuable market.
Despite the fact that hemp continues to be stigmatized by Federal
laws, there is some good news and progress. The 2014 farm bill began to
chip away at the Federal ban. It OK'd hemp research projects led by
universities and agriculture departments in States like Oregon and
Kentucky that take a smarter approach to hemp. These projects are
showing significant success. Farmers are ready to grow hemp, and
States' agriculture departments are ready to regulate.
The first steps, in my view, don't go far enough, and even some of
these early projects remain tied up in redtape due to the Federal ban.
In my view, the only real solution is a legislative solution. So here
we have a bipartisan coalition, the kind of coalition you see in the
U.S. Senate when people really look into the facts and Members decide
to make common cause. We have the good fortune of having the majority
leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, as one of our principal
sponsors; Senator Paul, his colleague; Senator Merkley; and I
reintroducing the Hemp Farming Act. We pursued this for a number of
years. I introduced it every Congress since 2011.
Last year, our bipartisan bill had more than a dozen Senate
cosponsors. This year, the goal is to again find common ground to
remove hemp from the schedule I controlled substance list, give the go-
ahead to farmers across the country who are ready to grow industrial
hemp, and, once again, make it a true American crop.
I hope my colleagues will join in the effort to celebrate National
Hemp History Week. I hope they will use it to learn more about a very
versatile crop, a safe crop, and one with really extraordinary
potential to boost jobs in the economy, in our agricultural sector, and
our domestic employment base.
This is commonsense legislation. Again, we have the good fortune to
be led by the majority leader, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky,
Mr. McConnell. We will be introducing this commonsense legislation very
shortly.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Countering Iran's
Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. For too long, a myopic focus on
the Iran deal blinded the United States to Iran's persistent campaign
to destabilize the Middle East and undermine America's national
security interests. Iran has been given a free pass to detain U.S.
sailors in clear violation of international law, conduct ballistic
missile tests in violation of the United Nations resolutions, support
terrorist groups across the region, and prop up the murderous Assad
regime in Syria.
It is long past time for the United States and the international
community to hold Iran accountable, not just for its commitments under
the nuclear deal but for its destabilizing behavior across the Middle
East. This legislation begins to do just that by imposing new sanctions
on Iran's ballistic missile program, applying terrorism sanctions to
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, imposing sanctions on Iranians
engaged in human rights abuses, and tightening enforcement on arms
embargoes on the Iranian regime.
I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Senators Corker and Cardin, for ringing this bill to the
floor. They recognize that the United States must not stand idly by
when hostile regimes undermine and attack our interests and that of our
allies. They recognize that regimes that aid and abet crimes against
humanity must be held accountable. They recognize that weakness in the
face of aggression is provocative.
These are the reasons we must pass this legislation, but these are
also the very same reasons this legislation must be amended to
strengthen and expand sanctions against Vladimir Putin's Russia.
In just the last 3 years under Vladimir Putin, Russia has invaded
Ukraine, annexed Crimea, threatened NATO allies, and intervened
militarily in Syria,
[[Page S3315]]
leaving a trail of death, destruction, and broken promises in its wake.
Last year, Russia attacked the foundations of American democracy with
a cyber and information campaign to interfere in America's 2016
election. It has been 8 months now since the U.S. intelligence
community publicly concluded that the Russian Government had attempted
to interfere in our last Presidential election.
On October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that the ``U.S.
intelligence community is confident that the Russian government
directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and
institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.'' The
statement concluded that ``only Russia's senior-most officials could
have authorized these activities.''
On January 6, 2017, the U.S. intelligence community went even
further, concluding:
Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence
campaign in 2016 aimed at the United States presidential
election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in
the United States democratic process, denigrate Secretary
Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.
The intelligence community ``did not make an assessment of the impact
that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election,'' but
they did warn that ``Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-
ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. Presidential election to future
influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their
election processes.''
Since January, months of congressional hearings, testimony, and
investigative work have reinforced these conclusions: that Russia
deliberately interfered in our recent election with cyber attacks and a
disinformation campaign designed to weaken America and undermine faith
in our democracy and our values.
Vladimir Putin's brazen attack on our democracy is a flagrant
demonstration of his disdain and disrespect for our Nation. This should
not just outrage every American, it should compel us to action. But in
the last 8 months, what price has Russia paid for attacking American
democracy? Hardly any at all: modest sanctions against a few Russian
individuals and entities, some Russian diplomats and spies sent home to
Russia, two spy compounds have closed, at least for now--and all of
this reversible and at the discretion of the President.
What has Russia's reaction been to America's tepid response and
reaction to its aggressive behavior? More of the same. More aggression,
more meddling. Russia attempted to overthrow the democratically elected
Government of Montenegro and murder its Prime Minister. Russia
attempted to interfere in France's election. We have already seen
attempts to influence German public opinion ahead of the elections in
September, and there is every expectation that Russia will do the same
thing in the Czech Republic, Italy, and elsewhere in future elections.
Sooner or later, my friends, there will be another American election
that captures Russian attention and interest. The victim may be a
Republican or a Democrat. To Putin, it won't matter because his targets
are not Republicans or Democrats but Americans and all that we stand
for as a people. He seeks to sow dissent amongst us and divide us from
one another, to erode our resolve to resist his dark and dangerous view
of the world, and to undermine our confidence in ourselves and our
belief in our own values.
We must take our own side in this fight--not as Republicans, not as
Democrats, but as Americans. It is time to respond to Russia's attack
on American democracy with strength and resolve, with common purpose,
and with action. Together with Senator Graham and a number of other
Senators, I am prepared to offer an amendment to this legislation that
will begin to do just that. It incorporates some of the best ideas from
different pieces of legislation already introduced in the Senate, ideas
that have broad bipartisan support.
The amendment we are talking about would impose mandatory sanctions
on transactions with the Russian defense or intelligence sectors,
including the FSB and the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency
that was primarily responsible for Russia's attack on our election.
The amendment would impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on
any individual who undermines the cyber security of public or private
infrastructure and democratic institutions. It would impose mandatory
sanctions on those who assist or support such activities.
The amendment would codify existing sanctions on Russia by placing
into law five Executive orders signed by President Obama in response to
both Russian interference in the 2016 election and its illegal actions
in Ukraine, and it would take new steps to tighten those sanctions. For
example, Russia's ability to issue new sovereign debt essentially
allows Russia to borrow money from global capital markets to offset
pressure from existing U.S. and European sanctions. So this amendment
would impose mandatory sanctions on U.S. and third-party investment in
sales of Russian sovereign debt as well as in the privatization of
Russian state-owned assets.
The amendment would target the Russian energy sector, which is
controlled by Vladimir Putin's cronies, with sanctions on investments
in Russian petroleum and natural gas development as well as Russian
energy pipelines.
We also need to put additional pressure on the ability of Putin and
his cronies to move money they have looted from the Russian state. So
this amendment would mandate that the Secretary of the Treasury
establish a high-level task force within the Department's Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network that would focus on tracing, mapping, and
prosecuting illicit financial flows linked to Russia if such flows
interact with the U.S. financial system. The task force would also work
with liaison officers in key U.S. Embassies, especially in Europe, to
work with local authorities to uncover and prosecute the networks
responsible for the illicit Russian financial flows.
Finally, recognizing that Russia seeks to undermine not just American
democracy but Western democracy altogether, this amendment would
provide support to the State Department, the Global Engagement Center,
and USAID to help build the resilience of democratic institutions in
Europe against Russian aggression exerted through corruption,
propaganda, and other forms of political interference.
We need a strong Russia sanctions amendment. We need it now. We need
it on this piece of legislation. We need this amendment because we have
no time to waste. The United States of America needs to send a strong
message to Vladimir Putin and any other aggressor that we will not
tolerate attacks on our democracy. There is no greater threat to our
freedoms than attacks on our ability to choose our own leaders free
from foreign interference. So we must act accordingly, and we must act
now.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this body has a dual obligation--to
ensure that there are sanctions against Iran for its destabilizing
activity around the region and, indeed, the world but also sanctions
against Russia for its interference with our election--one of the core
democratic institutions of our Nation--as well as other acts that are
hostile to the world order and to world peace.
I support S. 722, the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act,
but I strongly believe it should have Russian sanctions included as
well.
As the Senate proceeds to this urgently needed measure, Iran's own
Parliament has suffered an ISIS-claimed terrorist attack in Tehran. I
condemn that act of terror--one of many the world has suffered because
of ISIS. We are at war with ISIS as we are with terrorists--extremism--
around the world. It intentionally targets civilians. It uses violence
to spread terror and destabilize the Middle East. ISIS has been a world
terror organization.
[[Page S3316]]
The fact that Iran's leaders themselves direct and glorify terrorism
against Israel and the United States does not diminish the horror of
what has occurred. People of all faiths from an increasingly diverse
number of nations have become victims of this terror spread by ISIS and
Iran. What occurred today is, sadly, more evidence that Iran's
unconditional support for Bashar al-Assad is directly counter to the
interests of the Iranian people and our ongoing efforts to defeat ISIS.
We must hold Iran accountable. We must hold it accountable for its
many malign activities through increasing and enforcing strong,
targeted sanctions. I thank my colleagues, including Senator McCain,
who just spoke so forcefully on the floor, Senator Menendez, Senator
Corker, Senator Cardin, as well as other colleagues who have worked on
this cause. We must hold Iran accountable for the threat its acts of
terrorism pose to our national security. We must hold it accountable to
the threat its missile program holds to our allies, including Israel--
our major strategic partner in that region. We must hold Iran
accountable for the gross violations of human rights and war crimes
that it and Russia together are perpetrating in Syria.
In the last few months, Iran has tested and fired ballistic missiles,
tested a new Russian-made air defense system against missiles, and
harassed U.S. ships. It continues to arm and enable the Hamas terrorist
organization, the despotic Assad regime, and the supply of weapons to
Hezbollah. It has enabled Hezbollah to amass 150,000 rockets and
missiles--all aimed at civilians in Israel.
Last month, the State Department released a report on Iran's human
rights violations. It continues to show a troubling trend of abuse and
notes that Iran has more than 800 political prisoners and that it
executed at least 469 people just last year.
We know that sanctions must be targeted and continually strengthened
to deter Iran. This legislation will impose sanctions on Iran for its
support of terrorism, human rights violations, and ballistic missile
development. That includes sanctioning any person who knowingly
violates arms embargoes or materially contributes to Iran's ballistic
missile program. It also includes terrorism-related sanctions on
members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliates--
going beyond members of the Quds Force, who are already sanctioned.
In no way does this sanctions program contradict or undermine the
nuclear agreement with Iran. That agreement provided us and our allies
the time and space to now push Iran to end its malign activities
without the imminent threat of a nuclear weapon.
Congress must do everything it can to authorize new measures against
Iran and ensure that this new administration effectively enforces them.
We must also seize this opportunity to hold Russia accountable as well
for its egregious, aggressive behavior and ongoing violations of
international law.
Russia's cooperation with Iran, including providing Iran with an S-
300 air missile defense system that it recently tested, strengthens
Iran as it fuels and finances a network of terrorism. Under Putin's
direction, Russia both enabled and tried to cover up crimes in Syria.
It invaded Ukraine. It illegally annexed Crimea. It attacked and
interfered with our democracy.
Enough is enough. That is why I urge this body to adopt Russian
sanctions as part of S. 722. Sadly and dangerously, our President has
proven time and again to be unwilling to hold Vladimir Putin
accountable. Congress must ensure that he does so. It must ensure that
Russia receives a clear, unequivocal signal through this measure,
Senator Cardin's Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act, and Senator
Graham's Russia Sanctions Review Act, as an amendment to be adopted by
this body to the Iran legislation, which I helped author. These
measures are critical to sending a message that we will hold Russia
accountable for its lawbreaking, its support of terrorism, its
interference in our elections, its annexation of Crimea, its invasion
of Ukraine, and its violation of the INF Treaty. I can accept nothing
short of including these Russia bills to move forward to a final vote.
I will support S. 722, but I believe there is a track and a path for
this body to do both, and we must do it.
The imposition of mandatory sanctions codifying former President
Obama's Executive orders regarding Ukraine and malicious cyber
activity, as well as targeting individuals and entities contributing to
Russia's oil and gas industries, should be part of this final
passage. We cannot afford to wait any longer to take action.
I am disappointed that the President has seemed disinterested or at
least unwilling to join in these sanctions against Russia.
Unfortunately, the testimony that former Director Jim Comey will
deliver tomorrow provides evidence as to possible motive and intent in
his discussions with Comey that reflect on his apparent willingness to
tolerate this aggressive conduct by Russia without holding it
accountable.
This testimony from Director Comey is an explosive corroboration of
the facts that have been reported--that the President asked for
loyalty, threatening Jim Comey's job, and tried to influence the FBI's
ongoing criminal investigation on multiple occasions. This conduct
shows unequivocally the disdain the President has for the rule of law
and clearly demonstrates that he believes he and his friends and family
are above the law. I am saddened and I am chilled that this harrowing
account will be given to the Senate Intelligence Committee rather than,
in fact, in a fictional spy novel.
Director Comey deserves credit for his willingness to come before the
committee, for his apparent candor and truthfulness, and for his
resistance to those demands for a pledge of loyalty and an end to the
Flynn investigation, even when it meant his firing.
His testimony should serve as evidence in the investigation led by
Robert Mueller but also as evidence that Mr. Mueller must have
unimpeded space, resources, and independence to conduct his
investigation. I will take action as a member of the Judiciary
Committee to seek oversight simply to ensure that those resources are
independent and are safeguarded. With this documented proof, clearly
the White House has sought to derail our law enforcement officials in
their enforcing of the law. We must ensure an end to such conduct, and
we must send Russia a signal that, in fact, it will be held
accountable; that the investigation into its meddling in our election
will be pursued vigorously and aggressively; that anyone in this
country who colluded with or aided and abetted that meddling will be
held accountable; and that there will be no obstruction of justice.
This goal should unite us across the aisle on a bipartisan basis.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I voted no today on the motion to invoke
cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 722, the Iran
sanctions bill.
I did so not because I oppose the underlying bill and the need to
further sanction Iran's belligerent missile and terrorist activity; in
fact, I support that legislation. I voted no to give a moment's pause
after the terrible ISIS attack in Tehran that just occurred.
Earlier today, a pair of deadly attacks occurred over several hours
in Tehran, including in the nation's parliament building,
indiscriminately killing at least 12 people and wounding dozens more.
The heavily armed assailants targeted guards, cleaners, and
administrative employees of the parliament. ISIS later claimed
responsibility for this barbaric attack.
I certainly have my differences with the Iranian regime, its
continued sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas, its threats to Israel,
its proxy wars in Yemen and Syria, and its human rights abuses, but we
must remember that the Iranian regime isn't the same as the Iranian
people, many of whom expressed sympathy with the American people after
we suffered the horrific attack on September 11.
In fact, the Iranian Government issued a surprisingly strong
statement of condemnation of the terrorists responsible after the
September 11 attack.
There was even some hope after those statements that our two nations
might work together on other shared interests, although unfortunately,
other than the historic nuclear agreement, that has not come to pass.
Nevertheless, I think it is important that we pause and reaffirm the
statement made today by our State Department that condemns the attack
in Iran
[[Page S3317]]
and expresses condolences for the families and victims.
I also think it is critical that we finally take some action here in
the Congress to address Russia's attack on our election, which occurred
more than 7 months ago.
We have overwhelming evidence of this historic attack--an attack that
I liken to a cyber act of war.
The majority party here in Congress has done nothing to respond to
Russia's aggression or to help protect America against any future such
attack on our democracy.
President Trump still refuses to acknowledge the Russian attack--
seemingly more interested in befriending the Russians and complaining
about former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Comey than
convincingly telling Russia to never interfere in our election again or
face the consequences.
This lack of resolve is truly an abdication of our national security
responsibilities in Congress.
As one Polish security expert recently warned me, if the United
States does not respond to the Russia attack on its own democracy, then
Putin will feel emboldened and free to conduct further such attacks
against other Western democracies.
Sadly, that has already proven true--just look at Russia's meddling
in the recent French, German, and Dutch elections.
As we act to address Iran's troubling missile and destabilizing
activity in the Middle East, including its continued threat against
Israel, we must also act against Russia, which conducted a cyber act of
war against our Nation.
We must ensure that existing sanctions placed on Russia for its
destabilizing actions in Ukraine and Europe and its attack on our
election are not lifted until such Russian actions are reversed or
addressed.
I voted no on cloture today--out of respect for the Iranian people
who suffered the horrific attack today and because I think it is long
overdue for the Congress to finally respond to Russia's attack on our
Nation--and stand prepared to support the final Iran sanctions bill
after addressing these matters.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, Donald Trump has decided to withdraw
the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change. This is a
decision that may prove to be one of the worst foreign policy blunders
in our Nation's history.
There is no denying the mounting threat of climate change. We observe
rising seas, warming global temperatures, and melting glaciers and ice
sheets. Yet the President cast aside a historic global agreement forged
through American leadership.
Americans now ask what to do next. For individual citizens, my answer
is simple: Take action. Join an environmental group. Support science
and scientists. Organize in your community.
Many Americans have been publicly pledging to meet the goals of the
Paris Agreement through movements like the ``I am still in'' pledge.
Every action, big and small, counts.
American corporations must also act. Unfortunately, they have been
AWOL in the politics of climate change. This has been so frustrating
because so many of them have great climate principles. They just
abandon them when they come to Washington. That is why, for my 169th
``Time to Wake Up'' speech, I have a message for corporate America:
First, know that you are hugely influential in Congress. You command
extraordinary attention in our political system. This gives you a
unique power against the Breitbart fake-news spigot, the shameless
fossil fuel industry, and the Koch brothers' climate denial operation,
which were all behind the President's fateful decision.
President Trump's brain-dead withdrawal from the Paris accord may
prove to be for the best if it creates heightened political interest in
climate action from American business leaders. At the moment, corporate
political interests in climate action, setting the fossil fuel industry
aside entirely, still averages out below zero.
As a Senator, I see corporate America's lobbying efforts in Congress
firsthand. Here are some highlights:
Silicon Valley lobbies through an organization called TechNet.
TechNet represents Goliaths, like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and
Facebook, all of which have great climate policies. TechNet also
represents clean energy companies, like Sunrun, Bloom Energy, and
SolarCity.
TechNet came again this year to lobby Congress on its six priorities.
Here is a page from the actual lobbying materials that TechNet brought
to our meeting. The group's Federal policies are these: tax reform,
high-skilled immigration reform, education and workforce development,
entrepreneurship and job creation, smart infrastructure, and digital
trade. Climate change did not make it onto TechNet's priorities list.
Even clean energy failed to make it onto the list of the organization
that includes Bloom Energy, SolarCity, and Sunrun.
This is not a matter of these giants being cowed by the Trump
administration. TechNet came last year when Obama was President, and
climate change was not on their agenda then, either. Indeed, the week
TechNet came last year, I also had a visit from the timber and lumber
industry. Despite what climate change is doing to America's forests,
climate change was not on the lumber and timber industry agenda.
That very same week, the property casualty insurance industry came to
meet me. These insurance companies write the big checks when climate
change sends Mother Nature haywire. Climate change was not mentioned by
this industry, either. That was quite a week.
Big business lobbying on climate change is actually worse than zero
because the big business trade associations and lobbying groups are
often run by the fossil fuel industry. Green energy manufacturers,
represented in Washington, DC, by the National Association of
Manufacturers, will find their own association lined up against them on
climate change. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one of climate action's
most implacable enemies, despite the good climate policies of so many
companies on its board.
These lobby groups are the most persistent voices of America's
business community here in Congress. They are the ones who are most
active, and they are constant enemies on clean energy and climate
action--despite the companies they represent--because, in truth, they
answer to the fossil fuel industry, not the business community, when it
comes to climate change.
Here is how this can play out. Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are the two
biggest beverage companies in America. Both have excellent climate
policies. Pepsi even supports Ceres, a fledgling business lobbying
group for climate action, but their trade association, the American
Beverage Association, takes no lobbying interest in climate change. It
knows how to lobby. We can see the lobbying expenditures run up in 2009
and 2010, when they were concerned about Congress's taxing sweetened
drinks or corn syrup. It just takes no interest in climate issues.
Worse, Coke and Pepsi run money through the American Beverage
Association to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Add their lobbying all up,
and Coke and Pepsi do virtually nothing themselves. A few ounces of
credit go to Pepsi for supporting Ceres. Their American Beverage
Association trade group doesn't lift a finger to help, and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce is a brute force adversary.
The result is that the net lobbying presence of Coke and Pepsi in
Congress on climate change is exactly opposed to the two companies'
stated policies on climate change. They say one thing; their lobbying
effort does the opposite.
On the other side of the fossil fuel divide, the heavy political hand
of the fossil fuel industry is felt constantly around here, and that
heavy hand is mercilessly opposed to any climate action and enforces
its will with a parade of political weaponry akin to those old Soviet
May Day parades of tanks, rockets, and artillery. Cross them, and they
[[Page S3318]]
come after you hard. Ask former Congressman Bob Inglis. He urged his
fellow Republicans to heed the climate science and was hammered for it.
Also, no one should buy the phony assertions by Big Oil CEOs that
they recognize that climate change is real and support putting a price
on carbon. They say that. ExxonMobil's CEO said that to his
shareholders again just last week.
In the Senate, I am the Senate author of a carbon price bill. I know
who is lobbying where on carbon prices, and I can tell you their
statement is just not true. Every single element of that Soviet May Day
parade of fossil fuel political weaponry is dead set against any such
thing. What do we conclude from that? Either Big Oil's CEOs don't know
what their own lobbying apparatus is doing, or they are just not
telling the truth. You guess which.
The strategy of the fossil fuel industry has been to control the
Republican Party. You can jam things up by jamming up one party, and
you can make it look like it is a partisan issue when it is just old-
fashioned, self-interested lobbying. In order to accomplish that
purpose, the worst of the political threats and blandishments of the
fossil fuel industry are directed against Republicans.
As long as legitimate corporate leaders in America sit idly by while
fossil fuel terrorizes and corrupts the Republican Party, there will
not be much progress. ``But, oh,'' some will say, ``there aren't
Republicans who will respond. This is too partisan an issue. It will be
a wasted effort.'' Not so. I came to the Senate in 2007, and for years
there was bipartisan action on climate change--2007, 2008, 2009.
It only stopped when the fossil fuel industry secured from five
Republican-appointed Justices on the Supreme Court the disgraceful
Citizens United decision of 2010. In 2007, lots of bipartisan activity;
2008, lots of bipartisan activity; 2009, lots of bipartisan activity;
2010, Citizens United--dead stop. That Citizens United decision is what
started the fossil fuel Soviet May Day parade of unprecedented
political artillery. No special interest had that kind of political
artillery before Citizens United opened it up, and much of the post-
Citizens United effort has been using dark money to hide the fossil
fuel industry's hand.
Since Citizens United, there has been no bipartisan climate action,
but that doesn't mean there aren't still Republicans willing to work
with us. I know this firsthand. There are Republicans willing to work
with us. They just need to know somebody will give them safe passage
through the political kill zone that Citizens United has let the fossil
fuel industry create. Well, with the Trump administration now all the
way over in the ``fossil fuel, Breitbart, Koch brothers climate denial
corner,'' it now rests on the shoulders of the legitimate business
community to come off the sidelines. They can't count on this
administration. They now have to come off the sidelines themselves and
do so in strength commensurate with the seriousness of the problem.
If, as a country, we pitch ourselves and the world into the present
worst-case climate change scenarios, billions of people will suffer,
and suffering people want answers and justice. It will become hard to
defend to them our American system of democratic government against
charges of corruption and our system of market capitalism against
charges of indifference. Government has been corrupted by fossil fuel
interests, and too many companies are indifferent. You can't make a
case without the facts to back it up, and American companies, more than
anyone else, benefit from a world order where liberal democracies
prevail. So the stakes for the American business community are very
real.
The political mischief of the fossil fuel industry and its front
groups will leave a lasting stain on the democracy we all treasure. It
is time, in the wake of the President's decision on Paris--isolating
America with Syria as our companion in isolation--it is time that the
decent and honorable business community played a meaningful role in
setting this right. To them, I say: Trump has betrayed you so now is
the time to align your industry's political engagement with your
industry's position on climate. That is not asking much. We are only
asking that American corporations align their political engagement on
climate change with their actual position on climate change. If you
take climate change seriously, great. Take it seriously when you come
to Congress. The United States of America, where 1 day after D-day--a
day when Americans stormed ashore to free the continent of Europe,
fought their way through to knock down Nazi tyranny, and then rebuilt
Europe under the Marshall Plan and came home--that country ought not to
be a pariah nation with Syria.
We needn't be a banana republic for fossil fuel. We can lead the
world into a brighter, cleaner, safer energy future, but it will take
an effort. So, corporate America, let's make the effort.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
70th Anniversary of the Marshall Plan
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, it is nice to see the Presiding Officer in
the Chair. Because he is a student of history, I know it will come as
no surprise to my colleague from Colorado that this week marks the 70th
anniversary of the Marshall Plan.
In 1947, Europe was in ruins. After years of war, factories from
Manchester to Munich had been bombed out. Railroads laid disfigured
from artillery. Farms stood defaced by the tracks of a thousand tanks.
Across the continent, Europe's once humming economies stood silent.
Over 60 million people had died, including 6 million Jews who were
killed in the Holocaust.
Here in the United States, we mourned the loss of over 400,000 of our
soldiers. We had spent, in today's dollars, nearly $4 trillion to
secure that victory in World War II. But to secure the peace, our
leaders understood that even more was required of us. Truman's
Secretary of State, George Marshall, told the Nation that without a
return to ``normal economic health in the world,'' there could be ``no
assured peace.'' In other words, if famine and poverty remained
unchecked across Europe, unanswered, fascism and communism would soon
follow, threatening U.S. interests and global stability at the same
time.
So after years of sacrifice--sacrifice that this generation of
Americans, thank goodness, has never had to endure--the easy course
would have been to withdraw behind the Atlantic and the Pacific, turn
our back on the world, and embrace isolation.
Instead, we proposed the Marshall Plan, a bold investment to revive
Europe's economies, modernize industry, and expand trade, not only for
allies like France and Britain but also for our enemies, Germany and
Italy. It was extraordinary that political leaders here once made those
decisions. I struggle to think of a time in human history when the
victor helped to revive the vanquished with no strings attached, no
colonial objective.
As the Marshall Plan made its way through Congress, leaders in
Washington made the case to the American people, even standing firm
against some who wanted to require European countries to buy only
American products with the aid that we gave them. Still in the years to
come, American farmers and manufacturers would fill millions of crates
of wheat and wood, of sugar and steel to rebuild Europe from the
ravages of war.
President Truman understood that, in time, strong European economies
would become strong trading partners, strong military allies, and a
bulwark of freedom against Soviet expansion. History proved him right,
to say the least.
After the Marshall Plan, Western Europe surged back to life as
Eastern Europe stagnated behind the Iron Curtain. In the West,
production rose and hunger fell. Foes became friends. Bonds across the
Atlantic solidified. Investments through the Marshall Plan helped lay
the foundation for NATO, the common market, and the European Union.
Few actions in our foreign policy have been as consequential for
America's long-term interests, for our national interests, and all at a
cost of $150 billion in today's dollars--25 times less than the total
cost of World War II
[[Page S3319]]
and about 25 times less than what we paid in the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
As President Truman invested in Europe's recovery, he also helped
fashion a new world order from the rubble of war. American leadership
forged global institutions to enshrine our interests and values around
the world for generations, giving rise to the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the entire
international system that we have today.
Seventy years ago, President Truman had the vision to think longer
term. He had the wisdom to see that what was good for others was often
good for us as well. And he had the courage to ask our citizens to
lead, to sacrifice, and to believe that even after the second war in a
generation, it was still within their power to shape a lasting peace.
Those actions, those qualities are why Truman's Presidency marks one
of the finest periods in American foreign policy in the history of our
foreign policy. The comparison with what we are seeing today just
couldn't be starker.
Under the banner of putting America first, President Trump has
undermined our interests at nearly every turn. At a time when China
proposes to spend over a trillion dollars to expand its global
influence with new railroads from Hungary to Kenya, new bridges and
tunnels linking Southeast Asia together, and new electrical plants to
power Pakistan, President Trump proposes to slash our foreign
assistance advancing U.S. interests around the world. At a time when
NATO faces challenges to its east and south, President Trump publicly
rebukes the alliance and refuses to reinforce its bedrock principle of
collective security.
As the recent terrorist attack unfolded in London, President Trump
took to Twitter to promote his political agenda and sow fear in the
wake of that attack. In the face of challenges like extremism and
instability that demand 40-year strategies like the ones President
Truman had in mind, President Trump is conducting his foreign policy
140 characters at a time.
Now, as the world unites to confront the perils of climate change,
our President has withdrawn from the landmark Paris Agreement, which we
helped forge, in a shameful abdication of America's global leadership.
In doing so, the President ignored the voices of millions of Americans
and thousands of businesses, urging him--against the arguments that he
made--to stay in the agreement for climate reasons, for economic
reasons, and for national security reasons as well. By withdrawing from
it, the President has turned his back on millions of people across the
globe, as well, mostly the poor, who are already on the edge of crisis,
who may face drought, displacement, and famine from a warming planet.
America has a strong interest in avoiding that future. Anybody who
has seen what has happened since the Arab Spring understands what
resulted from a doubling of the price of wheat in Egypt. A wise leader
could see that. A President Truman would see that.
Like the Marshall Plan, the Paris Agreement recognized that in the
modern world there is no ``over there'' anymore. Today, over there is
here, and here is over there, and our President fundamentally doesn't
understand it.
He claimed that withdrawing from the Paris Agreement would ``put
America first.'' In fact, this move threatens to put America last--last
in innovation, last in clean energy, last in science, last in our moral
responsibility to hand the next generation a safe and stable planet.
That is why States and cities all across the country are making their
own commitments to honor the Paris Agreement.
Now it is just us, Nicaragua, and Syria on the other side. That is
why towns, cities, and States all across the country are scrambling to
fill the void of leadership left by the administration to show the rest
of the world that we are serious too.
In my home State of Colorado, we know that we can protect our economy
and our climate, that we can grow our economy and protect our climate.
We see those as linked together. You can't do one without the other. We
developed the first State limits on methane pollution. We passed the
first voter-led renewable standard in the entire Nation. We established
our own limits on carbon pollution. And in the process, we have created
13,000 renewable energy jobs, with wind jobs alone expected to triple
by 2020. On average, those jobs pay a salary of $50,000. We are
manufacturing again in our State with the supply chains that come along
with it.
What comes with those commonsense regulations? One of the strongest
economies in America, the lowest unemployment rate in America, and we
see this all across the country. New energy jobs are growing 12 times
faster than the overall economy. The President doesn't see any of that.
In a matter of months, from foreign assistance, to global alliances,
to terrorism and climate change, the administration has imperiled
America's stature with a shortsighted and willfully ignorant agenda
that is profoundly out of step with the realities of the world and the
interests of the people of the United States.
In a recent op-ed, senior officials from the administration painted
the world as no more than an ``arena'' where nations ``compete for
advantage.'' They were trying to explain the President's behavior while
he was in Europe. That attitude marks a huge departure from generations
of American foreign policy. This is not about the Obama administration;
this is about a set of traditional American values and approaches to
the world that we have had almost since the Nation's founding, and the
space the President is creating out there in the world by abandoning
those treasured American values gives space to those who seek every
single day to undermine the liberal world order that has allowed our
country and allies across the globe to succeed.
The President should understand that generations of leaders in the
United States have put America first. They have always put America
first--not in slogans or stump speeches but in the alliances and
institutions we built, the values we champion, the alliances we forged
that have given our world 70 years of peace and prosperity. That is a
legacy upon which we must build--one that has put America first and has
kept America first today and, if we act wisely, I think for decades to
come.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Kansas.
(The remarks of Mr. Moran are printed in today's Record during
consideration of S. Res. 174.)
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Healthcare Reform
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the destructive
path that the majority is headed down with their attempts to repeal the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The Republican bill, and, frankly, the House Republican bill that the
Senate is now considering in addition to other ideas is, in my
judgment, not really a healthcare bill but a tax cut bill. It is a tax
cut bill for the super-rich--not only the rich but, literally, the
wealthiest few Americans--while increasing costs for middle-class
families. It gives States the option to allow insurance companies to
discriminate again like they did before the ACA was passed. It would
also allow those same policies to devastate our hospitals, particularly
those in rural communities. I live in a State where 48 out of 67
counties are, in fact, rural counties.
The Republican bill would rip away healthcare, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, from 23 million Americans. Here is what
that means in Pennsylvania, based upon the Congressional Budget Office
numbers: Up to 770,000 Pennsylvanians could lose health insurance by
2026 if the bill were to pass, 48,000 Pennsylvania seniors on Medicare
could lose access to services covered by Medicaid, and 52,600
Pennsylvanians with disabilities could lose Medicaid coverage. I live
in a State
[[Page S3320]]
where, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, over
722,000 Pennsylvanians with disabilities rely on Medical Assistance for
their medical care. Medical Assistance is the State version of
Medicaid. We know that if you are a child, if you are a senior, or if
you have a disability, many Americans in those categories, of course,
rely upon Medicaid.
We also know, based upon the CBO numbers, that 180,000 Pennsylvanians
could lose access to mental health and substance abuse care now
provided by Medicaid. We have heard a lot of talk, and there has been a
lot of work, actually, in this body, as well as in the other body, in
the last year on the opioid problem. We have Democrats and Republicans
focusing on a major national problem, an urgent public health problem.
We have made some progress--not enough but some good progress--on
opioid legislation. All of that would be badly undermined if we made
the changes to Medicaid that some want to make here because of the
significant impact that cuts to Medicaid would have on the challenge of
reducing the opioid crisis.
So even the possibility that this bill might become law is, in a
sense, destabilizing to the healthcare marketplace, which has been
better each year we move forward from the passage of the ACA in 2010.
Just last week, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department announced
average proposed rate increases for health insurance premiums for 2018.
Here is what the Pennsylvania Insurance Department told us. If we
maintain current law, premiums will go up 8.8 percent in Pennsylvania.
If the Republicans get rid of the cost-sharing subsidies, which many
seem either to want to get rid of or to want to ignore, thereby
creating uncertainty--if those cost-sharing subsidies are thrown out
the window--premiums will go up 2.5 times as much, by over 20 percent.
So far, it is 8.8 percent under current law or 20 percent just based
upon the cost-sharing subsidies being taken away.
Also, if the individual mandate is repealed, premiums will go up
almost three times as much, by 23 percent. If we get rid of both the
cost-sharing subsidies and the individual mandate, premiums in our
State will go up by over 36 percent.
So we have a basic choice to make, at least as it relates to
Pennsylvania. Under current law, it is 8.8 percent, and we should try
to bring that down. I think there are ways we could work together in a
bipartisan fashion to bring that down. But if we go in the direction
that many want to go--especially on the Republican side--to undermine
or to do nothing about cost-sharing and get to rid of the individual
mandate, premiums go up 36 percent. So folks can make their choice to
go up about 9 percent or to go up 36 percent. It is a real simple
choice with basically two options.
The bill that was passed in the House would destroy the lives of many
vulnerable Pennsylvanians. What should we do about it? Well, the first
thing we should do with the bill is to throw it in the trash heap. That
is where it belongs, and I hope that is where Senate Republicans are
headed and that they are going to start over on a new bill, because the
bill that was passed in the House is very bad for the country.
Among the 3 million Pennsylvanians with preexisting conditions are
two remarkable young women whose mother first contacted me in 2009.
Stacie Ritter, from Manheim, PA, is the mom of four children, including
her twin daughters, Hannah and Madeline, who are depicted here in this
picture when they were much younger. Hannah and Madeline were diagnosed
with a rare and dangerous type of leukemia when they were just 4 years
old. You can see their picture there at that time.
Stacy and her husband Benjamin went bankrupt trying to pay their
daughters' medical bills. She wrote to me at the time, saying that
without healthcare reform, ``my girls will be unable to afford care,
that is if they are eligible, for care that is critically necessary to
maintain this chronic condition.''
Fortunately, things have changed in the last 8 or so years.
Fortunately, Hannah and Madeline are healthy young women now. They are
freshman at Arcadia University and are doing well. They rely on the
Affordable Care Act's protections to ensure that they have access to
affordable coverage, whether they are on their parents' plan or
purchasing a plan in the individual market. As you can see on my left,
this is a picture of Hannah and Madeline today as college freshmen.
Without the Affordable Care Act, Hannah and Madeline could be denied
health insurance. As their mom said, they could be ``punished and
rejected because they had the misfortune of developing cancer as a
child.''
The Republican bill passed in the House would put them at risk of
being denied health insurance or being charged more because they are
cancer survivors.
I don't know why anyone would support a bill that would do that.
Just a number of months ago I received a letter from Pam Simpson from
Chester County, PA. Pam and her son Rowan have their story to tell.
Rowan is 5 years old, and a number of years ago he was diagnosed with
autism. I have talked about Rowan before on this floor and in other
places and what Medicaid means for Rowan and his family. Medicaid
provides important services for Rowan and others with disabilities,
enabling Rowan to go to preschool and allowing his mother to work. Here
is what his mom said to me. I won't read the whole letter, but I will
just highlight the first page.
The first page is Rowan's life before he was diagnosed with autism--
all of the challenges that he and his family had--and Rowan's life
after the diagnosis of autism, but, then, ultimately, when he received
Medicaid, or Medical Assistance, as we call it in Pennsylvania. Here is
what his mom told me in the letter after he received word that he was
going to be enrolled in Medical Assistance:
Late January 2016, I applied for Medicaid.
That is Medical Assistance.
After Rowan was awarded Medical Assistance, we were able to
obtain wrap-around services. These services included a
Behavioral Specialist Consultant and a Therapeutic Staff
Support worker.
She goes on later in that paragraph to say that these wrap-around
services ``have been a Godsend.''
Then she goes on later and says:
I am thrilled by Rowan's daily progress. I cannot say
enough good things about this program.
Then she says:
Without Medical Assistance, I am confident that I could not
work full time to support our family. Our family would be
bankrupt or my son would go without the therapies he
sincerely needs.
Here is the last line of her letter:
We are desperately in need of Rowan's Medical Assistance
and would be devastated if we lost these benefits.
She is referencing ``Medical Assistance'' for Medicaid, the same
program at the State level.
So we have two families now that are totally reliant on these
programs, either the ACA more broadly or, in particular, the Medicaid
Program. Both families have referenced bankruptcy because of healthcare
challenges in the life of that family--one who would be on the brink of
bankruptcy, Rowan's family, and the other, who actually went through
bankruptcy because of those healthcare challenges. No family in the
United States of America should have to worry about going bankrupt
because of a healthcare problem. We are well on our way to solving
these problems, and no one should pull the rug out from under those
families. But, unfortunately, when it comes to this legislation, that
is exactly what could happen to many of them.
I will give a third example: Alex. Recently I met Alex, who is from
Southeastern Pennsylvania. He is 9 years old, and he has Down syndrome.
Here is what Alex, a 9-year-old, wrote:
Although I have a medical diagnosis of Down Syndrome, I am
an excellent student. I get 100 percent on my spelling tests
and I get picked as the Math King quite often. . . . My
parents, my teachers, and everyone around me thought from the
beginning there was nothing that I could not do. . . . I am
able to get a good education because of the supports that I
get from Special Education. That's why I am very concerned
about the possible cuts in Medicaid funding in schools. . . .
Medicaid funding in schools is a very, very important part of
what makes it possible for us to receive successful education
in school and become contributing members of our society.
That is a 9-year-old in Pennsylvania reminding us about this
important program. Alex has tremendous potential that would be in
jeopardy by the proposed cuts to Medicaid.
[[Page S3321]]
Here is another example: Peg Fagan of Pennsylvania. The Republican
bill includes an age tax that will allow insurers to charge older
Americans up to five times more than younger Americans. Peg is from
Bucks County, in Southeastern Pennsylvania. She is a three-time cancer
survivor who could not afford health insurance prior to the Affordable
Care Act. She is approaching Medicare eligibility but still has a few
years to go before she is old enough to enroll.
Peg was able to find affordable health insurance thanks to the ACA,
but under the Republican bill, she could once again be discriminated
against for being an older adult, and another possible object of
discrimination would be that she is a cancer survivor.
That was the old law. That is where we were before, where insurance
companies were allowed under the law to discriminate in that fashion.
They could discriminate against you because you were a woman. They
could discriminate against you because you had a preexisting condition.
They could discriminate against you because you were a cancer survivor
or because of your age, or so many other circumstances. I thought we
were beyond that. I thought we had finally cured that problem, but some
want to go back in time.
So the CBO tells us that the Republican bill would rip away
healthcare from 23 million Americans. I just went through some
Pennsylvania stories. We have a lot more, and my colleagues will be
hearing them. But for Hannah and Madeline and Rowan and Alex and Peg,
we should ask ourselves a couple of basic questions. Healthcare for
those Pennsylvanians should not be made worse, and they should not be
made worse off, in order to give the top one-tenth of 1 percent a
$200,000 giveaway. That is what the first version of the House
healthcare bill would do. It would give the top one-tenth of 1 percent
an average tax cut of $197,000. I exaggerated; I said $200,000. Let's
be exact. It is $197,000 each. Why would we take away healthcare or
even risk or create uncertainty about healthcare for Hannah, Madeline,
Rowan, Alex, and Peg because some people around here want to give tax
cuts to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to very wealthy
people? That is not what I call a healthcare bill.
The Senate has an obligation, in my judgment--both parties--to stop
this bill from being enacted into law. We cannot allow this legislation
to pass or anything like it to become law. So I ask each Member of the
Senate to consider these Pennsylvanians and plenty in your home States
and the countless more like them who are anxiously hoping and praying
this Congress will not vote to take away their healthcare.
Drug and Veterans Treatment Courts
Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the drug and other
treatment courts, including veterans treatment courts, in Pennsylvania
and the more than 3,000 across the Nation.
Just last month during National Drug Court Month, drug courts across
the country held graduation ceremonies to recognize individuals who
completed this rigorous treatment program. These courts, which serve
about 150,000 people a year, hold offenders with substance use and
mental health disorders accountable for their actions through strict
supervision while also connecting them to the treatment they need. More
than 1.25 million people have successfully graduated from drug and
treatment court programs and are now on a path to recovery.
Research has demonstrated that drug and other treatment courts not
only reduce crime but also reduce spending by slowing the cycle of
recidivism. Drug and other treatment courts are also an important
resource to law enforcement and community stakeholders working to
combat the opioid epidemic. Opioid addiction is a growing public health
crisis in Pennsylvania and throughout the Nation, and it demands real
action. As public officials, we have an obligation to ensure that the
resources and policies are in place to fight this scourge so that more
families won't have to endure the heartache of losing a loved one to
addiction.
Veterans treatment courts are innovative and collaborative programs
to address some of the unique challenges that face our veteran
communities. There are approximately 22 million veterans in the United
States, and Pennsylvania is home to nearly 1 million. The majority of
veterans return to our communities as leaders and lead exemplary lives;
however, not every veteran's path is straightforward. That is why we
need to make sure the right programs and support services are in place.
According to the Department of Justice, in 2011 and 2012,
approximately 8 percent of the total incarcerated population in the
United States were, in fact, veterans. These veterans found themselves
serving time in correctional facilities because they had not received
the treatment they needed. While this represents a very small
percentage of veterans, it is important that we support programs like
veterans treatment courts for veterans who face significant obstacles
returning to civilian life, including mental health concerns, post-
traumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse issues. These treatment
courts can have a lifelong impact on a veteran by helping them get out
of the criminal justice system and get the necessary treatment they
have earned. It is our obligation to work every day to ensure veterans
are receiving the care and support they deserve.
There are many stories from across Pennsylvania and our country that
exemplify why these veterans treatment courts are critical. Just to
give one, shortly after Michael Colletti from Montgomery County
received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Coast Guard, he found
himself in the grips of a serious addiction to opioids. To support his
growing habit, Michael began stealing from his employer, resulting in
his arrest and jail time. His crimes were caused by his opioid use
disorder, and Michael found himself in the Montgomery County Veterans
Treatment Court.
Finally, getting the accountability he needed and connecting with the
benefits he earned as a veteran, Michael began the process of leaving
behind his life of addiction and crime to start a new path. Today,
Michael Colletti is a partner in a successful small business and a
mentor to others in his community struggling with their own substance
use.
He says of the veterans treatment court:
I wouldn't be here without the support network from the
court. I wouldn't have my girlfriend, I wouldn't have my
beautiful place, I wouldn't have my career, and most
importantly, I wouldn't have the sound clarity of mind to be
myself again. Now I am committed to paying it forward.
I and I know many others are proud to support a recent letter led by
our colleagues, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Wicker, highlighting the
importance of funding the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program and
veterans treatment courts. As we go through the appropriations process,
I urge my colleagues to consider the proven track record of these
courts in improving outcome for graduates, and I hope Congress will
offer strong support for these important programs that have been
helping the justice system better serve individuals, veterans, their
families, friends, and communities.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
____________________