[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________