[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 46 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1742-S1763]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ALLOW STATES AND VICTIMS TO FIGHT ONLINE SEX TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2017--
                           MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 1856, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 339, H.R. 1865, a bill to 
     amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that section 
     230 of such Act does not prohibit the enforcement against 
     providers and users of interactive computer services of 
     Federal and State criminal and civil law relating to sexual 
     exploitation of children or sex trafficking, and for other 
     purposes.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                          Republican Tax Bill

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, since the Republicans jammed through a 
massive corporate tax cut in December, hardly a day goes by that we 
don't read about a corporation using the savings to purchase its own 
stock. The average citizen may ask: What is that all about?
  Well, when a company purchases its own stock, it is sort of 
artificially making less stock, buying it back, and raising the price 
of the shares. Why do they do that? There are two reasons, both to 
benefit the corporate CEOs but not the workers. First, corporate CEOs 
have a lot of the stock themselves, so they make money; second, they 
look better when the stock price goes up. But the stock price isn't 
going up because the company has sold more goods, been more productive, 
bought new machinery, or found a new product. The stock simply goes up 
because they have decreased the number of shares. It is a scam in a 
certain sense, helping corporate CEOs, helping shareholders--80 percent 
of the shares are held by the top 10 percent, so it doesn't really help 
average Americans, and that is including 401(k)s--but it doesn't help 
the worker.
  We have heard many claims from our Republican friends: Pass this tax 
bill, and the workers will benefit. Well, unfortunately, now we see who 
is really benefiting. Just as we predicted, it is the corporate CEOs 
and the wealthiest of Americans.
  Just recently, the total amount of share buybacks surpassed $220 
billion this year. According to the market data firm, TrimTabs, share 
buybacks in 2018 averaged $4.8 billion a day--a day--double the pace 
for the same period last year.
  For a few weeks, right after the President passed his tax bill, what 
happened? They had these companies announce bonuses for average 
workers. Very few Americans saw those bonuses--a lot of hoopla, but not 
much else. The bonuses--not wage increases, not new hires, but one-time 
annual bonuses--anyone who gets them, God bless them; there have just 
been so few. Those bonuses are being overwhelmed by a deluge of 
corporate share buybacks, which do not benefit the average worker, but 
benefit the CEOs and the heads of the companies.
  According to an analysis by JUST Capital, only 6 percent of the 
capital allocated by companies from the tax bill has gone to employees, 
while nearly 60 percent has gone to shareholders--again, to the 
corporate CEOs who own those shares, the wealthiest of Americans who 
own the vast majority of shares. Ten times more capital is going to 
shareholders than to workers.
  So this bill, which is poorly structured and aimed at the wealthy, 
ain't working. The more Americans see it--you know, there was an 
initial thrust: Oh, we like the tax bill. At first, it was unpopular as 
we talked about it here on the floor. Then, with these bonuses and the 
stock market going up, popularity went up a little. Now it is 
flattening out and even heading down. In the last three polls, fewer 
people liked this tax plan, and that is going to keep happening, my 
Republican friends, because they know what it was aimed at and you know 
what it was aimed at--the corporate CEOs who came to lobby you and the 
wealthy individuals who came to lobby you. It is no wonder the American 
people are starting to turn on the Republican tax bill. Polls have 
shown its popularity is underwater and trending downward, not up.
  This idea that tax cuts would be a political panacea for Republicans 
come November is losing altitude fast. Remember, that is what our 
Republican friends said: Well, maybe people are upset with the 
President's tweets, and maybe this and that are not going so well; 
maybe they are not accomplishing that much, but now, with the tax bill, 
we will win the election.
  Well, look at the Pennsylvania election where a Democrat won the 
district

[[Page S1743]]

that Trump carried by 20 points. This is the kind of district that our 
Republican friends need to carry. These are Republican suburbs in blue-
collar Southwest Pennsylvania.
  Early in the race, what did Republicans do? They tried running ads 
about the tax bill to help their candidate, Rick Saccone, during the 
first few weeks of February. These were the super PACs, the Koch 
brothers, and all the others who will benefit hugely from the tax bill. 
Somehow they believe that because they will benefit, everyone is going 
to think they have benefited.
  They ran these ads, often paid for by the Kochs. Two-thirds of the 
ads mentioned taxes--two-thirds of all Saccone's ads, both by the Koch-
like super PACs and by Saccone himself. The next week, 36 percent 
mentioned taxes. Guess what. After 2 weeks of these tax ads, our 
Republican friends tested it out, and they got rid of taxes as an 
issue. It wasn't working. It wasn't working with fairly well-off 
middle-class Pittsburgh suburbanites or blue-collar workers in Greene 
County and Westmoreland County and Washington County in Southwest PA, 
which are areas where people had voted for Trump.
  It is eerily similar, folks, to the Governor's race in Virginia--the 
same thing. That was before the bill passed, but still, Republican 
candidate Ed Gillespie started his campaign on a tax plan similar to 
the Republican tax plan. He had to give it up because it wasn't getting 
traction.
  The American people are smart about this. They know what is going on. 
They know the vast majority of this goes to the wealthy. They know the 
amount that is going to them is small. They know their tax break is 
temporary and the corporate tax break is permanent. Most of all, they 
know we have created a huge deficit. And how are some of our 
Republicans friends saying we pay for the deficit? Cut Medicare. Cut 
Social Security. Cut healthcare. That is not what the American people 
want.

  Poll after poll shows healthcare is far more important to the 
American people than tax cuts. Do you know why? If you get a break on 
your taxes of $20 a week and your premiums go up several thousand 
dollars in a month or even several hundred dollars in a month, that 
little increase is wiped away. Our Republican colleagues, even in their 
tax bill, caused premiums to go up by monkeying around with healthcare.
  The Republican Party needs to wake up and realize that by giving 
massive benefits to corporations and the wealthy, it is never going to 
be a popular issue for them in the election because it is a terrible 
policy for the average middle-class and working Americans. It gets to 
the contradiction at the core of the Presidency. The President talks 
like a populous but governs like a plutocrat. Let me repeat that. The 
President talks like a populous but governs like a plutocrat. He just 
got rid of a Wall Street executive--Gary Cohn--and now he is putting in 
as his economic adviser Larry Kudlow, who has favored the wealthy, Club 
for Growth policies--help the wealthy and all of America will benefit--
throughout his whole career. That is not how Trump ran. That is not 
what he tells working people when he goes to a big tent in 
Pennsylvania. But that is what he is doing. Sooner or later, it catches 
up with you. The Pennsylvania election showed it is catching up faster 
than our Republican friends would like. The President talks like a 
populous but governs like a plutocrat.
  President Trump said that his tax bill would be a middle-class 
miracle, but the actual legislation is a miracle for the wealthy 
corporations and the richest 1 percent. As I said, part of the problem 
is that the President surrounds himself with the wealthy elite. Those 
are his advisers. These wealthy elites push for tax cuts for the rich 
and rhapsodize failed economic orthodoxies like trickle-down. That 
applies to Larry Kudlow. Here is a man who is a cheerleader for Bush-
era economics. He ignored the housing bubble and actually recommended--
Larry Kudlow, the man who is now going to give the President economic 
advice--that Americans buy stock in the fall of 2008 when everyone else 
saw that the economy was about to collapse. Does anyone think Larry 
Kudlow is going to bring a renewed focus on improving the middle class? 
Forget it. He believes in the plutocracy. He has his whole career. That 
is who President Trump picked. He is getting rid of one and putting in 
another, like going from the frying pan into the fire.
  By the way, I think the President loves having the big crowds of 
working-class people in those tents, but who are his real friends? They 
are the very wealthy. That is who he hung out with in New York. He 
cares what they think, and that is why his policies are so aimed at 
them.
  My Republican friends, in a nutshell, this is the problem you face. 
Your rhetoric is all about helping working people, but your policies 
and the people developing them are all about helping corporations and 
the rich.
  I am not against the rich or corporations. God bless them. Let's hope 
they do well. But average Americans need far more help than the top 1 
percent and wealthy corporations. Give it to average folks. They need 
it. They are still struggling with paying for college, affording a 
vacation, helping their elderly mom and dad through a healthcare 
problem. They are who need the help, not the top 1 percent. But our 
Republican colleagues aim everything at that top 1 percent.
  If we would only get rid of Citizens United, that awful decision that 
allows the wealthy to have such huge influence on the Republican Party, 
the super PACs--individual Members have super PACs funded by the 
wealthy. I wish we could get rid of it on both sides, Democratic and 
Republican. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the Supreme Court is 
doing it.
  The rhetoric of Republicans: Help working people. The policies of 
Republicans: Help the wealthy corporations and the rich. As we have 
seen in poll after poll and in recent elections, the American people 
are waking up to that reality.
  It is hard to make a tax cut unpopular, but Republicans have managed 
to do it by designing a bill that will direct 83 percent of the 
benefits to the top 1 percent and $1.5 trillion to the deficit and then 
threaten to cut Medicare and Social Security to make up the difference. 
My colleagues, that is a toxic combination, and Republicans will not be 
able to run on it because only a very few wealthy Americans support 
that agenda.


                                 Russia

  Mr. President, now on a different matter--Russia. A little more than 
a week ago, our friends in the United Kingdom--England, Great Britain--
suffered an attack on two individuals by a nerve agent. In a joint 
statement today, the leadership of the United States, the UK, France, 
and Germany agreed that Putin was behind it. To her great credit, Prime 
Minister May demanded an immediate response from Putin and promised 
appropriate countermeasures. She has already expelled 23 Russian 
diplomats, and I hope she takes additional action. Expelling 23 
diplomats is strong action, but we need more.
  Mr. Putin--he is a bully. I grew up in Brooklyn. There are a lot of 
bullies around Brooklyn. You have to stand up to them, or they will 
keep taking advantage of you. That is how a bully works.
  Let's compare Prime Minister May's action to President Trump's. It is 
a study in contrast when it comes to Russia. Prime Minister May was 
quick and decisive about countering Russia's aggression. President 
Trump can hardly seem to utter a peep in criticism of President Putin--
a man who is trying to undermine the power of the United States, a man 
who is trying to undermine the very democracy of the United States, the 
beauty of America. It was on full display this week when, instead of 
personally defending our ally Britain, President Trump didn't say a 
word about the attack, directing everything through aides or 
statements.
  President Trump warns all the time that ``we need to get smart'' 
about other countries taking advantage of the United States. I agree. I 
tend to agree with the President on China. China is taking advantage of 
us, and President Trump, to his credit, is doing more than the Bush or 
Obama administrations did. But guess who is taking advantage of us even 
more than China. Russia. They meddle in our elections, continue to sow 
division on social media through Russia-linked bots or building an 
intelligence machine to meddle in our elections again later this year. 
Putin constantly attacks our allies, our friends.

[[Page S1744]]

  President Trump, when are you going to get smart about the threat 
Russia poses to the United States and our allies?
  We in Congress, 98 to 2, the Democrats and Republicans together--
Leader McConnell and I worked this out. We voted to implement mandatory 
sanctions against Russia. Guess what, America. President Trump hasn't 
even implemented them. What is he afraid of? What is he hiding?
  Hopefully, we will get an announcement today that maybe he is 
implementing sanctions after what Russia did, but that is not enough. 
As my friend from New Jersey has suggested, the President should 
further sanction Putin and anyone else involved under the Biological 
Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act for this heinous attack in 
the UK.
  We are still waiting for President Trump to direct our intelligence 
agencies and the State Department to use the resources we have provided 
them to combat Russian cyber attacks. We have heard from officials who 
are in charge of cyber security. They have gotten no direction from the 
White House, no orders to do anything. We are still waiting for actions 
to harden our election security, and we are still waiting for President 
Trump to utter one word of public criticism for what Putin is doing to 
the United States and democracies around the world.
  I say to President Trump: Your silence speaks on this issue. Your 
silence speaks volumes to the Russian Government and America's other 
adversaries, as well as our friends and allies. Finally, it speaks 
volumes to the American people. More and more Americans are asking: Why 
is President Trump so afraid to take on probably our No. 1 menace, 
Russia? What is he hiding? What is going on? Why?
  It is ringing in America's ear. The President is not going to escape 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the issue 
before the Senate, and I am very pleased the Senate is finally taking 
up this legislation. It has to do with stopping sex trafficking 
specifically--a growing scourge in our country and really a stain on 
our national character--which is girls, women being sold online.
  The legislation is called the Allow States and Victims to Fight 
Online Sex Trafficking Act. It includes the Stop Enabling Sex 
Traffickers Act, or SESTA. That has gone through a process here in the 
Senate. We had hearings on it. We had a markup. This is an issue many 
of us have been working on for many months--in fact, for the last 
couple of years--doing the investigations to come up with how to deal 
with this problem.
  I am very pleased that we now have the opportunity here in the Senate 
to take up this legislation and begin the process of turning the tide, 
changing this horrific situation where, in this country, in this 
century, we actually have an increase in the trafficking of human 
beings--specifically women and children being trafficked online. I 
thought the speech earlier by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid this 
out very well. He talked about the fact that there has been an 
eightfold increase, in the most recent data from the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children; that is, between 2010 and 2015, 
there was an eightfold increase in the incidence of trafficking. He 
also talked about the fact that this is growing because of this growth 
of the internet, that the internet--specifically this one website--has 
caused this increase that Congress has the ability to address through a 
change in a Federal law that can be targeted and focused and can make a 
huge difference in the lives of those who would be trafficked and 
undergo the intense trauma that results.
  I am very pleased we are taking up this legislation. I thank Majority 
Leader McConnell for putting the bill on the floor.
  I know we have an important omnibus spending bill coming up, and I 
know the Senate needs to focus on that, but first let's get this 
commonsense legislation passed. Let's take this opportunity to do 
something that is actually going to help immediately on this issue of 
sex trafficking.
  I also thank Senator John Thune. He is the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, which had the hearings and marked up this legislation. I 
also thank his colleague, Ranking Member Bill Nelson, for his work on 
this. We held a powerful hearing. I had a chance to testify there and 
testify about the work we had done in another committee investigating 
this issue. We heard from victims, and we heard from experts. At the 
end of the day, that vote in the Commerce Committee was unanimous--
Republicans and Democrats alike saying: We get it. We need to address 
this issue.
  We have had a lot of collaboration on this over the last couple of 
years. I would say it has been a truly nonpartisan effort, not just a 
bipartisan effort, which is rare around this place. In particular, I 
would like to thank the coauthor of the legislation we are dealing 
with, and that is Richard Blumenthal, who, as a former prosecutor, 
understands these issues because he prosecuted sex trafficking cases.
  I also thank Senator Claire McCaskill because it was Senator 
McCaskill and I who headed up the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, which looked into this issue. We spent a year and a 
half studying it, and we were able to find out shocking information 
about what is going on online.
  I also thank Senator John Cornyn, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Senator Amy 
Klobuchar, and Senator Ted Cruz. They are a group of Senators who were 
the initial cosponsors of this legislation and have helped us put this 
legislation together in a way that addresses the issue in a very 
focused and targeted way, so we are going to actually have the result 
we are looking for but without affecting what some were concerned 
about, which was the freedom of the internet. We all believe in the 
freedom of the internet, but we also know that committing these kinds 
of horrific crimes on the internet has to be something people are held 
accountable for.
  I want to take a moment to recognize a couple of other leaders in 
this effort, one of whom is a Senator, and the other is his spouse, and 
that is Cindy and John McCain. I hope they are watching these 
proceedings over the next week as we take up this legislation, debate 
it, and I hope pass it on the floor of the Senate, because they have 
been very involved.

  John McCain from the start, as one of the leaders on this issue here 
in the Senate, helped us put together the legislation. He was with me 
on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations as we looked into this 
matter. John can't be with us here on the floor, but I know his 
presence is felt. I will tell my colleagues that it is felt by me, as 
well as the influence he has had on this legislation and on many of us 
in bringing up this issue.
  One reason he brings up this issue a lot is that he has a spouse who 
is passionate about it and has spent a lot of time working on it. The 
McCain Institute has specialized on this issue of human trafficking, 
and Cindy McCain has been a tireless advocate globally on this issue. 
So I thank both Cindy and John for their inspiration. Again, I am 
confident that as we get it across the finish line here, they will be 
celebrating with us.
  We have 68 cosponsors of this legislation now, and, again, for those 
who follow scorecards around here, that is unusual. We have a majority 
of Republicans, and we have a majority of Democrats. We have a 
situation here where everybody is affected by it in their States. They 
get it, and they understand that this is a Federal responsibility to 
change this law because it is a Federal law that creates this opening 
for websites to engage in this kind of behavior without accountability. 
They are effectively shielded from prosecutions or from lawsuits. This 
legislation takes away that shield.
  We have heard from the FBI, the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children; we have heard from Polaris, which runs the national 
tip line on human trafficking. All kinds of experts have told us that 
trafficking is not just increasing, but it is increasing because of the 
ruthless efficiency of the internet.
  One website--backpage.com--is involved in the majority of online sex 
trafficking. One anti-trafficking organization has said that backpage 
is involved in about 75 percent of the online trafficking reports it 
receives from the public. Another organization, Shared

[[Page S1745]]

Hope International, says it is even more than that. So think about 
that. We have this increase in trafficking. It is primarily being 
caused by this movement from the street corner to the smartphone, as 
victims have told me back home, and there is one website that has the 
majority of this activity. That is what we studied.
  As we looked into it further, Senator McCaskill and I were shocked to 
find out that not only is this activity going on on this website, but 
they were complicit in the sense that they knowingly facilitated 
criminal sex trafficking, including coaching users--people who were 
placing ads with them--to post clean ads so that they wouldn't 
indicate--which was very obvious in the initial ads that were 
presented--that these were underage girls. As an example, taking out 
words like ``schoolgirl'' or ``cheerleader''--they told them to do that 
so they could still place the ads; in other words, get the money for 
the ads. As you can imagine, this is a very lucrative business. So they 
were saying that they needed to clean it up. That practice covered up 
evidence of these crimes. It actually also made it harder for law 
enforcement to follow up on these cases. They did it for a very simple 
reason. They wanted the ads because they increased their profits, but 
obviously they had an incredibly detrimental impact, and still do, on 
women and children around our country.
  I spoke earlier this week on the floor about Kubiiki Pride because 
she testified before us and she is also part of a documentary called 
``I Am Jane Doe.'' If you are interested in this issue, check it out. 
It is on Netflix.
  Kubiiki Pride told us this alarming story of a mom whose daughter 
goes missing. She can't find her. She was told to look on this site 
called backpage. She does, and she sees her daughter's photographs 
there--sexually explicit photographs.
  She calls backpage and says: That is my daughter; she has been 
missing. She is 14 years old, and she is on your website. Thank you for 
taking down the ad.
  Their response: Did you pay for the ad?
  She said: No, of course I didn't pay for it. I am the mother.
  They said: We can't take down the ad because you didn't pay for it.
  That story tells us how evil these websites are.
  Let me tell you another story about Yvonne Ambrose. Yvonne testified 
before the Commerce Committee, and you could have heard a pin drop when 
she was telling her story. Her daughter was 16 years old and she was 
trafficked on backpage.com. She was sold for sex on backpage.com at 16 
years old. Yvonne got a call on Christmas Eve 2016, the call no parent 
ever wants to get. The call was from law enforcement saying that her 
daughter, Desiree, who was being trafficked at the time on 
backpage.com, had been murdered.
  Yvonne is honoring Desiree's memory by getting engaged in this issue 
and helping us to pass this legislation. I appreciate her challenge and 
her grief. But she is also sure that this legislation is the thing that 
would have kept girls like her daughter from getting involved in this, 
because when she went after backpage to try to hold them accountable, 
she was told: I am sorry; they have immunity under Federal law.
  That Federal law, by the way, is called the Communications Decency 
Act. It was put in place with good intentions to help protect the 
freedom of the internet. It protects websites from liability when users 
put something on their site, but it was never meant to protect criminal 
activity. It has been misinterpreted, in my view, by the courts, but it 
also needs to be clarified, because it is not as clear as it should be, 
and that is what our legislation does.
  This legislation, by the way, was enacted back in 1996--22 years ago, 
when the internet was in its infancy. There needed to be something to 
help provide protection from liability. But, unfortunately, it has been 
used as a shield by these criminals to be able to sell women and 
children online without accountability.

  The same law that was actually written back then was also focused, in 
part, on keeping indecent material--pornography--from going to 
children, ironically, and now it is being used to shield these 
traffickers. I know Congress did not intend that broad immunity, and I 
know we need to fix it.
  By the way, the district attorneys around the country agree with us 
on this--prosecutors. They have asked us to change this law. Their 
associations have even been involved in this issue. Fifty State 
attorneys general have written to us, asking us to do this, including, 
by the way, some former State attorneys general who are now Members of 
this body.
  In the most blatant call on Congress yet, we had a court in 
Sacramento, CA, say: You have to fix this law because, otherwise, we 
can't do anything to keep people from exploiting women and children 
online. A number of courts have said this and basically have called on 
Congress--welcomed us to enter into it. The one in California said: 
``If and until Congress sees fit to amend the immunity law, the broad 
reach of the Communications Decency Act even applies to those alleged 
to support the exploitation of others by allowing trafficking.''
  In other words, they are asking Congress to step in and do something.
  That is what this does. It allows online sex trafficking victims to 
get the justice they deserve and it allows prosecutors to hold these 
websites accountable.
  We do it with two very narrow changes. First, allowing these victims 
to get the justice they deserve by removing the broad liability 
protections for a narrow set of bad actors. In fact, we actually say 
that for the good actors, there is a Good Samaritan provision: If you 
want to clean up your website and get the offensive material off, you 
are protected.
  Second, it does allow for the State prosecutors to go after these 
websites, which they can't do now. So it takes the Federal standard--it 
is not a new standard; it is Federal law, which is already a criminal 
act--and says, allow these State prosecutors, these State attorneys 
general, to prosecute these websites that violate these Federal laws.
  It is incredibly important to pass this. We did it narrowly. We have 
a knowing standard here; in other words, to be affected by this, you 
have to knowingly be facilitating, supporting, or assisting sex 
trafficking. We did that because we wanted to be sure it was focused on 
this issue and not affecting the broader freedom of the internet.
  We have a lot of support now. A couple of weeks ago the White House 
announced its support for this legislation. I mentioned that 68 
Senators are now supporting it. It passed in the House of 
Representatives about 10 days ago with over 300 votes.
  It has support from around the country, most importantly. All of the 
groups are focused on this issue of how to avoid women and children 
from getting caught in this web of human trafficking and then how to 
help them when they get out to provide for the important recovery 
efforts that are needed from the trauma of this. Those groups, of 
course, are strongly supportive.
  Law enforcement has been terrific. The Fraternal Order of Police 
stepped up early on in strong support of this legislation. So have all 
of the other law enforcement groups represented here in Washington 
through their national offices. We appreciate their help.
  We appreciate the fact that parents have been willing to come forward 
and tell these difficult stories, as was the case of Kubiiki Pride, as 
was the case of Yvonne Ambrose, whom I talked about earlier, and her 
daughter, Desiree. They told their stories from their heart in order to 
get Congress to wake up and do the right thing. We now need to do that.
  This legislation is now before this body. We expect to have a vote 
next week on it. We need to do all we can to address this stain on our 
national character. We need to do all we can to provide these victims 
the justice they deserve. We need to do all we can to ensure that we 
stop the selling of women and children online.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


               Farm Service Agency Loan Flexibility Bill

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Michigan's farmers. 
Agriculture is a vital part of Michigan's economy. Our State is home to 
more than 51,000 farmers who contribute

[[Page S1746]]

over $100 billion to the Nation's economy.
  Michigan is also the second most diverse farm State in the Nation, 
growing more than 300 commodities, including a significant portion of 
our Nation's milk, corn, cherries, cucumbers, and much more.
  Michigan farmers and farmers across our country feed the Nation and 
the world, and we must do what we can to support them. Our agricultural 
businesses rely on the ability to access the resources they need to 
keep growing, creating jobs, and contributing to our national economy.
  Access to these resources can be especially challenging for new farm 
operations that are just getting started, including small farms that 
make up 82 percent of Michigan's agricultural producers. Small farms 
that are just starting out and are facing tough economic conditions 
sometimes struggle to have access to affordable credit. These 
businesses rely upon important services provided by the Farm Service 
Agency, which works with lenders to guarantee and deliver small-dollar 
loans to the small farmers who need it most.
  Farm Service Agency loans and guarantees can help farmers cover 
urgent operating costs like feed, seed, and fertilizer to get them 
through the season. Without these loans, farmers could lose their 
ability to purchase equipment and other necessities for the planting 
season and could be forced to curtail their operations.
  Currently, more than 2,300 farms in Michigan have Farm Service Agency 
loans, totaling more than $630 million. Across the country last year, 
the Farm Service Agency made and guaranteed almost 40,000 loans, 
totaling over $6 billion.
  This program is in such high demand that in 2016, the Farm Service 
Agency ran out of money to finance operating loans. This included more 
than 1,000 loans that have already been approved. This led to a 
backlog, and farmers were forced to wait for months until Congress 
passed emergency funding to get the loans they needed for their day-to-
day operations.
  Access to capital is critical across a range of businesses, but it is 
incredibly important for our small farmers. They can lose out on an 
entire growing season if they can't buy the equipment and the supplies 
they need while they wait on Congress to fund the Farm Service Agency.
  This year the FSA loan programs are again on track to exceed 
available funding, and if that happens, farmers will again be stuck 
waiting on Congress to receive the loan they deserve and need.
  That is why I introduced bipartisan legislation this week with my 
colleague, Senator David Perdue of Georgia, to provide greater 
flexibility to the FSA loan program to continue serving farmers during 
periods of high demand.
  My bill--the Farm Service Agency Loan Flexibility Act--would allow 
the FSA program to increase its loan authority in years when the demand 
for loans unexpectedly exceeds the supply of funding.
  The legislation would enable FSA to increase the available loan 
funding by up to 25 percent for the fiscal year for self-funding loans 
and guarantees that do not require appropriation. It would also 
authorize FSA to increase the loan cap by up to 25 percent for FSA 
direct loans that require budget authority and would allow FSA to draw 
stopgap funding for these direct loans from the Commodity Credit 
Corporation.
  I am proud to have the support of the Michigan Farm Bureau, the 
Michigan Agri-business Association, the American Bankers Association, 
and the National Farmers Union, among many others.
  Like our small businesses, students, and families, America's farmers 
deserve to have affordable loan options. They deserve our attention and 
they deserve our support.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Farm Service Agency Loan 
Flexibility Act to help meet the financial needs of our farming 
communities as they support and sustain us each and every day.
  Thank you.
  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. PERDUE. 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.


    Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Bill

  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, it is not often I get to come to the U.S. 
Senate with an uplifted heart, but today I do. Yesterday, two-thirds of 
this body got together on an issue that is so important to Main Street 
America and agreed.
  After weeks of negotiation and going back and forth, we passed a 
bipartisan banking bill, and I believe historians will look back on 
this week and this bill as being a watershed event. It was a measured 
bill. It didn't blow up Dodd-Frank; it didn't do away with it. It 
didn't go as far as some people wanted; it did more than others wanted, 
but two-thirds of us put the national interests above our own self-
interests and passed a bill that will change the face of lending for 
small community banks and regional banks across our country.
  Last year, when President Trump became President, he said: Job one is 
growing the economy. After 8 years of the lowest economic performance 
in our history, he knew that if you are ever going to deal with the 
long-term debt crisis we have, you have to first grow the economy. He 
was right. His instincts were exactly right on.
  So what did we focus on? The President had us focus on regulations, 
energy, and taxes. I am happy to tell you, this body collectively 
agreed, and we got those things done. We reversed 860-some rules and 
regulations last year. We unleashed our energy potential, as the 
Presiding Officer knows very well. Late last year, we passed an earth-
shattering, historic tax cut and tax modification bill that will 
unleash our potential and make us competitive with the rest of the 
world.
  Why was all that necessary? Well, we had gone through an experiment 
where Big Government--more regulation and more control--was the call of 
the day, and we saw the result of that. So what we have been doing is, 
in a measured way, reversing many of those onerous fiscal policies that 
kept the monetary policy from igniting the economy again. That is all 
this is.
  At the beginning of last year, some $7 trillion almost was not at 
work in our $20 trillion economy. That is historic. That is 
unbelievable. You can't even describe that to people outside this 
country. There was some $2 trillion on the balance sheets of the 
Russell 1000. That is now being employed. We see announcements every 
week where companies are announcing capital plans, capital expenditure 
plans, for the next few years largely as a result of the pullback on 
regulations last year.
  Second, we see that by eliminating our archaic repatriation tax that 
was part of the tax bill, there is some $3 trillion of unrepatriated 
U.S. profits overseas, and most of that will be coming back. The 
banking bill we just did that reverses some of the more onerous 
provisions of Dodd-Frank on small banks and community banks will free 
up some $2 trillion potential in lending capacity. I think this is 
historic.
  After Dodd-Frank, we created a two-street economy: We had Wall Street 
and we had Main Street. I have a chart here that explains. This happens 
so often in Washington, where well-intended people who have very little 
experience in the free enterprise system make decisions that have 
unintended consequences--and this is one. Dodd-Frank was intended to 
rein in and control the big banks. Yet what it did inadvertently was 
penalize the small banks and make big banks better business.
  This chart calls out--the way I would measure this is the lending 
activity. The dark blue line here shows, since the 2008 crisis, large 
business loans coming out of the major money-centered banks have 
increased dramatically. Even that hasn't driven the recovery we talk 
about because a lot of the job creation comes in smalltown America and 
small companies.
  This light-blue line is small business loans, less than $1 million. 
We are not even back to where we were in 2008. We will be, now that 
this bill just passed, because it releases or changes the reserve 
requirements for small and community banks and regional banks. It also 
changes the definition of what is a regional bank and increases it to 
$250

[[Page S1747]]

billion from $50 billion. That lowers the regulatory burden and the 
cost of compliance for these small banks. That gets translated into 
money flow--cashflow--into businesses that create jobs.
  This is an innovation economy. We know how to create jobs. We just 
need to get the Federal Government out of the way. One-size-fits-all 
regulations do not work. Yesterday, we pulled back on a blunt 
instrument law--Dodd-Frank--done with a supermajority, by the way. 
Dodd-Frank was totally ineffective and got the opposite result of what 
they really wanted.
  Those small banks and community banks did nothing to cause the 2008 
and 2009 crisis, but since Dodd-Frank was enacted, over 1,700 small 
banks, primarily, have gone out of business--1,700--many because they 
were unable to cope or afford to comply with the 2,319 pages and 390 
new regulations imposed by Dodd-Frank. Let me say that again: 390 new 
regulations were imposed by Dodd-Frank. My goodness.

  These small banks had nothing to do with the crisis of 2008. Many of 
these banks were community and regional banks that actually support 
small businesses on Main Street, give small businesses the needed 
capital, and sponsor Little League baseball parks. I grew up in a 
Little League baseball park sponsored by the three banks in my 
hometown. My father was a board member of one of those small banks. I 
remember those days. They were involved in the community. When you 
borrowed money from them, they knew you personally. What we have done 
is created an environment that just shut down lending activity in these 
small banks.
  Small business lending--which we all know is a driver in every 
recovery since World War II--took nearly 8 years to barely get back to 
where we were in 2008, and I am not sure we are totally there, if you 
go across the board, entirely.
  I am so glad to stand here and say that finally the U.S. Senate took 
action. I am also proud to say, even though it didn't go as far as I 
would like, that we got to a measured approach here that both sides 
could agree.
  I remind everybody in this body that two-thirds of us agreed to this. 
I can't think of another issue that has come before this body. I think 
we had one vote, 98 to 2, to allow the head of the VA to run his human 
resources practices the way people in the real world do, and we have 
seen over 1,500 people now replaced at the VA to clean that place up. I 
can't think of another thing that has brought us together like this 
because we all know small banks have been inappropriately affected by 
Dodd-Frank.
  Republicans and Democrats proved this week, and over the past several 
weeks, that we can put our self-interests aside and get to the better 
good. I am proud to be a part of this. That is why I ran for the 
Senate. That is why the Presiding Officer ran. We didn't come up here 
to not get anything and to just get reelected. The American people are 
fed up. That is how Donald Trump got elected President. That is how I 
got elected.
  I would dare say, the American people have the right idea about the 
future of America, if we would just listen to them. Nobody has all the 
right answers, but freeing up capital right now to put to work in our 
economy is the only way we are going to grow this economy north of 3 
percent, and I believe we can breathe life back into our rural 
communities.
  I had lunch yesterday with the Secretary of Agriculture. They are 
focused on redeveloping our rural communities that have been ignored 
for the last decade. These communities share the values that built 
America. Yet they have been ignored by past administrations that led to 
big city, big urban focus. I think this bill, more than anything else 
we have done since I have been in the Senate, will actually breathe 
life back into those rural communities.
  I applaud our Democratic partners across the aisle. Seventeen of them 
took the heat from their own party and from K Street and from the 
vested lobbyists who did not want this to happen. I applaud them for 
their courage and for standing up for the people back home. That is 
what we are here to do. It doesn't always work out this way, but 
sometimes 15 or 16 of our Republican Party will work with them and get 
a bill they want to do. That is what this Senate body is supposed to 
do.
  I know there are some on the other side of the aisle who really want 
a one-size-fits-all bigger government and more intrusion. We heard the 
speeches this week: It is going to be so draconian. They just don't 
understand how this bill will breathe life back into capital formation, 
which is the cornerstone of a capitalistic society, but I believe most 
people in America have seen the dark side. They have seen the punitive 
nature of large regulatory bodies by a Federal Government that wants to 
dominate every aspect of our life, and Dodd-Frank was one of the 
ramifications of that--accomplished, as I said, only during a 
supermajority.
  The irony of Dodd-Frank is that it is just another example of 
Washington overreach that hurts the very people it claims to champion 
and fails to help the working middle class. We see from this chart, 
large businesses had no problem getting loans, but the small startup 
entrepreneur is having trouble today, and that is what this bill goes a 
long way toward helping to alleviate. Small businesses should look at 
this and say: We are back in business. We are open for business. I 
believe this will breathe life back into many communities around our 
country.
  Community and regional banks and, by extension, communities and small 
businesses across the country have been unduly punished for something 
they had nothing to do with. It is time to correct that, and this bill 
does that.
  I am proud to be a Member of the U.S. Senate today. I haven't said 
that many times here. I am proud because we took action, we put our 
self-interests aside, and this is exactly the kind of result the 
American people want us to deliver.
  This rollback--which I believe is very measured--combined with last 
year's regulatory rollback, President Trump's steps to unleash our 
energy potential and, yes, our historic tax bill, go a long way to be a 
big win for our economy. It sends a message to the rest of the world.
  I am hopeful the House is going to pass this bill as soon as possible 
and that President Trump is going to be able to sign it into law very 
soon. President Trump has a vision for America. It is born out of Main 
Street America. I believe this puts us back on the track to greatness 
and leadership in the world economically, socially, politically. It is 
the right thing to do for our country. It is the right thing to do for 
every person in America.
  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. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Gun Safety

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about gun ownership 
and gun safety in Virginia and in the United States. I speak as a gun 
owner, and I speak as a strong Second Amendment supporter. I want to do 
a couple of things in this speech, but one thing I want to do is put to 
rest the idea that gun owners, gun ownership, and the Second Amendment 
are incompatible with reasonable gun safety rules.
  I accept the ruling, the holding, and the principle announced by the 
Supreme Court in the Heller decision that the Second Amendment conveys 
an individual right to bear arms and conveys that right to the American 
public. There was, and there remains, some controversy over the ruling. 
Some have argued that the text of the amendment discusses only the 
right to bear arms in the context of participating in a militia, which 
in 1787 was a necessary strategy for defending the Nation during a time 
when we had no standing Army. For years, many scholars and courts 
accepted that notion and argued that the Second Amendment was sort of 
different from the others in that way. In Heller, the Supreme Court 
ruled that the Second Amendment, like all the other amendments, conveys 
an individual right, and I accept and believe that interpretation.
  But the Heller decision came with an important caveat. The Second 
Amendment is the only amendment that uses the phrase ``well 
regulated.'' The amendment may convey a personal

[[Page S1748]]

right to gun ownership, and it does, but it explicitly acknowledges 
that regulations are part of what may be necessary. Courts subsequent 
to Heller have frequently held that the particular regulations are well 
within the scope of the Second Amendment.
  The NRA and other organizations often pretend that the phrase ``well 
regulated'' doesn't even appear in the amendment. Often, they will 
print a copy of the Second Amendment or the text, and they will have 
only the second clause, omitting the ``well regulated'' phrase. While 
that phrase, like the text of the amendment itself, is set in the 
context of a militia, it is clear from its usage that the Framers knew 
firearms were dangerous, though necessary, and there needed to be rules 
to ensure their safe use. In other words, the phrase ``well regulated'' 
in the text is not there to refer to the kind of uniform that a militia 
member would wear, whether they should have a beard or not. It is there 
to refer to the need for discipline and training to keep those people 
who bear arms behaving in a reasonable and safe manner.
  Even if the phrase ``well regulated'' did not appear in the text of 
the Second Amendment--and that phrase ``well regulated'' appears in no 
other amendment, only the second--it would still be pretty clear that 
the Second Amendment right, just like other constitutional rights, is 
not absolute and free from any governmental rules. The Heller decision, 
authored by Justice Scalia, stated this very clearly: A ruling of 
individual ownership and use of firearms does not restrict the 
government from imposing reasonable rules on their use. Many subsequent 
cases have affirmed these reasonable rules over time.
  The First Amendment, for example, guarantees the right to free speech 
and makes clear that no law infringing upon such a right is 
constitutional. But the Supreme Court has long held that government 
agencies can place reasonable limits on the time, place, and manner of 
speech, so long as the limits don't discriminate on the content of the 
idea that is expressed. An easy example is, a city can ban sound trucks 
with megaphones from driving through neighborhoods blaring ads in the 
middle of the night while people are sleeping. The right to free speech 
is subject to reasonable limitation.
  Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but 
States punish civil libel through their civil litigation and court 
processes. A newspaper trashing somebody through a knowingly false 
statement can be subjected to civil liability, and that paper can't 
claim the right to free press to shield it from accountability.
  The Second Amendment, in this way, is similar to the First Amendment, 
and I could go through other examples. While the right to ownership, to 
bear and use arms--not just ownership but using arms--may not be 
infringed, reasonable rules regarding gun usage are explicitly 
contemplated by the amendment and constitutionally allowable.
  It is important to recognize that we all tolerate reasonable limits 
on gun use. One common use of firearms in Virginia and Alaska--I know 
from my one visit to Alaska that this is the case--is hunting. In 
Virginia, the voters of our State, by referendum, amended our State 
constitution in 2000 to guarantee to all a right to hunt, fish, and 
gather game subject to rules prescribed by our general assembly. I was 
legal counsel for this effort, before I was in State office, arguing 
the validity of the amendment when a citizens group sued to try to keep 
it off the ballot. We prevailed in the litigation, and the amendment 
passed overwhelmingly, with more than 60 percent of the vote. That vote 
showed our population both embraced the right to hunt but also embraced 
the acceptance of the notion that this right should be subject to 
reasonable rules imposed by the legislature.
  We have many State-imposed rules on hunting in Virginia, just as I am 
sure is the case in Alaska. The State determines the seasons in which 
hunting can occur--those seasons can differ depending on what you are 
hunting--where it can occur, the license you need, the training you 
must complete, which days of the week are open for hunting, what kinds 
of weapons can be used in hunting, and even the size of a magazine in 
any automatic or repeating weapon that can be used in hunting.
  For example, in Virginia, by statute, you can hunt with a repeating 
shotgun, but the magazine can contain no more than three rounds. If the 
magazine on a weapon is larger than that--a larger magazine--you are 
required to have a plug or filler in the magazine that will reduce its 
capacity to no more than three total rounds, as measured either in the 
magazine or in the chamber itself.
  The bottom line for these regulations, which are well accepted and 
understood in Virginia, is clear. Even the use of firearms for hunting, 
protected by the Virginia Constitution as well as by the Second 
Amendment, is subject to safety rules that society fully accepts. The 
clear constitutionality of gun safety rules and the public acceptance 
of these rules pose stark questions to Congress.
  Why, in the face of escalating tragedy, are we so unwilling to adopt 
commonsense gun safety rules designed to reduce gun violence? Why does 
Congress shield gun manufacturers from liability with a Federal 
protection that we don't give to the manufacturers of other products? 
Why does Congress limit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
from using its resources to research gun violence? Why does Congress 
limit the ability of law enforcement to fully trace the use of guns 
that are used to commit crimes? Why does Congress prohibit weapon use 
and ownership by certain classes of dangerous individuals but resist a 
universal background check system that would be necessary to enforce 
that prohibition? Why won't Congress enact the same kinds of magazine 
limitations on weapons used to kill people that we embrace on weapons 
used to kill deer? Why won't Congress ban weapons of war--weapons of 
war that are used by trained officials, as was the case with the 
Presiding Officer in his military service or my son in military 
service, but why won't we ban those weapons of war from the streets of 
our country?
  Self-defense, sport, hunting are all protected and encompassed within 
the broad protections of the Second Amendment. There is not, there has 
never been, and there never will be an effort to confiscate all weapons 
in the country because of their popular acceptance and because of the 
clear commands of the Constitution. But why can't we have reasonable 
safety rules?
  America's children--so many of them appeared here yesterday, children 
from a middle school in Northern Virginia, some high schoolers from 
Thomas Jefferson High School; I visited with students from Florida--
posed some even starker questions to us.
  Does Congress care more about its children or more about 
contributions from the NRA and gun manufacturers? Can adults act like 
adults and try to keep children safe? Those were the questions that I 
heard from the students on the Capitol steps yesterday.
  I applaud the children of the country who are asking these questions. 
They stand together with an overwhelming majority of Americans who 
believes we can do better and we need to do better. I have seen the 
tragedy of gun violence, but I have also seen that we can do better and 
that part of that is having better rules on guns.
  When I was elected to the city council in Richmond in 1994, we had 
the second highest homicide rate in the United States. That was the 
only top 10 list we were on. That is not the one you want to be on. I 
went to too many funerals and too many wakes and too many crime scenes, 
and I was in too many church basements with support groups of homicide 
victims' families, and I don't want to do those kinds of things again.
  Yet, through the pain of that--multiple efforts by multiple people--
we helped reduce our violent crime rate risk. We dropped the homicide 
rate by 60 percent. We dropped the aggravated assault/violent crime 
rate by nearly the same number. We did a number of things, but one of 
the things we did was to recognize that we had a problem with guns. It 
was not just about people or just about mental health. Those were 
issues, sure, but we had a high gun carry rate in Richmond. The gun 
carry rate means: In 100 stops that the police would make, what 
percentage of the time were people carrying weapons? In Richmond, we 
just had an unusually high percentage compared to other cities for a 
variety of the reasons.

[[Page S1749]]

  What we decided to do is, if we could bring down the gun carry rate, 
we may not make bad people good people, but we could avoid an 
argument's breaking bad and then turning into a homicide or an 
aggravated assault. We were able to do things that brought the gun 
carry rate down, that made people leave their guns at home, if they 
were leaving their homes, instead of putting them in their pockets. By 
doing that, we helped to bring down gun violence. We found that you 
could take concrete steps to make people safer.
  I was the Governor at the time of what was the worst shooting in the 
history of the United States. The weird thing to say about my own State 
is that I wish it had always been the worst shooting--the tragedy at 
Virginia Tech in April of 2007, when 32 people were killed. It has now 
been eclipsed by shootings in Orlando and Las Vegas and Newtown. So 
many other tragedies have happened since then that even some of the 
particulars of the Virginia Tech shooting start to recede in memory as 
new tragedies happen.
  It was painful. I interacted with the 32 families who had lost their 
kids and who had lost their parents who were professors, and I have 
continued to interact with them over the years and to learn what went 
wrong that day, and a lot of things went wrong. Vowing to the families 
that we would try to fix them has been a cause of my life for the last 
11 years.
  We also learned through the pain some things we could do to make our 
communities safer. In this particular case, there were problems with 
mental health, and there were problems with privacy rules, and there 
were problems with campus safety protocols. Yet a significant problem 
was that we had a flaw in the background record check system. A young 
individual who had been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous and was 
prohibited from owning a weapon was able to slip through the cracks in 
the system to get a weapon that he shouldn't have had. So the lesson we 
learned is, with a better background check system, you reduce the risk 
of tragedy.
  Whether it is a common street crime of the kind that occurs every day 
and may not get the attention on the weekly news or whether it is a 
mass shooting that gets the attention on the weekly news, I have had 
some scar tissue over this, but at least the scar tissue has taught me 
a few things. One of the things I have learned is you can take 
meaningful steps, and if you do so, you make communities safer. If you 
know that you can take steps to make people safer, then you must. You 
must.
  I will conclude and just say this.
  We need a debate on the floor of this Chamber about how to reduce gun 
violence and promote gun safety. We haven't had one since April of 
2013. It has been 5 years, and the list of tragedies is getting longer 
and longer and longer. We shouldn't be afraid to entertain both 
Republican and Democratic proposals for reducing the scourge of gun 
violence. There will be different kinds of proposals, and that is as it 
should be.
  It is just like the debate we had about Dreamers a few weeks ago. 
There were different proposals put on the table that were going in 
different directions. We know in this body that we need to get 60 votes 
to get anything passed, which means nothing will pass unless there is 
some bipartisan support. Yet we shouldn't be afraid of having that 
debate. We have been afraid to have the debate, but our children are 
afraid for their lives. If they are showing the courage to speak out 
for change, the least we can do is show that we are listening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                     The First Saint Patrick's Day

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, before the Senator from Virginia leaves, 
since he is the cochairman of the United States-Spain Council, I want 
him to hear my very brief remarks.
  As will be officially announced today at 4 o'clock on the new 
website, La Florida, the following has been discovered by historian Dr. 
Michael Francis, of the University of South Florida at St. Petersburg, 
who is one of the eminent Spanish colonial scholars in the world: The 
first St. Patrick's Day was not in Boston in 1737. Neither was the 
first St. Patrick's Day parade in New York in 1762. As discovered by 
Dr. Francis in the Spanish archives in Seville, the first St. Patrick's 
Day was celebrated by an Irish priest, Richard Arthur, better known as 
Ricardo Arturo, in St. Augustine in 1600, to be followed by the first 
St. Patrick's Day parade in the New World, in St. Augustine, in 1601.
  Needless to say, it is not going to make our friends in Boston and 
New York happy to hear that they have been eclipsed by well over a 
century and a half. However, it shows the strong roots of the Irish 
people in America all the way back to Saint Patty's Day in 1600 in St. 
Augustine, FL.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I enjoyed that little bit of history 
there. I am sure that the Irish everywhere--and those who are, perhaps, 
not quite as Irish--will find good reason to celebrate on March 17 
whether one is in Florida or in the Northeast or in Alaska, as the 
Presiding Officer certainly knows.


                              The Iditarod

  Mr. President, I am here to share a little bit of Alaska. I know that 
the Presiding Officer will also appreciate the update on an event that 
we in Alaska celebrate every year and have for the past 46 years--the 
annual Iditarod race.
  This is a sled dog race of international fame, a race that begins 
just outside of Anchorage, AK, and ends in Nome. It is about 1,000 
miles. I think this year's southern route was 998 miles to be exact. It 
is one of the longest sled dog races on Earth, and it travels over some 
pretty interesting terrain. ``Interesting'' is a choice word to use as 
you cross mountains and frozen tundra and forests and the frozen ice. 
The Iditarod is, truly, a race for only the most hardy, only the best.
  The Iditarod, itself, commemorates the deadly 1925 diphtheria 
outbreak that happened in Nome. There was no way to get the diphtheria 
antitoxin from the coastal area, down in Seward at the time, all the 
way up to Nome. This was before we had air transport as a viable 
option. So the real question was, How do you move this? How do you move 
this quickly? It was the middle of the winter. This was not a race. 
This was a lifesaving mission to move serum, again, 1,000-plus miles to 
the north to save a community. They resorted to a relay of dog sleds, 
of dog teams, to move that serum.
  Today, the Iditarod is no longer a relay. It is a race of individual 
sled dog teams. Again, it is about a 1,000-mile race. It is a test of 
determination, certainly, of the K-9 mushers, and it is tough. It is 
always in the first weekend of March. At this time of year in Alaska, 
sometimes conditions can be pretty good--above zero. Sometimes they can 
be 30 degrees or 40 degrees below zero. Sometimes you can have a ground 
blizzard and wind conditions that move close to 80, 90, 100 miles an 
hour, and when you want to talk about windchill, out there, it is real; 
it is extreme.
  This 46th annual running of the Iditarod hasn't been that challenging 
in terms of the cold, in terms of what they have seen in the past, but 
there is always some bump. There is always something that causes the 
race to be a little bit different. This year, the mushers had a 
scheduled checkpoint on Eagle Island. This is a place where they take a 
mandatory 8-hour break. The game changer in the race this year was in 
the snow conditions. Because of the ceiling, planes could not drop food 
for the mushers, so they had to take this very critical checkpoint off 
of the board. The mushers plan all of this out in advance of the trip. 
They kind of know where they are going to be along the way. They plan 
their moves. So this was a pretty unanticipated event at the end and 
could have impacted it. Yet you had mushers who were pretty versatile, 
pretty adaptable. They took the news in stride and continued up the 
Yukon River toward other rest stops there.
  Nicolas Petit, who had arrived in Anvik, was the frontrunner at the 
time. He was, like, ``Ah, no big deal. My strategy is an evolving 
thing.'' Yet that evolving thing allows for, again, curve balls that 
get in the way. In the instance of Nicolas Petit, the frontrunner--a 
Girdwood musher from a place that the Presiding Officer and I frequent 
often and I call home--everyone was quite excited. Long story

[[Page S1750]]

short, he lost the trail and lost the lead.
  You think to yourself: Wait a minute. How can you lose the trail? 
This is not a NASCAR race, where you just go around the same track 
here. This is 1,000 miles. If it is windy, if it is blowing, if there 
is ground cover that you can't see through, things happen--things truly 
happen. On top of the harsh climate conditions that the mushers face, 
there are occasionally chance encounters with some wildlife. You have 
moose, caribou, bears, and porcupines out there, and they are all 
potential rendezvous for mushers around the trail.
  One of the interesting headlines to come out of the Iditarod this 
year was a headline that read: ``Iditarod Musher Chases off Bison with 
Ax''--an ax, yes. Marcelle Fressineau and her 14-sled dogs were between 
Rohn and Nikolai, and they came face-to-face with a mother bison and 
her calf. What do you do? You don't want your dogs to be in danger, so 
the tough Alaskan woman takes her ax and charges the bison and says, 
``Go away. Go away.'' Long story short, they ran away, and she 
continued her journey to Nome. You have to admit that people like this 
are ready for adventure and are full of grit and determination to 
succeed.
  Of course, it is not just the mushers. It is the K-9 athletes. It is 
these dogs that, truly, are the inspiration to watch along the journey. 
This year's Iditarod kicked off with 67 talented, resilient competitors 
from all over Alaska and the world--67 dog teams.
  This year, Joar Ulsom was the first musher to arrive in Nome. He came 
in just after 3 a.m. on Wednesday morning. He is originally from 
Norway, and he has been dreaming of being an Iditarod racer since he 
was a kid. In 2011, he relocated to Willow, AK, which is kind of our 
dog mushing capital of the world, and he really has made this dream a 
reality. He is a seasoned racer. He first completed the Yukon Quest in 
2012 and has completed other races since then. He completed--he won the 
race in 9 days 12 hours. Again, this is not a recordbreaking time. Snow 
slowed things down, but think about standing on the back of a sled for 
9 days 12 hours, minimal sleep, constant attention to the dogs in front 
of you. It is just an extraordinary story.

  The newspapers are telling the story of Joar crossing the finish line 
in Nome. Thousands of people had gathered under the burled arch to 
congratulate him. It was about 4 degrees, 3 a.m., with thousands of 
people out in the street. My brother and sister-in-law came all the way 
from Brazil to be there on the other end. It was my sister-in-law's 
dream of a lifetime--bucket list--to be there at the end of the 
Iditarod.
  Joar and his team are happy, and we are very pleased for him. I offer 
hearty congratulations to our 2018 Iditarod champion and his team of 
amazing dogs.
  I wish all the competitors, many of whom are still out on the trail, 
success and safety as they compete in this truly ``Last Great Race on 
Earth.''


                      Tribute to Chuck Kleeschulte

  Mr. President, I want to recognize a longtime member of my staff, 
Chuck Kleeschulte, who recently retired from the Senate. If you are 
from Alaska and you have ever had any dealings with the Alaska 
delegation, you have met or have dealt with Chuck Kleeschulte. He is 
held in great respect in our State as a result of the work he did for 
so many people back home.
  It is an understatement to say we miss him already. He hasn't been 
gone that long, but we miss him already.
  Let me share a little bit of his biography for those who were not 
fortunate enough to know and work with Chuck. He is an Alaskan not by 
birth but by choice. He moved from Ohio to Alaska in 1976 to work as a 
reporter at the Juneau Empire in our capital. A few years later, he 
became press secretary for then-Governor Jay Hammond. He followed that 
with a stint at the Department of Environmental Conservation and then 
he returned to reporting for a few more years.
  Chuck first came to the Senate in 1991. He was convinced by my father 
Frank Murkowski, who was a Senator at the time, to move to Washington, 
DC, to be his press secretary. So he did. He made the move, and now 27 
years later, Chuck is still part of the family here. He served as my 
father's communications director, a legislative assistant in my 
personal office, and most recently as a senior adviser for the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee.
  Chuck, I think it is fair to say, is an institution within our 
institution. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of all things Alaska. If 
someone wanted to know what the vote was on a measure back in 1993 that 
related to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline or whatever, Chuck would be able 
to recall that without any notes, without any prodding, without any 
background. Chuck is extraordinary. He has a work ethic that is second 
to none.
  We have a phrase that has been around for about 30 years now, and it 
is ``Check with Chuck.'' Just check with Chuck because you don't need 
to do any fact-checking. He is it.
  His legislative achievements are almost too many to name. Let me talk 
about some of the big-ticket Alaska items that Chuck was involved with. 
He was involved with responsible energy development in the 1002 area. 
He led this fight for us for decades as we sought to open up ANWR. He 
has been the lead on a lifesaving road for the good people of King Cove 
that we just, again, have been successful with. He has been working to 
build out a safer route on the Sterling Highway, a much needed timber 
supply in the Tongass National Forest. He wrote legislation to ensure 
the transfer of lands owed to Alaska, to promote the construction of an 
Alaska gasline, and to expand the use of renewable resources, such as 
hydropower, marine hydrokinetic, and geothermal. Chuck was involved 
with all of it.
  He has been involved in so many significant accomplishments for our 
State, but what is equally impressive is the work Chuck did very 
quietly and just every day for Alaskans all over the State. Whether it 
was a bridge that needed repair, a light pole that had toppled over in 
bad weather, land use fees that had been miscalculated by a Federal 
agency, a land exchange for a remote community, Chuck was always there. 
No matter how small the problem, no matter how complicated it may be, 
Chuck was there to work on it.
  Chuck has only been retired now for a few weeks, and the people I 
talk to are all asking: How is Chuck doing? Where is Chuck? They all 
say they are going to miss him, and I say how much I already do.
  It is a comfort to know that Chuck is not going too far. He is 
retiring from Washington, DC, and he is moving to a beautiful little 
farm in Floyd, VA. Apparently there is only one stoplight in Chuck's 
new town, but I think Chuck is going to keep busy. His better half Tori 
says she wants a cow. They want to grow a little bit of hay, and there 
is grass to mow. There is a half-acre pond that apparently is stocked 
with fish. There is a barn we all volunteered to help him paint this 
summer. We will figure out time to do the barn painting.
  To the people of Floyd, congratulations on bringing Chuck into the 
fold. We know the barn, the cow, the hay, the pond, the single 
stoplight, and the community are all very lucky to have him. I 
certainly was.
  He spent 27 years in Congress and near double that working on behalf 
of Alaska in some fashion or another. Chuck's guidance and work have 
not only benefited me but the State and people of Alaska and the rest 
of our country.
  My favorite part, what I loved best about Chuck is, after all he has 
done and all he has accomplished, he is still one of the most humble 
guys you will ever meet. I told him that recently, and he said: ``Oh, 
yeah, it's easy to be humble when you have a lot to be humble about.''
  Chuck was just that way. He is always modest, but the example he set 
as a true public servant is one to emulate. He worked hard every day--
every day. He made our office a better place. He helped people, and in 
doing so, he left some truly enormous shoes to fill.
  Should anybody doubt that Chuck left a lasting impression, all we 
have to do is look at the single space, 50-page exit memo he wrote to 
give the rest of my staff, giving them updates on everything he had 
been working on, the status, whom to contact, what to do next. Chuck 
left the guidebook. He is incredibly thorough, amazingly impressive, 
and always appreciated.
  So I want to thank Chuck Kleeschulte. Thank you. Thank you for

[[Page S1751]]

everything you did for me, for Alaska, and for our Nation. You will 
always be a part of our Senate family and a beloved member of Team 
Murkowski. After 27 years, and on behalf of those who knew him, I wish 
Chuck the absolute best as he begins his very well-deserved retirement.
  With that, 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. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Health Insurance

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I want to talk for a moment about 
something that is on the minds of anybody in this country who is making 
$60,000, $70,000, $80,000, $90,000 too much to have a subsidy to pay 
for your healthcare insurance and maybe are paying $15,000, $20,000, 
$25,000 of that salary for your insurance this year and who has heard 
from a lot of people that on October 1, the insurance companies are 
going to announce that your premium is going up. That is whom I would 
like to talk with today.
  Specifically, let me use the example of a woman named Marty in 
Tennessee. She came up to me before Christmas at the Chick-fil-A on 
Charlotte Road in Nashville, and she stopped me while I was getting my 
mac and cheese at Chick-fil-A, and she said: My name is Marty. I am a 
self-employed farmer. A few years ago, my health insurance was $300 a 
month, today it is $1,300 a month, and I cannot afford that.
  Well, in Tennessee, prices for health insurance for people who work 
and don't get any subsidy to help them buy their insurance and don't 
get insurance on the job, they don't get it from Medicare or Medicaid, 
people who work, the self-employed farmer, the contractor, the plumber, 
the songwriter, somebody who might be making $60,000, say--they are 
like Marty. They are paying $20,000 for their health insurance, and 
they cannot afford that.
  I told Marty: I think we have a Christmas present for you. I think 
Congress, when we pass the omnibus spending bill, is going to include 
in it a set of policies we have that is going to lower your rates when 
they are announced on October 1 of next year, which is 2018.
  Well, unfortunately, we had a continuing resolution at the end of the 
year, and Marty didn't get her Christmas present. Then I thought she 
might get a Valentine's present, and we went by Valentine's Day and did 
another CR, a continuing resolution.
  Now we have until the end of next week to fund the government for the 
year we are halfway through. I am on the floor today, and I can say to 
Marty and to every plumber, songwriter, self-employed person in this 
country, someone who might be between jobs, that if the Congress will 
act, we can lower their rates next year for up to as much as 40 
percent--40 percent. That is according to Oliver Wyman, one of the 
leading healthcare consulting firms in this country, which announced on 
Monday that a set of policies which we
call Alexander-Murray-Collins-Nelson, which President Trump supports, 
which Congressman Walden, who is the chairman of the House committee in 
this area, supports, which Senator McConnell supports, which I 
support--we have broad support for this. This policy we have been 
working on for months, according to Oliver Wyman, over the next 3 
years, assuming States take full advantage of all the options we are 
giving them, could lower rates by 40 percent.

  What does that mean? That means that if you are paying $20,000 for 
your health insurance--you are that $60,000-a-year plumber--that is 40 
percent of $20,000, which, by my math, is $8,000. So that would cut 
your insurance to $12,000, and you get down toward something you might 
be able to afford. Can you imagine anything more frightening than 
approaching next year knowing that you might not be able to afford 
health insurance for your family? You are thinking: Well, look, I am 
doing everything I am supposed to. The government has not gotten me on 
any kind of subsidy to buy health insurance. I am out here working. I 
am paying my taxes. Maybe I got a little tax cut that the Republicans 
put through last year, but the thing that is really a problem for me is 
my health insurance. If I am making $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 a year, I 
cannot afford $15,000, $20,000, or $25,000 a year.
  If you are a farmer in Iowa or a miner in Alaska or a songwriter in 
Nashville, you can't afford that, and you shouldn't have to, and you 
won't have to if Congress will act next week to accept the set of 
policies that I am about to briefly describe.
  There are three things we propose to do. The most important is 3 
years of reinsurance or the invisible risk pool. This is an idea that 
House Republicans have strongly supported and that Senator Collins and 
Senator Nelson have strongly supported here. It would allow more States 
to do what the State of Alaska has done. The Presiding Officer is from 
Alaska. Alaska took the very sickest people in Alaska and put them in 
one pool and called that the reinsurance pool and paid for their health 
insurance. When they did that, it so reduced the cost for everybody 
else that it lowered the rates for everybody else by 20 percent. What 
we are talking about is lowering the rate for everybody else by 40 
percent if States take full advantage of what we are proposing next 
week. So reinsurance is the first thing--3 years of reinsurance at $10 
billion a year.
  The second thing is 3 years of cost-sharing subsidies. You have to 
stop and think about it a minute, but the cost-sharing subsidies pay 
for the reinsurance. Cost-sharing subsidies are payments that are made 
to insurance companies to pay for the copays and the deductibles for 
low-income people, and that allows the companies to reduce the 
premiums. When you reduce the premiums, you reduce the ObamaCare 
subsidies.
  According to conversations we have had with the Congressional Budget 
Office, if we do 3 years of cost-sharing subsidies and 3 years of 
reinsurance at $10 billion, the cost-sharing subsidies more than pay 
for the reinsurance, if you base it on reality, which is, if Congress 
passes a law that costs $30 billion over 3 years for reinsurance and 3 
years of cost-sharing subsidies, the cost-sharing subsidies pay for the 
reinsurance and leave $2 billion over to reduce the Federal debt.
  The third part is a set of proposals that would give States more 
flexibility. This streamlines the section 1332 waiver in the Affordable 
Care Act. It makes some changes that permit the agency we call CMS to 
approve waivers from States, like the State of Alaska or Nebraska or 
Tennessee, which may say: We would like to spend our ObamaCare subsidy 
money in a different way, and we would like to add some of this 
reinsurance money to it. By doing that, that is how you achieve the 40-
percent savings for the Nebraska self-employed farmer or the Nashville 
songwriter in their insurance policies.
  So that is the set of proposals, plus within there is a provision for 
what we call a catastrophic policy, which is a policy that has somewhat 
higher deductibles but lower premiums, which people may choose to buy.
  All of that policy has broad bipartisan support. I think the 
reinsurance provision--in the Republican discussions we have had in the 
Senate, almost everybody seems to agree that the only way we can have 
an individual market, which is the market for people who buy insurance 
on their own--people who don't get it from Medicare, people who don't 
get it from Medicaid, people who don't get it on the job--let's say you 
are between jobs or you are self-employed. You are the songwriter. You 
are the plumber. Those are the people whom we are focused on here. 
There are about 11 million in the United States, but there could be a 
lot more because all of us know what it is like to think, well, I might 
lose my job, or, I might change jobs, and what do I do for insurance in 
the interim? I have the so-called COBRA available, but it is very 
expensive. If I suddenly find I am losing my job or if I am changing 
jobs and I am worrying about insurance--that is the person we are 
talking about.

  Where did these ideas come from? Did we just write them on the back 
of an envelope and give them to Congress? No. We went through a very 
serious process here in the Senate. Senator Murray, the ranking 
Democrat on the Senate HELP Committee--I am the

[[Page S1752]]

chairman--and I held four hearings last fall after Republicans failed 
to repeal and replace the ObamaCare law. We invited all Senators to 
participate. We had more than half the Senate come to our hearings and 
to our meetings with the witnesses. Out of that came the proposals to 
streamline the 1332 waiver--that is flexibility for States--and the 
need to pay for the cost-sharing subsidies temporarily, because people 
began to understand that they don't cost money, but they save taxpayer 
money because they reduce the need for Federal taxpayer subsidies. So 
that is where that came from.
  The single most important idea that was not a part of the original 
Alexander-Murray proposal was reinsurance. In the House, they call it 
the invisible risk pool. Senators Collins and Nelson have championed it 
here. Representative Costello, Representative Meadows, and other people 
championed it over there. It was part of the Republican repeal-and-
replace legislation in the House of Representatives. So the idea of 3 
years of reinsurance really has come from both bodies and from both 
sides of the aisle. It is the most essential part of any long-term 
policy to create an individual market where people can buy insurance if 
they don't get it on the job or from the government.
  This would give States half a billion dollars in the current year, 
2018, to plan for their reinsurance pools. It would then create $10 
billion over 3 years that States could use to help pay for their 
reinsurance pools, and they would use their 1332 streamlined waiver in 
the second and third year. So they could have a combination of State 
money, reinsurance Federal money, and ObamaCare subsidy money and 
hopefully, in that process, create their own way of helping to pay for 
the needs of the very sickest people in the State and, by taking them 
out of the insurance pool, lower the rates for everybody else over that 
4-year period, according to the Oliver Wyman consulting firm, by as 
much as 40 percent.
  The Congressional Budget Office has also reviewed the set of 
proposals I have just described. My staff has been working closely with 
them because we want to know what it costs if we are going to put it in 
the omnibus bill, and the preliminary feedback from the Congressional 
Budget Office is more conservative than the Oliver Wyman estimate. The 
Congressional Budget Office says that it would reduce premiums by an 
average of 10 percent in 2019 and 20 percent in 2020 and 2021 if States 
take full advantage of the 1332 waiver they have.
  As you can imagine, State Governors and State insurance commissioners 
are delighted with this package. First, they like to see us do 
something in a bipartisan way to stabilize the health insurance market 
so people aren't scared to death that they may not be able to buy a 
policy next year, but second, they think it is sound policy. It is 
sound policy.
  Much of this started when the President called me last August and 
said: Between now and the time we make a final decision on what to do 
about the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, I want to make sure that 
people aren't hurt. So he asked me if I would work with Senator Murray 
and see if we could come up with a bipartisan set of proposals that 
would stabilize the individual market. He called me several times about 
that, and we have worked together since then. That is when we came 
together with the original Alexander-Murray proposal.
  Then we had a big disagreement here within the Senate, and we had our 
tax bill wherein we repealed the individual mandate in the Affordable 
Care Act. Republicans thought that was a good idea. It made people buy 
insurance they didn't want, and it was a tax on low-income people, so 
we got rid of it. Democrats didn't like that at all.
  It is true that taking the individual mandate out, even though States 
could add it back if they want to, does increase the cost of insurance 
in the individual market. Despite that, this set of policies that I 
have described--State flexibility, the 3 years of cost-sharing 
subsidies, and the 3 years of reinsurance/invisible risk pools--those 
three policies, according to Oliver Wyman consulting, which is one of 
the leading health consulting firms in America, could lower rates to 40 
percent lower than they otherwise would be. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that looks at things 
for us, it will lower them 10 percent in 2019 and as much as 20 percent 
in the next 2 years after that. Even if it is only 20 and not 40, 20 
percent of $20,000 is $4,000 for Marty, the self-employed farmer in 
Nashville who stopped me at Chick-fil-A and said her insurance had gone 
from $300 to $1,300, $1,400 a month.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the report of 
the Oliver Wyman consulting company that says that the combination of 
policies I just described--reinsurance, cost-sharing subsidies, and the 
section 1332 waiver, which is the State flexibility--that those three 
policies will reduce rates by up to 40 percent.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Oliver Wyman Report: A Proposal To Lower ACA Premiums by More Than 40% 
                       and Cover 3.2 Million More

  (By Tammy Tomczyk, FSA, FCA, MAAA, Partner, Oliver Wyman Actuarial 
 Consulting, and Kurt Giesa, FSA, MAAA, Practice Leader, Oliver Wyman 
                         Actuarial Consulting)

       In our December 9, 2017 article, we analyzed the effects of 
     a proposal the US Senate was considering to fund cost-sharing 
     reduction (CSR) payments and appropriate $5 billion in 2019 
     and 2020 for states to establish reinsurance programs to 
     stabilize their individual insurance markets. We discussed 
     how pass-through savings could provide reinsurance coverage 
     equal to roughly $15 billion in protection for high-cost 
     claimants, and how this protection, combined with CSR 
     funding, would bring more people into the individual market 
     and lower premiums by over 20 percent.
       More recent congressional attention is focusing on a 
     proposal that includes an extension of CSRs and a reinsurance 
     program in 2019, 2020, and 2021, funded with a $10 billion 
     appropriation in each year, with federal fallback option 
     available to states in 2019. The federal fallback option 
     would likely be based on--and use the federal infrastructure 
     built to administer--the Transitional Reinsurance Program in 
     place from 2014 through 2016.
       Our healthcare microsimulation model, used to understand 
     this package's likely effects on the market, assumed states 
     would use federal pass-through savings under Section 1332 of 
     the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to supplement and leverage the 
     $10 billion the considered legislation would authorize and 
     appropriate each year. Pass-through savings result from the 
     fact that the premium subsidies available under the ACA cover 
     the difference between the second lowest cost silver plan 
     available in a rating area and a fixed percentage of a 
     household's income, varying only by federal poverty level 
     (FPL). Lower premiums result directly in lower premium 
     subsidies, and under a Section 1332 waiver, these savings 
     from lower premiums may be used to provide additional 
     reinsurance.
       In our modeling, we are presuming that states will take 
     advantage of these pass-through savings in 2019. In reality, 
     states that have not already begun working on a waiver will 
     be challenged to get a 1332 waiver filed and approved under 
     the current regulatory regime in time to impact 2019 
     premiums. The current regulatory regime includes a 
     requirement that a state enact enabling legislation, develop 
     an application, hold public hearings during a 30-day public 
     comment period, and submit the application to the US Health 
     and Human Services (HHS). HHS then undertakes a two-step 
     review process that can span up to 225 days--up to 45 days 
     for a completeness determination followed by up to 180 days 
     for review. But even those states unable to get a waiver in 
     place for 2019 would still benefit from that year's federal 
     fallback program.
       Therefore, we estimate, under the assumptions described 
     above, that an additional 3.2 million people will be covered 
     in the non-group market, and the proposal would result in 
     premiums that are at least 40 percent lower than they would 
     have been without the proposal in place, across all metal 
     levels. In those states that are not able to obtain a 1332 
     waiver and take advantage of pass-through savings for 2019, 
     we estimate that premium would decline by more than 20 
     percent across all metal levels. Those estimates include an 
     average 10 percent reduction due to the funding of CSRs, with 
     the remaining reduction coming from the reinsurance program.
       As a note, our modeling reflects elimination of the mandate 
     penalty, but does not consider the proposed regulation's 
     likely effects on association health plans or on short-term, 
     limited duration coverage.
                                  ____


    Report: Individual Insurance Premiums Next Year 40% Lower Under 
     Alexander-Murray, Collins-Nelson Than if Congress Doesn't Act

       Washington, March 12.--Health care experts at Oliver Wyman 
     released an analysis today showing that the passage of a 
     proposal based on the Alexander-Murray Bipartisan Health Care 
     Stabilization Act and the Collins-Nelson Lower Premiums 
     Through Reinsurance Act will lower premiums, compared to what 
     people in the individual market will pay if Congress doesn't 
     act, by more than 40

[[Page S1753]]

     percent in the individual market and provide insurance 
     coverage to an additional 3.2 million individuals.
       Oliver Wyman based its analysis on a proposal that would 
     fund CSRs--temporary payments to reduce out-of-pocket costs 
     for low-income Americans in the individual market--and 
     provide $10 billion annually for invisible risk pool/
     reinsurance funding in 2019, 2020, and 2021. It also factored 
     in increased flexibility for states that seek to use waivers 
     under Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act. The analysis 
     applies to ACA-compliant plans in the individual market, both 
     on and off the exchange.
       ``This analysis from the experts at Oliver Wyman further 
     demonstrates that our bipartisan proposals will help drive 
     down premiums in the individual market and make health 
     insurance more affordable for millions of Americans,'' said 
     Senators Lamar Alexander, the Chairman of the HELP Committee, 
     and Susan Collins.
       From the experts at Oliver Wyman:
       ``Therefore, we estimate . . . that an additional 3.2 
     million people will be covered in the non-group market, and 
     the proposal would result in remiums that are at least 40 
     percent lower than they would have been without the proposal 
     in place . . .''
       The analysis found that the lower rates would benefit all 
     plan levels on the exchanges.
       The analysis was performed by consulting firm Oliver Wyman. 
     On its website, Oliver Wyman describes itself as ``a global 
     leader in management consulting. With offices in 50+ cities 
     across nearly 30 countries, Oliver Wyman combines deep 
     industry knowledge with specialized expertise in strategy, 
     operations, risk management, and organization transformation. 
     The firm has more than 4,700 professionals around the world 
     who help clients optimize their business, improve their 
     operations and risk profile, and accelerate their 
     organizational performance to seize the most attractive 
     opportunities.''

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Finally, I would ask the question, What if we don't do 
this? I am generally a very optimistic person. I am results-oriented, 
and you don't get results if you don't work across party lines and if 
you don't think you are going to succeed. So I always think we will 
succeed. This has been more difficult to do than it should have been.
  I would like to suggest to my colleagues and to the American people 
that we should focus on October 1 of this year because that is the date 
when insurance rates for next year, 2019, will be announced all across 
the country. Insurance companies are working with insurance 
commissioners in every State to try to figure out what is going to 
happen, what the rates will be. They will be announcing rates on 
October 1, which is about a month before the next election.
  There a lot of people who are going to be looking at that because, in 
my State of Tennessee, rates were up 58 percent this year, and that is 
for the plumber who makes $60,000 a year; the songwriter; Marty, the 
farmer; and the people I have been describing. There was a 58-percent 
increase. So they are going to be looking on October 1 to see whether 
they can even afford any insurance in 2019.
  If we do what we are proposing here in the Alexander-Murray-Collins-
Nelson set of policies, which has broad bipartisan support in the House 
and the Senate and the support of the President, if we do that next 
week, Marty, the self-employed farmer in Tennessee, will be able to see 
on October 1 that her rates will go down and that, if Oliver Wyman is 
correct, instead of her rates going up 58 percent the way they did this 
year, they will go down 40 percent over the next 2 or 3 years. That 
means she could afford insurance.
  If we don't do it, rates will go up, and the individual market will 
probably collapse. It was near collapse a year ago. By collapsing, I 
mean there will be counties where people can't buy insurance at all. 
There will be 11 million people who are between jobs, who are self-
employed, or who are working who literally cannot afford insurance, and 
they are not going to be very happy campers. They are going to blame 
every one of us, and they should. They are going to blame the 
President, they are going to blame Republicans, they are going to blame 
Democrats, and they are going to blame insurance companies because we 
have an opportunity next week to solve that problem in a bipartisan 
way, developed through a bipartisan process, incorporating ideas that 
virtually everyone who looks at them says make very good policy sense.
  We have a couple of things to work through on ancillary issues, but 
those shouldn't cloud the fact that we can reduce rates by up to 40 
percent for the working Americans who can't afford insurance--the 
insurance companies will announce that on October 1--or we can do 
nothing, and we can let the markets falter.
  There will be some counties where you can't buy insurance at all, 
some counties where you can't afford insurance at all, and we will have 
people look at us and say: My goodness, why did we send them up there 
to do nothing about that?
  I am optimistic. I think we can do it. I appreciate the hard work on 
both sides of the aisle. In many respects, it has been a very difficult 
negotiation. I appreciate the President's consistency over the past 
couple of months in supporting this and the Vice President's work. 
Senator McConnell has been very supportive of this, which makes it very 
helpful in terms of getting it into the bipartisan agreement next week.
  I look forward to being able to say to my songwriters, self-employed 
business men and women, plumbers, and Marty, the farmer, that if they 
are making $60,000 or $70,000 in Tennessee, we put in place something 
that will lower their rates by 40 percent over the next 3 years.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Deferred Enforced Departure for Liberian Refugees

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise, as I have many times for nearly 
two decades, to shed light on the long struggle of Liberian refugees in 
the United States, and to make the case for this administration to 
extend Deferred Enforced Departure, or DED, for this population before 
they face potential separation from their jobs and families when their 
current DED designation expires on March 31.
  I also call on my colleagues to take up and pass the Liberian Refugee 
Immigration Fairness Act, which I offered in some form for as long as I 
have served in this body, to end nearly 30 years of uncertainty by 
finally giving these Liberians the opportunity to apply for permanent 
residency and a pathway to citizenship.
  I also would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to those 
advocates who have stood with me as I have worked for a solution for 
Liberians in America, including my Rhode Island colleague, Senator 
Sheldon Whitehouse, as well as our colleagues from Minnesota, Senators 
Klobuchar and Smith.
  The case of these Liberians is a tragic and historically unique 
situation. In 1989, a seven-year civil war broke out in Liberia that 
would claim the lives of over 200,000 people and displace more than 
half of the Liberian population. This conflict devastated Liberia--
halting food production, collapsing the nation's economy, and 
destroying its infrastructure. By 1991, an estimated 14,000 Liberians 
fled to the United States seeking refuge from the conflict. In March of 
that year, the Attorney General granted them the opportunity to 
register for temporary protected status, or TPS.
  Every subsequent administration has renewed TPS for Liberians each 
year until the end of the first civil war, but the prospects for a safe 
return ended when Liberia plunged into a second civil war from 1999 to 
2003. This horrific conflict ended with the departure from power of 
former President Charles Taylor, who is currently serving a fifty-year 
prison sentence, issued by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, for war 
crimes.
  In 2014, Liberia's still poverty-stricken and recovering 
infrastructure faced the challenge of responding to the Ebola virus 
outbreak in West Africa. Liberia had fewer than 200 licensed doctors to 
contend with the outbreak among the country's population of over 4 
million people.
  Throughout this succession of conflict and tragedy, Liberians who 
sought refuge in the United States have had the option to remain here 
lawfully under TPS or DED while conditions remained unstable in 
Liberia.
  This is not amnesty. In order to participate, these Liberians are 
required to pass periodic background investigations, pay hundreds of 
dollars in fees,

[[Page S1754]]

and stay out of trouble with the law. Many of these Liberians who have 
been through this process for decades are perhaps among the most vetted 
and rigorously examined individuals in the United States today.
  They have also received work authorizations, enabling them to work 
and start businesses, pay taxes, and raise families. Many have full-
grown American citizen children who attend American schools and serve 
in our military. At the same time, they have not been afforded earned 
benefits available to American citizens, so they are responsible for 
paying their taxes, they are responsible to conduct themselves as law-
abiding citizens, but they are not building up any type of Social 
Security benefits or any other benefits like other American workers 
are. In the years since 1989, they have become our neighbors, our 
friends, and an important community that contributes a great deal to 
the diversity and prosperity of States like Rhode Island.
  Today, Liberia has only just completed its first democratic transfer 
of power in decades, and there are still serious concerns about the 
Nation's ability to maintain peace and deliver essential services to 
its population.
  If the Trump administration fails to extend the DED deadline for 
Liberians, hundreds of Liberian American families could be separated 
and uprooted from their jobs and homes, and forced to return to a 
country that is unrecognizable to them. Moreover, at best, it is 
unclear how Liberia's recovery could be affected by a sudden and 
unexpected influx of newcomers from the United States.
  This is why, each time Congress has taken up comprehensive 
immigration reform--and more recently discussed these issues in the 
context of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, 
Program--I have worked to ensure that any adjustment of status 
provision includes relief for Liberians who have become Americans in 
every way except on paper. Congress continues to debate the best path 
forward for Dreamers, TPS recipients, and comprehensive immigration 
reform, but Liberians cannot wait another month or another year. They 
have just over 2 weeks before their time is up.
  At the very least, the Trump administration should extend DED for 
this population for 3 additional years while Congress debates a path 
forward on comprehensive immigration reform.
  In my view, with each year that has passed since the first of these 
Liberians arrived, the case has grown stronger that they should have 
the option to adjust their status and remain in the communities where 
they have made their homes and raised their families. We have long 
since reached the point where simple justice requires that Congress 
extend this option to these Liberians.
  On several occasions, Congress has granted temporary residents the 
opportunity to apply for permanent residency when their stays in the 
United States were prolonged by dangerous conditions in their home 
countries. In 1988, Congress passed a law offering permanent residency 
to temporary residents from Poland, Uganda, Afghanistan, and Ethiopia. 
Following the events in Tiananmen Square in China, Congress permitted 
over 52,000 Chinese nationals to apply for permanent residency. The 
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, or NACARA, 
permitted the same for 259,000 nationals of Nicaragua, Cuba, El 
Salvador, and Guatemala. The Syrian Adjustment Act permitted 2,000 
Syrian Jews to obtain permanent residency. The list goes on. The fact 
is that there is ample precedent for providing relief for this 
relatively small Liberian population. Like past Congresses, this 
Congress must acknowledge the simple fact that the United States is now 
home to these law-abiding and taxpaying Liberians. To ignore them or to 
say otherwise not only threatens to break up American families, but 
also to turn away a group whose story is quintessentially American. 
They fled violence and disease to come here. They worked hard and 
raised families here. They followed our laws and subjected themselves 
to rigorous screening and vetting. They deserve the opportunity to make 
their own decision on whether to stay here or return to Liberia.

  I can say with confidence that Rhode Island will feel their absence 
if this Liberian community were forced to leave after contributing to 
our communities for so long, and our country would be poorer for their 
loss.
  There are many examples I could discuss of how the Liberian community 
has enriched our State, but I will name two: Lance Corporal Abraham 
Tarwoe of the U.S. Marines and Providence Police Sergeant Maxwell 
Dorley. Both came to Rhode Island from Liberia to start their own 
chapters of the American dream. They both led exemplary lives and 
endeavored to give back to their newfound homes through public service 
in the form of military service and as a member of our local police 
force in Providence. Both of them served with distinction, and our 
State tragically lost both of them in the line of duty in 2012. They 
are emblematic of the extraordinary contributions that Liberians have 
made to my State, and no fulsome discussion of what Liberians have 
meant to us is complete without mentioning both of these gentlemen by 
name.
  I strongly urge President Trump to do the right thing and extend DED 
to Liberians living legally in the United States. I also urge my 
colleagues to take up and pass the Liberian Refugee Immigration 
Fairness Act and put an end to uncertainty for this population after 
decades of displacement.
  Madam 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.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today for a 
number of reasons, but first and most pressing is to call on and ask 
the administration to extend deferred enforced departure status for a 
group of Liberians. This is a unique situation. Senator Jack Reed was 
on the floor in the last hour talking about it as well.
  Both the State of Rhode Island and the State of Minnesota have a 
number of Liberians who didn't just come to this country--they didn't 
come to this country illegally--they came to this country decades ago. 
They came because of a civil war in their country of Liberia, and then 
after that war was basically resolved, they were allowed to stay. So 
they are all registered in this country, they are working legally in 
this country, and they are in a special status called deferred enforced 
departure.
  Ever since George H.W. Bush, Presidents--Democrats and Republicans; 
George Bush, of course, President Clinton, and President Obama--every 
one has allowed them to stay.
  As my colleagues can imagine, since this happened back in 1991, these 
are people who have been working in our country for decades now. I met 
one who is 65 years old. Some of them are now 70 years old. They have 
obeyed the law. They have paid their taxes. They tend to be working in 
a lot of--of course, consistently--working in our assisted living 
facilities in Minnesota. They are working in our hospitals. Some of 
them had healthcare experience in Liberia before they came to 
Minnesota. They are a thriving community that has integrated well into 
our State and into Rhode Island. We are a State where the unemployment 
rate is somewhere around 3 percent and even lower in some of the areas 
where this community is working. It would literally be a big jolt to 
our economy--and not to mention immoral--if they were suddenly deported 
and lost the legal status they have had for literally decades.
  Unlike some of the other things we talk about with people who maybe 
just came here--and I worked so hard on the Dreamers, to get them a 
path to citizenship--this is a pretty unique situation. We hope the 
administration will be practical about this. That is why Senator Reed 
and I are working on this issue. We hope to get it resolved quickly 
since their status is ending on March 31, which is just a few weeks 
from now.
  Liberians are the only group of people and it is the only country 
with deferred enforced departure--or DED, as it is known--which is a 
temporary legal status that requires the President to reauthorize it 
every 18 months.
  One idea is that the President could reauthorize it, and then they 
could

[[Page S1755]]

look into it more. As we know, there is a lot going on in our country. 
There are a lot of changes right now within the Office of the Secretary 
of State and other things. So one idea would be that they could simply 
allow the program to continue for 18 months and then come to a 
conclusion on what they think they should do about it.
  As I mentioned, in 1991, President George H.W. Bush first issued 
temporary protected status to Liberians in response to the nation's 
civil war. Since 1991, Presidents on both sides of the aisle have 
extended legal protection to Liberians in the United States under 
either TPS or DED--deferred enforced departure--because of civil wars, 
the Ebola outbreak, and other instabilities in their country. All 
Liberians covered by DED have been living in the United States since 
2002. This isn't, as I said, new people coming in under that status; 
these are people who have been living here with that status for 
decades. As I mentioned, some are now in their seventies, and all of 
them have lived here legally. They have paid their taxes and 
contributed to our communities and worked at our employers. If DED is 
not extended by March 31, they will lose their legal status and work 
authorization and face deportation.
  Minnesota, as I mentioned, has one of the largest Liberian 
populations in the country. Many of these people are business owners. 
They are teachers. They are healthcare workers. According to one 
organization, nearly 40 percent of Liberians in Minnesota work in our 
nursing homes as nursing assistants and other support staff. Imagine if 
we took thousands of people away just like that on March 31, because 
they wouldn't have legal status to work at the nursing homes where they 
have worked for decades.
  I have also called for action on the Liberian Refugee Immigration 
Fairness Act--a bill that Senator Reed has introduced every Congress 
since 1999--and I have cosponsored this bill. The bill would actually 
provide permanent protected status, including a path to citizenship, 
for those Liberians who have obeyed the law and have been here in this 
temporary status for decades.
  That is not what we are asking for today. We understand and we hope 
that negotiations are ongoing so that we can have a more comprehensive 
immigration bill. We are simply asking the administration to continue 
with the 18-month status that was started back in 1991 by a Republican 
President.
  I met with a number of members of our Liberian community yesterday. 
They are experiencing extreme fear right now that their livelihoods 
will be lost and their families will be ripped apart. I am hopeful that 
we will be able to resolve this, at least for that temporary 18-month 
period.


                    Support Our Military Spouses Act

  Secondly, Madam President, on a different topic, I want to take a 
moment to discuss a bipartisan bill that I introduced this week that 
would help reduce the burden of relocation for military families.
  When servicemembers relocate to comply with military orders, they and 
their families make sacrifices to help protect our Nation. Right now, 
there is a problem with the way the law treats some military spouses 
who make frequent moves, and the law, ironically, makes it even harder 
on them rather than easier on them.
  Current law allows Active-Duty servicemembers to maintain one State 
of legal residence for tax and voting purposes even when military 
orders require them to relocate. That makes moving a lot easier. 
Unfortunately, this convenience does not apply to a servicemember's 
spouse unless they were living together at the same residence before 
they got married. In other words, if you were not living with your 
servicemember before you got married, you have to establish residency 
every single time your family gets moving orders from the military. 
From filing taxes to registering to vote, a military family then has 
double the paperwork and stress each time they move.
  This is a loophole that must be fixed. Why would we make it harder 
for the spouses of those who are making a sacrifice by having their 
loved one serve overseas and not make it easier for them to vote and to 
pay their taxes and to basically be the citizen they deserve to be? 
That is why, on Tuesday, Senators Cornyn, Kaine, Kennedy, Manchin, and 
I introduced the Support Our Military Spouses Act--legislation that 
would ensure that spouses have the same residency protections 
regardless of their living arrangements before marriage. From titling a 
car, to filing taxes, to registering to vote, everything is a little 
easier when the law ensures that you can stay a resident of one State 
and that it is the same State as your spouse's. That is just common 
sense, and it cuts out a lot of redtape for military families.
  The bill has the support of the Military Spouses Network, the 
Military Officers Association of America, and the Council of State 
Governments. This bill passed the House in July of 2017 with bipartisan 
support, and I am going to work with my cosponsors to get it done in 
the Senate.
  We ask a lot of our military members and their families. When we can 
make life easier for them, we should. This is one simple thing we can 
do.


                             Honest Ads Act

  Finally, Madam President, I would like to mention the sanctions that 
were just announced against Russia for interfering in the 2016 
election. It took 14 months, multiple indictments, and a poisoning in 
Britain, but the administration is finally imposing sanctions--the same 
sanctions that were passed by the Senate 98 to 2 and 419 to 3 in the 
House last year.
  Sanctioning Russia for undermining our democracy is what we should 
do, but we must remember that it is not enough to protect ourselves 
from future attacks. There is no longer any doubt that our elections 
will continue to be a target for foreign adversaries. Intelligence 
reports make it clear that Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, 
and harmful propaganda to attack our political system.
  Trump administration officials--not Obama officials, Trump 
intelligence officials--continue to sound the alarm that Russia is 
continuing its efforts to attack our democracy. The CIA Director said 
that he has seen no signs that Russia has decreased its activity and 
that Russia is currently working to disrupt the upcoming 2018 
elections. National Intelligence Director Coats, who was once a Senator 
here, said that Russia is bolder.
  It would be a mistake to think the sanctions passed today are all we 
need to do to address these warnings. They will no doubt help because 
if you do nothing, then you just embolden them to do more. It is the 
policy of the United States to defend against and respond to cyber 
threats to our democratic system, and we need to start acting like it. 
We need to be as sophisticated as those who are trying to do us harm.
  We know that Russia attempted to hack into 21 States' election 
systems. In Illinois, they actually got into the voter data system. 
That is why Senator Lankford and I have led a bill to take an amount of 
money which is just 3 percent of one aircraft carrier and invest it in 
our States, to let them, on a decentralized basis, make their own 
decisions about the kind of equipment they want and to be able to 
upgrade it. Forty of our States have not upgraded their equipment in 10 
years. Ten of our States do not even have backup paper ballots. What 
would happen if they were hacked, as they got so close the last time? 
There would be no way to prove what actually happened. You would have 
to vote again.
  That is why we have Democrats and Republicans supporting this effort. 
Representative Mark Meadows, the head of the Freedom Caucus, is leading 
the bill that Senator Graham and I have--which is similar to the one I 
have with Senator Lankford--over in the House. Senator Coons from the 
Appropriations Committee has been a strong supporter of this effort, as 
have Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Graham, and a number of other 
people. This is a truly bipartisan effort because people understand 
that it is no longer going to be only traditional ways of warfare when 
we are attacked; it is going to be cyber. It is not going to be just 
election infrastructure. It is not going to be just government 
infrastructure. It is going to be our businesses, power companies--you 
name it. That is why we need to upgrade our cyber protection.
  The last thing I would mention on this front, as we look to the next 
election and how we are going to protect our democracy, is the Honest 
Ads Act.

[[Page S1756]]

This is a bill I have with Senator McCain, also cosponsored by Senator 
Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. This 
is based on the fact that we know Russia spent millions of dollars 
buying ads. That was reflected in the indictment of 13 Russians and 
what they did and how they plotted to disrupt elections and to spend 
money on political ads. A number of these ads were even purchased in 
rubles.
  What Senator McCain and Senator Warner and I are trying to do is 
simply apply the same rules already in place to protect Americans in 
our elections by making sure that we know who is paying for the ads and 
what those ads are. Who is paying for the ads--those are the simple 
disclaimers you see on the ads where they say, whoever the candidate 
is, I paid for this ad. Who discloses the ads--that is simply when any 
radio station or TV station--you can go into the station or see it 
online and see what the ads are. That is not true right now of some of 
the most sophisticated companies, if not the most sophisticated 
companies, in America, companies like Facebook and Twitter, which have 
made millions and billions of dollars, companies that are profiting off 
of political ads.
  It is no different from when a newspaper or a TV station allows 
someone to buy an ad. They make money off it, so it is their duty to 
protect the citizens, to make sure that the ads don't contain 
falsehoods, that the ads are not criminal, that the ads are known to 
everyone. That is all we are trying to do, is to apply the same rules 
of the game to what you see when you see political ads on issues or 
candidate ads.
  The FEC did something just yesterday--but it was very narrow--about 
candidate ads. So what you see on candidate ads and issue ads--that you 
also see those same disclaimers and, most importantly, the disclosure 
on ads that are on social media companies. And I use those words 
carefully--``media companies.'' Newspaper print and radio--we love 
them--are media companies. Facebook and Twitter--we love them--are 
media companies. We are not talking about recipes and cat videos. We 
are not talking about free stuff that people put up. We are talking 
about paid political ads that need to be treated the same.
  While we are pleased that these sanctions have been put in place, 
while it is good that the FEC is narrowly trying to do something within 
their jurisdiction about disclaimers on candidate ads, we must pass the 
Honest Ads Act, because if we think it was bad last election when $1.4 
billion was spent on election ads, try this next one out: Forecasts are 
that $3 billion to $4 billion is going to be spent on social media ads 
against candidates on issues, and there is no way to track it. It is 
just going to go out to your Facebook page. You are not going to know 
if it is true, you are not going to know who paid for it, and the ads 
will just vanish.
  I think Americans deserve something better, and I ask my colleagues 
to support the Honest Ads Act.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I particularly appreciate, in light of my 
comments in a moment, Senator Klobuchar's service. She has been a 
pioneer as the first woman Senator from Minnesota. And I believe the 
Presiding Officer, Senator Fischer, is the first female Senator from 
Nebraska.


                        Tribute to Marcy Kaptur

  Madam President, I rise today to honor my colleague and my longtime 
close friend, Marcy Kaptur. Marcy Kaptur serves down the hall on the 
other side of the building. She has dedicated her life to serving the 
people of Toledo and northern Ohio.
  This Sunday, she will make history. She will officially become the 
longest serving woman in the history of the U.S. Congress in either 
House. On Sunday, she will have served in the House of Representatives 
for 35 years, 2 months, and 18 days, breaking a record that was set in 
1960 by I believe a Massachusetts Congresswoman. For 3\1/2\ decades, 
she has been principled and she has been passionate about her family, 
her community, and our country, and she has advocated for Ohioans. She 
serves like nobody else.
  She is the granddaughter of Polish immigrants. That is important to 
her. She comes from a working-class family. That is important to her. 
She is a practicing Roman Catholic. That is important to her. That 
describes much of who Marcy is--Polish immigrant, working-class family, 
Catholic faith.
  Her father was a trucker and autoworker who became a small 
businessman. Her mother worked at the Champion spark plug factory, 
where, of course, she helped to organize a union. I say ``of course'' 
because of Marcy's not just understanding of the importance of the 
labor movement but her feeling it in her bones, that a unionized 
workforce is good for those workers, good for the company, and good for 
the community, and we need more of that.
  Marcy's story echoes that of so many of our generation. Her parents 
worked hard. With the help of a union card, they earned their way to a 
better life for Marcy and her brother. She became the first in her 
family to graduate from high school and then college, and then she 
ended up in the U.S. Congress. What a great country we live in.
  Marcy has never forgotten those roots. If you want to know one thing 
about Marcy Kaptur--who, as I said, works down the hall at the other 
end of the building--know that she has never forgotten her roots. That 
is what drives her. That is who she is. That is why she is such a 
terrific public servant. That is why she is going to break the record 
of 35 years, 2 months, and 15 days. She remembers her roots in Ohio's 
Polish and Ukrainian communities and how much they matter.
  Unemployment reached 19 percent in Toledo in the early Reagan years 
when Marcy first ran for office. She said it was ``the condition of 
working people that drove me to change my life and run for office.'' 
She has lived up to that ideal, fighting for working families in Ohio 
for every one of the nearly 13,000 days she has served in Congress.
  In my first year in the House, Marcy was a mentor to me. I worked 
with her to fight against the North American Free Trade Agreement. She 
showed me the way in understanding these trade agreements because she 
knew they would mean job losses in Ohio. She knew these trade 
agreements would push down wages. That is sort of the untold story--
something I don't think the President quite understands when he talks 
about NAFTA even though he is right that NAFTA was bad for our country. 
What NAFTA has done, which Marcy explained to me and understood for 25 
years, is NAFTA also pushed down wages and is one of the reasons 
working-class Americans, whether they are in Omaha or Cleveland, so 
often don't get a raise. Unfortunately, Marcy was right.
  Since then, as we have fought bad trade deal after bad trade deal, 
Marcy has been a reliable ally and leader in our fight for a trade 
policy that puts workers in Toledo and everywhere else in this country 
first.
  We have also worked together to protect another very important love 
of Marcy Kaptur's, and that is our greatest natural resource, Lake 
Erie. We fought for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. We joined 
with Senator Portman on a bipartisan basis to stop the President's all 
but elimination of the--why would the President of the United States 
want to stop our cleanup of Lake Erie? That is why Marcy steps up. She 
works to protect the lake from invasive Asian carp; she works with 
farmers to prevent runoff into Lake Erie--all to protect the lake. It 
is what the lake means to us in terms of drinking water, jobs, 
commercialism, commercial development, and people just enjoying the 
beauty of the lake.
  She has gone to bat time and again for the auto industry. When some 
called the auto industry dead, she fought back. Never bet against 
American workers. Never bet against the American auto industry. Never 
bet against Marcy Kaptur. That scrappy, fighting spirit is one of the 
qualities I love most about Ohio, and you find it in abundance in Marcy 
Kaptur.
  No one fights harder for people in her district. Because of absurd 
redistricting, her district now goes from Toledo all across northern 
Ohio, only a few miles wide along the lake, all the way to the city of 
Cleveland. In only 5 years, the people of Cleveland have gained the 
same affection for Marcy as the people from Toledo have. You can see 
the love and respect they have.

  I remember once going to a rally in Toledo for President Obama. 
People were excited to see him, of course. I

[[Page S1757]]

guess a few people may have noticed I was there too. But when Marcy 
walked in, someone screamed ``Marcy,'' and there was pandemonium. 
Everyone got to their feet as if a rock star had just taken the stage, 
because in Toledo, a rock star had taken the stage.
  She fights for the people of Ohio. She fights for her district. She 
fights. She is known, more than anything, as a fighter for working 
families. It is so fitting that she reaches this milestone during 
Women's History Month. When she first joined the House, there were 
fewer than two dozen women serving. She helped blaze a trail for 
others. She even told the stories of the women who paved the way for 
her in her book ``Women of Congress: A Twentieth Century Odyssey.''
  Having Marcy in Congress matters for so many reasons. It mattes for 
the hundreds of thousands of Ohioans she serves. It matters for the 
perspective she brings as the daughter of working-class parents. As I 
said, she was first in her family not just to go to college; she was 
first in her family to graduate from high school, right in the 
industrialized heartland.
  As in Nebraska, Madam President, it matters to the little girls in 
Toledo, who for 35 years--do you know how, when you are in school, 
there is often a map or a chart of the Presidents? There was a calendar 
in Brinkerhoff Grade School when I was a little kid in Mansfield, OH. 
Every year, there was a calendar with all the Presidents' pictures on 
it. When I was in school, all the Presidents looked alike. Some had 
whiskers; some didn't. But they all looked alike because they were all 
White guys. Right? That changed in 2008. I was hoping it would change 
in 2016. It didn't. That is beside the point.
  Marcy Kaptur--because she is the Congresswoman for Toledo, little 
girls growing up in Toledo since 1982 have realized there is someone to 
look up to. In Scottsbluff and in Lincoln and in Kearny, NE, they will 
now look up to having a woman Senator from Nebraska. Ohio has never had 
a woman Senator or woman Governor, but they have had Marcy Kaptur. That 
has mattered to little girls for 35 years, as they see a picture of 
their Representative in the local paper, the Toledo Blade. It is not 
just another man in a suit but someone who looks more like them, 
someone they can grow up to be.
  I want to thank Marcy. She is not in the building now, but I want to 
thank Marcy for her service to Ohio. I hope we get to keep working with 
Marcy Kaptur for another couple of decades. The voters would have to 
approve that, but I am hopeful that we will.


                        Tribute to Rachel Petri

  Madam President, I also want to talk about somebody else who is 
sitting in this Chamber who will continue, as her career advances, to 
be a role model for the people of this country and the people of her 
community. A daughter of Eastern Ohio, Rachel Petri has done 
communications work for me for a number of years.
  She is leaving our office to, of course, return to her home State of 
Ohio. She has been a joy to work with. She has been a pleasure to work 
with. She is so smart and so committed, with an incredible work ethic. 
I am honored that she has spent part of her life working with me in our 
office in Washington, DC, and I thank her for her service.
  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.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


      Honoring Nebraska's Soldiers Who Lost Their Lives in Combat

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to continue my tribute to 
Nebraska's heroes: the current generation of men and women who lost 
their lives defending our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each of 
these Nebraskans has a special story to tell.


                 Sergeant Lonnie ``Calvin'' Allen, Jr.

  Today, Mr. President, I will recall the life and service of Sergeant 
Lonnie ``Calvin'' Allen, Jr., a native of Bellevue, NE.
  Calvin grew up in a military family. His father, Lonnie Allen, Sr., 
was a senior master sergeant in the Air Force. When Lonnie Sr. was 
assigned to Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, both he and his wife 
Sallie thought they would be there only for a short time. However, they 
enjoyed ``the good life,'' and soon after the birth of their two sons, 
Nuru and Calvin, they decided to stay.
  As a young child, Calvin spent much of his time in the kitchen. His 
mother still talks about how Calvin learned to cook at the age of 5. 
Sallie has vivid memories of Calvin in the kitchen in the early 
mornings or on the weekends, experimenting with new recipes or dishes. 
There were times when she would still be in bed and Calvin would bring 
her food or a new dish to try. She said that he was always open to 
trying new things, whether it was in the kitchen or elsewhere. This 
also pertained to sports, where Calvin played basketball and football, 
ran track, and wrestled.
  Calvin also had a caring attitude, which extended to church on 
Sundays. Calvin was widely known amongst the congregation at Mount 
Carmel Baptist Church in Bellevue. He often volunteered to be an usher 
and displayed his musical talent in the choir. Calvin had a personal 
and very open relationship with God, and he happily shared it with 
everyone he met.
  Throughout his high school years at Bellevue East, Calvin spent much 
of his time with friends and family. Sallie recalled many video game 
parties and sleepovers at their house, which would end with many of 
Calvin's friends sprawled out on the Allen living room floor.
  Calvin was a member of a close-knit family who spent time playing 
games together. Whether it was card games or board games, the 
competitive spirit would always come out in the Allen boys. They loved 
to compete.
  After graduating from Bellevue East in 1998, Calvin enrolled at 
Northeastern Junior College in Sterling, CO, to study criminal justice. 
He long envisioned a career in law enforcement and thought this would 
be a good starting point for him to launch his career.
  After completing 2 years at Northeastern, Calvin enrolled at Colorado 
State to finish his criminal justice degree. Soon after enrolling at 
Colorado State, however, he returned home to Bellevue. Calvin's vehicle 
had been involved in a wreck, which left him without any means of 
transportation. Due to this, he enlisted in the Army as a way to pay 
for a new vehicle, while also pursuing his law enforcement career while 
serving his country. Sallie still laughs about the fact that Calvin 
returned to Nebraska due to a wrecked car. Although many expected he 
would follow in his dad's footsteps by enlisting in the Air Force, 
Sallie knew better. Calvin wanted to pave his own road in the Army.
  Following his enlistment, Calvin soon shipped off to Fort Benning to 
complete his One Station Unit Training for the infantry. Shortly after 
graduation, he was assigned to a station in Germany. It was in Germany 
where Calvin met his wife, Brigit, a German native. After dating for 
some time, Calvin was assigned to Fort Drum in New York as part of the 
2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain 
Division. Brigit came with him to New York, where they wed in 2004.
  Shortly after their marriage, Calvin served in Iraq for the first 
time, and Brigit moved to Bellevue to be closer to Calvin's family 
while he was deployed. After a brief stint at home, he deployed to Iraq 
for a second time. In August of 2005, Calvin was stationed near 
Baghdad.
  During Sergeant Allen's second deployment, patrols became 
increasingly dangerous. At the time, the Baghdad area experienced a 
large increase in suicide bombings and sectarian fighting. On May 18, 
2006, while on patrol in Baghdad, Sergeant Allen's Humvee was struck by 
an improvised explosive device, killing him and three other 
servicemembers.

  Sergeant Allen's memorial service was held at the Capehart Chapel in 
Bellevue. Over 500 people attended the standing-room-only ceremony to 
pay their respects, including over 200 Patriot Riders, who lined up 
with American flags. Calvin was laid to rest on May 30, 2006, in 
Arlington National Cemetery--the day after Memorial Day.
  Fellow friend and Air Force Capt. Bill Eckley talked about how Calvin 
was a man of honor. Bellevue also honored him by naming a street after 
him,

[[Page S1758]]

and his high school established the Sgt. Lonnie Calvin Allen, Jr. 
Scholarship.
  Sgt. Lonnie ``Calvin'' Allen, Jr., received the Bronze Star and 
Purple Heart posthumously.
  I join Nebraskans and Americans across our country in saluting his 
willingness and his family's sacrifice to keep us free. I am honored to 
tell his story.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Rex Tillerson

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 2 days ago, the President of the United 
States announced his decision to replace Secretary of State Rex 
Tillerson with CIA Director Mike Pompeo. I respect and admire both of 
these men immensely.
  I just want to take a moment to talk about Secretary Tillerson's 
public service. I know his entering government after his long and 
illustrious career in the private sector was quite a transition, but he 
provided able leadership to the Department of State during a period of 
transition from one Presidency to the next and a period of diplomatic 
turbulence. He worked hard to strengthen and, in some cases, repair our 
global alliances.
  I have known Secretary Tillerson for a long time. He is a man of 
character who has led the Boy Scouts, which continues to be one of his 
abiding passions--developing young men as persons of character, and I 
respect that. At the same time, he advanced his own career as the head 
of one of the largest businesses in the world at the pinnacle of 
success, as we count success. I wish him the best, and I hope his 
statesmanship, professionalism, and deep and abiding friendships 
spanning the globe are remembered and maintained after he is gone from 
public life.


                       Nomination of Mike Pompeo

  Mr. President, I also want to say a few good words about my friend 
Mike Pompeo. After graduating first in his class at West Point and then 
graduating from Harvard Law School, he had a successful career in law 
and business before transitioning into public service. As a Member of 
the House of Representatives, he represented Kansas's Fourth 
Congressional District and served on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. Then he was named by President Trump, as we know, to lead 
the Central Intelligence Agency.
  Director Pompeo is a terrific guy, smart and well respected by all. 
He has a keen sense of the delicate nature of global diplomacy and the 
crucial role America and American intelligence agencies have to play. I 
know he has a great rapport with the President, and I think he will 
make an excellent Secretary of State.


                       Nomination of Gina Haspel

  Mr. President, finally, I want to state my utmost confidence in Gina 
Haspel, Director Pompeo's Deputy, who has been nominated to take over 
after he leaves as Director of the CIA. As a career intelligence 
professional, she is tough, she is direct, but she is collegial, too, 
and much beloved by the people who work out at the Central Intelligence 
Agency.
  As my colleague, the senior Senator from California, has previously 
stated, Ms. Haspel has great experience acting as Deputy Director, and 
she has the confidence of the Central Intelligence Agency, which is no 
small feat.
  I support Ms. Haspel's nomination and look forward to working hard to 
ensure her confirmation.
  Of course, there will be groups who will waste no time trying to 
tarnish her reputation over efforts she made doing her part to keep our 
Nation safe after the terrible tragedy of 9/11, but I think it is more 
telling that those who know her best commend her in the strongest of 
terms. Take, for example, President Obama's former Director of National 
Intelligence, James Clapper, who has called her tremendous, and 
President Obama's CIA Director Leon Panetta has expressed his support 
and said he is glad the nominee is Ms. Haspel because she knows the CIA 
inside out.
  So in the days ahead, we will be discussing Ms. Haspel, but let's not 
just buy into the phony narratives that other people will give about 
her public service. The views of those who doubt her qualifications and 
who question her experience will continue to attack and denigrate Ms. 
Haspel, no doubt, in the open debate. Ultimately, their arguments, if 
believed and accepted, would make the country less safe and less 
secure.
  We have to remember that right after the terrible events of 9/11, we 
didn't have the luxury of hindsight. Our leaders were worried about 
follow-on attacks following the terrible tragedy in New York and the 
plane crashing into the Pentagon. Public fears regarding another attack 
were at an alltime high, and tough calls had to be made. That is what 
leadership is all about.
  So I look forward to continuing to make the case for why Ms. Haspel 
is the person the country needs to lead the Central Intelligence 
Agency.


                             Fix NICS Bill

  Mr. President, I admit to sounding like a broken record. I am here 
again to talk about the Fix NICS bill, a bill I introduced with the 
junior Senator from Connecticut. Just as a refresher, Fix NICS is about 
fixing the broken background check system that is used when somebody 
purchases a firearm, but in the case of my constituents in Sutherland 
Springs, TX, because of the failures of the Federal Government--
notably, in this case, the U.S. Air Force--to upload felony convictions 
and convictions for domestic violence into the background check system, 
no derogatory information was reported, and ultimately the gunman in 
Sutherland Springs took the life of 26 innocent people and shot 20 
more.
  The reason I keep talking about this legislation is, it is just too 
important to let up on. We cannot, and we never should, just move on 
after another tragedy like that which occurred in Parkland, FL, and 
Sutherland Springs, TX, or what happened in Las Vegas, NV, where 58 
people were killed and 851 others injured by a gunman using a bump 
stock, which essentially turned a semiautomatic weapon into an 
automatic weapon. We can't just move on when lives hang in the balance. 
We have to do our duty and do our part to save lives. We have to fix 
our criminal background check system so dangerous felons do not lie 
their way into obtaining firearms to use to slaughter innocent people.
  To do that, we have to get this bill to the President as soon as 
possible. The President will sign this legislation once it passes the 
House and the Senate. I am grateful that today 72 Members of the U.S. 
Senate have signed on as cosponsors to the bill.
  It is not just the lawmakers here in Washington who support it; the 
country is asking for it too. I have a Thursday morning coffee for my 
constituents from Texas and a number of them--students--came to talk to 
me about their concerns about gun violence and particularly the feeling 
that not only parents have, and worry about for their children, but 
that students have themselves about whether they are going to continue 
to be safe in their schools.
  Yesterday, a broad coalition of victims' rights advocates, law 
enforcement officers, and gun violence prevention groups and 
prosecutors sent me a letter, along with to the majority and minority 
leaders, asking them for a clean vote on the Fix NICS legislation 
before the upcoming Easter recess. They said it would improve key 
elements of the background check system, particularly domestic 
violence, criminal history, and protective order records.
  Let me just pause there. One of the most frequent victims of 
shootings are domestic violence victims--family disputes, custody 
disputes, divorces, and the like. One of the purposes of the background 
check system is to make sure nobody who has been convicted of a 
domestic violence assault can legally purchase or possess a firearm.
  These same groups call this bill bipartisan, bicameral, commonsense, 
and noncontroversial. Again, they made a point to note in their letter 
that the vote should be clean--in other words, not conditioned on other 
controversial measures. Well, they are absolutely right, and I would 
ask the minority leader to listen to the 80 percent of his conference 
that backed this bill and believe in its promise to help stem the tide 
of violence and help save lives.

[[Page S1759]]

  I would ask those who are objecting to us considering this 
legislation on a clean up-or-down vote to reconsider. Many of them say: 
Well, there are other things we want to vote on. Well, I would be happy 
to have that happen, but none of these ideas, at this point, have 
achieved the sort of consensus the Fix NICS bill has. They are waiting 
for impossible outcomes, insisting on votes on other measures, when we 
know those votes will fail, but worst of all, conditioning their 
willingness to vote on Fix NICS for those other votes, which we know 
will not succeed and will fail.
  So I implore those standing in the way of a rollcall vote on this 
consensus piece of legislation to lift their objections and join us. 
Their current strategy will guarantee failure, and failure on this 
issue, more than others, we absolutely cannot afford.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


     50th Anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's Campaign for President

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am here to commemorate the 50th 
anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy's monumental campaign for President. 
Kennedy's brief, tragic run at the Presidency has had an enduring 
impact on so many generations of Americans. The reason, I think, is 
because Robert Kennedy had the courage to challenge a divided nation to 
face up to its failings, to challenge a divided people to acknowledge 
their own contributions to our Nation's ills, to challenge us to step 
back from the stale, cheap politics of the moment, to challenge us to 
do better by each other.
  History may not repeat, but it often rhymes. Conditions are different 
now, but a lot of the anxiety that swept through the country in 1968 
echoes the anxiety of today, especially the economic anxiety felt by 
millions of Americans who are working harder than ever but feel 
opportunity slipping away from themselves and from their children.
  Too often, our political and business leaders refuse to see this. 
Instead they hide behind macroeconomic statistics, using them as a 
shield to dismiss the concerns of the American people as faulty, 
wrongheaded, or even as nonexistent.
  Robert Kennedy understood that America's national economy is not the 
same as the economic well-being of its people. In 1968, in a speech at 
the University of Kansas, he spoke eloquently about the differences 
between them, and here is what he said:

       [Our] Gross National Product counts air pollution and 
     cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways 
     of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the 
     jails for the people who break them. It counts the 
     destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder 
     in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear 
     warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots 
     in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, 
     and the television programs which glorify violence in order 
     to sell toys to our children.
       Yet the gross national product does not allow for the 
     health of our children, the quality of their education or the 
     joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our 
     poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of 
     our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. 
     It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our 
     wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our 
     devotion to our country.
       It measures everything, in short, except that which makes 
     life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America 
     except why we are proud that we are Americans.

  Consider three stats: corporate profits, the stock market, and 
unemployment.
  Today, corporate profits are up--corporate profits that count gun 
sales for manufacturers whose weapons are used to massacre children in 
our schools and our streets. Corporate profits that count revenues from 
drug companies when they quadruple prices for the sick and the 
desperate. Corporate profits that count revenues of banks like Wells 
Fargo as they rip off millions of American consumers.
  The stock market is up as giant companies pocket trillions in 
taxpayer money stolen from middle-class families. The market is up as 
CEOs shut down plants and factories in the United States and move them 
overseas. The market is up as business leaders, flush with cash, turn 
their backs on workers while they plow millions and even billions into 
stock buybacks to goose investors' returns and CEOs' bonuses.

  Unemployment is down, but wages have barely budged in a generation. 
Unemployment is down, but for millions of people, the exploding costs 
for housing, healthcare, and childcare mean it now takes two jobs to do 
what one job covered a generation ago. Unemployment is down, but the 
numbers fail to represent the millions living in rural and urban 
American communities alike that have given up on the search for a job.
  These statistics on corporate profits, the stock market, and 
unemployment tell us everything about the American economy, but they 
tell us very little about the lived experience of today's Americans. 
They do not speak to the citizen who fears police violence or the 
police officer who fears gang violence or the immigrant who cannot 
speak out about sexual assault at the hands of her boss or the toxic 
rhetoric flowing through our politics seeking to turn neighbor against 
neighbor. They do not account for our devotion to our communities, to 
our churches, and to our children. They tell us virtually nothing about 
our trials, our challenges, our hopes, or our principles.
  Robert Kennedy understood this. He knew we cannot simply run an 
economy for those at the top and assume it will solve America's 
problems. In the intervening 50 years since his speech, America ran 
that experiment anyway and watched it fail miserably.
  It is time to try something different. It is time to challenge each 
of us to do better by each other, to see the dignity in one another, 
and to put our values first. I believe we can make Robert Kennedy's 
legacy a reality, and I am proud to fight for it.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. 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. BLUNT. Mr. President, in the next few days, we will begin to 
debate this important bill on sex trafficking. This is something that, 
for whatever reason, the country turned its back on for too long. As 
the ways to communicate and the ways to offer so-called adult services 
grew, the government and law enforcement didn't have the new tools they 
needed to fight back.
  This is a bill that Senator Portman and others have worked so hard 
on, on this side of the building. We are actually taking up the House 
bill. The principal sponsor of the House bill is Missouri Congresswoman 
Ann Wagner, with whom I have worked closely and who has been a good 
friend of mine--she and her family--for a long time.
  When the House passed this bill overwhelmingly, Ann Wagner said that 
they ``sent a clear message to trafficking victims: you are not alone, 
and justice is no longer out of reach.'' It is hard to imagine a more 
lonely place, I would think, than someone who is being trafficked, some 
young woman, young child, boy or girl, who has fallen into the hands of 
traffickers and who, for drugs or whatever reason, has been sold into 
this or become dependent in a way that put them into this.
  Congresswoman Wagner went on to say about this bill that ``FOSTA will 
produce more prosecutions of bad actor websites and more convictions 
and put more predators behind bars.'' She said: ``It will give victims 
a pathway to justice and provide a meaningful criminal deterrent, so 
that fewer businesses will ever enter the sex trade and fewer victims 
will ever be sold.''
  The whole idea that people are being sold to be used in whatever 
terrible way someone else wants to use them is so offensive. The idea 
that we have websites that people can go to that have some description 
of some person who is helplessly in this system and how they would be 
used--that is something Congress should stand up on. By voting for 
Congresswoman Wagner's bill, the House has already done that.
  On our side of the building, Senator Portman and others have worked 
so hard to draw attention to the fact that we need to find time to get 
this bill on the floor. Now we have a bill that has already passed the 
House, and all we have to do is pass that bill and send it right to the 
President, or we can make

[[Page S1760]]

some changes that Senator Portman and others may want to suggest, and 
then we can send the bill back to the House, where hopefully it can be 
dealt with in the same overwhelming way they passed it the first time. 
Then we can get this bill on the President's desk and do exactly what 
Congresswoman Wagner said this bill will do. It is time for us to do 
everything we can to end this.
  We would be foolish to think that one piece of legislation will end 
this problem. By working with law enforcement, looking at trafficking, 
looking at locations like the intersections of major interstate 
highways, where it is easy to bring people, to pass people along to 
somebody else, to get them to where not only are they disoriented, but 
your actual contact with that person doesn't last very long before you 
give them to somebody else or sell them to somebody else who could use 
them in a terrible way--this needs to stop. I am confident the Senate 
will pass this next week, and I will just say that it is about time.


                         Funding the Government

  Mr. President, also next week we are going to move forward on an 
appropriating process that has gotten way out of control. I am glad the 
leaders have decided to appoint a special committee to look at this. 
The Presiding Officer and I are on that committee. We will be looking 
at the budgeting process and looking at what has happened. Instead of 
bringing these bills to the floor one at a time and letting every 
Member of the Senate have an opportunity to amend any bill in any way 
they want to as long as it deals with spending and as long as you don't 
add new money--every amendment you want to come up with where you want 
to take some money here and spend it here instead and have a debate 
about why that should happen--that is what the Congress did for a 
couple of hundred years, and it is time we did it again. This idea that 
all the bills come together in one big, what we call an omnibus--
``ominous'' might be a better word--an omnibus spending bill that 
includes everything, plus all the legislation that it can possibly 
carry, is not the way this process should work. It is the way this 
process is going to have to work this year because we missed all of 
those opportunities that are now behind us.
  As soon as we get this done, we need to start on this year's process. 
We know what the top-line spending number is going to be. There is 
every reason to believe that this year's process could be a big step in 
the right direction, but some guidelines from that special House and 
Senate committee will do even more.
  I would like to say, as the chairman of one of those appropriating 
committees--the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
Subcommittee--that one bill of the 11 left after the Defense bill is 
decided on--that one bill has about a third of all of the money to be 
appropriated of the discretionary money. Senator Murray, my counterpart 
on the other side, and I have worked hard on this committee for 3 years 
now. In the House, Chairman Cole and Congresswoman DeLauro, the chair 
and the ranking member on that side, have worked hard as well.
  These are big decisions to be made. These programs matter, but some 
of them matter more than others, and part of our job should be and 
needs to be setting priorities, doing things that increase the 
commitment to the programs that are working and eliminate the programs 
or change the programs that don't work. Hopefully, we will continue to 
do more of that this year and even more of that next year.
  Some of the programs touch the lives of so many Americans, such as 
apprenticeship programs. Medical research clearly touches the life of 
virtually every American and every American family. What we could do to 
develop a flu vaccine that actually hits the mark every year instead of 
misses the mark often, things we can do in special education--these are 
all parts of this one part of the bill that Senator Murray and I and 
Congressman Cole and Congresswoman DeLauro have been working on.
  Frankly, everybody should have had a chance to work on this. I think 
we know a lot about these topics. I think that our debate is a good 
debate, but it is not nearly as good of a debate as if every single 
Senator got to be a part of working on this, not just the three dozen 
or fewer Senators who are on the Appropriations Committee.
  There are a wide variety of programs here that need to be funded. I 
want to spend just a few minutes talking about some of the priorities 
that we are looking at that need to be part of this bill and create a 
sense that this is really a process that matters.
  First, we are on track to increase the third straight year of 
significant increases for the National Institutes of Health and health 
research. What do they do? In the last decade, we failed most of the 
time to make any increase at all. In fact, 2 years ago, when I started 
chairing this committee and Congressman Cole started chairing the 
committee on the other side of the building, it had been 12 years since 
there had been a one-penny increase in health research. During that 12 
years, we figured out so much more about the human genome. We figured 
out so many more ways to figure out how I am different from you and how 
you are different from me and how that makes a difference and how 
whatever is attacking my system we can fight back.
  There was not one penny of an increase in 12 years. In fact, the 
research people said that we were 22 percent below, in research buying 
power 3 years ago, where we had been 12 years earlier. Young 
researchers who had never gotten a research grant before weren't likely 
to get one when they had less effective money to spend than they have 
had for over a decade. So hopefully that 22 percent--our goal would be 
to get most of that 22 percent back in 3 years. We have also already 
restored 13 percent of it. I hope we have a big number next week that 
gets us back to where we are--at least back to where we were in 2005 or 
so.
  We made a commitment at the end of the last century to double, in a 
short period of time, the National Institutes of Health funding, and 
then somehow we thought we were done. We would be done anytime there is 
no more research to be done. We will be done as soon as we have 
developed a cure for cancer and found out what to do about Alzheimer's 
and determined what we can do to lessen heart attack risks and found 
the answer to every orphan disease, diseases that only a few people 
have. Let me tell my colleagues, we are a long way from doing that. In 
the last 3 years, we have tripled the amount of dollars going to 
Alzheimer's research. Without a cure for Alzheimer's or a way to slow 
down the onset of Alzheimer's, the projection is that by 2050, we will 
be spending twice as many tax dollars on Alzheimer's-related care and 
dementia-related care as we are spending now to defend the country. If 
I had said we would spend $1.1 trillion, I don't know about everybody 
who is listening, but in my case, it is pretty hard to get a handle on 
that. What does that really mean? How much bigger is that than $1.1 
billion? Well, $1.1 trillion is twice what we spend to defend the 
country. Every military base everywhere in the world, every ship, every 
plane, every paycheck for every soldier, sailor, airman, marine; the 
National Guard, the Coast Guard; training dollars--that is about $500-
and-some billion, approaching $600 billion. We would be spending twice 
that in today's dollars, in tax dollars--not what families would spend 
to try to deal with the tragedy of Alzheimer's but twice that in just 
tax dollars if we don't find something to do. A cure would be great. 
Just figuring out how we could determine early, in an effective way, 
that you were likely to get Alzheimer's and try to begin to delay the 
onset of Alzheimer's so it either doesn't affect you at all because 
some other health concern does or you get it a few years later. If we 
could delay the onset of Alzheimer's by 5 years on the average, that 
$1.1 trillion in today's dollars--in 2015--would be reduced by almost 
half, by 46 percent. So knowing how to detect this--there have been 
some great studies going on that have been funded in better ways over 
recent years. This has continued.
  I think what we are looking at in the Brain Initiative--the Cancer 
Moonshot, as Vice President Biden referred to it--diabetes--again, 
these diseases that maybe not very many people get are particularly the 
diseases that the National Institutes of Health needs to be doing 
research on because there is not much of an economic driver for private

[[Page S1761]]

sector research on a disease that almost nobody has. So a lot of the 
money that we put into NIH research we specifically try to put in there 
without any specific category, where we are saying: You take this 
money, and you do what you think needs to be done, and we are going to 
have oversight to talk about what you did. A bunch of Members of the 
Senate and the House aren't going to try to become the research 
deciders for the United States of America--and, by the way, for the 
world--when you do that.
  In this bill, we are also looking at the crucial fight on the opioid 
epidemic. The President says it is a crisis, and he is right. It is the 
No. 1 cause of accidental death in the country today. It has exceeded 
car accidents as a cause of death in the country and in Missouri and in 
many other States.
  The last two funding bills have put almost an additional $1 billion 
into opioids from where we were just 3 years ago, but the Presiding 
Officer will remember that in the last continuing resolution, some 
specific money--about $3 billion more--was given to this cause, and it 
is the job of our committee and then the Congress to decide how to 
spend that $3 billion.
  We need more resources. There is no reason to think that the opioid 
addiction epidemic, leading to heroin and other drugs, is slowing down, 
so we need to do things that improve treatment and prevention efforts. 
Prevention, obviously, is better than treatment, but if prevention 
fails, we need better treatment systems than we have now.
  We need to look for alternative pain medications that aren't 
addictive. I will say that in the 1970s and 1980s, I am told, in 
medical schools, they thought opioids weren't addictive. So we need to 
be sure that when we have an alternative that seems to be nonaddictive, 
that it really isn't addictive.
  We need to think of the workforce needs and what happens when people 
become addicted to pain medicine and their pain doesn't go away, 
probably because their addiction doesn't go away. Then there is 
behavioral health that impacts so many families and so many 
communities.
  If you are going to recover from opioid addiction, you have to have a 
place to go. Too many programs and policies say: We will work with you 
for 14 days. A lot of them say: We will work with you for 28 days--4 
weeks. Not many people get this behind them in 28 days. So we are doing 
that.
  In this bill, we are also looking at ways to support students and 
parents and teachers. Obviously, a safe environment--what can we do to 
provide more flexibility to schools to spend the money they currently 
have from the Federal Government to create a safer environment, and 
what can we do to increase the money available for that?
  We need to be doing things that prepare people not just for college 
but for careers. If you can get a certificate that puts you to work in 
a job you love quicker than you can get a college degree that maybe 
doesn't do those two things--we ought to be thinking about whether our 
post-high school dollars are equally available to both college and 
other kinds of training.
  We need to see that people have access to higher education. We are 
doing that by increasing funding for the Pell grant--this is not a 
loan; it doesn't have to be paid back--given specifically based on 
economic need and performance in school. You have to stay in school; 
you have to get passing grades. But in many colleges in my State of 
Missouri--in community college and in several of our 4-year schools--if 
you qualify for the full Pell grant, that is more than enough to pay 
tuition, books, and fees.
  If you are putting yourself through school or if you are returning to 
school as an adult, if you are the first person in your family to 
graduate from college, year-round Pell means that if you have something 
working, you need to stick with it as long as you can, as quickly as 
you can.
  Summer break is always well-intended. For 10 years Pell didn't pay 
for school in the summer; it does now, starting last year. This will be 
the first year that students and colleges and universities can really 
prepare for summer Pell. But if you don't break the rhythm you are in 
where things are working for you, you are much more likely to graduate 
from college than you would otherwise.
  We need to be sure we prioritize funding for elementary and secondary 
education grant programs so that they are fair across the country, so 
that we are not only supporting STEM education, but we are also 
supporting IDEA for students with learning disabilities, an obligation 
the Federal Government has taken on itself.
  We are going to have a chance next week to deal with this important, 
long-awaited bill on trafficking. I think there will probably be one 
vote that covers more things than it should on funding the government 
for the year we are already in. But, as I have talked about today, 
there are many reasons for Americans and American families to be 
focused on the job we do. Frankly, we need to spend our time figuring 
out how, in the future, the American people can watch the Congress more 
closely and watch the Congress openly debate the priorities of the 
government, which the government sets nowhere else quite the way it 
does when it decides how to spend the money we have been entrusted 
with.
  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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Bill

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Economic Growth, 
Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which passed the Senate 
yesterday. This bipartisan bill protects and boosts the U.S. economy. I 
commend Chairman Crapo, members of the Banking Committee, and my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the hard work in getting this 
particular bill proposal across the finish line.
  Making the rules simpler and fairer for small and midsized financial 
institutions is a commonsense idea that has garnered broad bipartisan 
support. That is because, done right, it helps hardworking Americans 
who aspire to invent things, start businesses, and manufacture goods 
and services--exactly the kind of entrepreneurship and growth America 
needs more of.
  There are plenty of people with different viewpoints on how to 
improve the financial system. Some, however, say that almost any 
modification to the 849-page Dodd-Frank Act equates to a bonfire 
financial regulation, a gift to Wall Street, and so on. I think we need 
to cut through such patronizing, derisive mudslinging, and instead 
focus on commonsense solutions for the American people.
  Let me tell you a plain truth: The bill the Senate passed yesterday 
is the result of sensible debate, reasonable compromise, and hard 
policy choices. Without compromising the safety and soundness of our 
financial system, it provides regulatory relief to small and midsized 
banks, credit unions, and financial institutions--the kind most 
familiar on Main Street in my home State of Utah.
  Our constituents deserve regulatory relief. Between 2010 and 2016, 
compliance with Dodd-Frank cost $36 billion and required 73 million 
paperwork hours. Dodd-Frank alone enacted more than five times as many 
restrictions as any other law passed by the Obama administration and 
more than 22,000 pages of regulations.
  With their vast resources, large banks could stomach these 
regulations mainly through automation, but smaller banks could not. 
Saddled with extra compliance requirements and no material benefit to 
resilience, many buckled under the weight of these burdensome 
regulations.
  Consider that there are 1,736 fewer community banks today than when 
Dodd-Frank was signed into law. Since 2010, the number of FDIC-insured 
commercial banks in Utah dropped from 53 to 42. In a similar timespan, 
the number of NCUA-insured credit unions in my home State fell from 94 
to 66. Over the past decade, the percentage of small business and 
commercial loans dropped more than 15 percent.
  Indeed, 8 years since the passage of Dodd-Frank, it is high time for 
Congress to reflect and make adjustments, as necessary, to improve our 
financial

[[Page S1762]]

regulatory system. Let's focus on resilience and efficiency. This bill 
does just that.
  I would like to briefly highlight three reforms in the bill that 
benefit our national and local economies. First, the bill provides 
relief and flexibility to small financial institutions. More small bank 
holding companies will be able to raise capital, which will help bank 
lending opportunities for families, businesses, and startups. This 
policy was based on a bipartisan bill, the Community Bank Relief Act, 
that I introduced along with Senators King, Nelson, and Perdue. It is 
common sense to know that Utah's community banks are different from 
Wall Street banks, but too often regulations treat them the same.
  Second, the bill increases the bank asset threshold for enhanced 
standards from $50 billion to $250 billion. I have long supported 
raising or recalibrating the asset threshold. It makes little sense 
that regional banks undergo stress tests and capital reviews similar to 
some of the largest, most complex global financial institutions. 
Similar to the unrealistic expectations put on community banks, this 
one-size-fits-all approach negatively affected regional banks.
  Third, the bill eases the regulatory burden on 5,000 community banks 
that make up about 98 percent of financial institutions. For small 
banks and credit unions, this legislation provides relief from some of 
the requirements from the qualified mortgage rule, allowing them to 
devote more resources to serving their members rather than spending 
hours complying with regulatory overreach.
  In today's era of extreme partisanship, this bill is a breath of 
fresh air. What the Senate has been able to accomplish this week is 
based on practical, consensus-led policy choices. While there remain 
other reforms that could relieve stress of burdensome regulations, this 
bill is a much needed start, which is why I wholeheartedly support this 
legislation.
  Members on both sides of the aisle agree that the broad scope of 
Dodd-Frank created some harmful, unintended consequences. Let's make 
the rules simpler and fairer, as appropriate but not at the expense of 
safety. This bipartisan bill does just that, and the American people 
would be better off because of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, a 
committee I feel very privileged to serve on with our distinguished 
chairman. He has a message that I think should be required reading for 
everybody on this side, and more especially on the other side, and I 
really appreciate his remarks and his leadership.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.


                       Confirmation of Gregg Doud

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I want to speak today on the confirmation 
of Mr. Gregg Doud, the President's nominee for the Chief Agricultural 
Negotiator at the Office of the United States Trade Representative. In 
the Senate, we often say, or I hope we often say, that we are only as 
good as our staff. I have been blessed with the very best. Gregg is one 
example of why that is true.
  Gregg served as senior professional staff on the Senate Agriculture 
Committee for me during my time as ranking member, 2011 through 2013. 
We like to say in Kansas that congressional staff are bucket toters. 
During those few years, we toted a lot of buckets together.
  From the early days of the supercommittee and sequestration, multiple 
iterations of farm bills, animal disease scares, and the oversight of 
the MF Global mess, or situation, Gregg handled everything that was 
thrown at him--and all while wearing his cowboy boots with the pointed 
toes. Capitol Hill certainly isn't where Gregg started cutting his 
teeth in agriculture.
  He hails from Mankato, KS, where he was raised on a dryland wheat, 
grain sorghum, soybean, swine, and cow-calf operation. Talk about 
diversified agriculture. He attended my alma mater, Kansas State 
University, home of the ever-fighting and always optimistic Wildcats. 
Good luck to them tonight.
  Just last September, Gregg was back in Manhattan, KS, where he was 
honored as the 2017 Kansas State University Department of Agriculture 
Economics Distinguished Alumni Award.
  From K-State, Gregg went on to work for the U.S. Wheat Associates, 
which is tasked with developing markets for U.S. wheat all around the 
world. Eventually, he became the chief economist for the National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association.
  One of the very first trials that Gregg faced at NCBA was ``the cow 
that stole Christmas,'' when just before Christmas, in 2003, a case of 
mad cow disease was confirmed in the United States, resulting in a 
devastating blow to U.S. beef exports.
  Gregg worked on behalf of the beef industry with the U.S. Trade 
Representative, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the State 
Department to rebuild the reputation and reliability of U.S. beef 
exports. Kansas currently ranks as the third highest U.S. State 
exporter of beef to the global market.
  U.S. trade policy has been a very hot topic in the last year, and it 
is one that Gregg certainly experienced and is well-versed. He served 
as a ``cleared advisor'' and later chairman of the USDA/USTR Animal and 
Animal Products Agriculture Trade Advisory Committee. It is a lot of 
words but a very important committee. It was during the negotiations of 
a variety of trade agreements, including Australia, Bahrain, Colombia, 
CAFTA, South Korea, Morocco, Panama, and Peru. Obviously, he has been 
everywhere.
  Gregg's background and experience give him a leg up in the challenge 
of serving as the Chief Agriculture Negotiator at USTR. He understands 
what trade means to the agriculture industry, and he has the experience 
to help maintain U.S. agriculture's role as a reliable supplier around 
the world. It is certainly a big challenge today.
  At a time when the agriculture economy is in a rough patch--fourth 
year of prices below the cost of production pretty much across the 
board, all across the country--and commodity prices still falling, 
farmers and ranchers now depend on trade more than ever. We need 
continued focus on exporting not just what we make but also what we 
grow. Let me repeat that. We need to export not just what we make--
there is a lot of focus on that with regard to trade policy now coming 
out of the White House and this administration--but also what we grow.
  Kansas farmers and ranchers work hard. On a regular basis, they have 
to make sacrifices to overcome the weather, overcome obstacles, and 
make commonsense decisions that have significant consequences. That is 
why I know Gregg will be successful in the job of Chief Agricultural 
Negotiator. He is a Kansas cowboy who knows how to roll up his sleeves 
and certainly get things done.
  Gregg understands why strong trading relationships are absolutely 
critical to agriculture. I am glad he is at the USTR, where he can get 
to work with Ambassador Bob Lighthizer and lead the charge in advancing 
the U.S. trade agenda. Along with partners at the Department of 
Agriculture--like our champion there, Secretary Sonny Perdue--and the 
Undersecretary for Trade and Foreign Agriculture Affairs, Ted McKinney, 
Gregg will ensure that agriculture has a seat at the table and that our 
farmers and ranchers are being heard.
  The U.S. agriculture industry has worked long and hard to increase 
our competitiveness and markets around the world, but their work is 
never finished, and they cannot do it alone. I know that with Gregg 
riding point, the voices of the hard-working farmer and rancher will be 
well represented all around the world.
  Congratulations to you, Gregg, on your confirmation as the Chief 
Agricultural Negotiator at the USTR. I look forward to continuing to 
work with you on behalf of U.S. ag.
  One more admonition, one more piece of advice. When you are riding 
point, just make sure you look over your shoulder once in a while to 
see if the herd is still there, and if it isn't, don't worry about it, 
we have your back.
  I yield my time.
  After careful inspection, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S1763]]

  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________