[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7598-7609]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Heather 
Wilson, of South Dakota, to be Secretary of the Air Force.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 4 hours of debate, equally divided in the usual form.
  Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today the Senate will move to confirm 
Heather Wilson as Secretary of the Air Force. Wilson is a Rhodes 
Scholar, Air Force Academy graduate--part of the third class ever to 
admit women, by the way--and a dedicated public servant who served 
several terms in the U.S. House.
  I am sure she will work hard in this new role to strengthen the 
branch of the military she cares so much about. I look forward to 
approving her nomination on a bipartisan basis later this afternoon.
  After that, we will take a cloture vote on the Gottlieb nomination to 
head the FDA, which I will come to in a moment. I hope to see robust 
support for his nomination as well.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. President, I would like to recognize two important votes that 
occurred last Thursday. First, let me commend the House for voting to 
move beyond the pain of ObamaCare. For years, the American people have 
suffered under this failed law. They watched their premiums soar. They 
watched their choices dwindle.
  Now they are watching as ObamaCare collapses all around them. More 
than half of our States have counties with only a single insurance 
option on the exchanges, and a growing number could have no options at 
all--like, as we saw reported just last week, in nearly every single 
county in Iowa. That means thousands more Americans could be left 
trapped, forced by law to purchase ObamaCare insurance but left without 
the means to do so. Does that sound like a law that is working to 
anyone?
  To those who would try to defend an indefensible status quo, I ask 
you to consider what Speaker Ryan said last week:

       [T]here is a fundamental and urgent choice at the heart of 
     this debate. We can continue with the status quo under 
     ObamaCare, and we know what that looks like. It means even 
     higher premiums, even fewer choices, even more insurance 
     companies pulling out, even more uncertainty, and even more 
     chaos.

  To those who suffered enough already, my message is this: We hear 
you. Congress is acting.
  I commend the House and the administration for making this important 
advance last week. Now the Senate will do its work. The administration 
will also continue doing its part to deliver relief and stabilize the 
healthcare markets as best it can. This process will not be quick or 
simple or easy, but it must be done. It is the least Members of both 
parties owe to the countless of Americans who continue to suffer under 
Obamacare, and the countless more who will be hurt if we don't act.


                     Government Funding Legislation

  Mr. President, second, let me commend the Senate for voting last 
Thursday to pass the funding bill. I mentioned last week some of the 
many important provisions it contained, all of which the President has 
now signed into law. The largest border-security funding increase in a 
decade--now law. The critically needed down payment on restoring our 
military readiness--now law.
  The bill also kept in place an important free speech protection. Yet 
Democrats are now trying to pressure and intimidate the SEC into 
ignoring something we just passed on a bipartisan basis. For years, 
Democrats have pressured the SEC rulemaking process to curb and 
regulate political speech, despite agreement in our funding bills to 
prevent the Commission from doing just that.
  This is not a new page in their playbook. When we first passed this 
crucial protection in 2015, Democrats appealed to the SEC to actually 
ignore the law. This time, however, they have gone in an even more 
extreme direction. Now the Democrats no longer have the administration 
to stifle speech through the SEC, the IRS, or HHS. They are trying to 
intimidate private citizens and public companies by telling those 
citizens and companies what is in their ``best interest.'' This kind of 
bullying

[[Page 7599]]

behavior is part of a broader pattern we have seen repeated by the left 
time and again in similar circumstances--suppression of the viewpoints 
with which they disagree and forcing Americans into a choice: Tell us 
your political ideology or be silent.
  I have called the left out for intimidation tactics and speech 
suppression efforts before. I am warning them again today, and I will 
continue to stay vigilant and defend the First Amendment moving 
forward.
  For now, I would like to highlight a couple of other important 
provisions in the funding bill that are now law. One is the miners' 
health provision I was proud to secure, a critical lifeline that will 
permanently protect healthcare benefits for thousands of retired coal 
miners in States like Kentucky.
  Another is the provision of significant new resources that can be 
used to combat the prescription opioid and heroin crisis. It is the 
latest of many significant steps we have taken to tackle this terrible 
epidemic.
  Today, we can take another step forward by advancing the nomination 
of Scott Gottlieb to head the FDA. I will have more to say on Dr. 
Gottlieb later, but for now, I will note that he is incredibly 
qualified for this position, and I am sure he will be an ally for 
States that continue to struggle with the opioid crisis because the FDA 
has a critical role to play.
  Let's be clear, there is a lot more to be done. States like Kentucky 
have been hit hard by this crisis, especially our rural communities. In 
fact, there are a lot of struggles that are particularly pressing in 
rural America, and several provisions in the government funding bill 
that can help--provisions to, for instance, advance broadband 
development, promote safe and clean drinking water, and to help reclaim 
and develop abandoned mine sites in coal country, among other 
priorities. Those are just a few of the things that can help rural 
communities.
  There are other actions we can take as well. One is of particular 
importance to our colleagues from Alaska, Senators Murkowski and 
Sullivan. Majority Whip Cornyn and I have been consulting with them 
about the Secure Rural Schools Program, which helps rural counties and 
schools whose economies have been hit hard by steeply declining timber 
revenues from our public lands. Senators Hatch and Wyden introduced a 
bill to reauthorize the program just last week, and it was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where Senator Murkowski 
is the chair. This bill is important to Kentucky, as well. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Murkowski, Senator Sullivan, and all 
the bill's advocates to find a path forward for it this year.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                     Government Funding Legislation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I want to thank the majority leader 
for speaking about the agreement that the House and Senate came to on 
the appropriations bills, the spending bills. We may not agree on 
emphasis and what the most important things are, but we certainly agree 
that it was a good effort that moved things forward, and I was proud to 
be part of it.


                             Kentucky Derby

  Mr. President, I note another thing that might tie the majority 
leader and the minority leader together--pride in Saturday's Kentucky 
Derby. The majority leader is very proud of the Kentucky Derby. It is 
one of the leading events in his State. I know he attends religiously.
  I am particularly proud because the horse that won was owned and 
trained and guided by two Brooklynites. I salute them for their 
success. Vinnie Viola, one of the two, is a close friend of mine. I 
have known him for a long time, and I know him well. As many of you 
know, he was being considered for Secretary of the Army. He would have 
been a good one. He withdrew because of the financial issues that he 
was too involved in with companies he owned, but he is a good man. He 
comes from St. Cecilia's Parish on the Greenpoint-Williamsburg border 
of Brooklyn. We are all proud and hope that his horse goes all the way. 
Maybe I can be at Belmont and see him win the Triple Crown. Anyway, 
that is a nice link between the majority leader and the minority 
leader.


                      French Presidential Election

  Mr. President, yesterday, the people of France took part in a time-
honored tradition of a democratic people: the election of a new 
President. We here in the Senate congratulate Emmanuel Macron on his 
win and look forward to the continuing deep and longstanding friendship 
between our two countries.
  Unfortunately, the elections in France were victim to a malicious 
attempt to distort the results through a coordinated cyber attack on 
one of the candidates, much as Hillary Clinton's campaign was targeted 
in our elections. In the waning days of the French election, according 
to reports, Macron's emails were hacked and leaked to the public, 
potentially with some altered information included, by agents believed 
to originate in Russia. The hack was then promoted and spread by far-
right activists around the globe, some of whom reside here in the 
United States. It was deja vu all over again. Russia elevated old 
school propaganda tactics and techniques using new school methods, 
spreading misinformation with an army of paid ``trolls'' and computer 
bots, aided and abetted by far-right activists here in the United 
States.
  It seems that Putin and the international far right have formed an 
unholy alliance. The goal of this alliance is not necessarily to 
promote one candidate over another, one party over another, though that 
is part of it. Their true goal is to destabilize and subvert democratic 
societies, to cast doubt on the outcome of free and fair elections, to 
hobble democratically elected leaders before they even take office, and 
to degrade the alliances and international regimes that have created so 
much stability, strength, and shared prosperity in the post-World War 
II era.
  Despite Macron's win yesterday, we would be foolish to think that 
this unholy alliance will not use the same tactics again in upcoming 
European elections and, even more important to those of us in this 
country, in upcoming American elections.
  Make no mistake about it--Mr. Putin has no loyalty to any one person 
or President. Whatever is good for Russia at the moment, whatever hurts 
the United States the most, that is what he will pursue. This is an 
issue that should provoke grave concern in both parties. He may favor 
one party one day and another party the next. It should compel us, 
together--Democrats and Republicans--to take action against this new 
threat.
  This afternoon, the Judiciary Committee will hear from former Deputy 
Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National 
Intelligence James Clapper. Later this week, the Intelligence Committee 
will hold its annual worldwide threats hearing. I sincerely hope these 
two committees will cover these issues in their hearings and beyond.
  We should begin an extended bipartisan discussion about how to combat 
foreign information operations campaigns and safeguard the integrity of 
democratic elections all over the world and, most importantly, in our 
own country. It is no less serious than this: The integrity of our 
democracy, which has thrived, blessedly, for over 240 years could well 
be at stake.


                               TrumpCare

  Now, Mr. President, on healthcare, last week House Republicans passed 
the latest version of TrumpCare after a failed attempt earlier this 
year. When they see this version, the majority of Americans will think 
it is even worse than the first version.
  This partisan bill will dramatically increase the cost of health 
insurance

[[Page 7600]]

for those who need it most, including older Americans, and lower the 
quality of coverage.
  TrumpCare would mean 24 million fewer Americans will be without 
health insurance.
  It would hike premiums by 20 percent in the first few years, and 
average costs for the middle class could go up by more than $1,500 a 
year. Middle-class people can't afford that kind of money. If you are 
struggling to make it into the middle class, TrumpCare could raise your 
costs by up to $4,000, putting you in an even worse pickle.
  It makes it possible for insurers to charge older Americans as much 
as five times the amount they charge younger people, and States could 
make this ratio even greater if they wanted. Under the first TrumpCare 
bill, someone making about $20,000 could have his or her--someone who 
is 63 years old--premiums go up from something like $1,500 or $2,000 
all the way to over $10,000 a year. This will be devastating for senior 
citizens, those 50 to 65. At 65, they get Medicare. They are in decent 
shape. But when they are older and not under Medicare, they could get 
clobbered by this bill after working so hard. And that is the time when 
you start getting susceptible to so many serious illnesses.
  TrumpCare would devastate our rural areas by decimating Medicaid, 
which rural areas rely on. Limiting subsidies to lower income 
Americans, many of whom live in rural areas, TrumpCare would put 
insurance for rural Americans even further out of reach.
  Many rural hospitals are the largest employers in their areas. We 
have many in New York State, in Upstate New York. They would be 
shortchanged by this bill. These hospitals--often the largest employers 
in our rural counties and the only providers of healthcare for scores 
and sometimes hundreds of miles around--might be forced to lay off 
thousands of workers. Many of these rural hospital leaders say that if 
TrumpCare passed, they would have to close. There would be hundreds out 
of work in an area where it is not easy to find work, and for those who 
don't work in the hospitals, it would be harder to get to the 
hospitals. We all know how important it is to get there quickly when, 
God forbid, a stroke or some other serious illness occurs.
  Maybe most troubling of all, TrumpCare would now eliminate crucial 
consumer protections in our healthcare system, including the ones that 
protect Americans with preexisting conditions. Every family in this 
country knows someone who has a preexisting condition. That sounds like 
a fancy word. What does it mean? Diabetes, chronic asthma, cancer, 
things like that. If you live in a State that opts out of this 
requirement, you will have to jump through so many hoops to maintain 
access to care, and even then it likely won't be affordable. It is 
unimaginable. You are a parent. Let's say you are 40 years old, husband 
and wife, and your child gets cancer. You can't get the coverage that 
under present law the insurance company has to give you or keep with 
you, and you watch your child suffer. That is inhumane.
  How, for ideological purposes, the folks in the House could have 
first eliminated it and now made it almost unattainable for so many 
millions of Americans--unfathomable. We fixed the problem in our 
healthcare system because we had heard so many horrible stories. The 
Republican bill brings it back from the dead.
  The way the House bill was put together in such a secretive and 
slapdash way, it is barely legislation. It well could be a menace to 
millions of American families. It means that the Senate should not even 
come close to passing a bill like this. It makes healthcare for working 
families, rural Americans, older Americans, and veterans much poorer 
and at the same time gives massive tax breaks to the wealthy. Some say 
that is the motivation of some in the House. To pay for these tax 
breaks for people making over $250,000 a year--and they get a big 
break--cut back healthcare on everybody else or on so many others. That 
is wrong. That is wrong.
  It does, frankly, exactly the opposite of everything President Trump 
promised he would do on healthcare. He said: Lower costs, better care, 
insuring everyone. His words. President Trump said he would not cut 
Medicare or Medicaid. His bill does both. TrumpCare is a giant broken 
promise for the working people, the hard-working people of this great 
country of ours.
  House Republicans rushed it through without hearings and without much 
debate or even a final CBO score. The final version was posted 8 hours 
before Members had to vote on it. Some of the very same Republicans who 
during the ObamaCare debate chanted ``Read the bill'' didn't even look 
at the final legislation, let alone study it. That is a breathtakingly 
irresponsible thing to do on a bill that will affect almost one-fifth 
of our economy and the healthcare of millions of Americans. I am not 
surprised our Republican colleagues wanted to rush it through. The more 
the American people see it, the less they will like it, just like with 
their first bill, which is why the first bill didn't pass and why the 
second one is in so much trouble here in the Senate.
  To borrow Speaker Ryan's catchphrase, there is a better way to reform 
our healthcare system. Instead of a partisan process, rushing through 
bills in the dead of night--no hearings, no debate, no score, no input 
from the other party--both parties could start working together on 
improving our healthcare system.
  Now that the bill is in the Senate's hands, we hope the Republican 
majority will pursue a bipartisan approach. If they drop their repeal 
efforts, which are already causing such uncertainty that insurers are 
pledging to hike rates on Americans next year, we Democrats are willing 
to work with our Republican colleagues to improve our healthcare 
system.
  In the last few years, we have made a good deal of progress. We have 
made major improvements in our healthcare system, expanding coverage 
for over 20 million Americans, bending the cost curve, and protecting 
folks with preexisting conditions. Why don't we keep all the good 
things we have in the system and work on making it even better in a 
bipartisan way? We want to improve quality, lower costs, reduce the 
price of prescription drugs, and expand coverage for all Americans. 
Unfortunately, the House bill does exactly the opposite.
  I hope my Republican friends toss this House bill out the window and 
resist the temptation to follow the same partisan, rushed process. I 
hope my friends on the other side of aisle drop repeal, which is 
hurting our healthcare system right now--just the threat of it--and 
start working with Democrats to make our healthcare better.


                            Paris Agreement

  Finally, Mr. President, a word on the Paris climate agreement. 
Reports have indicated that the Trump administration is leaning toward 
withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement. This 
would be a historic misstep that would massively disadvantage both 
American businesses and diplomats. It would damage our standing on the 
world stage and allow China to take the high moral ground and the 
economic upper hand in combatting climate change. Most importantly, a 
great step forward made by President Obama to get the entire world 
community to work in a coordinated and concerted effort to reduce 
carbon pollution so that the United States does not have to bear the 
burden and so that China would do much more than it has done--all that 
would be undone in one fell swoop.
  Europe and other countries have warned the Trump administration that 
abandoning the Paris Agreement could lead to carbon tariffs on U.S. 
goods, stymying access to global markets for our companies and 
undercutting our trade position. That is why hundreds of American 
companies, including 28 Fortune 100 CEOs representing 9 million jobs, 
support the climate agreement.
  There is a giant difference between putting America first and making 
America an international pariah. The latter approach only undermines 
our power and erodes our standing in the world. Right now, there are 
only two countries in the world that are not parties to the Paris 
Agreement--Syria and

[[Page 7601]]

Nicaragua, the latter of which objects because they feel the agreement 
is not strong enough.
  Climate change is real. It is driven by human activity. It is 
happening right now. These are facts. They are not in dispute. Our 
scientists know it, our businesses know it, the world knows it, and the 
American people who have experienced such changes in weather and 
climate know it too. The United States needs to have a seat at the 
table as the world works together to solve this existential challenge.
  I strongly encourage the administration to rethink its position and 
remain in the agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.


                       Republican Healthcare Bill

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to talk as well about the 
Republican healthcare plan and point out why it is moving on very 
treacherous territory when it will affect the funding of Medicaid by 
lessening the amount of Medicaid money that will be spent in the 
States, because so much of that Medicaid money is going to address the 
opioid crisis.
  The opioid crisis, we found last year--you know, there was a lot of 
talk about it being in New Hampshire when the eyes of America were on 
New Hampshire in the New Hampshire primary. But the fact is, it is in 
every State now. It is particularly so in my State of Florida. There 
are something like 2,600 deaths that have occurred in Florida as a 
result of opioid overdoses. So the seriousness with which we are 
addressing this issue ought to be of extreme concern, and we ought to 
be doing something about it. Yet a bill just passed by the House of 
Representatives is doing exactly the opposite. It is going to cut 
Medicaid. It is a fancy term, cutting Medicaid with a block grant. What 
it means is that it is going to be capped. That means a State is not 
going to get any more Medicaid once that cap has been hit, unless the 
State responds. So, in essence, it is going to cost the States more 
money. I don't think you will find many States that are in such a 
fiscal condition that, in fact, they could do that.
  So what are we doing? We are harming poor people and the disabled who 
get their healthcare from Medicare and Medicaid. In fact, we are not 
only harming all of them, but addressing the opioid crisis will be 
particularly hurt.
  What I want to talk about today is the Republican healthcare plan 
that passed out of the House last week. This plan is going to increase 
costs for older Americans. Remember, it is going to go on a ratio. 
Instead of 1 to 3, or older Americans being charged three times as much 
in health insurance as younger Americans, it is going to go up to a 
ratio of at least 1 to 5, and maybe more. So it is going to increase 
costs for older Americans. It is going to cut Medicaid, and it is going 
to take healthcare coverage away from tens of millions of people.
  Right now as a result of the ACA, there are 24 million people who 
have health insurance coverage who did not have it before this law was 
passed in 2010. It is going to reverse that. Do we want to take away 
healthcare from people who can now have healthcare through Medicaid 
and/or health insurance because they can now afford health insurance? 
Is that really a goal the United States wants to do--to take away 
healthcare through private health insurance? I don't think that is what 
we want to do, but that is what the House of Representatives' 
Republican healthcare bill has done.
  If we just look at my State of Florida, there are almost 8 million 
people who have a so-called preexisting condition. This includes 
something as common as asthma. That is a preexisting condition. As a 
former elected insurance commissioner of Florida, I can tell you that 
some insurance companies would use as an excuse as a preexisting 
condition something as simple as a rash and say: Because you have a 
preexisting condition, we are not going to insure you. Under the 
existing law, the Affordable Care Act, an insurance company cannot deny 
you with a preexisting condition. Just in my State alone, there are 
almost 8 million people who have a preexisting condition. Are we going 
to turn them out on the streets because their insurance company says 
they are not going to carry them anymore? I don't think that is what we 
want to do.
  The bill allows insurers to charge older Americans at least five 
times more than what they charge younger adults. Is that what we want 
to do?
  What is the principle of insurance? The principle of insurance is 
that you spread the risk. You get as many people in the pool as you 
can--young, old, sick, healthy--and you spread that risk.
  If you get fire insurance on your home, you are paying a premium 
every month and the insurance company has calculated in an actuarial 
calculation what it is going to cost you to insure, and you are part of 
hundreds of thousands of people in that pool who are also insuring 
against fire damaging their house. It is the same principle with health 
insurance. So you get young and old, sick and well, and some people 
with preexisting conditions, and you spread that risk over a lot of 
people. One of the fallacies we hear is that we can create this by 
creating a high-risk pool. In other words, we are going to set up some 
money for people who have really sick conditions, and we are going to 
take care of them. That is the most inefficient way to do it because 
insurance is about spreading risk, not concentrating risk, which is 
what a high-risk pool exactly is. So the House of Representatives, 
which has concocted this thing called the Republican healthcare plan, 
has come up with exactly the opposite idea of funding--instead of 
spreading the risk, concentrating the risk, and then saying that they 
are going out and getting $8 billion and that is going to pay for it. 
It is not even going to touch it. It is the most inefficient way to 
approach the subject of spreading risk, because they don't spread the 
risk. They concentrate the risk.
  What this bill does is that over 10 years it cuts over $800 billion 
out of Medicaid. You start doing that, and you are going to lose what 
we know of as Medicaid, a healthcare program primarily for the poor and 
the disabled.
  By the way, isn't it interesting that they cut over $800 billion and 
save it out of Medicaid, and what did they do in the same bill? They 
give upwards of $600 billion in tax breaks to those who are at the 
highest income levels. Let me get this right. It is kind of a reversed 
Robin Hood. I am going to take from the poor by cutting $800 billion, 
and I am going to give to the rich by tax breaks for the highest income 
folks. Is that what we want to do? I don't think so.
  Medicaid is a program that guarantees healthcare for millions of 
Americans, including children, people with disabilities, pregnant 
women, and seniors on long-term care. Think about that. What am I 
talking about? It is seniors in long-term care, seniors in nursing 
homes, who don't have enough resources or enough assets in order to pay 
for their care in their twilight years. Therefore, they are being paid 
by Medicaid, and that is the only source of income to take care of 
them. Is that what we want to cut in order to give a tax break for the 
highest income group? It ought to be the reverse. That is upside-down 
thinking.
  Last week the Florida Medical Examiners Commission released new data 
showing that over 2,600 Floridians have died from opioids in just the 
first half of 2016 alone. Over the entire year before, 2015, fentanyl, 
an opioid, killed 705 Floridians. Just in the first half of 2016, 
almost the exact same number, 704, died. We have a problem in the State 
of Florida, and there are a lot of other States that have the same.
  Last month I went to a research institute down in Palm Beach County. 
They are using NIH grant money to research new nonaddictive opioid 
drugs. If they can come up with this, that is certainly all for the 
better to help people with pain and so that they are not being given an 
addictive drug. But we are not there yet, and we are using NIH money 
that is going into that research.
  Last month I sent a letter to the Republican leadership pushing for 
more funding for the opioid fight and for the National Institutes of 
Health, or NIH.

[[Page 7602]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2017.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan: As negotiations 
     over the latest stopgap government funding measure continue, 
     we urge you to focus on securing substantial funding in the 
     appropriations legislation currently being negotiated for two 
     of our most essential national priorities: fighting the 
     opioid epidemic and investing in our nation's biomedical 
     research programs.
       Every day, 91 Americans die from an opioid overdose, and 
     despite the tireless work of many in our communities, this 
     public health epidemic is only getting worse. Currently, only 
     10 percent of individuals who need specialty treatment for 
     substance use disorder actually get it--not because we don't 
     know how to help, but in large part because there aren't 
     enough funds to provide these services. We need substantial 
     additional resources to fight this epidemic and fund 
     prevention, treatment, and recovery activities.
       It is also essential that we increase our investment in the 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH), our nation's premier 
     research institution. NIH funding supports innovative, 
     cutting-edge research that plays a critical role in the 
     development of lifesaving cures for diseases. Our ability to 
     fight Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, 
     and many other diseases depends on our willingness to invest 
     in science. While investments in the NIH have consistently 
     produced tremendous value, funding for the NIH has failed to 
     keep pace with inflation over the last several decades.
       It is essential to provide new funding to fight the opioid 
     epidemic and support biomedical research at the NIH. This new 
     funding should not fill in for cuts made elsewhere to opioid 
     and NIH funding. It is also essential that opioid funding be 
     distributed to the communities that need it must and that 
     have been hardest hit by this terrible public health 
     epidemic.
       While past Congresses have made promises about providing 
     states with additional funding to address the ongoing opioid 
     crisis, appropriations legislation like the pending budget 
     deal is where the bill comes due. Americans are counting on 
     Congress to live up to its commitments by supporting funding 
     for the priorities that matter most in their lives. Funding 
     to fight the opioid epidemic and support research into 
     lifesaving cures through the NIH rank at the top of this 
     list, and we urge you to include substantial additional 
     funding for these areas in the appropriations legislation now 
     being negotiated.
           Sincerely,
       Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator 
     Benjamin L. Cardin, Senator Tom Udall, Senator Dianne 
     Feinstein, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Sherrod Brown, 
     Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Senator Al Franken, Senator Richard 
     Blumenthal, Senator Edward J. Markey, Senator Chris Van 
     Hollen, Senator Margaret Wood Hassan, Senator Christopher 
     Murphy, Senator Joe Manchin III, Senator Tammy Baldwin, 
     Senator Cory A. Booker, Senator Tammy Duckworth, Senator 
     Bernard Sanders.

  Mr. NELSON. So what we need to do is to take a comprehensive approach 
to helping our State and local governments respond to this opioid 
epidemic.
  I was very happy to be an early part of putting together and 
sponsoring a bill called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 
of 2016 and of the funding included in the 21st Century Cures Act to 
start putting more resources into our States right away for this opioid 
epidemic. Those laws have resulted in Florida's receiving more than $27 
million to help our State respond to the opioid crisis. Yet a lot more 
action is needed, as you can see by just the first half of last year 
alone, with 704 people dying from opioid overdoses.
  Last week, in Florida a local paper reported about how the opioid 
epidemic is affecting our Nation's children. In 2015 alone, 167 babies 
were born in opioid dependency in just one city--Jacksonville--
contributing to Duval County's being tapped as having the second 
highest number of babies born addicted to opioids in the State. Isn't 
that sad that children come into this world and they are already 
addicted?
  We are dealing with people's lives here. We are dealing with their 
health. The last thing in the world we ought to be doing is cutting the 
resources of funding to help people who are in such dire straits. I 
would urge our colleagues to think twice about supporting this 
disastrous Republican healthcare bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Paris Agreement

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on December 19, 2015, in Paris, France, 
diplomats representing more than 190 countries finalized the world's 
most ambitious, comprehensive, and achievable multilateral agreement to 
combat climate change at the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change's 21st Conference of Parties, or COP21.
  I led a delegation of 10 Senators to COP21 to bolster U.S. leadership 
and to provide confidence in the U.S. commitment to the global effort 
to fight the existential threat of climate change. The result was an 
agreement that has nearly universal support, with every party committed 
to reducing carbon emissions. The momentum coming out of COP21 felt 
unstoppable.
  That momentum continued through 2016. On Earth Day, an impressive 175 
nations signed the Paris Agreement. Six months later, and in less than 
a year's time, the Paris Agreement reached the threshold for entry into 
force. Up until recently, the United States has led this global effort. 
The strength of our commitment and diplomacy spurred global enthusiasm 
for the Paris Agreement.
  Some have said that we are the first generation to feel the effects 
of climate change and the last generation who can do something about 
it. Climate change impacts are apparent in my home State of Maryland. 
Recently, Annapolis began experiencing routine tidal flooding. Today's 
generations of Smith Islanders may be the last as a rising Chesapeake 
Bay encroaches further ashore each year.
  Around the world, climate change is expanding the range and duration 
of regional wildfire seasons, prolonging extreme droughts in the Middle 
East and Southern Africa, which I have witnessed firsthand, and has 
caused Bolivia's Lake Poopo to evaporate entirely, and entire island 
nations are being swallowed up by the South Pacific.
  The good news is, acting to prevent the worst effects of climate 
change holds tremendous economic and job growth opportunities for our 
Nation. The world looks toward the United States for leadership, not 
just in terms of domestic emissions reductions but also in our private 
sector and academia for clean energy solutions to power the world. 
Maryland is positioned to be at the forefront of U.S. leadership in 
technology innovation.
  For example, the University of Maryland, in partnership with the U.S. 
Department of Energy and a number of Maryland private sector companies 
like Redox Energy, are leading the way in developing commercial-scale, 
in-demand technology that the global energy market is demanding.
  In 2015, global investment in renewable energy was nearly $350 
billion, which was more than the global investment in fossil fuel 
energy. The Department of Energy's 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment 
Report showed that nearly 1 million Americans work in the energy 
efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicles sectors. This is 
almost five times the current employment in the U.S. fossil fuel 
electric industry, which includes coal, gas, and oil workers. Even 
though gas and oil have hit record-low prices on the global market, 
current and projected price per watt for renewables is also low, making 
clean energy remarkably affordable and competitive in the market.
  The United States stands at the crossroads of global clean energy and 
climate change leadership, and the policy path we take on these issues 
could not only shape the strength of our economic future but our 
overall standing

[[Page 7603]]

in the world. Forward thinking domestic climate change and clean energy 
policy, including substantial investments in clean energy R&D and clean 
energy production incentives, have made the United States an incubator 
for clean energy investment and entrepreneurship.
  We see these things in every State of the Nation--new innovators and 
investors in the clean energy sector.
  Creating a robust domestic market helps U.S. companies develop tested 
records of accomplishment, skilled workforces, and scalable products to 
export around the world to a global energy market that is hungry for 
clean energy solutions. This is where domestic policy intersects with 
U.S. climate diplomacy, which is priming that export market by building 
good will and faith in U.S. capacity and commitment.
  The United States must not squander the considerable time and effort 
it took to build the world's confidence in the United States when 
combating climate change.
  The rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States severely 
strained a wide range of diplomacy issues for the Bush administration. 
That is not just a Senator saying this. Let me quote Secretary of State 
Colin Powell, when he stated:

       Kyoto--this is not talking out of school--was not handled 
     as well as it should have been, and when the blowback came I 
     think it was a sobering experience that everything the 
     American president does has international repercussions.

  That was General Powell warning us about the importance of 
international diplomacy and that our actions have consequences.
  Hindsight on the impact U.S. participation in Kyoto would have had on 
the protocol's success and on the U.S. economy is another debate 
entirely--and we will leave that for a different day--but a clear 
lesson from the episode is that the United States must not 
underestimate how seriously the world takes the issue of international 
cooperation to combat climate change.
  Should the Trump administration withdraw the United States from the 
Paris Agreement, it will be an incredible insult to our global partners 
and severely tarnish the trust nations have in the United States. That 
distrust will bleed over into all areas of U.S. diplomacy and 
cooperation.
  While the Paris Agreement does not have enforceable, binding 
provisions that would punish parties for missing self-determined 
mitigation targets, nothing precludes other countries from acting 
outside the confines of the agreement to create uncomfortable 
conditions for nonmembers. It is worth noting here that if we were to 
pull out, we would be in a club with Syria and Nicaragua.
  For example, in November of last year, immediately after the election 
and during COP22, the New York Times reported that leaders from other 
countries--so deeply offended by the President-elect's ill-informed 
rhetoric on climate change and the Paris Agreement--were contemplating 
implementing border tariffs on goods imported from nations failing to 
account for carbon emissions.
  Staying in the agreement and continuing to advocate for what is in 
the best interests of the United States could prevent countries from 
taking such actions.
  Many critics of the Paris Agreement sound as though they are stuck in 
1997, echoing concerns about the 20-year-old Kyoto Protocol that are 
simply untrue about the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement takes a 
different approach to international climate change cooperation by 
creating an action model that allows for ambitious action and 
accountability through peer review.
  The agreement takes a radically different approach to pollution 
mitigation that incorporates many conservative principles our 
Republican colleagues routinely espouse: increased transparency and 
universal reporting requirements for all parties. All parties, both 
developing and developed nations, commit to reducing greenhouse gas 
pollution. All parties determine their own greenhouse gas pollution 
mitigation commitments. Nationally determined commitments are 
nonbinding.
  Let me repeat that. The nationally determined commitments are 
nonbinding. It is up to us, our country, to determine how we will meet 
our targets and when we will meet our targets, and the enforcement is 
solely within our own means. No international group can enforce any of 
these commitments on us. That was at the request of many Members of 
this body, and that was followed in the Paris Agreement.
  The Paris Agreement was forged by the lessons the United States 
learned from the Kyoto Protocol process. Each addressed commonly 
criticized elements of the Kyoto Protocol.
  I cannot stress enough how seriously committed leaders around the 
world are to the success of the Paris Agreement. For example, it is the 
top agenda item for both the upcoming G7 and G20 meetings. As such, we 
absolutely cannot underestimate how thoroughly insulted our friends and 
allies around the world will be if the United States retreats from the 
agreement.
  Make no mistake, callously disregarding cooperation and partnership 
with the global community on a crisis that is literally threatening the 
very physical existence of countries will have consequences for our 
foreign policy, diplomacy, national security, and U.S. economic 
opportunity in an undeniably globalized economy. Retreating from the 
Paris Agreement puts America alone, not America first, and being alone 
is tantamount to being last.
  The expectation among our partners to the Paris Agreement is that the 
United States will remain engaged, although a common refrain among 
foreign delegations is that the world is moving ahead regardless. I 
take that to mean that if U.S. leadership falters, other countries will 
jump at the opportunity and fill the void we create and receive the 
gains which should have been ours.
  U.S. energy policy should support the goals of the Paris Agreement. 
We have already seen hundreds of American corporations make commitments 
in the agreement's name. There is infinite potential from enhanced U.S. 
production of scalable and exportable clean energy technology that the 
world is demanding to power our collective future. If we do the 
opposite and retreat from the global effort to combat climate change, 
then we can expect to lose out on this economic growth potential 
because countries like Germany, China, and India will gladly take our 
place as the world's leader for clean energy innovation and finance. I 
will do what I can to protect against this loss.
  It is in our national security interests for the United States to 
remain actively engaged with the world community to fight climate 
change.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, in December of 2015, nearly 200 nations 
gathered in Paris in order to reach an agreement that each country 
would make a commitment to the reduction of dangerous greenhouse gases 
that were warming the planet and causing more and more havoc across 
this entire world.
  That agreement is something that was hard-won. It took the leadership 
of the United States because so much of the CO2 that had 
been sent up into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age 
was red, white, and blue. It called upon each nation to make a 
commitment, and they did. The countries making commitments equaled 80 
percent of the world's greenhouse gas emitters.
  The Trump administration has many advisers telling the President that 
he should pull out of this Paris Agreement, that he should cede 
leadership to the Germans, to the Chinese, and to other nations rather 
than having the United States continue to be the leader. That would be 
very dangerous for

[[Page 7604]]

our country because we would be ceding leadership in this clean energy 
revolution to other countries around the planet.
  There are still many who do not understand the role this clean energy 
revolution is already playing inside our country. In 2016, we deployed 
nearly 24,000 new megawatts of wind and solar on our planet. To put it 
another way, in 2005, the total amount of solar energy that was 
deployed in the United States was 79 megawatts--79. In 2016, we 
deployed 14,000 megawatts of new solar power.
  Wind--last year, we deployed another 8,000 megawatts in our country. 
We are heading toward a point where we have an incredible number of 
people who are working in these industries. Remember, there are no more 
than 65 to 75,000 people who are still working as coal miners in the 
United States. In Massachusetts alone, we now have more than 100,000 
people who work in the clean energy sector. In wind and solar alone in 
our country right now, we have 360,000 people who work in those 
sectors.
  By the year 2020, if we just continue at the pace at which we have 
been moving over the last several years, there will be 600,000 people 
working in the wind and solar sector. That is the future. That is where 
we should be going. Those are the goals we should be trying to reach.
  Instead, what President Trump is saying is that the United States is 
a technological weakling, that the United States cannot do it, that the 
United States can't find the capacity to be able to meet this 
challenge, that we have to give up.
  The President says he is going to revive the coal industry, a 19th 
century industry, instead of trying to have the United States be the 
leader in this world on the production of clean energy technologies.
  Last night, I was at the Kennedy Library, and we were celebrating the 
100th birthday of President John F. Kennedy. On that occasion last 
evening, the library presented to Barack Obama his Profile in Courage 
Award. Amongst other things that were cited was his commitment to 
dealing with this challenge of climate change that is affecting our 
planet and the role that the United States can and should play in the 
solving of that problem.
  President Obama promulgated last year a Clean Power Plan. That Clean 
Power Plan was intended to reduce greenhouse gases in the utilities 
sector by 32 percent by the year 2030. President Trump has already 
said: We can't accomplish that. We can't figure that out. We don't know 
how to reduce those greenhouse gases.
  In 1961, President Kennedy said that we were going to put a man on 
the Moon in 8 years and return those pilots back to Earth safely. We 
had to invent new metals. We had to invent new propulsion systems. 
President Kennedy said that we were not going to do it because it was 
easy but because it was hard.
  We were threatened by the Soviet Union for supremacy in outer space. 
President Kennedy challenged our Nation to respond to the threat of the 
Soviet Union, and we won.
  Here we are, nearly 60 years later, with another challenge, a 
challenge that threatens this planet. President Trump says that as a 
nation we are not up to the challenge. As a nation, we can't figure out 
how to solve this problem, even though the solutions are already out 
there and being deployed across this Nation.
  Another example of solutions like wind and solar: Elon Musk has a new 
all-electric vehicle that is going to cost $35,000 and is going to be 
deployed next year; 400,000 of these vehicles are to be sold. That is a 
game-changing moment in the history of the automobile, going back to 
its invention. It is a game changer. To a certain extent, for existing 
industries, it is a game-over moment unless they get into this all-
electric vehicle revolution.
  What is Elon Musk doing? Elon Musk is creating a Darwinian, paranoia-
inducing environment within which all of the rest of these automotive 
companies are now going to have to operate--go electric or perish 
economically as a company.
  This is how far it has come: Right now, Tesla has a market value that 
for all intents and purposes is equal to Ford and to General Motors. 
That is how much the American people have given in terms of confidence 
in this company, in this man.
  We can do it. It should be the President of the United States who is 
saying we can do it. The rest of the world expects us to do it.
  Why do we continue to import oil into our country from Saudi Arabia? 
Why do we continue to import oil from other countries around this 
planet? Why can't the President set as a goal that we are going to have 
100 percent renewables in our country by the year 2050, that we are 
going to accept it as a national challenge in the same way that 
President Kennedy accepted the challenge in 1961 to put a man on the 
Moon, to control, to dominate in outer space?
  This is a letter to President Trump, which is in today's New York 
Times. The full-page ad says:

       Dear President Trump,
       As some of the largest companies based or operating in the 
     United States, we strongly urge you to keep the United States 
     Paris Agreement on climate change.

  What are the names of these companies? Adobe, Apple, Danfoss, 
Facebook, Gap, Google, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Ingersoll Rand, 
Intel, Johnson Controls, Mars Incorporated, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, 
National Grid, PG&E Corporation, Salesforce, Schneider Electric, 
Unilever, VF Corporation.
  This isn't the President challenging companies in our country to 
respond to the challenge. These are the companies in America 
challenging the President to respond to the challenge. It is the 
Kennedy era on its head; it is like JFK in reverse. He is saying we 
can't do it when the private sector is saying we can.
  Ultimately, this challenge to our competitiveness globally is 
something that Donald Trump is going to forfeit for our workers. This 
opportunity to create jobs and markets and growth is going to be 
something that we lose.
  We need a President who is going to stand up for this stable, 
practical framework, which is giving an incentive to the private sector 
to solve this problem. We will be creating jobs while saving all of 
creation. That is what the winning formula is going to be.
  This Paris Agreement is going to lead to increased competitiveness in 
jobs, in economic growth. By remaining a party to the Paris Agreement, 
rather than retreating, we will give Americans the opportunity to 
harness that can-do spirit and technical know-how to create new 
businesses and jobs. We will give our Nation the opportunity to be a 
leader in the global effort to address climate change. We will give 
America the opportunity to lead in this century and into the next.
  I urge the United States to remain in the Paris Agreement. We can 
either be the leader or the laggard internationally in developing the 
new clean energy technologies that will drive our economy and help 
combat climate change.
  It is a sad day for our Nation when the President of the United 
States is challenged by the private sector to step up, especially when 
he calls himself the CEO President of our country. He is turning his 
back on these innovative companies that want to be able to create jobs 
here in our country in order to save our planet. I pray for the well-
being of our planet and that the President honors this commitment.
  I think that the French made a huge statement yesterday in electing 
their new President, Macron. He was saying to the French people: We 
must engage the rest of the planet. We must work with the rest of the 
planet.
  The Paris Agreement was signed in France in December of 2015. That 
election yesterday, I think, should be taken as a signal that we should 
not be retreating from our global leadership.
  I urge this administration to adopt an approach that does unleash 
further this wind and solar and all-electric vehicle revolution.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 7605]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        American Health Care Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last week our colleagues in the House 
made a first necessary step to delivering on our promise to repeal and 
replace ObamaCare and to restore individual choice for a health 
insurance product that people choose that fits their actual needs, 
rather than one mandated by Washington, DC. They passed the American 
Health Care Act, a bill that provides relief to Americans all across 
the country. With the passage of the AHCA in the House, we have a way 
forward to do away with government mandating one-size-fits-all 
healthcare.
  Now that the House has passed this legislation, it is up to the 
Senate to do our job and to keep our promises. To be specific, the 
promise President Obama made when the Affordable Care Act was passed--
actually, he made many promises multiple times--proved not to be true. 
So in many ways, when President Obama promised that if you like what 
you have, you can keep it; that if you like your doctor, you can keep 
your doctor; that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan--none 
of that was true, we have now learned.
  I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that ObamaCare--the 
Affordable Care Act--was sold under false pretenses. So it is up to us 
to restore individual choice for healthcare products that people want 
that fit their needs, not one they buy because the government is 
holding a gun to their heads or threatens to penalize them unless they 
observe the government mandate to buy that healthcare.
  You know, one of the biggest reasons for passing ObamaCare given at 
the time, back in 2010, was the number of uninsured in the country. 
Well, the fact is, there are still 30 million people uninsured under 
ObamaCare even though it has been the law of the land for the last 7 
years.
  I believe we can and we must do better to deliver affordable care 
that people choose, that meets their individual needs, and not 
healthcare they buy simply because the government is coercing them into 
doing so. We will work together with all of our colleagues who are 
willing to work with us. If that means Republicans are going to be 
working with 52 Republicans to get this bill passed, we will get it 
done and we will get it passed. Ideally, though, it would be better if 
our Democratic colleagues work with us. But so far, they have 
steadfastly refused to work with us even though they know that 
ObamaCare is in shambles and that people are finding they can't find an 
insurance company where they live because insurance companies are 
pulling out of those individual markets because they are simply losing 
too much money or people who can buy ObamaCare policies in the 
individual markets are finding that their premiums are going through 
the roof and that the deductibles are unaffordable, thus effectively 
leaving them without effective coverage.
  Even though our Democratic colleagues know that ObamaCare is melting 
down and is not serving the public the way they promised it would or, 
in fact, is a positive harm to them because of unaffordable premiums 
and deductibles, still, so far they are standing on the sidelines and 
unwilling to participate in this process. I hope that changes at some 
point in the near future in the interests of the people we represent 
all across the country.


                            Immigration Law

  Madam President, I want to spend the rest of my time discussing a 
specific problem that Texans are all too familiar with; that is, people 
breaking our immigration laws, and not just breaking our immigration 
laws but then coming into our local communities and committing 
additional crimes--assault, murder, rape, you name it--in those 
communities even after they have entered the country illegally.
  This is a difficult issue and one that I don't raise lightly, but it 
is important that when we talk about sanctuary cities and criminal 
aliens--these are people who have not just violated the immigration 
laws, these are people who have doubled down and have no respect for 
our laws, and, frankly, they have no respect for the communities in 
which they live. They primarily target the minority community in which 
they live and work.
  We do need to be clear-eyed about this, and we need to treat it 
seriously. We need to remember that our inaction has some real-life 
consequences. I have been glad to see the new administration focus on 
enforcing the law and restoring respect for the rule of law generally 
and taking quick action to help victims of this type of crime in 
particular.
  I want to take a couple of minutes to tell a story about one 
particular victim who was really an American hero, one of my 
constituents who lost his life at the hands of a violent illegal 
immigrant. That would be Houston police officer Rodney Johnson.
  By all accounts, Rodney Johnson was larger than life, standing about 
6 feet 5 inches tall, with a smile just as big. He was a dedicated 
family man, a husband to fellow Houston Police Department officer 
Joslyn Johnson. They had three daughters and two sons. His wife even 
called Rodney ``the glue that held the family together.''
  Rodney was a hero not only to his family but to the local community 
as well. He was a hero for our country, too, because he was a veteran 
of the U.S. military police, the U.S. Army. Of course he was a hero for 
the State of Texas as a former corrections officer with the Texas 
Department of Public Safety.
  A few years ago, Rodney ran into the flames of a burning building and 
saved the lives of several children. For that act of courage, he was 
awarded one of the highest honors a law enforcement officer in Texas 
can receive, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement's Medal of Valor.
  Sadly, all of that changed in the fall of 2006. At about 5:30 p.m. on 
September 21, Officer Johnson pulled over a driver for speeding near 
Houston Hobby Airport. By all accounts, it appeared to be a routine 
traffic stop, but when the driver, Juan Quintero, could not provide 
Officer Johnson with a driver's license, he decided to take him into 
custody. What Officer Johnson did not know is that Mr. Quintero was a 
hardened criminal illegal immigrant with an extensive record of 
offenses, as well as deportations and repeated illegal entries into the 
United States. Even more tragically, Officer Johnson did not know that 
this career thug was concealing a 9mm handgun in the waistband of his 
clothing.
  Officer Johnson followed protocol. He handcuffed the criminal 
suspect, placed him in the back of his squad car, and began writing a 
police report. But just then, Quintero managed to move his cuffed hands 
in front of him, reached for his concealed weapon, and opened fire in a 
cowardly surprise attack, literally killing Rodney Johnson by shooting 
him in the back.
  Quintero was a dangerous career criminal who had no respect for our 
laws. He had no place in our country and had been deported numerous 
times by the Federal Government. But somehow he was free and on the 
streets alongside of our families and heroes like Officer Rodney 
Johnson. That should be an embarrassment to everyone who believes in 
the rule of law and believes that it is government's responsibility at 
the local, State, and Federal level to keep our communities safe.
  This issue is not going to go away, as much as some of our colleagues 
would like to ignore it. There are countless other stories across the 
country of victims and their families who have suffered from some of 
the worst tragedies imaginable because of criminal illegal immigrants.
  I am not talking just about people who have entered the country in 
violation of our immigration laws; I am talking about hardened 
criminals who target people in their communities for profit or for 
other reasons. I have spoken about a number of them from the floor 
before.
  In addition to Officer Rodney Johnson, I could tell you the story of 
Javier

[[Page 7606]]

Vega, a Border Patrol officer killed by two criminal illegal immigrants 
while fishing with his family. These criminals had been deported 
numerous times and committed multiple crimes.
  I could tell you about Kevin Will, a Houston police officer killed by 
a drunk driver who had entered and was living in the United States 
illegally and who had been deported twice before.
  I could tell you more about Josh Wilkerson, a teenager brutally 
killed by a criminal illegal immigrant in 2010, somebody who had been 
arrested numerous times before.
  I could tell you about Kara Willingham, who was beaten to death by a 
criminal illegal immigrant; Gustavo Burr or Andres Reyes, kidnapped and 
held at gunpoint in South Texas; and Neri Garcia, killed by an illegal 
alien who caused a drunk-driving accident in the Dallas area.
  I could tell you story after story after story of the tragedies 
wrought by a Federal policy that did not enforce our borders or make 
sure that people, once deported, stayed deported because of the danger 
they posed to our communities. I believe this really is a matter of 
political will, and we finally, for the first time in the last 8 years, 
have an administration and a President who believe in securing our 
borders and keeping the public safe.
  There are larger and other additional discussions we need to have 
about our flawed immigration system, but the first thing we need to do 
is regain the public's confidence by securing our borders and enforcing 
our laws. I am glad President Trump is well on his way to beginning 
that process under the leadership of GEN John Kelly at the Department 
of Homeland Security.
  The entire point of this is to keep the first commitment that the 
government makes to American citizens: that we will protect you and 
keep you safe. That is the government's main job, and that includes 
protecting all Americans and everyone in the country, literally, from 
those career criminals who commit offenses and who thumb their noses at 
our immigration laws. As I said, the Trump administration is finally 
taking our security seriously, and I am grateful for that. By focusing 
on violent repeat offenders, we are protecting our citizens and making 
our communities safer places to live. I don't know how anyone could be 
against that.
  I look forward to doing my part here in the Senate to continue 
working with this administration to make sure that our laws are 
enforced and not ignored, such as the one signed into law by Governor 
Abbott in Texas, making sure that sanctuary cities exist no more and 
that every local, State, and Federal law enforcement agency cooperates 
in enforcing the law and making our communities safe and regaining the 
public's confidence in their own government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, today is a glorious day. It is a great 
day for this country because we and my colleagues, I believe, will 
confirm Heather Wilson to be Secretary of the Air Force.
  There are many reasons why it is appropriate for Heather Wilson to be 
Secretary of the Air Force. She has Air Force in her DNA. Her father 
Doug was an Air Force veteran and commercial pilot. Her grandfather 
flew for Britain's Royal Flying Corps in World War I before coming to 
the United States and serving as a courier pilot during World War II.
  Heather was to be no different. She was a junior in high school when 
the Air Force Academy started accepting women. She applied and was 
appointed there to be part of the Academy's third class with women. She 
also became the first woman to command basic training and the first 
woman vice wing commander.
  After college she thought she was going to flight school, but those 
plans changed because she answered the call and was awarded the very 
prestigious Rhodes Scholarship. It was only the sixth year that women 
were permitted to apply for a Rhodes Scholarship, and she was a 
collegiate rower there and earned a master's degree and a doctorate in 
international relations.
  Heather's assignments and accomplishments are many. During her 
service she was a negotiator and political adviser to the U.S. Air 
Force in England and a planning officer for NATO in Belgium, where she 
worked on arms control negotiations.
  Heather left the Air Force because she heeded another call to serve 
as the Director of European Defense Policy and Arms Control on the 
staff of the National Security Council. I know she worked very closely 
with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the Presidency 
of George H.W. Bush, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of 
the Warsaw Pact.
  Heather has always been on an upward trajectory. She left government 
and started her own company advising defense and scientific 
corporations, but public service has always called Heather back. In 
1995 she was asked to be the cabinet secretary of the New Mexico 
Children, Youth and Families Department, where she oversaw foster care, 
adoption, early childhood education, children's mental health, and the 
juvenile justice system. From there, again, public service kept calling 
her, and she was elected to the House of Representatives in 1998, 
becoming the first woman to represent New Mexico since the 1940s and 
the first female veteran elected to a full term in the U.S. Congress.
  I met Heather Wilson in the House of Representatives. Her time on the 
Hill included service on the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services and 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I was lucky enough to 
serve with Heather, to learn from her and from her incredible depth of 
knowledge, her certainty--Heather is so certain--and her ability to cut 
through the politics to do what is right for the country. I heard 
Heather give many speeches on the House floor, and they were always 
through the frame of what is in the best interests of the United 
States.
  So after she left Congress she founded another company before she was 
selected as president of the South Dakota School of Mines and 
Technology, and she is there now serving as the school's first female 
President. My condolences go to the South Dakota School of Mines and 
Technology because duty is calling Heather Wilson back to Washington to 
be our Secretary of the Air Force.
  There are a lot of firsts in Heather's life. Senator Pete Domenici, 
to whom Heather felt very close, once called Heather ``the most 
brilliantly qualified House candidate anywhere in the country.''
  I say Heather is a brilliantly qualified designee to be Secretary of 
the Air Force. She has always been not only an incredible intellectual 
and a strong leader, but she is also a very warm, welcoming, and kind 
person. We became good friends and remain so to this day. She is a 
leader. She is a spouse. She is a mother of two wonderful children, a 
pilot, and a veteran. So I am excited about the prospect of Heather's 
returning to Washington to become our Secretary of the Air Force.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, Heather Wilson was one of the first 
women to graduate from the U.S. Air Force Academy and the third 
generation of her family to serve in the Air Force. She was one of the 
pioneers of gender integration of the modern Air Force. Even so, her 
track record in public service and the private sector after her Air 
Force career raises concerns.
  While serving as the Representative from New Mexico's First District, 
Ms. Wilson admitted to telephoning the U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque to 
pressure him on an ongoing corruption investigation of State Democrats, 
in violation of House ethics rules.
  Ms. Wilson was paid $450,000 between 2009 and 2013 through a Lockheed 
Martin subsidiary for consulting work for Sandia National Laboratory. 
The Government Accountability Office criticized the lab for not having 
adequate documentation of the work that she performed, and Lockheed 
Martin ultimately paid $4.7 million to settle charges that it had paid 
a lobbyist with taxpayer funds. Ethics laws prohibited

[[Page 7607]]

Ms. Wilson from lobbying within a year of serving in Congress. Ms. 
Wilson failed to list her business relationship with Sandia Labs in her 
financial disclosure filings. In spite of this, she claims that she did 
nothing wrong.
  During her unsuccessful run for the Senate, Ms. Wilson claimed that 
legislation intended to reduce bullying of LGBTQ children was a 
violation of religious freedom. She argued that the correct response 
was not to punish bullies, but to ``strengthen our children to be more 
comfortable with themselves.'' She has steadfastly refused to support 
Federal nondiscrimination protections for the LGBTQ community.
  The core values of the Air Force are, integrity first, service before 
self, and excellence in all we do. In spite of her career as an Air 
Force officer, Ms. Wilson has not demonstrated the unflinching 
commitment to integrity that we demand of our men and women in uniform. 
She has compromised ethics rules in Congress, accepted pay for 
questionable work that was ill-defined and can't be fully documented, 
and failed to show that she is willing to stand up for all serving in 
uniform, regardless of their sexual orientation.
  For these reasons, I cannot support Ms. Wilson's nomination to be 
24th Secretary of the Air Force.
  Mrs. CAPITO. 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. 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.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use 10 minutes 
of the Republicans' allotted time because my side has used all of our 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of 
Dr. Heather Wilson to be Secretary of the Air Force.
  The Secretary of the Air Force is an important and influential 
position within our national security structure. As the head of the 
military Department, the Secretary of the Air Force oversees 
recruiting, organizing, training, and equipping of the force. The next 
Air Force Secretary will oversee the Defense Department's most complex 
and costly acquisition programs in history. The Secretary will also 
lead 495,000 Active-Duty, Guard, and Reserve members through the 
challenges of rebuilding long-term sustainable readiness, while 
contending with ongoing operational demands around the globe.
  Dr. Wilson has the knowledge and expertise to serve in that role. She 
is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and a Rhodes scholar. She 
served in the House of Representatives and on the House Armed Services 
Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. 
Currently, Dr. Wilson is president of the South Dakota School of Mines 
and Technology.
  Without question, Dr. Wilson has notable credentials, but I have 
significant concerns about certain of her past actions. First, Heather 
Wilson & Company, LLC, founded by Dr. Wilson following her tenure in 
Congress, had contracts with four National Nuclear Security 
Administration, or NNSA, laboratories--Sandia National Laboratories, 
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and 
Nevada National Security Site. From January 2009 through part of 2011, 
Dr. Wilson's company received $464,000 in payments from these 
laboratories for consulting services.
  However, due to claims of contracting irregularities involving the 
company, the Department of Energy inspector general conducted two 
investigations into this matter. As a result, the contractors that 
operated the laboratories on behalf of the government paid back at 
least $442,877 to the Department of Energy with respect to payments 
made to Dr. Wilson's company. The rationale for the repayments was the 
absence of any appreciable evidence of work product. Furthermore, 
Lockheed Martin, which operated Sandia National Laboratories, agreed to 
an overall settlement of $4.7 million for their management failures.
  Let me be clear. Dr. Wilson was not found culpable of wrongdoing. 
Nevertheless, the allegations that were levied are serious and directly 
involved her company. As such, during her confirmation hearing, I asked 
Dr. Wilson about these contracts and the allegations of impropriety. 
Unfortunately, I did not receive a satisfactory response. Dr. Wilson 
deflected any suggestions that she bore any responsibility for these 
contracting irregularities.
  As concerning as these allegations are, there was another incident 
that I found even more problematic as we reviewed Dr. Wilson's 
qualifications to serve as Secretary of the Air Force. In October of 
2006, while serving as a Member of the House of Representatives, Dr. 
Wilson contacted a sitting U.S. attorney, David C. Iglesias, who was 
appointed by President George W. Bush, regarding the status of Federal 
corruption cases in New Mexico. This action was highly unusual and 
contrary to guidance in effect at the time from the House Ethics 
Committee. In fact, the House Ethics Manual provided that a request for 
background information or a status report from a U.S. attorney ``may in 
effect be an indirect or subtle effort to influence the substantive 
outcome of the proceedings.'' The guidance provided by the manual 
stated that the best way to communicate any inquiry or question was in 
writing, in order to make it part of the proceedings.
  As a former Member of the House myself, I have deep concerns about 
this action in terms of House ethics rules and the possibility that a 
Federal prosecutor may have felt pressured by Congress in an ongoing 
investigation.
  In September of 2008, a joint report by the Department of Justice 
inspector general and the Department of Justice Office of Professional 
Responsibility, which investigated the removal of nine U.S. attorneys, 
including Mr. Iglesias, concluded that ``the evidence we have developed 
so far shows that Wilson . . . in fact called Iglesias before the 
election, and that the substance of the call led Iglesias to believe he 
was being pressured to indict the courthouse case before the upcoming 
election.''
  During her nomination hearing, Dr. Wilson testified that she called 
Mr. Iglesias because, in her words, ``an individual or constituent with 
knowledge of ongoing investigations told me that the U.S. Attorney was 
intentionally delaying corruption prosecutions, and I felt as though I 
had to address that allegation in some appropriate way.'' However, as I 
previously mentioned, contacting a U.S. attorney in this manner was 
clearly contrary to the ethics rules that govern the conduct of Members 
of the House of Representatives.
  Perhaps Dr. Wilson, though, does deserve the benefit of the doubt. 
Maybe her intention, when she called Mr. Iglesias, was not to pressure 
him. However, when I asked Dr. Wilson the name of the individual who 
made the allegation about Mr. Iglesias's intentionally delaying 
corruption prosecutions, she refused to provide the person's name. Dr. 
Wilson argued that she had an obligation not to reveal who it was who 
made a highly politicized and unusual charge against Mr. Iglesias.
  I think providing the name of the person is important because it 
helps us to understand the purpose of Dr. Wilson's call to Mr. 
Iglesias. It is one thing if a concerned constituent with no ties or 
interests in corruption cases under investigation innocuously contacted 
Dr. Wilson. Perhaps her subsequent call to Mr. Iglesias could be 
excused. But because we do not have the name, we have no way to verify 
the motive. It remains very possible that the person who contacted Dr. 
Wilson wanted to pressure Mr. Iglesias to move forward with these 
pending corruption cases. If that is the case, it casts Dr. Wilson's 
call to Mr. Iglesias in a much different light. Unfortunately, without 
further information from Dr. Wilson, I will not be able to resolve my 
concerns about this incident.
  The two issues I have just discussed have reluctantly led me to 
conclude that while Dr. Wilson has excellent

[[Page 7608]]

academic and professional qualifications, I must vote against her 
nomination before the full Senate.
  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 (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a month ago, I spoke in strong support of 
Dr. Heather Wilson to be the 24th Secretary of the Air Force. I am 
pleased that it appears that her nomination will be confirmed today.
  In the many years I have known Dr. Wilson, I have always been 
impressed by her intellect and especially by her leadership skills. Her 
qualifications and character are beyond dispute. Throughout her life, 
she has used her many talents not for personal gain or self-
aggrandizement but for the public good.
  Dr. Wilson was one of the first female graduates of the Air Force 
Academy, which is a pretty impressive accomplishment unto itself, but 
she set an even higher standard when she earned a Rhodes scholarship to 
study at Oxford University.
  Upon being awarded her Ph.D., she went to work for the National 
Security Council and then ran for Congress. I got to know Dr. Wilson 
through her insightful work on the House Intelligence and Armed 
Services Committees. Make no mistake--Dr. Wilson made a difference 
during her service in the House. As a well-respected member of the 
Intelligence Committee, she built a reputation as a no-nonsense 
legislator who was deeply committed to upholding our national security. 
In all things, she proved herself to be exceptionally competent, and I 
have to say that she proved herself to be worthy of the highest trust.
  After her service in the House, Dr. Wilson became the president of 
the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. There, she again set a 
high bar by leading a school whose alumni, I have been informed, make a 
higher average starting salary than do Harvard graduates.
  For over 20 years, our Nation's Air Force has been involved in 
conflicts all over the world. Now more than ever, the Air Force needs a 
proven leader who can modernize the service and lead us to victory. I 
believe Dr. Wilson will provide that leadership. I have every 
confidence that she will serve with honor and integrity and make a 
lasting difference as the next Secretary of the Air Force. I have known 
her for a long time. I have gone to her State and worked with her and 
campaigned with her. All I can say is that she is a very top-notch 
woman leader, one of the best I have seen in all of my time in the U.S. 
Senate, and I know she is going to do a terrific job. I am going to 
help her every step of the way, and I am sure everybody else here will.
  I hope everybody on this floor will vote for Dr. Heather Wilson for 
this position. We cannot lose. We are all going to be ahead because she 
is willing to serve and serve more, and she is willing to leave what 
really is a very comfortable position in order to take one that is not 
so comfortable and is very demanding, and I respect her for that and 
think the world of her.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the nomination of 
Heather Wilson to be Secretary of the Air Force.
  The time runs out in 37 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. What is the time of the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time concludes at 6:03 p.m.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Heather Wilson to be the next Secretary of the U.S. Air 
Force.
  Dr. Wilson is a proven leader and a dedicated public servant. She is 
a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and Oxford 
University, where she earned master's and doctorate degrees as a Rhodes 
Scholar. If confirmed, Dr. Wilson will be the first Air Force Academy 
graduate in history to serve as Secretary of the Air Force.
  Dr. Wilson served 7 years as an Air Force officer. During the Cold 
War, she served in the United Kingdom and at the U.S. Mission to NATO 
in Brussels. As the Cold War came to an end, she served on the National 
Security Council staff under President George H.W. Bush, working on 
issues concerning NATO and arms control.
  Dr. Wilson later moved west to marry her husband, Jay, who is also an 
Air Force veteran. After a few years in the private sector, Dr. Wilson 
once again answered the call to service, first as the head of the New 
Mexico Child Welfare Department and later as a Member of the U.S. House 
of Representatives.
  In Congress, Dr. Wilson was the leading voice on national security. 
She took on the tough issues, from surveillance programs to sexual 
assault at the Air Force Academy, and she earned the deepest respect of 
her colleagues on Capitol Hill, including mine.
  For the last 4 years, Dr. Wilson has been the president of the South 
Dakota School of Mines, enhancing its reputation as a premier 
engineering, science, and research institution.
  Now America's Air Force needs her leadership.
  The next Secretary will lead America's Air Force in confronting the 
most diverse and complex array of global crises since the end of World 
War II. The world is on fire, and now more than ever our Nation is 
counting on the global vigilance, global reach, and global power that 
are the hallmarks of the U.S. Air Force capabilities.
  The next Secretary will also inherit the oldest, smallest, and least 
ready Air Force in its history. Twenty-five years of continuous 
deployments, troubled acquisition programs, and frequent aircraft 
divestments have aged and shrunk the Air Force's inventory. The 
combination of relentless operational tempo and the self-inflicted 
wounds of the Budget Control Act and sequestration have depleted 
readiness. Meanwhile, potential adversaries are rapidly shrinking 
America's technological advantage and holding our aircraft at greater 
risk over greater distances.
  In short, we have asked a lot of our Air Force over the last 25 
years, and the demands placed on the service continue to grow. Congress 
has only added to the problems with the Budget Control Act and 
sequestration. We are placing an unnecessary and dangerous burden on 
the backs of our airmen, and we cannot change course soon enough.
  We owe our airmen the resources, equipment, and training they need to 
succeed. We also owe them proven leadership. That is why the Senate 
should confirm Dr. Wilson to be the next Secretary of the Air Force. 
From the Air Force Academy to the Air Force, to the National Security 
Council, to the House of Representatives, Dr. Wilson has proven herself 
as a leader. She understands the missions of the Air Force and the 
capabilities it brings to the defense of our Nation. I am confident she 
will uphold the Air Force's core values: integrity first, service 
before self, and excellence in all the Air Force does.
  Heather Wilson is the right person to lead the Air Force to a 
stronger future, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Wilson 
nomination?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page 7609]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 76, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Ex.]

                                YEAS--76

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--22

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hirono
     Leahy
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murray
     Reed
     Schumer
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Isakson
     Sanders
       
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________