[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8411-8424]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                     Nomination of Courtney Elwood

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senate will shortly consider the 
nomination of Courtney Elwood to be the CIA's General Counsel. I wanted 
to take a few minutes this morning to discuss the nomination and put it 
in the context of the extraordinary national security challenges our 
country faces.
  It is hard to imagine a more despicable act than the terrorist attack 
in Manchester Monday night, killing innocent teenagers and children who 
were out to enjoy a concert. The suffering that Americans and all in 
the Senate have been reading about and watching on television is 
heartbreaking by any standards. I think it is fair to say that, as 
Americans, we stand in strong solidarity with our British friends, our 
allies, as they confront this horror. Our country will, as we have for 
so many years, stand shoulder to shoulder with them as there is an 
effort to collect more information about this attack, about what 
actually happened, and work to prevent future attacks.
  Not everything is known about the attack, but one thing Americans do 
know is that it can happen here. That is why, as I begin this 
discussion on this important nomination and the challenges in front of 
our country, I would like to start, as I invariably do when we talk 
about intelligence matters, by recognizing the extraordinary men and 
women who work in the intelligence community, who work tirelessly 
across the government to keep our people safe from terrorist attacks. 
So much of what they do is in secret, and that is appropriate. It is so 
important to keep secret what is called the sources and methods that 
our intelligence community personnel are using. It is important to the 
American people and it is important to our country to make sure that 
the people protecting them every day can do their jobs.
  The reason I took this time this morning to talk about this 
nomination is to talk about the broader context of what we owe the 
American people, and I feel very strongly that we owe the American 
people security and liberty. The two are not mutually exclusive, and it 
is possible to protect the people of our country with smart policies 
that protect both their security and their liberty.
  Smart policies ensure that security and liberty are not mutually 
exclusive. For example, I would cite as a smart policy something I was 
proud to have been involved in. Section 102 of the USA FREEDOM Act 
sought to make sure that we weren't just indiscriminately collecting 
millions of phone records on law-abiding people. A provision, section 
102, says that when our government believes there is an emergency where 
the safety and security and well-being of the American people is at 
stake, our government can move immediately to deal with the problem and 
then come back later and settle up

[[Page 8412]]

with respect to getting a warrant. That was something that, I thought, 
really solidified what was a smart policy.
  Our Founding Fathers had a Fourth Amendment for a reason--to protect 
the liberties of our people. What we said is that we are going to be 
sensitive to those liberties, but at the same time, we are going to be 
sensitive to the security and well-being of the American people at a 
dangerous time. We are going to say that, if the government believes 
there is an emergency, the government can go get that information 
immediately and come back later and settle up with the warrant process.
  Issues ensuring that we have security and liberty are especially 
important today. We obviously face terrorism. We are challenged by 
Russia and North Korea, and the list can go on and on. The fact is, 
there are a host of these challenges, and it seems to me that if we 
look at the history of how to deal with a climate like this, too often 
there is almost a kind of easy, practically knee-jerk approach that is 
billed as dealing with a great security challenge that very often gives 
our people less security and less liberty. At a time when people want 
both, they end up getting less. That is what happens so often in 
crises, and far too often it happens in large part because senior 
lawyers operating in secret give the intelligence community the green 
light to conduct operations that are not in the country's interest.
  I am going to walk through how misguided and dangerous decisions can 
be made and how much depends on how the lawyers interpret current law. 
In past debates people have said: You know, that happened years ago, 
many years ago, and various steps were taken to correct it. Today, I am 
going to talk about how misguided and dangerous decisions can be made 
today.
  At the center of this question is the nominee to be the CIA general 
counsel and what I consider to be very troubling statements that have 
been made on a number of the key issues that involve decisions that 
will be made now. In outlining those, I want to explain why it is my 
intention to vote against the confirmation of Courtney Elwood to be the 
CIA's general counsel.
  The key principle to begin with is that there is a clear distinction 
between keeping secrets of sources and methods used by the intelligence 
community, which is essential, and the creation of secret law, which is 
not. We in the Senate have a responsibility to make sure the public is 
not kept in the dark about the laws and rules that govern what the 
intelligence community can and cannot do.
  I believe the American people understand that their government cannot 
always disclose who it is spying on, but they are fed up with having to 
read in the papers about the government secretly making up the rules. 
They were fed up when they learned about the illegal, warrantless 
wiretapping program. They were fed up when they learned about the bulk 
collection of phone records of millions of law-abiding Americans.
  What our people want to know is that the rules are going to be, No. 
1, clear to everybody and, No. 2, that the government is operating 
within those rules. That is why the nominations for the intelligence 
community are so important. The American people need to know how these 
men and women understand the laws that authorize what they can and 
cannot do in secret.
  Shortly, the Senate will consider the nominee to be the CIA's general 
counsel. I believe there are few more important positions in government 
than this one, when it comes to interpreting key laws. The advice the 
general counsel provides to the Central Intelligence Agency will be 
shielded from the American people and possibly from Congress as well. 
There is almost never accountability before the public, the press, 
watchdog groups, or other public institutions that help preserve our 
democracy. There are almost never debates on the floor of the Senate 
about the legality of the CIA's operations. It is all in secret.
  The advice of this general counsel will carry especially important 
heft, given what CIA Director Mike Pompeo said during his confirmation. 
Again and again during those confirmation hearings, when asked what 
boundaries Director Pompeo would draw around the government's 
surveillance authorities, the Director responded that he was bound by 
the law. In effect, the Director said to the Senate and this body that 
he would defer to the lawyers. So if Congress and the American people 
were to have any clue as to what the Central Intelligence Agency might 
do under Director Pompeo, we were going to have to ask the nominee to 
be general counsel. That is why it is critical that she answer 
questions about her views of the law and that she answer them now 
before a confirmation vote.
  I asked those questions, and what I heard in return was either a 
troubling response or some combination of ``I don't know,'' and ``I 
will figure it out after I am confirmed.''
  Now, without answers, we are left largely to judge Ms. Elwood by her 
record. So I am going to start by looking back at her previous service 
and what she says about it now.
  With respect to the National Security Agency's illegal warrantless 
wiretapping, that became public at the end of 2005 when Ms. Elwood was 
at the Department of Justice. She reviewed public statements about the 
program and held discussions about those public statements with 
individuals inside and outside the administration. That includes 
discussions with the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel 
about the Department's legal analysis justifying the warrantless 
wiretapping program. She was especially involved when the Attorney 
General made public statements about the program. So the committee 
asked her about some of that Justice Department public analysis, and, 
in particular, the Department of Justice January 2006 white paper that 
was thought to justify the warrantless wiretapping program. Ms. Elwood 
responded that she thought at the time that the Department of Justice's 
analysis was ``thorough and carefully reasoned and that certain points 
were compelling.''
  This was an illegal program. It violated the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act. No interpretation of the law that defended that 
warrantless wiretapping program is carefully reasoned or compelling. It 
was an illegal program.
  Ms. Elwood also said that some of the analysis ``presented a 
difficult question'' and that ``reasonable minds could reach different 
conclusions.'' Of course, the point is not what ``reasonable minds'' 
might conclude. The point for us in the Senate is what her mind would 
conclude. Remember, this is the Department of Justice's conclusion that 
the laws governing wiretapping of Americans inside the United States 
could be disregarded because the President says so or because the 
Department of Justice secretly reinterprets the law in a way that no 
American could recognize. Remember, too, that we are talking about a 
program that may have begun shortly after 9/11, but it was still going 
on secretly and without congressional oversight more than 4 years later 
when it was revealed in the press. That was the context in which the 
Department of Justice--at the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006, 
when Ms. Elwood was at the Department--determined that the warrantless 
wiretapping program was perfectly legal and constitutional.
  This is--to say, in my view--at the least, dangerous, and it could 
happen again.
  I wanted to give Ms. Elwood every opportunity to reconsider and 
distance herself from these assertions I described. So I asked very 
specific questions. First, did the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement 
apply? No, she responded. She endorsed the view that the warrantless 
wiretapping of Americans on American soil did not require warrants 
under the Fourth Amendment. That was not very encouraging.
  What about the other arguments made to try to justify this illegal 
program?
  The first was the notion that the 2001 authorization for use of 
military force somehow gave the government the green light to conduct 
warrantless wiretapping of Americans inside the

[[Page 8413]]

United States. This argument was ludicrous. The authorization for use 
of military force said nothing about surveillance. The applicable law 
governing national security wiretapping was the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act--period. If the Bush Administration had wanted the law 
to conduct warrantless wiretapping after 9/11, it could have asked the 
Congress to pass it as part of the PATRIOT Act. It didn't. So when they 
got caught and had to explain to the public what they had been doing 
all these years, they said that the authorization for use of military 
force, which the Congress understood as authorizing war in Afghanistan, 
somehow magically allowed for wiretapping in the United States. The 
second argument was that the President had something called ``inherent 
power'' to disregard the law.
  I asked Ms. Elwood if she agreed with either of these arguments. She 
wouldn't answer the question of whether the authorization for use of 
military force authorized warrantless wiretapping, and she wouldn't 
answer the question of whether the President's so-called inherent power 
authorized the warrantless wiretapping. That was not very encouraging, 
either.
  I did get one answer. Ms. Elwood said that the arguments that the 
Bush Administration's secret interpretation of the authorization for 
use of military force, combined with the President's so-called inherent 
powers, allowed for the warrantless wiretapping, in her view, that 
``seemed reasonable.'' That definitely was not encouraging.
  Then it occurred to me that having asked her about the past in some 
of these concerns that I have just raised, I thought maybe that is all 
part of yesteryear. Maybe that is all in the past. Let bygones be 
bygones. So I looked for assurances that Ms. Elwood's defense of 
warrantless wiretapping wasn't relevant now. After all, Ms. Elwood's 
response to questions about the program referred to the law at the 
time. Maybe current law makes clear to everyone, including the nominee, 
that there will never again be warrantless wiretapping of Americans in 
the United States.
  So what does the law actually say now? Back in 2008, Congress took a 
big part of the warrantless wiretapping program and turned it into the 
law now known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act. The Congress wanted to make it absolutely clear that our country 
had really turned the page and that Americans wouldn't have to worry 
about any more violations of the law. So the Congress included in the 
law a statement that said: We really mean it. This law is ``the 
exclusive means'' by which electronic surveillance could be conducted.
  I asked Ms. Elwood about whether the President's supposed powers 
under the Constitution could trump the current statutory framework in 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Specifically, I asked her 
whether that provision in law--the one passed in 2008 that explicitly 
states that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive 
means for conducting wiretapping--would keep the President from 
asserting some other constitutional authority in this area.
  She said she had not studied the question. This was the most 
troubling answer of all because this is about how the law stands today. 
This is not talking about yesteryear. This is about how the law stands 
today, and this was the nominee to be general counsel to the Central 
Intelligence Agency's not ruling out another assertion of so-called 
inherent Presidential power to override the law.
  My fear is that if the public cannot get reassuring answers now to 
these fundamental questions of law, then Americans could end up 
learning about the nominee's views when it is too late--when our people 
open up the newspapers someday and learn about an intelligence program 
that is based on a dangerous and secret interpretation of the law. It 
happened repeatedly in the past, and my message today is that the 
Senate cannot let it happen again.
  One of the reasons Ms. Elwood's views on whether the government was 
obligated to respect the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is so 
important is that, for the most part, the Central Intelligence Agency 
operates under authorities that are actually more vague than is the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In fact, those authorities are 
not even established in a statute that people in Iowa and Oregon could 
just go and read. The CIA's authorities to collect and use information 
on Americans and even to secretly participate in organizations in the 
United States are conducted under an Executive order, Executive Order 
No. 12333.
  In January, during the last 2 weeks of the Obama administration, the 
intelligence community released two documents that offered a little bit 
of insight into how intelligence is collected and used under this 
Executive order. It was good that the Obama administration released the 
documents. More transparency is why I can come to the floor and be part 
of this conversation.
  These and other publicly available documents demonstrate the extent 
to which the CIA deals with information on Americans all of the time. 
Right now, the CIA is authorized to conduct signals intelligence as 
well as the human intelligence that is generally associated with the 
Agency, and the intelligence the CIA obtains from various sources, 
which can be collected in bulk, inevitably includes information on law-
abiding Americans.
  What do the rules say that apply to all of this information on 
Americans? What these rules say is, under this Executive order, the CIA 
can mostly do what it wants. If Ms. Elwood could find wiggle room in 
the airtight restrictions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
I think the Senate ought to be asking: What might she do with the 
flexibility in the rules that govern what the CIA can do under this 
Executive order?
  In fact, even when this Executive order includes limitations, there 
are usually exceptions. Guess who decides what the exceptions are. The 
CIA Director and the CIA General Counsel.
  In short, the rules look like an invitation for the CIA Director and 
the general counsel to conduct secret programs and operations that rely 
on case-by-case decisions that have no clear or consistent legal 
framework. That is why it is so important that these nominees give us 
some sense of where they stand before they are confirmed.
  I started with Mike Pompeo, who is now the Director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency. He wrote an article--an op-ed piece as it is 
called in the press--that called for the government to collect the bulk 
records of law-abiding Americans' communications and to combine all of 
those records--``publicly available financial and lifestyle information 
into a comprehensive, searchable database.''
  That, in my view, is breathtaking. It makes what everybody was 
talking about with regard to the old phone records collection effort 
look like small potatoes.
  At his hearing, I asked then-Congressman Pompeo whether this database 
would have any boundaries. In other words, he is setting up a brandnew 
database--bigger than anything people have seen. He is going to collect 
people's lifestyle information and who knows what else.
  He said ``of course there are boundaries. Any collection and 
retention must be conducted in accordance with the Constitution's 
statutes and applicable Presidential directives.''
  The real question is, What does that mean?
  It means the person who is deciding what, if anything, Director 
Pompeo's CIA cannot do is the lawyer, and that is where the nominee--
Ms. Elwood to be general counsel--comes in.
  We might ask: How would these questions come up at the CIA?
  As a hypothetical, one question I asked Director Pompeo was: What 
happens when a foreign partner provides the CIA with information that 
is known to include the communications of law-abiding Americans?
  For example, what if the Russians collected information on Americans 
and, instead of providing it to WikiLeaks, gave it to the CIA? It could 
be sensitive information about political leaders and our country and 
journalists and religious leaders and just

[[Page 8414]]

regular, law-abiding Americans. What would Director Pompeo do in that 
situation? When, if ever, would it be inappropriate for the CIA to 
receive, use, or distribute this information?
  His answer was that it is highly fact-specific. He said he would 
consult with lawyers.
  So, when she came for her nomination hearing, I said this is our 
chance. Let's ask the lawyer, Ms. Elwood, who is the nominee to be 
general counsel.
  She said, like Director Pompeo, it would be based on all of the facts 
and circumstances. She said she had no personal experience with such a 
decision and was unable to offer an opinion.
  This, in my view, is a prescription for trouble. We have a CIA 
Director and a nominee to be general counsel of the Agency, and neither 
of these two individuals will tell the Congress and the American people 
what the CIA will do under these circumstances which relate directly to 
the privacy of law-abiding and innocent Americans.
  In her responses to committee questions, Ms. Elwood referred to one 
of the documents that was released in January--the revised Attorney 
General guidelines--which she said imposed ``stringent and detailed 
restrictions'' on what the CIA can do with the intelligence it collects 
that is known to include information about Americans.
  We are not talking about an insignificant amount of information on 
Americans. We are talking about bulk collection. We are talking about 
information on Americans that the rules, themselves, describe as 
``significant in volume, proportion, or sensitivity.'' Obviously, the 
mere fact that the CIA collects and keeps this kind of information 
raises a lot of concerns about infringements of Americans' privacy.
  I wanted to know what these stringent restrictions were that Ms. 
Elwood was talking about that she said would, again, just sort of 
magically protect the rights of Americans.
  One of the issues our people are especially concerned about is 
whether the government, after it has collected lots of information on 
Americans, can conduct warrantless, backdoor searches for information 
about specific Americans. Those who dismiss the concerns about these 
backdoor searches argue that if the intelligence has already been 
collected, it is just no big deal to search it, even if the search is 
intended to obtain information on innocent, law-abiding Americans. The 
problem is, the more collection that is going on, the bigger the pool 
of Americans' information that is being searched.
  This has come up with regard to section 702 of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, which we are going to debate in the 
coming months. As my colleagues know, a bipartisan coalition--a 
bipartisan group of Senators and House Members--has been trying for 
years to get the intelligence community to tell us how many innocent, 
law-abiding Americans are being swept up in the section 702 collection. 
That number, if we can ever get it, is directly related to whether the 
intelligence community should be allowed to conduct warrantless 
searches on particular Americans, and it is directly related to the 
point I offered at the outset, which is that we must have policies that 
promote security and liberty. If we do it smartly, we can have both.
  These questions I have described also apply to information that is 
collected under the Executive order. In the case of the Executive 
order, there is not even a discussion about how much information about 
Americans gets swept up.
  So what do the rules say about backdoor searches that have been 
conducted by the CIA under this Executive order?
  It turns out, the CIA can conduct searches through all of this 
information on law-abiding Americans if the search is ``reasonably 
designed to retrieve information related to a duly authorized activity 
of the CIA.''
  Ms. Elwood has told the Intelligence Committee that there are really 
stringent requirements on this, but as I just read--``reasonably 
designed to retrieve information related to a duly authorized activity 
of the CIA''--that sure does not sound like it has much teeth in it to 
me. It does not sound very stringent to me.
  I asked Ms. Elwood at the hearing what other restrictions might 
apply.
  In a written response, she referred to training requirements, to 
recordkeeping, and to the rule that the information must be destroyed 
after 5 years. None of that changes the fact that there is no 
meaningful standard for the searches. There is no check. There is no 
balance. Even the CIA's rule that the information can only be kept for 
5 years has a huge loophole in that it can be extended by the CIA 
Director after consultation with--guess who again--the general counsel.
  Again, we have rules that are vague to begin with, whose 
implementation is up to the discretion of the CIA Director and the 
general counsel. At this point, the Senate has virtually nothing to go 
on in terms of how this nominee for this critical general counsel 
position would exercise all of this power.
  Another aspect of CIA activities that are authorized by the Executive 
order is that of the secret participation by someone who is working on 
behalf of the CIA and organizations in our country.
  These activities would obviously be concerning to a lot of Americans. 
Most Americans probably believe the CIA is not even allowed to do this 
anymore, but it is. The question is, whether there are going to be 
rules that prevent abuses.
  Since that is yet another modern-day, present-time topic, I said I am 
going to ask Ms. Elwood some questions on this. For example, for what 
purposes could the CIA secretly join a private organization in the 
United States?
  The rules say the CIA Director can make case-by-case decisions with 
the concurrence of the general counsel, so I thought it would be 
appropriate to ask what the view is of the nominee to be the general 
counsel. Ms. Elwood's response was that she had no experience with this 
matter and looked forward to learning about it. And that, of course, is 
typical of so many of her answers. Repeatedly, she declined to provide 
any clarity on how she would interpret the CIA's authorities under this 
sweeping Executive order, but these are the calls she could make every 
single day if confirmed. At this point, the Senate has no clue how she 
would make them. It is my view that we cannot vote to confirm a 
nominee--particularly one who will operate entirely in secret--and just 
hope for the best.
  I have other concerns about the Elwood nomination, particularly some 
of her views with respect to torture.
  I asked Ms. Elwood whether the torture techniques the CIA had used 
violated the Detainee Treatment Act, often referred to as the McCain 
amendment. She had no opinion. I asked her whether those techniques 
violated the statutory prohibition on torture. She had no opinion. I 
asked her whether the torture techniques violated the War Crimes Act. 
She had no opinion. I asked her whether the torture techniques violated 
U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture, the Geneva 
Convention and other U.S. treaty obligations. She had no opinion.
  How could she have no opinion? She has said that she read the 500-
page executive summary of the Intelligence Committee's Torture Report. 
The horrific details of waterboarding, extended sleep deprivation, 
stress positions, and other torture techniques are known to everyone, 
but the nominee to be the CIA's General Counsel has no opinion on these 
matters.
  Ms. Elwood did, however, commit to complying with the 2015 law 
prohibiting interrogation techniques not authorized by the Army Field 
Manual. That gets us again to the question of what decisions she would 
make now, based on current law. Everyone agrees that waterboarding is 
prohibited by the Army Field Manual, but the Army Field Manual can be 
changed. Fortunately, the 2015 law also prohibits any changes to the 
Army Field Manual that involve the use or threat of force. I asked her 
whether the CIA's torture techniques fell safely outside of anything 
the Army Field Manual could legally authorize. Her response, again, was 
that she had not studied the techniques.
  So that was her position. She said she will comply with the law and

[[Page 8415]]

agreed that the law prohibits interrogation techniques that involve the 
use or threat of force, but she refused to say whether waterboarding or 
any of the other CIA torture techniques falls outside that prohibition.
  Finally, I asked the nominee how the constitutional rights of 
Americans would apply when the government seeks to kill them overseas. 
She responded that she had not considered the matter. Do these rights 
apply to legal permanent residents of the United States who are 
overseas? She did not have an opinion on that either.
  To fully understand why this kind of avoidance is such a problem, we 
need to consider again what the CIA general counsel does and how she 
does it. I have been on the Senate Intelligence Committee since 2001. I 
have seen far too many intelligence programs go on for years before we 
find out about them. In so many of these cases, the problem lies in how 
senior lawyers interpreted their authorities. These interpretations are 
made in secret. They are made by a handful of people, and they are 
revealed to almost no one. We place almost immeasurable trust in the 
people who make these decisions. We cannot take this lightly.
  The Senate and the American people have one shot--and one shot only--
to get some insight into how those lawyers will make their decisions 
and how they view the laws that apply to them. That one shot is the 
confirmation process. So when a nominee refused to take positions, it 
short-circuits the process. This is not acceptable. We cannot just 
confirm someone to be the CIA's general counsel without knowing what 
she will do in that position. That would be an abdication of our duty.
  I want to close by saying that, at this extraordinary time in 
American history, a time when our country--and if you sit on the 
Intelligence Committee, as I have for a number of years, you go into 
the Intelligence Committee room, and it is all behind closed doors, and 
you often walk out of there very concerned about the well-being of our 
people, given some of the grave national security threats we hear about 
once or twice a week.
  The point is that our choice is not between security and liberty; it 
is between smart policies and ones that are not so smart. For example, 
on this floor, when the leadership of the committee was interested in 
weakening strong encryption, which is what keeps our people safe--we 
have our whole lives wrapped up in a smartphone, and smart encryption 
ensures that terrorists and hackers can't get at that information. It 
ensures that pedophiles can't get access to the location tracker and 
pick up where your child might be. We all know how much our parents 
care about the well-being of kids.
  People are saying: Let's just build backdoors into our products, and 
I said I am going to fight that. I will fight it with everything I have 
whenever it is proposed because it is bad for security, bad for 
liberty, bad for our companies that are trying to continue to offer 
high-skill, high-wage jobs because our competitors won't do it, and so 
far we have been able to hold it off.
  As we seek in the days ahead to come up with smart policies that 
protect security and liberty, we have to get answers from those in the 
government who are going to have these key positions. Given the fact 
that the CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, made it clear in his hearing that 
he was going to rely on the person chosen by the Senate as his general 
counsel, I felt it was very important that we get some answers from the 
person we will be voting on shortly.
  I regret to say to the Senate that this morning we are largely in the 
dark with respect to Ms. Elwood's views on the key questions I have 
outlined today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, President Trump has routinely 
attacked basic American freedoms--of the press, of peaceful assembly, 
of religion, of speech. When he lost the popular vote, President-elect 
Trump assailed the integrity of our electoral process and falsely 
claimed that millions of people voted illegally. When the press exposed 
those falsehoods, Mr. Trump dismissed credible reporting as ``fake 
news.'' When the courts ruled that his travel ban was unlawful, 
President Trump accused judges of abetting terrorists.
  These actions have consequences beyond our own borders and embolden 
dictators around the world. President Trump displays a worldview that 
favors the military over diplomacy and transactional relationships over 
strategic alliances. President Trump's uncritical embrace of autocrats 
like Russian President Putin, Egyptian President Sisi, Turkish 
President Erdogan, and Philippine President Duterte is a repudiation of 
every reformer and activist seeking freedom from tyranny. It is a 
repudiation of America's values and founding principles.
  President Trump's approach to the world is shortsighted and self-
defeating. The greatest threats to U.S. national security come from 
countries that are corrupt, poorly governed, and fraught with poverty 
and disease. These countries require sustained engagement and 
assistance to prevent the kind of threats that could require American 
soldiers to go into war. These countries require American leadership 
and the American example to help address the root causes of conflict 
and to give a voice to the aspirations of their people.
  That is why President Trump's proposed 32 percent cut to the budget 
of the State Department, his failure to put forward nominees for 
leadership positions, and his disrespect for the career employees who 
serve our country are so dangerous. By undermining American influence 
abroad, President Trump erodes American strength.
  While John Sullivan has an extensive career in public service, I am 
concerned that he lacks experience at the State Department. An 
understanding of the institution is, in many ways, as important as an 
understanding of our complex diplomatic terrain. Despite these 
concerns, I was encouraged by the statements and commitments he made at 
his confirmation hearing.
  In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. 
Sullivan committed to promoting American values abroad, saying: ``Our 
greatest asset is our commitment to the fundamental values expressed at 
the founding of our nation; the rights to life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. These basic human rights are the bedrock of our 
republic and at the heart of American leadership in the world.''
  He underscored that our alliances and partnerships ``have been the 
cornerstone of our national security in the post-war era.'' He 
commended the foreign service officers, civil servants, and locally 
employed staff who faithfully serve our country every day.
  These statements are a rejection of the worldview proposed by 
President Trump. I hope that Mr. Sullivan honors these statements in 
office. For this reason, I support his nomination for Deputy Secretary 
of State.
  Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Puerto Rico's Fiscal Crisis

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the significance 
of the unprecedented events now occurring in Puerto Rico.
  According to the May 16 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, ``The 
legal brawl over Puerto Rico's bankruptcy begins this week, and it will 
be long and ugly.''
  As we have seen in Greece and Detroit, what is happening in Puerto 
Rico should be a wake-up call for fiscally distressed States--meaning 
our 50 States, our cities, and our territories--to get their own houses 
in order. It is the canary in the mine that ought to be available to 
everybody. At the same time, it should be a cautionary tale for those 
who seek to extend similar bankruptcy authority to our own 50 States.
  In 2015, after years of fiscal mismanagement and borrowing to finance

[[Page 8416]]

their operations, Puerto Rico declared that its debt was unpayable and 
had to be restructured; however, because Puerto Rico lacked access to 
chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, restructuring its complex debt 
outside of the court presented a challenge.
  I held a hearing in the Judiciary Committee to examine this issue in 
December of 2015. We learned at that hearing that while bankruptcy is 
an effective tool to restructure debt, it merely treats the symptom and 
it doesn't solve the disease. I told you so, in that vein. I shared my 
views and the views of many others that unless Puerto Rico addressed 
its fiscal mismanagement woes, extending bankruptcy authority alone 
couldn't fix the problem. I told you so that, instead, it would merely 
kick the can down the road and harm thousands of retirees in Iowa and 
elsewhere who would bear the costs of Puerto Rico's irresponsible 
fiscal behavior. The Obama administration, though, pressed Congress to 
act and to provide Puerto Rico with an orderly bankruptcy-like process 
to restructure its debt.
  According to the testimony of one Treasury official, ``Without a 
comprehensive restructuring framework, Puerto Rico will continue to 
default on its debt, and litigation will intensify. . . . As the 
cascading defaults and litigation unfold, there is real risk of another 
lost decade, this one more damaging than the last.'' So now, even with 
a comprehensive restructuring framework, there is still a real risk of 
another lost decade.
  Ultimately, this debt restructuring framework was coupled with an 
independent oversight board and adopted as the Puerto Rico Oversight, 
Management, and Economic Stability Act, referred to as PROMESA. This 
approach, we were told, would tackle Puerto Rico's debt crisis in an 
orderly way and would help to remedy the years of fiscal mismanagement. 
Nevertheless, I remained concerned that PROMESA and its bankruptcy-like 
provisions would invite years of litigation and uncertainty due to the 
lack of existing court precedent.
  So it should be no surprise that a recent Bloomberg article titled 
``Puerto Rico's Bankruptcy Fight is About to Plunge Into the Unknown'' 
described the bankruptcy process as ``a circular firing'' squad with 
``no established rule book to shape what comes next.'' The article 
reports that one market analyst ``foresees a chaotic brew of lawsuits'' 
because ``nobody has any idea what is going to happen.''
  According to one news report, this is just the beginning, as 
PROMESA's bankruptcy provisions are ``more likely to face years of 
appeal than a typical case.''
  Despite assurances otherwise, what happens next in the months and 
years to follow may be far-reaching and likely will impact us all. In 
particular, prior to the enactment of PROMESA, Puerto Rico, like the 
States, couldn't declare bankruptcy. I told you this last year, and it 
is as I predicted last year--granting Puerto Rico the authority to 
restructure all of its debts, including its State-like constitutional 
obligations, would be viewed as precedent for giving States similar 
authority.
  I am not really surprised to see this is happening right now.
  Getting back to the fact that I told the Senate a year ago. This past 
September, William Isaac, the former head of the FDIC, called on 
Congress to pass a law ``giv[ing] Illinois the option of utilizing 
chapter 9, which is akin to what Congress just did for the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico.''
  The New York Times reported on May 3 that ``bankruptcy lawyers and 
public finance experts are watching Puerto Rico's case closely, to see 
if it shows a path that financially distressed states like Illinois 
might also one day take.''
  The Chicago Tribune's editorial board recently wrote that investors 
are growing nervous about the talk of States seeking a bankruptcy 
system after the fashion of Puerto Rico, calling Puerto Rico ``the 
frightening ghost of Illinois future.''
  The editorial wondered how much more difficult it would be for States 
to borrow money if lenders knew the States could shirk their 
obligations in bankruptcy when that debt becomes due.
  For those who weren't listening to me last year, those who dismissed 
concerns that PROMESA would set a troubling and dangerous precedent 
should take notice and make sure that a one-time piece of legislation 
does not create a new norm. I hold out hope that PROMESA might manage 
to provide some help for Puerto Rico.
  Success, though, will ultimately require strong leadership from the 
Commonwealth's leaders, which, for years, that leadership has been very 
lacking.
  There is a lesson to be learned. The fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico 
should motivate all 50 States, our cities, and territories to find the 
courage now to make tough choices, which are the foundation of 
responsible governance, rather than look to the Federal Government and 
bankruptcy as a way out. If they do not, the effect could be long-
lasting, harming the vulnerable both within their populations and 
outside of their borders.
  Obviously, what a lot of smart people told us a year ago to solve 
Puerto Rico's debt problems simply has not worked out.
  So at a time when States, citizens, and markets are all watching, we 
must stress fiscal responsibility and pay attention to what is 
happening there in Puerto Rico. Otherwise, the uncertainty and chaos we 
were assured would not come to pass may be just over the horizon.
  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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         The President's Budget

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, on Tuesday President Trump sent his 
proposed fiscal year 2018 budget to Congress. A budget is supposed to 
reflect the President's priorities and the values our country holds 
dear. Unfortunately, President Trump's full budget shows how much 
disdain he has for supporting American families here at home, how 
little he values America's strong leadership around the world, and how 
much he misunderstands the essential role the Federal Government has in 
keeping our air and water clean, roads and bridges functioning, and the 
public safe from deadly diseases and other threats.
  This President's budget shows how much he values corporate profits 
and polluters over children's health and demonstrates an irrational 
ignorance of basic principles that have worked for and against the 
American economy throughout the years. The budget wastes money on a 
border wall and deportation force that will not make America any safer 
and will tear apart families and communities.
  President Trump fails to uphold the promise he made as a candidate to 
protect American workers and seniors, and he breaks new ground in the 
level of uncertainty he is willing to inject into our economy, our 
local communities, and relationships with our historical allies and 
economic partners. More than any other Presidential budget in recent 
memory, this budget must be considered dead on arrival.
  President Trump's full budget for fiscal year 2018 is an exercise in 
extremism. President Trump wants to ax $610 billion from Medicaid--the 
program that lifts up America's veterans and the most vulnerable men, 
women, and children, capping the funding in order to finance tax cuts 
for big businesses and the wealthiest among us. The budget further 
slashes the social safety net by cutting the food stamp program and 
eliminating critical social services programs. It directly hurts 
children by cutting $6 billion from the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. The President wants to choke off funding for essential 
scientific research at the National Institutes of Health and

[[Page 8417]]

infectious disease detection and response at the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, while also slashing funding for key global 
health initiatives that ensure economic stability.
  Further demonstrating his misunderstanding of the ripple effect 
Federal investments can have, the President inexplicably wants to end 
the economic development assistance programs to rural and economically 
distressed communities. I was particularly disappointed that he would 
eliminate the Appalachia Regional Commission, which is very important 
to the people in the western part of my State as an economic tool that 
can bring badly needed jobs to Appalachia country.
  He wants to put the American dream out of reach for would-be 
homeowners and seekers of safe and affordable housing with the 
elimination of HUD's rental assistance and homeowner partnership 
programs. The President calls for shifting more than $143 billion in 
additional student loan payments to hard-working students and their 
families. And he recommends ending a vital program that helps first 
responders, law enforcement, teachers, nurses, librarians, public 
safety, and military have a chance to reduce the burden of their 
student loans so that they can continue to serve their communities. The 
President also continues the ill-conceived Republican assault on 
Federal workers and retirees with his proposal for wholesale slashing 
the programs and staff, such as the economic and environmentally 
important EPA and Chesapeake Bay Program, making it nearly impossible 
for many departments to carry out their basic mission.
  I want to talk a few minutes about the foreign assistance budget. I 
have the privilege of being the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. In terms of our Nation's foreign policy, if the 
budget is a reflection of values, then what the Trump administration 
values is an American retreat from the world that would make the United 
States less safe and secure. The numbers speak for themselves in the 
narrow-minded budget release we have received.
  What is most perplexing about the administration's combined 31.7 
percent gutting of international affairs spending--as Secretary Defense 
Mattis has said: If you don't fund the State Department Diplomacy 
Center, you had better give the Defense Department more bullets and 
soldiers. This is counterproductive to making the world a safer place 
for America.
  America is safer when the United States helps feed millions of 
starving people in Africa and the Middle East, helps Europe defend its 
democratic institutions from Russia interference, helps support 
countries and international organizations caring for vulnerable refugee 
populations, helps train farmers and other technical workers, helps 
lead the world in fighting climate change and promoting global health, 
and helps fund programs to protect human rights and promote democracy. 
In each of these areas, the administration has taken a penny-wise and 
pound-foolish approach that will cost lives abroad and endanger 
Americans here at home.
  Each of the programs I mentioned are either eliminated or there are 
significant cuts, making it impossible for our dedicated Foreign 
Service officers to carry out the critically important missions they 
undertake.
  As I look at the massive spending cuts put forward by the White House 
for vital national security, it is impossible to conclude that this is 
anything but an ``America alone'' budget--one that, if enacted, will 
have disastrous effects on our standing in the world.
  Luckily, the majority of Members of Congress know this budget is dead 
on arrival. I look forward to working with like-minded Republican 
colleagues to make sure nothing remotely close to this budget is 
enacted.
  Fortunately, our Founders developed a system of checks and balances 
with the Constitution providing that Congress appropriates public 
funds. It is our responsibility to pass the appropriations bill. I 
intend to do everything within my power to work with Republicans, using 
the model of the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus appropriations, to prevent 
enactment of this outlandish executive branch attempt to cripple our 
economy and do lasting damage to our Nation's global leadership. 
Congress has a responsibility to ensure that we have a more realistic 
budget that helps the American public, contributes to genuine economic 
growth, and furthers America's true values.
  I want to cite some examples in some areas as to how detrimental this 
budget is. First of all, there are economic assumptions made by the 
President's budget that are just not realistic. He assumes there is 
going to be a 3-percent economic growth rate, which economists tell us 
is simply not realistic. What does that mean? That means there is about 
$2 trillion that is being used by economic assumptions which have no 
justification, meaning that we are going to see significant budget 
deficits increase if this budget were to become law. The budget double 
counts some of these gains in order to offset tax reductions. He is 
putting our economy at risk.
  In healthcare, the President's budget continues the administration's 
misguided and ill-conceived efforts to jeopardize the health and well-
being of our constituents under the Affordable Care Act. Make no 
mistake about it, President Trump is trying to make sure that the 
healthcare system in this country does not work. He is deliberately 
putting at risk the cautionary provisions that are in the Affordable 
Care Act, which ensure that many of our constituents have affordable 
health rates without outrageous deductibles or copays. The Trump 
administration is jeopardizing that.
  The Trump administration is jeopardizing the Medicaid system--$610 
billion cut in the Medicaid system, which is critically important for 
some of our most vulnerable people. There are 280,000 Marylanders who 
gained essential health coverage through the Medicaid expansion who 
will be left without access to care. There are an estimated 1.25 
million Maryland Medicaid enrollees who will no longer be able to 
depend on benefits like mental health and substance abuse, pediatric 
dental services, or maternity coverage.
  Our President is recommending a $6 billion cut in the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, the CHIP program. That is absolutely 
outrageous. There is a bipartisan effort in Congress to make sure the 
children of America have the health they need.
  Then there is a $7 billion--22-percent--cut in the National 
Institutes of Health. Democrats and Republicans have come together, 
recognizing that America has provided the true leadership and basic 
research to deal with the mysteries of illness, and the President wants 
to reverse that trend. That will not only cost us in terms of our 
health advancements, but it will also hurt our economy.
  The President cuts the funds to the National Institute on Minority 
Health and Health Disparities. I thought we had made a commitment that 
we are going to narrow the gap of discrimination in our healthcare 
system. The President's budget moves in the opposite direction.
  In Social Services and Social Security, the President, on his 
campaign trail, promised not to cut the Social Security system. He 
broke that promise with this budget. These cuts are a ``Robin Hood in 
reverse'' budget. His cuts in the Supplemental Security Income Program 
and Social Security Disability Insurance Program will be devastating 
for low- and modest-income individuals, as well as persons with 
disabilities and those over 65 years of age.
  So we have seen cuts to programs the President claimed he would not 
cut when he was a candidate. The budget cuts nearly $200 billion from 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, or food stamps, 
which helps low-income Americans with food purchases. He also cuts the 
TANF Program, which helps people who are in need of assistance. The 
budget eliminates the LIHEAP, Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, the Weatherization Assistance Program, and State Energy 
Program. I guess Donald Trump wants low-income Americans to freeze in 
the dark. This is shameful and reprehensible.

[[Page 8418]]

  Yes, there is money for some advancements--the advancement of the so-
called border wall with Mexico. I visited Mexico just a few months ago. 
I visited the U.S.-Mexico border. I couldn't find one border security 
guard, security personnel, who felt that building a wall made any 
sense. It will not keep out the illegal flow of people or drugs, and it 
will compromise our ability to work with our neighbors in the south to 
control immigration and to control drugs. The President's Executive 
order on immigration and the President's fiscal year 2018 budget ramp 
up deportation forces inside the United States, which will do more to 
harm our national security and public safety than to help. We shouldn't 
be moving in that direction.
  Legal Services is one of the areas I worked on for a long time with 
my Republican colleagues to make sure we fund the Legal Services 
Corporation. The Trump budget completely eliminates that funding. The 
late Justice Antonin Scalia said at Legal Services Corporation's 40th 
Anniversary Conference in 2014: ``LSC pursues the most fundamental of 
American ideals, and it pursues equal justice in those areas of life 
most important to the lives of our citizens.''
  We believe in equal justice under the law. If a person cannot get 
legal help, they cannot get equal justice under the law. And the 
President says there is no Federal role for this. I hope that we will 
soundly reject that.
  The President's budget eliminates the Community Development Block 
Grant Program. That is very troubling. Here is one of the more flexible 
programs we offer the local government in order to be able to make 
their own decisions, and the President's budget eliminates that 
program.
  The President's budget eliminates many of our programs under 
agriculture, which will hurt our rural areas and hurt our farming 
community. The budget proposes to eliminate new enrollment in the 
Conservation Stewardship Program and funding for the Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program. I am very familiar with the Regional 
Conservation Partnership Program. It was put in the last farm 
reauthorization bill. It was done as an effort to help deal with 
conservation in critically important areas, including the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. It is a very important program to preserving our bay and 
preserving farm land so that we can have both a healthy bay and healthy 
agriculture. The President eliminates those programs. I could go on and 
on about agriculture--the many programs that are either severely 
restricted or eliminated under the President's budget.
  In education, the fiscal year 2018 budget released by President Trump 
may be entitled ``A New Foundation for American Greatness,'' but 
President Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos have severely 
undercut our students, educators, and public schools. The budget 
proposes to eliminate the Preschool Development Grant Program, a 
program that has successfully placed more than 2,700 additional 4-year-
olds in high-quality preschool programs across my State. The vulnerable 
children in this program get a boost that helps them to lower the 
achievement gap among students of color, low-income children, and 
children with disabilities across my State. We should be expanding 
these programs, not reducing them. And 85 Members of this body voted in 
favor of the Every Student Succeeds Act and the Student Support and 
Academic Enrichment Grant Program. That progress is jeopardized by the 
President's budget.
  Yes, he finds money for a new program to help school choice programs, 
which will undermine the progress we have made in public education. Mr. 
President, 95 percent of our students get their education through the 
public schools, and that is jeopardized by the $1.25 billion the 
President has included in his budget for school choice programs.
  Maryland families understand the value of higher education. For too 
many, the cost of higher education means that it is difficult, if not 
impossible, for their children to have the higher education they need. 
Yet the President's budget takes away some of the tools we have in 
order to afford higher education. That is just not right. We should be 
making higher education more affordable, not less affordable.
  In the environment, the President's proposed budget would eliminate 
the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay Program and related 
efforts are delivering encouraging results throughout the watershed and 
have built a tremendous movement forward. Yet President Trump has still 
targeted them for elimination. The local governments are doing their 
job in stewardship of the bay. The States are doing their job. Our 
stakeholders are doing their job. We depend upon the Federal Government 
to monitor and make sure that the programs are there--that all 
stakeholders are doing their fair share. The elimination of the 
Chesapeake Bay Program would jeopardize all of that progress. We cannot 
let that happen.
  The President's budget would cut the EPA budget by 31.4 percent, the 
most severe cut of any major Federal agency. The investment in our 
Nation's water and waste water infrastructure has been flatlined 
through this budget proposal.
  What in the world makes President Trump think that our Nation's 
drinking water infrastructure shall be kept at status quo? Don't we all 
remember what happened in Flint, MI? We have discovered similar things 
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In Baltimore, our public school system 
cannot connect their water fountains to the water supply because of 
lead contamination. We need to have a greater commitment to make sure 
that the water supply to America is safe.
  Under the budget, the Office of Compliance would be cut by one-third 
of its budget. That is EPA not being able to enforce the law. Aren't we 
a country of the rule of law? You would not think so under President 
Trump's budget.
  The President's budget also does not contain a critical 
infrastructure plan. We heard that during the campaign. But nowhere in 
this budget is he providing for that increase. Instead, it proposes 
cuts in some of the highway trust programs.
  Every day, civil servants perform countless tasks that help support 
and defend and protect America. Civil servants are saving lives, 
empowering small businesses, keeping America safe from harm, and 
otherwise ensuring a safe and prosperous future for our country, 
including our children and families. We know that our Federal employees 
often perform the type of work that no one else can do. It is a highly 
qualified Federal workforce. On May 5, Donald Trump issued a 
proclamation declaring May 7 through 13, 2017, as Public Service 
Recognition Week. He stated:

       Throughout my first 100 days, I have seen the tremendous 
     work civil servants do to fulfill our duty to the American 
     people. At all levels of government, our public servants put 
     our country and our people first.

  He has a bizarre way of showing his appreciation. Earlier this week, 
he released a budget that punishes Federal workers by making them pay 
much more for their pensions, an additional $5,000 for an average 
Federal worker, while making these pensions much smaller.
  The relentless assault on the Federal workforce must end. The 
civilian workforce was smaller last year than it was 40 years ago, 
according to data from the Office of Personnel Management. Federal 
workers increasingly have been asked to do more and more with less and 
less. They have already sacrificed financially, contributing $190 
billion to deficit reduction just since 2011.
  Workers hired in 2012 already are paying more for smaller pensions. 
Sequestration-related furloughs cost Federal workers $1 billion in lost 
pay, and there was a 3-year pay freeze from 2011 to 2013, and 
substandard rises since then. Salaries and wages have fallen 6.5 
percent since 2010, adjusted for inflation.
  Now comes the latest attack on the Federal worker's pension, on top 
of continued attacks on pay, healthcare

[[Page 8419]]

and other benefits, collective bargaining, and due process rights. 
President Trump would eliminate the annual cost of living adjustments 
for people in the Federal Employees Retirement System, including 
current retirees, and reduce them by half a percentage point for people 
in the old Civil Service Retirement System, including current retirees.
  According to certified financial planner Art Stein, the annuity would 
lose one-third of its value over 20 years if inflation averages between 
2 and 3 percent annually, and nearly half of its value if inflation 
averages 4 percent. According to the National Active and Retired 
Federal Employees Association, the average FERS annuitant would lose 
$99,471 over 20 years, and the average CSRS annuitant would lose 
$60,576 over 20 years under the Trump budget.
  That is outrageous. That is outrageous. We are talking about people 
who are already retired. They can't reenter the workforce. They have no 
choice. Yet we are telling them that they are not going to get what we 
promised. It is important to understand that 85 percent of the Federal 
workforce is located beyond the Washington metropolitan area. Federal 
workers are in big cities and small towns across America, striving to 
make things better for their neighbors.
  Do we really want to engage in a race to the bottom with respect to 
our Federal workers? These are the people who make sure our parents' 
Social Security checks arrive on time. They make sure the air we 
breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat are safe. They are 
trying to find a cure for our spouse's cancer and our sibling's type 1 
diabetes.
  They support our sons and daughters in harm's way, and they care for 
the wounded warriors at home. They patrol our borders and discover and 
disrupt terrorist threats aimed at our community. They are working to 
ensure that our grandchildren inherit a habitable climate. When we 
punish Federal workers--30 percent of whom are veterans, by the way--we 
are not just harming them and their families, but we are harming each 
and every American.
  I intend to do everything within my power to work with Republicans, 
using the model of the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations, to 
prevent the enactment of this dangerous executive branch attempt to 
cripple our economy and do lasting damage to our Nation's global 
leadership. Congress has the responsibility to ensure that we have a 
more realistic budget that helps the American public, contributes to 
genuine economic growth, and furthers America's true values.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Utah.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the continuing 
effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare. This effort has essentially 
been going on since the day the bill was signed into law. I think most 
of us on the Republican side recognize the overwhelming consensus 
surrounding the failures of ObamaCare as a major reason we currently 
find ourselves in the majority.
  As you know, the House passed the American Health Care Act, a bill 
that would repeal and replace ObamaCare, earlier this month. This is an 
important step in the process. Later today, we expect to hear from the 
Congressional Budget Office about the House bill. The CBO score will 
lay down an important marker for the repeal and replace efforts in the 
Senate. It will allow us to work to ensure that the House bill fits 
into the constraints of the reconciliation rules in the Senate, while 
we continue to strive toward our own policy goals to implement patient-
centered healthcare and healthcare reforms that address cost and 
promote choice and competition.
  I am very interested in what they say. These changes are more 
important than ever. Just today, we received a report from HHS that, 
from the time ObamaCare took effect through 2017, there was an average 
premium increase of 105 percent across the 39 States using 
healthcare.gov. This is just one snapshot of the runaway costs of 
ObamaCare, and it is just one of many examples indicating why we need 
to act as quickly as possible to repeal and replace the misguided law.
  As the Senate continues to discuss the policy matters related to this 
effort, we will need to confront a number of different issues as we 
work to provide enduring reforms for our beleaguered healthcare system. 
As chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over most of the 
salient issues under discussion, I want to make my views on these 
matters very clear.
  First, it is my view that all of the ObamaCare taxes need to go. We 
should not be treating the ObamaCare taxes as a smorgasbord, picking 
and choosing which ones to keep and which to discard. I don't think 
there is a single tax increase in ObamaCare that has enjoyed support on 
this Republican side.
  When all is said and done, the tax provisions of the Affordable Care 
Act represented a trillion-dollar hit on the economy in just the first 
10 years. That is nearly 1 percent of the projected gross domestic 
product over the same period. In my view, it would be inappropriate, 
after spending the better part of a decade railing against ObamaCare's 
burdensome job-killing taxes, for us to then turn around and say that 
some of them are fine so long as they are being used to fund Republican 
healthcare proposals.
  It is very simple. We need to repeal all of the ObamaCare taxes--the 
medical device tax, the health insurance tax, the so-called Cadillac 
tax, the taxes on healthcare savings and pharmaceuticals, and several 
others. They all have to go.
  Second, we need to fully repeal the individual mandate. There has 
been some talk about keeping the mandate around temporarily, if nothing 
else, to help shore up the new system. But as I said with the ObamaCare 
taxes, Republicans have spent years condemning the individual mandate 
as an unconstitutional assault on individual liberty. We have also 
argued that it was ineffective and that it has failed to draw enough 
younger and healthier consumers into the insurance market in order to 
offset the cost of ObamaCare's draconian market reform mandates.
  I don't see how we can now turn on a dime and say that the individual 
mandate is now somehow acceptable because we are using it to prop up a 
system that Republicans have designed. Like the taxes, the individual 
mandate, in my view, needs to be repealed. Lastly, we need to resist 
any temptation to alter the tax treatment of employer-provided health 
insurance as part of this particular exercise. Don't get me wrong. 
There have been a number of health reform proposals over the years that 
have dealt with this issue, including a legislative framework that I 
drafted, along with two of my colleagues. However, given the 
limitations we face in this current exercise and the fact that we are 
not starting from a blank slate but rather attempting to repeal a law 
that has been implemented for a number of years, we should be wary of 
the impact of pulling employer-sponsored insurance into this current 
debate.
  The purpose of this budget reconciliation exercise to repeal and 
replace ObamaCare is to address costs in the individual markets. I 
believe it is important that everyone, whether they are Members of 
Congress, stakeholders in the business community, or living elsewhere 
in the country, manage their expectations about the possible outcomes 
of this process given the limitations we are facing.
  While the constraints inherent to the budget reconciliation process 
may be inconvenient at the specific moment, they serve a number of 
important purposes. Under this process, the Senate will need to reduce 
the deficit by at least as much as the House bill. There is no way 
around that. The process for determining what provisions of the House 
bill will need to be changed is still ongoing. Of course, we will have 
to take a good long look at the numbers we get from CBO later today.
  Not only do we need to take into account the CBO numbers and the 
budget rules, but we also need to consider what the best policy is, 
and, at the end

[[Page 8420]]

of the day, what approach is doable. We can do a lot in this exercise, 
but we should not make this the be-all and end-all of our healthcare 
reform effort.
  As I said before, everyone should be managing their expectations at 
this point. While we can and should be ambitious in our efforts, we 
need to be realistic about the limitations that exist and be willing to 
practice the art of the doable, to compromise, and to really recognize 
what issues will need to be set aside for another day.
  None of this is going to be easy, but I believe we are up to the 
challenge. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues 
and to finding solutions that will help us keep the promises we made to 
our constituents.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to follow the comments made by the 
President pro tempore of the Senate--the Senator from Utah--talking 
about problems that people have and problems that grow every day with 
their future look at healthcare and what it may mean for their 
families.
  This is a top-of-the-mind issue for families in Utah, or Missouri, 
where I am from, or Montana, where the Presiding Officer is from, or 
Massachusetts. Anywhere in the country, anyone who is looking at this 
system and hoping to have a system they could rely on is finding that 
it is just not working. This is a plan that clearly has failed. It was 
a plan that gave all kinds of assurances, virtually none of which have 
been kept.
  In our State today, we got some bad news in Missouri about what that 
health insurance exchange looks like next year. Blue Cross Blue Shield 
serves 30 counties in our State. Another Blue Cross-related group, 
Anthem, serves the rest of the State. But today, Blue Cross Blue Shield 
announced that it is going to pull out of the exchanges next year. Some 
31,000 people in 25 counties around Kansas City will have no insurer at 
this moment who is willing to sell policies on the individual exchange. 
This is devastating news for those families--maybe they are already on 
their second or third insurance company in as many years--trying to 
wade through yet another individual plan that tells them what might or 
might not be covered. This is certainly a long way from the assurances 
that you would be able to keep your plan and you would be able to 
continue to see the doctors you like. It seems a long way from that 
pledge. Remember that pledge? If you like your plan, you can keep your 
plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. It didn't turn 
out to be that way at all.
  In fact, in the five other counties that Blue Cross is leaving in our 
State--and I don't say this with any disrespect toward that nonprofit 
company--they are losing money. This system won't work, and that is why 
we are down from multiple companies willing to offer insurance in all 
kinds of counties around the country to now States, like Iowa, having 
no insurance company at all that will offer an individual policy 
anywhere.
  In the five metropolitan counties in the Kansas area, they have three 
competitors this year in those five counties. Humana announced in 
February that they would be leaving next year. Blue Cross announced 
today that they would be leaving. So 5 metropolitan counties at this 
moment, at least, have only one company that will even offer a policy, 
and 25 counties have no company that will offer a policy based on that 
announcement. If you only have one choice, do you really have any 
choices at all?
  Under this plan, unless we go in a very different direction, the 
choice is to buy the policy or pay the penalty. This exchange that was 
promised where the average family would see their insurance costs go 
down $2,500 a year--this is as far from that promise as you could 
possibly get. Not only has your policy likely gone up more than $2,500, 
but your deductible has gone up in even higher percentages than that.
  Certainly, 30 percent of the counties in America right now only have 
one company that will offer insurance. As I said earlier, our 
neighboring State to the north, Iowa, has no company that will offer 
insurance to anybody on the individual market. What kind of system is 
that?
  In my State, we have 114 counties and the city of St. Louis in 
addition to those 114 counties. At this moment, 97 of them have only 
one company that will offer insurance. Unless things change 
dramatically, in January, 25 of those 97 will have no company that will 
offer insurance. Now, 77 counties--unless the one company offering 
insurance decides it can't participate in that market either--would 
have only one choice. I think it is likely that those 77 counties will 
see some change in whether they have one choice or no choice.
  Last week, I came to the floor to talk about Missourians who have 
problems and who are seeing their out-of-pocket costs skyrocket under 
this. Let me share another story about one of the several people we 
heard from this week.
  Holly is a cancer survivor. She lives in Southeast Missouri. She was 
forced again this year to switch insurance policies when the insurance 
company she had left the individual exchange, the ObamaCare exchange. 
That left Holly with only one choice. Again, people in the vast 
majority of our counties have the same option--they have one option. 
Holly had one option, and that carrier didn't cover any of her four 
cancer doctors. Now, remember, this is a cancer survivor who literally 
has been in a fight for her life, and now she can't get a policy that 
allows her to see the doctors in whom, in that fight for her life, she 
developed confidence. So that means she can't see her oncologist under 
any policy she can get. She can't see the radiation oncologist, the 
surgical oncologist, and the reconstructive surgeon. None of those 
people are now available to her.
  This is in a world where Holly, you, me--all of us were told: If you 
like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Well, she liked all four of 
her doctors, and she can't keep any of those doctors. We were told: If 
you like your policy, you can keep your policy. If it weren't so 
serious, looking back at that promise, it would be like it was some 
cruel joke that somebody is coming up with that couldn't have been 
further from the truth. When you are battling cancer and you lose 
access to the doctors you know and trust, no reasonable person can 
argue to you that the system we have is working. The status quo is 
unacceptable. It is clearly unsustainable.
  There is a lot of discussion about what kind of change we are going 
to have. The ``why'' here is more important than the ``how.'' The 
``why'' here is the most important part of this debate because the 
reason we have to change is that the system we have is absolutely not 
working.
  Americans like Holly and all the families in the Kansas City area who 
are certain to lose this year's coverage next year may or may not have 
coverage at all. No company besides this one company that left was 
willing to be there this year. They deserve better. That is why I am 
going to continue to work with my Senate colleagues to give families 
more choices to expand their access to the healthcare providers they 
want and the kind of insurance coverage they would like to have.
  This plan simply hasn't worked, it isn't working, and it is going to 
get worse before it gets better. That is why we are debating how to 
change it, not debating the effort that has totally failed. Now we need 
to get in and figure out how to stabilize this marketplace and answer 
those important questions for families all over this country who not 
only don't have the coverage they want, but they also don't have access 
to the healthcare they need.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from 
Missouri for the excellent comments he made.
  I bring to the floor a report that came out last evening, which is 
essentially the analysis that the Obama administration never wanted the 
American people to see, and it has to do with

[[Page 8421]]

ObamaCare from 2013 to 2017. This report that the Obama administration 
would love to hide from the American people makes the point that my 
colleague from Missouri just made.
  In those years, from 2013 to 2017, once ObamaCare came into place, 
premiums around the country in the States that are buying on the 
Federal ObamaCare exchange went up 105 percent on average--more than 
double. It more than doubled in 20 States, and it tripled in three 
States: Oklahoma, Alaska, and Alabama. In Wyoming, it went up 107 
percent in just 4 years. Tell me something else that has gone up by 
that price in our lives anywhere over that short period of time. Those 
are the numbers that are out today.
  More than 7 years ago, the Washington Democrats wrote an enormously 
costly and complicated healthcare law. They forced it through the 
Senate, and they made lots of promises. They promised it would provide 
care for less money. They promised that you could keep your doctor and 
that you could keep your insurance. They promised that if you just 
allowed Washington to have more control, everything would be better for 
you. It hasn't worked out that way. These are the numbers we are 
looking at today, and it looks as if prices are going to go up again 
next year because of the mandates and the requirements of the Obama 
healthcare law.
  In Connecticut, insurance companies say they want an average increase 
of about 24 percent; in Maryland, the average is 45 percent; and in 
Oregon, 17 percent. Americans are again facing double-digit increases 
in their ObamaCare premiums next year, just like this past year.
  Some companies simply said: Hey, I am done. I am not going to sell 
anymore. It is just not worth it.
  That is what Aetna has done--pulled out entirely. The thing that is 
so interesting about Aetna's decision is that they were one of the 
major cheerleaders early on back in the beginning of ObamaCare. They 
said: Oh yeah, we want to do this. We want to sell insurance all around 
the country. Well, now they are pulling out of ObamaCare all across 
America. What that means for people at home is that they have fewer 
choices.
  People living in two-thirds of the counties in this country--and in 
every county in my home State of Wyoming--are down to fewer and fewer 
choices. We have one choice of a carrier to buy from on the exchange in 
Wyoming. In two-thirds of the counties, people have only one or two 
choices. There are now places where people have no choices. Even if 
they get a subsidy under ObamaCare, there is no place they can use it, 
so it is useless to them.
  The companies that remain--what are they doing to help try to control 
costs? Well, they are cutting back on access to doctors and to 
hospitals, as we just heard is the situation of the patient in 
Missouri.
  Democrats say that people have to buy the insurance anyway because 
they say they put a mandate on it. Americans, like it or not, you have 
to buy ObamaCare insurance. If you don't like it, we are going to fine 
you. That is what the Democrats said. Well, in spite of the mandate, 20 
million Americans said ``No, thank you,'' and about 8 million paid a 
fine. Another 12 million got an exemption because there are actually 41 
different ways you can get exempted from ObamaCare. People realize it 
is not a good deal for them. They know ObamaCare has made insurance so 
expensive that it is not a good value for their hard-earned dollars.
  It is astonishing to hear Democrats now say that basically the 
problem was that Washington didn't have enough control. We need more 
government control, they are saying. There are a number of Democrats 
who want a single-payer healthcare system. Some call it Medicare for 
all. They can call it what they want--it means higher costs and more 
Washington control over the healthcare American families need.
  The State of Vermont looked at this idea a couple of years ago. Even 
in this very small, very liberal State, they dropped the idea almost 
immediately. Why? Because they said it was too expensive.
  That didn't stop other States from looking at it. Recently, this 
occurred in the State of California. Democrats in California recently 
offered a plan to have the State take control of all healthcare for 
everyone who lives there. Universal healthcare for all, they call it--
doctor visits, hospitals, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergencies, 
dental, vision, mental health, nursing homes, everything, cradle to 
grave, universal health coverage.
  So what do the stories in the California papers say about this? Well, 
they did a budget analysis. The budget office of the State of 
California did a budget analysis and said: What would such a thing 
cost? They came up with a cost of $400 billion a year. That sounds like 
a big number, but how do you put that in perspective? What else can you 
do? Four hundred billion dollars. So they said: Well, let's compare it 
to the budget of the entire State of California. The entire budget for 
the State of California today is $190 billion, so the cost of universal 
healthcare alone is twice the budget of the whole State of California. 
That includes teachers, firefighters, police, everything. They are 
proposing to spend twice the amount that they spend on everything on 
universal healthcare.
  So what do the Democrats say? Well, we will just have to raise taxes. 
That is their answer to so much of everything. I guess they figure that 
hard-working families in California would need to pay these taxes every 
year--not just once but every year because that price tag is $400 
billion each and every year.
  Democrats have no good ideas on how to deal with this collapse of 
ObamaCare. Republicans are offering real solutions. We are looking for 
ways to bring costs down, to give people more freedom, and to give 
people more control over their own healthcare. We are working to make 
sure people can get the care they need from a doctor they choose at a 
lower cost. We don't have that with ObamaCare.
  The Democrats are pushing the exact opposite approach. They are 
offering higher costs, higher taxes, more government control, more 
government say in your family's life.
  ObamaCare has failed. Republicans are committed to finding long-term 
solutions to our Nation's healthcare needs.
  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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon.


                            Paris Agreement

  Mr. President, there is an African proverb that goes something like 
this: If you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go 
together.
  The Paris Agreement was developed in that spirit; that 195 nations 
and territories can do more to protect our planet from climate change, 
the greatest environmental challenge of our lifetime, than the United 
States or any country can do isolated or on its own. Nearly 200 
countries now have agreed to do their part to limit our global 
temperature rise by developing national plans to reduce their own 
emissions.
  We know climate change is a global challenge that does not respect 
national borders. Emissions anywhere affect people everywhere, with the 
poorest and most vulnerable populations affected most. There is a 
reason why we call it ``global warming.'' We know no one country, no 
one region, no one continent can solve this problem alone.
  President Trump's inner circle has a different take on this 
historical agreement. For instance, during an appearance on ``Fox and 
Friends'' last month, Scott Pruitt, the EPA Administrator, denounced 
the Paris Agreement, calling it ``a bad deal for America.''
  Asked about his biggest objection to the accord, this is what he 
said. He claimed China and India had no obligation until 2030--no 
obligation until 2030--even though ``they are polluting far more than 
we are.''

[[Page 8422]]

  Well, that is just false. First, in 2015, the United States on a per 
capita basis produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of 
China--more than double--and eight times more than India. Also, 
contrary to what the Administrator continues to espouse, both China and 
India have pledged to reach their carbon emissions reduction goals by 
2030, which means they are taking steps now--not 5 years from now, not 
10 years from now, not 13 years from now--now, to meet those 
commitments. India is on schedule to be the world's third largest solar 
market by the end of 2017. In fact, last year, India unveiled the 
largest solar power facility in the world.
  Meanwhile, Chinese leaders have ordered their country's coal 
companies to cut 1.3 million jobs over the next 5 years. Some of these 
workers will find jobs in the clean energy sector, which Beijing 
expects to generate more than 13 million jobs by 2020.
  Make no mistake, if the United States cedes its leadership position 
on climate change, China will be ready and willing to assume that 
role--our role. In doing so, they will move ahead, and we will fall 
behind. It is just that simple.
  We have a chart here that includes a quote from China's top climate 
negotiator. He told Reuters about 6 months ago that if Trump abandons 
efforts to implement the Paris Agreement, ``China's influence and voice 
are likely to increase in global climate governance, which will then 
spill over into other areas of global governance and increase China's 
global standing, power and leadership.''
  The Chinese clearly understand that the Paris Agreement affords their 
country the opportunity to emerge in the 21st century as a clean energy 
superpower.
  I have been there. A year ago, I was there. In the trains they built 
and the train systems they built, the huge electric buses, all electric 
buses that I rode, it is clear they know what they are doing, and their 
intent was to eat our lunch by pursuing this clean sustainable energy 
approach.
  Unfortunately, those in the Trump administration seem to be the only 
ones who don't recognize that. Some day they will wish they had, and 
the rest of us will wish we had too. Withdrawing from this pact doesn't 
put America first, it puts America behind.
  You don't have to take my word for it. Just ask our business 
community. They see the clear benefits for their businesses and for 
America if we continue to play a lead role in the implementation of the 
Paris Agreement. Over 1,000 American companies and investors, some of 
which are represented here on this chart, have written to President 
Trump urging his administration and him to address climate change 
through the implementation of the Paris Agreement. The businesses, 
which include Exxon, Starbucks, Apple, General Mills, Walmart, Nike, 
Morgan Stanley, and BP--just to name a few--this is what all these 
companies and their leaders said: Failure to embrace the Paris accords 
``puts American prosperity at risk. But the right action now will 
create jobs and boost U.S. competitiveness.''
  I have another chart.
  We have two letters here. One was written to a new President, 
President Obama, in 2009. Again, this is a full-page ad.
  This is another ad that appeared in the past week to another new 
President, in this case, President Trump. Interesting enough, back in 
2009, a Manhattan businessman named Donald J. Trump agreed with the 
1,000 companies I mentioned earlier--the 1,000 companies that said we 
ought to do something about climate change. We ought to get on board 
and lead the way. Businessman Donald J. Trump agreed with them and 
joined CEOs to run an ad in the New York Times urging then-President 
Obama to ``lead the world by example,'' ahead of the U.N. Climate 
Change Conference in Copenhagen.
  In the ad right here, Donald Trump called on President Obama to allow 
the United States of America ``to serve in modeling the change 
necessary to protect humanity and our planet.''
  Eight years later, the person who signed this letter and joined all 
these other CEOs in saying to President Obama: ``Wake up. Let's do 
something about this climate change stuff. Make sure we are leading the 
parade''--8 years later, he is not signing the letter. He is the 
addressee on the letter, from, again, hundreds of CEOs from around the 
country, and they are urging him to do the very same thing Donald J. 
Trump had urged Barack Obama to do 8 years earlier. If you ever want to 
think of something that is ironic, find an example of two full-page ads 
that sort of represent the term ``irony,'' this is it. This is it.
  The companies noted in this second full-page ad that the Paris 
Agreement provides just the kind of framework we need. So U.S. 
businesses still recognize that our country leading the world in 
addressing climate change is the right approach. We might want to ask: 
Why doesn't our President, Donald Trump, realize that? With the Paris 
Agreement, the global community rightly recognized that there are 
challenges bigger than any one State and came together to do what is 
best for our collective future.
  It is not the first time the global community came together for the 
greater good. In 1944, the world came together at the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation to regulate international air travel so 
planes could avoid flying into one another in the not-so-friendly skies 
of the future.
  In 1968, the nonproliferation treaty helped prevent the spread of 
nuclear weapons, promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and 
further the goal of disarmament to help keep our world safe.
  In 1977, the Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed the production, 
stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons, which the world agreed were 
inhumane.
  On these critical issues, the world came together overwhelmingly to 
do what was in the best interest of humanity rather than the best 
interest of one single nation, but even these other historic and 
frankly commonsense agreements don't have as many signers as the Paris 
Agreement does.
  We hear numbers thrown around a lot when we talk about the Paris 
Agreement, but to put the number of signers in context, let me just say 
it is nearly the whole world--nearly the whole world.
  If you wonder what 195 national flags look like, pretty much the 
whole world, this chart depicts that. There are two flags down here 
that have not signed, and one of those is Nicaragua. They didn't sign 
because they thought the Paris accords didn't go far enough. The other 
country that didn't sign on is Syria. So, in effect, there is really 
only one country that has refused to accept the basis of the Paris 
Agreement, this huge Paris accord, and that one nation is Syria.
  Our withdrawing leaves the United States in company with Bashar al-
Assad. We will be his wingman. That is not the company we ought to be 
keeping, and that is not who we are.
  When it comes to global challenges such as terrorism and cyber 
attacks, the United States doesn't sit back and wait for someone else 
to lead. We lead. America leads the way. We always have. It is part of 
the fabric of our Nation.
  To win our freedom, we took on the mightiest nation on Earth at the 
time, England, not once but twice, and beat them. A half century later, 
we survived a bloody Civil War that took hundreds of thousands of lives 
and left hundreds of thousands more crippled and wounded. After that 
war, our President was assassinated and his successor, Andrew Johnson, 
was impeached. Somehow we survived all that and we went on to lead our 
allies to victory in World War I and World War II. We led our country 
out of the Great Depression and into victory in the Cold War as well.
  Americans should, once again, be leading the world to combat what is 
likely to be the greatest challenge we will face in our lifetimes. Our 
children and their children are counting on this, and we should not let 
them down.
  Somebody asked me how long it would take to read a list of the 195 
nations that have signed on to the Paris Peace Accords, and I have the 
names

[[Page 8423]]

right here. I am not sure I can correctly pronounce all of the names--
maybe page 1 and the last page, and I will leave it at that.
  It starts out with Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, 
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, 
Azerbaijan, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, and Barbados.
  That is the first page, and it goes on and on and on.
  I will finish up with Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United 
Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, 
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
  There are 195 in all. We ought to be in company with the names of all 
of the countries that are on that list. We should not be in the company 
of the one that is down here by itself--Syria.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 13 minutes 
remaining until the vote.
  Mr. CARPER. Thank you.


                                  Iran

  Mr. President, one of the countries on this list of the 195 
subscribing to and signing on to the Paris Agreement was the country of 
Iran. I want to talk a little bit about Iran in the time that remains.
  I came home from church this past Sunday. My wife and I were in the 
kitchen--we were fixing breakfast--when I turned on the television and 
watched, I think it was, CNN. They were broadcasting live from Saudi 
Arabia our President's talking to a large group of national leaders 
representing Muslim countries from around the world, hosted by Saudi 
Arabia. The President was giving his speech. He was using a 
teleprompter, but a lot of Presidents use teleprompters. He was reading 
a speech off of the teleprompter. As I was listening, I actually 
thought that this was a pretty good speech. Closer to the end of the 
speech--I do not know if he went off camera or went off the 
teleprompter and just did an inaudible or if this was part of the 
speech--he started talking about Iran and why they are a nemesis to a 
lot of the world and are not to be trusted--somebody we should not be 
doing business with or going into any kind of agreements with, even an 
agreement that causes them not to be able to build a nuclear weapon.
  In any event, I thought to myself that there is a real irony here 
because, as he was going on and berating Iran, they were still counting 
the votes in Iran from the election that had occurred the day before, 
which is unlike many of the countries that were represented and that 
President Trump was addressing in that they do not have elections in 
those countries. Women do not get to hold office or run for office in 
many of those countries.
  Let me just be the first to say that, clearly, Iran is not a 
Jeffersonian democracy, and, as some would suggest of late, maybe our 
credentials are somewhat tarnished on that too. I think of the over 
1,600 people who registered to run for President in Iran. There were 
1,600 people in Iran who wanted to run for President this year, and 
Iran's Guardian Council only allowed 6, ultimately, to run.
  Iran has never allowed a woman to run for President. Women do hold 
elected positions. They serve in the parliament and in municipal 
positions, but none of them has ever run for President. We have had one 
or two or maybe three.
  Iran does not enjoy a free press. International election observers 
are strictly forbidden, and there are widespread allegations that 
Iran's 2009 Presidential elections, in which Ahmadinejad was supposedly 
reelected--I doubt that he was, but there are a lot of people who think 
those elections were rigged.
  In Iran, most of the final decisions rest with the Supreme Leader, at 
least decisions of consequence, and the Supreme Leader, as we know, is 
not popularly elected by the people of that country.
  Here is what happened in the elections in Iran over the weekend. A 
lot of people turned out to vote, and they were willing to support a 
candidate who openly advocates for engagement with the West, including 
with us. The Supreme Leader of Iran, frankly, did not want President 
Rouhani to be reelected, but he was, with nearly 60 percent of the 
vote. In fact, the Supreme Leader, I think, and others urged others to 
get out of the race so that there would be just a one-on-one against a 
hard-line candidate, who was favored by the Supreme Leader, and 
President Rouhani, who turned out to be favored in the election by 
almost 60 percent of the voters.
  Of the people who voted, I do not know how this breaks out by age, 
but the country of Iran is a young country. They had their revolution 
back in the late 1970s. You may recall they captured our Embassy and 
held our folks hostage during the end of the Carter administration. 
They created a lot of havoc--not a lot of bloodshed but a lot of 
havoc--and a lot of bad will from that point in time until almost to 
this day.
  Most of the people who live in Iran today are under the age of 30. A 
clear majority of them were not alive in 1970 to 1979. They never knew 
the fellow who led that revolution in Iran in the late 1970s. Most of 
the people in that country today were born after 1979.
  I have talked to any number of Americans, including those who have 
held senior positions in previous administrations who have gone to Iran 
in recent years, and they all tell me the same story. They could not 
believe how welcomed they were by people everywhere--young people and 
not so young people, but especially by young people. There was a 
fascination on the part of especially the young people with our 
country, and there actually appears to be a fair amount of respect and 
admiration for our country. They would like to have a better 
relationship with our country.
  They turned out and voted for a President. They also voted in 
municipal elections over the weekend. In the municipal elections, they 
voted out some sitting mayors of cities like Tehran, which is the 
capital city. The mayor there was a hard-liner, and, apparently, he has 
been knocked out of office or will be shortly. There are many other 
municipal leaders, and a moderate reformist will be succeeding one of 
the hard-liners.
  I do not mean to suggest that all in Iran love us. They do not. The 
Revolutionary Guard and some of their leadership do not care for us at 
all. They, frankly, like terrorism and embrace terrorism and would like 
to continue to foment upheaval and terror in some parts around the 
country. They are not the future of their country. The future of their 
country voted last weekend. We have all heard about voting for change. 
Well, they voted for change, and my hope is that they will get what 
they voted for.
  I think, for us, we have to be smart enough to say that no democracy 
is perfect--not ours, not theirs--and give them at least a passing 
grade for effort and see, as we go forward, how we can find ways to 
work together.
  I served in the Vietnam war--three tours in Southeast Asia. I came 
back at the end of the war and moved from California to Delaware. I got 
an MBA and became the treasurer, Congressman, Governor, and Senator of 
Delaware. When I was a Congressman, I led a six-member congressional 
delegation, including one former U.S. POW, Air Force Capt. Pete 
Peterson, who spent 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton. We went back to 
Vietnam a month after I stepped down as a captain in the U.S. Navy. We 
went back to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos to find out what happened to 
the thousands of MIAs whose bodies were never recovered. We do not know 
how they died or where they died or when they died, but we went back 
and tried to get to the truth. We did so at the behest and 
encouragement of the George Herbert Walker Bush administration.
  We took with us a roadmap to normalize relations between the United 
States and Vietnam. Lo and behold, we ended up getting to meet their 
brand new leader, Do Muoi. He was a brand new leader who had only been 
in office for a week. We presented our roadmap to normalize relations. 
The six of us--Democrat and Republican Members of

[[Page 8424]]

the House--had a very emotional meeting with him--a very emotional 
meeting--and said that these are the things you have to do. If you want 
to normalize relations with us, give us access to crash sites, the 
ability to excavate crash sites, the ability to talk to people who live 
in those areas and communities that are around those crash sites, the 
ability to go into your war museums, and the ability to go into your 
military archives and get as much information as we can. We said that 
we wanted our folks--U.S. folks--to be able to go around the country, 
to travel around their country. If somebody reports seeing a round-eye, 
or somebody who might be American, we want to be able to go find him.
  A long story short, they did all of the things we asked them to do. 
Pete Peterson, a Member of our delegation, became the U.S. Ambassador 
to Vietnam. He made sure that the Vietnamese kept to the letter and 
spirit of that agreement. They did, and we normalized relations.
  When I went back to Vietnam last year with President Obama, I met 
with some of the same people I had met with in August of 1991, who are 
now leaders of their countries. Do Muoi is still alive. I wrote him a 
note and sent it to him while I was there.
  There are 55,000 American names that are on a wall down by the 
Lincoln Memorial--55,000 men and women who died in the war, with whom I 
served--and we have allowed bygones to be bygones with Vietnam. They 
are not a Jeffersonian democracy, but it turns out that we have worked 
through our difficulties. They have become a major trading partner with 
the United States--in fact, a major market. They want to buy things 
from us, too, like Boeing jets, and a lot of them for a lot of money--
billions of dollars.
  As it turns out, they and Iran have an airline that is decrepit. We 
used to joke about an airline in this country that was called 
Allegheny. We called it ``Agony.'' We had another airline in this 
country called ``Tree Top.'' In Iran, they do not have an airline to be 
proud of, as they have very old airplanes and not especially safe 
airplanes. Like Vietnam, they want to buy our airplanes--a lot of them, 
for a lot of money.
  I would hope that we could be smart enough to say that maybe we 
should sell to them. We are not going to sell them military equipment. 
We sell military equipment to Vietnam now, but we are not going to do 
that kind of thing with Iran. Maybe, if we are smart, we can sell them 
airplanes and, later on, the parts to the airplanes and, later on, 
other things as well. We should start small and go from there, as we 
have with Vietnam.
  I will close, but if I could, I want to just say that our President, 
who has called for the isolation of Iran, also has, basically, praised 
the actions of President Duterte, of the Philippines, the leader of the 
Philippines. Do you know what he has done? He has launched a campaign 
of extrajudicial murders and has killed over 8,000 people.
  He has warmly welcomed the leader of Turkey, Erdogan, who may have 
won or may not have won a tight election that gives him extraordinary 
powers as the leader of that country.
  The President welcomed to the White House Egyptian President El-Sisi, 
who came to power through military intervention and not an elected 
government. President Trump has said recently that he would be 
``honored'' to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong un, and that is 
despite the repeated threats from the Korean leader to launch nuclear 
weapons at the United States and our allies.
  Somehow all of those things that this President has done and the 
things that he has spoken out against, including having any kind of 
relationship with Iran, does not seem, to me, to be consistent. I will 
be polite and say it is inconsistent. I think we need to be smarter 
than that.
  With regard to the note that I wrote to the former leader of Vietnam 
when I was, literally, at the Hanoi Hilton--back at the prison in which 
John McCain and Pete Peterson were imprisoned--I saw a huge picture on 
the wall when I was there last year, and I wrote the note and gave it 
to a young Vietnamese man who knew Do Muoi. I wrote that same African-
American proverb: If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to 
go far, go together.
  Ultimately, we found a way with Vietnam. It took a long time. The war 
pretty much ended in 1975. It took a long time to get to more normal 
relations. We finally made it, and they are better for it, and we are 
too. Someday, the time will come to turn a page, I think, with Iran. We 
are not there yet, but we are getting a little closer.
  For now, I just want to say to those people, though, in that country, 
who took the time and made the effort to vote and decided to vote for 
change and to vote for the reformist--the more moderate form of 
government--and wanted to be more westward looking than would otherwise 
be the case: Good for you. My hope in doing that is that you will join 
us in basically turning down the idea of continuing support for 
Hezbollah and for terrorism that the other part of Iran and some of the 
others in leadership are determined to sustain.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Sullivan 
nomination?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 135 Ex.]

                                YEAS--94

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--6

     Booker
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Sanders
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________