[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9439-9443]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume

[[Page 9440]]

consideration of the Mandelker nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Sigal Mandelker, of New 
York, to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11 
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we continue to make progress on 
legislation to clean up the mess left by the meltdown of ObamaCare, at 
least insofar as it affects the lives of millions of people who buy 
their insurance on the individual markets. These are individuals and 
small businesses that don't have the benefit of large employer 
healthcare plans, and they have been devastated by ObamaCare.
  This is a rescue mission. ObamaCare is collapsing for millions of 
people, and we have to act in the interest of countless families and 
small businesses that are suffering tremendous harm.
  I have told the stories myself; others have likewise told the 
stories. We have seen those reported in the media. For many people, 
healthcare costs, their insurance premiums are skyrocketing. We also 
know that because of the distortion in the insurance markets, many 
insurance companies are simply pulling out of counties and States 
around the country, so people have no choices when it comes to 
purchasing their healthcare on the exchanges. Of course, many people 
continue to lose access to their doctors.
  We need to contrast this with what was promised when ObamaCare was 
passed. I know it sounds repetitive, but I am afraid that if we lose 
sight of what the promises were with ObamaCare, we can't actually 
calculate the tremendous harm and the deception that was involved in 
actually delivering on that promise.
  President Obama said that if you liked your policy, you could keep 
it--not true. He said if you liked your doctor, you could keep your 
doctor--also not true. He also said that a family of four could see an 
average decrease in premiums of $2,500 a year--also not true.
  What is the response of our Democratic friends? We saw last night 
that they took to the Senate floor, and they gave impassioned speeches.
  First of all, they criticized the Republicans for coming forward to 
try to rescue the people who were being hurt by the failures of 
ObamaCare. They criticized us for that. Then they said that it was a 
secret bill after they had rejected every entreaty--every request--for 
them to work with us on a bipartisan basis to rescue the people who are 
being hurt by the failures of ObamaCare. They rejected that.
  What did they do? They came to the Senate floor. They said that they 
hate the bill that they have not seen yet. Then they said: Oh, it is 
secret. So I guess it should be one or the other. Either they hate it 
because they know what is in it or it is secret. It cannot be both.
  The fact is that we are working hard to meet our own internal 
deadline because we want to make sure that the people who will be hurt 
in 2018, when the insurance companies raise their premiums by digits--
and they are in the process of getting those approved. It will occur in 
the July-August timeframe when insurance companies will have to 
calculate what the premium is that they will have to charge. Then they 
will have to go to the State regulators and get approval for that 
premium increase. What we are being told is that the 105-percent 
increase in premiums on the exchanges since 2013--that is right, a 105-
percent increase--is going to go up 20 percent or more next year unless 
we come to the rescue of those who are being harmed by ObamaCare.
  We would say to our Democratic colleagues: Please do not wear 
yourselves out by doing something that is going to accomplish nothing. 
Channel all of that energy and that passion into trying to do something 
that will actually help the people who are being hurt today by the 
failures of ObamaCare.
  They went even further. They said, well, they may decide just to 
obstruct the Senate's business on other matters that are not healthcare 
related until they can see the bill, which they will get to see soon.
  As soon as we see the final product, we will get it scored by the 
Congressional Budget Office. Then we will have, literally, a vote-
arama, where there will be an opportunity to debate in a fulsome and 
comprehensive sort of way and an opportunity to offer dozens--if not 
hundreds--of amendments to the bill, and we will vote. We will vote, as 
that is what we do.
  There is nothing happening in secret here. In the fullness of time, 
we will all see the product we have been working on. As a result of 
their refusal to work with us, we have been working on it the best we 
can to try to accomplish something better than the failed status quo of 
ObamaCare.
  We are told that they may obstruct the Senate's other business, 
including committee work. That is unrelated to the healthcare debate 
but, I guess, is just their lashing out in trying to find some way that 
they can make life a little more difficult here in the Senate with 
regard to our accomplishing other important work as well.
  I happen to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. One of the 
things that we are doing is a comprehensive investigation of Russia's 
active measures undertaken during the last election. We have a 
committee meeting this afternoon.
  Are Democrats really going to obstruct the Senate Intelligence 
Committee's work in conducting and completing its investigation into 
Russian activities in the 2016 election? Are they really going to do 
that? It strikes me as nuts.
  On Thursday, for example, we also have a Judiciary Committee meeting 
that is scheduled to consider a critically important bill that I 
introduced with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, to help 
fight human trafficking.
  Are Democrats going to obstruct our ability to conduct our business 
and block our consideration of bills involving human trafficking and 
providing relief for the victims?
  This bill reauthorizes key programs that support survivors, and it 
provides additional resources to Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement officials who are on the frontlines of fighting this 
heinous crime.
  Will the Democratic leader from New York jeopardize the committee's 
ability to actually consider and pass this law? Does he plan to block a 
Member of his own political party from advancing her bill to fight 
human trafficking as well?
  This strikes me as wrong for a number of reasons, and I think it 
would actually be appalling if our Democratic colleagues, out of their 
frustration--frankly, borne out of their failure to do their job and 
work with us to find a solution to the meltdown of ObamaCare--lashed 
out in a way that affected victims of human trafficking and affected 
the Senate's ability to conduct its investigation into the Russian 
activities involved in our election.
  Now is not the time to grandstand and make damaging, symbolic 
gestures like this because, while our Democratic colleagues talked a 
lot last night, we did not hear anything from them about the current 
realities of ObamaCare and how it has failed the American people. They 
seem to be whistling by the graveyard. We did not hear anything about 
rising costs or the lack of choices.
  I talked to one of my Democratic colleagues this morning. He told me 
that his own son was looking at $7,500 premiums a year and at a $5,000 
deductible. This friend, a Democrat--and I will not reveal his name 
because I do not think it would be appropriate to do so--told me that 
his own son had to spend $12,500 out of pocket before his

[[Page 9441]]

insurance actually kicked in. That is a disaster, not just for his son 
but for millions of people who are negatively affected by ObamaCare. 
Yet our friends across the aisle want to flail about and threaten to 
block trafficking legislation or an investigation into the Russian 
involvement in the election.
  The only thing they have not done is offer a constructive 
alternative. That is the only thing they have not done. They have tried 
about everything else. You know why, of course. It is that we know what 
the alternative is.
  Basically, they did ObamaCare all by themselves. I remember. I was 
here on the Senate floor, in 2010, on Christmas Eve. I think it was at 
about 7:30 in the morning when we had the vote out of the Senate that 
passed ObamaCare. It was a pure party-line vote. So the Democrats have 
had it all to themselves--the ability to design a healthcare system 
that they thought America should have. It has failed time and again.
  Do you know what their current proposal is right now? It is a single-
payer option that puts our country even more in debt and that we know 
does not work.
  The reason we know it does not work is that it will, no doubt, 
emulate things like the British National Health Service, which has 
resulted in two-tiered healthcare--healthcare for people who cannot 
otherwise afford to pay out of their pockets to get better healthcare, 
with all of the problems of government-run healthcare added to it, but 
far-left elements of the Democratic Party want a plan that goes even 
further than ObamaCare. That, I believe, could ultimately be their 
goal--one that would increase government spending on healthcare by 
$518.9 billion just this year, ballooning to $6.6 trillion between 2017 
and 2026, according to the Urban Institute.
  Take a look at the State of California, where a similar proposal--a 
single-payer system--was pushed at the State level there to enact a 
single-payer system that would add $400 billion each year to the 
California State budget. I think that is roughly double the amount of 
the whole budget for the State of California--$400 billion each year.
  It strikes me that at least one conclusion you might draw from this 
is that our Democratic friends' solution, rather than trying to work 
with us in a bipartisan way to save people who are being hurt from the 
failures of ObamaCare, is to say: Let's throw more money at it. That is 
not going to work. What it will do is add to our national debt without 
solving the healthcare problem, and it will further burden future 
generations who will have to pay that money back at some point.
  We already have about $20 trillion in national debt. These young 
people up here who are serving as pages are going to have to deal with 
that, I guess, unless we have the courage to do it ourselves. It 
strikes me as profoundly immoral for us to spend the money today and 
say: Well, our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay it back 
later. That is immoral.
  If we thought ObamaCare crushed any semblance of competition in the 
healthcare marketplace, the single-payer plan from our friend Senator 
Bernie Sanders, from Vermont, who is the chief spokesman for the 
Democrats in the Senate on what an alternative might look like, removes 
competition completely because it is a government takeover. It takes 
away even more authority from State and local governments, and it takes 
away choices from individuals. Forget ``if you like your doctor, you 
can keep your doctor. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.'' 
Forget all of that because it is the opposite of what American families 
have repeatedly asked for.
  This is what the extreme factions in the Democratic Party want. They 
want to expand government. They want an even larger takeover of 
healthcare, and they want to simply throw more money at it--as if we 
are not spending enough money already. Throwing more money at the 
problem certainly will not fix it. I suggest that it will only make 
things worse.
  We need to be realistic about what it will take to rework our 
healthcare system and put patients first. I am under no illusion as to 
what Republicans are going to be able to come up with on our own, given 
the constraints of the fact that the Democrats will not work with us at 
all and appear not to be in the business of lifting a finger to help 
the millions of people who are being hurt. I am not under any illusion 
that what we are going to be able to come up with--and it is an interim 
step--is going to be perfect, as no legislation ever is, but I think we 
are obligated to do our best. The fact that our Democratic friends will 
not help at all makes it a lot harder, but I do not think we can say: 
It is too hard. We cannot do it. We give up.
  We are committed on this side of the aisle and invite our colleagues 
on that side of the aisle to work with us to fix the problems that are 
caused by ObamaCare and to implement real healthcare reforms that will 
work.
  First of all, we need to stabilize the market--I mentioned this 
earlier--and rescue millions of folks who are losing all of their 
access to coverage because insurance companies are simply quitting 
because they are bleeding money. They cannot charge a high enough 
premium that somebody will actually pay, so they leave the market. In 
Texas, alone, there are dozens of counties that have only one insurance 
marketplace option. If we do nothing, I fear there will be no choices. 
When there is only one choice, the economic backlash is pretty simple. 
There is no competition to drive down costs and improve the quality of 
coverage.
  I think this is, really, in some ways, a test of our convictions. If 
you really do believe that competition in the marketplace improves 
quality and cost for the consumer, as I do, then going to a single-
payer system or even trying to repair ObamaCare is the opposite of what 
we should do. We need to return the market to a competitive one so that 
families can have the ability to make choices about their healthcare, 
what suits their needs, not what government is going to force you to 
buy, and if you do not buy the government-approved plan, it is going to 
punish you by fining you. That is what the status quo is like under 
ObamaCare.
  ObamaCare is so bad that, currently, we have almost 30 million people 
who are still uninsured. About 6.5 million of them simply pay the 
penalty--I think it is $695 a year now--instead of buying the 
government-approved healthcare plan. They figure that paying the 
penalty is better than buying the insurance for them. Then there are 
others--millions more--who simply opt out because of hardship. If the 
goal of ObamaCare were universal coverage, it has failed that goal as 
well. So we need to stabilize the market.
  Secondly, we need to address ObamaCare's skyrocketing premium 
increases. We all know that if ObamaCare stays in place, premiums will 
stand only to rise for consumers. That is something I think our friends 
across the aisle are missing as well. Doing nothing is not an option 
because people are going to be even more priced out of the marketplace, 
assuming they can find an insurance company to sell them healthcare.
  In Texas, a Houston-area insurer has asked for a 16-percent annual 
rate hike for its 2018 ObamaCare coverage--a 16-percent increase over 
this year they want for next year. That is what doing nothing will do. 
It warns it might even need a greater increase just to cover its costs.
  Private businesses can't actually operate in the red like the Federal 
Government does. Private businesses can't just print more money or run 
up $20 trillion in debt. So when they can't make money, they simply 
have to raise premiums or they have to quit the market.
  The third thing we need to do is this. Remember, the first thing I 
said is stabilize the market. The second is attack premiums to bring 
them down, and the third thing we need to do is make sure we continue 
to protect American citizens from preexisting conditions. This is 
something I think everybody believes that needs to happen, without 
regard to political or ideological affiliation. No one should be denied 
basic

[[Page 9442]]

healthcare because they have a preexisting condition, and we want to 
preserve those protections. That is the third goal.
  The fourth goal is to make Medicaid, which is the medical safety net 
for millions of people, sustainable into the future. Right now we know 
it is not sustainable, like our other entitlement programs. The way we 
want to do that is by giving States more flexibility. We want to make 
sure that those who rely on the program don't have the rug pulled out 
from under them, and we want to make sure that it continues to grow 
year after year, but at a sustainable rate.
  Right now, there is no cap, no rate of increase provided. So it is an 
unlimited entitlement. One of the suggestions from the House bill is to 
grow it each year at the rate of the consumer price index for medical 
costs; that is, medical inflation plus 1 percent. In other words, more 
money would be spent next year than this year. Even more money than 
next year will be spent the following year and so on, but it will be 
done at a sustainable rate.
  Finally, we want to free the American people from the onerous 
ObamaCare mandates that require them to purchase insurance they don't 
want and can't afford. It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that if 
you take the penalty away and don't force the American people to buy 
insurance they don't want, many of them--the younger, healthy ones, in 
particular--will decide not to buy it. That is called freedom of 
choice. That is not what ObamaCare did. ObamaCare forced people to buy 
something they didn't want and penalized them if they didn't. So many 
people will choose not to purchase it and decide to handle their 
healthcare in other ways--perhaps, at the emergency room, where under 
Federal law everybody who comes in as a medical emergency is entitled 
to be treated. It is not what I would tell my daughters. It is not what 
I would recommend for anybody, but if somebody wants to make that 
choice, it is certainly their right.
  So I would just conclude by observing that it is shameful that 
Members on the other side of the aisle sit on their hands and do 
nothing to fix a law that continues to hurt American families. We know 
that regardless of who won the last election--whether it was Hillary 
Clinton or whether it was Donald Trump--we would have to take steps to 
address this failed law. So I would implore our Democratic friends to 
listen to their own stories, which some have recounted to me in 
confidence. So I won't repeat their names here, but they know this is a 
problem. They have heard from their constituents just like we have. So 
we would implore them to work with us to try to help us help our 
constituents. That is what I thought we were here for.
  Americans are ready for healthcare reform that actually works, and it 
is our responsibility to do our very best to provide that to them, and 
that is what we intend to do.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I listened to the majority leader this 
morning saying that ObamaCare was collapsing and Republicans are on a 
rescue mission. Honestly, the gall it must take to say, after 
Republicans and President Trump have spent all year sabotaging the 
marketplace, that ObamaCare is collapsing. They have threatened to stop 
critical cost-sharing payments that help keep deductibles and premiums 
down, hurting millions of people and sowing uncertainty in the market.
  There is an easy way to fix it. Instead of crying crocodile tears, 
Republicans should guarantee that the cost-sharing payments will be 
made. That is not just Democrats saying it. That is the insurers. 
Listen to the insurers. What do they want? They want to keep premiums 
down and prevent them from leaving the exchanges. They want cost-
sharing, which our Republican colleagues refuse to do, and, then, in a 
cynical ploy, they try to blame ObamaCare.
  Listen to AHIP, the Nation's largest trade group of insurers. It is 
nonpartisan. It is a business group. Listen to what they said about the 
uncertainty about cost-sharing payments. They said it was ``the single 
most destabilizing factor in the individual market.'' A series of 
insurance companies, including Blue Cross Blue Shield and Anthem, have 
said explicitly that uncertainty caused by President Trump and 
Republicans about cost-sharing is causing them to pull out of certain 
markets.
  So this idea, this cynical ploy--after sabotaging the bill and then 
blaming someone else other than themselves--is pitiful.
  The House bill, of course, was so bad--TrumpCare was so bad--that our 
Republican friends are trying to switch the blame to ObamaCare. It is 
not true, and it will not work.
  Now, last night, Democrats held the floor well into the night to 
discuss the Republican plan to pass a healthcare bill in just 2 weeks 
that no one in America has seen, without holding a single committee 
hearing or a robust debate on the floor. They want to bring the bill to 
the floor and rush it in the dark of night for a simple reason: They 
are ashamed of their bill. They don't want anybody to see it, least of 
all the public.
  Last evening, I asked the majority leader if the minority would have 
more than 10 hours to debate and amend the final bill. He replied that 
``there will be ample opportunity to debate and amend the bill.'' So I 
asked again: Will we get more than 10 hours? Ten hours is the maximum 
the rules allow us under reconciliation. He could only reply that 
``There will be ample time.''
  I have a feeling the majority leader and I disagree on the definition 
of ``ample,'' because 10 hours of debate time--a total of 10 hours of 
debate time on an issue this important--is a sham. It is a farce. We 
would have to read the bill, prepare amendments, and consider its 
consequences, all in 10 hours.
  This is a bill that affects one-sixth of our economy, millions of 
Americans. For them, it is life and death, and we are supposed to rush 
it through.
  The Affordable Care Act, for the sake of comparison, was debated for 
25 consecutive days of Senate session and 169 cumulative hours of 
debate time, and that was after a robust hearing and committee process. 
Yesterday, the majority leader basically confirmed that we Democrats 
might only have 10 hours total--no committee hearings, no committee 
markups, no airing the bill--10 hours of debate. Can my colleagues 
believe it? This is supposed to be a democracy where we debate the 
greatest issues of our time.
  I asked another question of the majority leader, and I ask him now 
and I hope he will answer: Will our 10 hours of debate time be on the 
House bill or will it be on the new Senate bill that he is crafting 
behind closed doors? Will he let us debate the full 10 hours on the new 
Senate bill--hardly enough--or is he even being more cynical and doing 
the 10 hours of debate on the existing House bill and then putting a 
substitute in--the Senate bill they have written behind closed doors--
and have no debate on that? With everything terrible that is happening, 
that could make it even worse. So I am asking the majority leader to 
publicly state what his plan is in that regard.
  I have never heard of a more radical or a more reckless process in my 
entire career in politics--10 hours of total debate on a bill that 
would affect one-sixth of the American economy and millions of 
Americans. If the Senate bill, like the House bill, results in 23 
million fewer Americans with insurance--23 million Americans losing 
their insurance--each hour of debate time would represent 2.3 million 
Americans losing their insurance. Each minute of debate time would 
represent 40,000 Americans losing their insurance. One minute, and 
40,000 people's

[[Page 9443]]

lives are changed; 40,000 people don't have the coverage they need.
  It boggles the mind that the Republican leader is moving forward this 
way without letting anyone but Members of the Republican Senate caucus 
see the bill, and even many of them have said they haven't seen it. 
There is only one possible reason why my friends on the other side are 
going along with this process--only one reason: They are ashamed of the 
bill they are writing.
  If they were proud of the bill, they would announce it. They would 
have brass bands going down Main Street America, saying: Look at our 
great bill. They can't even whisper what it is about, they are so, so 
ashamed of it. That is why they are hiding it. They must be ashamed 
that, just like the House bill, the Senate TrumpCare bill will put 
healthcare out of the reach of millions of Americans just to put 
another tax break into the pockets of the very wealthy.
  President Trump likes to end many of his tweets with one word, almost 
like punctuation: ``Sad,'' ``unfair,'' ``wrong.'' It turns out the 
President has one word to sum up his healthcare plan as well: ``Mean.''
  Last week, at a White House lunch with Republican Senators, the 
President reportedly told them he thought the House-passed healthcare 
bill was mean. That is what Donald Trump said on June 13, 2017.
  For once, on the topic of healthcare, I find myself agreeing with the 
President. His healthcare bill is mean. Cutting Medicaid to the bone is 
mean. Cutting treatment for opioid abuse is mean. Cutting support for 
families with someone in a nursing home is mean. Allowing insurers to 
once again discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions 
is mean. Charging older Americans five times or more for their health 
insurance is mean.
  Passing a law which would cause millions of Americans to lose their 
health insurance in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest among 
us is pretty much the textbook definition of a mean bill--a mean bill--
and even the President thinks so, but just like the Republicans in the 
Senate, President Trump doesn't want the American people to know what 
he really thinks of their healthcare plan. That is why he said it was 
mean behind closed doors at the White House, while in public a few 
weeks earlier he said it is a ``great plan,'' ``very, very incredibly 
well-crafted.'' Those are his words, the same bill--the same bill--out 
to the public: Great bill, great plan; while behind closed doors, what 
it really is: mean.
  All the plaudits the President gave the House bill turned out to be 
flimsy salesmanship. Speaking candidly to fellow Republicans, the 
President didn't say: Take up and pass the House bill. He didn't say it 
was a great plan or that it was very, very incredibly well-crafted. He 
said it was mean. My Republican friends ought to take this to heart. 
Even President Trump thinks what Republicans are doing on healthcare is 
a cruelty to the American people.
  As we on this side of the aisle have said before, there is a better 
way. Republicans shouldn't feel like this mean bill cooked up in secret 
is their only option. I have invited my Republican friends to meet in 
the Old Senate Chamber to discuss a bipartisan way forward on 
healthcare. The Republican leader seems to have foreclosed that option, 
but the invitation remains and the sentiment remains.
  Democrats are willing to work with our Republican friends on 
improving our healthcare system. We have significant disagreements, 
sure, but Republicans haven't even tried to sit down with us to hash 
them out. We would like to try, but if Republicans continue down this 
path, ignoring the principles of transparency and the open debate that 
defined this legislative body, we Democrats will continue to do 
everything we can to shine light on what our Republican friends are 
doing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in support of Ms. Sigal Mandelker, 
President Trump's nominee to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for 
Terrorism and Financial Crimes.
  Five weeks ago, at Ms. Mandelker's hearing, members of the Banking 
Committee were moved by her heartfelt story of her parents' escape from 
the Holocaust. As her father proudly sat behind her, she explained to 
the committee how, as Holocaust survivors who narrowly avoided death, 
her parents raised her to never take for granted our safety, security, 
or freedom.
  It was this that motivated Ms. Mandelker to public service, where she 
had an impressive career in law enforcement and national security at 
the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security before joining the 
private sector.
  Like many Americans, she was compelled to action following 9/11 and 
joined to serve in Justice's counterterrorism and national security 
mission. Throughout the nomination process, it was obvious Ms. 
Mandelker would be a strong leader to defend our Nation against 
terrorism and illicit finance threats. She received bipartisan support 
from the Banking Committee in a 16-to-7 vote advancing her nomination.
  Also, with bipartisan support, just last week the Senate voted on the 
Iran sanctions bill and our Russia sanctions amendment. Part of Ms. 
Mandelker's job as Under Secretary would be directly overseeing 
sanctions policy on Iran, Russia, North Korea, Syria, and some 25 other 
programs.
  In fact, when asked what her top priorities would be in assuming 
office, she noted that, first and foremost, she will focus on the areas 
posing the greatest threats--those being North Korea, Iran, ISIS, 
Syria, and Russia. She also affirmed that she would work closely with 
the Banking Committee and Congress in carrying out her duties.
  I don't need to stress the importance of confirming Ms. Mandelker's 
nomination so Treasury can carry out this important mission, especially 
given that the Senate vote on our sanctions package last week was so 
strong. The two leaders and many Senators of both parties were able to 
work together to pass this important, comprehensive sanctions 
legislation, as they should, to ensure Senate confirmation of this 
nomination.
  Given Ms. Mandelker's strong qualifications, dedication to service 
and mission, and bipartisan support from this committee of 
jurisdiction, I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________