Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded

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 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.

Mr. President, I have 10 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing titled ``Border Insecurity: The Rise of MS-13 and Other Transnational Criminal Organizations.''

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 24, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' The witness list is attached.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today, May 24, 2017, off the floor at the start of the first scheduled vote to conduct a business meeting on the following:

--The nomination of Althea H. Coetzee to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, in SR-418 at 2:30 p.m. to consider S. 1094, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017.

Committee on Intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 from 2:30 p.m.-4 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed hearing.

Subcommittee on Seapower

The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session.

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in open and closed sessions.

Committee on the Subcommittee Judiciary on Crime and Terrorism

The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Across Borders: Facilitating Cooperation and Protecting Rights.''

Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific and International Cybersecurity

Policy

The Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 2:15 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``American Leadership in the Asia- Pacific, Part 2: Economic Issue.''

Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and

Data Security

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold Subcommittee Hearing on ``Pool Safety: The Tenth Anniversary of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I think I will be done speaking before the time for the vote arrives, but I ask unanimous consent for permission to finish my remarks.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering the nomination of Governor Branstad of Iowa to be Ambassador to China. Before I speak about this very well-qualified nominee, I would like to express my great disappointment and great frustration with the seemingly endless obstruction on the part of the minority.

This nominee received unanimous support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee more than a week ago. Yet the majority leader was required to file cloture on the nominee because there could not be consent given to move forward with it. We could have approved this nomination with just a few minutes of debate time. Yet the minority required that we have the cloture vote and the 30 hours afterwards, not because they wanted to debate the merits of the nominee but simply to delay the business of the Senate. It is unfortunate that their delay has kept an eminently qualified individual from getting into the job to promote America's interest in China sooner than it now will be.

I am honored to have the opportunity today to speak to my colleagues about my good friend, Governor Terry Branstad.

Governor Branstad is the longest-serving Governor in U.S. history. Let me make that clear. Out of 50 States for 230 years, no person in the United States has served their State as Governor of that State longer than Terry Branstad has now. He is a lifelong Iowan who has devoted his life to public service.

After more than 22 years as my home State's chief executive, I am proud to support Governor Branstad's nomination to serve our country as the next U.S. Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.

The fact is, Governor Branstad has been an ambassador for Iowa to the Nation and even to the world for his entire career. He has been a champion for Iowa and on behalf of Iowans around the globe. As Governor, he has been vigorous in promoting our State's economy and opening markets for our farm commodities, financial services, and manufacturing to the world marketplace.

His nomination should come as no surprise to the people of Iowa. We have long known and benefited from the relationship Governor Branstad has had with the people of China. A sister state relationship in 1983 has grown into a successful trade partnership that has benefited Iowa farmers and businesses.

Perhaps most notably, Governor Branstad enjoys a 30-year friendship with President Xi. Their first meeting took place in 1985 in Iowa when, then a Provincial official, Xi led an agricultural delegation to Iowa. President Xi visited Iowa again in 2012, when Governor Branstad was back at the helm in his fifth term after a 12-year respite from being Governor. Their relationship reflects genuine goodwill and, more importantly, mutual respect.

Governor Branstad has never stopped working to expand Iowa's trade, investment, and economic partnerships on the world stage, including many trips to China. He will bring midwestern humility and level-headed leadership to the job. He is a workhorse who is unafraid to get into the trenches to get the job done. I have no doubt that he will stand strong for American values, such as freedom of the press and religious liberty, and that he will work to strengthen peace, stability, and prosperity between our two nations.

Once he is confirmed, I am confident that Governor Branstad will bring to bear his tireless commitment to solve problems and always move the ball forward. Although his heart will always

be in Iowa, I know Governor Branstad will throw himself into this job wholeheartedly.

Governor Branstad is uniquely qualified to help strengthen the trade, economic, cultural, and geopolitical relationships between our two countries. I am pleased that he has now been called to serve our entire Nation, not just the State of Iowa, as Ambassador to China. I have every confidence that he will represent the United States well and will excel, just as he has throughout his entire public career.

Without reservation, then, I support this nomination. I also urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.

Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General. Ms. Brand is a native Iowan, and I am proud to be supporting her nomination here today. She has had a distinguished legal career. In fact, she was appointed to Senate-confirmed positions by both President Bush and President Obama, and both times, she was confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate.

But it looks like this nomination somehow has become controversial. I don't understand. Ms. Brand has a broad range of legal experience that happens to be a broad range in both the government and the private sector.

With her previous positions in the White House, the Office of Legal Counsel, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, she has experience that touches almost every part of the Federal Government. As the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy, she was a member of the senior management team of the Department of Justice, working with components and law enforcement agencies throughout the entire Justice Department. Similarly, at the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Ms. Brand worked with diverse agencies to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are taken into account while carrying out the important mission of protecting the Nation from terrorism.

During Ms. Brand's tenure in the private sector, she gained extensive litigation management experience that will serve her very well as she oversees the Department's civil litigation components.

She has seemingly become a little more controversial. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said they aren't supporting her nomination because of the work she did with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Those views are utterly ridiculous. So I will take a minute to address these concerns.

First, when she worked at the Chamber, all of her advocacy was done to represent the views of her client, the U.S. Chamber. Everybody expects that if you hire a lawyer, they are going to represent your views. We all know that we can't assume an attorney personally believes in what they are advocating for on behalf of their client, just ask criminal defense attorneys.

Furthermore, she was not involved in any policy or lobbying apparatus of the Chamber. Her role there was to bring lawsuits challenging rules that the U.S. Chamber believed were unlawful. At the same time, besides just arguing those lawsuits, she had to file a lot of amicus briefs providing the courts with the views of the business community.

During her time at the Chamber, she challenged a handful of the thousands of regulations promulgated by Federal agencies. The arguments Ms. Brand made in those lawsuits or amicus briefs were generally that the agency had acted beyond the scope of the authority Congress had granted that particular agency or had failed to follow the reasoned decisionmaking processes required by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. In many of those cases, the courts agreed with the Chamber that the government had acted unlawfully.

To summarize her work during that time at the Chamber, Ms. Brand argued that government agencies went beyond the authority Congress had given

them. She also argued that these agencies weren't acting under the scope of the congressional authority granted to the agency, and she argued that congressional authority had to be respected. It seems to me that it is up to Congress to give these agencies more authority if we think they need it. But it is not a good reason to vote against Ms. Brand's nomination because she argued a very commonsense and constitutional position that Federal agencies need to follow the laws of Congress.

Finally, some Senators have maintained that they are concerned about her views on the Voting Rights Act. She responded very well to that. During her hearing, Ms. Brand told the committee that she shares concerns for anyone who would violate the Voting Rights Act and would suppress votes in the process of violating that act, and she believes ``enforcement of that statute to be a core enforcement function of the civil rights division.'' I don't know about my fellow colleagues, but I take her at her word that she strongly believes in voting rights.

It is more than a little puzzling, then, that when Republicans opposed a woman for a government position, we heard from the other side. The Democrats would always bring up gender politics. But when they oppose a woman for a position, that is somehow OK. I don't see how they can expect to have it both ways.

I believe Ms. Brand will be a superb Associate Attorney General--the first female in this role, I might add--and that she will serve the office with very great distinction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 or 6 minutes to speak on another subject as in morning business.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to share real stories of real hardships from hard-working families in my home State of Iowa. Seven years ago, Americans were promised that the Affordable Care Act would make health insurance cheaper and healthcare more accessible. Well, I won't pretend to break any news here; the facts speak very much for themselves. ObamaCare is not living up to its promises. When passing the law, the other side made promises that they knew wouldn't be kept.

The irony here is that, at the end of the day, the so-called Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable. Let's look at the word ``affordable'' in the Webster dictionary. It says ``having a cost that is not too high.'' I have heard from many Iowans who tell me in no uncertain terms that they cannot afford to buy health insurance because ObamaCare is unaffordable. Ever since ObamaCare was enacted, I have received letters and calls and emails from Iowans who are frustrated about the soaring costs of their health plans.

Here is a prime example. One farmer's insurance premium went through the roof. It jumped 43 percent in 2017 from 2016. If somebody can explain how that is more affordable, I have an oceanfront property in my home county of Butler County, IA, to sell you.

Now, we have a chart here about another Iowan. This constituent from Garner, IA, wrote about her financial hardships. She said:

We are going to be paying over $1,300 a month on premiums,

plus a $6,000 deductible. We don't have that much longer

before we qualify for Medicare, but my concern is that until

then, we will have to use so much of our hard-earned savings

just to pay for healthcare. My fear is that those of us in

the middle class will struggle with paying so much that it

will wipe out our retirement savings accounts.

Another constituent nearby Garner, in Buffalo, IA, wrote to me saying:

I am forced to pay $230 a month for a healthcare plan that

covers nothing until I reach $11,000 in deductible. So on top

of paying 100 percent of my medical bills anyway, now I have

to pay for insurance I can't use.

So the question is, How did we get to this point? Seven years ago, I stood right here on the Senate floor and predicted what would happen to the cost of insurance if ObamaCare passed. Let's take a walk down memory lane for a moment. Here is what I said October 2009:

And while some of the supporters of these partisan bills

may not want to tell their constituents, we all know that as

national spending on healthcare increases, American families

will bear the burden in the form of higher premiums. So, let

me be very clear. As a result of the current pending

healthcare proposals, most Americans will pay higher premiums

for health insurance.

Now, I am not Nostradamus. I don't have a magic crystal ball, but it was easy to read the writing on the wall. I knew that layers of new taxes and, more importantly, burdensome new mandates in ObamaCare would lead us to where we find ourselves today: a broken healthcare system that is not better off than it was 7 years ago. For millions of Americans, it is much worse.

So where do we go from here? After 7 years of rapidly rising premiums, soaring deductibles, and climbing copays, Republicans are committed to fixing the damage caused by the Affordable Care Act. Instead of joining us in an effort to fix what is broken, the other side is doing their best to scare the living daylights out of Americans.

From the way they tell it, the House bill is ``deadly.'' What is truly fatal is the death spiral the ObamaCare marketplace is in. Not only is it unaffordable for too many people, it is simply unsustainable. ObamaCare is unable to fulfill its promises to the American people. Here is what every lawmaker in Congress ought to agree on: Insurance is not worth having if patients cannot afford to use it.

The facts are very clear. A one-size-fits-all, government-run plan is driving insurers out of the exchanges, driving up premiums, driving away customers, and driving up the tab to the tax-paying public. I spoke 2 days ago about the impact of Obamacare in Iowa. Next year it is possible that 94 of our 99 counties will not have insurance plans on the Obamacare exchange.

So even if you benefit from the subsidy of ObamaCare, you are not going to have an insurance company to go to. All of this because ObamaCare has overregulated, overtaxed, and oversold its promises to the American people. ObamaCare has not healed what ails the U.S. healthcare system. It is time to move forward.

I urge my colleagues to drop the partisan charade and join us for the good of the American people. I will continue coming to the floor to share how ObamaCare is not working for Iowans, but in the meantime, the Senate will continue working to rescue our healthcare system that is sinking under this broken law.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Missouri and Delaware for leading this effort to honor our law enforcement officers and particularly those who have been killed in the line of duty.

In 1962, Congress passed a joint resolution proclaiming the week of May 15 as ``National Police Week.''

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, located here in Washington, DC, is our country's monument to these fallen officers. Carved into the marble walls of the memorial are the names of the more than 20,000 officers killed in the line of duty throughout our Nation's history. Every year, tens of thousands of fellow officers from around the world come to Washington, DC, as part of Police Week to pay tribute to the men and women whose names are inscribed on this wall.

The planned events surrounding Police Week began with the 36th Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service, held on the west front of the U.S. Capitol. The President of the United States was the keynote speaker, and his presence was a testament to the fraternity of this noble profession. Immediately following the service, there was a wreath-laying at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The annual memorial service is an opportunity for all Americans to reflect on the dedication of these public servants and the ultimate sacrifice they have paid for this great Nation.

We should also acknowledge the families of the fallen, whose lives have been forever changed by the loss of their loved ones.

During the memorial service, there was a Roll Call of Heroes for the 143 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty last year. Their names will adorn the memorial walls in perpetuity. The list of the fallen include five of my fellow Iowans: Sergeant Anthony Davis Beminio of the Des Moines Police Department; Officer Susan Louise Farrell of the Des Moines Police Department; Patrolman Justin Scott Martin of the Urbandale Police Department; Sergeant Shawn Glenn Miller of the West Des Moines Police Department; and Officer Carlos Bernabe Puente-Morales of the Des Moines Police Department.

We honor these great heroes for laying down their lives to protect their communities in Iowa. There is no year in recent memory in which so many Iowans have lost their lives in the line of duty.

I would like to specifically address the ambush-style killing of Sergeant Beminio and Officer Martin. These officers were heinously murdered by the same perpetrator on the same night while they sat in their patrol cars. While the exact motive of the killer is unknown, he nevertheless sought out these brave men and gunned them down in cold blood.

These ambush-style attacks have become more prevalent since the incidents in Dallas, TX, and Baton Rouge, LA, spanning 10 days last July. According to a report by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, there were a total of 21 officers killed in ambush-style attacks just last year--the highest total in two decades.

There has been much vitriol written and directed toward law enforcement over the last few years. The notion that the actions of a few bad individuals implicate the entire profession may still, unfortunately, endanger public servants in the area of law enforcement.

This sort of rush to judgment against all law enforcement officers ought to end and end right now. The men and women of law enforcement make great sacrifices every day to protect our families and, of course, all of our fellow citizens. They do so freely, not out of a sense of obligation but because they are dedicated to the cause of justice.

Their devotion merits our attention, admiration, and we are deeply indebted to them. This is why today I am submitting a bipartisan resolution to commemorate Police Week and honor those who have given their lives in this pursuit. I thank my colleagues in the Senate who have cosponsored this resolution with me.

I call on all Americans to remember the fallen and pay tribute to the sacrifices they have made. To quote the motto of the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary: ``Never Let Them Walk Alone.''

I hope that during Police Week, the Senate will pass my legislation to reform the operations of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. Delays in the award of benefits to the families of fallen officers have become intolerable, and those families deserve to know the status of their applications during the process.

In addition, the Judiciary Committee has reported two other bills that I hope the Senate will take up during Police Week. One bill sets standards for the use of a new form of DNA evidence. The second makes an allowable use of COPS grants for recruiting and promoting of military veterans as police officers.

Finally, during Police Week, my Judiciary Committee will report a bill that is designed to provide mental health services to police officers who live through and with enormous stress as they work to protect us.

I am pleased to join with my colleagues in saluting the service of our law enforcement officers during Police Week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me assure the Senator from New York that I am willing to listen to his stories about how people might be affected by the health care debate that is going on in the Congress right now if he will listen to some of the stories I have to tell. By the middle of June, people in 94 of the 99 counties in Iowa may not be able to buy insurance through the Obamacare exchanges.

Senator Schumer talked about the tough consequences of the House bill on healthcare. I am coming to the Senate floor today to talk about the tough consequences of ObamaCare.

I rise today to speak some more about the Affordable Care Act. The law is collapsing before our eyes. After 7 years of ObamaCare, it continues to overreach, overpromise, and overstay its welcome for the American people. I want to tell you the history about a bridge that relates very much to what is happening to ObamaCare today.

Before I dive into the details of how ObamaCare is denying people in the State of Iowa the ability to get health insurance, I want to share a story about a bridge in the State of Washington.

This bridge is depicted right here. This is the collapse of that bridge. The bridge is called Tacoma Narrows Bridge. It was built in 1940. It was the world's third largest suspension bridge. It was considered a state-of-the-art masterpiece of 20th-century engineering, but the bridge was set to fail from the very beginning.

On July 1, 1940, the $6 million bridge opened to traffic. Just 5 months later, on November 7, 1940, the bridge collapsed. What caused the massive steel and concrete structure to twist, turn, and drop nearly 200 feet into Puget Sound? Importantly, there was a key foreshadowing clue. The bridge was nicknamed ``Galloping Gertie'' for its dancing, swaying bridge deck. On most days, it resembled a roller coaster rolling in the wind. But on the morning of November 7, Gertie's dance became twisted in a howling 40-mile-an-hour wind. Dramatic footage shown here shows tons of concrete and steel cables snapping like fishing lines before its collapse. Gertie essentially self- destructed due to design flaws that created sheer havoc in those high winds.

Like ObamaCare, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge wasn't built to last, and like Galloping Gertie, ObamaCare is on a self-destruction course with destiny. Galloping Gertie collapsed by a flawed design that was unable to withstand high winds, and every day that goes by without a bipartisan solution to fix the flaws, ObamaCare is moving the American people closer to a calamity.

Sooner rather than later, ObamaCare will become its own bridge to nowhere, with no insurance plans on the exchanges. Millions of Americans will be left twisting high and dry. The warning signs can no longer be ignored. First, many health insurers are bailing. The individual market is near collapse.

Just last week, another insurance company, Aetna, announced it will quit the remaining two States it planned to sell plans in under ObamaCare. That means in 2018, Aetna will sell zero plans on the individual market exchanges. Just a year ago, in 2016, Aetna participated in the individual markets in 778 counties across the country. In 2017, that number fell to 242. In 2018, that number will be zero.

We ought to repeat this story because everybody is talking about what the House health care bill might do to people's health insurance and their healthcare. The fact is that people can't buy health insurance, or if they buy it, the deductibles are so high they can't afford it. That is the story we ought to be telling at least with equal weight with the stories given by people who are talking about not wanting to do anything with healthcare.

My home State has been hit particularly hard by insurers pulling out of the individual market. In 2016, UnitedHealth Group announced it would leave Iowa the following year. Last month, Aetna and Wellmark announced they would be pulling out of the individual market in Iowa. This leaves 94 of our 99 counties in Iowa with one choice for health insurance on the individual market.

A constituent wrote to me following the news of their departure.

My son recently turned 26 years old and is ineligible to

remain on my insurance; therefore, he signed up for his own

policy through Wellmark. My son farms with my husband, so

while my husband has coverage through me, my son may soon be

facing the fact that he will not be able to buy health

insurance. My son, a true ``beginning farmer,'' will be

forced to leave our farming operation and seek employment

solely for the purpose of health care coverage.

If Congress doesn't act, the individual market may come crashing down, just like the Tacoma Narrows bridge. We simply can't ignore another warning sign. Healthier, younger people are choosing the off- ramp. The toll to join ObamaCare is turning out to be unaffordable for them. ObamaCare is unsustainable.

Remarkably, instead of joining us to fix this broken bridge, the other side wants to leave Americans twisting in the wind. In my home State, 70,000 Iowans are enrolled in the individual exchanges, and the last carrier left, Medica, is on the fence about its plans for 2018. That is why I told Senator Schumer to listen to our stories. The people in 94 of Iowa's 99 counties may not even be able to buy insurance on the exchange.

The day has come. It is time to cross the bridge. It is time to repeal and replace ObamaCare before it finishes its collapse.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of Courtney Elwood of Virginia to be the general counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.

I will object because the CIA has still not responded to my letters from April 14, 2014; and April 5, 2017, requesting declassification of two congressional notifications, CNs, about whistleblower communications. In 2014, the inspector general of the Intelligence Community issued two CNs about whistleblower communications. The first, sent on March 28, 2014, had the unclassified subject line ``Whistleblower Communications.'' The second, sent on March 31, 2014, had the unclassified subject line ``Whistleblower Communications-- Clarification.'' Both documents were classified Secret/NOFORN. I requested that the CNs be declassified as soon as possible. More than 3 years have passed since my initial request, and I still have not received declassified versions of the documents or an explanation of why the documents have not been declassified.

The information contained in the two CNs raises serious policy implications, as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues. The CNs do not appear to contain any information about sources or methods, and there is a strong public interest in their content. As a matter of respect, for a coequal branch of government, my declassification request should have been processed in a timely manner. Moreover, under the executive branch's own regulations, there are time limits that apply to processing declassification requests and classification challenges that the CIA has failed to meet.

In addition, I have requested copies of the CIA's PPD-19 procedures and policies which allow CIA whistleblowers to seek relief from reprisal, but the CIA has refused, stating that the documents are classified and for CIA's internal use only. PPD-19 was largely codified by the Intelligence Authorization Act, and so the CIA is also required by law to implement such a policy. It is now at issue in a Federal lawsuit challenging the CIA's failure to adhere to its own procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act.

My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Ms. Elwood in any way. However, the CIA must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to Congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that April is National Sexual Assault Awareness Month. We commemorate it each year to bring public awareness to the staggering problem of sexual violence.

Tens of thousands of people in the United States and hundreds of my fellow Iowans annually fall victim to this heinous crime. Sexual assault occurs at least every minute and a half, according to law enforcement statistics. These same figures reveal an increase in rape cases since 2011, contrary to claims by the former Obama administration that the violent crime rate had declined in recent years. But up to two-thirds of sexual assaults are never reported to police, say crime victim advocates. This means that the average perpetrator strikes multiple times before being brought to justice. Equally as troubling, the incarceration rate is less than one percent of all sexual assaults reported to law enforcement.

The FBI ranks rape as one of the two most violent crimes, second only to murder in its effects. Survivors suffer not only physical consequences, but sometimes life-shattering emotional effects as well. According to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, as well as the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, post-traumatic stress disorder is typical. Depression or even suicide is not uncommon. The healing process is often slow and painstaking.

Today, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to commemorate Sexual Assault Awareness Month and honor the survivors of this heinous crime. I thank Senators Feinstein and Ernst for joining me as cosponsors of the resolution.

During my time as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have made crime survivors rights a top priority. Two years ago, we passed, and the President signed, major legislation to benefit the survivors of human trafficking. Last year, the President also signed the House version of a survivors' bill of rights that our committee reported as part of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act and we approved legislation to extend programs that support the analysis of sexual assault evidence by the Nation's crime labs.

Supporting and protecting survivors of sexual violence will continue to be a focus for our committee in 2017. Last month, I convened a hearing to examine allegations that dozens of young athletes experienced sexual abuse at the hands of coaches, instructors, and others. I recently joined our committee's ranking member, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. The bill's purpose is to ensure that sexual assault allegations by young athletes will be reported and investigated promptly. This year we will also make it a priority to extend and update programs that are authorized under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

Mr. President, I will close by reaffirming my support for survivors of sexual violence and expressing my continued commitment to advocate for them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of the resolution I have introduced today.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I think I have 15 minutes to speak. When I get to about 13 minutes, would you raise your thumb or something and tell me, please.

Thank you.

Mr. President, on April 26 of each year, we celebrate World Intellectual Property Day and recognize the important role of intellectual property rights in the fabric of our society. This year, we take time to recognize the innovators and creators who are making our lives healthier, safer, and more productive through their ingenuity and the robust system of intellectual property protections enshrined in our laws.

The Founding Fathers recognized the value of intellectual property, empowering Congress ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.''

Placing this authority within Congress's enumerated powers underscores the weight that our Founding Fathers placed on intellectual property's value to the budding Nation as a means of fostering economic development and growth. Our success as a nation in agriculture, manufacturing, technology, and medicine shares a common thread of intellectual property rights.

True to their predictions, our system of intellectual property has fostered innovation and ensured America's role as an economic engine of inventions that have made us healthier, safer, and more secure.

Our system of intellectual property rights has evolved since the ratification of the Constitution and the passage of the Copyright Act of 1790, but its core mission of promoting innovation has remained constant.

Our innovators and creators rely on IP protections such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets to help drive and recoup their investments of ingenuity.

Of course, the innovation that intellectual property helps encourage benefits society more broadly as well. It drives enormous economic activity and development, helping assure America's place as an economic and intellectual beacon to the world. As the U.S. Chamber's Global Intellectual Property Center recently pointed out, IP-intensive industries employ over 40 million Americans, accounting for 34.8 percent of total U.S. gross domestic product.

Iowans have long held intellectual property as an integral part of our economy. Our commitment to growth and innovation has led to $11.2 billion in annual IP-related exports from the State, more than 667,000 IP-related jobs, and 19.9 percent higher wages for direct IP workers than non-IP workers.

As a society, we depend on innovators to make our lives better and to solve the challenges we face. These innovators, in turn, depend on different forms of intellectual property.

The Judiciary Committee will continue to play an important role in protecting intellectual property and we will continue to work to advance innovation. This week, Senator Leahy and I reintroduced the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act to encourage and reward companies that innovate and use patented technology to

address humanitarian needs. This legislation improves the incentives for small businesses to participate in the program, by ensuring that the prize--a certificate for expedited processing of certain matters at the USPTO--can be transferable to third parties.

Yesterday, we held a hearing with witnesses from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and industry innovators who described the central role that intellectual property has played in allowing their businesses to grow and innovate. We also heard about some of the enforcement challenges that those in IP-intensive industries face as they seek to protect their intellectual property.

As a cochair of the Congressional Trademark Caucus, which we just relaunched this week, I recognize the value of trademarks and their impact on society and the economy, as well as how counterfeiting can seriously impact consumer health and safety. Counterfeiting of goods presents a worldwide problem with enormous health and economic impacts, costing the global economy over 2.5 million jobs per year, while draining tax revenue and hurting the ability of American companies to compete in foreign markets.

Similarly, trade secret theft is an increasingly serious problem. A report by the IP Commission found that annual losses due to trade secret theft are over $300 billion and is the cause of an estimated loss of 2.1 million American jobs. That is why we passed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. This important legislation brings needed uniformity to trade secret law and provides more certainty to the innovators who rely on trade secrets to develop novel solutions to important problems that face us as a nation.

Intellectual property is a key driver of innovation and fundamental building block of our modern economy. This World IP Day, as we recognize the positive impacts IP has on innovation, let us continue to find ways to work together to ensure its protection against infringement and maintain the United States enduring position as the most innovative and creative country in the world.