Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 834, as modified, and speak for 30 seconds and then turn the mic over to my colleague Senator Murkowski, who is the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment supports organizations serving survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. As we know, because of COVID, those survivors and families have been hit particularly hard, and there has been very little money that has gone to support them. This amendment would say very strongly we need to do better.

Senator Murkowski.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, my colleague from Utah tells a nice story, but it is not accurate. He is not being honest about what is going on with the global gag rule, and I am really disappointed that he is once again trying to push this dangerous legislation.

As I pointed out when I objected to the same bill less than a year ago, the policy in question closes health clinics, decreases care, and needlessly puts the lives of women, children, and families at risk. In fact, instead of protecting life, the global gag rule erects new barriers to critical health services, including reproductive health services for people and communities that already have limited access to affordable, quality healthcare.

And let's be clear: America's taxpayer dollars do not go to fund abortions overseas.

What my colleague is objecting to is funding for family planning services to help women protect their families. And the policy that he wants to codify into law is dangerous in the best of times, but during a global pandemic, when care is already stretched, it is downright deadly.

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that a 10-percent--just a 10- percent decline in family planning services, including reduced access to reversible contraception and pregnancy and newborn healthcare, results in 49 million more women with unmet contraceptive needs; 15 million additional unintended pregnancies; 1.7 million women and 2.6 million newborns who will experience major complications due to not receiving the care they need; and most unfortunate and sad, 28,000 more maternal deaths and 168,000 more newborn deaths because of this policy. And that is just a modest 10-percent reduction in family planning access.

So if you really care about families and newborns, you will ensure that they have access to the critical services that they need so they don't have those unintended pregnancies.

It is safe to say that the COVID-19 pandemic, which has diverted care and shut down access to family planning clinics across the globe, is greatly exacerbating the situation. So now is not the time to place draconian limits on family planning dollars.

In fact, we need a renewed commitment to comprehensive family planning. That is why last week, along with 47 of our colleagues, we reintroduced the bipartisan Global Health Empowerment and Rights Act. The bill, also known as Global HER, would ensure that care is not limited based on the President in the White House because if we are going to actually get serious about improving the lives of women and girls, we should be working to end the global gag rule, not to expand it.

So for all of these reasons, I object to my colleague's request.

Madam President, again, I would just like to correct what my colleague is saying. We do not use foreign aid money to perform abortions overseas. In fact, a poll conducted by CHANGE, Center for Health and Gender Equity, demonstrates that 59 percent of likely voters--if we want to talk about polls--59 percent of likely voters in America oppose banning U.S. global health assistance going to organizations in other countries that provide legal and safe abortions or abortion referrals. Only 30 percent support this policy.

Research published in the Lancet medical journal last July found that the global gag rule under President George W. Bush--which was implemented on an exponentially smaller scale than what was done by President Trump and what is proposed in the law that my colleague from Utah is asking for unanimous consent to put forward, that kind of reduction in access to services increases a country's typical abortion rate by 40 percent while reducing the use of modern contraceptives by 3.5 percent.

See, this is what happens when you don't base policy decisions on scientific data. You get these kinds of narratives that are absolutely inaccurate. What we know and what is repeatedly evident through the research is that the global gag rule or, as my colleague calls it, protecting life in global health assistance, actually increases abortions.

It is, unfortunately, simple logic. Decreasing access to family planning methods like modern contraception, counseling, and the health spacing and timing of pregnancies, directly leads to more unwanted pregnancies. But because this policy also limits abortion services that organizations provide with other non-U.S. funds, women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to seek out unsafe abortions. That is why we see the abortion numbers increase. So it is a lose-lose policy, and, of course, it is women and children who pay the price.

The Foundation for AIDS Research found that one-third of 286 PEPFAR Programs implementing partners who were surveyed had altered their services or organizational operations in response to the global gag rule under former President Trump--a great program, PEPFAR, under George W. Bush, that has saved millions of lives, and yet what we saw under the Trump implementation of the global gag rule is that they had to alter the services that they provided, including reducing sexual and reproductive health and pregnancy counseling, youth outreach, contraception services, and HIV counseling, testing, and treatment.

The policies that my colleague is advocating for makes the situation worse for women and families, and if he would look at the scientific data, he would understand that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on January 3, I, along with 31 of my colleagues, stood in this Chamber and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is both ironic and deeply disappointing that only 3 days after swearing these oaths, some of my colleagues are coming close to breaking this promise.

Since 1797, each U.S. President has peacefully handed over power to the next, and that will happen again on January 20, when Donald Trump, despite the protesters today, the violence today--when Donald Trump leaves the White House at noon and Joe Biden becomes President.

We have heard tonight from both Democrats and Republicans about the importance of the voters speaking in the election and about the fact that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. But this is not just an issue for us here in the United States; this is an issue for nascent democracies around the world, which, as Senator Romney said, look to the United States as an example. We are the shining city on the hill. We give those struggling under oppression hope for a better future.

Now, like so many of us in this Chamber, I have traveled to developing democracies around the world--to Afghanistan and Iraq, to the Western Balkans, to Africa, to the country of Georgia. I went there with my colleague Senator Risch.

In 2012, we went to Georgia to observe officially, on behalf of the Senate, the election between outgoing President Mikheil Saakashvili and his United National Movement Party and the challenge by Georgian Dream, which was a newly formed party supported and funded by billionaire oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili. It was a battle for Parliament, but also for control of the government.

Senator Risch and I visited multiple polling places on election day, and we agreed with the international assessment that that election was free and fair and that Georgian Dream were the winners.

But there was real concern in the country that Saakashvili was going to refuse to give up power--that that would lead to violence, and it would end the nascent democratic reforms that were happening in that former Soviet Republic.

So Senator Risch and I, the day after the election, went to visit President Saakashvili to try and talk him out of staying in power. I remember very clearly going to his home, and we sat down with him, and we pointed out that the hallmark of a democracy--what he had worked so hard for in his 8 years as President of Georgia--the hallmark of that was to turn over power in a peaceful election to the person the voters chose. Well, President Saakashvili listened to us, and he did leave office peacefully.

But it is important that future generations recognize that America-- like democracies everywhere--depends on a peaceful transition of power, on believing in what the voters say, and ensuring that happens.

Unfortunately, we have heard from some Senators today who have been enabling President Trump's willful disregard of the votes of our citizenry, even as they speak out against foreign leaders who ignore their own people.

They will fail, and history will remember them.

I hope that future generations will view the actions of some of those folks today as little more than an unfortunate anomaly.

Future opportunists may use this ill-fated effort to seek short-term political gain over the long-term stability of our Republic. But for the sake of our great country and America's standing in the world, I ask my colleagues today to fully endorse the results of the free and fair election and set aside this partisan attempt to subvert the will of the people. We should be venerating the peaceful transition of power, even if our own preferred candidate didn't win. That is, after all, who we are in the United States of America.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, on Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the Texas v. United States case to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, although the Affordable Care Act is currently the law of the land, the Department of Justice--our Nation's highest law enforcement authority--was not there to defend the law of the land, the Affordable Care Act. The DOJ was not there because it had been instructed by this President and this administration to join the effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

Sadly, the stakes of the Texas v. United States litigation are profound. This year in New Hampshire alone, approximately 90,000 Granite Staters obtained health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion or through the ACA's health insurance marketplaces. Across the country, more than 17 million Medicaid expansion enrollees and 11 million people in the marketplaces' health plans depend on the Affordable Care Act for their coverage. Yet the Department of Justice refuses to defend them. It refuses to defend the law of the land in court.

In this case, if the courts side with the Trump administration and the Republican attorneys general, millions of these people will return to the days when they were one cancer diagnosis, one medical complication, or one car accident away from medical bankruptcy.

The Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion is also our most powerful tool in combating the opioid epidemic. This is critically important in New Hampshire as we have the third highest overdose death rate from opioids of any State in the country. In New Hampshire, more than 11,000 people receive substance use disorder treatment thanks to the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, and many more Granite Staters are able to get substance use disorder treatment thanks to coverage obtained through the ACA's health insurance marketplaces.

Just think. Without the expansion of Medicaid, which is a bipartisan effort in New Hampshire, and without the ACA's health insurance marketplaces, we would have thousands of people affected by substance use disorders who would not be able to get treatment. There is no plan B if the Affordable Care Act is overturned.

In 2017, a mother named Nansie, from Concord, wrote to my office. I will not use her last name.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Nansie's 2017 letter.

Madam President, in Nansie's letter, she writes:

The ACA saved my son's life. It was due to ObamaCare that

we were able to get him insured so that he could get the

proper help he needed and get into a Suboxone program that

assisted him. Now, if the courts side with the Trump

administration, this critical source for treatment and

recovery could be ripped away.

We don't have enough time for me to go through the whole list of all of the benefits under the Affordable Care Act that will be lost if the ACA gets overturned. One of the benefits, though, that would be thrown out yet is critically important to the people of New Hampshire and across this country is that of the consumer protections against skyrocketing prescription drug costs. They will be gone.

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a hearing in the Committee on Aging, and we had someone from the FDA who was testifying. She talked about the fact that the major driver in prescription drug costs under Medicare and Medicaid was the cost of biologic drugs and that what was bringing down that cost was the pathway for biosimilars to create alternatives of those biologic drugs for those people. What she failed to point out was that this provision

was in the Affordable Care Act and that if the Affordable Care Act gets struck down, this provision will get struck down. Those increased costs that we have been seeing of those biologic drugs are going to continue going up.

What is probably even more important for most people in New Hampshire is that the Affordable Care Act includes a very important program that has closed the Medicare Part D coverage gap--what is called the doughnut hole--for prescription drug coverage. This program has saved New Hampshire's seniors an average of $1,100 a year in Medicare prescription drug costs. These savings help to ensure that Granite Staters who have fixed incomes can pay their utility bills or put food on the table.

The court's decision could wipe out these critical Medicare savings for seniors, just as it could wipe out coverage for preexisting conditions, coverage to keep young people on their parents' insurance up until they are the age of 26, and coverage for essential health benefits, which means that mental health care and coverage for substance use disorder treatment are required by insurance companies to be covered.

So given what is at stake, at this point I want to offer a unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 134, which is a resolution I introduced to express a sense of the Senate that the Department of Justice should reverse its position in the Texas v. United States case and defend the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. President, I knew my colleague from Wyoming was going to object. I am disappointed in his objection, and I know he is a doctor. I believe he cares about his former patients. I believe he cares about providing healthcare to his constituents, as I believe all of my colleagues care about that.

That is why I am so puzzled by why there has been a 9-year effort to try and undermine the Affordable Care Act and the healthcare that it provides to people in this country.

As I said earlier, there is no followup plan that will provide coverage for people with preexisting conditions if the Affordable Care Act is overturned. There is no followup plan that will provide coverage for people with substance abuse disorders, for mental health coverage. That is all going to go out the window.

By failing to send a clear message to the Justice Department that they should defend the Affordable Care Act, we are putting access to care at risk for millions of Americans across this country.

What we should be doing--and we should have done it as soon as the effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act was defeated in 2017--is working together to put in place changes that make the Affordable Care Act work better. We should be looking for ways to provide coverage to people that is affordable, that provides quality healthcare, that is accessible to every American. Instead of that, we have no plan B. There is no bill that would provide coverage if this administration is successful in overturning the Affordable Care Act.

I am very disappointed, though not surprised, by the reaction from my colleague from Wyoming.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to salute Clyde Terry for his many years of dedicated service and staunch advocacy on behalf of people with disabilities. Clyde is retiring from his longtime role as CEO of Granite State Independent Living, and he leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude.

Granite State Independent Living--GSIL--is a nonprofit that breaks down barriers for seniors and people with disabilities and expands the training and support services available to them. Its mission is grounded in a firm belief that all people have a right to define their own level of independence. Under Clyde's leadership, GSIL has blossomed into an essential statewide organization with a $17 million budget and several awards and accolades to its name, including Non-Profit of the Year Awards from Business NH Magazine, NH Business Review, and the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce. Service offerings have grown as well to meet the aging, education, and employment challenges faced by so many across the Granite State.

Clyde has tapped into a wealth of experience to build GSIL into an expansive and responsive organization that remains committed to its founding principles of personal choice and direction. Before his tenure at GSIL, he was

the executive director of the New Hampshire Developmental Disabilities Council, a State agency tasked with protecting the rights of our State's most vulnerable citizens. While affiliated with the council, he coauthored a report on the accessibility of polling locations in the United States and established himself as a national expert on election reform. He was also an administrative hearings officer in the State's service systems, and before that, he helped to create and implement New Hampshire's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Throughout his career, Clyde has shown an unrivaled passion for improving the lives of the disabled, the aged, and the impoverished.

I was honored to recommend Clyde when a vacancy arose on the National Council on Disability in 2009. As a member of the council, he became a sought-after voice on the potential of autonomous vehicles to broaden a sense of independence among people with disabilities. He was also a force in fighting for fair pay and equal treatment in the workplace. Clyde was eventually named chairperson of the council, a testament to his leadership and communication skills and his fluency on the broad set of issues in the disability community.

I have known Clyde for decades. We worked together on Gary Hart's 1984 Presidential race. Though the campaign eventually ended in heartbreak, Clyde emerged from the race having met Susan, who would become his beloved wife of many years. As Governor of New Hampshire and U.S. Senator, I always appreciated Clyde's guidance and counsel.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Clyde Terry for his years of service and advocacy and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I am here today with my colleague Senator Graham to express my profound concern about the humanitarian tragedy that is currently unfolding in Idlib and northern Hama in Syria.

It is hard to imagine that after 8 years of war, the greatest humanitarian disaster in Syria might still be before us, because clearly what we have seen in the past 8 years is a horrible humanitarian tragedy, a civil war that has involved, really, international players and that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and to the displacement of millions more. But with the escalated attacks that have occurred since late April, the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies are threatening a population of approximately 3 million there in Idlib. Of those 3 million, 1 million are children. This is a region that is strained by hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people who have already fled from Assad's forces in other parts of Syria and neighboring countries. Just last Thursday alone, observers counted over 50 airstrikes in this region from early morning to early afternoon, and that was on top of artillery-shelling that was going on.

Last December, Senator Graham and I came to the floor to warn about the dangers of President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast Syria. I felt very strongly about that because last summer I had a chance to travel with Senator Graham to Syria, and we saw the important work that the Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve and its Syrian partner forces were doing there. We saw communities like Manbij city that had recovered after 3 years of occupation by ISIS. We saw that Syrians were returning to that northeast region of Syria where it was peaceful, and they were growing crops again. We visited the market. We walked around without any fear that terrorists were going to bomb us.

Local multiethnic residents saw the positive presence of U.S. troops and the value of U.S. global leadership. In fact, as we drove down the road and went by children, they flashed a ``V'' sign for ``victory'' when they saw it was the U.S. military.

Together with our partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces, we made significant gains against ISIS, but that progress, sadly, is not guaranteed. Unfortunately, what we are seeing now in Idlib is the result of a confused U.S. strategy in Syria.

When I spoke on the floor here in December, I warned that a hasty and ill-informed withdrawal could embolden ISIS and threaten the gains that U.S. partners have made. We discussed the fact that it would also cede the accomplishments of U.S. forces and our allies to Assad, Russia, and Iran.

What we are seeing now in Idlib and northern Hama is Assad's and his foreign supporters' military solution. We are seeing indiscriminate bombing and shelling that destroys schools and hospitals and that sets fire to farmers' fields. The latest surge in violence has killed dozens of people. It has destroyed thousands of acres of crops. It has forced another 300,000 people to flee their homes.

I would urge President Trump to listen to his military and diplomatic advisers and to recognize that an absence of U.S. leadership in Syria would give a free hand to Assad and to his Russian and Iranian allies, because clearly they are not our allies.

The people of Syria face danger at the hands of ISIS and of their own government. Unfortunately, they have

very few options left, but what they do have is the voice of the international community, and it is now up to us to stand against the carnage in Idlib once and for all.

I urge President Trump to use U.S. leadership to oppose the humanitarian disaster that Syrian and Russian forces continue to create in Idlib and northern Hama and to work with our allies to truly bring an end to this civil war and this disaster that has been created, the humanitarian disaster that has been created.

I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. President, today, on behalf of the New Hampshire congressional delegation, Senator Maggie Hassan and Representatives Ann McLane Kuster and Chris Pappas, I wish to salute the Mount Washington Cog Railway on its 150th anniversary. Once hailed by famed showman P.T. Barnum as the ``Second-Greatest Show on Earth,'' the Cog Railway remains an engineering marvel and a one-of-a-kind experience a full century and a half after its maiden voyage up New Hampshire's highest peak.

A railway summiting 6,288-foot Mount Washington was first proposed by New Hampshire native Sylvester Marsh, a retired meatpacker who made a fortune working in Chicago. When he approached the New Hampshire State Legislature for a charter to build his cog-and-rack system, Marsh encountered some skepticism of his innovative design. Legend has it that one lawmaker remarked that Marsh ``might as well build a railway to the moon.'' Marsh got his charter in 1858, and his system found a nickname, ``The Railway to the Moon,'' that it proudly uses to this day.

Construction began in 1866 at the base of the mountain, and it took engineers and builders 3 years to complete the 3\1/4\ mile track to the peak. It opened to fanfare on July 3, 1869, as the world's first mountain cog railway. One of its passengers that first summer was Ulysses S. Grant, who became the first U.S. President to visit Mount Washington. According to newspapers, the President was impressed with the safety and simplicity of the locomotive's air brake system.

The Cog Railway's locomotives embraced technology and ingenuity to push passenger cars up the track and slow their descent. The first locomotive, nicknamed ``Old Peppersass'' because of its likeness to a pepper sauce bottle, mounted a vertical boiler on twin trunnions in order to keep it upright as it climbed the steep grade. Old Peppersass was eventually replaced in the late 1800s by a fleet of more modern coal-powered steam locomotives, but it remains preserved and on display

at base station. Today, under the direction of current owner Wayne Presby, most locomotives are powered by state-of-the-art biodiesel technology. The new trains are faster, quieter, cleaner, and more efficient, but the Cog Railway still uses a couple of steam locomotives for those who want to experience the trip as it was years ago.

While the locomotives may change with the times, one feature of the Cog Railway has remained a constant: Personnel must maintain a resilient system capable of withstanding extreme and unpredictable weather. Winters come early and leave late atop the Northeast's highest peak, often burying the mountain in several feet of snow. Mount Washington is famous as the site of one of the fastest recorded wind speeds in history: 231 miles per hour in 1934. The Cog Railway weathers torrential rain, heavy snow, blustering winds, and even hurricanes. A severe hurricane battered the mountain in 1938 and destroyed Jacob's Ladder, a steep, curving trestle near the top of the mountain. It was quickly rebuilt with the help of Dartmouth College.

The White Mountains are a majestic site, and there are few better places to behold this beauty than the Mount Washington Cog Railway. It offers spectacular views and brings you to a summit where you can see up to five States and into Canada on a clear day. Moreover, riding the Cog Railway is an experience that ties riders to Sylvester Marsh and a century and a half of steam, steel, and many unforgettable memories.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, we ask our colleagues and all Americans to join us in congratulating the Mount Washington Cog Railway on 150 years of service and wishing its staff and many supporters all the best in the coming years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, Jenny Tsao, and Pearson fellow, Anthony Pirnot, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the first session of the 116th Congress.

Mr. President, today I wish to salute Jack Middleton for his 60-plus years of dedicated service to the Mount Washington Observatory. Jack is stepping down this year from his longtime post as secretary of the board of trustees. In this role, he helped to build the observatory into a respected authority on climate research, and he leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude.

Those of us who know Jack recognize him as president of McLane Middleton, one of the largest law practices in the Granite State and a firm that encourages its attorneys to be active participants in their communities. This is undoubtedly a reflection of one of Jack's core beliefs. He has been a force in raising awareness and funds for programs like DOVE--the Domestic Violence Emergency Project--that provide legal representation free of charge for people in need. Jack has also served as president of the United Way and board member of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, New Hampshire Public Television, The White Mountain School, and The Nature Conservancy, always finding a way to employ his diverse talents in pursuit of a greater good.

Those of us who really know Jack understand that he is just as comfortable on top of a mountain as he is in a courtroom or boardroom. It was a young Sergeant Middleton--fresh out of his service in the Marine Corps--who arrived at the Appalachian Mountain Club's Pinkham Notch Camp in 1952 for a new job at a warming hut on Mount Washington's Tuckerman Ravine. He was drawn there after hiking in the White Mountains as a child and staying with friends in the Madison and Lake of the Clouds Huts as a teenager. This new venture was the beginning of a decades-long, unbroken connection to New Hampshire's highest peak.

While working as an observer at the Mount Washington Observatory in the early 1950s, Jack discovered another love--Ann Dodge, the daughter of Observatory founder Joe Dodge and Jack's future wife. Dating the boss's daughter has it challenges, but anyone could see that the bond between Jack and Annie was immediate and strong. On his days off, Jack would hike down the mountain to see her at the AMC Pinkham Notch Hut. Annie would return the favor when she was free, scaling the 6,288-foot mountain to visit Jack when his duties kept him inside the Observatory.

Jack left his job to attend law school after 1 year at the Observatory. Shortly after graduating, he was tapped to serve as corporate secretary by a board of trustees who both recognized his potential and appreciated his love of the mountain and its summit. That was 1957. Jack has been diligently taking minutes at board meetings ever since, and he remains an outstanding ambassador of the Observatory and an outspoken supporter of its important role in climate research.

Over the past few decades, the Mount Washington Observatory has emerged as a significant institution of science education and plays a vital role in helping advance the public understanding of the complexities of our natural world. Its Weather Discovery Center in North Conway has become a popular resource in communicating these findings to classrooms and workshops across the globe. Throughout each step

of this journey, Jack Middleton has been there with his expert guidance, his dry wit and his devotion to preserving the past and shaping the future of this Northern New Hampshire gem.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Jack Middleton for his service and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I thank my neighbor and friend, Senator Collins, and Senator Feinstein--the two of them for organizing this afternoon's conversation on the floor in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment.

I also begin by recognizing Senator Mikulski, who was such a trailblazer for so many women. I remember being a young woman involved in politics in the late eighties in New Hampshire right after she was elected to the Senate, and she came up and spoke to us. At the time, I was not sure there was ever an opportunity for a woman in New Hampshire to go anywhere, and listening to her made me realize there were opportunities for women everywhere, and we need to take advantage of them, so I thank Senator Mikulski.

Today we celebrate not only the passage of the 19th Amendment but the countless women who fought for decades before 1919 so that women would one day realize the full rights protected under the Constitution.

As so many of my colleagues have said, we remember women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, who organized the first women's rights convention at Seneca Falls in 1848; Susan B. Anthony, who took up the fight following the first convention, and Harriet Tubman, Ida Wells, and Sojourner Truth, who worked tirelessly for women's rights all while battling the forces of slavery and racism. These women and so many others faced extraordinary obstacles as they protested, marched, lobbied, and, at times, sacrificed their own freedom so women could one day secure the right to vote.

The leaders of the women's suffrage movement understood the fundamental truth; that the rights protected under the Constitution are merely privileges if they are not enjoyed by everyone in our society.

As Susan B. Anthony put it in 1873, ``It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; not yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves . . . . but to the whole people--women as well as men.''

The suffrage movement was, of course, an effort to achieve political equality for women, but it was also an effort to secure a more perfect Union by giving life to the ideals laid out in our founding documents. This pursuit for equality continues today, and it is in the spirit of our trailblazers that women carry on the fight for full equality under the law.

It is in that spirit that we are here this afternoon on the floor of the Senate to talk about the importance of carrying on the tradition of our Founding Mothers. These figures are an important part of our history, and because of the generations of women they inspired, their legacy lives on today. We must remember their stories and honor their sacrifices. Those sacrifices have helped shape the identity of our Nation, and it is why we celebrate these women in the same regard as we have our Founding Fathers. It is why the issue, for me, of keeping a promise to redesign the $20 bill with the likeness of Harriet Tubman is so important.

The United States was not shaped exclusively by men, and our living history, which our currency is a part of, should reflect that because the symbols that we have for our country matter.

Leaders of the women's suffrage movement rose from communities across this country, but today I would like to recognize one of the pioneers of that movement from my own State of New Hampshire, Armenia S. White.

Armenia spent most of her life in Concord, NH, which is our capital. She was active in the community, including supporting the abolitionist and temperance movements, but the cause for which she was most passionate was securing the vote for women.

Armenia was the first signer of the call for an equal suffrage convention in New Hampshire, which was held in Concord in 1868. She was also the first president of the New Hampshire Woman Suffrage Association, a position that she held for nearly 50 years. When the time came for New Hampshire to send a delegate to the American Woman Suffrage Association, organized in Cleveland, Armenia was selected and served in that position for decades.

Armenia's efforts in New Hampshire were largely responsible for the decisions by the State legislature in 1871 and 1878 to make women eligible to serve on school committees. I think it is interesting that we were eligible to serve on school committees before we were eligible to serve in the legislature. But, nevertheless, not only did she help women become eligible to serve on school committees, but she secured women a vote in local school district elections.

Sadly, Armenia never lived to see women secure the right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment, but her efforts to improve equality in New Hampshire and throughout the Nation left an enduring impact on the movement. It is an impact that, as the first woman elected to be Governor of New Hampshire and then elected to be Senator there, I have benefited from. I feel a deep sense of gratitude to Armenia and to so many women who came before me for forging a path so that women could one day serve in public office and so that one day we could vote.

Alice Paul, the leader of the women's suffrage movement, once described women's suffrage saying:

I always feel the movement is a sort of mosaic. Each of us

puts in one little stone, and then you get a great mosaic at

the end.

As we recognize and celebrate the passage of the 19th Amendment, we must remember that there is still so much work to do, and even the smallest stones contribute to this great mosaic.

I thank the Presiding Officer and thank again my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Feinstein, for leading this effort.

We still have a lot of work to do.

Mr. President, I am here to join my colleagues. I was going to say I am pleased, but I am not pleased. I am disappointed that we are here on the floor today talking about something that should be an issue that is decided by women with their families and their physicians. Yet we are here to sound the alarm about the relentless assault State legislatures and

this administration have leveled against constitutionally protected reproductive rights and a woman's right to choose the healthcare she needs.

I certainly applaud Senator Murray, who has done such a great job of leading the response to this assault, and my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, for his efforts.

This radical effort to limit women's freedom to a full range of reproductive care is part of a broader strategy by some in this country to take healthcare away from people who need it. Americans across the country, both women and men, are calling out these threats and fighting them head-on. Today, in hundreds of capitals across this country, in courthouses, at hundreds of rallies, a powerful message is being sent that we are not going back. As Members of Congress here in Washington, we need to join them and defend women's reproductive rights.

In just the past 2 weeks, Governors in Alabama and Georgia signed extreme and dangerous abortion restrictions into law. Yesterday, the Missouri Legislature passed another bill to place draconian restrictions on a woman's access to abortion. These actions are part of a concerted effort around the country to overturn Roe v. Wade and to deny women access to reproductive care.

What is so ironic about this is that this is coming at a time when last year this country saw fewer unintended pregnancies than at any time in our history because giving women access to family planning, to the range of reproductive healthcare that women need, means that there are fewer unintended pregnancies. What laws like this will mean is that there will be more abortions, more unintended pregnancies, more maternal health deaths. That is not the direction in which we should be going.

All of these State actions are concerning, especially the new Alabama law, which would outlaw abortion in virtually all instances with no exception for cases of rape or incest. The Alabama law also establishes prison sentences for providers who perform abortions in violation of the abortion ban. So think about that for a second. If a doctor performs an abortion for a rape victim, the Alabama law could put that doctor in prison for as long as or even longer than the rapist. That makes no sense. The Alabama abortion ban, and so many other State laws like it, will not only impede on a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive choices, but it will also push women into the shadows and increase the likelihood of unsafe abortions. We know that. We have data that shows that--not just in the United States but around the world.

Today, one in three women live in States where abortion would be outlawed if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

The Alabama law and other State abortion bans are designed as a direct challenge to the protections provided by Roe in the hopes of forcing action from the Supreme Court and sowing chaos in those States where abortion would be outlawed. So rather than thinking about women and how they will be affected by this law, it is strictly designed to try to challenge the current Roe v. Wade law.

Unfortunately, even in the light of the extreme nature of these recent abortion bans, we have an administration that is compounding the issue through its own actions to interfere with access to reproductive health services. Now, whether it is creating new administrative obstacles to insurance coverage of abortion, preventing title X family planning clinics from informing their patients about reproductive care choices, or any of the many other recent Federal actions, the Trump administration's clear goal is to chip away at access to abortion.

Now, these recent actions by States and the administration pose grave threats to the freedoms and reproductive health protections that are relied on by women all across this country.

At this critical time, we need to say loud and clear that we are ready to fight these extreme actions with everything we have.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I wish to salute Michael L. Hopkins for his decades of tireless work and devoted service to the schools of Rochester, NH. Mike is retiring this year as superintendent of the Rochester School District after spending the entirety of his career in the city's school system. He leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude.

We all know the value of a quality education. It plays a critical role in the development of young minds everywhere, and enthusiastic teachers and administrators make it possible for so many students to take part in experiences that shape a lifelong appreciation for learning. As a former teacher myself, I know the commitment and understanding required to engage students, encourage curiosity and critical thinking, ultimately prepare them to find success after school and outside of the classroom.

Mike is also a former teacher, and he has brought that perspective to every move he makes as his district's top decision-maker. After graduating from his hometown school, Grinnell College

in Iowa, Mike set his sights toward New Hampshire and accepted a teaching job at the Gonic School. He quickly assumed managerial duties in addition to his teaching responsibilities as the school's teaching principal. Mike was a fitting choice when a full-time principal position opened a short time later at the nearby William Allen School, where he served for 6 years before being promoted to assistant superintendent of the city's school system. A dozen years later, he made a seamless transition to superintendent of all Rochester schools.

As superintendent, Mike has retained a deep connection to the classroom, even in a sprawling district comprised of 11 public schools with over 4,400 children and 800 employees. He is a constant presence in the halls of city schools, and teachers are quick to point out how his caring, compassion, and guidance make it easier for them to fulfill their essential roles as educators. He has also forged meaningful relationships outside school walls with business and nonprofit leaders in the Greater Rochester region, all in an effort to strengthen the educational programs he is able to offer to students.

Under Mike's leadership, Rochester schools have been quick to adapt to a changing learning landscape, embracing technology and alternative educational methods in order to provide the best education possible to city students. He has been influential in developing training programs at Spaulding High School's Creteau Regional Center that pair bright high school students with local businesses looking to grow. This is an approach that can help satisfy demands statewide for a capable, qualified workforce.

Mike has accomplished so much in his four decades in the Lilac City schools. Words like visionary, innovator, and community builder are often used to describe his tenure; yet, if one were to ask Rochester teachers, staff, administrators, school board members, and residents about Mike Hopkins, one quality emerges more often than the others: his humility. Mike always put the interests of students and teachers first, and when he found success, he was always eager to share credit with others. He was driven by a desire to better the lives of students, and his impact on the Rochester community will be felt for years to come.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Mike Hopkins for his service and wishing him all the best as he begins a well-deserved retirement.

Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to join my colleagues in raising concerns about the unrelenting attacks that this administration has waged on the health of women in New Hampshire and across the country.

With Mother's Day just around the corner, it is important to make clear that we cannot stand idly by while the administration undermines access to maternity care, to family planning, and to reproductive care for women.

Through misguided executive orders, regulations, and other actions, this administration is making it more difficult for women to access the care and services they need in communities across the country and abroad.

Now, new mothers deal with significant medical expenses. That is why we

worked very hard, when we were writing the Affordable Care Act, to require insurance coverage for maternity care, to help new mothers cover the cost of obstetric services and of hospital charges for childbirth and other expenses.

The Affordable Care Act and the access to maternity care coverage it provides have made a real difference for so many people in New Hampshire and across the country.

One of those women is Samantha Fox from Bow, NH. Samantha is now a State legislator in New Hampshire, but prior to the Affordable Care Act, Samantha was denied coverage for health insurance because of a reproductive system disorder, and the insurance that she was able to get didn't provide prenatal and maternity care coverage.

Well, thanks to the ACA, she was guaranteed coverage of these vital maternity care services that were so important when she gave birth to her son Leo in 2017.

We can't go back to those days before the Affordable Care Act, when only 12 percent of health plans on the individual market covered maternity care or when women could be charged higher premiums than men for the very same coverage.

But that is exactly what the Trump administration is trying to do by expanding the availability of junk plans that are not required to cover maternity care, and that is what this administration is trying to do by urging the courts to strike down the Affordable Care Act in its entirety.

Now, in addition, at a time when 43 percent of childbirths in this country are covered and paid for by the Medicaid Program, the Trump administration continues to propose Medicaid block grants and funding caps that would fail to adequately support States for the cost of coverage for pregnant women and new mothers.

Senator Casey was very eloquent in talking about what will happen if the effort to reduce Medicaid is successful.

Sadly, the barriers to women's healthcare that this administration has created go beyond just insurance coverage. They are also imposing significant impediments to access to family planning services.

The administration's title X gag rule would violate the provider- patient relationship by prohibiting providers who receive Federal family planning grants from informing their patients about reproductive health options, including safe and legal abortions.

In 2017, more than 16,000 Granite Staters obtained care from family planning providers that receive support through Federal title X family planning grants. This includes more than 1,200 cervical cancer screenings and nearly 1,500 breast exams that were provided by New Hampshire's Planned Parenthood facilities that, if this gag rule is allowed to stand, would then be eliminated, and women would have to get those screenings somewhere else, and in many cases, the women would not be able to afford the cost of those screenings. The title X gag rule puts access to these and so many other vital services at risk.

The administration's barriers to family planning services extend around the world as a result of a similar global gag rule on international family planning grants.

Based on the unfortunate experience with the global gag rule, we already know that when you exclude entities like Planned Parenthood and other providers from family planning grants, you will impede access to care for vulnerable women in impoverished countries around the world, and we are now beginning to get the data from so many NGOs that provide those services.

It is ironic because people in this administration who say they support the gag rule say they do it because they are trying to reduce the number of abortions. Yet what we know is that putting on this global gag rule increases the number of unwarranted pregnancies, increases the number of unsafe abortions, and increases the number of maternal deaths in childbirth. I don't understand why the data is not convincing to those people who share the view that we should try to reduce the number of unwarranted pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions. That is why, each year, I have come together with Senators Collins and Murkowski to lead a bipartisan charge to repeal the global gag rule and to bolster resources for international family planning. Hopefully, we will be able to pass that again this year.

In light of all of these dangerous efforts to erode protections for women's health, we need to stand together here in Congress. We need to join forces with women around the country and around the world. We need to say enough is enough. Women should be able to access health insurance for reproductive services and for family planning services, just as men can access health insurance for all of the services they need.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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