Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to also talk about an issue that has not made it into the Defense authorization bill, unlike the amendment that Senator Tillis and I support.

Sadly, help for the Afghans who aided our troops in the war in Afghanistan is not included in this Defense authorization bill. As most of us know in

the Senate, the Afghan special immigrant visa program allows Afghans who supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and who face threats of harm to themselves or their families because of their service--we allow them to apply for refuge in the United States through the special immigrant visa program, or SIV program.

Over the years, there has been strong bipartisan support for this effort to bring those Afghans in harm's way back to the United States. I am pleased to have worked with Senator Tillis, Senator Wicker, Senator Leahy, Senator Graham, and, of course, Senator McCain, who has been the champion in the Senate to address this issue. I am proud to partner yet again with these Senators, and we have introduced legislation to authorize 4,000 SIVs for 2019 so that we can continue to bring to the United States those people who are at risk.

Even as the administration sharply restricts immigration and refugee programs, President Trump has made an exception for those who serve alongside our soldiers and diplomats. He has included 4,000 Afghan SIVs in his budget request for this upcoming fiscal year. The support for this program truly is bipartisan.

I am here on the floor with Senator Tillis today to try to put a face on this important program.

Afghan civilians who have assisted our military as interpreters, firefighters, construction workers, and community liaisons are being targeted by the Taliban for their willingness to work with the United States. Without congressional approval, our military and our diplomats will be powerless to help those Afghans. Moreover, U.S. officials in Afghanistan will be powerless to help themselves. Unless Congress acts, this program will lapse, and our Embassy and military will unnecessarily suffer the devastating effects of this decision.

We cannot afford to break our promises to the Afghan people, to those who serve our mission with such loyalty and at such enormous risk, particularly at this time. U.S. forces--our military--and our diplomats have always relied on local people to help accomplish our mission. As we think about our future engagements, we will need this kind of support in other places in the future. What does it say to people if we renege on our promises to the Afghans? We must be aware of the message we are sending to partners around the world when we don't fulfill our duty to protect them after they have protected us. This is exactly why countless military commanders and Ambassadors have pleaded with Congress to extend the Afghan SIV program.

Behind me is a quote from Senator John McCain, a leader, as I said, in the effort to ensure the safety of Afghan SIVs. We have worked together each year since 2013, and his presence is sorely missed this year. During last year's NDAA debate, he said:

We're talking about the lives of men who have put it on the

line for the men and women serving. . . . They're going to

die if we don't pass this amendment and take them out of

harm's way. Don't you understand the gravity of that?''

That is what Senator McCain had to say in 2016 when we were trying to get this done in the Defense authorization bill. He is right. There is no plan B for these Afghans. Either we save them by authorizing additional special immigrant visas, or they will die. They will be killed. Their families will be killed.

If Senator McCain were able to come to the floor today, I have no doubt that he would be right here with Senator Tillis and me saying the same thing. I hope that we can do Senator McCain a service by reauthorizing the program he cared so much about under the bill that bears his name.

We have also had many officials who have spoken out against attempts to limit the eligibility of applicants. Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker said:

When deciding whom to kill, the Taliban do not make such

distinctions in service--nor should we when determining whom

to save.

Similarly, our former commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, said:

Afghans performing a variety of roles are vital to the U.S.

mission, whether they work directly or indirectly with U.S.

Forces. I would urge Congress not to further erode already

limited eligibility guidelines.

In addition, our soldiers and marines are keenly interested in protecting Afghan civilians who served with them. Many of them owe their lives to the Afghans in various roles who went into combat with them.

The roles in which Afghans serve range from interpreter, to lawyer, to aid administrators, to cafeteria workers.

Abdul--who doesn't want his last name used because he fears for the safety of his family back home--worked as the head waiter for American troops in Afghanistan. Despite his classification as a cafeteria employee, he helped our troops translate documents and interpret conversations they were having both on and off the base. One night he came in, and someone jumped him, beat him up, and threatened to kill him and his family if he continued to help the United States.

Abdul was recommended for a special immigrant visa by the Army sergeant he reported to, who found him the night he was attacked. The chief of mission who approved his application thought that Abdul's heartfelt service to our Nation was worthy enough to help save his life. I believe that too. He wasn't an interpreter. He wasn't part of a narrow group of Afghans who helped us. But he was there, nevertheless, putting his life on the line for Americans serving in Afghanistan.

Last year, in Keene, NH, I met with a remarkable immigrant from Afghanistan named Patmana Rafiq Kunary. Patmana had worked closely with the U.S. Agency for International Development in Kabul. She went door- to-door and encouraged women to take out microloans to start their own businesses. Patmana eventually became the vice president of operations for the USAID-sponsored microloan program.

Yet, for a woman in Afghanistan, going door-to-door and working closely with Americans, this was dangerous work. She drew unwelcome attention wherever she went, and she became a high-profile target for the Taliban and others. Then, one day in 2013, she received a call at her USAID office. It was from the distraught wife of a USAID colleague, an Afghan. The caller's husband had just been murdered, apparently, in retaliation for his work with the Americans.

In her realizing that her life was in danger, too, Patmana applied for a special immigrant visa. For 2 years, she and her husband were subjected to repeated interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. She told me that while those background checks were going on, they had to move periodically because, as soon as they settled someplace, the Taliban would find out where they were, and they would be threatened again. Her background was checked and rechecked before the visas were finally granted.

Now, thankfully, Patmana lives happily in Keene. Her husband has found work, and they have a 3-year-old daughter. They are welcomed as valued members of the Keene community.

When it comes to the SIV program, there is no shortage of inspiring narratives like the ones I am sharing today. It is no wonder that during his own confirmation process, the Secretary of Defense, Gen. James Mattis, said: ``Most of our units could not have accomplished their missions without the assistance, often at the risk of their lives, of these courageous men and women.''

We would never leave an American warrior behind on the battlefield. Likewise, we must not leave behind those Afghans who served side by side with our warriors and diplomats. We made a solemn promise to these brave men and women, and I know that those of us here who believe we need to keep that promise are going to do everything we can to make sure that those special immigrant visas are authorized and available next year for those thousands of Afghans who are still in the queue, who are still themselves facing threats and threats to their families because of their trying to help our military in Afghanistan.

I encourage all of my colleagues in the Senate to allow this program to continue and to not permit any ill-informed notions about the program's eligibility standards or the vetting process distract from its success and from the strong bipartisan support it receives each year. I urge my colleagues to keep our promise to our Afghan allies by supporting these efforts.

I am very pleased to be here with Senator Tillis, who is also committed

to the effort of trying to get this done. I know my colleague Senator Ernst, who is here to speak, is also a supporter of this program. There is strong bipartisan support to make this happen. We should not allow one or two people to keep us from moving forward.

I thank the Presiding Officer. We will continue to work on this effort.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the floor to very strongly support the Congressional Review Act resolution to restore net neutrality and maintain a free and open internet. I applaud Senator Ed Markey for his leadership in introducing this Congressional Review Act resolution.

Restoring net neutrality is especially critical to small businesses and startup companies in New Hampshire and across the United States. Small businesses are the backbone of our Granite State's economy. They represent 99 percent of our employers. The internet continues to provide opportunity for these small businesses because it levels the playing field. It makes it easier to find new customers and grow online, but that level playing field is now in jeopardy because of the Federal Communications Commission's decision to end net neutrality protections.

Last Thursday, I convened a field hearing of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship at the University of New Hampshire. I wanted to hear concerns of our small business owners about what the net neutrality rollback would mean to them. In particular, they are concerned that net neutrality will impede their ability to expand and create jobs.

In conversations with small business owners and leaders across my State, they tell me this rollback is a direct threat to their businesses. They say it would be like watching their large competitors take the highway while they are forced to take the slow roads. Without net neutrality, broadband providers could charge more for fast lanes--a cost that many small businesses simply can't afford. This would put them at an even greater competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis large corporations that have the resources to pay for those fast lanes. In the digital age, speed is critical.

Witnesses at our field hearing pointed to research showing that even small delays of a second or less--just think about that, a second or less--can lead to the loss of significant sales. Customers today expect a fast, easy online experience. It is clear, small businesses operating at slim margins would lose out to big firms that can afford the fast lane.

Josh Cyr, who testified at our hearing, is an executive with Alpha Loft. Alpha Loft is a startup incubator that is based in Manchester and Portsmouth, NH. At the field hearing, he had a stark warning. He said:

The repeal of net neutrality protections enables a small

handful of very powerful internet providers tremendous

control over what is delivered to consumers' homes and the

speed with which it is delivered. Without net neutrality, the

power and control these internet providers have will allow

them to create artificial market barriers.

The repeal of net neutrality would pose even greater challenges for small businesses in rural areas. As Senator Klobuchar said, she has a lot of rural areas in Minnesota. Well, so does New Hampshire. A 2015 survey by the University of New Hampshire showed that nearly 40 percent of New Hampshire residents who were polled said they were using their current provider because it is the only option available to them. Many rural small businesses will have nowhere else to turn if their broadband provider decides to charge more or slow down the connection. Our witnesses noted that net neutrality could heighten the rural urban divide, making it more challenging for small businesses and rural communities to reach customers, attract workers, and stay connected.

One of the other people testifying at the hearing was Nancy Pearson. She is the director of the New Hampshire Center for Women and Enterprise. She testified that net neutrality is a matter of equality. She said:

New Hampshire small businesses and microbusinesses rely on

the equalizing force of the internet, and just to put that in

perspective, women start businesses at five times the rate of

any other entrepreneur--

and for minority women and veterans, that number is even

higher. So when we start putting barriers in the way of these

entrepreneurs, it can have a significant and, I think,

disastrous effect.

The FCC's rollback of net neutrality rules is also creating tremendous uncertainty, especially for startup businesses that are looking to plan ahead. It could have major ramifications on sales, marketing, and internet costs that small businesses just can't predict.

Participants at the field hearing warned that the FCC's decision will affect not only businesses but also institutions of higher education. It will also negatively impact efforts to provide telemedicine consultations to patients who don't have access to services locally. Again, we have a big rural population in New Hampshire--well, a small population but a lot of rural areas.

I am concerned, for instance, about the impact on the Veterans' Administration's outpatient clinic in Littleton, NH. It relies on telemedicine to provide psychiatric care to veterans in remote locations. What will happen if they can no longer provide that service because they don't have the ability to pay for those lanes anymore?

Small businesses, consumers, and all Americans who care about a level playing field on the internet have every reason to be concerned by the FCC's repeal of net neutrality protections, but their ill-considered rollback doesn't have to be the last word. We can bring to the floor a bipartisan resolution to prevent the FCC's rollback from going forward.

A coalition of more than 6,000 small businesses across the country sent a letter to Congress asking us to protect them by overturning the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality. Further, at my field hearing last week, Granite State small businesses offered compelling testimony about the importance of net neutrality to their competitiveness and their ability to expand and hire new workers. We must not ignore this groundswell of opposition to the FCC's rollback of rules that ensure equal access to the internet.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Congressional Review Act resolution. Let's restore net neutrality protections and ensure a free and open internet, with access on equal terms, for all businesses and consumers.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Menendez, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and my colleagues from the committee to talk about the importance of diplomacy as

we look at the many challenges and conflicts that the world is facing right now.

From North Korea to Syria to Venezuela, there is really no end in sight for growing tensions and conflict in the world. Our military presence in Afghanistan is growing, we have approved lethal weapons for Ukraine, and we are forging a new partnership with NATO in Iraq. I support these efforts, but without a vigorous diplomatic capability to back our military, these initiatives risk failure. Sadly, instead of providing for a robust diplomatic corps, the administration has laid the foundation for a weakened U.S. hand on the international stage. Ultimately, this places Americans at risk. As Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said, it forces his men and women to buy more bullets. Equally critical is the opportunity this provides for the great power conflicts to continue and to fester.

In November, I wrote to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator John McCain, to express bipartisan concern over the administration's State Department hiring and promotion rates. I was told that the statistics we had received from the American Foreign Service Association were wrong and that the redesign of the State Department is not forcing anyone from their jobs.

Unfortunately, since that time, the State Department has lost even more precious, diplomatic talent. Congress has received a budget request that cuts even more personnel, and Foreign Service hiring and promotion rates continue to plummet. Last month, the highest ranking senior Foreign Service officer, Tom Shannon, announced that he, too, would be retiring. With his retirement, we will have no senior Foreign Service officers serving in the Department's leadership.

To date, we have only one active career ambassador who will serve in the entire State Department, and he is not even working in the building. Aside from the mass exodus of critical talent, we are allowing decades of investments made by our country and our diplomats to dwindle along with their ranks.

For the past 2 years, the Senate has also received abysmally low budget requests for the State Department and USAID.

Meanwhile, our problems aren't declining. The Kremlin continues to sow chaos across the globe. China increasingly flexes its muscle by buying strategic properties throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. We are facing the greatest refugee crisis since World War II. Our intelligence community repeatedly warns that in this year's midterm elections, Russia will repeat another hybrid operation against the U.S. election. The obvious response to these challenges should not and cannot be to reduce the operational capacity and personnel of the lead agency that is responsible for alleviating global crises and promoting the United States' public face throughout the global outreach. That is the State Department.

Just this month, the New York Times revealed that the State Department had failed to spend any of the $120 million allocated to fund the Global Engagement Center, which is aimed at countering state- led misinformation campaigns. While America is under attack and Western democracies are under attack by misinformation campaigns, the State Department's response has been totally insufficient. It has been not to spend any of the money that Congress has allocated. It seems the administration is completely unaware of Special Counselor Mueller's indictment against Russia's Internet Research Agency.

I wish to spend a minute to read from excerpts of Mueller's indictment of 13 Russians, which came out last month. If we can look at this through objective eyes, it reminds us all of the threats we face because of Russia's interference.

This is stated in Mueller's document:

The [Internet Research Agency] is a Russian organization

engaged in operations to interfere with elections and

political processes.

I am quoting now from the indictment.

By in or around September 2016, the [Internet Research

Agency's] monthly budget for Project Lakhta (its interference

operation in the U.S.) exceeded 73 million Russian rubles

(over 1,250,000 U.S. dollars).

They are spending, on a regular basis, 1.25 million in American dollars on this interference operation. For all of the people out there who think this is a partisan issue, this is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about interfering in our democracy. We can see how much they are willing to spend to do that.

Continuing to quote from the indictment:

Defendants and their co-conspirators also traveled, and

attempted to travel, to the United States under false

pretenses in order to collect intelligence for interference

operations.

In or around 2016, the defendants and their co-conspirators

also used, possessed and transferred, without legal

authority, the social security numbers and dates of birth of

real U.S. persons without those persons' knowledge or

consent. Using these means of identification, defendants and

their co-conspirators opened accounts at PayPal; created

false means of identification, including fake driver's

licenses; and posted on Internet Research Agency-controlled

media accounts.

That is the Russian entity that is doing this.

Think about that. We know of the Kremlin's efforts to influence and use the American people to its own advantage. It is laid out pretty clearly in this indictment from Robert Mueller. Yet, somehow, the State Department is incapable of spending $1 of the money that has been allocated by Congress toward countering Russia's most overt, public messages against the United States.

This is truly remarkable and, sadly, disappointing. The American people deserve better. Unfortunately, the Global Engagement Center is not alone in its lack of support from the administration. According to an analysis of data from the Office of Management and Budget, last year the State Department spent just 79 percent of the money that Congress had authorized for the conduct of foreign affairs, the lowest level in the last 15 years.

Many of us on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would agree that most of our greatest global achievements--the Marshall Plan, the end of the Cold War, and the reduction of nuclear weapons--have been secured through diplomacy. Without it, I fear we will stray far from President Trump's ideal of brokering deals and instead cause irreparable damage to one of America's most precious resources--our diplomatic corps. That will harm this country's standing in the world and will have us viewed as weak by our great power adversaries.

The hollowing out of the State Department under this administration will cause irreparable damage to America's diplomatic efforts, and it will harm our country's standing in the world. Congress has to step in and make sure this doesn't happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Washington to talk about the challenge that women both here in the United States and across the world are facing from the excesses of this administration.

What we have seen time and again is that the Trump administration has exhibited a dangerous obsession with rolling back women's reproductive rights here in the United States and abroad. Just in the past 14 months in office, this administration has launched a multipronged and aggressive assault on women's rights. One of President Trump's first acts in office was to reinstate and greatly expand the global gag rule, which prohibits U.S. funding for international women's health organizations that so much as mention abortion. What they did was to say that this is not going to just affect those organizations but any health organization that the United States puts funding into. This action will cause a significant increase in unsafe abortions and maternal deaths across the developing world. The administration has proposed budgets that would eliminate all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood, and, going even further, would prohibit States that on their own would direct Federal funds to Planned Parenthood for those same health services. They would prohibit States from doing that.

Most recently, the State Department reportedly removed data on reproductive healthcare from its annual human rights report. So is the idea that if you don't give people access to data, then it doesn't happen? The administration instructed career employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to remove words such as ``fetus,'' ``diversity,'' ``evidence-based,'' and ``science-based'' from their official vocabulary.

Well, if we are not basing decisions at the CDC on evidence-based and science-based data, then what are we basing it on? As Senator Murray says, they are basing it on ideology. Well, that is a lousy way to make a decision about where to put our healthcare money.

This administration has even attacked women's access to birth control, issuing new rules that allow almost any company to opt out of the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act.

Simply put, you cannot support women's empowerment unless you support women's access to family planning. Recently, the United Nations Population Fund's ``Family Planning 2020'' report explained why women's access to all healthcare services, including abortion, is so vital both to women's advancement and to their country's economic development. The report says:

Every woman and girl must be able to exercise her basic

human right to control her own reproductive health. Access to

safe, voluntary family planning is fundamental to women's

empowerment. It's also fundamental to achieving our global

goals for a healthier, more prosperous, just, and equitable

world.

The report goes on to say:

Rights-based family planning programs have a greater ripple

effect than almost any other development investment, from

saving lives and improving health to strengthening economies,

transforming societies, and lifting entire countries out of

poverty. It is the surest path to the future we want.

Well, I couldn't agree more. Study after study demonstrates that access to comprehensive healthcare services is closely correlated to the economic success of women and their families. By contrast, lack of access to basic healthcare services, including family planning counseling and all birth control options, is a major factor in perpetuating the dangerous, life-threatening cycle of poverty.

Now, I think it is really ironic that those who seek to outlaw abortion do so under what they say is the pro-life banner. I think it is ironic because we know from experience that outlawing abortion doesn't end abortion, it simply drives it into the shadows and unsafe conditions. Like many in this Chamber, I remember the days before 1973, when abortion was against the law. An estimated 1.2 million women each year resorted to illegal abortions, typically performed in unsanitary conditions by unlicensed practitioners and often resulting in infection, hemorrhage, and even death. Just about every woman of my generation has a story about a friend or an acquaintance who had to resort to this kind of risky, dangerous abortion or who thought she had to resort to that.

Well, I don't think we want to go back to those days. We know that right now in the United States, we have the lowest level of abortions that we have had since 1973. That is a success that is directly attributed to the increased access to contraception that is in the Affordable Care Act.

We know that again and again, studies have found that policies to limit or ban abortion outright have the unintended consequence of dramatically increasing abortion overall. Conversely, when family planning services are accessible, the rates of unplanned pregnancies and abortion go down. Again, according to the Guttmacher Institute, we are seeing success in terms of reducing the number of abortions and unintended pregnancies.

Now, what we have seen internationally is that the global gag rule has had especially lethal consequences. It denies access to safe abortions and, in doing so, it dramatically increases abortions overall. A Stanford University study of implementation of the global gag rule during the George W. Bush administration found that the number of women having induced abortions more than doubled in countries that were most impacted by the policy.

Today, in Nigeria--which is the one country we have data on to date, based on the expansion of the global gag rule in the Trump administration--health workers on the ground estimate that because of the administration's new global gag rule, there will be an additional 660,000 abortions in Nigeria from now through 2020, and that could result in nearly 10,000 additional maternal deaths.

The Trump administration claims it wants a smaller government. The President ran on a platform promising to get the government out of people's lives. Yet it is doing everything possible to inject the government and law enforcement into some of the most intimate, difficult, and personal decisions a woman has to make.

This is not only insulting, but it is condescending to all women. We don't need guidance from the government for an adult. We need to be able to consult those we choose to consult and make

our own decisions about the healthcare we need.

To take away women's access to full reproductive health services, including abortion, is demeaning and unacceptable. We cannot allow the Trump administration to turn back the clock and put women's lives at risk.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the town of Madbury, NH, is celebrating its 250th anniversary this year. Madbury is a classic New England community, proud of its rich history, its tradition of direct town meeting democracy, and its family-friendly quality of life. Admittedly, I am not an entirely objective observer, as Madbury has been my home for nearly four decades. It is where I raised my family and have so many dear friends, and it is where I first got involved in local politics, serving on the town's zoning board. The roughly 1,800 residents of Madbury look forward to a nearly yearlong celebration of the anniversary, beginning with a special observance at our annual town meeting on March 13.

Of course, the human history of what is now Madbury--located today in Strafford County in southeast New Hampshire--goes back many centuries prior to the arrival of the first English explorers and settlers. In the 17th century, the Native American Chief Moharimet convened counsels in this area, and today our elementary school is named in his honor.

Madbury was originally a part of the settlements of Dover and Durham called Barbadoes, named after the West Indies island of Barbados, where local settlers sent lumber in exchange for sugar and molasses. It was named for the English town of Modbury, the ancestral home of Sir Francis Champernowne, who immigrated to what is now Madbury in the 1640s. Madbury was incorporated as a parish in 1755 and as a town in 1768.

One of our early residents was Major John Demerritt, who in 1774 joined with other New Hampshire patriots in storming the King's Fort William and Mary in New Castle, seizing its armory of weapons and gunpower. The ``Powder Major,'' as he came to be known, stored a portion of this armory at his farm, which still sits on Cherry Lane. It was later used by revolutionaries at the Battle of Bunker Hill.

Our Madbury town flag--thought to be the first town flag in New England--features an ax, a plow, and a rose. The ax represents forestry, which first attracted settlers to Madbury to supply shipbuilders at Dover, Durham, and Portsmouth. The plow symbolizes our agricultural past. The rose symbolizes the former Elliot rose nursery, which in the mid-20th century boasted the longest greenhouse in the world at 1,400 feet in length.

Madbury is proud of its long and rich history, and we entered the 21st century as a forward-thinking community with a vibrant economy. Though surrounded by industrial areas, Madbury has remained largely rural in character, proud of its small town charm, hospitality, and lifestyle.

I look forward to celebrations of Madbury's 250th anniversary later this year, including a parade and other festivities on Madbury Day in June and a Revolutionary War reenactment in the fall. I salute my fellow residents of Madbury on this landmark anniversary of our beloved town.

Mr. President, I want to recognize the leadership of Kateri Callahan, who has served as president of the Alliance to Save Energy since 2004. As the honorary chair of the alliance, I have been a firsthand witness to many of Kateri's most recent accomplishments. Before Kateri starts the next chapter of her career, I want take this opportunity to look back upon her 14 years with the alliance and thank her for her contributions to Federal energy-efficiency policy.

In 1977, Senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey--a Republican from Illinois and a Democrat from Minnesota--founded the alliance as the leading energy-efficiency coalition of businesses, governments, environmental groups, and consumer advocates. The goal of the Alliance from the start has been simple: ``Use less and do more.'' In the wake of the oil embargoes and energy shortages of the 1970s, that message resonated loud and clear, and it still does.

Energy efficiency saves money, improves national security, reduces pollution, encourages innovation, boosts U.S. competitiveness, and creates jobs. Without the economywide improvements in energy efficiency made since 1973, it is estimated that today's economy would require 60 percent more energy than we consume now. In fact, savings from energy- efficiency improvements over the last 40 years have reduced our national energy bill by an estimated $800 billion, all while growing and expanding our economy.

Since its establishment, the alliance has taken great care to cultivate and maintain bipartisan support for policies supporting energy efficiency. While doing so, the organization has been led by a distinguished groups of energy efficiency thought-leaders and advocates like Kateri.

For my colleagues who have not met Kateri, you need to know she is persistent and tenacious. Once she gets ahold of something, believe me she never lets go and sees it through to the end. I am thankful for Kateri's leadership, and on behalf of my House and Senate colleagues who are also part of the alliance, I am thankful for the coalition's support for my proposals over the years.

Highlights abound during Kateri's tenure at the alliance. She was a key negotiator on many of the most impactful energy-efficiency provisions of the 2005 and 2007 energy bills that passed Congress with strong bipartisan support and were signed into law by President George W. Bush. She helped ensure that the 2009 stimulus package provided significant investments in energy efficiency and encouraged states to adopt updated building energy codes. In 2015, she stood with me and my colleagues, Senator Rob Portman and Representatives David McKinley and Peter Welch, as President Barack Obama signed our bipartisan and bicameral bill, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, which was the first significant energy-efficiency legislation to pass Congress in nearly a decade.

In addition to her work in Washington, Kateri has spurred initiatives to connect directly with energy consumers and educate the public about

the economic and environmental opportunities of energy efficiency. She produced a series of award-winning consumer education campaigns, including the Power is in Your Hands, Energy Hog, Drive$marter, LUMEN, and Six Degrees of Energy Efficiency. She also led the establishment of the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance to ensure that American families and businesses in the southeastern States have the knowledge, resources, and opportunities to optimize energy use.

The alliance's reach does not stop at our borders. Under the leadership of Kateri, the alliance created the European Alliance to Save Energy and established EE Global, the world's premier gathering of energy-efficiency leaders to discuss new ideas and chart new paths to do more by using less.

Serving 14 years as president of an organization like the alliance is its own commendable accomplishment, but Kateri has had a more profound and positive impact on Federal energy-efficiency policy than can be counted just in years. I congratulate Kateri and express sincere thanks for her support over the years. I wish her the best in her future pursuits and good health and good luck.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I am here with Senator Nelson, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Cardin because I share their concerns about the rising chorus of partisan attacks, not only on Special Counsel Robert Mueller but also on the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice.

These attacks are part of a broader campaign that has been orchestrated by the White House to undermine the investigations into Russia's interference in the 2016 campaign, including possible collusion by the Trump campaign. Unfortunately, if continued, it will have a lasting impact on our security structures, on our democratic institutions, and on our people. Ultimately, it will help the Kremlin achieve its goal of breaking down our country and our democratic way of life.

In a report issued in January 2017, the U.S. intelligence community found that Russia interfered in our elections. This was the unanimous conclusion of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. Indeed, that Russian interference continues to this day, not only in the domestic affairs of the United States but in the affairs of our Western allies. We have seen the Kremlin's hand in Great Britain, in Spain, in France, and in Mexico--all in an effort to determine the outcome and to disrupt elections in those countries.

Just last week, in an interview with the BBC, CIA Director Mike Pompeo

confirmed Russia's ongoing interference. As Senator Cardin said, when Director Pompeo was asked if Russia would try to influence our midterm elections this year, he replied: ``Of course. I have every expectation that they will continue to try and do that.''

In fact, in recent weeks, Russian internet trolls and bots have used Facebook and Twitter to aggressively promote the release of the House Republicans' memo, by Devin Nunes, that attacks the integrity of the FBI. Let's think about that. Russia gave a powerful assist to the successful campaign to release a misleading document, undermining an ongoing FBI investigation.

Despite these disturbing facts, President Trump continues to be dismissive of claims of any Russian interference. For 6 months, Congress has expected the administration to impose the penalties in the bipartisan Russia sanctions bill that passed 98 to 2, but the administration has not even issued one sanction through that law. Despite ongoing brazen Russian interference, the White House claims that sanctions are not needed because the threat of sanctions is already ``serving as a deterrent.'' The mere threat of sanctions clearly is not serving as a deterrent. Our national security agencies, NATO systems, and even the Senate have experienced countless cyber attacks since the 2016 elections. Yet Vladimir Putin continues to deny that Russia interferes in anything at all, and for support, Putin can point to President Trump's own denials of Russian interference.

President Trump has a penchant for labeling factual reports as ``fake news.'' Again and again, he says things that are obviously false or misleading. He calls responsible mainstream journalists ``the enemy of the people.'' He attacks the rule of law, the judiciary, and our law enforcement agencies. These are all classic hallmarks of the slippery slope toward authoritarianism. Indeed, it is striking how attacks by some Republicans on law enforcement and democratic institutions echo similar attacks by the Kremlin and its mouthpieces.

Consider these side-by-side comparisons of statements by Russian officials and statements by Republicans.

As we see in this tweet, which is dated January 2, 2018, President Trump has described U.S. Government employees and the Justice Department as the ``Deep State.'' At the same time Russia's propaganda network, RT, has repeated this terminology. So we see this: ``Deep State takedown.'' Just yesterday, RT aired a discussion on how to root out the ``Deep State'' now that its biases supposedly have been exposed by the ``Nunes memo.''

Again, we see these mirrored messages between Republicans, the White House, and Putin. As we see in this panel, allegations that Special Counsel Mueller and the FBI are conducting a ``witch hunt'' are coming from the highest levels of both the American and Russian Governments. We see that Reuters has repeated a line from RIA, which is Russia's state television, saying: ``U.S. scandal over Russian contacts is `a witch hunt.''' That sentiment was repeated by Andy Biggs, a Republican who is calling on Mr. Mueller to ``end the witch hunt,'' and, of course, it was tweeted by Donald Trump, who called all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information a ``total witch hunt.''

In panel 3, we see that both Putin and President Trump claim that there is no way to know for sure who meddled in the U.S. election. You can see the two of them. They blame Democrats for allegations of Russian meddling. Putin said that ``maybe someone lying in bed'' was responsible. Looking at similar language, President Trump famously said: ``It could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.''

It is unfortunate that some Republicans, as well as voices in the conservative media, appear to believe that, in order to support the President, they must attack and discredit not only Special Counsel Mueller but also the Department of Justice and the FBI. These partisan attacks are baseless and reckless.

They will not succeed in deflecting law enforcement from its duties and mission. What they may do is that they may well succeed in undermining the American people's faith and confidence in these institutions so vital to a healthy democracy. That is not only unfortunate, but it is shameful.

Last summer Members of Congress came together on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis to impose sanctions on Russia because people here believed they were interfering in our elections. Republicans and Democrats spoke with one voice. We said: Our country has been attacked by a hostile power. We will not tolerate it, and we will stand together to stop it. Today, it is critical that we continue to speak with one voice in condemning Russia's interference.

This is a really remarkable moment in our country's history. A hostile foreign power has interfered in our Presidential election, and it continues to interfere. CIA Director Pompeo said, in no uncertain terms, that Russia will interfere in this year's midterm elections. Our law enforcement agencies and a special counsel are working diligently to undercover the scope and methods of Russia's interference so we can put a stop to it. Supporting these efforts is not about party and not about partisanship. It is about patriotism. It is about defending America's democracy, which has been attacked and continues to be vulnerable to attack.

Make no mistake. Our democracy is being tested, our law enforcement agencies are being tested, and we, as Senators, are being tested. We have a responsibility to come together--Senators of both parties--to defend the independence of the Justice Department and the FBI. We must insist that Special Counsel Mueller be allowed to conduct and complete his investigation without further political interference. We must stand together in opposing Russia's outrageous continuing interference in America's elections and domestic affairs.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I join my colleagues on the floor today to speak in opposition to the pending legislation to outlaw abortion procedures after 20 weeks.

This is yet another extreme effort to allow the government to interfere in the healthcare decisions that should be strictly between a woman and her family and her physician. This latest attempt is particularly dangerous. It would impose prison sentences of up to 5 years on physicians who don't fulfill the law's deliberately burdensome requirements for documentation and reporting, and it would even impose a prison sentence of up to 5 years on doctors who fail to inform a law enforcement agency about another doctor who fails to meet the law's requirements. Viewed more broadly, this bill is part of a continuing campaign to take away women's constitutional right to privacy--a right that protects profoundly personal decisions concerning our bodies and our families.

I remember very well the days prior to 1973, when abortion was outlawed in most States. An estimated 1.2 million women each year resorted to illegal abortions, typically performed in unsanitary conditions by unlicensed practitioners and often resulting in infection, hemorrhage, and even death. Well, I think women remember those days, and we are not going back.

As Governor of New Hampshire in 1997, I signed into law a bill that repealed our State's archaic law that dated back to 1848 and made abortion a felony. Like that 1848 law, the legislation now before the Senate would also threaten physicians with criminal charges and imprisonment.

Abortion later in pregnancy is extremely rare. Indeed, almost 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks. When an abortion is needed later in pregnancy, it typically involves very complex, life- threatening, and heartbreaking circumstances--for example, the discovery of a severe and likely fatal abnormality, as described by Senator Hirono. In these difficult circumstances, a woman consults with her doctor and with other people she trusts. A woman needs the freedom to consider every medical option, including serious risks to her own life.

The extremely narrow exceptions in the bill before us--exceptions if the pregnancy results from rape or incest--are deliberately designed to impose burdens, complications, and shame on women who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy. The victim must provide written verification that she has obtained counseling or medical treatment from a very specific list of ``medical providers'' who do not provide abortions and who are often strongly anti-abortion. This requirement is a completely unnecessary burden on a woman who is already dealing with a crisis. It is also insulting and condescending to all women. We are not children who need guidance from an adult. We can consult those we choose to consult, and we can make our own decisions. To impose this requirement in this crude manner is something right out of a handmaid's tale.

Then, if the rape victim is a minor, she is allowed access to an abortion only if she can provide proof that she reported the crime to law enforcement. Again, this is completely out of touch with the real world. Only a small percentage of sexual assaults and rapes are reported to police. Nearly 80 percent of rape and sexual assault victims know their offender.

So let's say this plainly. The reporting requirements in this bill are an outrageous attempt to judge and shame women and girls who have been victims of a violent crime.

I heard from Rachel, who is a registered, board-certified nurse in New Hampshire. She told me that bills to impose blanket rules and arbitrary limitations--bills like the one before the Senate today--are out of touch with the reality she sees in her practice every day. Rachel said:

While procedures at 20 weeks and beyond certainly comprised

a small portion of the

care we provided, it was absolutely critical for those that

needed it. Many pregnancies are not surveyed with ultrasound

until 19-20 weeks, at which time previously unforeseen

complications can be detected. Then, there are often further

procedures needed to finalize a diagnosis and a prognosis.

For people who receive devastating news about a pregnancy

after 20 weeks, abortion may be the best option, and they

deserve access to that care.

The American Medical Association opposes this bill. The AMA says: We ``strongly condemn any interference by the government or other third parties that causes a physician to compromise his or her medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient.''

I urge my colleagues to respect the women of this country and their right to make their own healthcare decisions without the unwelcome involvement of politicians and law enforcement agencies. Let's reject this partisan, extreme, and, frankly, unnecessary legislation today. Then, let's focus our bipartisan attention on the urgent business of passing a budget, funding our military, combating the opioid crisis, and the other needs that this country faces.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to pay tribute to George Twigg III, a long-time Granite Stater and former New Hampshire State representative, who passed away last month at the age of 85. Though he was raised in Massachusetts and retired to Maine, George was in many ways a quintessential Granite Stater, with a big personality, a great sense of humor, and a lifetime passion for politics and public engagement.

After graduating from Boston University, he served 2 years in the U.S. Navy and later worked as a marketing representative for General Electric and other Fortune 500 companies. In 1968, he left his corporate career behind and moved to Gilmanton, NH, where he became a proud jack-of-many-trades, working in real estate sales, auctioneering, and appraising. George also worked as a justice of the peace, officiating at hundreds of weddings. He once married the same couple twice, though he felt obliged to warn them that, if they divorced again and later decided to marry for a third time, they would have to find someone else to officiate at the wedding.

Throughout his adult life, George was active in politics and public service and gave generously of his time as a volunteer in many different capacities. A lifelong Republican, he shared many Granite Staters' fiscal conservatism and distaste for taxes. Indeed, in one campaign for election to the New Hampshire House of Representatives, he crisscrossed his district in a snowplow painted with the message ``No Tax Snow Jobs.'' While always true to his conservative convictions, George was a practitioner of the New Hampshire way in politics, always ready to reach across the aisle in order to advance the best interests of our State. In 1974, then-Governor Meldrim Thomson asked him to chair New Hampshire's eminent domain commission. He went on to serve 21 years on the board of tax and land appeals.

George was a man of exceptional generosity. In 2014, he sold more than 85 acres of scenic land in Gilmanton at a price below fair-market value on the condition that it be preserved as open space for future generations to enjoy. He was equally generous in giving his time and talents to a wide range of volunteer activities. For decades, he refereed high school and college basketball games. He served on numerous town and county committees and volunteered his considerable skills as an auctioneer for countless charity auctions, including fundraisers for New Hampshire's public television station.

The Granite State, and the Gilmanton community in particular, are grateful for his many gifts and acts of selfless service. Family and friends hope to gather for a memorial service later this year. I will be with them in spirit as they celebrate the life of this good and generous man.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the floor to speak in opposition to the nomination of Alex Azar to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

I believe Mr. Azar is, first and foremost, a product of the pharmaceutical industry, with a long, consistent track record of sharply increasing drug prices during his tenure at Lilly USA.

Furthermore, his nomination makes clear that President Trump did not mean it when he said repeatedly during the campaign that pharmaceutical companies are ``getting away with murder'' and that he as President would dramatically reduce drug prices for seniors and all Americans. Mr. Azar's nomination is yet one more example of the Trump administration putting special interests above the public interest and public safety.

Mr. Azar has long opposed any Federal intervention in prescription drug pricing, things like allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices. Of course, his former company has profited handsomely from the government's hands-off approach. When Mr. Azar became the president of Lilly USA, he also became the chair of its pricing committee and had a major say in price increases for all domestically sold Lilly drugs from 2012 to 2014. During that time, the list and net prices of Lilly's drugs that were sold in the United States increased by double-digit percentages each year.

As cochair of the Senate's Diabetes Caucus, I am especially troubled that during Mr. Azar's time with the company, Lilly more than tripled the price of insulin--jacking up the price from $74 to $269. Much of that increase occurred during Mr. Azar's years as chair of the pricing committee. These price increases are not only exorbitant but have caused real hardship to many of the nearly 30 million Americans who live with diabetes. As Candidate Trump would have put it, Lilly, under Mr. Azar's leadership, was ``getting away with murder.''

I am also concerned that Mr. Azar will continue and even ramp up the Trump administration's across-the-board campaign to sabotage our healthcare system. We are now 1 year into this administration's efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Regrettably, it is working. The uninsured rate rose in 2017 by 1.3 percentage points. That was nearly 3.2 million more people who were without health insurance.

Already, the administration has eliminated those payments that allow insurance companies to keep down premiums and reduce copays and deductibles, and that has created further hardship on people who desperately need health insurance. Without reason or justification, the administration cut the open enrollment period by half. It slashed the budget for open enrollment ads on TV, radio, and the internet by 90 percent, which shut down most efforts to inform consumers about their enrollment options.

Despite these efforts, they were not successful in dramatically reducing the number of people who tried to enroll in the Affordable Care Act because enrollment for 2018 was 8.8 million people compared to 9.2 million the year before. It shows how desperately people want to have health insurance. Of course, we know that since that enrollment period, the Republican leaders in Congress have used the tax bill to repeal the individual mandate. Meanwhile, in an interview, Mr. Azar spoke of his desire to ``hasten [the Affordable Care Act's] demise.'' Apparently, he doesn't appreciate that the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion, in particular, have been absolutely critical tools in the fight against the opioid epidemic.

I urge Mr. Azar and President Trump to read the front page story in Sunday's New York Times. The story is about the devastating consequences of the opioid epidemic in my State of New Hampshire. The article is titled ``How a `Perfect Storm' in New Hampshire Has Fueled an Opioid Crisis.'' It was accompanied by an even more compelling article, titled ``1 Son, 4 Overdoses, 6 Hours,'' which profiles the life of Patrick Griffin of Pembroke, NH. In shocking detail, the article documents how Mr. Griffin, who has struggled for years with a substance misuse disorder, overdosed four times within a 6-hour period. Twice within those 6 hours, emergency medical responders came to his house and revived him with Narcan, the antidote that reverses opioid overdoses.

In reading that article, some people will ask: Why can't he just control his substance use disorder? They don't understand this is a disease, that it changes people's brain makeups--the chemistry of an individual's brain. Just like heart disease or diabetes or any other chronic illness, there is a physiology that is involved with that that affects a person's ability to get better.

One of the things that saves people like Patrick when one is overdosing is the drug Narcan, or naloxone, which is the official name. It has been used so much in New Hampshire that most people refer to it as Narcan. We have seen that the pharmaceutical industry has dramatically increased the price of Narcan as this epidemic has spread.

The price of the drug that is needed by so many to save their lives has increased dramatically. A two-dose package of Narcan, manufactured by Evzio, cost $690 in 2014. It is $4,500 today. Generic doses of Narcan have increased between 95 and 129 percent since 2012. Bear in mind, it often takes multiple doses to revive people who have overdosed, so this has an impact on our healthcare system. In New Hampshire, it has had an impact on families, on municipalities, on first responders--all of those people who are trying to save people who have overdosed.

As we all know, the opioid epidemic is a nationwide crisis, with some 63,000 Americans having been killed by drug overdoses in 2016. New Hampshire has been especially hard hit. The demise of the Affordable Care Act, which Mr. Azar says he wants, would mean that thousands of Granite Staters would lose access to treatment, with there being devastating consequences. That is true not just in New Hampshire but in States across this country. I think it is unconscionable that a Secretary of Health and Human Services would take away one of our most valuable tools for combating substance use disorders and that he would actively oppose access to healthcare for millions of Americans.

For me, between Mr. Azar's coziness with the pharmaceutical industry and his disdain for the Affordable Care Act, which is the law of the land and which Mr. Azar would be charged with administering as Secretary, I think he is the wrong person to serve in the critically important post of Secretary of Health and Human Services. I intend to vote against his confirmation, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, like I assume most of the rest of the Members of the Senate, I am very disappointed that today we have not reached a bipartisan agreement to reopen the government.

I think it is important to note that there is a lot of shared frustration on both sides of the aisle about how we got here. Leader McConnell, Senator Graham, and other Republicans have expressed their exasperation at the fact that for weeks President Trump hasn't stuck to a position for longer than a couple of hours and that he has derailed several proposals which would have addressed the concerns that have been expressed by Democrats in this body about how to move forward to keep the government open.

Thankfully, there is also a lot of bipartisan consensus in the Senate that we need to work together to fix our situation, to get the government up and running again, and to address some of the long-term challenges that have led to this moment.

However, in order to do this, we need the President and we need Republican leadership to provide some leadership so we can move forward. I am committed to negotiations that will allow us to address certain key issues: first and foremost, I believe, is a long-term budget agreement that will go through the remainder of this fiscal year. That will put our defense on solid footing, yet not shortchange our domestic needs. Congress has to set aside the short-term funding bills--this is the fourth one in just the last 3\1/2\ months, since the beginning of this fiscal year--because these bills inflict real damage on our domestic needs and also on our Armed Forces.

We also need the necessary Federal resources to help communities and first responders across the country effectively combat the national opioid epidemic. We need long-term funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, for community health centers, and for other health issues we are facing.

I have rural hospitals in New Hampshire that if they don't get the disproportionate share payments, they could be in real financial trouble. We need to address these challenges that are facing States across the country.

We also need a solution that will give Dreamers the path to citizenship they deserve so they can live and work without fear of deportation. A bipartisan deal that will provide long-term budget certainty is absolutely critical for our national security.

It can't be overstated how much damage continued short-term funding causes our military. We have been repeatedly warned by the Pentagon of the damaging impacts of budget uncertainty. We heard from Secretary Mattis. In just the last couple of weeks, he came to the Democratic and Republican Caucuses and said: Please don't give us another continuing resolution.

Army Chief of Staff GEN Mark Milley has cautioned that the Army's combat readiness is significantly hampered as training cycles are disrupted and sometimes completely discontinued. Just recently--in fact, on Friday, I believe--the Pentagon's spokeswoman echoed the sentiment, saying that operating under years of continuing resolutions is ``wasteful and destructive'' and that what is needed is a ``fully funded'' budget.

When we had our first Navy caucus--I know the Presiding Officer can identify with this because we met with Admiral Richardson, and Admiral Richardson said: We tell everybody in the Navy not to count on doing anything in the first quarter of a fiscal year because we have been operating under continuing resolutions for so long.

As we continue working toward a bipartisan compromise, it is critically important that we ensure our military servicemembers, as well as Department of Defense civilians and contractors who support them, receive the pay they have earned.

I was disappointed when Senator Kaine and Senator Duckworth made that unanimous consent request, and when Senator McCaskill made it on Friday night, that it was objected to. The fact is, there is an effort to get this done by unanimous consent, running what is called the hotline on both sides of the aisle, and the majority is objecting to allowing us to go ahead and make the commitment that we are going to pay our men and women of the military and their civilian support.

Our men and women in uniform, as well as Department of Defense civilians, work tirelessly to protect our national security, and they and their families should not have to worry about whether they are going to receive a paycheck. We urgently need to pass the Pay Our Military Act legislation. This is legislation that will allow our men and women in uniform to focus on their critical missions across the globe that are paramount to protecting this Nation. They need the peace of mind to know they will be compensated. I believe that is what everybody in this Chamber thinks we should do.

Importantly, that legislation would ensure that death benefits will be funded should a servicemember be killed overseas. Again, I think this is something that all of us agree needs to happen and that we can agree it should happen now because whether you are stationed in Afghanistan, on the Korean Peninsula, or deterring Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, our servicemembers should not have to worry about whether they will be able to provide for their families and loved ones back home.

We passed similar legislation in 2013 during the last government shutdown, and I urge swift passage of this important legislation again so our men and women in the military can continue to protect our country without worry.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the Senate and the House right now are struggling to pass yet another short-term continuing resolution to avoid a Federal shutdown at midnight on Friday. For nine consecutive years now, since I have gotten to the Senate, we have begun the fiscal year without regular appropriations bills being enacted into law. If we pass another continuing resolution this week, it will be the fourth continuing resolution for fiscal year 2018. There were three CRs, or continuing resolutions, for fiscal year 2017. This ``government by CR'' is chaotic and it is disruptive. It is inflicting real damage on our Armed Forces, as well as on critical domestic programs that benefit people across this country.

I live in a very small town in New Hampshire called Madbury, and if our board of selectmen in Madbury committed this kind of budgetary malpractice, we would get rid of them.

The fact is that the frantic scramble to pass a new CR by midnight on Friday is yet another manufactured crisis here in Washington. It is a crisis that is completely unnecessary. The Appropriations Committees in both Houses of Congress have completed their work in a thoughtful, timely manner. In this Congress, the House passed all 12 of its appropriations bills out of committee. In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee passed 8 of our 12 bills, and we did that with overwhelming bipartisan support. The only reason we didn't report the other four bills out of committee is because the leadership directed us to stop.

So let's be very clear. This is not about appropriators not being able to get our work done and not being able to agree on what we want to do. This is about the leadership in Congress--the Republican majority--which has refused to allow us to go forward with a regular order budget process. The House, the Senate, and the White House are all controlled by Republicans, and if they wanted to complete the appropriations process in a timely manner, we could have done so, and we could have done it with bipartisan support.

Now, I am especially concerned about the damage that government by CR is inflicting on our Armed Forces and national security. Those of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee were disturbed by testimony from the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM John Richardson, in September of 2016. He said: ``Our ability to achieve true effectiveness and efficiency has been undermined by budget instability, workforce limitations, and eight--now likely nine''--and it was nine--``straight years of budget uncertainty and continuing resolutions.''

I remember when Admiral Richardson came and spoke to the Navy caucus, and we were asking him what his concerns were. He said: Well, you know, my biggest concern is budget certainty, and what we tell everybody in the Navy now to figure on is to figure that they can't do anything in the first quarter of a fiscal year because they are going to be operating under a continuing resolution.

He pointed out: ``This compromises our mission, and drives inefficiency and waste into all that we do.''

In a similar vein, the Army Chief of Staff, GEN Mark Milley, has repeatedly warned us of the damaging impacts that budget uncertainty has on the Army's combat readiness. Training cycles are disrupted, and sometimes they are discontinued. All non-mission-critical maintenance is postponed for the length of a CR.

Now, I share the views of many in this Congress that we need to increase support for our military. We live in an uncertain world, where we are facing security threats from ISIS to Russia and North Korea, and we could go down a long list. We must be prepared to respond, but we can't increase military spending at the expense of funding our domestic needs.

When it comes to funding domestic needs, no challenge is more urgent and frightening than the nationwide opioid epidemic. In my State of New Hampshire, nearly everyone has a heartbreaking story of a family member, a friend, or a colleague whose life has been destroyed by opioids. We can just look at these headlines and see what the challenge is. This is on August 16, 2017, from our State newspaper, the Concord Monitor, in the capital: ``N.H. drug overdose deaths--mostly from fentanyl--continue at a high rate.''

The CDC recently said that New Hampshire has the highest overdose death rate from fentanyl, the third highest in the country. Nationwide, in 2016, more than 63,000 Americans died from overdoses--more than 63,000 people. If we were losing that many Americans to a disease outbreak, to a war in the Middle East or elsewhere, there would be an outcry in Congress and we would pass legislation to address the crisis in a matter of days. Well, this current funding crisis is an opportunity for us to address the opioid epidemic.

In recent weeks, along with my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Hassan, I have urged the Senate to make an immediate emergency $25 billion Federal investment in treatment and prevention--a down payment on a sustained, reliable funding stream to support efforts by States and communities. At long last, we could provide a response that is commensurate with the magnitude of this public health crisis.

There is bipartisan support in this body and throughout Congress to address the opioid epidemic. President Trump promised when he was campaigning, and since he became President, that he was going to work to end this epidemic. Yet we are still waiting to see the resources that States and communities need.

Now, last week many of us watched with great anticipation when President Trump invited bipartisan representatives from both the House and Senate, and the television cameras, to talk about how we were going to address the funding situation that we are in, and how we were going to address DACA--those young people who were brought to this country through no fault of their own and are now in a situation where they don't have citizenship and they don't have a way forward.

Senators Graham and Durbin spent four months negotiating an excellent, bipartisan agreement to strengthen border security and to give Dreamers the path to citizenship that they deserve. The President, in that meeting that we all watched said: Bring me a solution, and I will sign it.

Well, they reached an agreement that would likely pass in the Senate with at least 60 votes. Last week, President Trump applauded the deal. He invited Senators Graham and Durbin to the White House to finalize it. And when they got there, they were shocked to find that the President had completely reversed himself.

This morning, Senator Graham was stating the obvious when he said: ``We do not have a reliable partner in the White House.''

Well, we do have reliable partners in this body. Give us that bill. Let us vote on it. Let's send it to the President, and let the President veto it if he doesn't like it.

Yesterday, Majority Leader McConnell said: ``As soon as the President figures out what he is for, then I will be convinced that we are not just spinning our wheels but actually dealing with a bill that can become law.''

Well, again, we have a bipartisan deal on DACA. Let's vote on it.

There are very real consequences to the constant chaos, turmoil, and policy reversals that have become the new normal under this President. We must commit ourselves on a bipartisan basis to restoring order to the appropriations process. It is time to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to pass full-year appropriations bills that address the needs of the American people.

As we work to resolve this current fiscal impasse, any agreement should include a number of basic provisions.

We should fund government for the remainder of this year--no more short-term continuing resolutions--enough. It is enough. We need to stop that. The majority of Members in this Chamber and throughout Congress understand that we can't keep doing this. Any deal should increase support for our military, and it should provide parity for our domestic needs: to address the opioid epidemic; for our veterans; for the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health centers; for those Medicaid payments that are so critical to our rural hospitals; for disaster relief in Florida, Texas, California, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; and for pension relief for people who have worked their whole lives and who are facing old age without the pensions they paid into.

We can get this done. There are enough people of goodwill on both sides of the aisle in this body and in the other body so that we can do this if we are allowed to work together. So Democrats and Republicans, let's get this done. Let's keep the government funded, and let's show the American people that we can work together in the interests of this country.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, let me applaud my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Capito, for her work in addressing the opioid epidemic. It is something that I know, in a bipartisan way, we care about in this Chamber, and it is one place in which I think we could come to some agreement about increasing resources as we come to an agreement on the budget for the upcoming year. So I thank the Senator for her comments.

Mr. President, yesterday President Trump and congressional Republicans went to the White House to celebrate the passage of tax legislation that was partisan and that was rammed through the Senate earlier this week without one public hearing.

Debate on this bill in the Senate is over, but I think we must not lose sight of the impact this legislation will have on so many families and on our economy.

Make no mistake--this tax bill is not tax reform. Instead, it asks middle-class families and future generations to foot the bill for massive tax breaks for large corporations and the wealthy. By adding over $1 trillion to the national debt, this tax plan will undermine our ability to address so many of the real challenges that face this country and middle-class families in America.

Indeed, Republicans have already made clear that this tax bill is just step No. 1. What we have already heard from Members of the House is that step No. 2 is going to be next year, and that includes deep cuts to Social Security, to Medicare, and to Medicaid. They are saying we are going to have to do that to address the deficits that have been made far worse by this bill.

Meanwhile, the majority's headlong rush to ram through this tax bill has meant they jeopardized access to healthcare for tens of millions of Americans.

My colleague from Ohio just talked about so many families in his State who are worried about losing their children's health insurance. We are seeing that in New Hampshire, as well, and across this country. By considering only stop-gap, short-term reauthorizations of critical healthcare programs, fear and uncertainty have been created for countless American families.

Because the Congress has failed to enact a long-term reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, health coverage for nearly 9 million children across the United States is at risk. Congress has failed to enact a long-term reauthorization of the

community health centers, which more than 25 million Americans rely on for essential healthcare. And according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the tax bill's repeal of the individual mandate means that nearly 13 million fewer Americans will have health coverage in the next year, and many millions more are going to pay increases in their rates.

In addition, the majority has also failed to enact a long-term reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program. That is a devastating blow to nearly 1.25 million Americans who are living with type 1 diabetes.

All of these programs have earned strong bipartisan support. That is what is so hard to understand about this. All of these programs should have been fully reauthorized for the long term because I know my colleagues in the Senate support these programs.

Once again, we have missed a prime opportunity to address the opioid crisis. We desperately need a Federal response to the opioid epidemic that includes robust, sustained resources that match the scale of this epidemic.

Just this week, we learned from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that because of soaring overdose mortality rates, life expectancy in the United States has declined for the second year in a row. For the first time since the early 1960s, we have seen the second year of decline in life expectancy because so many people are overdosing because of substance use disorders. In 2016, 63,000 people died from overdoses. If we were losing that many people to a war in the Middle East, there would be an outcry in this country. I want to know where the outcry is, and when is this body going to act?

On Tuesday, the University of New Hampshire released a study that cited a fivefold increase over the past decade in our State of babies who were born addicted because of their parents' substance use disorders. Yet, in the face of this uncontrolled national public health emergency, the majority has once again failed to find appropriate funding.

Again, this is an issue that I know has bipartisan support. I worked with my colleagues here on the other side of the aisle to try to address this issue. Yet it has not been a priority, just as funding children's health insurance and the community health centers and other healthcare initiatives--the Special Diabetes Program--have not been a priority for funding.

This is an enormous lost opportunity. We could have written bipartisan legislation to address all of these issues, and we could have fully authorized, in a timely manner, critical health programs on which tens of millions of Americans rely. We could have addressed the opioid emergency, which is ravaging communities across this country. But instead, what did we get? We got a tax bill that makes a mockery of reform. It makes the Tax Code more complex, not less. It will grow the deficits and our national debt. And instead of helping the middle class in reducing the complexity of our outdated Tax Code, it creates a bonanza of new loopholes for the large corporations and the wealthiest in this country.

The majority here in the Senate had no problem coming up with $1.5 trillion in unpaid-for tax cuts for the biggest corporations in this country. In the final days before passing the tax bill, they had no problem creating a new $700 million loophole for oil and gas partnerships that will benefit oil giants, such as Shell and Valero. They had no problem creating a new loophole for wealthy individuals with large real estate holdings--a loophole that has been described as a jackpot for the Trump family and for several Members of Congress. They had no problem retaining the carried interest loophole at a cost to the Treasury of $20 billion. I remember during the campaign when Candidate Donald Trump railed against the carried interest loophole as a giveaway to Wall Street that was unfair to American workers. Again and again, Candidate Trump promised to kill this loophole, but President Trump now enthusiastically supports keeping it in the tax bill.

Yesterday at the White House, Republican leaders and President Trump celebrated the tax bill, while at the same time, many in the majority party insist that the Federal Government can't afford to help 9 million children who depend on the CHIP program and tens of millions of working Americans who rely on community health centers or the Affordable Care Act for access to healthcare.

Well, according to a study by the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation released this week, by the time many of the provisions of this tax bill expire in 2027, large corporations and the wealthiest Americans will continue to enjoy the massive permanent tax cuts because those cuts are not set to expire, but almost every income group below $75,000 will see tax increases by 2027.

Make no mistake--this tax bill is a betrayal of middle-class Americans, and it is especially a betrayal of tens of millions of Americans who placed their faith in President Trump.

This tax bill is also a case of sadly misplaced priorities. The majority in Congress have been single-mindedly focused on passing this bill at every step, adding more and more giveaways to large corporations, instead of working across the aisle to focus on the needs of the middle class. Meanwhile, they have shortchanged the Children's Health Insurance Program, they have shortchanged community health centers, and they have shortchanged the Special Diabetes Program. They have caused hospitals and clinics across my State and across America to begin the process of reducing their services. This really demonstrates a lack of understanding and a total disregard for the needs and priorities of so many Americans.

Yesterday, Republican leaders and the President celebrated the passage of their misguided tax bill, but Senators who care deeply about regular order and bipartisanship in this body are not celebrating. Americans concerned about our national debt and our children's future are not celebrating. Americans who see growing income inequality as a threat to our democracy--a threat made far worse by this tax bill--are not celebrating either. And parents of the 9 million children who rely on the Children's Health Insurance Program are dreading notifications from their States that their children will no longer have health insurance. These families aren't celebrating during this holiday season either.

As I said earlier, the debate on this bill is over, but I intend to continue to speak out against this very damaging tax legislation. I pledge to continue to speak out in support of the real needs of working people across America, including the need for affordable healthcare.

In the new year ahead, I certainly hope to be able to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle to address these urgent needs. The American people deserve better than this legislation. They also deserve a Senate that values bipartisanship, that values cooperation and compromise and the service of all Americans, not just the largest corporations and the wealthiest in this country.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.