Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to address two pieces of legislation that are coming before the Senate. One we are currently waiting to consider is a long-term reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, and the second, which I hope we will soon consider, is comprehensive legislation to address the Nation's opioid epidemic.

I begin by thanking Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for their work to deliver a bipartisan, bicameral FAA reauthorization bill that provides a 5-year reauthorization for the agency. The last time we reauthorized the FAA, when I was in the Senate, I think it took us 23 tries to get it done over a period of time that was actually longer than the original authorization, but this time we are doing it much faster, with three short-term extensions. Last week, the House passed this bill, the FAA reauthorization, with broad bipartisan support, and I hope the Senate is going to act quickly so we can get this bill to the President's desk for signature.

The FAA has not received a long-term reauthorization since February of 2012. Short-term reauthorizations fail to give the FAA the certainty and the necessary resources they need to make to improve our Nation's airports and make commercial air travel safer for all passengers.

I think it is particularly an issue right now as we are switching over to the NextGen system of air traffic control. Last month, I had a chance to visit with air traffic controllers in New Hampshire at the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility in Merrimack, also called the TRACON. What I heard from folks there was that a long-term reauthorization bill means that the TRACON and Merrimack will be able to upgrade its systems to keep our airways safe, while also allowing the center to continue to hire well-qualified, trained controllers to meet staffing needs.

The bill we have before us now provides critical investments through the Airport Improvement Program that provides grants to airports nationwide for planning and development projects that these airports would be unable to complete otherwise. In New Hampshire, where we have a number of small airports, this grant program is particularly important.

It also increases investments in the Essential Air Service Program, which provides services that would otherwise be too cost prohibitive for airlines to operate in rural communities like we have in New Hampshire. For example, EAS is vital for Granite Staters who utilize the Lebanon Municipal Airport and depend on this service for access to regularly scheduled flights that would not otherwise be available. I am sure the Presiding Officer has an appreciation for the Lebanon Municipal Airport, since he went to school at Dartmouth in that region of the State and knows how important that airport is to New Hampshire.

I am also pleased the FAA bill includes legislation I introduced as part of it to permanently reauthorize the Human Intervention Motivation Study, the HIMS Program, and also directs the National Research Council to study how other subagencies within the Department of Transportation could create similar programs to fight drug and alcohol addiction within their workforces.

HIMS, as it is known, is an employee assistance program that provides education and outreach in order to coordinate the identification, treatment,

medical recertification, and return to the cockpit of flight officers with substance misuse issues. HIMS doesn't provide direct treatment but instead helps identify those who are in need, and it facilitates the successful return to work. It is an industrywide effort in which airlines, pilot unions, and the FAA work together to preserve careers and promote air safety. Since its implementation, the program has successfully helped over 5,800 pilots, and it provides airlines with a $9 return on every dollar that is invested.

There are a lot of lessons from the HIMS Program that I think have real resonance to other agencies within the Department of Transportation, and I am hoping the study that is authorized as part of the FAA bill we are considering will be able to be shared so we can see how other agencies can also benefit from this.

Right now, we have a 1-week extension on the FAA bill that expires this Sunday, October 7. I hope this bill is going to come to the floor for final passage before we go home this week.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague and chairman, Senator Moran, for his very kind remarks and for his leadership on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

As he says, it has been a great partnership this year. It has involved give and take. We both have compromised. Neither of us has gotten everything we wanted for the appropriations, for the committee, for our States, or for the country, but I think we made a commitment that I think has been shared by the Appropriations Committee as a whole that we were going to get back to regular order of passing these appropriations bills, of funding the government on a reasonable timetable that people could count on. That is what this bill represents, and I applaud Senator Moran and all of the staff, the majority and the minority staff, who have worked with us to get this done.

I also want to congratulate, as you did, Senator Moran, Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy on moving all 12 appropriation bills out of committee in a bipartisan manner. Nine of those bills have passed the Senate by now. Three are already on the President's desk, and the Senate today will pass a conference report with two more of those bills and a continuing funding resolution. We expect that those bills will become law before the end of the fiscal year on September 30.

This is the first time since I have been in the Senate--I started in 2009--when we will actually see the bills that were passed out of the Appropriations Committee. We have seen them taken up on the floor, and we are going to see them pass and get signed into law by the President.

Now, unfortunately, for the work that we have done on CJS, the CR that we are going to be acting on today includes the funding for the departments and agencies in the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, among others, but like Senator Moran, I believe that passing the short-term CR today should not keep us from working to pass full-year funding for CJS. That is why we are here on the floor today urging that the Senate continue to take up and pass the CJS appropriations bill. I am sure that is what Chairman Shelby would support and what Vice Chairman Leahy would also support if they joined us on the floor.

If you have any doubts about why what is in the CJS bill is so important and why we should take it up, all you have to do is turn on the TV or have watched the television coverage over the last 4 days of Hurricane Florence as it has hit the Carolina coast. It has caused devastation. It has caused deadly flooding. I know that we all empathize and support the people of the Carolinas with what they are dealing with with Hurricane Florence, but we have been able to predict the course of that hurricane because of the National Weather Service hurricane forecasters. They got a lot right about Florence's track, and the forecasters didn't do it alone. They need models to track wind intensity, to track storm surge, to track the direction of hurricanes, and we need researchers who are constantly working to improve those models and to make the forecasts more accurate. Those predictions rely on satellite imagery. They rely on direct measurements from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and hurricane hunter aircraft, and all of those programs and initiatives are funded in the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. That is why we need to make sure the whole bill actually gets passed and signed into law ultimately.

The other thing that is in the CJS bill that I think all of us share in the importance of in a bipartisan way is the support that it provides to address the opioid epidemic. This is an issue that is particularly important to us in New Hampshire, where we have the second highest overdose death rate from opioids in the country, but it is important to the entire country because from 2015 to 2017, the number of deaths from drug overdoses has risen nearly 40 percent, from 52,000 in 2015 to 72,000 in 2017. That rise was driven in large part by continuing increases in deaths from synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, as well as heroin. Of those 72,000 overdose deaths, 30,000 are estimated to be from fentanyl.

Last year, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that 21 million Americans have a substance use disorder. That is far more people than are affected by cancer, but only 1 in 10 is receiving any kind of treatment. That is one of the things that is so important in this CJS bill, because it would provide funding to State and local governments and organizations working on the frontlines, for law enforcement, for treatment and recovery, and for those resources that help our communities deal with the opioid and fentanyl crisis.

The bill also continues the COPS anti-heroin task force grant program, despite efforts by the administration to discontinue that very effective law enforcement program. I want to enact the whole CJS bill into law because I don't want to lose these critical increases in funding that are going to support people in New Hampshire and across the country who are dealing with substance use disorders.

Senator Moran mentioned trade and what is in this bill that is related to trade. Our subcommittee has held two hearings on the administration's trade policies in the last month or so, and I think it is fair to say that at these hearings there has been bipartisan concern about the impact of the administration's tariffs on manufacturers, on farmers, and on small businesses. I am hearing from small businesses in New Hampshire about what they are seeing as the result of these tariffs.

While I don't support those tariffs, I think it is important that we make sure that the Department of Commerce has the resources that are included in our bill to quickly and fairly evaluate and decide on American manufacturers' requests for exemption from those tariffs so that we can continue to promote American exports abroad.

Also, to keep the American economy going strong, the bill supports strong investments in research and development at the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and especially at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Again, my colleague mentioned NASA and the breakthroughs that we are seeing at NASA that are helping to drive innovation. This scientific innovation creates new discoveries that lead to new industries and to new American jobs. That is good for this country, and we need to make sure that the funding that is in this bill actually gets passed out of the Senate and the Congress before we get to the next appropriations process for 2020.

Instead, today, what we are going to do is to vote to put the agencies that are funded by CJS on autopilot until December through a continuing resolution. They will spend the same amount on programs and initiatives on the same items with no adjustment under the CR. We know that businesses don't operate this way, families don't operate this way, and the U.S. Government shouldn't operate this way.

Senator Moran and I are going to continue to argue that we need to pass this bill. I would urge the leaders here in the Senate and our leaders on the Appropriations Committee to bring the full bill to the floor. Let's have a robust debate. Let's pass the fiscal year 2019 Commerce-Justice-Science bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the life and legacy of my friend and colleague, Senator John McCain. Over these past months, his presence has been dearly missed, and I must admit it is still hard to imagine that John isn't coming back.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues who have so eloquently discussed John's lasting legacy as a great statesman and as a true American hero. I join with them and so many Americans across the country in mourning his passing.

As many people know, John had a special relationship with New Hampshire, a relationship forged during his Presidential campaigns. We often considered John one of our own, a true Granite Stater. He just seemed to click with the Granite State; in fact, he

would call New Hampshire his ``second favorite state.''

Throughout his many visits to New Hampshire, Granite Staters appreciated his candor and sincerity. The Straight Talk Express wasn't just a slogan--the John McCain you saw was the John McCain you got.

Most memorable, during a campaign stop in Wolfeboro in 2008, a mother stood up and asked John to wear a bracelet with her son's name it. Her son, Matthew Stanley, was only 22 years old when he died serving in Iraq. She wanted to make sure that her son's sacrifice wasn't forgotten, that he didn't die in vain. John said he would be honored to wear the bracelet. From then on, it was on his wrist everywhere he went. In his final days, John continued to wear the bracelet of Matthew Stanley on his wrist. Until the very end, John was true to his word and true to his convictions.

As my chairman on the Armed Services Committee, it was always a great honor to work with John on the annual defense authorization bill. The issues we addressed were so important to him. His devotion to service and the Armed Forces not only ran deep in his character, but in his family legacy. Delivering a good and timely defense bill was John's No. 1 priority.

One issue I had the great honor of working with John on every year was providing additional visas to Afghan interpreters and support staff who help our troops and diplomats on the ground. For their service, these men and women are often targeted by the Taliban and other terrorist groups. John recognized that we have a profound obligation to provide a safe haven to these Afghan allies who risk everything. John led this fight because it is just the right thing to do. He understood that the solemn commitment to leave no man behind extends to all who fight, and just like John, America would be true to its word.

I also had the pleasure of traveling internationally with John to represent the United States and observe U.S. missions. As many of my colleagues can attest, rarely was a minute wasted on a McCain delegation. One of his great passions was human rights and supporting those on the side of freedom and democracy around the world. Whether that be students seeking academic freedom in Belarus or newly elected leaders in Tunisia, he always made time to encourage and support their efforts.

John cared greatly for the U.S. Senate and was deeply worried about the current state of our politics. I believe that the floor speech that Senator McCain delivered soon after learning of his cancer diagnosis will echo for decades to come. We can fight like hell for what we believe in, but we must always recognize that we are fundamentally Americans who have more in common than we have differences. Compromise in a legislative body is essential, not a dirty word. Political expediency must take a backseat to what is best for the country. We should all take this message to heart every day as we seek to address the many challenges our country faces.

My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the McCain family. I wish for them strength and perseverance during this very difficult time.

There will never be another John McCain, and the Senate will not be the same without him.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor a great American and steadfast Air National guardsman.

Capt. Miguel ``Mike'' E. Cosio has distinguished himself through his professional character and dedication by serving this Nation in uniform. A leader and expert communicator, he has provided distinguished service to our country while assigned to the National Capitol Region.

As an Air legislative liaison in the National Guard Bureau Office of Legislative Liaison from May 2016 to August 2018, Captain Cosio performed his duties well and without reservation. His strategic thinking and foresight contributed to the completion of numerous high- level tasks and engagements between Congress and the National Guard. During this assignment, Captain Cosio conducted more than 50 congressional engagements to provide Members insight into the worsening trend of substance misuse and the critical role of the National Guard's counterdrug program in effectively combating this epidemic. He also actively engaged Members of Congress regarding the growth of the State Partnership Program, a vital driver in strengthening our alliances overseas. In addition to those meetings, he organized dozens of direct engagements between Air National Guard senior leaders and Members of Congress, which were essential in conveying important information on behalf of the Department of Defense and building trust and understanding.

After serving in this vital role for the past 2 years, Captain Cosio will move to his next assignment: deploying in support of our Nation's defense as a true citizen-airman. Mike, his wife, Traci, and their two children have sacrificed much as a family in service to our Nation. I am thankful for Mike's service and his work with my office over the past 2 years on issues important to the State of New Hampshire and the country. I salute this American patriot whose selfless service has kept our country safe and strong.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the White Mountain National Forest.

In 1911, Congress passed the Weeks Act, which authorized the Federal Government to purchase forest lands at the head of navigable streams to protect the health of our waterways. This landmark legislation paved the way for President Woodrow Wilson's Executive order in 1918, a century ago this year, which formally established the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire and Maine. Today, these public lands cover nearly 800,000 acres of woodland and attract millions of visitors each year who camp, hike, ski, and explore some of the most breathtaking natural beauty in New England. In fact, the region attracts more guests than both Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks.

If you were to visit the forest today and take in the lush, healthy woodland, it may surprise you that the environmental and economic success of this region was once in serious jeopardy. At the beginning of the 20th century, 80 percent of the White Mountain region had been depleted of its trees. Then-Governor Chester Jordan of New Hampshire said that the single greatest challenge facing the Granite State's future was excessive and unrestrained timber cutting. In his words, ``Our forests are fast becoming despoiled, their scenic beauties marred and destroyed, the public health endangered'' and the State's agriculture, tourism, and even lumber industry threatened with ruin. Without action, he warned, New Hampshire's forests were headed toward extinction.

In 1901, the year Governor Jordan issued his warning, Granite Staters began a remarkable effort to save our woodlands, efforts that continue to this day and have helped create a rich

and vibrant forest ecology. Organizations like the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, the Appalachian Mountain Club, and the Society of American Foresters have worked for over a century to protect our woodlands and foster appreciation for the natural world. Through their tireless work, the commitment of Granite Staters, and the efforts of local, State, and Federal governments, New Hampshire is now the second most heavily forested State in the U.S. The White Mountain National Forest, one of the greatest successes of the State's conservation efforts, has become a major part of the Granite State economy, supporting a $9 billion statewide tourism and outdoor recreation industry and nearly 80,000 jobs--proof that environmental and economic success can go hand-in-hand.

This year also marks the 50th anniversary of the National Trails System Act. This important legislation, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, established a national network of public trails that expanded access to outdoor recreation across the United States, including nearly 350 miles of public trails in the White Mountain National Forest.

As we celebrate the National Trails System Act and the White Mountain National Forest, we must also look toward the future--toward the next 100 years--and ask ourselves what we can do to advance this legacy of stewardship.

In Congress, we must reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has enhanced recreational access to the White Mountain National Forest and helped New Hampshire to protect parcels of the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge, and the Appalachian Trail. We must also advance environmental and economic policies that conserve our public lands, protect our clean air and water, and support local economies. We each must take time to appreciate the natural wonder of our public lands and renew our efforts to preserve these precious areas for generations to come.

I stand with and congratulate the supporters of the White Mountain National Forest on 100 years. Thank you.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Tillis on the floor today as he discusses Turkey and Pastor Andrew Brunson. I applaud Senator Tillis for his continued commitment in seeking justice for Pastor Brunson. Since March, Senator Tillis, Senator Lankford, and I have joined together to keep pressure on Turkish President Erdogan.

We are not driven by diaspora politics, we have no hidden agendas, and we are not agents for Gulen or other actors like the Turkish papers have claimed--quite the contrary. As cochairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group, Senator Tillis and I are ardent supporters of NATO. We value Turkey's importance as an ally. We want U.S.-Turkey relations to improve. Yet, supporting Turkey and the Turkish people should not mean appeasing the Turkish President.

It is clear that the less we push back as a nation against Turkish President Erdogan, the more emboldened he becomes.

Five years ago, if you had asked any diplomat or military official whether Turkey would stoop so low as to take innocent Americans hostage and leverage them for political gain, no one would have said that this was a possibility. Yet that is where we are today.

Turkey has not only joined the ranks of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela as a hostage-taker, but it has shifted its orientation away from NATO and toward Russia for no other reason except for Erdogan's financial and electoral gain.

Even with the near-constant propaganda, however, there are things the Turkish Government can't hide: Turkey's rapidly falling currency, the faltering state of their judiciary, the inexplicable enrichment of President Erdogan, his family, and his inner circle. All these issues are well-known concerns. In fact, according to New World Wealth--the research outfit that tracks millionaire migrations--in 2017, the largest exodus of millionaires was seen in Turkey--a clear indication that those who can leave Turkey are choosing to do so.

Unfortunately, the Turkish people can only do so much while living under a dictatorship--a dictatorship that is about to expand on June 24, the date of Turkey's next election. For this reason, the United States should not stay silent about what is happening in Turkey and what is happening to NATO because of Turkey.

Senator Tillis and I both serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and we successfully added a bipartisan and widely supported amendment to this year's Defense bill that is moving through the Senate. The amendment would stall the delivery or transfer of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Turkey.

I hope that both the Departments of State and Defense hear Congress loud and clear: We should have no signing ceremonies, no planes, and no moves to weaken NATO are acceptable at this time.

Our government is well aware of the serious security concerns that may come if Turkey takes control of any F-35 aircraft. My colleagues Senator Donnelly and Senator Tillis have already spoken eloquently to that.

First, the Turkish Government claims to have purchased a Russian air defense system designed to shoot these very planes down. NATO partners need these F-35s to counter Russian activity. We would be handing this technology over to the Kremlin if we granted Turkey these planes, and Congress will not stand for it.

Second and absolutely critical to this afternoon's discussion is that nothing should be more important than the safety of American citizens.

Pastor Brunson has been held in Turkey since October of 2016. The charges against him are clearly fabricated, and the legal proceedings have been a farce. His defense is not allowed to call up witnesses, and the identities of the secret witnesses in his indictment are known to be petty criminals.

What is happening to Pastor Brunson is an absolute shame, but it has become a sad reality for those living in Turkey because Turkey has already imprisoned over 50,000 of its own people. I wish we could do more for all of those people, but at the very least, our government has a duty to act when any American anywhere is held unjustly by a foreign government. We must do everything we can to bring Americans home, to bring Pastor Brunson home.

I encourage the administration to use every tool available in their diplomatic and economic toolbox to bring the pastor and all innocent Americans home at once. In the meantime, Senators Tillis, Lankford, and I will continue to push for targeted sanctions against Erdogan and all officials who are involved in the unlawful detention of Americans in Turkey. We will not cease our efforts until Turkey rejoins the community of democracies it once belonged to. We all hope this day comes sooner rather than later.

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.