Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to join my Democratic colleagues in speaking out against the dangerous TrumpCare bill which is currently being drafted behind closed doors by our Republican colleagues.

The secrecy around this bill shows that Senate Republicans know they cannot defend it to their constituents. That is why Senate Republicans are refusing to even hold a single hearing on the bill. In my State of New Hampshire, you can't pass a bill if it has not

had a hearing, and the Senate here in Washington should work the same way. I continue to urge my colleagues to hold public hearings on this bill so that we can examine the bill for ourselves and get feedback from our constituents and stakeholders.

We do know that this legislation will be very similar to the House TrumpCare bill, which President Trump himself called mean, and calling it mean is even putting it lightly. TrumpCare threatens to have devastating impacts on millions of Americans. Today I am going to address three specific ways that TrumpCare is mean to people in New Hampshire and across the Nation. First, it undermines the Medicaid Program; second, it hurts our seniors; and third, it continues this administration's efforts to roll back women's access to healthcare.

As Governor, I worked to pass and then reauthorize New Hampshire's bipartisan Medicaid expansion plan that provides coverage now to over 50,000 hard-working Granite Staters. And TrumpCare, by proposing to repeal Medicaid expansion, hurts many of the hard-working people who are served now by that expansion program and whose care depends on the expansion program being continued. This includes people like Jo from Portsmouth.

I met Jo at a roundtable earlier this year. Jo has a painful, precancerous disease that eats at her abdominal organs. She has had it for most of her life. Prior to the Great Recession, she had a job that provided health insurance and allowed her to get treatment for this chronic health condition. But in 2009 Jo was laid off from her job. Then unable to find reliable, full-time work, she worked several part- time jobs, but they didn't offer health insurance.

In 2012, she desperately needed surgery. She didn't have health insurance. She couldn't get the surgery. Her health declined, the recession continued, and her ability to support herself also declined.

In 2014, after New Hampshire came together and passed its bipartisan Medicaid expansion program, she was able to get healthcare coverage. The Medicaid expansion program helps her get 8 to 12 prescriptions, necessary medical tests, physical therapy, treatment, and specialists. This has also meant that Jo is healthy enough to work again. TrumpCare would end Medicaid expansion, putting people like Jo at risk.

TrumpCare also changes Medicaid into a per-capita cap system. That is a fancy label for massive cuts to the Medicaid Program that would force States to choose between slashing benefits, reducing the number of people who can get care, or both. Under TrumpCare, States will be faced with cutting services that children, people with disabilities, and seniors depend on.

This brings me to the second point I would like to highlight today about this mean bill and whom it impacts. It is clear that TrumpCare would hurt seniors across the Granite State. The majority of nursing home residents in New Hampshire are served by Medicaid. TrumpCare would jeopardize the ability of seniors to stay in nursing homes. It would also threaten services for seniors who receive at-home care. And these cuts to Medicaid are just one of the ways seniors would be hurt under this mean proposal, because TrumpCare would also create an age tax, letting insurance plans charge older adults five times more than younger people. If you are between the ages of 50 and 64, you will be especially hard hit.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, under TrumpCare, you could face 20 percent higher premiums in 2018, with especially high premium hikes for older Americans. And the AARP opposes TrumpCare because it would ``make healthcare less secure and less affordable.''

Finally, my third point is that it is clear that TrumpCare would continue this administration's efforts to roll back women's access to critical healthcare services. To compete economically on a level playing field, women must be able to make their own decisions about if and when to start a family. They should not have to pay more than men for healthcare, and they should be able to visit providers of their own choice who understand their healthcare needs. To fully participate not only in our economy, but also in our democracy, women must be recognized for their capacity to make their own healthcare decisions, just as men are.

Under TrumpCare, if you are a mother, giving birth could now be considered a preexisting condition. TrumpCare would also undermine the requirement that insurance companies have to cover essential health benefits, including maternity care. And TrumpCare's Medicaid cuts would have drastic impacts for women across the country. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Medicaid pays for nearly half of all births in the United States, and it provides healthcare coverage for one in three children across our country.

TrumpCare also defunds Planned Parenthood, which provides critical primary and preventive healthcare services to thousands of New Hampshire women, including preventive care, birth control, and cancer screenings.

My Democratic colleagues and I are ready to work with anyone who is serious about working to build on the Affordable Care Act and lower healthcare costs for hard-working people, but what we do not need is legislation that even the President himself admits is mean.

I will continue working with my colleagues to speak out against and defeat TrumpCare, and I urge the people of New Hampshire and people all across America to keep making their voices heard and make clear that this mean bill is simply unacceptable.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to discuss the heroin, fentanyl, and opioid crisis that has devastated communities across our Nation. I want to thank the Senator from West Virginia for giving us the floor today and for his continued leadership in working to combat this crisis. It is going to take an all-hands-on- deck approach, with Members of both parties and at all levels of government working with those on the frontlines to find solutions.

We recently received near final information on the number of lives lost last year and the specific substances involved in New Hampshire as a result of this crisis. What is clear is that the threat continues to evolve and grow. In 2016 alone, there were 477 confirmed overdose deaths in New Hampshire. That is an increase from 439 deaths in 2015 and 326 in 2014. Already this year, there have been 73 confirmed overdose deaths in my State, with another 86 suspected cases awaiting final toxicology results.

In recent months, we have seen new deadly challenges that are emerging. A few weeks ago, I met with members of the Drug Enforcement Agency in New Hampshire. Among the topics we discussed was the spread of a dangerous synthetic drug, carfentanil. Carfentanil is 100 times stronger than even fentanyl. It is killing people faster, and we are seeing its deadly use rising in New Hampshire. We have seen six confirmed deaths from carfentanil in the past few weeks.

During my meeting with the DEA, I heard from those on the frontlines about the dangerous impacts it has on their lives as well. Carfentanil and other fentanyl compounds are so dangerous that they can put first responders at risk if they are exposed.

It is clear that we must do more to support those struggling and those on the frontlines to stem and ultimately reverse the tide of this crisis. We need more resources to address this problem because people are dying. What we cannot do is institute policies that would make matters worse.

I am encouraged that the Trump administration has discussed the severity of this crisis, but their actions so far don't match their words. The President's budget that was announced this week would have devastating consequences on efforts to combat this crisis. This budget includes hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. It also cuts the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program. This is a program that provides key support to law enforcement officials on the frontlines.

I am particularly disturbed by this administration's continued attacks on Medicaid. Medicaid has been critical to ensuring that Granite Staters struggling with addiction have access to treatment and recovery services. The drastic cuts to Medicaid in the President's budget proposal go above and beyond even the devastating cuts included in the dangerous TrumpCare bill that passed through the House of Representatives. This budget proposes cutting $610 billion to Medicaid, which is on top of the $839 billion cut in TrumpCare. TrumpCare also ends Medicaid expansion, which experts have said is the No. 1 tool we have in combating this crisis.

TrumpCare undermines the requirement that insurance companies must cover mental health and substance use disorder services. According to yesterday's CBO report, this could lead to out-of-pocket costs totaling thousands of dollars for people seeking these services. In the midst of this crisis, we need to be strengthening prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts and giving stronger support to those on the frontlines, but these recent actions by this administration show that President Trump is failing to live up to his own words on this deadly epidemic. And cuts to programs that help people in the throes of addiction are irresponsible, unacceptable, and unconscionable.

I am grateful to many of my colleagues for reaching across the aisle to propose policies to address this epidemic. This is an issue that rises above partisanship, and this is work we need to be doing because the lives of the people of our States depend upon it. I am going to continue to work with my colleagues on solutions, while standing firm against proposals that would pull us backward.

I again thank Senator Manchin for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating Ms. Pamela Rossetti on her 35 years of remarkable service as a fifth and sixth-grade teacher at Lincoln Street School in the Exeter, NH, School District. Throughout her career, Ms. Rossetti has gone above and beyond to meet the needs of her students, as well as her larger school community, by serving as an adviser on a number of committees and taking a leadership role in special projects throughout her tenure. The State of New Hampshire owes her a debt of gratitude for her service.

Ms. Rossetti graduated with her B.A. from Notre Dame College in Manchester, NH, in 1981. She later received her masters of education from Leslie College in Cambridge, MA, with a concentration in integrated teaching through the arts. She was hired by the Exeter School District in 1982 as a sixth-grade teacher. After 2 years, she began teaching in the fifth grade, where she has taught for 33 years.

Throughout her career, Ms. Rossetti has received accolades for her service. In 1983, she received a commendation from New Hampshire's Governor John H. Sununu in recognition of her work with a colleague to create an American citizenship course. She has been a member of both the science and social studies committees for the Exeter School District and served on a number of Lincoln Street School committees, including the arts and health committees. She has also been a mentor teacher and a trainer for the school district's Intel Teach to the Future Program, which focuses on integrating technology into curriculum.

Ms. Rossetti has touched many lives in the Exeter School District, including my son Ben's. Ben experiences disabilities that leave him unable to communicate verbally. Ms. Rossetti was Ben's fifth-grade classroom teacher, and, shortly after the school year, she called me to tell me how smart Ben was. While my family had always thought that Ben was smart and funny, it was incredibly reassuring to know that an objective--and caring--educator thought so as well. She went on to tell me how she had assessed Ben's understanding of sophisticated content material.

Ms. Rossetti's observation impressed me because, in a classroom of students where Ben received support from a special education team, Ms. Rossetti still took the time to get to know him and every one of her students as individuals. Because of her ability to do this, Ms. Rossetti has been able to customize her approach to her students and foster their growth and development. Many of Ms. Rossetti's students have been impacted by this level of support and have stayed in contact with her through the years.

The Exeter School District and all of New Hampshire have benefitted greatly from Ms. Rossetti's devotion and service. On behalf of my colleagues and the U.S. Congress, I thank Ms. Pamela Rossetti for her unrelenting commitment to support every one of her students, as well as the entire school community, through her 35 years as a teacher, and I wish her the very best in her retirement.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I thank my friends from Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii for their leadership on this very important issue concerning net neutrality.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to undermine critical net neutrality rules, which would change the internet as we know it today.

Tomorrow the FCC will vote on a notice of proposed rulemaking, which begins the unraveling of commonsense consumer protections that enhance our online experience. Net neutrality is a concept that requires internet service providers to provide equal access to online applications and content. It prevents internet service providers from discriminating against content and content providers, discrimination that can take the form of making certain web pages, certain applications, or videos load faster or load slower than others.

Net neutrality is integral to promoting innovation, supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses, and encouraging economic growth in my home State of New Hampshire and across the entire Nation.

In March, Washington Republicans, with the support of the Trump administration, voted to take away critical online privacy protections giving ISPs the green light to collect and use a consumer's online data without the consumer's consent. So it is no surprise that what corporate ISPs want next is to remove baseline protections that allow even the softest voice to be heard or the smallest of businesses to thrive against larger competitors.

I have heard time and again from Granite Staters who call and write to my office that we must fight to protect the net neutrality rules, rules that create an even playing field and protect consumers from unfair practices.

What we are seeing here in Washington is different. At the request of big cable companies and internet service providers, the Republican- controlled FCC, led by Chairman Ajit Pai, is taking aim at commonsense consumer protections that could change the free and open internet as we know it. As rationale, Chairman Pai has claimed that since net neutrality rules went into effect 2 years ago, investments in U.S. broadband companies have dropped to historically low levels.

Quite the opposite has occurred. Since the rules went into effect, AT&T's share price has gone up more than 20 percent, Comcast has increased 26 percent, and several ISPs have reassured investors that net neutrality would have no impact on their broadband investments. So this is just another ``gimme'' to big cable and industry stakeholders who want to put profits ahead of customer service and consumer protections.

In New Hampshire, innovative, small businesses are the backbone of our economy, creating good jobs, stimulating economic growth, and net neutrality has been integral to their success. More than 1,000 startups, innovators, investors, and entrepreneurial support organizations from across the country, including the company Digital Muse, in New Hampshire, sent a letter to Chairman Pai urging him to protect net neutrality rules. I plan to fight to do just that.

In giving entrepreneurs a level playing field to turn an idea into a thriving business that reaches a global audience, net neutrality helps promote innovation and boost economic growth. By dismantling net neutrality rules, internet service providers will be allowed to force small service providers to pay to play online, causing instability to startups and entrepreneurs across the Nation who might not be able to afford such fees. Companies like Digital Muse should be able to compete based on the quality of their goods and services, not on their ability to pay tolls to internet service providers.

Net neutrality isn't just good for startups and entrepreneurs, it has also created a platform for traditionally underrepresented voices, including women and minorities, to be heard and, as important, to add to our economic strength. Last week, my friend Senator Cantwell and I sent a letter with several of our colleagues to Chairman Pai highlighting the importance of net neutrality to women and girls across the country. An open internet serves as a platform to elevate voices that are underrepresented or marginalized in traditional media, an experience many women in the field know all too well.

When turned away from traditional media outlets, women can turn to the internet as an autonomous platform to tell their stories in their own voices thanks to the vast array of media platforms enabled by net neutrality. Between 2007 and 2016, while the total number of business firms in America increased by 9 percent, the total number of women- owned firms increased by 45 percent, a rate five times the national average. This growth in women-owned business mirrors the emergence of the free and open internet as a platform for economic growth. Net neutrality has been essential to the growth of women-owned, innovative businesses, ensuring them the opportunity to compete with more established brands and content.

In addition to empowering women economically, an open internet has the

ability to empower all citizens civically. The National Women's March in January brought together hundreds of thousands of people to raise their voices and organize in marches across the country and around the world, largely through online activism. The Women's March and the many other marches that have followed since January demonstrate how an open internet can serve as a powerful mechanism for civic engagement and strengthening communities. The open and free internet is too powerful of a tool for civic engagement and social and economic mobility-- especially for our underrepresented populations--to take away. Strong net neutrality rules are absolutely essential. They protect against content discrimination, they prevent internet toll lanes, they allow the FCC adequate room for oversight, and they require reasonable transparency from internet service providers. The rules also provide stability to our economy, to our entrepreneurs, and our innovative small businesses--enterprises that are integral to New Hampshire's and America's economic success.

I will continue fighting to ensure that our regulatory environment is one that spurs innovation, fosters economic growth, supports our small businesses, and allows the next young person with a big idea to prosper. I strongly oppose rules that would undermine net neutrality, and I hope the FCC listens throughout the comment period to concerns from Granite Staters and Americans who feel the same way.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I see that my friend from Minnesota is here and wonder if he would like to speak to this issue as well.

I yield the floor.

I thank Senator Markey.

Mr. President, I, too, want to thank Leader Schumer for his remarks and his work on national security and on healthcare and, in particular, on the opioid, heroin, and fentanyl epidemic, which is the greatest public health and safety challenge that the State of New Hampshire faces and which I know many other States face as well.

I rise today to oppose the nomination of Dr. Scott Gottlieb to serve as the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. It is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration, starting with its Commissioner, to protect consumers and stand up for public health.

I have serious concerns about Dr. Gottlieb's record. I also have additional concerns from his nomination hearing about his stances on critical priorities for people in New Hampshire and across the Nation.

As I mentioned, and as Senator Markey has detailed, as well, the most pressing public health and safety challenge facing New Hampshire is the heroin, fentanyl, and opioid crisis. I want to thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership and work in helping to identify the root causes of this terrible epidemic.

Yesterday, I was in New Hampshire, and I met with the Drug Enforcement Agency leaders and personnel there. I heard updates from those on the frontlines about the latest developments in the substance misuse crisis. We discussed the spread of the dangerous synthetic drug carfentanil, which is 100 times stronger than the already deadly drug fentanyl.

A report released this week by New Futures showed the economic impact of alcohol and substance misuse costs. It costs New Hampshire's economy now over $2 billion a year. It is clear that we need to take stronger action to combat this crisis.

We have to continue partnering together with those on the frontlines and at every level of government. We need to be developing new tools and leveraging the ones we have to combat this crisis.

What we cannot afford to do is to institute policies that would take us backward. Unfortunately, Dr. Gottlieb has been opposed to the creation of one of the key tools that the FDA has at its disposal--risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, otherwise known as REMS. The agency uses REMS--including, as a strategy, prescriber training--to try to stem the risks associated with certain medications.

The FDA should be making REMS stronger and making sure that all opioid medications have REMS. We don't need a Commissioner who opposed the very creation of the REMS program, as Dr. Gottlieb did. In the midst of a public health challenge as serious as this epidemic, we should be taking--and we have to take--an all-hands-on-deck approach. The fact that Dr. Gottlieb was opposed to the very creation of REMS raises questions about what strategies the FDA would support under his leadership.

There is another issue involved in this nomination of deep concern to the people of New Hampshire. I am concerned about Dr. Gottlieb's record of putting politics ahead of science when it comes to women's health. To compete economically on a level playing field, women must be able to make their own decisions about when and if to start a family. To fully participate not only in our economy but also in our democracy, women must be recognized for their capacity to make their own healthcare decisions, just as men are. They must also have the full independence to make their own healthcare decisions, just as men do.

Unfortunately, this administration has made clear that it is focused on an agenda that restricts women's access to critical health services, including family planning.

Dr. Gottlieb's record has demonstrated that he supports this backward agenda. During his time in the Bush administration, Dr. Gottlieb was involved in a controversial and unscientifically based delay in approving the emergency contraceptive Plan B for over-the-counter use.

I am concerned that under his leadership, the FDA will play political games with women's health once again. I am afraid that he will disregard science-based decisions under pressure from this administration. Dr. Gottlieb's nomination raises too many questions about whether he will put political interests ahead of science and ahead of the safety of consumers.

I hope that he has learned about the priorities of Senators and the constituents they represent throughout the nomination process and that he proves to be a stronger Commissioner than his record suggests. But in voting today, I cannot overlook that record, so I will vote against his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Congressional Review Act measure to overturn the Department of Labor's rule that gives States the flexibility to help small business workers save for retirement.

Every American who has worked hard throughout their life deserves the ability to retire, knowing that they will be financially secure. But it is clear that we are on the verge of a retirement crisis. More and more Americans are retiring every day without the economic security they need, and we are beginning to see the harmful impacts of what happens to a generation that was not afforded the opportunity to participate in a traditional pension plan.

The AARP has estimated that 55 million Americans, including roughly 230,000 Granite Staters, do not have access to a retirement plan at their workplace, and participation in retirement plans has dropped over the past

several years. Few low- and middle-income families have retirement accounts. For families who fall into the lowest 25 percent of household incomes, fewer than 10 percent have retirement savings accounts. Even among families where the primary wage earners are between the ages of 56 and 61, those who are nearing retirement, the median retirement account balance for all families, regardless of income, was only $17,000--far less than what those families will need to live on in retirement. Therefore, we should be doing everything possible to support these future retirees and to look for opportunities to help them save now.

The Department of Labor rule that we are debating today supports States' efforts to enter into innovative public-private partnerships that would increase personal savings rates for employees of small businesses. The rule makes clear that small businesses will experience no operational burden for these plans, and workers have the opportunity to opt out of these plans if they choose. Already we have seen five States adopt their own plans based on this guidance, and additional States are considering similar programs that best match the retirement needs of their citizens. We are starting to see results. Research has suggested that employees with access to retirement plans from their employers are 15 times more likely to save for retirement.

Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing this Congressional Review Act measure to roll back the progress States are making and to limit a State's ability to decide to facilitate a critical service to their citizens. If this measure passes today, the 12 million Americans who have already benefited from their States entering these partnerships will see their retirement plans impacted, and the other States considering these measures will have to stop.

As a former Governor, I understand how decisions made here in Congress have the ability to impact a State's ability to innovate and grow, and it is unacceptable that Republicans would vote to limit a State's authority to help their citizens save.

In States across this country, there is broad bipartisan support for State-facilitated retirement plans. Recent surveys have found that 80 percent of private sector workers support State-facilitated plans to help them save for retirement, and 80 percent of small business owners say they support the basic concept behind these plans. The bipartisan National Council of State Legislatures said passage of the CRA will ``result in an unwarranted preemption of state innovation'' and will ``restrict the ability of millions of hardworking Americans to save for retirement.'' The AARP has written that ``a Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn this rulemaking represents significant overreach by the federal government.''

I find great irony in the fact that many of my Republican colleagues are voting to limit the ability of States and localities to innovate and craft policies--something they often say they support in other areas.

Additionally, retirement plans sponsored by States help save taxpayer dollars. Greater retirement security would result in fewer older Americans falling into poverty, reducing the number of citizens who would be forced to access social safety net programs.

This Department of Labor rule is exactly the type of commonsense, bipartisan proposal we should all support, and I am willing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to address the retirement needs of Granite Staters and all Americans. Undoing the States' progress on this front by voting in favor of this measure would limit the ability of more Americans to save for their retirement.

I will vote against this measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the life of my aunt, Eleanor Atwater Byers, who passed away peacefully on March 20, 2017. Nunnie, as she was affectionately known, was born on November 30, 1927, in Fall River, MA, and grew up in Tiverton and Providence,

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my first bill in the U.S. Senate--a bill to help relieve the burden of student debt for young entrepreneurs from New Hampshire and the entire country.

Most of us have seen personally how heavily the burden of student loan debt weighs on students and families across New Hampshire. Less visible, but no less important, is how student loan debt is weighing down our economy--stifling innovation and job creation.

Student loan debt is preventing the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators from opening their own businesses. A New York Times report highlighted that the percentage of new entrepreneurs between 20- 34 years old fell to 25 percent in 2014, down from almost 35 percent in 1996. And Gallup found that 19 percent of graduates with student loan debt say they have delayed starting a business because of it.

It is time to once again unleash the entrepreneurial potential of our young people into creating the jobs of the future. That is why this week I introduced the Reigniting Opportunity for Innovators, ROI, Act, the first bill I am writing as a U.S. Senator, which would help provide the relief necessary for young entrepreneurs to start up and grow innovative small businesses.

The ROI Act will allow eligible founders and full-time employees of certified small business to defer their Federal student loan payments and interest accrual for up to 3 years while launching a startup. This will help give graduates the financial stability they need to take the risk of starting a business that can create good-paying jobs.

Additionally, this legislation provides an additional incentive for startup companies to move off the beaten path to help revitalize struggling communities. If the startup is located in an economically distressed area, founders and employees will be eligible for cancellation of up to $20,000 in student loans.

The ROI Act is an important step that we can take now to help young entrepreneurs and lay the foundation for a new generation of economic growth.

New businesses are historically the top job creators in our country, and small businesses are the driving force of New Hampshire's economy. But to get the education they need to compete for jobs in the 21st century economy, students are taking on more debt than ever before. In 2015, college graduates left school with an average of $30,000 of student loan debt, and New Hampshire students had the highest average student debt in the country.

At a roundtable discussion at Keene State College, I heard from students about the challenges posed by their student loan debt. One young woman told me that she hoped to start her own business but that she would likely have to put off that goal for another 10 years because of her student loan debt.

Any entrepreneur will tell you that getting a small business off the ground is expensive. These costs, mixed with student loan debt, make it even more daunting for young entrepreneurs to consider taking the leap of starting a new business. Student debt decreases the cash flow of potential entrepreneurs, it hurts their ability to build equity, and it can negatively affect credit scores and their ability to secure financing.

With the deck too often stacked against them, we need to be doing everything we can to support young entrepreneurs looking to start the innovative businesses that will drive job-creation and move our economy forward.

The ROI Act would work to drive our 21st century economy, but we know that we have more work to do to bring down the costs of higher education and ensure that New Hampshire students, families, and innovative businesses have the support they need. In addition to working to pass this commonsense legislation, I will continue to focus on expanding Pell grants, lowering interest rates for student loans and allowing students to refinance, and increasing apprenticeship and job training opportunities.

The ROI Act is an important step that we can take now to help young entrepreneurs and lay the foundation for a new generation of economic growth, and I look forward to working with members of both parties to pass this commonsense bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my first bill in the U.S. Senate--a bill to help relieve the burden of student debt for young entrepreneurs from New Hampshire and the entire country.

Most of us have seen personally how heavily the burden of student loan debt weighs on students and families across New Hampshire. Less visible, but no less important, is how student loan debt is weighing down our economy--stifling innovation and job creation.

Student loan debt is preventing the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators from opening their own businesses. A New York Times report highlighted that the percentage of new entrepreneurs between 20- 34 years old fell to 25 percent in 2014, down from almost 35 percent in 1996. And Gallup found that 19 percent of graduates with student loan debt say they have delayed starting a business because of it.

It is time to once again unleash the entrepreneurial potential of our young people into creating the jobs of the future. That is why this week I introduced the Reigniting Opportunity for Innovators, ROI, Act, the first bill I am writing as a U.S. Senator, which would help provide the relief necessary for young entrepreneurs to start up and grow innovative small businesses.

The ROI Act will allow eligible founders and full-time employees of certified small business to defer their Federal student loan payments and interest accrual for up to 3 years while launching a startup. This will help give graduates the financial stability they need to take the risk of starting a business that can create good-paying jobs.

Additionally, this legislation provides an additional incentive for startup companies to move off the beaten path to help revitalize struggling communities. If the startup is located in an economically distressed area, founders and employees will be eligible for cancellation of up to $20,000 in student loans.

The ROI Act is an important step that we can take now to help young entrepreneurs and lay the foundation for a new generation of economic growth.

New businesses are historically the top job creators in our country, and small businesses are the driving force of New Hampshire's economy. But to get the education they need to compete for jobs in the 21st century economy, students are taking on more debt than ever before. In 2015, college graduates left school with an average of $30,000 of student loan debt, and New Hampshire students had the highest average student debt in the country.

At a roundtable discussion at Keene State College, I heard from students about the challenges posed by their student loan debt. One young woman told me that she hoped to start her own business but that she would likely have to put off that goal for another 10 years because of her student loan debt.

Any entrepreneur will tell you that getting a small business off the ground is expensive. These costs, mixed with student loan debt, make it even more daunting for young entrepreneurs to consider taking the leap of starting a new business. Student debt decreases the cash flow of potential entrepreneurs, it hurts their ability to build equity, and it can negatively affect credit scores and their ability to secure financing.

With the deck too often stacked against them, we need to be doing everything we can to support young entrepreneurs looking to start the innovative businesses that will drive job-creation and move our economy forward.

The ROI Act would work to drive our 21st century economy, but we know that we have more work to do to bring down the costs of higher education and ensure that New Hampshire students, families, and innovative businesses have the support they need. In addition to working to pass this commonsense legislation, I will continue to focus on expanding Pell grants, lowering interest rates for student loans and allowing students to refinance, and increasing apprenticeship and job training opportunities.

The ROI Act is an important step that we can take now to help young entrepreneurs and lay the foundation for a new generation of economic growth, and I look forward to working with members of both parties to pass this commonsense bill.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Congressional Review Act measure, which would allow discrimination against title X family planning providers, which in turn could roll back access to family planning and preventive health services for women and their families in New Hampshire and across our country.

Throughout my time in public service, I have always fought to ensure

that women have meaningful access to the healthcare they need. I have fought to ensure that they can make their own healthcare decisions, and, in doing so, control their own destinies.

To compete economically on a level playing field, women must be able to make their own decisions about if--or when--to start a family. They should not have to pay more than men do for healthcare. They should be able to visit providers of their own choice who understand their healthcare needs. To fully participate not only in our economy but also in our democracy, women must be recognized for their capacity to make their own healthcare decisions, just as men are. They also must have full independence to make their own health decisions, just as men do.

During my time as Governor of New Hampshire, I restored family planning funds and pushed to restore State funding for Planned Parenthood, and I am going to continue fighting to ensure that women have the care they need, while standing firm against efforts here in Congress to roll back the progress that has been made.

Unfortunately, the vote we are taking today is a continuation of a partisan agenda that has been focused on restricting the care that women and their families can receive. The fact that Vice President Mike Pence was called in to cast the deciding vote to advance this measure shows just how far Republican leadership will go in order to undermine women's access to critical healthcare.

For more than 40 years, title X has provided women and their families with comprehensive family planning and preventive health services. When the legislation was originally passed in 1970, it was part of a bipartisan effort, with the support of prominent Republicans. In the years that have followed, title X has been essential in delivering important services to some of our Nation's most underserved communities. That is why, in New Hampshire, title X and Planned Parenthood still have broad support in our communities, even if they have been the subject of political gamesmanship here in Washington.

Title X has support from Granite Staters because they have seen the real difference it has made in their lives and in the lives of their neighbors. They know that in some parts of the State there are no other options or, if other options do exist, they don't provide women with the same expertise and commitment to reproductive health that title X providers do.

For those in rural communities, for low-income women and men, and for members of the LGBTQ community, title X supported health centers have been a major source of preventive care and reproductive health services, including cancer screenings, birth control, HIV and STI tests, and counseling services. And title X's important public health services translate into savings for taxpayers. In 2010, title X investments resulted in net savings for Federal and State governments of $7 billion.

The measure we are voting on today would undermine this progress and the safety net for countless citizens. This measure would allow States to discriminate against providers and take away investments in family planning clinics, ultimately taking away these key services for those who need them most.

Last year, more than 4 million women and men at over 4,000 health centers across our Nation received care through title X. This includes around 20,000 patients in New Hampshire, including roughly 11,000 patients receiving care through title X supported Planned Parenthood centers. Those services can't just be replaced by other providers, even community health centers that do great work. But two counties in New Hampshire don't have a community health center at all. Others don't have the capacity to replace this work or this specialized experience that can make a critical difference to a woman's health.

In New Hampshire and other States, Planned Parenthood and the community health centers are often partners, working in tandem to get patients the reproductive healthcare they need. But when I hear from community health centers around New Hampshire, they tell me they would not be able to pick up the slack if Planned Parenthood is defunded.

Make no mistake about it, this CRA, which would let States discriminate against providers in the title X program, combined with the consistent attempts to defund Planned Parenthood by some in Congress, would be a disaster for women in New Hampshire and all across the Nation. That is why a number of leading advocates have come out against these efforts to overturn title X regulations, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, the Human Rights Campaign, and dozens more. I share their concerns and oppose the measure we will consider today, and I am going to continue to fight against these attempts to roll back access to reproductive health and preventive services.

It is critical that we have a healthcare system that ensures that all women and their families can get the care they need. What we cannot do is eliminate services and discriminate against providers who have been providing critical, cost-effective healthcare to millions of Americans for decades. I strongly oppose this effort to undermine the title X program, and I will vote against this measure today.

We need just one more vote, and I urge my colleagues to listen to the voices of their constituents and vote no today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing and congratulating Doug Griffin of Newton, NH, for being named an ``Advocate of the Year'' by the Addiction Policy Forum. After Mr. Griffin lost his daughter Courtney to an opioid overdose in September 2014, he became a passionate advocate, determined to increase awareness of the opioid epidemic in the State of New Hampshire. Granite Staters and Americans impacted by this urgent crisis owe him a debt of gratitude for his work, and I am grateful that the Addiction Policy Forum has honored him with this distinction.

Mr. Griffin has been a leader in calling for easier access to naloxone, Narcan, for families at risk of an overdose, even testifying on the issue before the New Hampshire State Legislature. My colleagues in the U.S. Senate remember Mr. Griffin from his testimony on the rise of opioid-related deaths and the importance of passing the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act last year. In addition to his role as cochair of the Addiction Policy Forum's families committee, Mr. Griffin has spearheaded several local efforts in the Granite State, including hosting a monthly church service for people with substance use disorders and their families, a club for young students to raise awareness of the dangers of opioids, and a project to create a farm- based sober living facility for those in recovery.

New Hampshire has benefited greatly from Mr. Griffin's devotion and leadership. On behalf of my colleagues and the U.S. Congress, I thank Mr. Griffin for all the advocacy work he has done and continues to do. I congratulate him again on being named one of the Addiction Policy Forum's ``Advocates of the Year''.

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

Mr. President, I rise to deliver my first official speech on the Senate floor. I begin by saying how deeply grateful I am to the people of New Hampshire for the great trust they have bestowed upon me.

I come from a State that combines rugged individualism with a strong sense of community. It is what I often call our ``all hands on deck'' approach, where we come together, we pitch in, and we help our friends and neighbors when they need it.

Right now, we see this approach each and every day with those on the front lines of our State's devastating substance misuse crisis. Law enforcement officials, medical professionals, and citizens in every corner of our State work together to try to turn the tide of this deadly epidemic. The heroin, opioid, and fentanyl crisis is the most pressing public health and safety challenge facing New Hampshire. This epidemic takes a massive toll on our communities, our workforce, and our economy, and I know it is ravaging other States all across our Nation too.

This crisis does not discriminate. It affects people in every community and from all walks of life. In 2016 alone, roughly 500 people in New Hampshire lost their lives as a result of this epidemic, and the spread of synthetic drugs, like fentanyl, is increasing dramatically the number of lives lost and

is killing people faster with smaller amounts of drugs. Last year, more than 70 percent of confirmed New Hampshire drug deaths involved fentanyl. Lives are at stake, so every Member of this body must come together and put partisan politics aside to get results for our people.

The people of my State have a long tradition of sharing their stories and making their priorities known to the elected officials who represent them, and everywhere I go, I hear stories from those who have been affected by this crisis. I hear inspiring stories from those in recovery who are working to put their lives back together, and I hear tragic stories from siblings, parents, and friends who know the pain of having a loved one taken from them far too soon. All of these stories are critical in breaking down the stigma of addiction and pushing for solutions. Instead of simply writing in an obituary that a loved one died suddenly, more and more families, including the families of one of my son's high school classmates, are speaking out and telling the painful stories of addiction and loss.

Last year, at our annual Easter egg hunt that I hosted as Governor, I was approached by a woman on our statehouse lawn who was carrying a baby. After I took a picture and I admired the baby, she pulled me aside and said the little boy she was holding was not her son but her grandson and that his mother had died from an overdose 1 month earlier. She was there on the day before Easter, as we celebrated our spring ritual of renewal and hope, and shared that pain with me so we could move forward to help others in her situation.

Just this week, on Monday, I met with a man named Phil, from Laconia, who is now in recovery. Phil said that over a year and a half ago, he had lost his home and nearly everything because of his substance use disorder. Now, thanks, in part, to the fact that he was able to gain coverage through the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, Phil is substance-free. He has gone on to become a recovery coach, and he helped found a recovery center in Laconia, where he works to help others with the same challenges he had.

We can never thank those in recovery and the families who have lost loved ones enough for speaking out about this issue and for working tirelessly and courageously to try to prevent others from suffering as they have, but while thanking them is appropriate, it is not enough. The bravery of survivors and those in recovery needs to be marked by our constant vigilance and by urgent action.

I am grateful to the Senators who have been true leaders on this issue, especially my fellow Senator from New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen, who has fought tirelessly to secure funding to combat this crisis and help the people of our State. The passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act was an important step, as was the 21st Century Cures Act, which included some funding to fight the opioid epidemic. The Cures Act will not provide enough funding for our State, and I will continue fighting, alongside Senator Shaheen, to ensure that the Federal Government provides New Hampshire with the resources we need.

I am pleased there has been bipartisan support for combating this crisis in the Senate, but we must continue to work together at all levels of government and with those on the front lines to battle this crisis.

During my time as a member of the National Governors Association, I worked with my fellow Governors from both parties to push for steps, including passing emergency Federal funding to support States' efforts to combat this crisis, and at the State level in New Hampshire, we proved that we could come together to implement a comprehensive, ``all hands on deck'' strategy to support those on the front lines and help save lives.

During my time as Governor, we secured $5 million in additional State funding for treatment, prevention, recovery, and housing programs. We worked together to provide law enforcement with additional resources through a program called Operation Granite Hammer. We expanded drug courts throughout New Hampshire, and we worked to crack down on fentanyl. In order to prevent the overprescribing of opioids, we took steps to improve provider training and update the rules for prescribers.

Critically, Republicans and Democrats put their differences aside and came together to pass and reauthorize the New Hampshire Health Protection Program, also known as Medicaid expansion. Passing and reauthorizing this program included healthy debate and, at times, heated argument. What matters is that after those debates, we were able to take this essential step forward to continue strengthening our families, our businesses, and our economy.

Medicaid expansion is providing quality, affordable health coverage to over 50,000 Granite Staters, including coverage for behavioral, health, and substance use disorder treatment. Thousands of people have received addiction treatment after gaining coverage through the Medicaid expansion program in New Hampshire. What is clear and what I hear from people in recovery centers all across my State is that lives are being changed and saved as a result of Medicaid expansion.

Take, for example, Ashley, of Dover, NH. I first met Ashley at the Farnum Center in Manchester, and I have been inspired by her story ever since. Ashley is living proof of the positive impact of Medicaid expansion.

Ashley had struggled for nearly a decade with heroin addiction, during which time she was arrested, her husband died from an overdose, and she lost the custody of her young child. Yet, as a result of her courage, perseverance, and the treatment she received for her substance use disorder under Medicaid expansion, Ashley's story is one of progress. She has been in recovery for over a year. She is employed, is working at Safe Harbor Recovery Center to help others who are struggling with addiction, and has moved to employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

It was an honor to have Ashley attend the President's joint address to Congress as my guest of honor, and I will continue to carry her story with me in these Chambers and beyond.

It is not just in New Hampshire. Republican Governors and some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have made clear just how critical Medicaid expansion is to their States. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found, 2.8 million people with substance use disorders, including 220,000 with opioid disorders, have coverage under the Affordable Care Act. That is real and essential progress, but we know we have far more work to do. I am committed to working with Members of both parties in the Senate to continue building on these efforts.

What we cannot afford to do, however, is to allow a partisan agenda to pull us backward. I am extremely concerned about the effect that legislation introduced by House Republicans last week--also known as TrumpCare--would have on our efforts to combat substance misuse. Make no mistake, this legislation would end Medicaid expansion, which experts have said is the most important tool available to fight the substance misuse crisis. This plan also cuts and caps the traditional Medicaid Program, which means States will be forced to either raise taxes or cut eligibility and services.

As a former Governor, I know full well the impact the decisions in Washington can have on our communities. Repealing Medicaid expansion and capping traditional Medicaid would severely hurt the ability of those on the front lines to save lives and combat this deadly epidemic.

Substance use disorder treatment providers have been clear that if Medicaid expansion is repealed, they will have to significantly cut back on the help they can provide to those in need. To pull the rug out from millions of people across the country who are seeking a lifeline from the throes of addiction is unconscionable. We cannot let that happen.

In addition to making the substance misuse crisis worse, TrumpCare would affect countless others across New Hampshire and America, from individuals who buy their own insurance who would see their premiums skyrocket to older Americans who would now be forced to pay an age tax, to women and families who would be hurt by the provision that defunds Planned Parenthood.

We know there is more work to do to improve and build on the Affordable

Care Act, but this TrumpCare bill is not the answer, and I am working with my colleagues to fight against this legislation.

Furthermore, I am working on additional legislation that would help combat this substance misuse crisis. I joined Senator Portman in introducing the STOP Act, bipartisan legislation that would help stop dangerous synthetic drugs like fentanyl and carfentanyl from being shipped through our borders to drug traffickers here in the United States. These synthetic drugs are only making this crisis more dangerous, causing a spike in deaths in New Hampshire and across the Nation. We must do everything possible to stop them from entering our country.

I joined a bipartisan group of colleagues, led by Senator Klobuchar, to introduce the SALTS Act, which would empower law enforcement to crack down on synthetic substances and better prosecute drug traffickers.

I also joined Senators Manchin, Shaheen, and several of our colleagues to reintroduce the LifeBOAT Act, which would establish a permanent funding stream to provide and expand access to substance misuse treatment.

These are essential steps we need to take now. I will also continue evaluating additional legislative steps to support treatment, prevention, recovery, and law enforcement efforts. We know the road ahead will not be easy. The scourge of addiction requires us, at times, to change the way we have always done things at a quicker pace than is sometimes comfortable but that can never be an excuse for inaction.

Every day, I am reminded of the stories like those of the grandmother I met at the annual Easter egg hunt, Phil's and Ashley's, and those of the thousands in my State who continue to feel the impacts of a crisis that is taking far too many lives. By making their voices heard, citizens in New Hampshire are breaking through the stigma of addiction and, in turn, are helping others seek the treatment and recovery they need. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that those critical services are there for them.

We must all continue to speak up and fight for those who are voiceless and those who continue to struggle. We must reach out and work toward policies that can truly make a difference because often when we reach out, people reach back, but if we are silent or if we allow the rug to be pulled out from under those seeking help, this epidemic will only get worse. It will devastate even further our families, our communities, and our businesses.

I am going to continue to fight to make progress, and I am willing to work with anyone to help those struggling to get the treatment they need and to support all of the dedicated professionals who are on the frontlines of battling this crisis. We will have to continue to fight together, each and every one of us, every single day, to build on our efforts to combat this epidemic, and by working together, we can and we will stem and turn the tide.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Evelyn Frances Stearns, who celebrates her 100th birthday on March 31, 2017. Evelyn was born in South Berwick, ME, the daughter of Perley and Helen Marshall.

She was a resident nurse graduate of Nashua Memorial Hospital in Nashua, NH, and was later a 3 and a half year veteran in the Army Nurse Corps, working as an operating room nurse in

the U.S. and South Pacific theatres during World War II.

During the war, she was part of the 9th General Hospital originating in Fort Devens, MA, and then shipped to Townsville, Australia.

In 1944, she was transported to the Southwest Pacific, where she served in New Guinea during the battles that took place. She was awarded a Bronze Star Medal for her service.

On February 18, 1945, she was promoted from second lieutenant to first lieutenant.

In June of 1946, she married Fred C. Stearns from Winchester, NH, and the two had four children: Linda, Diane, Gail, and Sally.

Evelyn raised her three girls while employed at the Valley Regional Hospital in Claremont, NH, as the operating room supervisor. There, she was known as ``Our mother, the owl.'' Tough, but fair, Evelyn didn't miss a trick.

After 22 years there, she retired in 1982.

Evelyn is known around the city of Claremont for her daily walks, often in excess of 5 miles a day, up until the age of 98. She also found great joy in maintaining her home inside and out until the day she left, 6 months ago. Her work ethic exhausted her children and grandchildren, who were amazed at her tenacity.

She continues to be an avid bridge player, and enjoys crosswords and reading mysteries.

Among her family, Evelyn has seven grandchildren and nine great- grandchildren.

Mr. President, I rise today, honored to speak after my colleague from New Hampshire and joining my other colleagues in opposing the nomination of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Our beautiful natural resources define my home State of New Hampshire. From the White Mountains to the Seacoast, to our pristine lakes and our forests, our natural resources are critical to our economy, our environment, our way of life, and protecting these resources plays a critical role, as well, in protecting public health.

However, we are already beginning to see the real impacts of climate change in New Hampshire, and these impacts threaten to have major consequences for our natural resources and families and businesses in every corner of my State. Recognizing that fact, members of both parties have come together in New Hampshire to enact commonsense bipartisan solutions to take on climate change and to grow and maintain our State's renewable clean energy sector. We have worked to protect our land, our air and water, and the health of our citizens.

Unfortunately, it is clear from Mr. Pruitt's opposition to the Agency he will be tasked to lead, his record of working to weaken critical environmental protections that our citizens need to thrive, and his unwillingness to fight climate change, that he is unfit to serve in this position.

The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency begins with protecting our environment and the health of all of our citizens. The EPA does critical work to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe.

In recent years, the EPA has used sound scientific evidence to take strong measures to protect our environment. Unfortunately, President Trump has made clear that he does not support this critical Agency. Throughout his campaign, the President has repeatedly attacked the EPA, calling for its elimination and saying that our environment would be ``just fine'' without it. The President has doubled down on his hostility toward this Agency by nominating Mr. Pruitt to serve as its Administrator.

As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has been a vocal critic of the very Agency he has now been nominated to lead, and he has been involved in over 20 legal actions against it.

According to the Washington Post, Mr. Pruitt has ``spent much of his energy as attorney general fighting the very agency he is being nominated to lead.''

On social media, Mr. Pruitt has referred to himself as ``a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.'' He has questioned the role of the Agency, stating that ``the EPA was never intended to be our Nation's frontline environmental regulator.''

When asked by one of my colleagues if there were any clean air or clean water EPA regulations in place today that he could support, Mr. Pruitt declined to name a single one.

The foundation of a future where all Americans have an opportunity to thrive starts with a healthy environment and healthy families. The EPA serves an important role in protecting the health of our people. We must do better than having an Administrator who has fought so tirelessly to undermine the work that this Agency does.

I am also concerned by an EPA Administrator who has consistently voiced skepticism about the clear facts on climate change. Throughout my time in office, I have always fought to protect our environment and have been a strong supporter of curbing the impacts of climate change. As a State

senator, I sponsored legislation that allowed New Hampshire to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and I helped pass the State's renewable portfolio standard to maintain and grow New Hampshire's clean renewable energy sector.

During my time as Governor, I worked with members of both parties to strengthen and build on those efforts, signing legislation to update the renewable portfolio standard and to maximize the benefits of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

I am proud that my State has long led efforts to cut carbon emissions, and it is crucial that other States follow our lead and take responsibility for the pollution that they cause. That is exactly why I am a strong supporter of measures like the Clean Power Plan.

I also strongly support the Paris agreement on climate change and believe that the United States must take action to implement the agreement while also ensuring that our international partners fulfill their obligations.

Mr. Pruitt, however, has been a consistent skeptic on the role of climate change and the role that it has had on our environment.

Mr. Pruitt has stated that we do not know the extent of human impact on climate change and has called climate change a natural occurrence. He has said that climate change is ``one of the major policy debates of our time.''

And he continued:

That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to

disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and

its connection to the actions of mankind.

Scientists are clear in their understanding of the climate change science. The American Association for the Advancement of Science says the scientific evidence is clear: Global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

The American Geophysical Union says that humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.

The American Meteorological Society says it is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half a century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and human influence on the climate system is clear.

The EPA is a science-based organization, and it is unacceptable for the EPA Administrator to be at odds with the well-established views of leading scientists. As the Agency's own website says:

EPA is one of the world's leading environmental and human

health research organizations. Science provides the

foundation for Agency policies, actions, and decisions made

on behalf of the American people. Our research incorporates

science and engineering that meet the highest standards

for integrity, peer review, transparency, and ethics.

Mr. Pruitt disagrees with well-established climate science. Simply put, that disqualifies him from leading an agency where ``science provides the foundation for . . . policies, actions, and decisions.'' If you refuse to believe research from the world's leading scientists, you cannot lead a science-based agency.

From protecting our environment to protecting public health, the EPA plays a critical role in protecting the health of Granite Staters and all Americans. We know that a cleaner environment plays a key role in the economy, for the economy of New Hampshire and our entire country. We should be building on the critical efforts the EPA has taken to combat climate change and protect public health, not rolling them back.

Mr. Pruitt's hostility to the basic functions of the Environmental Protection Agency and his work to undermine protections for clean air, land, and water make clear that he should not serve in this role.

I will vote against Mr. Pruitt's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.