Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) are necessarily absent.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, more than 3 million Illinoisans--about 20 percent of the people in my State--currently depend on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program for healthcare. That is one out of five people in my State who need these programs to have basic health insurance for themselves and their children.

This includes 300,000 Illinois seniors and people with disabilities, 650,000 who were recently added as part of the Affordable Care Act. It also includes 1.5 million children. Half of all the kids in Illinois are enrolled in Medicaid and the CHIP program, which in Illinois is called ALL Kids.

Nationwide, the Medicaid Program helps pay for two out of three seniors in their nursing homes. It pays for about half of all children born in this country. It is the primary payer of all mental health and opioid addiction treatment. It provides healthcare to 25 percent of people in rural communities. It pays for special education in nearly half of all school districts and provides critical support for veterans with chronic conditions.

What does the House of Representatives Affordable Care Act repeal do to the programs I have just described? It ends the expansion of Medicaid. It would eliminate coverage for 650,000 people in the State of Illinois. Think about that. We had seven of our Republican Congressmen vote for a program that will eliminate health insurance under Medicaid for 650,000 people in my State and cut $840 billion in Federal Medicaid funding. Well, if they are going to cut this money for Medicaid funding, what are they going to do with it? The House knew exactly what to do with it: They give it back in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America. Is there justice in that decision? Is it too much to ask that those of us who are better off in life pay a little more in taxes so that those who are struggling have basic healthcare? I don't think so, but those who voted for the Republican House plan do. The bill cuts healthcare for struggling families, women, seniors, and children in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in America.

Illinois would lose $40 billion over the next decade, and 3 million people would be at risk of losing their care. Absolutely no one believes Illinois is going to magically come up with $40 billion to fill this Medicaid shortfall. I doubt many other States will be able to either. With funding cuts this dramatic, even Illinois's Republican Governor spoke out against the House action repealing the Affordable Care Act. He said it is going to force us to make significant changes in healthcare in Illinois. He would have to decide who gets healthcare and who doesn't. He would have to decide whether healthcare services are just too expensive to cover.

Hospitals, too, would be devastated by the proposed Medicaid cuts. I was born and raised in downstate Illinois. It doesn't look at all like the city of Chicago. I am proud to represent that city. I enjoyed being there and being a part of it. I grew up in smalltown America, and the congressional district I represented basically was smaller cities--no more than 100,000 population at the time--with a lot of smaller towns. I can't tell you the pride those communities take in downstate Illinois in their hospitals. Some of those hospitals are a lifeline--the only source of healthcare for miles around. They are great employers. They bring in medical specialists who are paid good salaries by local standards.

The Illinois Hospital Association is dead-set against what the House Republicans did in passing their repeal of the Affordable Care Act. They have told us that Illinois stands to lose up to 60,000 healthcare jobs because of that vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Of course, that means that for many of the people who count on these rural hospitals, even inner city hospitals in Chicago, those services are going to be curtailed and denied.

When I sit down with people like Ed Curtis, who is the president of Memorial Medical Center in Springfield and speaks for Illinois hospital administrators across the State--he tells me the devastating impact it will have when Medicaid coverage is eliminated and sick people still show up for care. They will be taken care of; their expenses will be shifted to other people. That is the way it used to be before the Affordable Care Act, before Medicaid expanded and gave these individuals in low-income situations basic health insurance.

Why would Republicans in the House of Representatives want to have such a devastating negative impact on Medicaid? So they can give tax cuts to wealthy people? That, to me, is inexplicable.

The Illinois Hospital Association speaks across our State for those who really care about those great institutions, but they are not alone in opposing this bill. The Illinois Nurses Association opposes it, as do the Illinois pediatricians and the Illinois Medical Society. Why does every medical advocacy group in Illinois oppose this bill, this so-called Republican reform of our healthcare system? Because they know it moves in the wrong direction. It eliminates healthcare coverage instead of expanding it. It makes healthcare too expensive and out of reach for people who are not lucky enough to have it at work and not wealthy enough to buy it on their own. It moves in the wrong direction. It is not a solution to any problem; it is a new and even worse problem than the ones we faced in the past.

Remember when Candidate Donald Trump tweeted in May of 2015: ``I was the first and only potential GOP candidate to state there would be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid''? Then he tweeted in July of 2015--``The Republicans who want to cut Social Security and Medicaid are wrong,'' said Candidate Trump. He was right, but now he supports this bill which dramatically cuts Medicaid coverage across America.

What is going to happen to the elderly in nursing homes who, despite all their Social Security payments and despite all of their Medicaid reimbursement, still don't have enough resources for the basic care they need to stay alive? When they cut back on that Medicaid coverage, what happens to them? What do their families do to make up the difference? Reach into their savings? Bring mom home from the nursing home in the hopes that they can take care of her in their own home? Those are choices no family should face and no family need face.

I hope the Senate will show the courage and leadership on a bipartisan basis to say no to this terrible bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives just 2 weeks ago. We need to put together a bill that expands the coverage of health insurance, gives people more peace of mind; a bill that addresses some of the built-in challenges we had with the Affordable Care Act, which is far from perfect. There are things we can do to improve it.

We need to do something about the cost of pharmaceutical drugs. The current law doesn't really affect that. They are out of control at this point.

Secondly, I think we ought to offer a public option. There ought to be a Medicare-type program available across the United States for those who wish it. Medicare enjoys a very positive reputation in America for good reason. Most Americans would feel honored and happy to be protected by a Medicare-type program.

We also need to go to those premiums that are too high and ask why. In many cases, there are individuals who are buying health insurance from very narrow pools of people who are older and sicker. We need to expand that pool so it is real insurance, and we can bring those premiums down. There are ways to do that.

There are many things we can do with reforming the Affordable Care Act, but what the House of Representatives did, what some want to do, is just repeal it and walk away. It would be devastating to the women in America who rely on Medicaid to pay for their delivery expenses, as well as prenatal and postnatal care. It would be devastating to seniors who are in nursing homes and are dependent on Medicaid supplements and for those who are disabled with chronic conditions and have to turn to Medicaid just to make sure they can maintain their lifestyle and still be productive, happy, and safe. These are the elements and these are the costs we would have to charge if we are not careful.

Wouldn't it be great, wouldn't it be terrific, wouldn't it be a headliner to say that Democrats and Republicans came together in the U.S. Senate to make the Affordable Care Act better, to make sure there was more accessible, affordable, quality coverage for more Americans? I think that is why we were elected, and I hope we can achieve that goal.

Mr. President, before I yield, I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls until 12 noon today be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) is necessarily absent.

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

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

Mr. President, I had a meeting last week in Illinois, and I asked hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, pediatricians, those who are in the substance abuse treatment area, what they thought of the Republican bill. It was all Republicans who passed the healthcare finance act, whatever the name of it is--their version of the healthcare system that they are calling for reform in the House of Representatives. It was interesting. They were unanimously opposed to it, all of them--hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, pediatricians, across the board.

Why would all the medical providers in my State be opposed to the Republican plan that just passed the House of Representatives? Well, because they have read it. Here is what they found. It threatens the survival of downstate and inner city hospitals. The Illinois Hospital Association came out against the Republican plan and said we could lose 60,000 jobs in Illinois, and we could see cutbacks in services in our hospitals.

I know the Acting President pro tempore from the State of Oklahoma knows what rural hospitals mean to these small towns. It is not only life and death to have access to quality healthcare, they are some of the best paying jobs in town. The thought that those hospitals are going to see services cut back, people laid off is worth sitting up and taking notice.

They also are worried because the Congressional Budget Office never gave an analysis of the Republican plan that passed the House of Representatives. That is unheard of. When we passed the Affordable Care Act in the U.S. Senate, we waited week after weary week for the Congressional Budget Office to analyze each of the major changes. We didn't want to make a mistake, and we felt obligated to tell the American people what we were doing to the healthcare system, which is one-sixth of the national economy.

Somehow the Republican leaders in the House of Representatives paid no attention to that and passed a bill without a Congressional Budget Office analysis. Possibly it is because the first version of that bill, which was analyzed by the CBO, found that it was devastating. Twenty- four million Americans would lose their health insurance under the Republican plan in its first phase. Twenty-four million Americans lose their health insurance.

In Illinois, 1 million people--in a State of 12\1/2\ million people, 1 million people living in my State would have lost their health insurance coverage by the plan proposed initially by the Republicans in the House, and we also know it would shorten the lifespan of Medicare, for one thing. We know it allowed for waivers by Governors to eliminate what they call nonessential services in health insurance.

One of them hits close to home. I can remember as a new Senator coming to the floor and watching Paul Wellstone, who used to be at that desk, and Pete Domenici, who used to be at that desk, get up on a bipartisan basis and argue again and again that every health insurance plan in America should cover mental illness and substance abuse treatment. It seems so obvious, and yet they had to fight the insurance industry for years before we finally achieved it. Now when you buy health insurance in America, it covers mental illness and substance abuse treatment. Thank goodness. We need it. We desperately need it. Yet that becomes one of the nonessential elements in the Republican analysis of health insurance.

What are they thinking? Have they listened or read recently about the opioid and heroin crisis in America? I have sat at tables with victims, addicts who, thank goodness, had an intervention, had an opportunity, and now can speak of their addiction in the past tense.

These are amazing young people whose lives were compromised and threatened because of addiction. How did they turn the corner? They turned the corner because of loving families, their personal determination, and the availability of medical treatment under their health insurance plans.

Now the Republicans are arguing in the House of Representatives that we don't need that coverage, we don't need that protection. We do now more than ever.

When I hear the Republican leader come to the floor and criticize the Affordable Care Act, I basically have to ask him, Is this a problem that is of your own creation?

The Republicans, including the leader, have refused to sit down with Democrats and work on a bipartisan solution. In fact, when the Republican leader sat down to determine how the Senate would respond to the House action, he put together a group of, I believe, 12 Republican Senators--no Democrats allowed--to sit down and write the alternative. That is not a good way to start this.

What we ought to do is to say, first, we are not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act; we are going to improve it, and we will do it on a bipartisan basis. If the majority leader wants to suggest that, I would like to be part of it. Many Democrats would like to be part of it. Take repeal off the table before the conversation on repair begins. I think that is essential. Let's make sure that within health insurance in America we have some basics.

First, if you have a preexisting condition, you shouldn't be disqualified from

health insurance or you shouldn't have to pay twice the premiums. That is something that is now built into the law that the Republicans want to repeal. Well, I want to make sure that preexisting conditions are protected.

As I have said on the floor before, a couple of weeks ago I had a heart procedure, a catheter procedure, an outpatient procedure. Apparently it worked pretty well. I am standing here talking to you today. I feel good. But a lot of people go through this, and I became a statistic the day that happened. I guess I now have a preexisting condition; so be it. One out of three Americans fit that category. Why would we not protect them in any health insurance reform bill? That seems like the starting point in our conversation. Yet the bill that passed the House, the Republican bill that passed the House allows Governors to basically ask for waivers so that health insurance plans in their States will not cover people with preexisting conditions or allow people with those conditions to have the same premiums. That is not a good starting place. It is a terrible starting place.

Let's try to make sure that if we are going to move forward on real healthcare reform, we do it in a sensible fashion. Let's put forward a bill not like the one that passed the House, but let's put together a bill that has the support of hospital administrators across the Nation. Let's put together a bill that protects the Medicaid expansion that is part of the Affordable Care Act.

Medicaid is an essential part of healthcare in America for tens of millions of people. Medicaid--most people think, oh, that is health insurance for poor people. Really? That is not an accurate description. For example, in the State of Illinois, Medicaid provides health coverage for half of the children who are born in my State--prenatal care, postnatal care, and the actual delivery of half of the children in my State, under Medicaid.

That is not the most expensive part of Medicaid. The most expensive part in my State and across the Nation is the fact that Medicaid is there to help your mother or grandmother or your dad or your grandfather when they are in a situation in life where they need a helping hand. They may be in an assisted care facility, and the Social Security check is not enough; Medicare is not enough. Medicaid steps in to make sure they have the quality of care they need. Are we going to eliminate that kind of protection?

Ask disabled people and ask the organizations that represent them what it means to have a good strong Medicaid system. These people rely on Medicaid for maintaining their health through disability, day in and day out.

So when the Republicans propose an $840 billion cut in Medicaid protection across America over 10 years, sadly, they are setting out on a path that could compromise the basic care we need for babies and new moms, for the elderly in assisted care facilities and nursing facilities, and for the disabled who live in our States. We don't want to see that happen.

It is interesting that my Republican Governor in the State of Illinois seldom comments on Federal legislation. He came out in opposition to the bill that passed the House of Representatives. He said that this is a significantly bad bill for the State of Illinois, and I agree with him. I am glad he spoke up. I don't know how the seven Republican Congressmen who voted for it in my State can ignore that reality. Our Governor--our Republican Governor--believes it is bad for our State in cutting back Medicaid. The hospitals believe it is bad for our State in the impact that it will have on down-State hospitals. Doctors, nurses, and pediatricians also oppose it.

What can we do? What should we do? First, we ought to try to see what we can do to make the Affordable Care Act work better. We can do that on a bipartisan basis. We want to make sure, as the Senator from Kentucky said earlier, that there are available health insurance programs in every county of every State. Certainly, one thing we can do is make sure that a public option is there for everyone if they choose it--something that looks like Medicare.

People respect Medicare. Medicare is a great program for millions of Americans who are seniors and disabled. Why wouldn't we create a program like Medicare--a not-for-profit, government-operated program like Medicare for people who wish to have it? Those who don't can stick with private insurance if that is their choice, but I believe more and more people will move toward the Medicare option. That is something I would like to put on the table in reforming the Affordable Care Act.

Secondly, we need to address the cost of pharmaceutical drugs in America. The costs are out of control.

This week I received a publication from the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, and they are talking about what is happening to pharmaceutical prices across America. You don't have to tell seniors or those who buy prescription drugs what the reality happens to be.

Let me give you a few numbers to demonstrate why we need to have a new program to make sure drug prices don't go out of control. According to AARP, Americans spent $457 billion on prescription drugs in 2015, up about 8 percent over the previous year--$457 billion. The rise in prices for the most popular brand name drugs from 2008 to 2016 is over 200 percent. They have more than doubled in that 8-year period of time for the most popular drugs.

The median salary of a pharmaceutical firm's CEO in 2015 was $14.5 million, more than any other industry; $6.4 billion is the amount drug companies spend advertising directly to consumers in the U.S. annually; $24 billion is the amount drug companies spend per year marketing to doctors. We are one of only two nations in the world that allows direct consumer advertising. Think about what that means.

When you see all these ads on television for drugs with names you can't pronounce, why are they doing it? It is because the drug companies know that consumers across America will write down the name of the drug and go ask the doctor to prescribe it. Many times, the doctor, rather than debate the issue with the patient or suggest they don't need it or should use a generic, will just write out the prescription. What happens? More expensive drugs get into the system, raising the cost of healthcare, raising the cost of premiums for health insurance. It doesn't make us healthier; it just means healthcare is more expensive.

I love to listen to the warnings on these drugs that go on and on and on. One of my favorites was this: Be sure and tell your doctor if you have had a liver transplant. I am thinking to myself, yeah, I think I would probably mention that somewhere along the way to a doctor.

These warnings should give us fair warning that this is inflating the cost of healthcare across America. It is not making us healthier, and it is running up profits dramatically for pharmaceutical companies. Why is it that exactly the same drugs made in the United States sell for a fraction of their cost in America in places like Canada and Europe? It is a legitimate question. We ought to address it. Do we have the political nerve to do it? I hope so, as part of the Affordable Care Act reform. I hope we sit down and do something on a bipartisan basis to deal with the challenges we face, but first, take repeal off the table.

Let's make the Affordable Care Act stronger. Let's do it on a bipartisan basis. Let's set out to come up with a solution that doesn't do what the House version did, which could eliminate health insurance for millions of people across America and a million people in my State of Illinois.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, last week, the American people were stunned by what we learned happened in the White House. We saw an alarming set of developments about how this President is handling the investigation into Russia's interference with our democracy.

Last Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Sally Yates, whom President Trump had asked to serve as Acting Attorney General when he was first sworn into office. Ms. Yates testified that soon after the inauguration, she twice visited White House Counsel Don McGahn to warn him about National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. She warned that General Flynn had been compromised by his secret communications with Russian Ambassador Kislyak and that General Flynn could be blackmailed.

Ms. Yates first visited White House Counsel McGahn on January 26. McGahn invited her back to ask followup questions the following day, on January 27. Those followups included questions about General Flynn's potential criminal exposure.

What else happened on January 27? The President of the United States brought in FBI Director James Comey for a one-on-one dinner, where he reportedly asked Director Comey for a pledge of loyalty. Is the timing of this Comey dinner curious? You bet it is. According to Press Secretary Sean Spicer, President Trump was briefed immediately by White House Counsel McGahn after Ms. Yates' warning. That means the President knew about the Justice Department's concerns with Flynn when he met Director Comey for dinner.

Was the President's request for loyalty from Director Comey an attempt to impede the Justice Department's investigation into General Flynn? Was it an effort by the President to inoculate himself from Russia-related investigations? These are unanswered questions. But when Director Comey reportedly refused to swear his loyalty to President Trump, he apparently sealed his fate as Director of the FBI.

Last Tuesday evening, President Trump fired Director Comey while Comey was giving a speech to FBI agents in Los Angeles. The reason? Well, on Thursday, the President made clear that the Russia investigation was on his mind when he fired Director Comey. He said to Lester Holt of NBC: ``When I decided to do it, I said to myself, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story.'' President Trump later said that the Russia investigation ``should be over with, in my opinion, should have been over a long time ago.'' Then, on Friday, the President found time to threaten Mr. Comey on Twitter, implying that he had taped their conversations and that he would release the tapes if Comey disclosed what he knew.

Let's be clear. The President is in dangerous territory here. What the President is doing when it comes to potential obstruction of justice is similar to a chapter in history many of us remember. On October 20, 1973, President Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox when his Watergate investigation got too close to the White House. That sparked a constitutional crisis in America.

Now we have learned that President Trump has disclosed highly classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and that same Ambassador, Kislyak. The Washington Post reported that the President specifically revealed extremely sensitive intelligence considered so sensitive that details were being withheld from America's allies and tightly restricted even within our own government. Last night, the White House denied this happened. This morning, however, President Trump confirmed in two separate tweets that the story was true.

This kind of disclosure is what former Director Comey and just about every other congressional Republican described last year as ``extremely reckless'' in the handling of classified information. It jeopardizes critical intelligence sources in the fight against ISIL and the broader fight by America against terrorism.

This morning, European officials reacted, told the Associated Press that at least one European country might stop sharing intelligence with the United States if this is how it is going to be treated. That is not, as the majority leader described it this morning, ``drama.'' This is a real consequence of a dangerous President putting American lives at risk. This is truly incredible and historic. It is a national security breach by the President of incredible proportions. How in the world can we trust the President to put the national security needs of the American people ahead of his own?

There are a lot of parallels between the Watergate era and what we see today, but one major difference from the Nixon era to the Trump era is the willingness of Republicans in Congress to speak out against the abuse of power and to actually serve as a check on the Presidency. Back in Nixon's day, there were Republicans in Congress who were willing to speak truth to power, to say: Enough of the lies and damage to our democratic institutions, and to put the country ahead of party.

Listen, in November of 1973, just a few weeks after the Saturday Night Massacre, Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts was one of the first Republicans to stand up and say he did not feel the country could ``stand the trauma that it has been through for the past few months.''

In July of 1974, Republican Congressman Lawrence Hogan of Maryland said:

The evidence convinces me that my President has lied

repeatedly, deceiving public officials and the American

people. . . . Do we want to be the party loyalists who in

ringing rhetoric condemn the wrongdoings and scandals of the

Democratic Party and excuse them when they are done by

Republicans?

On the same day, Republican Congressman William Cohen of Maine said:

I have been faced with the terrible responsibility of

assessing the conduct of a President that I voted for,

believed to be the best man to lead this country, who has

made significant lasting contributions toward securing peace

in this country and throughout the world, but a President who

in the process, by act or acquiescence, allowed the rule of

law and the Constitution to slip under the boots of

indifference and arrogance and abuse.

Republican Congressman from Virginia M. Caldwell Butler said:

For years we Republicans have campaigned against corruption

and misconduct. . . . But Watergate is our shame.

Republican Congressman Paul Findley of Illinois, whom I ran against when I first had the privilege to serve in the House and whom today I call a friend, said a month later:

Hearings of the Judiciary Committee and developments in the

courts have, I believe, clearly established gross negligence,

maladministration and moral insensitivity on the part of the

President.

That same month, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona said:

There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has

been one too many.

In fact, at the same time, Senate Republicans nominated Goldwater to deliver a direct message to President Nixon. Goldwater, along with the House Republican leader, John Jacob Rhodes, and the Senate Republican leader, Hugh Scott, went to the White House, sat directly in front of President Nixon's desk, and explained that enough was enough.

These courageous Republicans were, of course, talking about lies, corruption, the obstruction of justice, and a danger to our democratic system of government emanating from the Nixon White House. They took our oath of office to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and certainly above a party or short-term policy gain--they took it seriously, and to their courage, we and history owe them a debt of gratitude.

So I ask today, amid a swirling and deeply troubling mix of lies-- nearly 500 in just the first 100 days of this new Presidency-- obfuscation, the withholding of information, attempts to interfere with Federal investigations regarding possible collusion with a foreign adversary, and thinly veiled threats against those involved in such investigations by our current President, where are the many Republican patriots who are ready to stand up against these troubling abuses and threats?

It has now been more than 7 months since 17 of our intelligence agencies provided overwhelming evidence of a Russian attack on our democracy and an attempt to help elect someone seen as more favorable to their interests, not our interests. The evidence was damning and continues to emerge. Yet what has this Congress done during this same 7-month period to uphold our oath to ``support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic''?

Have congressional Republicans launched an independent investigation into this historic cyber act of war as we did after 9/11? Unfortunately, no.

Have congressional Republicans retaliated against Russia for its actions by imposing sanctions or taking other actions, making sure its leadership knows it will pay a price for such attacks and think twice before doing so against the United States or at the expense of our allies? No.

Have Republicans in Congress passed meaningful cybersecurity legislation to help protect America against future attacks and help any States that request help? No.

Have Republicans demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor and insisted that the White House turn over all documents regarding the Trump campaign and ties with Russia, including potentially Russian intelligence? No.

Have Republicans demanded that the President explain why he keeps denying Russia's attack on our election in the face of overwhelming evidence? No.

In fact, has the majority party done anything to respond to, protect against, or even address these troubling attacks and refusals to cooperate from the White House? Sadly, no.

Let me tell you what the majority party has found time to pursue during the 7 months after an attack on our Nation--a cyber act of war that will live in cyber infamy. Some of this you simply cannot make up.

The Republican majorities in the House and in the Senate passed legislation making it easier to kill baby bear cubs and their mothers in their dens, making it easier to work with corrupt regimes overseas, making it harder for Americans to save for retirement, and they are trying to strip healthcare away from millions of Americans in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America.

This is, quite simply, an abdication of the majority party's responsibility in Congress to address an attack by a foreign power on our Nation and investigate possible collusion by an erratic and sometimes deceptive White House.

Let me close by asking my Republican colleagues, whom I know care very deeply about the Senate and our Nation, When will you speak up about the travesty unfolding? When will you take even a fraction of the action that would have most certainly occurred if these outrages had occurred under a Democratic President?

We need Republicans in Congress to stand up and protect our democratic institutions and to support a special prosecutor and an independent investigation into the Russian election interference now.

I am hopeful some Republican Senators will have the courage to join us

in calling for a special prosecutor. We need someone above politics and above the controversy whom we can trust to really pursue the facts and the evidence, wherever it may lead, to determine what we can do to protect America from another Russian attack in our next election and to hold Russia accountable for what we have been through. It is time to do this on a bipartisan basis. America is waiting.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Congress often considers issues that have far reaching consequences for millions of people, but in 2010, a law was enacted that literally meant life-or-death for millions of people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The law stems the flow of financial support to warloads in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Many may not realize that more than 5 million people have been killed during long-running conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which have been the most deadly since World War II. Tragically, women and children have suffered the most, as is too often the case when it comes to conflict.

Millions have been displaced from their homes, and the prevalence of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war is almost beyond belief, earning eastern Congo the grim distinction of being the ``Rape Capital of the World.'' Sam Brownback first took me there in 2005, and I returned again in 2010. At the time, the U.N. reported that about 1,000 women were sexually assaulted every day in Congo, roughly equivalent to 12 percent of all Congolese women. I can still vividly remember walking across the lava-strewn refugee camps and visiting the victims of sexual assault in the heroic Heal Africa Hospital. I also recall the hearing I held in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law about rape as a weapon of war. Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege testified about the horrors of the region's sexual violence he helped treat at Panzi Hospital. One of the drivers and funders of this conflict was paradoxically that which fills the DRC with such potential: its natural resources. Instead of paying for the nation's peace, education, roads, and public health programs, the DRC's mineral wealth was being siphoned off to fund the armed groups that vie for local and regional control of vast areas far from Congo's capital, Kinshasa.

Tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold are found in everyday electronics, jewelry, airplanes, and manufacturing equipment, but these minerals also have provided weapons and salaries to fighters, including conscripted child soldiers, who then commit unspeakable horrors on innocent civilians. That is why, in 2009, I joined Senators Brownback and Feingold and Congressman McDermott in drafting a simple reporting requirement for US-registered corporations that source these four minerals from the DRC or its neighbors. It passed and became law in 2010 to help stem the flow of financial support from illicit mining to the region's horrific violence.

It wasn't a ban. It was simply a transparency measure that said if you use any of these key minerals from the region, you had to note in your filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission what, if anything, you were doing to not source from those fueling the region's violence. If a company isn't taking any action to avoid fueling the region's violence, there isn't a penalty, but at least consumers would know that. This gives consumers the final decision on what electronics they want in their pockets. On a broader scale, the measure aimed to use collective industry action to clean up the supply chain of these minerals, which I am proud to say has worked.

For example, before the law, not a single smelter of tin, tungsten, tantalum--also known as the 3Ts--or gold had submitted to and passed an audit about dealing in conflict minerals. Today, 76 percent of the world's smelters of the 3Ts or gold have passed such an audit. Today more than 200 mines have also now been certified as conflict free. The effects of supply chain due diligence in this region are remarkable and are due to the leadership of many in the industry, including Intel, Apple, Kemet, and a number of companies from Illinois, including Motorola and AAR Corp. This process is far from complete or perfect, but the conflict minerals law has helped clean up the minerals trade and ease the grip Congolese warlords have had on the mining sector.

So imagine my dismay when I recently learned the Acting Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Michael Piwowar, unilaterally instructed his staff to halt enforcement of the law. In his April 7 statement, he mistakenly conflated aspects of an earlier court decision to justify his actions. It sets a dangerous precedent when an Acting Chairman decides which laws the SEC should and should not enforce.

Let me be clear, this unilateral action was without legal basis and is beyond the scope of the Acting Chairman's authority. As such, I urge the Acting Chairman to rescind his directive and allow full enforcement of the Conflict Minerals law and rule. This isn't just about enforcing the law as written by Congress, this is life-or-

death for millions of people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Acting Chairman would be well advised to remember that.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to acknowledge Ann Kalayil. Earlier this year, after 6 years, Ann stepped down as Regional Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration's--GSA--Great Lakes Region. Ann Kalayil is a trailblazer. She is the first woman--and first Asian American--to serve as GSA Administrator of the six-State Great Lakes Region. I am honored to congratulate her on a job well done.

Headquartered in Chicago, IL, the GSA is the Federal Government's real estate and procurement manager. As Regional Administrator, Ann Kalayil was responsible for 128 Federal buildings, 986 leased locations, 11 U.S. land ports, nearly 1,000 employees, and about $150 million in contracts to small and economically disadvantaged businesses. To say Ann Kalayil had a big job is an understatement, but it will come as no surprise to the people who know her that she met the challenge head-on and thrived in the role.

Her story is the story of the American dream. Born in Chicago, Ann was the daughter of Indian immigrants. When she was 5 years old, her parents moved back to Kerala, India. It was the first time Ann met her siblings, Tom, Sales, and Lisa. They were ecstatic to meet their baby sister but spoke very little English and struggled to communicate with each other. So what did Ann do? She took it upon herself to learn Malayalam, a South Indian language native to Kerala, India. Malayalam is an extremely complicated language, but Ann picked it up immediately, and people never guessed it wasn't her first language. This is how Ann would handle situations throughout her career. She never feared going out of her way to learn the needs of the community or group, even if it meant she would do most of the work. All that matters to Ann Kalayil is getting results.

People who know Ann best describe her as fierce, outspoken, and compassionate--just like her late father, Philip Kalayil. Her dad taught her the importance of these shared values and public service. Philip Kalayil was a Chicagoland legend. He was leader in the Indian American community, starting organizations to help people stay in touch with their culture and religion. Later, he would start the Indo- American Democratic Organization, empowering people to register to vote and make their voices heard. Ann would later serve as its president. In 2008, Philip was recognized by the Association for Asian American Studies with its Heart of Asian America Community Award, a well- deserved honor.

You could say public service was in Ann's blood, and although Philip is no longer with us, I know he would feel the same way. What a proud moment it must have been for him, watching his youngest daughter being sworn in to a top Federal job--appointed by the President of the United States--while holding the family Bible.

Growing up as Philip Kalayil's daughter, Ann had a front row seat in how to be a leader in the community and has waged countless successful campaigns, issues ranging from education policy, campaign finance reform, immigration reform, and documenting Asian American history. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Ann cochaired Obama's Asian American and Pacific Islander Leadership Council and was among a select few who was in a reserved area near the stage in Grant Park when Obama greeted a crowd of nearly 200,000 to celebrate the historic election. For all she takes on, her brother Tom only recalls seeing Ann nervous once, and it was when she was asked to throw the first pitch at a Chicago White Sox game following her appointment at the GSA.

Prior to her appointment at the GSA, Ann worked for more than 12 years at the University of Chicago in Information Technology Services in Emerging Technologies and Communications and as director of Client Services and Support. Like her father, she was also a teacher. Ann taught interdisciplinary courses on Asian Americans at DePaul University, Loyola University Chicago, and the University of Illinois at Chicago. Ann also holds a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Illinois at Chicago, a bachelor's degree in computer science from Northeastern Illinois University, a master's degree in Asian studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, and a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

I want to congratulate Ann Kalayil on her wonderful career and her outstanding service to our community and the country. I wish her all the best.

I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, before the Senator from Missouri leaves the floor, I want to say a word about him and the topic he raised today about health and, in this particular case, children.

Senator Blunt and I have adjoining States, Illinois and Missouri. We have joined up, as well, on the issue of medical research. I salute him. Even though he is my Republican colleague, I want to make clear that this is a bipartisan issue. He has made it a bipartisan issue. We had the good support of Senator Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, and Senator Murray, Democrat of Washington.

The Senator from Missouri has done some amazing things. I want to say specifically for the Record that America owes him a debt of gratitude, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that is responsible for the National Institutes of Health, the foremost leading medical research agency in the world.

Let me tell you, with his leadership, what we accomplished. For two straight years, Senator Blunt has been able to raise the appropriations for medical research at the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion or more. The net result of that is that a $30 billion budget has grown to almost $34 billion. What does it mean? It means that researchers don't get discouraged. They stay on their projects. They keep working to find cures.

Secondly, we are making dramatic advances in medicine because of it. His leadership has been absolutely essential. If there is ever a bipartisan issue, this is it. The Senator has been quite a leader in this regard.

I want to salute you for that while you are on the floor on the topic of healthcare and children.

I thank my colleague from Missouri. I will tell you that he set a standard. I hope that both parties will agree that this is the starting point. For every year's budget, the starting point is at least a 5-percent real growth increase in medical research.

Thank you, Senator Blunt, for your leadership.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.