Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, I voted against Representative Pompeo's confirmation as Director of the CIA. His changing statements on the use of torture leave me no choice. His written answers to the Senate Intelligence Committee, saying that he will consult with CIA experts as to whether the methods in the U.S. Army Field Manual are sufficient and, if they aren't, work with legal experts and congressional overseers to make changes, are extremely alarming and contradict what he told me personally when we met in my office.

Federal law now clearly prohibits torture and ``cruel, inhumane, and degrading'' treatment of detainees and prohibits interrogation techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual. We cannot go backwards on this seminal issue of human rights.

For years, I was highly critical of the CIA's detention and interrogation program and repeatedly questioned its legality. Over 13 years ago, I authored the first legislation to make clear that the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of detainees is illegal under U.S. law in all circumstances. Today, I stood in opposition of Representative Pompeo's confirmation to be CIA Director because, in order to win the war on terrorism, we must remain true to the principles upon which our country was founded.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the statement by the Republican leader on the floor, and I am hoping we can reach some agreement later today as to the nominations to be considered this day and very quickly next week. I will, for the record, make it clear that the seven nominees who moved through on the first day of the Obama administration were people who had their ethics statements filed on time, had filed all the legally required papers on time for review.

Unfortunately, that is not the case for all of the nominees by the new Trump administration. Some of them bring to this nomination some extraordinarily challenging financial data, and because of their companies, because of their lifestyles, because of their wealth, it takes longer to go through these documents than it does for people of modest means. When we proposed, by the Obama administration, Penny Pritzker, of Chicago, to serve as Secretary of Commerce, it took 6 months to clear the paperwork on her financial background. The more complex the financial data, the more difficult and challenging it is for the committees of the Senate to do their work and to do it properly.

We want to make certain we don't cut any corners. We don't want to create any advantage for any single nominee. They have to be held to the same standard as the nominees under the Obama administration. I am hoping we can move on it with dispatch on some of these nominees, and I don't quarrel with the Republican leader's premise that there are some noncontroversial nominees who would be easier to handle than others.

Let me quickly add, for those who have forgotten the record of the Republicans in the Senate when it comes to delaying nominations, exhibit A will continue to be the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. For the first time in the history of the United States of America, the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate refused a hearing and a vote on a nominee to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. That went on for the entire duration of the Obama Presidency. Some 11 months, that position on the highest Court in the land remained vacant because of the specific political strategy of the Republican leader on the other side.

He said: We will keep this open in the hopes that a Republican President will be able to fill it. He had a grin and a smile and, I guess, a feeling of accomplishment on election day when a Republican was elected President. That vacancy continued for political reasons, regardless of the fact that it created at least a hardship and some confusion on the highest Court of the land. It went on for 10, 11 months, and it continues to this day.

I might also remind him that the nomination of Loretta Lynch for the highest law enforcement position in America sat on that Senate calendar for months, with no objection stated by any Member on the other side. They refused to call her name and allow a vote for the Attorney General of the United States of America. Similarly, an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Treasury, a key position to deal with terrorism financing, was held on that calendar, I believe, for a year or more with no controversy. They had the power to do it, and they did it. So this notion that we slowed things down really negates and ignores the reality of the record before us.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, there were 2 minutes extended to each side, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. President, I only want to ask my friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the committee, two questions.

Is it traditional for the Senate Intelligence Committee that you chair to report out a nominee like Congressman Pompeo, and have you reported him out of your committee to the floor?

The Democratic side yields back all time.

I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I voted in favor of the nomination of Gen. John Kelly to be U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, and I am submitting this statement to explain my vote.

This nomination is not a referendum on President Donald Trump's immigration policy. If it were, I would have voted against the nomination.

In considering this nomination, the questions are whether General Kelly is unqualified to serve as Homeland Security Secretary and whether his views are too extreme to lead our homeland security and immigration enforcement efforts. In my view, General Kelly easily passes both tests.

Gen. John Kelly is clearly qualified to head up the Homeland Security Department. He served honorably in the U.S. Marine Corps for more than four decades, first as an enlistee and later as an officer, culminating in his role as commander of U.S. Southern Command. As SOUTHCOM commander, Kelly oversaw a variety of operations in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America from headquarters in Miami.

General Kelly knows better than most what is at stake in our efforts to protect our Nation from harm. He served three tours in Iraq, and in 2010, his son, Marine 1st Lt. Robert Michael Kelly, 29, was killed in southern Afghanistan while leading his platoon on a combat patrol when he stepped on a concealed bomb. He is the highest ranking military officer to lose a child in combat in Afghanistan or Iraq.

I am sure that I will disagree with General Kelly on some occasions, but he does not have a track record of extreme statements on immigration or the other issues that will be under his jurisdiction as Homeland Security Secretary.

I know that some of my Democratic colleagues voted against General Kelly's nomination because he refused to publicly commit to keeping the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--DACA--program in place and to protecting DACA recipients from deportations. Reasonable people can disagree, and I respect my colleagues who are voting against General Kelly's nomination, but I don't believe this justifies opposing this nomination.

There is no one in the Senate who is more committed than I to protecting the DACA program and no one who has worked harder to protect the young immigrants who are eligible for this program. Seven years ago, I was the first Member of Congress to ask President Obama to establish the DACA program. DACA is based on the DREAM Act, legislation I first introduced 16 years ago that would give undocumented students who grew up in this country a chance to earn their citizenship.

The young people who are eligible for DACA and the DREAM Act are known as DREAMers. Over the years, I have met hundreds of DREAMers and I have come to the floor more than 100 times to tell these DREAMers' stories, which make the case for DACA and the DREAM Act better than I ever could.

Last week, General Kelly came to my office to meet with me. We spent most of our time discussing DACA and the DREAMers. General Kelly promised me that, if he was confirmed, he would be a part of the discussions about the future of DACA. He said that he felt strongly that DREAMers should be protected from deportation and that he would fight for that view. General Kelly also committed that he would come to Chicago with me to meet with a group of DREAMers and to visit an immigration detention center, so that he would understand the human impact of the laws he will be enforcing.

Based on these assurances, I am pleased to be able to support General Kelly's nomination. But let me be clear. If General Kelly supports an effort by the new administration to rescind DACA or deport DREAMers, I will fight him tooth and nail.

I congratulate General Kelly on his confirmation, and I look forward to working with him on the critical issues under his jurisdiction, especially the future of DACA and the DREAMers.

Mr. President, let me start by commending my colleagues from Louisiana and Maine. I really believe their approach to the Affordable Care Act is much more reasonable than what we have heard in the past from some.

Senator Collins just went through a litany of options of repeal and run or repeal and replace 2 years from now. None of those are good options, and there is a reason why there is a backlash against this repeal effort across the country now, even among many Republicans as they consider the chaos that would be created by simply repealing it.

I don't know the merits of the proposal they brought before us. I can tell you, having been through the debate on the Affordable Care Act, which went on for years, that there are many complex questions that need to be addressed to satisfy all of us that we are doing the best we can do to give affordable, quality health care to more and more people across the United States.

The Congressional Budget Office just put out its report on what would happen if we just repealed, and it is a disaster. The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new year following enactment of a repeal bill.

Later, after the elimination of the ACA's expansion of Medicaid eligibility and subsidies for insurance purchased through the ACA, that number will increase to 27 million more uninsured and then to 32 million in 2026. Disastrous.

Premiums in the nongroup market--and those are folks who don't work for companies that provide health insurance--premiums in the nongroup market, with just repeal, would increase by 20 to 25 percent in the first year and then reach 50 percent in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and would double by 2026. So fewer people would have insurance, and those who do would pay dramatically more.

So we shouldn't take this as just a matter of being able to have a bragging right about repeal. If we are serious about legislating, we should be looking at the options to find out how to make the Affordable Care Act better or how to approach it in a different manner.

I commend my colleagues on the Republican side. Here is what it comes down to: If a handful of Republican Senators will say to the leadership: We are not going to vote to repeal until we have a replacement, then we can have a constructive conversation. But this notion of repealing the Affordable Care Act and then getting around to replacing it at some later time is irresponsible, will create chaos, and really says

to the American people: We are no longer committed to making sure your family has the peace of mind of good health insurance. So I thank them for the efforts they have put into this, and I look forward to working with them.

Mr. President, yesterday I went to the White House. It was a great celebration of the World Series champion Chicago Cubs being recognized in the White House by our President from Illinois, Barack Obama. Of course, he is a White Sox fan, and he didn't apologize or change his stripes, but it was a great day of celebration. During the course of it, he said it was his last public event in the White House, and I came to realize that we are only days away from a new President and President Obama leaving.

I think back to a memorable moment in my life which most people wouldn't have remembered, but I will never forget. It was July 27, 2004. The place was Boston, MA. At the last minute, I was called on to introduce a friend of mine, a skinny lawyer and State senator from Illinois who was about to deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. His name was Barack Obama. I had known him for several years. I knew he was an extraordinarily gifted politician, and I knew he was a very good person.

I had seen him inspire many audiences back home, including some in the most unlikely places. I once saw him hold spellbound a group of blue-collar workers and farmers in Carroll, IL--a town which in the 1960s was completely devastated by racial tension and the presence of a local branch of the Ku Klux Klan--but even I was not prepared for the powerfully moving speech Barack Obama gave after I introduced him in Boston. It has been quoted in the Times. He told us:

There is not a liberal America and a conservative America--

there is the United States of America. There is not a Black

America and a White America and Latino America and Asian

America--there's the United States of America.

He went on to say:

The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red

States and blue States; red States for Republicans, blue

States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We

worship an awesome God in the blue States, and we don't like

Federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red

States. We coach Little League in the blue States, and, yes,

we've got some gay friends in the red States. There are

patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots

who supported the war in Iraq.

He only spoke for 17 minutes at that Boston convention--17 minutes-- and in that time, he gave voice to what another tall, lanky lawyer from Illinois once called ``the better angels of our nature.'' He touched a longing deep within the hearts of millions of Americans who wanted to believe in those better angels, who wanted to believe in what Barack Obama called ``the audacity of hope,'' the audacity to believe that America, which had achieved so many miracles, was capable of even greater goodness. People inside the convention hall and millions outside who heard that speech all had the same reaction: I have seen America's future.

I remember going back to Illinois a few days after that convention and campaigning with Barack as he was running for the U.S. Senate. He went to the most unlikely downstate towns--Calumet, IL; Freeport, IL. Huge crowds were coming in from adjoining States because they had seen him give that speech at the Democratic Convention. I knew there was something special about him.

His grandmother called him after he gave the speech. She gave him some advice. ``You did well,'' she said. ``I just kind of worry about you. I hope you keep your head on straight.'' Good advice for all of us.

A little over 4 years later, my friend--then the U.S. Senator from Illinois--was elected the 44th President. On inauguration day 2009, 2 million Americans stood shoulder to shoulder outside on the Mall near the Capitol dome and cheered as the son of a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas placed his hand on the family Bible of Abraham Lincoln and swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

For the last 8 years, President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, their daughters Malia and Sasha, and First Grandmother Marian Robinson have made their home in the White House. What an irony--they were living in a house originally built by slaves.

The audacity of hope. The awe-inspiring strength of America to continually seek and stretch to be that ``more perfect Union.''

Part of the miracle of America is also the peaceful transition of power from one President to the next. As we prepare for the transition to a new President, we would do well to look back on the historic Presidency of Barack Obama. He was elected and reelected President both times convincingly.

His grandmother would be proud that he has not only kept his head on straight, he has held his head high, kept his priorities straight even amidst often unprecedented, unyielding opposition and searingly personal attacks. As First Lady Michelle Obama told us, the motto for the entire Obama family has been ``When they go low, we go high.'' We have seen that grace in them time and time again.

President Obama is a profoundly good and decent man who has served America with dignity and integrity. He has been thoughtful, calm, and resolute--never rash or impulsive. He is a disciplined leader who has grappled honestly with complex challenges facing America and the world, and he has delivered solutions that improved lives.

In his farewell speech in Chicago, President Obama quoted the fictional hero Atticus Finch, reminding us: ``You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.'' Putting himself in another person's shoes, seeing life through another person's eyes, and finding shared hopes is a lifelong habit and a special gift of this President.

He has tried his level best to heal and unite our divided Nation. His accomplishments are significant, and history will record many of them as profound.

He was first elected at a time when America badly needed hope. President Obama inherited--inherited--the greatest financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. The country had lost more than 2 million jobs in the previous 4 months before he was sworn in. By inauguration day, the country's top four banks had lost half their value in less than a year. There was an urgent danger that not only the American economy would collapse, but the economy of the Western world was teetering in the balance.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, called the stimulus bill, saved the U.S. and global economy from a major crash and helped create the conditions for recovery. Unemployment today is at 4.9 percent. America has just seen the longest streak of private job creation in the Nation's history. To borrow a phrase, thanks, Obama.

Our friends across the aisle said: Let America's auto industry die. The Obama administration said: No way. They decided to place their bets on American manufacturing and workers instead. The Center for Automotive Research estimates that the special bankruptcy process for General Motors and Chrysler saved at least 1.5 million American jobs. Detroit has posted record profits for 7 years in a row. Barack Obama would not give up on American autoworkers or American auto companies, and it paid off.

Predatory lending and other systemic abuses were the cancer at the heart of the great financial meltdown of 2008 and 2009.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for an additional 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Under this President, Congress passed the most comprehensive overhaul of financial regulations since the Great Depression, protecting consumers and taxpayers.

President Obama inherited a Federal budget hemorrhaging red ink. Under his watch, the budget deficit has fallen $1 trillion, despite record investments in education, green energy, broadband, high-speed rail, medical research, and other high-return priorities.

He brought us the Affordable Care Act. I am not going to dwell on it because I spoke on it before when the other Senators were on the floor.

There was a skit on ``Saturday Night Live'' last week that talked about, would the Republicans be happy if we banned the word ``ObamaCare''? Can we stick with the Affordable Care Act since it is helping so many people? Sometimes we think that is what this is all about: We have to get rid of it because it has his name on it. Well, we shouldn't. We should reflect on the good that it has done and make sure we do nothing less in the future. Health insurance costs are going down at the fastest rate in 50 years. Medicare gets an additional projected 10 years of solvency because of the Affordable Care Act. Numerous Republican Governors, including Vice President-Elect Mike Pence, have used Medicaid expansion of ObamaCare to reduce the uninsured in their States.

On the issue of climate, I will defer to my friend from Rhode Island, who has stepped off of the floor for a moment, but when it comes to this, President Obama has taken climate change seriously. He does not view it as an unproven theory or a Chinese-authored hoax; he believes it is a fact, and so do I. It is a threat to the existence of humanity, and we are running out of time to prevent a climate catastrophe.

Americans built on the historic breakthrough at the 2015 U.N. summit on climate change in Paris. When that summit ended, 195 countries joined the United States and agreed to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The President once told a group of young people: ``I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that is beyond fixing.''

We have a safer and more secure America. This President brought troops home--massive numbers of troops--who were dispatched around the world in harm's way. He understands we can't fix all the world's problems. We learned that the hard way. He banned the use of torture. We have seen the withdrawal of the majority of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has been decimated, Osama bin Laden is history, and ISIS is on the run.

Under President Obama, Americans led the successful global effort to conquer an Ebola epidemic in West Africa, and he helped preserve a democratic Ukraine, despite the aggression of Vladimir Putin of Russia. He has restored relations with Cuba after 50 years of a failed policy. The President and John Kerry had enormous diplomatic success with the Iran agreement to protect our friend and ally Israel and many other states in the Middle East.

I want to close by saying that his efforts in two areas are personal to me. Criminal justice reform, this President is determined to make sure our sentencing laws are just. There are things going on now that are just indefensible. We have been jailing people and imprisoning them for drug crimes for decades--unacceptable. The President is determined to get this done. We did part of it. I hope we can do more.

Finally, let me just say that this President, more than any, has really shown a caring for the DREAMers, a bill I introduced 16 years ago, so that those who came to the United States as children, through no fault of their own undocumented, would get a chance. That was it. He put together DACA, an Executive order which gave them that chance.

We have to work now to protect these bright, young people. I am so encouraged that Speaker Paul Ryan, at the CNN town meeting last week, acknowledged this and said he was willing to work to make sure we protected them. Barack Obama was the one who gave them this opportunity, and now it is up to us to follow through and give them a fair shake in life.

Mr. President, to reiterate, the affordable Care and Patient Protection Act that our colleagues across the aisle are now rushing headlong to repeal--without anything to replace it--represents the greatest advance in economic fairness and security for most Americans since at least the creation of Medicare 50 years ago.

ObamaCare has made the health coverage of all insured Americans more secure and more valuable by: outlawing discrimination based on pre- existing conditions; eliminating costs for checkups, mammograms and many other preventive measures; and allowing young people to stay on their parent's policies until age 26--among other new protections.

It has reduced the ranks of uninsured Americans by 20 million, and it has saved money. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact.

According to an analysis by the respected, nonpartisan Brookings Institution, health insurance exchange premiums are 44 percent lower today than they would have been without ObamaCare.

Health insurance costs are going down at the fastest rate in 50 years.

Numerous Republican Governors--including Vice President-Elect Mike Pence--have used the Medicaid expansion in ObamaCare to reduce the uninsured in their States. That's a good thing.

But now President-Elect Trump and our Republican colleagues tell us that they want to repeal ObamaCare, cancel those patient protections, go back to the days when insurance companies write all the rules, and leave 20 million Americans without insurance.

They say they will come up ``fairly easily'' with something better than ObamaCare.

I say to my friends: If it were easy, it would have happened already. Work with us to fix the things that can be improved, not kill it. Lives are at stake.

President Obama understands that climate change is not an unproven theory or a Chinese-authored hoax, it is a fact. It is a threat to the very existence of humanity and we are running out of time to prevent a climate catastrophe.

Under Barack Obama, America went from being the chronic spoiler to being a world leader in global climate change negotiations.

We reached a sweeping bilateral climate pact with China to cut greenhouse gas emissions--something critics said could never happen.

American built on that historic breakthrough at the 2015 U.N. summit on climate change in Paris. When the summit ended, 195 countries had agreed to lower greenhouse-gas emissions.

The President once told a group of young people: ``I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that's beyond fixing.''

He has done his part to keep that commitment. We should build on his progress, not reverse it.

The cornerstone of President Obama's foreign policy is a recognition that America remains the world's one indispensable nation and that we, and the world, are safer when America chooses engagement over either isolation or unilateralism.

He also understands that America cannot fix all of the world's problems. We have to choose wisely, based on our ideals, our priorities and our limits.

He banned the use of torture. He has seen the withdrawal of the majority of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has been decimated, ISIS is on the run, and Osama Bin Laden is dead.

Under President Obama, America led the successful global effort to contain and conquer an Ebola epidemic in West Africa.

And we helped preserve a democratic Ukraine against Russian aggression.

President Obama announced plans to restore normal relations with Cuba--reversing 50 years of a failed policy that done at least as much harm to America's relations with our neighbors in this hemisphere as it had done to depose the Castro regime.

The President and Secretary of State John Kerry made a momentous diplomatic success in negotiating an agreement to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, protecting our ally Israel and many nations across the Mideast.

The Iran nuclear deal holds the promise of defusing a ticking time bomb. If Iran fails to live up to that promise, we will know quickly and we will take the steps to stop them.

I want to touch briefly on two other issues that I have worked on very closely and to which I am deeply committed.

The first is the growing, bipartisan movement to end America's era of overincarceration.

America has 5 percent of the world's population--and nearly 25 percent of the world's prisoners. That ignominious fact is largely the result of inflexible antidrug laws that disproportionately punish people of color, especially poor people of color.

In 2010, President Obama signed a law that I introduced with Senator Sessions called the Fair Sentencing Act. It replaced a Federal law that demanded dramatically harsher sentences for convictions involving crack cocaine than powder cocaine.

I have worked with Democrats and some brave Republican colleagues for a few years to further reform Federal sentencing--to allow Federal judges some discretion in nonviolent drug cases, and eliminate ``three strikes and you're out law'' and other overly harsh and inflexible laws that are overly harsh and hugely expensive to enforce.

In the absence of action from us, President Obama has used his powers to commute the sentences of more than 1,000 people--more than 50 times the number of people whose sentences were commuted by President George W. Bush and more than the past 11 Presidents combined.

We can't have it both ways. If we don't want President's to use their lawful Executive authority to correct injustices, we need to correct those injustices ourselves. I hope we will do so in this new Congress.

Finally, we must--we must--fix America's broken immigration system.

And let's start by assuring DREAMers--those young people who were brought to this country as children and who are undocumented through no fault of their own--that we will not deport them from the only nation they have ever called home.

I have come to this floor dozens of times to tell you their stories. They are scholars, American soldiers, researchers, doctors, engineers, lawyers, clergy members.

DACA--the President's Executive order--allows them to stay in this country temporarily while Congress works to pass a comprehensive immigration reform plan that meets the needs of our economy, and honors our values and our unique and powerful heritage as a nation of immigrants.

More than 750,000 DREAMers put their trust in our Government and came forward to register under DACA.

What will happen to them if--as many fear--DACA is not extended?

Immigrants are not a threat to America. Immigrants are America. The sooner we acknowledge that fact and align our laws with it, the better we will be.

Mr. President, I could go on for quite some time about what President Obama, Vice President Biden, and their administration have meant for America, but time precludes that so I will close with these last thoughts.

In that historic speech he delivered in Boston 12 years ago, President Obama told us that, in his father's native tongue, the name ``Barack'' means ``blessing.''

President Obama leaves office now as the most popular politician in America, and assured of his place in history. I believe that America has been fortunate--even blessed--by his service and sacrifice as our President.

President Obama has also warned us that ``History travels not only forwards; history can travel backwards, history can travel sideways.'' I hope that we can all pledge, regardless of party, to keep history moving forward.

Mr. President, today I want to take a few moments to acknowledge Illinois State Senator--and my friend--John Sullivan. John is one of the best and most decent men in politics--and there is no stronger advocate for the people of western Illinois. After all, they are John's lifelong friends and family. He has been living and farming there his entire life. And after 14 years in the Illinois Senate, John retired and returned to the family business.

John Sullivan grew up on his family farm in Macomb, Nauvoo, and Hamilton. He spent his summers taking care of livestock and baling hay. In 1981, John graduated from Quincy College--known today as Quincy University--with a degree in history. After college, he went to auction school and obtained his real estate license. He sold insurance before taking a job in Rushville with Production Credit Association.

He didn't know anyone in Rushville--a town of just over 3,000 people--but he joined the local parish and quickly made friends. As fate would have it, Joan Merna moved to town and joined the same parish. Their friends decided to introduce them, and the rest is history. Today, John and Joan have been married for more than 33 years. And if you talk to their friends, they will tell you their marriage was one of the best things that happened to Rushville. They are a great team and have a wonderful family

In 1986, John joined the family real estate and auction business, which his children and siblings still run today. Nearly 20 years later, he sat down with Joan at the kitchen table and decided to run for office. It was something he always wanted to do--and 2002 was as good a time as any. Before John, no one thought a Democrat could be elected Senator in western Illinois. For years, good candidates tried and failed. But John won office the old-fashioned way--by knocking on doors, walking in parades, and listening to people. He also had a secret weapon--six brothers and four sisters. Republicans said it was like running against the Walton family. And a couple of his brothers look just like John. The resemblance was so great that, during that first campaign, people sometimes thought John was everywhere all at once. They didn't realize that sometimes they were seeing one of the Sullivan brothers.

John learned fast and rose in just a few years from a political novice to a leader of the Democratic Party in the Illinois Senate. If you want to see John's legacy, you can look at the extensions of Route 336 and Route 67--main arteries that created hundreds of new jobs--and will continue to bring new jobs to the region long after we are gone. He has secured more than $820 million for Western Illinois University in Macomb--and over $16 million to keep the Quincy Veterans Home Guest House open.

But the greatest part of John's legacy is the civility, reason, and dignity he has brought to his work--qualities that are needed in public service today. John understands that getting things done involves finding middle ground and getting along with people. Progress is a long march. It demands patience and perseverance. And sometimes, it requires the wisdom and humility to compromise, a lesson John learned from his parents, growing up as one of 11 children. When fights broke out, his parents didn't get involved, they simply said: ``Figure it out and just get along.'' And they did. John took the same approach to governance and built his reputation as someone who is always willing to listen to the other side to see if there is a way to move forward

together. He knows that principled compromise isn't capitulation, but how democracy is supposed to work. He will be sorely missed in the Illinois Senate.

Despite his many achievements, his proudest accomplishment is his family. John and Joan still live on their family farm in Rushville where they raised four children. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Emily. And let me tell you, Emily inherited some good public service genes--I am indebted to John and Joan for letting her work in my Washington office.

I will close with this. On the wall in John's Senate office was a photograph of his dad, along with the advice he gave him. He told John: ``Don't forget the little guy.'' Throughout his career, he has never forgotten the little guys--family farmers, small business owners, and hard-working people wondering how they will send their children to college or retire with dignity. John has stood with them and been their champion. Now, as he enters the next chapter in his life, I want to wish him and Joan many years of happiness and the best of luck with the family business and family farm.

Mr. President, in 8 days, just a short distance from this Senate Chamber, Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. On that date, January 20, 2017, the fate of more than 750,000 young American immigrants will hang in the balance. They will be waiting to learn if they have a place in America's future or whether they will lose their legal status to stay in the United States. For many of them, it is a period of the highest anxiety, wondering what is going to happen next.

It was 7 years ago that I sent a letter to President Obama. I had introduced the DREAM Act, which said that if you were brought to America as a child, an infant, or an adolescent, lived here all your life, went to school and did well, and had no criminal record of any consequences, we would give you a chance to stay. Over a period of time, you would be able to become legal in America--a citizen in America. Sixteen years ago, I introduced it, and we passed it once in the Senate, once in the House, and never, ever made it the law of the land.

I wrote to President Obama, with Senator Dick Lugar, Republican of Indiana, and said: Find some way, if you can, as President, to protect these young DREAMers, as we call them. And he did. It is called DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

What it basically said is that if you qualify under the DREAM Act, you could pay a filing fee of almost $500, go through a criminal background check and interview, and, then, if you qualify, you will be given a 2-year temporary protection from deportation and the ability to work. So far, over 750,000 young people have come forward. They have made such a difference in their own lives, in the lives of their families, and even in our country.

I have come over 100 times to tell their stories, and I will tell another one today. But I want to also announce that today we have a significant bipartisan breakthrough for this Congress: Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and I have introduced the BRIDGE Act. The BRIDGE Act, which has bipartisan sponsorship, would say that even if we eliminated President Obama's Executive order, we would protect these young people from deportation and allow them to continue to work and study.

I want to thank Senator Graham. He has been a terrific partner.

This is an issue which weighs heavily on my mind and conscience. We believe this is a reasonable way to extend this protection and to say to Congress in the meantime: Get to work. Roll up your sleeves. Pass a comprehensive immigration bill. Work with the new President, work with both sides, Democrats and Republicans, and come up with an approach.

I thank Senator Graham for joining me in the introduction of this BRIDGE Act.

For the young people across America, I can tell you, I understand your fears. I understand your anxiety. There are many of us who are dedicated to making certain that this ends well for you and for your family.

There are pretty amazing young people who are in that category I have addressed. One of them is Jose Espinoza. At the age of 2, Jose Espinoza was brought here from Mexico. He grew up in the northwest suburbs of Chicago and became an excellent student. In high school, he was a member of the National Honor Society, and he graduated in the top 3 percent of his class. He was elected to the student council every year in high school, the treasurer, vice president, editor of the high school yearbook, mentored and taught physical education to a freshman class of 40 students. He was also captain of the varsity track and field team and a member of the soccer team and the school orchestra.

In his spare time, if there was any, Jose volunteered with the United Way, and as a result of his academic record and volunteer service, he received a college scholarship from the United Way.

Incidentally, DREAMers--undocumented--don't qualify for any Federal

assistance for their education, so they have to find it in other places. His work with the United Way helped to pay his way at the college. He went to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and received multiple academic awards and continued his volunteer service with Alpha Phi Omega, a national service fraternity. He received the Distinguished Service Key, the fraternity's highest award. He graduated with a bachelor of science in kinesiology and then went on to earn a master's degree in public health at the University of Illinois.

In his last semester of graduate school, President Obama announced the DACA Program, which I described earlier. He applied, signed up, and became part of that DACA Program.

What is he doing today with his master's degree, with his opportunity to work in fields of public health and such? He signed up for Teach For America. We know Teach For America is a national nonprofit organization that places talented recent college graduates in urban and rural schools that have a shortage of teachers. Jose is currently a high school physics and public health teacher in the city of Chicago.

He wrote me a letter, and he said:

DACA changed my life in more ways than I can ever explain.

It has given me the power to help others, the freedom to

travel, and the right to legally work without fear of

deportation. Simply put, without DACA, I wouldn't exist for

my students and my community.

If DACA is eliminated, what will happen to Jose? The day after DACA, he won't be able to teach. He could be deported back to Mexico, where he hasn't lived since he was a 2-year-old toddler. That would be a tragedy, not just for Jose and his family but for this Nation. This is a fine young man who, against great odds, undocumented, has written this amazing record in his young life. He is a giving person. He could be making a lot more money than his pay with Teach For America in an inner city school.

Do we need Jose Espinoza in America's future? I think we do. That is why I am happy that this BRIDGE Act would give him a chance and Congress a chance to address this issue of DREAMers. I hope President- Elect Trump will understand this and continue the DACA Program. If he decides to end the DACA Program, I hope his administration will work closely and rapidly with Congress to pass the BRIDGE Act into law.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, apparently a number of our colleagues here are having second thoughts about the strategy on the floor. We have before us a budget resolution. It is setting the stage for a budget process called reconciliation. To put it in layman's terms, we are going to be moving from this budget resolution vote to a vote at a time to be announced later, possibly in the next 2 weeks, to repeal ObamaCare.

There has been a lot of speculation about what the impact will be if we don't replace the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, with something very quickly--for obvious reasons. We have seen 30 million Americans who now have health insurance because of the creation of the Affordable Care Act.

We have changed health insurance policies across the United States so that if you have someone in your family with a preexisting condition, you can't be discriminated against when you buy insurance.

Back in the old days, before ObamaCare became the law of the land, health insurance companies could just refuse to insure your family or charge you a premium that was beyond reach. We also eliminated the caps that were built in--the limits that were built into these health insurance policies. People were buying policies which covered up to $100,000 in expenses. Then, God forbid, there is a diagnosis of cancer or some serious illness, and $100,000 evaporates over a weekend.

So those limits are no longer allowed in health insurance policies. We said women should be treated the same as men when it comes to premiums. We also went on to say that, when it comes to these health insurance companies, they have to be focused on keeping premium costs in control, and they have to justify any profits that go way beyond the reasonable.

Then we said: If you are a mother or father with a son or daughter coming out of college and they are looking for a job, they are doing an internship, and they don't have health insurance, they can stay on your family policy until age 26.

That is pretty important for a lot of families. My family has been through that with our kids. To know and have peace of mind that your daughter or son can continue to be covered by your family plan--these things are all built into the Affordable Care Act. Now, simply repealing that, even saying it will happen at a later date, throws into question, if not chaos, our health care system in America.

A lot of people are finally thinking about that. It is not just a protest vote about a President who is going to be leaving office in 9 days. It is a life-and-death decision for health care for millions of Americans. Now many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are starting to wake up to that reality.

Senator Cotton of Arkansas said: ``It would not be the right path for us to repeal ObamaCare without laying out a path forward.''

Yesterday, House Speaker Paul Ryan said that Republicans want to repeal ObamaCare ``concurrently'' with a replacement--``concurrently.''

Senator Lamar Alexander, my friend and colleague from Tennessee, who chairs the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, responded by saying: ``To me, `simultaneously' and `concurrently' mean ObamaCare should be finally repealed only when there are concrete, practical reforms in place that give Americans access to truly affordable health care''--Senator Alexander.

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, said: ``I don't think Republicans want to leave 23 million people out there worried that they are going to lose their insurance.''

So you go through the long list of Republican dissenters to this notion of repeal and we will get back to you later: Senators Corker, Portman, Collins, Cassidy, Murkowski. They have come up with an amendment to this budget resolution, and they have said: Let's postpone this whole effort until we have had time to put some work into it and come up with an alternative to answer some of the basic questions about what a new version of the Affordable Care Act would look like.

But the problem with that approach is that they have had 7 years--7 years--to prepare something, and they have nothing. So what are we going to do in the meantime?

We did the responsible thing, I hope. Let's find a way to make the Affordable Care Act even stronger, better, fairer. Sign me up. Make it a bipartisan effort. Don't repeal it. Sit down and rewrite it in a way that is fair and makes it stronger and better.

The basic things we want to make sure of are that people can have the same basic protection if they wish it in health insurance. Ensure that no one loses their current benefits, whether it is maternity care, mental health care, or substance abuse treatment, which is now required to be covered by health insurance plans. Ensure that no one's premiums or out-of-pocket expenses get out of line. Protect people with preexisting conditions and don't just simply shift the cost to States-- my State included--that could not afford to take this on. Keep drug prices down for seniors.

You see, that is a part I did not mention. Medicare is affected by the Affordable Care Act. Under Medicare, the 60 million Americans under Medicare used to have something called a doughnut hole. It was on odd invention when this bill was written into law. It said that Medicare for seniors would cover the front end of their prescription costs, if they are high, and, then, they have to take the middle part out of their savings, and, then, late in the year, Medicare kicked back in.

It was costing seniors $1,000, $2,000 a year. We eliminated it with the Affordable Care Act. Now, if you repeal that, what happens to seniors and their prescription drug costs? Those are legitimate questions which need to be answered before we go blindly into repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Let's work together--Democrats and Republicans--to make this a better law. I have said it before and I will say it again. The only perfect law that I am aware of was carried down a mountain by ``Senator Moses'' on clay tablets. The rest of the efforts that we put into this are always subject to review, amendment, and improvement. The Affordable Care Act I would put in that category.

If there is a good-faith effort on the Republican side to join with Democrats, I want to be part of it. I also want to salute my colleague, Senator Debbie Stabenow, who will be on the floor in a couple of hours to talk about the mental health protections and substance abuse treatment protections in the Affordable Care Act. We used to have this debate on the Senate floor about whether health insurance policies should cover mental illness. We debated that. For the longest time, they did not. People with those problems and challenges have long-term care, in some cases.

But because of the bipartisan effort of Mr. Paul Wellstone, the late Senator

from Minnesota, and Mr. Pete Domenici, the retired Senator from New Mexico--Democrat and Republican--we have included it in there. Senator Stabenow wants to make sure that whatever we write in the future is going to cover mental illness and substance abuse treatment.

Facing mental illness challenges across America, facing an opioid and heroin epidemic, we can do no less. Let me tell you a story about Lori Myers in Freeport, IL. She sent me a letter. Here is what she said:

I am writing to ask you to fight to preserve the ACA . . .

it has literally saved our daughter Brianne.

Brianne has been insured through the ACA since its

inception. . . . She has multiple health concerns and her

prescriptions are insanely expensive without insurance.

Lori writes:

It is imperative that she continue to have health coverage

in order to remain a functioning and productive adult. . . .

She has excellent policies purchased through the

Marketplace--with BlueCross BlueShield, and she receives a

subsidy to assist with cost.

The increase in premium this year was offset by an increase

in the subsidy. She is actually paying $20-$30 less for her

policy this year than she did last year for basically the

same coverage.

Ms. Myers says:

The election of our incoming President and the Republican-

controlled Congress has our family in a panic mode. Paul Ryan

and company want to take away programs that are assisting

people: like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and

healthcare.

She makes this final plea:

I am asking you, as our elected official, to stand strong

against any attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and

these other extremely vital programs.

What does it mean for seniors--the Affordable Care Act?

Well, the first thing it did was to start to contain the growth in health care costs. That had a dramatic impact on Medicare and its future. Because of the Affordable Care Act and the changes it includes, which give to seniors, for example, free preventive health exams and that sort of thing, and because of prescription drugs now being covered so it does not come out of pocket for many seniors--because of these changes and others--Medicare is now financially solvent through 2028.

ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, added 10 years of solvency to Medicare. That is critically important. What happens when they repeal it? Because we slowed the pace of Medicare costs, seniors are now paying $700 less each year in premiums and cost sharing, on average. Premiums are down, and Medicare solvency is up. We want to repeal that?

Our health care system now prohibits insurers from charging seniors much higher premiums simply because of age. Seniors were often charged five times what younger people paid for health insurance--banned by the Affordable Care Act. ObamaCare, as I mentioned earlier, closed this doughnut hole, saving 11 million seniors an average of $2,127 on their prescription drugs. They want to repeal that?

Thanks to ObamaCare, more than 30 States have expanded their Medicaid Program. People often forget that the vast majority of money spent on Medicaid is for seniors who are in an institutional or at-home-by- themselves setting. So when you cut Medicaid--and people say that it must be the poor unemployed; it is--but the largest amount of money is going to seniors--mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers.

The Affordable Care Act has been good for kids across America. Between 2013 and 2015 we saw the largest decline of children uninsured in our Nation's modern history. Today, more than 95 percent of kids in America are insured. We ought to be proud of that. In Illinois, there is a 40-percent decline in the number of children uninsured. Under our current health care system, children can now stay on their parents' plans till age 26, as I mentioned.

The number of young adults ages 19 to 25 without health insurance has declined by over 50 percent since we passed this bill. In Illinois, more than 90,000 young people have signed up. Today, insurance companies are required to cover important health care for children free of charge--vaccinations, vision checks, lead poison screening. Of course, we ended the preexisting condition provisions. The Republicans want to repeal this. What will they replace that with to protect children and seniors?

When it comes to women, because of ObamaCare, the uninsured rate for adult women in America has declined by 44 percent. Today, women can no longer be charged more than men simply because of their gender. Our health care system now prohibits insurers from discriminating based on preexisting conditions. There was a time, literally, when health insurance companies said being a woman is a preexisting condition. We are going to charge you more.

Our health care system now ensures that women can get free preventive health services. Before ObamaCare, 62 percent of individual health plans did not cover maternity or newborn care. Today, it is a requirement.

So when you talk about cutting the cost of health insurance and that we will just take off some of these benefits, understand what you are doing. If you take the basic maternity care out of a health insurance plan, and it is not included and it is needed, that family is going to have to bear that expense.

If they can't pay the bill--some won't be able to--who is going to pay for it? The hospital will deliver the baby and send the mother and baby home happy and healthy, I hope. But the cost will be passed on to everyone else who shows up at that hospital with a health insurance plan. That was the old days. Do the Republicans want to return to that?

In the area of behavioral health, as I mentioned earlier, thanks to ObamaCare, health insurance plans now cover mental health and substance abuse disorders. The law extended protections under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act to 60 million Americans in private health plans. This means that insurers can no longer discriminate against individuals with mental illness or addiction.

Our health care system now prohibits insurers from discriminating based on preexisting conditions, including the 44 million Americans with some history of mental illness and 20 million with a substance abuse disorder.

When you repeal this, as the Republicans plan on doing, what will they replace it with? What will they say to the families who have someone with a mental illness or someone suffering from a drug addiction?

Substance abuse and mental health disorders often present in young adulthood, and that is why the provision that families can keep their kids on their plan is at the right time and the right place for many young people.

There is a long list of things that were done by the Affordable Care Act. It is one thing to campaign and say: We will repeal it. People cheer. And then you ask yourselves: What are you going to say, as some of the Republican leaders have said, to the people who are going to lose this coverage, to the people who want their guarantees built into their health insurance plans?

I can still remember--and I will bet many watching this debate can too--the bad old days when you called up that adjuster for the health insurance plan that you owned and wondered how long you were going to sit on hold for the person on the other end and if the person on the other end would even be able to comprehend what you were asking.

These sorts of things don't need to be returned as evidence that we are making progress. If we go back to those bad old days, it is a step in the wrong direction for millions of Americans.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, the most popular dictionary defines an act of war as an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace. Let me repeat, an act of aggression by another country against another with which it is nominally at peace.

On Friday, America's intelligence community issued a damning, detailed assessment concluding that Russian strongman President Vladimir Putin ordered an attack on our Nation's electoral system to sow mistrust and favor one candidate over another. The evidence was sweeping, overwhelming, and troubling.

The key findings, quoted directly from the public version of this report from the intelligence agencies, said as follows:

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential

election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's

longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal

Democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a

significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and

scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an

influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential

election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in

the U.S. Democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton,

harm her electability and potential presidency. We further

assess that Putin and the Russian Government developed a

clear preference for President-elect Trump.

We also assess Putin and the Russian government aspired to

help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible

by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting

her unfavorably to him.

They go on to talk about the types of influence Moscow inspired.

I am not going to stand here and argue that if the Russian efforts had not taken place, there would have been a different outcome in the election. No one will ever know that. And when asked directly, the intelligence agencies, despite these strong statements, say there is no evidence of direct vote tampering or tampering with election equipment, thank goodness. That isn't the point.

The point is, Vladimir Putin and the Russians did what they could to influence our election. Americans should stand up and listen because what is at stake is the sovereignty of our Nation and the reliability and integrity of our election process.

What the Russians did was truly staggering and momentous--a foreign adversary intentionally manipulating America's democracy and election. I don't know if it is an act of war by classic definition. It is an attack on our Nation by any definition. It should not go unanswered.

For those who have been following Vladimir Putin's bullying actions over the last several years, this is no surprise. Instead of building a modern global economy based on the great talents of the Russian people, he and his closest neighbors have created false enemies in the West, sadly and dangerously creating a narrative that domestic Russian problems are really the result of NATO, the United States, and the West.

He has tried to discredit the West and its Democratic free market institutions. He has used manufactured enemies of Russia to rally domestic support for his tactics and leadership.

It is, ultimately, a tired narrative that when combined with domestic political repression and manipulation, helps keep Putin in power.

Let's not be fooled into thinking his actions are merely annoying. The threats are real and dangerous, and they go directly not just at the United States but many of our strongest allies.

I have a list which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record in detail.

Madam President, NBC News compiled a document of activity by Russia and Vladimir Putin. It starts in April of 2007 in Estonia, where the Russians were disabling their Internet; in June 2008, in Lithuania, where the Russian hackers were defacing government Web pages; in August 2008, in Georgia, where the Russian hackers shut down the country's internal communications system; in January 2009, in Kyrgyzstan, as part of an effort to persuade the President there to evict a U.S. military base, the Russian hackers shut down two of the country's four Internet service providers.

April of 2009 in Kazakhstan. After Kazakh media published a statement by the country's president that criticized Russia, Russian-attributed attacks shut down the publication's Web site.

August 2009 in Georgia, there was similar activity; May 2014 in Ukraine; March 2014 in Ukraine; May 2015 in Germany; December 2015 in Ukraine; October 2015 in the Netherlands; January 2016 in Finland; December 2016 in Germany.

Of course, there was also the Russian military seizure of sovereign territory in the nation of Georgia in 2008 and their invasion of Ukraine in 2014. In fact, Russian forces and their proxies still hold captured land in Georgia and Ukraine, and from that spot in Ukraine separatists shot down a civilian airliner 2 years ago, murdering 283 innocent passengers, including 8 children.

This is our adversary. This is the man who is trying to undermine the American electoral system. We cannot take it lightly.

Twenty years ago, when I was elected to the Senate, I was a member of the Government Affairs Committee. The first hearing we had was a lengthy investigative hearing. What was the basis of it? We had just concluded a Presidential campaign, and allegations were made that the Chinese Government 20 years ago was trying to insert itself into the Presidential campaign of the United States, specifically in support of the Clinton-Gore ticket.

Fred Thompson was chairman of that committee, a pretty well-known man who has since passed, but he was a pretty outstanding lawyer in addition to being a pretty famous actor. He was my chairman. He spent months in public hearings investigating whether the Chinese tried to insert themselves in any way, shape, or form in the election of Clinton-Gore. They found virtually no evidence, other than a handful of Buddhist nuns writing checks to the campaign, which nobody ever really explained. But there was no evidence that the Chinese Government was involved in this in any specific way. We spent months on that theory in open hearings, and then published reports--conflicting reports on conclusions from that committee. We took it that seriously 20 years ago.

What are we doing about this? Well, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, said that we will do the regular order; we will let the regular committees go about their business and figure out what might have happened in the course of that. That is not good enough. Regular order may put this investigation in the Intelligence Committee. Do you know what that means? It means you are not going to see their hearing. You are not going to be able to see their witnesses and listen to their testimony, and much of the evidence that is going to be presented will never be shared with the public.

I understand the need to protect classified material. We must do that. I insist on that. But at the same time, we need to answer some basic questions about what Russia tried to do in this last election and to make it clear to them and to the world that the United States is not going to be a sucker. We are not going to allow anyone who can hack into our systems to try to undermine the electoral system of the United States. We are proud Americans. We will handle our own elections, thank you. Keep your hackers out of business in the United States.

Recently, we have had allegations--and I underline the word ``allegations''--of other involvement of the Russians with the Trump campaign and the preparation of certain documents, which have not been collaborated as of this date. They may lead to nothing, but they certainly deserve investigation so that we know what the facts may be.

Yesterday at the Senate Judiciary Committee, I asked Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a man who is aspiring to be Donald Trump's Attorney General, if he could recuse himself from investigations into Russian connections with the Trump campaign. He had just said earlier he was going to recuse himself from investigations involving Hillary Clinton. Senator Sessions said, ``I would review it and try to do the right thing as to whether or not it should stay within the jurisdiction of the attorney general or not.''

I hope that Senator Sessions, if he in fact becomes the Attorney General, will have some second thoughts. It is far better to consider a special counsel in the Department of Justice in light of the political circumstances of these allegations.

Secondly, we need to have a select committee--not the Intelligence Committee--of either the House or the Senate that will meet and consider this information and investigate it in a responsible way. In fact, I think it is of such gravity that we ought to consider a public- private commission--a commission of elected officials, as well as private citizens, whom we respect. I think of the names of General Colin Powell and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as chairs and cochairs of that effort, people of unquestionable integrity who will make the right findings for America and not for any political reasons, as far as I am concerned.

Today, I asked Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General under President George W. Bush, whether the Attorney General has the authority to shut down an FBI investigation, and he answered very simply, ``yes.'' So we need more information. We need to make sure that this is taken seriously and that we address it in a serious manner because it is a serious issue.

What, in fact, has been the response from the other side of the aisle? With a few notable exceptions, that party of Ronald Reagan, the 40th President--who really understood the old Soviet regime--has greeted this information with near silence. That is right. Except for a few voices--my colleagues Senators Graham and McCain in particular-- there has been near silence.

How in the world did an attack ordered by a former Soviet KGB official on our Nation become a partisan issue that is largely ignored by a majority of one of our Nation's two great political parties? How did the Republican Party, which now controls both Chambers of Congress, decide that repealing health care insurance for millions of Americans was the most urgent, first priority to deal with amid this sweeping evidence of a Russian attack on our democracy? Ronald Reagan must be rolling in his grave.

Does anyone remember his clarity about standing up against attacks on the West and its allies when the Soviets shot down a civilian Korean airliner in 1983? This is what President Reagan said:

And make no mistake about it, this attack was not just

against ourselves or the Republic of Korea. This was the

Soviet Union against the world and the moral precepts which

guide human relations among people everywhere. It was an act

of barbarism born of a society which wantonly disregards

individual rights and the value of human life and seeks

constantly to expand and dominate other nations.

There was a time in this town when national security issues were truly bipartisan, when security meant patriotically putting aside partisan agendas. Can anyone here imagine for a second--just one second--the debate we would be having here now if the situation were reversed? The House alone spent millions of dollars on countless and ultimately fruitless investigations into the tragic events of Benghazi. Here we are, with overwhelming evidence of an actual attack on our Nation, and the majority party is largely silent. That is incredible. It is quite simply an abdication of political responsibility not to address a verified national security threat to our Nation.

With the release of Friday's report, I urge my colleagues to read both the public and classified reports. The classified version contains the same damning and sweeping conclusions I mentioned here today from the public document, but it goes into detail. As such, I urge this body to come up with an appropriate response to this attack. I have joined in bipartisan Russian sanctions legislation with Senators Cardin, McCain, Menendez, Graham, Shaheen Rubio, Klobuchar, Sasse, and Portman. We urge that we quickly advance as an urgent priority Russian sanctions to make it clear that what they have done is reprehensible, unacceptable, and will not be tolerated.

This Congress can also do what many tried to do in the past and failed--which is certainly timely--and that is pass meaningful cyber security legislation.

We have to maintain our strong NATO Alliance, stand firm against Russian meddling or attacks, and tell our friends in the Baltics and Poland, in particular, that we stand by their side, that nothing has changed, and that our friends in Ukraine can trust that we will be with them as they establish democratic sovereignty. We must work with the new administration to fully accept and counter this

Russian threat. We must work to undermine any such future attacks at home and against our allies. We should get to the bottom of the extremely troubling allegations that have been made recently.

Yes, ultimately we must work with Russia where those efforts serve our global interests--and I think there will be some common areas--but we must not do so from a position of weakness. We will never be taken seriously by Putin or our adversaries otherwise.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

How am I recorded?

On behalf of the downstate hospitals of Illinois, I vote no.

Mr. President, today, Senate Democrats will be voting to protect three programs--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These programs represent core commitments our Nation has made to seniors, low-income Americans, children, and those living with disabilities.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid reflect who we are as Americans. At one time or another throughout our lives, most of us have or will count on these programs for health care or for financial stability.

During last year's Presidential debate, President-Elect Trump sought to distinguish himself from the field of Republican candidates by stating he was the first and only Republican candidate who would promise not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Yet, in their first major action of the new Congress, Republicans have taken the first step to dramatically alter and decimate core programs that comprise our safety net. Congressional Republicans want to gut funding, limit benefits, constrict eligibility, and turn guaranteed earned benefits into a voucher and a ``good luck'' wish. Their approach would violate the pledge we have made to millions of Americans and truly disrupt lives. This is unacceptable. That is why I am cosponsoring Senator Sanders' amendment to prohibit the Senate from considering any legislation that would violate Donald Trump's promise of not cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.

I am committed to ensuring that we meet the promise we made to Americans. Sixty million Americans, including 2 million Illinoisans, depend on Social Security for their well-being, and we must make sure that this vital program is there for both current and future generations.

By 2034, without any reform, Social Security will be unable to fulfill its promise to its beneficiaries. If Congress does not act, beneficiaries would immediately see their benefits reduced by one- fifth.

It remains Congress's responsibility to look to the future and protect the long-term solvency of Social Security while ensuring benefits meet the needs of beneficiaries, especially the most vulnerable among us.

Waiting until tomorrow to do what we could do today--an approach that I have seen fail in Illinois--only makes the task more difficult and likely to cause disruption.

I was a member of the Simpson-Bowles Commission, where we tried to address our budget challenges and the long-term solvency of Social Security. I voted for the Commission's report because I believe we must face the difficult reality that doing nothing may harm the very people we are trying to protect--beneficiaries that rely on the promises we have made. I firmly believe that we, as Members of Congress, have a duty to have these debates and make difficult decisions, not just wait for the inevitable.

While I did not support everything in the final Commission's report, I believe the report included some commonsense options to improve the longterm solvency of Social Security: accelerating the alignment of payroll taxes to their intended level of 90 percent of wages and realigning benefits to reflect current poverty levels among seniors.

I believe there can and should be evenhanded, bipartisan agreement on a path forward. To do so, we need a collaborative and good-faith partnership to examine the universe of policy options.

Make no mistake--I oppose privatization of Social Security. And recent solvency changes have weighed heavily on beneficiaries. That is why conversations should be balanced and targeted. There must be a dual goal of ensuring the adequacy of benefits, especially for those who rely on Social Security the most, and the long-term solvency of this program.

I look forward to working across the aisle in the future to maintain and build upon our promise to Americans.

Amendment No. 52

Mr. President, on December 28, 2016, President Obama designated the Bears Ears National Monument in Southern Utah, and I wish to commend him on protecting these important lands. This designation is an important step forward in the conservation of some of southern Utah's important national treasures.

The 1.35-million acre monument, which spans from forested mesas to redrock canyons and plateaus, will protect the region's abundant cultural resources, including well-preserved cliff dwellings, rock and art panels, artifacts, and Native American burials.

The Bears Ears National Monument, which derives its name from twin buttes that lie at the heart of the majestic Cedar Mesa, was requested by a coalition of five Native American tribes that united to protect a landscape revered in their shared histories and cultures. The Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, and the Ute Indian Tribe have all passed through the area at some time, leaving behind scores of fragile dwellings, pottery, petroglyphs, and pictographs. The Bears Ears region is a living natural and cultural landscape, where the people of these tribes still use the lands to collect herbs and medicines and pass their stories to the next generation.

I have fought to protect this area's resources through the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, a bill I have introduced every Congress since 1997. My bill would safeguard 9.2 million acres of wilderness in Utah-- some of the last great wild places in the lower 48 States.

Historically, national monuments have been the first step in protecting some of our most beloved public lands--the Grand Canyon, the Grand Tetons, and indeed, four of Utah's five national parks. Not only do these monuments help preserve precious habitat, landscapes, and history, they create jobs and invigorate nearby communities.

President Obama's decision to protect the Bears Ears came after significant public input in Utah, with the administration holding multiple listening sessions. Those sessions made clear that even diverse stakeholders agreed the Bears Ears is special and needs to be protected. It is the right decision for the present, and it is the right decision for the future.

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act into law in 1906, and a review of its history and its controversy showed that, time and again, the temporary anger over designated lands was overshadowed by the long-term benefits to our Nation. Teddy Roosevelt said it best, ``Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us.''

I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the Bears Ears National Monument and defending it and the Antiquities Act that made it possible.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, there was debate on the Senate floor that went on for years. It was a personal thing, a personal issue with two Senators--one was a Republican, the other a Democrat. The Republican was Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico. The Democrat was Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. The two of them had teamed up with a very simple goal in mind. They wanted to make sure every health insurance policy in America covered mental illness.

When you think about the fact that so many Americans suffer from some form of depression and that mental illness is something that so many families--at some point or another--face, you wonder: Well, why didn't the health insurance policies cover mental illness? The reason, of course, was that it takes some extended, and oftentimes expensive, care to help those with mental illness. In other cases, there was an argument made that you will not find a cure.

Things have changed a lot in the world of mental illness over the last few decades and changed for the better. There are new medications that are available and some even better ones on the way. There is new treatment available and more hope for people. Pete Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico, and Paul Wellstone, a Democrat from Minnesota, did not give up. They insisted on it, and they won.

They won with the requirement that health insurance policies cover not just mental illness and treatment but also substance abuse treatment. I will be honest with you. I followed that debate closely. I did not pay that much attention, at the time, to the substance abuse treatment part of their effort. Now I have. I think many people across America have. There was a supplement in the Chicago Sun Times this morning, published by USA TODAY. It is entitled ``Obamacare repeal jeopardizes mental health, addiction coverage.''

I tore it out of the paper on the airplane to bring it to the floor of the Senate because this a good day for us to reflect on what this article has to say. We are now in the midst of the budget resolution effort that is designed by the Republican majority to repeal ObamaCare.

The Republicans hate ObamaCare. They hate it almost as much as the devil hates holy water. They have tried for 6 years to repeal it with a singular focus. I don't know how many times they voted in the House-- some said over 60 times--to repeal it. They have said that for so many years, and we have said to them: What will you do after you repeal it? They said: Well, we have a plan. For 6 years, they have said: We have a plan to replace it.

We have never seen it. No one has ever seen it. It raises the question about whether they do have a plan. They certainly have a plan to repeal it, but when it comes to replacing it, they don't offer anything--but they are going to go ahead with it. They are bent on doing this regardless of the outcome. For a lot of people across America, this could be devastating. This article talks about a family in Kentucky, the home State of the Republican leader. Melissa Fleckinger of Edgewood, KY. She had to pay for heroin treatment for her daughter Amanda before the Affordable Care Act. Her son Brian's treatment for heroin addiction was covered by the ACA, but unfortunately he died of an overdose in 2015.

This article goes on to talk about what it means to have children who are addicted to drugs and parents who are desperately trying to find treatment. Some of the things that are said in the course of this are really worrisome because this article spells out what happens to families without health insurance that covers substance abuse treatment. They become helpless, unable to take care of their kids.

The Republicans have come back and said: Well, we will just do a partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Listen to what this articles says:

Almost any route taken on Capitol Hill leads to an unraveling of addiction and mental health coverage for those people. Even the partial ACA repeal Congress is considering would eliminate the tax credits that reduce the premiums for about 85 percent of the people who buy insurance on the exchanges. Most of those who get the tax credits pay less than $100 a month for health insurance and have very low out-of- pocket costs that make it possible for them to afford coverage.

What they go on to say here is that putting a requirement in the health insurance policy that it cover mental health illness and substance abuse treatment means nothing if the people cannot afford to pay the premiums for the health insurance policy. So the Republican plan that would eliminate the tax credits families need to be able to afford the policy means there is no way they are going to get coverage for themselves and their kids.

Who is going to be affected by that? I will tell you what I found in Illinois. What I found in Illinois is that the current opioid and heroin epidemic is everywhere. There is no town too small, and there is no suburb too wealthy to avoid it--story after story of teenagers and young people addicted who have no place to turn.

If the Republicans have their way in the Senate and the House, they will close the door for many of these young people. I see my colleague from the State of New Hampshire. I was stunned to read--I don't know if it is still the case, but I was stunned to read several months ago that when you look at the average number of deaths from opioids

and heroin across the Nation--and Illinois is, I am not making any excuses here, we are average--the rate of death for heroin-opioid overdoses in West Virginia is twice the national average, and the rate in New Hampshire is three times the national average.

Listen to what the repeal of the Affordable Care Act would mean in New Hampshire. I might say to the Senator from New Hampshire that she is quoted in this article.

Repealing the ACA would cause [in New Hampshire] nearly

120,000 people to lose coverage in the State, where federal

data show a nearly 200% increase in overdose deaths in the

past five years. More than 48,000 Medicaid claims were for

substance use disorder in 2015, making an ACA repeal [in the

words of Senator Shaheen] ``literally a matter of life and

death.''

Ohio. At the Cincinnati Center for Addiction Treatment, CEO

Sandra Kuehn said about 30% of Kuehn's patients are covered

for treatment because of the expansion [under ACA]. Overdose

deaths in Ohio climbed from 2,531 in 2014 to 3,050 in 2015,

up more than 20 percent.

Kentucky.

The home State of the Republican Senate leader.

Overdose deaths here totaled 1,248 in 2015, up 17% from the

previous year. Fentanyl--which is much stronger than heroin--

was involved in 420 fatal overdoses in 2015, up nearly 250%

over the previous year.

The lady who was quoted earlier who lost her son to the overdose was not surprised. She knows several other people who have overdosed and many others who have died, including one last week.

Chicago.

I am proud to represent it.

Up to 30% of the 9,000 inmates in the Cook County Jail have

a diagnosed mental illness. . . . ``The ACA has been a game

changer for those who were in and out of Cook County Jail,''

says Mark Ishaug, CEO of Thresholds, a Chicago treatment

provider. It costs less than $20,000 a year for Threshold's

highest level of community-based mental-health care with a

housing voucher. . . .

So $20,000 a year or less than that. Do you know what it costs to incarcerate that same person? It costs $70,000 a year to incarcerate them. About one-third of the patients being treated by Thresholds are covered by the Affordable Care Act. What is the alternative, I say to my Republican friends. They can't wait to repeal this, but they don't have an alternative.

Meanwhile, in Illinois, in New Hampshire, in Maine, and every State in the Nation, mental illness is still a challenge, and substance abuse is on the rise and people are dying from heroin and opioid overdoses. This is the height of irresponsibility, to repeal this measure with no replacement. It is sad to say we have reached this point where a political score has to be settled now that the Republicans are in control of the House and the Senate.

Now that they have an incoming President, the Republicans finally get their day. Someone said to me: Why is public sentiment starting to change on this issue and even among Republican politicians? I said: They have been saying irresponsible things for a long time, but now people are taking them seriously. As they take them seriously, they realize what a devastating impact it is going to have.

Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times last week:

If the Republicans ran a home renovation business, they

would start tearing down your roof this month and promise to

return in 2019 with some options for a new one--if you

survived.

Last week, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky wrote an op-ed arguing that repeal should not be done without simultaneously being replaced. Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, has said that repealing the law without replacing it is ``a flawed concept'' and that having a replacement ready first would be a more ``prudent approach'' in the Republican Senator's words.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, has said she would like to see ``detailed framework'' accompanying any repeal.

Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, said: ``I don't think we can just repeal ObamaCare and say we are going to get the answer 2 years from now.''

Over and over again, these Republican Senators are realizing how totally irresponsible it would be if we go forward with this proposal. I will tell you what troubles me as a representative of a State that has the great city of Chicago and a wonderful metropolitan area. I come from the other end of the State, the rural part of our State. I wonder what is going to happen to our rural hospitals if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. I think about Franklin Hospital in Benton, IL, population, 7,300. The hospital has been there 60 years. In the past 15 years, it has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. It all changed 6 years ago with the passage of the Affordable Care Act and the expansion of our Medicaid Program in Illinois.

Because of those changes, Franklin Hospital found they could survive. Expanding Medicaid cut Franklin Hospital's uncompensated care in half. In Franklin's emergency room, they saw 600 fewer no-pay patients and 428 more Medicaid patients compared to the previous year. This, combined with increases in Medicaid funding, allowed Franklin Hospital to invest in much needed improvements and to consider bringing nuclear medicine and a retail pharmacy to Benton, IL. What does that mean in that city? Well, it means all the difference in the world. There is something else that has to be said. If that hospital--Franklin Hospital in Benton--closes, it will not just mean a longer drive for critical health care, it is going to mean job losses. It will mean the loss of 4,300 jobs in the 12th congressional district, where Franklin Hospital is located.

So when the President-elect talks about saving 6 or 800 jobs at Carrier Corporation, good; I am glad. But then for his party to turn around and pass a measure which could kill 84,000 to 95,000 jobs in Illinois, that is a move in the wrong direction. I say to my Republican friends, go home and talk to the people you represent. Listen to what they have to say about what we are doing--addiction, mental illness, and rural hospitals that are on the brink of closing, if you have your way politically. This is no victory for the people of America to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement that is as good or better.

I yield the floor.