Floor Statements

Mr. President, today's vote to move forward the President's nominee to join the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is a new low. It is a new low that sets a dangerous standard for judges who have power to make critical decisions that impact the everyday lives of the people we serve.

John Bush has a clear record--think about it. He is going to be a judge if this place moves forward tomorrow. John Bush has a clear record of promoting bigotry and discrimination that have no place in our courts. We can't let this nomination slide through this body.

Mr. Bush advocated to the U.S. Supreme Court that women should be barred from attending our military institutions--in this case, Virginia Military Institute. Think about that. There are people in this body who just voted on the motion to proceed--a very small majority that passed this--they are

voting for a judge who says to the Supreme Court that women should be barred from attending military institutions like VMI. He went so far as to call the legal standard allowing women to attend ``destructive.'' And we are going to put him on the court? That wasn't 1950. That wasn't 1960. That wasn't in the 1970s. That wasn't even in the 1980s. It was in the 1990s when he said that. Luckily, our Nation's Supreme Court disagreed with Bush's retrograde and sexist opinion by a vote of 7 to 1.

But, alas, Bush wasn't deterred. To this day, he is still a member of an organization that doesn't allow women to join. He has been a member of groups that have a history of barring Jews and African Americans. Maybe we see some signs of that at the White House, but we shouldn't be affirming that on the Senate floor. One of these groups actually changed its street address after the city of Louisville renamed the street where the front entrance sits for the boxing legend Muhammad Ali. Think about that.

Senator McConnell himself resigned from that same organization because, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader, the majority leader said he ``thought it was no longer appropriate to belong to a club that discriminated, and my impression was that the club did.'' But we are bringing to the floor a vote for a judge who still belongs.

Leader McConnell went on to reference a commonly accepted Senate standard that Federal judges should not belong to discriminatory organizations, saying: ``I thought if it was inappropriate for a federal judge to belong to an all-white club, it certainly was something a United States Senator shouldn't do.''

So I guess the logic here is that Senators shouldn't belong to a Whites-only club, but Senators should vote for Federal judges who can belong to a Whites-only club.

I agree with Senator McConnell that a Senator shouldn't belong, but no Federal judge should belong to a group with a history of discrimination, especially a recent history of discrimination.

Bush regularly contributed to a conservative blog using a fake name. There he advocated extreme political views on issues, including healthcare, campaign finance, LGBT rights, climate change--all critical issues that come before this court, the Sixth Circuit serving Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. He even cited White supremacist sources. We are going to vote for this man? He even cited White supremacist sources that pushed the conspiracy theory that President Obama was not born in the United States.

I know the President of the United States--the man who sits in the White House--also subscribed to those birther theories, and only late in his campaign did he say: Well, I do, in fact, believe that the President was born in the United States. He, at least--the President of the United States, the sitting President, then-Candidate Trump--at least finally retracted that. Mr. Bush seems to continue to say that President Obama wasn't born in the United States and cited those White supremacy theorists who pushed that conspiracy theory.

He has expressed hostility toward women's rights to make their own personal, private healthcare decisions. In a 2005 public speech--again, not in 1965 or 1975 or 1985, but in a 2005 public speech, he cavalierly repeated a hateful homophobic slur. I would repeat it, but I don't think it is proper to use that language on the floor of the Senate. I also don't think it is proper to vote for a nominee to be a judge who feels cavalierly that he can use that term. He said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi should be gagged. He has attacked Senator Ted Cruz, our colleague in this body.

Everyone is entitled to free speech, obviously, even if they choose to do it under a fake name. And Mr. Bush is entitled to his political opinions, no matter how offensive. I, of course, defend his right to say whatever he wants. I think others do too. But those opinions have no place in a Federal court whose job it is to interpret the law fairly and impartially.

Can Mr. Bush be trusted to put aside his personal views when considering the law? Even according to his own words, he can't. At Mr. Bush's hearing, my friend from North Carolina, Senator Tillis, asked Mr. Bush if judicial impartiality is ``an aspiration or an absolute expectation.'' Bush responded that impartiality is an aspiration--so, in other words, not an expectation. He doesn't think he needs to be an impartial judge; he just needs to be able to say that he tried.

To administer the law fairly and impartially is the No. 1 job of a judge. The ability to do so is the most basic qualification for the job. Judicial impartiality is a principle of democracy and the backbone of our government. It is the reason African Americans and women can vote, that segregation is part of the past, and that marriage inequality is part of the past.

I saw dozens of Democrats and Republicans last night at the Library of Congress listen to the words of Taylor Branch, perhaps the most noted historian of the civil rights movement, in an interview speaking to us about Dr. King having one foot in the Scriptures and one foot in the Constitution as he advanced and advocated for civil rights. We know what that means for our country. Last night, I saw Republicans and Democrats coming together and celebrating that. Then today on the Senate floor, we are voting for somebody like Mr. Bush, who eschews all of those values we hold dear as a country.

The courts are the reason that women can now attend the Virginia Military Institute. It is the difference between upholding and oppressing the rights of the people we serve.

Think about this: The Obergefell decision--Obergefell v. Hodges in Ohio--was the decision that guaranteed the right to marriage equality. It came out of the Southern District of Ohio and was initially appealed to the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. Imagine if a man who boldly repeated homophobic slurs had heard the Obergefell appeal. Think about that. He thinks it is very acceptable in public to make speeches and use homophobic slurs, and he is now sitting on the court bench making decisions about this.

Imagine if today an LGBT Ohioan or a Michigander or someone from Senator McConnell's home State or Senator Alexander's home State of Tennessee--if they faced this man, could they be confident that their case would be decided fairly and impartially and that justice would be served? Could we be confident that it would when we have a man who will stand up at an event in a big city, the largest city in Kentucky, and engage in homophobic slurs?

I have heard from both African Americans and Jewish Americans who are absolutely outraged at this nomination, partly because he is unfit to serve and partly because now, as Senator Whitehouse, my friend from Rhode Island, who has one of the best judicial minds in this body, has said, if we confirm Bush, it is going to lower the bar in the future to where it is OK to engage in racist talk or homophobic or misogynist talk; it is OK because Judge Bush did, and he is sitting on the Sixth Circuit, so why not bring some more forward? Is that the standard, that your votes today--the 51 Members of this body who voted for cloture--is that the standard you want to set for the future?

Organizations with a history of fighting for justice and equality have written to me opposing this nomination, including the Human Rights Campaign, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Leadership Conference, and on and on and on.

We have a responsibility to hold judges to the highest standard. The job demands it. The people we serve--the people whose lives can be forever changed by the decisions these judges make--deserve it. We cannot allow the bar to be lowered for what is considered acceptable behavior by members of the Federal bench because as this bar is lowered, the faith of citizens in the courts and in this body falls along with it. That is the tone we are setting. That is the precedent we are setting.

I am not a lawyer. A lot of my colleagues who voted for John Bush to be confirmed are lawyers. They understand what precedent means. They understand what political precedent means in this body. I don't think they want that bar lowered because they know that if we do, as I said, the faith of citizens in the courts and in this body falls along with it.

I hope my colleagues join me in opposing Mr. Bush and show the American people that the Senate still has high expectations and that we still stand for decency and impartiality in our Federal judiciary.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the life and legacy of Joseph Carter Corbin, a renowned African-American educator who left a legacy as a trailblazer and innovator that continues to open new doors for students to this day.

Joseph Carter Corbin was born in Chillicothe, OH, in 1833 to former slaves, who raised their family as free people in Chillicothe and later in Cincinnati. Corbin's family worked hard to make sure he and his siblings had access what had been denied to them--the right to an education along with the opportunities it provides.

Corbin studied at Ohio University, earning an undergraduate degree and two graduate degrees at a time when African Americans had very limited access to higher education. Corbin started his family in Cincinnati, working as a clerk for a municipal bank and coediting a regular newsletter for African Americans in the Midwest. However, he made it his life's mission to expand access to higher education to African Americans.

In 1871, Joseph Carter Corbin moved to Arkansas where he blazed new trails as the first African-American State superintendent of public instruction. He went on to found, in 1875, the Branch Normal College, which was the first institution of higher education for African- American students in the State. Corbin served as the school's principal and sole teacher for 7 years, before Branch Normal College was designated as an 1890 Land Grant Institution and later merged with the State university system to form University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff in 1972. University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff continues to educate students to this day.

We remember Joseph Carter Corbin for his lifetime of breaking down barriers and improving access to higher education for African Americans and others who are left behind by our educational system.

Today Joseph Carter Corbin will receive an Ohio historical marker on the campus of Ohio University Chillicothe, commemorating his impact on Ohio and his contribution to higher education of African Americans across the Nation. I know that my Senate colleagues will join me in celebrating his life and achievements, as well as applauding the actions by Ohio University to honor their distinguished alumnus, Joseph Carter Corbin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes, evenly split between Senator Corker and me, to speak on the NATO amendment.

Mr. President, I would add that my fellow Ohioan, Senator Portman, is a cosponsor of this. Special thanks go to Senator Graham-- this is the Graham-Brown NATO amendment--also to Senators McCain, Rubio, Casey, and Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island.

This is especially important to the Ukrainian community in my State. A number of them have been in town the last couple of days. They know how critical support for our allies is and how important it is that this amendment sends a clear message that the United States will uphold our half-century commitment to NATO, combined with a strong signal to Russia to clean up its act. That is the importance of this amendment. I ask support from my colleagues.

I yield to Senator Corker.

Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. I thank my friend, the chairman of the Banking Committee, and also Senator Shaheen.

Hardly a week goes by that we don't learn more about the efforts of the Russian Government to sow the seeds of dissent around the world. Apart from oil and gas, this seems to be Russia's primary export. One administration after another has tried to reason with President Putin, but appeals to reason clearly don't work.

Vladimir Putin needs to know he will pay an increasing price for his hostile actions. He needs to know we will stand up for our allies in Ukraine and throughout Europe. He needs to know we will not tolerate his interference in our democratic process, whether in the last election or the next election.

Instead of providing a firm, clear message that we will not tolerate Russia's bad behavior, this administration has been all over the diplomatic map--and that is just in its public pronouncements. Frankly, we don't know exactly what the Trump administration is doing privately with the oligarchs, the oilmen, the Kremlin, or even with President Putin himself.

This amendment sends a firm, clear message we need right now: The United States of America will not accept continued Russian aggression. We will put tough measures in place to punish past

actions and to deter future aggressions. We will stand by our allies.

I commend Senators Graham and Blumenthal for their amendments. I thank Chairman Crapo for his leadership. I thank Senator Corker and Senator Cardin and all the Senators who have put time and effort into this issue.

On behalf of the Ukrainian community in my State, on behalf of fair play, and on behalf of the integrity of the American election system, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, last week the Senate passed the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, but this legislation does nothing to address one of the most critical problems at the VA. To improve the healthcare our returning heroes receive, we need a VA that is fully staffed with the best healthcare professionals we can find, and in many VA facilities throughout the Nation, including in Ohio, that is far from the case.

Across the U.S., there are more than 49,000 VA vacancies that this administration has yet to fill. In Ohio, as of

April of this year, there were more than 1,700 VA vacancies, and more than 1,500 of those positions were considered critical to public health and safety.

That is a massive problem that needs immediate attention by the administration. These vacancies are not just numbers; they have serious consequences for our veterans who need care.

When the VA is understaffed, it means longer wait times. It means veterans unable to see the specialists they need. It means overstretched doctors.

Overworked doctors means mistakes are more likely and veterans are not getting the quality care they deserve.

Imagine a doctor tells an Ohio veteran she needs an MRI. Well, if there is no MRI tech at that facility because they have not hired one, she has to wait longer for the test and diagnosis. She might have to find someone to drive her to another town.

The last thing we ought to be doing is making it harder for these men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country to get the care they need. We owe all of our veterans--and the families who support them--our gratitude, our respect, and the best healthcare in the world. That means recruiting talented doctors, nurses, and other staff members has to be a priority for the VA.

The agency must improve outreach to prospective employees to show that it is a desirable place to work. It needs to demonstrate that employee's voices, including those of whistleblowers, will be heard and protected when necessary. Future VA employees need to know that all efforts by VA workers to improve the quality of services provided to our veterans will be encouraged, appreciated, and acted on.

We absolutely need to ensure that we are holding the workers who care for our veterans and servicemembers to the highest standards--but that is not enough.

We can improve the quality of care by the VA by making sure it is properly and fully staffed. That is currently not the case, and I will continue to press the VA to provide answers as to why more than 1,700 positions in Ohio--positions that should be filled by Americans dedicated to serving our veterans--are vacant.

When our servicemembers return home, they should be able to focus on spending time with loved ones and rejoining their communities, not worrying about whether they will be able to get the quality healthcare they deserve.

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

Mr. President, Russia remains a hostile, recalcitrant power that deploys its military, its cyber espionage activities, and its economic tactics to harm the United States of America--to drive a wedge between us and our allies.

President Obama began to impose tough sanctions for Russia's cyber attacks, its cyber intrusion, its illegal annexation of Crimea, and its continuing aggression in Ukraine and Syria. Congress joined in that effort by enacting two measures to tighten and broaden those sanctions. Lifting and relaxing those sanctions now would only reward Russia's attempts to undermine our democracy.

The administration continues to exercise a policy of strategic ambiguity when it comes to Russia, and the President, putting it mildly, has sent mixed signals. Just last month, Gary Cohn, the President's senior economic adviser, seemed to suggest that the United States could relax sanctions on Russia, and, as press reports confirmed 2 weeks ago, in its early days, the Trump administration considered removing all measures against Russia, according to former administration officials. Think of that.

We all hear the discussion--maybe collusion, maybe not--about the Russians' friendship with the administration, whether the Trump family or the Trump businesses or the Trump White House has had some kind of relationships--almost everybody here thinks--with the oilmen, with the oligarchs, with the Kremlin, maybe even Putin himself. And to think that soon after taking office, before the public and the rest of us began to start learning more about Trump's ties with Russia, the administration considered the removal of any kind of measures punishing Russia.

This amendment, written by Senators Crapo, Corker, Cardin, me, and our offices and our staffs, sends an unambiguous message that the United States will not accept Russia's continued aggression, will adopt tough measures to both punish its past actions and deter future aggression against our country and our allies.

Over the last week, the chairs and ranking members of key Senate committees conducted intense negotiations over a package of tough and meaningful reforms and expansions to our current Russia sanctions regime. We have had good, positive, productive, bipartisan conversations. Last night we reached agreement on this broad package of new measures that substantially expands sanctions on Russia in response to its malicious cyber attacks, efforts to undermine democracy, and continuing aggression in Syria and in eastern Ukraine. This package assures Congress and the people we represent that we have more of a say in this critical national security debate.

The amendment would do a number of things. It would codify and strengthen six existing Obama administration Executive orders on Russia and Ukraine and on Russian cyber activities and the sanctions flowing from them.

It would provide for strict congressional review of any effort by the President to relax and suspend and terminate or waive Russian sanctions patterned after the Iran Review Act.

It would require mandatory imposition of sanctions on malicious cyber activity against the United States, on corrupt Russian actors around the world, on foreign sanctions evaders violating the Russia, Ukraine, and cyber-related sanctions controls, on those involved in serious human rights abuses in territories forcibly controlled by Russia, and on special Russian crude oil projects around the world.

It would authorize broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia's economy, including mining, metals, shipping, and railways, as well as new investments in energy pipelines.

It would crack down on anyone investing in corrupt privatization efforts in Russia--something we have seen a lot of over 20 years.

It would broaden the Treasury Department's authority to impose geographic targeting orders, allowing investigators to obtain ATM and wire transfer records so Treasury can better target illicit activity of Russian oligarchs in the United States.

It would require Treasury to provide Congress with a study on the tangled web of senior government officials from Russia and their family members and any current U.S. economic exposures to Russian oligarchs and their investments, and that includes real estate.

It would require the administration to assess and report to Congress on extending secondary sanctions to additional Russian oligarchs and state-owned and related enterprises.

Since 2014, Congress has worked together--Republicans and Democrats-- to craft increasingly tougher sanctions to hold Russia accountable for a long line of misdeeds. It is a long line indeed, from Russia's violations of international law and of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, to its role in the brutal repression in the war in Syria, to the cyber attacks that we are learning more and more about on Americans.

The Ukrainian community in my State--vibrant, successful, progressive--and around the world knows firsthand the dangers of unchecked Russian aggression. We should strengthen--not weaken, not relax, not peel back--Russian sanctions.

I urge my colleagues here and in the House to support this amendment, and I will urge the President to sign it into law. We must continue to vigorously enforce and strengthen sanctions against Russia to send a message to its leaders and the world that the United States of America will not tolerate efforts to undermine democracy around the world.

Freedom of the Press

Mr. President, our democracy is founded on checks and balances--and not just among the branches of government. Our Founders enshrined the freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights for a reason. We can't have a functioning democracy without freedom of the press. That is why last week the Newseum marked its annual Day Without News to remind Americans what our country would be--what we would be like, what we would look like, how we would act--without a free press.

Journalists' entire job is to ask tough questions and to challenge powerful interests. While in church, we comfort the afflicted, journalists afflict the comfortable. Reporters put their safety and far too often their lives on the line, whether it is covering floods and hurricanes at home or traversing the globe to bring us the stories of our troops. We depend on reporters in Ohio and around the world to both bring us the stories that impact our day-to-day lives and to tell the stories that simply otherwise might not be told.

Supporting a vibrant, independent, proactive press corps has rarely been more important in our country. Yet, too often we see reporters restricted, vilified, attacked, and even physically threatened, all for doing the jobs for which they were hired.

Today brought news in this body that some people in this building-- some Members of the Senate--are trying to bar reporters from asking Senators questions. This is outrageous. If Senators can't handle tough questions from reporters about their plans to take healthcare away from millions of Americans, maybe they should change the bill, not restrict the reporters.

We remember that Oval Office meeting with Russian officials. We have seen the pictures of the President of the United States with the Russian Foreign Minister, with the Russian Ambassador. We have seen those pictures, but what we need to remember about those pictures-- those photos that ran on front pages around this country and all over the world--those photos weren't taken by American journalists. The President of the United States threw them out of the Oval Office. Those pictures were taken by the Russian state media.

The Russian state media was allowed to be in the room with the President of the United States in the Oval Office--hallowed ground in our democracy--while the American press was thrown out. The Russian state media, the old Soviet news agency, TASS, the remnants of the old Soviet propaganda machine, was allowed in, while the American press was barred. When you hide from the press, you hide from the American people.

On November 16, a group representing more than a dozen journalist organizations sent a letter to the President-elect. They wrote: ``This isn't about access for the press itself, it's about access for Americans in diverse communities around the country.''

Having a strong, independent White House and congressional press corps isn't just important for those reporters' stories. Think about the signal it sends to mayors and city council members and State legislators. If the Members of Congress--the President, by throwing press out of the Oval Office and bringing in the old Soviet news agency TASS, or the Senate, by throwing reporters out of the Senate--if they don't have to be accountable, why should a mayor, why should a city council person, why should a Governor think they should be accountable?

It is not just Washington reporters who are vital to democracy. It is reporters in Ohio telling us the stories, bringing us the faces of the opioid epidemic that devastates families and communities. It is Ohio's editorial pages highlighting how important the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is to our drinking water and our State's economy. It has enabled Senator Portman and me and bipartisan Senators all over the Great Lakes, from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota--Senators from both parties fighting back and stopping the cuts that would have destroyed so much of the progress in cleaning up the Great Lakes. It is journalists in every corner of my State highlighting the devastation that the proposed budget would have on our schools and our housing and rural communities. It is emphasizing again that 200,000 Ohioans right now are getting opioid treatment because they have insurance from the Affordable Care Act. It is reminding politicians in Ohio of both parties that those people need insurance. That is what a free press does.

Parenthetically, I would add, my wife is a journalist. She is a Pulitzer Prize

winner. She is a columnist. She is soon to be a novelist. She clearly has outspoken views about this, as I do. She is a member of the press. I am a Member of this body. We both believe in a free press. We both believe in a free democracy.

We answer to journalists in this body because they are the eyes and ears of the people we serve. If you can't understand--if none of us are strong enough and articulate enough and gutsy enough to stand before reporters who ask tough questions about your positions, then maybe you ought to rethink your positions.

We need diligent, courageous reporters to dig up their stories. We need independent editors to put them on front pages. We need media organizations willing to hold the powerful accountable.

The American people have a right to know what is going on in their own government, from the White House down to the city council office.

The behavior today of the Rules Committee--the Rules Committee decision to ban reporters--television reporters specifically--from this body is just reprehensible. Thomas Jefferson said, ``Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.'' That is as true today as it was more than 200 years ago at the time of our country's founding.

To all of the reporters out there, thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following members of my staff: Chris Burdick and Victoria King.

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

Mr. President, often, upon returning from a week in my State when the Senate is out of session, I like to talk about some of the things I saw in Ohio. Much of that week I spent at roundtables at Akron Children's Hospital, in Cleveland, Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, and Youngstown--over the last couple of weeks but especially last week--talking about what Medicaid cuts would mean to my State. I throw in with Governor Kasich, the Republican Governor, who has admonished his colleagues--first in the House and now in the Senate--to not repeal the Affordable Care Act, to not throw, literally, 900,000 people who have insurance in Ohio today off insurance, as the House bill would do. At the same time, one thing we also know is that the average 60-year-old in Ohio will see her premiums go up $1,600 a year.

We all know the terrible problem opioid addiction has inflicted on hundreds of thousands of people in our country. Unfortunately, my State has had more opioid deaths pretty much every month--certainly, over the last year--than any State in the United States of America. Today 200,000 Ohioans are getting opioid treatment who are able to get that treatment because they have insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Think about the 26-year-old who is on her mother's health insurance plan who gets opioid treatment. Think about the family with the 5-year- old with a preexisting condition who will no longer be able to get insurance and who gets insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, because we fixed the preexisting condition exclusion. If the House version were to pass, or something similar to it, that family would lose its insurance. There was example after example. That is one of the reasons the House of Representatives had so much trouble repealing the Affordable Care Act and one of the reasons that the 12 or 13 Senators are meeting--maybe tonight, for all I know; they never tell us--just down the hall, down there in Senator McConnell's office, to try to figure out how to repeal the Affordable Care Act and find a way to hold 52 Republican Senators together.

Think about that. They are meeting in secret. First, it was the House of Representatives, when they repealed the Affordable Care Act, when they voted on what is called the American Health Care Act. I think that is what they called it, the AHCA. When they voted on it, they came up with a bill at 8 o'clock at night. They sprung it on the floor the next day. Almost nobody had a chance to read it. There were no hearings, no discussions--not even reading the bill. They jammed it through by twisting arms--the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, who used to be a Member of the House, the Speaker of the House, all of them--to get this bill through. They hadn't even taken the time to hear from the Congressional Budget Office to tell how much this bill would cost and how many people would lose their insurance. It turns out they estimated that more than 20 million people would lose their insurance. That came after the vote in the House.

They are doing the same thing in the Senate. They are doing this meeting behind closed doors. It is a bunch of Republican leaders together. No Democrats are invited. No Democrats are asked their opinions. It is all about doing something to live up to this campaign promise that they are going to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Listen to Governor Kasich. They have no idea what they are going to do with these 20 million people, with 900,000 people in my State-- 900,000 people who have health insurance, most of whom are working. These are people who have jobs. They just aren't lucky enough to have jobs like we have, where their health insurance is paid for.

Think about the morality of this--200-plus Republican Members of Congress, all of whom get health insurance paid by taxpayers, by all of you in the Gallery and anybody watching this. We get insurance here paid for by taxpayers, and they are going to just snatch it away from those 200,000 families in my State who are getting opioid addiction treatment because of the Affordable Care Act. What is the morality of that?

Then, worse than that is that they do it without reading the bill. They do it, pretty much, in the middle of the night, and they are doing the same thing here. Clearly, the American public is on to this. The public overwhelmingly thinks this is a bad idea.

But they move forward because there is a huge tax break involved for the drug industry, a huge tax break for the medical device industry, and huge help for the insurance industry. That is why they do it, because in the end so much of what happens in this body is so that the wealthiest 1 or 2 or 5 percent get their tax cuts, get their tax breaks, and the middle class gets stuck with the bill and the middle class loses the benefits it gets. That is the moral outrage that so many Americans feel about this process.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition, understanding that the vote has been taken but wanting to speak on the record about the nomination of Governor Terry Branstad to be Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.

This is a critical diplomatic post today, perhaps more than at any time in our history. It has certainly been increasingly important through every administration as China's expansionist views of the world grow, as China's economy becomes more and more dominant in East Asia, and as China, by not playing fair on economic issues, has caused, with the acquiescence of many, many American companies, far too many jobs to move there.

We have seen sort of a new business model for American business that has been around now for a quarter of a century--something that economic history never showed us before--where companies shut down in places like Willowick or Toledo or Dayton or Springfield, OH, and move overseas. They are getting tax breaks to do it. They build plants there and sell those products back into Ohio or into Oklahoma or into the United States in the other 48 States. Unfortunately, China has been part of that, while U.S. companies have acted, in many cases, irresponsibly, and China has played into it.

We have serious issues with China, from their currency manipulation to trade cheating that hurts the American steel industry to their dismal, documented record on human rights and religious freedom. On all of these fronts, we need to take a firm position with China. We need an ambassador who will advocate for American workers, for American businesses, and, yes, for American values. I don't believe Governor Branstad will be that ambassador.

When it comes to putting American workers first, Governor Branstad's record, frankly, is appalling. How can he advocate for American workers and for expanding the rights of working people around the world when he fought against it at home in his home State of Iowa? As Governor, Terry Branstad waged war on collective bargaining rights. He recently signed legislation that takes away the right of public employees to bargain for fair wages and for healthcare rights that they have guaranteed for 45 years--rights that were enshrined by a law signed by a former Republican Governor.

When the State Department measures labor rights in countries around the world, they look at whether a country's laws allow workers to organize and engage in collective bargaining. China's results have always been poor. They have been criticized for deplorable working conditions. How can our country--how can the United States--lead by example when it comes to ensuring that hard work pays off when the man representing us in Beijing, when the man representing us at the negotiating table is taking away workers' rights in our own country? Don't think for a moment that the Chinese will not remind the American Ambassador of what he has done with workers' rights in his home State, as we perhaps argue--it is unclear if we will now, but perhaps we will argue--for expanding workers' rights in China.

I appreciate the questions for the record that Senator Cardin submitted to Governor Branstad. Unfortunately, his answers were vague and did nothing to address the serious concerns that many of us have.

The President made a lot of campaign promises when it comes to standing up to China. I have been clear since the days after the election, when I called the President-elect's transition team, and in conversations since then with President Trump and with the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Lighthizer, that I want to work with them on that--with the President and with the U.S. Trade Representative.

After his meeting with Chinese President Xi, I sent a letter to President Trump outlining steps he should take for fighting for American workers, particularly in the steel industry, in his 100-day plan on trade. But the person negotiating that 100-day plan needs to have America's workers first in their mind. Governor Branstad has made it clear that multinational corporations, not ordinary American workers--not people in Youngstown, Warren, Steubenville, and Columbus-- will have his ear.

We can see corporate fingerprints on these trade agreements. Rarely do we see workers at the table advocating for workers' rights. We only see trade policy that reflects the interests of large corporations. Those corporations then use these trade policies to outsource jobs around the world.

It is not just workers' rights where China falls woefully short and where we need to take a tough stand. China's record on human rights and religious freedom is unacceptable. Our Ambassador needs to make that clear. When U.S. officials represent us in the world, they must not only be advocates for our business interests--they should be that, to be sure--but they must also be critical advocates on behalf of workers and on behalf of the Nation's values--values like freedom of speech, freedom to organize, and the freedom to challenge powerful special interests. These are values that go to the core of who we are as the American people. But, again, Governor Branstad has not led by example. He has waged war on women's access to healthcare.

Just this week, Planned Parenthood announced that they will be forced to

shut down four Iowa health clinics because of the law signed by Governor Branstad that blocked its funding. These clinics served 15,000 patients over the past 3 years--not providing abortions. The great majority of these 15,000 patients got primary care, preventive care, contraceptive coverage--all the things that women in every community in this country demand.

Many live in rural areas. Many have nowhere else to turn for care. Now, where do all of these women go for cancer screenings, diabetes screenings, and other preventive care? Yet Governor Branstad has signed legislation taking it away, forcing the shutdown of these clinics.

Access to healthcare is a basic right in this country, and it should be in all 50 States. We need to take care of American patients and American workers and set an example for the world. Our diplomats must be that example. But, instead, we now have a man at the negotiating table who again and again and again has proven that he wants to turn back the clock on healthcare and on workers' rights.

We need an ambassador with a record of championing American values. Only then can we be confident that he will stand up to China and put Ohio workers and American workers first. Frankly, I question Governor Branstad's ability to be that ambassador--to represent the people of this great country in the People's Republic of China.

Mr. President, our law enforcement officers and the families who support them give so much in service to our communities. As we were tragically reminded again last week--and this happens in far too many places, in far too many States--some make the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe.

Last Friday in Kirkersville, OH, Police Chief Steve DiSario responded to a report of a man with a gun at a nursing home. Chief DiSario did what so many first responders do when most of us in the public run away from danger: He ran toward it. He arrived at the Pine Kirk Care Center to protect his community and was killed in the line of duty by a gunman who also took the lives of two nursing home employees. Chief DiSario was 36. He had six children and a seventh on the way.

Our thoughts and our prayers are with Chief DiSario's family and the families of all of our first responders, who worry each day that their loved ones may not return home. Think about that. For soldiers, marines, sailors, police officers, and firefighters, so often when they kiss their spouse goodbye and go to work, there is always the anxiety at home. It is not just the sacrifice that our soldiers and our military personnel and our police officers make; it is the sacrifice their families make too.

Sadly, Police Chief DiSario wasn't the only Ohio officer to lay down his life this year. In January, Officer David J. Fahey of the Cleveland Police Department was working the scene of an accident on I-90 and was struck and killed in a despicable act of hit-and-run.

This week in Washington, we honor the five Ohio officers killed in the line of duty last year. Aaron Christian of the Chesapeake Police Department was killed in a car accident while on patrol. While conducting traffic, Trooper Kenneth Velez of Elyria was killed by a driver under the influence of drugs. Officer Sean Johnson was the first officer to be killed in the line of duty in the town of Hilliard when he succumbed to injuries from a motorcycle accident during a training exercise. Officer Steven Smith was shot and killed during a SWAT standoff in Columbus. Officer Thomas Cottrell, Jr., of Danville was killed in a heinous and cowardly ambush. Each of these losses is a tragedy for a family, for a community, and for fellow police officers.

As we honor the work and sacrifices made by law enforcement throughout Police Week, we need to offer more than kind words; we need action to support law enforcement as they work to keep our communities safe.

Yesterday, I was talking to Police Chief Richard Biehl of Dayton and Youngstown Police Chief Robert Lees about what more we should do to support officers and their families. This week, we have unanimously passed several pieces of bipartisan legislation that will provide new support to the officers who protect us and the families who sacrifice alongside them.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act, which Senator Grassley introduced, will put pressure on the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the DOJ to speed up claims processing so families of disabled officers or fallen officers get their benefits more quickly.

We passed the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act, introduced by Indiana Senators Donnelly and Young, to help law enforcement agencies establish or enhance mental health services, like peer monitoring pilot programs and crisis hotlines, for their officers. I learned about this bill from my friend Jay McDonald from Marion, OH, whose advocacy for police officers and their families makes a huge difference for Ohio's law enforcement communities. He has been the president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police for some time.

We approved Senator Cornyn's American Law Enforcement Heroes Act of 2017, which would allow local police departments to use Federal grant money to hire veterans as law enforcement officers. It is a bipartisan, commonsense idea that would open new doors for those who served our communities and our Nation in the military and who have accrued and developed skills that will serve well their communities in police work.

We have a solemn obligation to the children of fallen officers whose lives are forever changed because of the heroism of their mother or father. The bipartisan Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act--which I have introduced with Senators Casey and Donnelly, two Democrats, as well as two Republican Senators, Toomey and Collins--would increase access to Pell grants for the surviving children of law enforcement who lay down their lives for their communities. It would ensure that all children of fallen officers are eligible for the maximum Federal Pell grant. Of course, we can't repay the debt we owe these families, but we can ease the burden on their children as they prepare for their future.

We need to do everything we can to ensure that officers and family members get the benefits and help they deserve. We also need to do more to give officers the tools they need to protect themselves. This week, I joined a group of Senators calling for full funding of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership.

I have written to the Department of Justice thanking them for their work so far and urging them to speed up distributing funding we passed as part of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. The bipartisan bill created the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program to provide funding to police departments to train first responders as they deal with opioid-related incidents.

More and more officers are being exposed to fentanyl out in the field. Just this week in Eastern Ohio, an officer in East Liverpool was the victim of an accidental fentanyl overdose. He survived, but the situation was perilous. We need to make sure officers have the equipment they need to handle this deadly opioid look-alike--only more toxic--safely.

Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each day to protect us. This Police Week, we owe them more than gratitude; we must show support to the selfless men and women who serve our communities and country every single day, and we must support their actions, their lives, and their families.

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

Madam President, today, with deep concerns, I wish to speak about the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer--LGBTQ--individuals in Chechnya, in southern Russia.

Starting in early April of this year, news reports from the region told the horrific story of gay men being detained, tortured, and in some cases killed on the basis of their sexual orientation. At lease 100 gay men--and according to some press reports, as many as several hundred--were held and tortured in secret detention facilities in Chechyna. At least three men were killed: one after being tortured by authorities and two following calls by local officials encouraging so- called honor killings. As one Russian gay rights activist noted, ``there is little doubt that we are dealing with crimes against humanity.'' Stories of men being tortured and interrogated to reveal fellow LGBTQ individuals are also deeply disturbing.

Ramzan Kadyrov, the Head of the Chechen Republic, has made a number of troubling comments that LGBTQ individuals ``don't exist'' in Chechnya, an abhorrent denial of the human rights of LGBTQ individuals in Chechnya. According to accounts by the British Foreign Ministry, Kadyrov is planning to ``eliminate'' gay men in Chechnya before the beginning of the religious month of Ramadan at the end of May. State- sanctioned violence that targets individuals based on their sexual orientation demands international condemnation, and the United States must be a strong voice for the human rights of all individuals.

Though Russian President Vladimir V. Putin has stated he will support an inquiry into these reports, Russia's track record shows a lack of serious commitment to human rights, particularly on LGBTQ issues.

I commend the work of nongovernmental organizations in Russia and abroad who have worked to evacuate LGBTQ individuals from Chechnya, and I am heartened by the advocacy of many Ohioans on this important issue. The U.S. must stand as a fierce advocate for the inalienable rights of all individuals. I urge the administration to take a strong stance in defense of human rights and publically condemn these acts of barbarous inhumanity. We must never forget lessons of the past concerning what happens when we allow unchecked hatred and bigotry to manifest, and we must always preserve the U.S. as a beacon of hope for individuals around the world.

Mr. President, I particularly appreciate the comments of my colleague from Maryland about the Affordable Care Act. The fact is, they are taking insurance from 200,000 Ohioans right now who are getting opioid treatment because of the Affordable Care Act, and the vote in the House of Representatives would turn those 200,000 families upside down. They should be ashamed of themselves. Then to go to the White House and celebrate--that is just the ultimate despicable, political act. I just can't imagine that in the 21st century people would actually do that.

The FDA has incredible influence over Americans' lives, and the Commissioner of the Federal Food and Drug Administration will lead the agency dedicated to ensuring that our medicine and food supplies are safe.

It is the job of the FDA Commissioner, and has been for decades, to be an independent check on big pharmaceutical companies, to crack down on Big Tobacco, and to oversee the safety and efficacy of new prescription drugs, including, most essentially in the last few years, opioid painkillers. Unfortunately, Dr. Scott Gottlieb's record gives me serious concern, as Senator Markey has pointed out so well, that this Commissioner will fall short on all of these measures.

We know the havoc that opioid painkillers have wreaked on communities across the country. My State of Ohio has had more overdose deaths from heroin, OxyContin, oxycodone, Percocet, opioids, morphine-based opioids; we have had more deaths than any other State in the United States of America. In my State and across this country, people die because of the opioid epidemic; 91 Americans, including 12 Ohioans, will die today--91 Americans, 12 Ohioans will die today--from opioid overdoses.

The Commissioner will have a lot of tools to fight this epidemic that is ravaging our families and our communities. We need all hands on deck to fight this crisis. We need the FDA.

Unfortunately, Dr. Gottlieb's record indicates he would not take the epidemic and the FDA's authority to rein in prescription painkillers and other drugs seriously, which is why I cannot support his nomination.

I don't want to point fingers, but there are a whole host of reasons for this epidemic. One of them clearly is the proliferation of prescriptions and the manufacture of so many of these opioids. They are getting to market, and doctors are prescribing them, and pharmacists are filling them.

I don't point fingers at individual people and even individual industries; we are all at fault and not doing this right. But Dr. Gottlieb has had a cozy relationship with big drug companies for decades as an investor, as an adviser, and as a member of the board for a number of these companies. He supported allowing those same companies to rush their drugs, including potentially addictive opioid painkillers, onto the market before we were sure they were safe--more on that in a moment.

He has called into question the Drug Enforcement Administration's authority to police opioids, despite the fact that these drugs are often sold on the black market. He has defended industry's efforts to market new drugs and devices with minimal safety oversight. He has refused to answer questions about his previous work for pharmaceutical companies that make the opioid fentanyl. We know he participated in a meeting on their behalf at the time that the company was under FDA investigation for pushing off-label uses of fentanyl.

Anyone who thinks we need more fentanyl on the market in many of Ohio's 88 counties should visit the coroner's office. Imagine this: In some counties, the coroner's office has had to bring in refrigerated semitrailers to keep up with the growing body count from the lives lost to overdoses. Think of that; just think of that picture bringing in refrigerated semitrailers to keep up with the growing body count from opioid deaths.

Let Mr. Gottlieb explain himself to the parents, the children, and the friends who have lost loved ones to this deadly drug. A friend of my wife's, a woman she knew growing up, lost her son to fentanyl. He had a 2-year-old child. He was starting to come clean. My understanding is that he relapsed, and he passed away just a few days ago.

We need a leader at the FDA who will step up the agency's efforts to fight this addiction epidemic, which is tearing families upside down. It rips up communities. We need a Commissioner who will fight the addiction epidemic, not one who will roll over for his Big Pharma friends. We need a strong public health advocate to address probably the worst public health crisis of my lifetime, a public health advocate who will continue to stand up to Big Tobacco with strong rules for all tobacco products, including newer products like e-cigarettes, which are particularly appealing to kids.

The opioid crisis is certainly a bigger health crisis that we face right now, and tobacco is an ongoing public health crisis. We have made huge victories; we have made huge strides and have had huge victories in this country. Young people smoke in significantly lower numbers than they used to. Tobacco companies don't much like that, so they have introduced e-cigarettes. Tobacco companies are buying more and more of the manufacturing capabilities of these e-cigarettes. The FDA hasn't stepped up the way it should. I implore Dr. Gottlieb to do that, but there is no evidence so far that he cares enough to.

Once again, his extensive business dealings call into doubt whether he can seriously serve as the people's cop on the beat when it comes to policing Big Tobacco. Dr. Gottlieb himself invested in an e-cigarette company--the new FDA Commissioner. He probably will be confirmed today. I accept that because for every Trump nominee, no matter their ethics, no matter their background, no matter their inability to serve well, no matter their lack of qualifications for a whole host of their responsibilities, almost every Republican--it is sort of like when one bird flies off a telephone wire, they all do, and they have voted for almost every one of these nominees.

But think of this: Dr. Gottlieb's job is public health, his job is to police Big Tobacco. His job is to stand between these multimillion- dollar marketing executives and the 15-year-old who is attracted to these e-cigarettes with the flavors and the colors and the marketing, and he has invested in the past in e-cigarette companies. What does that tell you? Can we really trust him to impose tough rules on these potentially dangerous products? Can we trust him to protect our children?

Whoever is in charge of the FDA--whoever is in charge--must put the people's safety over drug company profits, whether it is addictive painkillers or e-cigarettes.

I don't think Dr. Gottlieb is the right person for this. I hope I am wrong. I plan to vote no. I hope he proves me wrong. If he does, I will come back to the floor and applaud him. But from his background, from his statements, from his qualifications, from his investments, from his business background, I don't think he fits the bill.

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

Mr. President, I withdraw the suggestion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jay Clayton to serve as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Americans deserve a Chair who will run the SEC on their behalf, not for the benefit of Wall Street banks and big corporations. Far too many folks in this town have collective amnesia about the costs of the last financial crisis: $19 trillion lost in household wealth, 8 million jobs lost, more than 15 million foreclosures, hundreds and hundreds of them in the Presiding Officer's and my State.

Those numbers don't seem to get better as time goes by. All over the country, in Ohio and elsewhere, families want strong rules that prevent banks from doing as they please, enriching themselves at the expense of others and then handing the bill to American taxpayers. The most basic duty of the Chair of the SEC is leading his fellow Commissioners through tough issues and policing Wall Street.

Mr. Clayton will fall woefully short. His law firm, his former clients will create a steady stream of conflicts of interest, forcing him to recuse himself in cases involving former clients for 2 of the 4 years he would serve as Chair.

He will be sitting on the sidelines on potential enforcement actions because of his representation in the work he did prior to being at the SEC. That is not draining the swamp. Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, UBS--he will have to recuse himself on all of those cases. That does not sound like someone who will be in there fighting for the American people or working to protect America's financial markets.

It is not a theoretical concern. Former Chair White faced conflicts and recusals in more than four dozen enforcement investigations in her first 2 years. In those cases, big banks, like Bank of America, used those recusals to their advantage when the Commission was deadlocked. That undermines the Commission's authority. That is why I opposed Ms. White for her position--one of the same reasons I am opposing Mr. Clayton. Instead of confirming the same kind of nominees we have had in the past, with dozens of conflicts of interest and recusals, we should be considering someone who actually will work to protect investors.

At his hearing, Mr. Clayton failed to provide clear answers to questions about how he would approach enforcement matters. He gave empty answers about punishing bad actors and individual accountability.

Accounting fraud, selling toxic derivatives, and corporate foreign corruption usually involve senior management and happen because the tone from the top allows it to happen. Mr. Clayton does not see it that way. He spent his career representing--excuse me--protecting Wall Street banks. That history guides his view on how SEC enforcement should work.

According to Mr. Clayton, the SEC should proceed with caution, even before opening an investigation. That is not his job. His job is to open investigations when it looks like there is wrongdoing. He says it would have serious adverse impacts on respondents. He has it totally backward. Not investigating companies that may be committing fraud or other abuses because it might create problems for them--how about the American public?

How about the neighborhood I live in in Cleveland, OH, 44105? That ZIP Code had more foreclosures than any ZIP Code in the United States in 2007. That is partly because of a lack of enforcement at the SEC. I see it up close. I know what that means to our communities. I know what it means to our country.

Acting Chair Piwowar began undermining the SEC's enforcement division in his first month on the job. He reversed steps taken by the two previous Chairs that empowered the SEC's enforcement staff to open and pursue investigations.

I am concerned about Dodd-Frank rules. If he is confirmed, he will have

to answer for the unilateral rollback of final Wall Street reform rules that this acting SEC Chair, Mr. Piwowar, has already undertaken. Wall Street reform rules requiring disclosure of CEO-to-worker pay ratios-- all the kinds of things that this Congress overwhelmingly decided Congress should do and the SEC should do.

For years, Congress has funded the SEC below the levels requested, despite more responsibilities and increasing marketplace complexity and sophistication. I am concerned about Mr. Clayton's likely behavior in that regard also.

Last, public service is important. It is valuable. It should not be viewed as a chance to push the favorite policies of big corporations. That is what we have seen too often in this town.

This nominee, Mr. Clayton, who comes from Wall Street, who is part of Wall Street, we know from past experience will protect Wall Street at the SEC--the wrong thing to do. From his background, his answers to the questions in the committee's hearing and questions for the record, I am not convinced that Mr. Clayton comes close to being the best person for the job. I will oppose his nomination.