Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate Special Committee on Aging is scheduled to hold the second part of a two-part series of hearings that we are holding to explore the impact of isolation and loneliness on the health and well-being of our seniors. The name of our hearing for this afternoon is Aging With Community: Building Connections that Last a Lifetime.

In other words, under the first hearing that we had 2 weeks ago, we learned that isolation of our seniors is associated with a greater incidence of depression, diabetes, and heart disease. We also learned that the health risks of prolonged isolation are comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes today.

Well, this afternoon is the second part of our investigation of this issue, and we had planned to hear from four experts who were going to tell us how you can build a better sense of community for our seniors, how you can make sure that our seniors are connected to community. I want to indicate that we have four witnesses who, at their own expense, have flown in to participate in this hearing this afternoon. One of them, Lindsay Goldman, is the director of healthy aging from the Center for Health Policy and Programs from Rye Brook, NY. Another is from Dover-Foxcroft, ME. A third is from Spring Grove, PA. The fourth is from Miami, FL.

Each of these witnesses was chosen in connection with my staff's consultation with the Democratic staff of the committee. As you can see, they represent the States of New York, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Florida, and they incurred great expense in order to come here.

I am very disappointed to learn that, due to issues that are totally outside the purview of the Aging Committee--completely disconnected with this nonpartisan, bipartisan look at an issue that ought to concern all of us--we are going to be prohibited from holding this official hearing this afternoon. I am baffled by this. This has nothing to do with the firing of Jim Comey. It has nothing to do with the Intelligence Committee's ongoing and successful investigation of Russian influence on our investigations. It has nothing to do with the healthcare debate that is roiling this Congress.

This is a hearing that has to do with the health and well-being of America's seniors. It is not political in any way, and to ask these four witnesses, who have come from four different States, including the State of the Democratic leader, to go back home and waste all this travel money and not help us better understand how we can deal with an issue that affects the health and well-being of our seniors is just plain wrong.

Therefore, Mr. President, I make a request that the Aging Committee be permitted to meet at 2:30 p.m. today for its hearing, Aging With Community: Building Connections that Last a Lifetime. I ask unanimous consent that the committee be allowed to meet.

Mr. President, I see the Democratic leader is rapidly leaving the floor, so he obviously does not want to hear anything more about our hearing, but this makes no sense whatsoever.

This is an example of the dysfunction of the Senate. How does it make sense that the Aging Committee, which operates in a completely bipartisan manner, is being prohibited from holding a hearing that is important to our seniors and that has nothing to do with the issues that are in the news today?

I just don't understand why we are being prohibited from proceeding to do our work, to do our important jobs on an issue where we have four experts from four different States, including the State of the Democratic leader, including a witness chosen by the ranking member of the committee, and none of that matters. We are being prohibited from holding this hearing.

Mr. President, it is a great disappointment to me--and I am sure it is going to be a great disappointment to our witnesses and our committee members--that we are going to have to cancel this hearing for reasons that are totally unrelated to the subject of this hearing.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Baldwin, that would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to convene a panel to develop a national strategy to recognize and support the more than forty million family caregivers in the United States. I am pleased that Senators Murkowski and Bennet have joined us as cosponsors.

The United States' population is aging. Every day, 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 years old. Americans 85 and older--our oldest old--are the fastest growing segment of our population. This is the population that is most at risk of multiple and interacting health problems that can lead to disability and the need for round-the-clock care.

At the very time that our population is aging, birth rates are declining. While the need for care and support is increasing, the numbers of professional and informal caregivers is shrinking. In the future, more people will have to rely on fewer caregivers.

Families will likely continue to be the most important source of support for people with long-term care needs. We must do more to support the more than 43 million family caregivers in the United States who make remarkable sacrifices to care for their loved ones. While it is impossible to put a dollar amount to the value of the devotion, time, and services that these caregivers provide, it is estimated that in 2013 family caregivers provided $470 billion in uncompensated long- term care. This figure nearly equals the annual sales of the four largest United States tech companies combined.

Family caregivers provide tremendous value, and they also face many challenges. Caregivers experience high levels of stress and have a greater incidence of chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and depression. Caregiving can be an isolating experience. Last week, the Aging Committee held a hearing highlighting that social isolation is a serious risk factor for depression, anxiety, dementia, functional decline, and even death.

The average caregiver is a 49-year-old woman. She is caring for a 69- year-old relative living with a long-term physical condition. That relative is often a parent. She has been providing care for four years on average, spending 24.4 hours a week. She may be raising her own children and working full time.

Other caregivers are seniors. One third of family caregivers are age 65 or older, and even more susceptible to putting their own health at risk.

I am, therefore, introducing legislation with my colleague from Wisconsin that would lead to the development of a national strategy to recognize and support family caregivers. Titled the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage, or RAISE Family Caregivers Act, the legislation is based on a recommendation of the bipartisan Commission on Long Term Care. It is modeled after a law that I co-authored in 2010 with then-Senator Evan Bayh that created a coordinated strategic national plan to combat Alzheimer's disease.

The RAISE Family Caregivers Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a National Family Caregiving Project to develop and sustain a national strategy to support family caregivers. The bill would create a Family Caregiving Advisory Council comprised of relevant Federal agencies and non-federal members. It would include representatives of family caregivers, older adults with long-term care needs, individuals with disabilities, employers, health and social service providers, advocates for family caregivers, state and local officials, and others with expertise in family caregiving.

The Advisory Council would be charged with making recommendations to the Secretary. The strategy and plan would be updated to reflect new developments. The plan would include an initial inventory and assessment of federally funded caregiver efforts. It would then identify specific actions that government and communities could take to support family caregivers.

The Project would be funded from existing funding appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services. No new funding is authorized and it would sunset in five years.

Family caregivers are an invaluable resource to our aging society. Chances are that, sooner or later, we will all either be family caregivers or someone who needs one. The RAISE Family Caregivers Act will launch a coordinated, national strategic plan that will help us to leverage our resources, promote innovation and promising practices, and provide our nation's family caregivers with much-needed recognition and support. Our bipartisan legislation is widely endorsed by aging and disability organizations. I urge all of our colleagues to join as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Baldwin, that would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to convene a panel to develop a national strategy to recognize and support the more than forty million family caregivers in the United States. I am pleased that Senators Murkowski and Bennet have joined us as cosponsors.

The United States' population is aging. Every day, 10,000 baby boomers turn 65 years old. Americans 85 and older--our oldest old--are the fastest growing segment of our population. This is the population that is most at risk of multiple and interacting health problems that can lead to disability and the need for round-the-clock care.

At the very time that our population is aging, birth rates are declining. While the need for care and support is increasing, the numbers of professional and informal caregivers is shrinking. In the future, more people will have to rely on fewer caregivers.

Families will likely continue to be the most important source of support for people with long-term care needs. We must do more to support the more than 43 million family caregivers in the United States who make remarkable sacrifices to care for their loved ones. While it is impossible to put a dollar amount to the value of the devotion, time, and services that these caregivers provide, it is estimated that in 2013 family caregivers provided $470 billion in uncompensated long- term care. This figure nearly equals the annual sales of the four largest United States tech companies combined.

Family caregivers provide tremendous value, and they also face many challenges. Caregivers experience high levels of stress and have a greater incidence of chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and depression. Caregiving can be an isolating experience. Last week, the Aging Committee held a hearing highlighting that social isolation is a serious risk factor for depression, anxiety, dementia, functional decline, and even death.

The average caregiver is a 49-year-old woman. She is caring for a 69- year-old relative living with a long-term physical condition. That relative is often a parent. She has been providing care for four years on average, spending 24.4 hours a week. She may be raising her own children and working full time.

Other caregivers are seniors. One third of family caregivers are age 65 or older, and even more susceptible to putting their own health at risk.

I am, therefore, introducing legislation with my colleague from Wisconsin that would lead to the development of a national strategy to recognize and support family caregivers. Titled the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage, or RAISE Family Caregivers Act, the legislation is based on a recommendation of the bipartisan Commission on Long Term Care. It is modeled after a law that I co-authored in 2010 with then-Senator Evan Bayh that created a coordinated strategic national plan to combat Alzheimer's disease.

The RAISE Family Caregivers Act directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a National Family Caregiving Project to develop and sustain a national strategy to support family caregivers. The bill would create a Family Caregiving Advisory Council comprised of relevant Federal agencies and non-federal members. It would include representatives of family caregivers, older adults with long-term care needs, individuals with disabilities, employers, health and social service providers, advocates for family caregivers, state and local officials, and others with expertise in family caregiving.

The Advisory Council would be charged with making recommendations to the Secretary. The strategy and plan would be updated to reflect new developments. The plan would include an initial inventory and assessment of federally funded caregiver efforts. It would then identify specific actions that government and communities could take to support family caregivers.

The Project would be funded from existing funding appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services. No new funding is authorized and it would sunset in five years.

Family caregivers are an invaluable resource to our aging society. Chances are that, sooner or later, we will all either be family caregivers or someone who needs one. The RAISE Family Caregivers Act will launch a coordinated, national strategic plan that will help us to leverage our resources, promote innovation and promising practices, and provide our nation's family caregivers with much-needed recognition and support. Our bipartisan legislation is widely endorsed by aging and disability organizations. I urge all of our colleagues to join as cosponsors.

Mr. President, on May 1, 1917, the International Association of Rotary Clubs welcomed a new member into its growing global network of neighbors, friends, and leaders working together for positive change in their communities and around the world. I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Rotary Club of Lewiston- Auburn in my home State of Maine.

There are more than 35,000 Rotary Clubs worldwide. The Lewiston- Auburn club was the 291st to be chartered and is part of the first great wave of expansion that took the Rotary movement from major American cities to smaller communities and to Canada and Europe.

It is remarkable that what began as a small group of civic leaders in Chicago in 1905 has grown to a service organization of 1.2 million dedicated members in more than 200 countries and territories around the world. In any language, Rotarians live up to their motto of ``Service Above Self.''

Rotary International is a powerful force for good around the world. The global effort to eradicate polio is considered to be the most successful public health campaign in human history, one that would not be possible without Rotary's commitment. When Rotary launched its PolioPlus program back in 1985, it was described as a ``gift from the 20th century to the 21st.'' It has been just that.

In addition to its strong support for PolioPlus, the Lewiston-Auburn Club is part of a Rotary International effort to make affordable and safe water more widely available in Haiti. As a result of this effort, a tanker truck was purchased to address this great humanitarian need.

Locally, the Lewiston-Auburn Rotary Club has a special focus on families and children. The club has been a leader in the creation of Lewiston's Universally Accessible Playground, which will provide recreation for all, regardless of physical or developmental limitations. The club also sponsors an annual event to benefit the Autism Society of Maine and awards scholarships to area high-school graduates pursuing higher education.

``Service Above Self'' has a special meaning to the members of the Lewiston-Auburn Rotary. The application for membership in Rotary International was signed on March, 21, 1917, by Frank W. Hulett of Lewiston. On June 6, 1918, Captain Hulett gave his life in the defense of freedom during the World War I Battle of Belleau Wood in France. Hulett Square in Lewiston, the Frank W. Hulett VFW Post, and the Lewiston-Auburn Rotary Club all help to preserve the memory of this great hero.

When Paul Harris led the way in founding Rotary International 112 years ago, he said this: ``Whatever Rotary may mean to us, to the world it will be known by the results it achieves.'' The results are inspiring and the world is grateful. The Rotary Club of Lewiston- Auburn, ME, is part of that effort, and I congratulate its members for this accomplishments and contributions.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of the Main Street Fairness Act, which will help to create tax parity for passthrough companies, the significant majority of which are small businesses. I was very pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, in introducing this bipartisan bill.

Small businesses are our Nation's job creators. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ more than half of all workers and have generated two-out-of-three net new jobs since the 1970s.

Small businesses also make an outsized contribution to our Nation's economy, generating half of our Nation's GDP, 54 percent of all U.S. sales, 41 percent of private sector payroll, and one-third of our Nation's export value. Their success is critical to the health of our economy.

Unfortunately, our Nation's small businesses face a higher tax burden that affects their ability to compete with large firms in the marketplace. In fact, a recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, found that concerns about Federal taxes on business income ranked third on the list of the top 10 problems facing small businesses.

Nearly all of our Nation's small businesses are organized as passthroughs, meaning that their profits are passed on to their owners and reported on individual income tax returns. This means that small business income is subject to taxation at individual rates, which can be as high as 39.6 percent at the Federal level and can exceed 50 percent in some States. If we want our small businesses to grow and create jobs, we must reduce these high marginal rates.

I believe Congress should undertake comprehensive tax reform to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more progrowth. As we do so, we must make sure American businesses of every size are given the opportunity to compete. Aligning the tax rate for passthroughs with our corporate tax rate will ensure small businesses are not left behind. That is why Senator Nelson and I introduced the Main Street Fairness Act, which will link the tax rates of passthrough entities and large corporations, to ensure that small businesses never pay a higher tax rate than large companies.

This simple change will help make sure that small businesses remain healthy and strong, so they can continue to serve as our Nation's job creators, as they have for so many years. I would note that the Main Street Fairness Act has been endorsed by the NFIB, the leading voice for America's small businesses, and I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

I ask unanimous consent to have a letter of endorsement from the NFIB printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, confirming a Supreme Court nominee is one of the Senate's most significant constitutional responsibilities. I come

to the floor today to announce that I shall cast my vote for Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In making my decision, I evaluated Judge Gorsuch's qualifications, experience, integrity, and temperament. I questioned him for more than an hour in a meeting in my office, evaluated his record, spoke with people who know him personally, and reviewed the Judiciary Committee's extensive hearing record. While I have not agreed with every decision Judge Gorsuch has made, my conclusion is that he is eminently well qualified to serve on our Nation's highest Court.

Judge Gorsuch has sterling academic and legal credentials. In 2006, the Senate confirmed this outstanding nominee by a voice vote to his current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals. A rollcall vote was neither requested nor required.

Judge Gorsuch's ability as a legal scholar and judge has earned him the respect of members of the bar. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously given him its highest possible rating of ``well qualified.'' President Obama's former Acting Solicitor General testified before the Judiciary Committee in support of Judge Gorsuch, praising him as fair, decent, and committed to judicial independence.

I have also received a letter signed by 49 prominent Maine attorneys with diverse political views, urging support for Judge Gorsuch's nomination. They wrote:

Gorsuch's judicial record demonstrates his remarkable

intelligence, his keen ability to discern and resolve the

central issues at dispute in a legal proceeding . . . and his

dedication to the rule of law rather than personal

predilections. His judicial record also confirms that he is

committed to upholding the Constitution, enforcing the

statutes enacted by Congress, and restraining overreach by

the executive branch.

In my view, these are precisely the qualities that a Supreme Court Justice should embody.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Our personal discussion allowed me to assess the judge's philosophy and character. I told him that it was important to me that the judiciary remain an independent check on the other two branches of government as envisioned by our Founders. Therefore, I asked him specifically whether anyone in the administration had asked him how he would rule or sought any commitment from him on any issue. He was unequivocal that no one in the administration had asked him for such promises or to prejudge any issue that could come before him. He went on to say that the day a nominee answered how he would rule on a matter before it was heard or promised to overturn a legal precedent, that would be the end of an independent judiciary.

During the Judiciary Committee hearings, when Senator Lindsey Graham asked him a similar question about whether he was asked to make commitments about particular cases or precedents, he gave the same answer. In fact, Judge Gorsuch notably said that if someone had asked for such a commitment, he would have left the room because it would never be appropriate for a judge to make such a commitment, whether asked to do so by the White House or a U.S. Senator.

Neil Gorsuch is not a judge who brings his personal views on any policy issues into the courtroom. If it can be said that Judge Gorsuch would bring a philosophy to the Supreme Court, it would be his respect for the rule of law and his belief that no one is above the law, including any President or any Senator.

I am convinced that Judge Gorsuch does not rule according to his personal views, but rather follows the facts and the law wherever they lead him, even if he is personally unhappy with the result. To paraphrase his answer to one of my questions about putting aside his personal views, he said that a judge who is happy with all of his rulings is likely not a good judge.

The reverence that Judge Gorsuch holds for the separation of powers, which is at the core of our American democracy, was also evident in our discussion. As he reiterated throughout his confirmation hearing, the duty to write the laws lies with Congress, not with the courts and not with the executive branch. Members of this body should welcome his deep respect for that fundamental principle.

Judge Gorsuch's record demonstrates that he is well within the mainstream of judicial thought. He has joined in more than 2,700 opinions, 97 percent of which were unanimously decided, and he sided with the majority 99 percent of the time.

I asked Judge Gorsuch how he approaches legal precedents. I asked him if it would be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current Justices believed that a previous decision was wrongly decided. He responded: ``Emphatically no.'' And that, to me, is the right approach. He said a good judge always starts with precedent and presumes that the precedent is correct.

During his Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge Gorsuch described precedent as ``the anchor of the law'' and ``the starting place for a judge.'' He has also coauthored a book on legal precedent with 12 other distinguished judges, for which Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the introduction.

Now, there has been considerable discussion over the course of this nomination process about the proper role of the courts in our constitutional system of government. It is also important for us to consider the roles that the executive and legislative branches play in the nomination process.

Under the Constitution, the President has wide discretion when it comes to nominations to the Supreme Court. The Senate's role is not to ask, Is this the person whom I would have chosen to sit on the bench? Rather, the Senate is charged with evaluating each nominee's qualifications for serving on the Court.

I have heard opponents of this nominee criticize him for a variety of reasons, including his methodology and charges that he is somehow extreme or outside of the mainstream. But I have not heard one Senator suggest that Judge Gorsuch lacks the intellectual ability, academic credentials, integrity, temperament or experience to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet it is exactly those characteristics that the Senate should be evaluating when exercising its advice and consent duty.

This is especially true when Senators contemplate taking the extreme step of filibustering a Supreme Court nomination. As you well know, unfortunately, it has become Senate practice of late to filibuster almost every question before this body simply as a matter of course. But that would be a serious mistake in this case, and it would further erode the ability of this great institution to function. In 2005, when the Senate was mired in debate over how to proceed on judicial nominations, a bipartisan group of 14 Senators proposed a simple and reasonable standard. That group--of which I am proud to have been a part--declared that for Federal court nominations a Senator should only support a filibuster in the case of extraordinary circumstances.

Since coming to the Senate, I have voted to confirm four Justices to the Supreme Court. Two were nominated by a Democratic President, and two were nominated by a Republican President. Each was confirmed: Chief Justice Roberts by a vote of 78 to 22, Justice Alito by a vote of 58 to 42, Justice Sotomayor by a vote of 68 to 31, and Justice Kagan by a vote of 63 to 37.

Before I became a Senator, this body confirmed Justice Kennedy, 97 to 0; Justice Scalia, 98 to 0; Justice Thomas, 52 to 48; Justice Ginsburg, 96 to 3; and Justice Breyer, 87 to 9.

Note that two of the current members of the Supreme Court were confirmed by fewer than 60 votes, but consistent with the standard that we established in 2005, neither one was filibustered.

Even Robert Bork, whose contentious confirmation hearings are said to have been the turning point in the Senate's treatment of Supreme Court nominations, was rejected by a simple failure to secure a majority of votes--42 yeas to 58 nays--not by a Senate filibuster. In fact, the filibuster has been used successfully only once in modern history to block a Supreme Court nomination. That was an attempt to elevate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice in 1968, nearly half a century ago. In that case, Justice Fortas ended up withdrawing under an ethical cloud.

The result of the votes on Justice Alito's nomination are also illuminating. In 2006 Senators voted to invoke cloture by a vote of 75 to 25. That is considerably more Senators than those who ultimately voted to confirm him, which was accomplished by a vote of 58 to 42. Here again, Senators proceeded to a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on the nomination.

Let me be clear. I do believe strongly that it is appropriate for the Senate to use its advice and consent power to examine nominations carefully or even to defeat them. In fact, I have voted against judicial nominees of three Presidents. But playing politics with judicial nominees is profoundly damaging to the Senate's reputation and stature. It politicizes our judicial nomination process and threatens the independence of our courts, which are supposed to be above partisan politics. Perhaps most importantly, it undermines the public's confidence in the judiciary.

Since the Founders protected against the exertion of political influence on sitting Justices, the temptation to do everything in one's power to pick nominees with the right views is understandably very strong. But the more political Supreme Court appointments become, the more likely it is that Americans will question the extent to which the rule of law is being followed. It erodes confidence in the fair and impartial system of justice, and it cultivates a suspicion that judges are imposing their personal ideology.

The Senate has the responsibility to safeguard our Nation against a politicized judiciary. The Senate should resist the temptation to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee who is unquestionably qualified, the temptation to abandon the traditions of comity and cooperation, and the temptation to further erode the separation of powers by insisting on judicial litmus tests. It is time for the Senate to rise above partisanship and to allow each and every Senator to cast an up-or-down vote on this nominee.

This nomination deserves to move forward, as the dozens of distinguished Maine attorneys who wrote to me in support of his nomination said:

In sum, during his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals,

Judge Gorsuch distinguished himself as a judge who follows

the law with no regard for politics or outside influence. We

could not ask for more in an associate Justice.

I agree, and I look forward to the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

Seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today in favor of the resolution of ratification for Montenegro's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, better known as NATO.

Many of my colleagues are unaware of the fact that the State of Maine has a special relationship with Montenegro. It is through the National Guard State Partnership Program.

I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, Chairman Corker, Senator McCain, the Democratic leadership, Senator Johnson, Senator Murphy, and all of those who were instrumental in bringing this resolution to the floor for consideration today.

Montenegro's accession to NATO will serve the strategic interests of the United States, it will help to promote stability in the Balkans, and it will make us safer. Montenegro has already proven its support for American interests, having sent troops to Afghanistan in support of NATO- and U.S.-led operations there. Although not yet a member of the European Union, Montenegro also voluntarily joined the EU sanctions regime against Russia in response to Moscow's illegal annexation of Crimea and destabilizing actions in eastern Ukraine. Most important, I have great confidence that Montenegro will meet the collective defense obligations of NATO membership.

For the past 10 years, with the assistance of the Maine National Guard through the State Partnership Program, Montenegro has worked hard to reform its military and to strengthen the rule of law to come into compliance with NATO requirements, as defined in NATO's Membership Action Plan. Even today, Maine National Guard members are deployed to Montenegro to assist its Ministry of Defense in furthering its integration into NATO standards and processes.

I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all of the

members of the Maine National Guard who have participated in this operation, including the former and current adjutant general, GEN Bill Libby and GEN Doug Farnham, as well as our current guardsman stationed in Montenegro, Army CPT Nicolas Phillips. All of them have worked very hard during the past 10 years to help Montenegro get ready for this highly significant moment.

We must be clear-eyed about the fact that the Russian Federation has undertaken an extensive overt and covert campaign to derail Montenegro's bid to join NATO. These efforts include a brazen plot to disrupt Montenegro's elections last October and to turn the public against the pro-NATO ruling government there. According to Montenegro's special prosecutor assigned to the investigation, at least two Russian intelligence officers actively participated in this plot, which fortunately was disrupted.

Ratifying Montenegro's NATO membership demonstrates our firm resolve against Russia's efforts to deny other countries the opportunity to participate in NATO free from outside interference. That is why the Supreme Allied Commander for Europe and NATO testified just last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee that it is ``absolutely critical'' that Montenegro join NATO.

As President Trump prepares to travel to the NATO leaders' summit in Brussels at the end of May, I can think of no better action for the Senate to have taken ahead of his visit than our action tonight to finally ratify Montenegro's membership in NATO. In the meantime, I also look forward to the continued special relationship between Montenegro and the great State of Maine.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am once again delighted to join my colleague, Senator Patty Murray, to introduce the Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act of 2017. Our bill would greatly expand eligibility for VA caregiver support services by including veterans from all eras, allow veterans to transfer their post 9/11 GI bill benefits to their dependents, expand eligibility for the VA caregivers program to include a wider range of injuries that may have previously gone unrecognized, and provide crucial support for our Nation's caregivers themselves.

In 2014, my former colleague and friend, Senator Elizabeth Dole, commissioned a study by the RAND Corporation to learn more about the military caregiver population and explore common issues experienced by America's caregivers. The experts at RAND found that those caring for our servicemembers and veterans provide nearly $14 billion worth of unpaid services every year--an incredible cost that would otherwise be passed on to the Nation.

There are more than 5.5 million military caregivers in the United States, and of those, 1.1 million are caring for post-9/11 veterans. These are spouses, parents, children, and other loved ones who have voluntarily put their lives on hold to provide our returning servicemembers with a trusted continuum of care that could not be replicated without them. Many of them will provide this care for years, if not decades, to come.

Tragically, caring for those suffering from the scars of war takes an enormous toll. According to the RAND study, military caregivers face increased instances of mental and physical health problems, chronic absenteeism from work, deteriorating personal relationships, legal and financial troubles, and feelings of isolation. These difficulties are often more pronounced for post-9/11 military caregivers.

Our Nation owes America's veterans our deepest gratitude. Their sacrifices are often very visible. In many cases our veterans have earned medals or awards for their bravery that they can wear proudly on their chest. But our military and veteran caregivers truly are hidden heroes, serving alongside our veterans to provide the love, care, and support they need. Despite their enormous sacrifice, these hidden heroes often do not receive the awards and admiration. That does not mean that they don't deserve it. We must honor our commitment to veterans by answering the call to better support those caring for our wounded, ill, and injured warriors.

Our legislation would help strengthen the services offered to caregivers.

The Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act is an important step in helping those who have assumed the mantle of caring for the men and women who have served our Nation so honorably. I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Murray and me in honoring and supporting our Nation's military caregivers.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, in introducing this bipartisan bill.

In the United States, the annual cost of fires is enormous. In 2015, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), fires resulted in approximately $14 billion in direct property loss. In addition, more than 3,000 civilians were killed and more than 15,000 people were injured in fires. The NFPA also reports that a fire department responded to a structure fire every 63 seconds.

These statistics are of particular concern in Maine, which has some of the oldest housing stock in the country and which has experienced deadly apartment building fires. In 2014, an apartment fire resulted in the deaths of six people--Maine's deadliest fire in nearly four decades.

Historically, Maine has also seen commercial property damaged by fires. In fact, much of the construction in the historic areas of Portland was done following a devastating fire in 1866. This fire destroyed a third of the city, including most of Portland's commercial buildings, many of its churches, and countless homes.

The NFPA reports that when fire sprinklers are present during a large fire, they are effective 96 percent of the time, saving billions of dollars in property damage but more importantly, thousands of lives. Our bill would encourage commercial building owners to invest in fire safety upgrades. While building codes require sprinklers in new commercial buildings, a great number of structures across the U.S. were built and put in service before sprinklers were required.

Small business building owners, however, may find it difficult to fund retrofit sprinklers. To help these owners, our bill would provide two tax incentives to encourage them to make this lifesaving investment.

Currently, commercial building owners must depreciate fire sprinkler retrofits over a lengthy 39-year period. The period for residential buildings is 7\1/2\ years. This bill reclassifies fire sprinkler retrofits as 15-year depreciable property, thus allowing building owners to write off their costs more quickly. The bill also provides an option for certain small businesses to deduct the cost of the fire system upgrades immediately under Section 179 of the tax code. Together, these proposals will provide a strong incentive for building owners to install fire sprinkler systems.

This bill was originally drafted in response to the deadly nightclub fire in West Warwick, RI, in 2003, which killed a staggering 100 people. That building did not have a fire sprinkler system. Let us work together to lessen the chances of another tragedy like this one. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Carper and me in support of this bipartisan, common sense legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am once again delighted to join my colleague, Senator Patty Murray, to introduce the Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act of 2017. Our bill would greatly expand eligibility for VA caregiver support services by including veterans from all eras, allow veterans to transfer their post 9/11 GI bill benefits to their dependents, expand eligibility for the VA caregivers program to include a wider range of injuries that may have previously gone unrecognized, and provide crucial support for our Nation's caregivers themselves.

In 2014, my former colleague and friend, Senator Elizabeth Dole, commissioned a study by the RAND Corporation to learn more about the military caregiver population and explore common issues experienced by America's caregivers. The experts at RAND found that those caring for our servicemembers and veterans provide nearly $14 billion worth of unpaid services every year--an incredible cost that would otherwise be passed on to the Nation.

There are more than 5.5 million military caregivers in the United States, and of those, 1.1 million are caring for post-9/11 veterans. These are spouses, parents, children, and other loved ones who have voluntarily put their lives on hold to provide our returning servicemembers with a trusted continuum of care that could not be replicated without them. Many of them will provide this care for years, if not decades, to come.

Tragically, caring for those suffering from the scars of war takes an enormous toll. According to the RAND study, military caregivers face increased instances of mental and physical health problems, chronic absenteeism from work, deteriorating personal relationships, legal and financial troubles, and feelings of isolation. These difficulties are often more pronounced for post-9/11 military caregivers.

Our Nation owes America's veterans our deepest gratitude. Their sacrifices are often very visible. In many cases our veterans have earned medals or awards for their bravery that they can wear proudly on their chest. But our military and veteran caregivers truly are hidden heroes, serving alongside our veterans to provide the love, care, and support they need. Despite their enormous sacrifice, these hidden heroes often do not receive the awards and admiration. That does not mean that they don't deserve it. We must honor our commitment to veterans by answering the call to better support those caring for our wounded, ill, and injured warriors.

Our legislation would help strengthen the services offered to caregivers.

The Military and Veteran Caregiver Services Improvement Act is an important step in helping those who have assumed the mantle of caring for the men and women who have served our Nation so honorably. I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Murray and me in honoring and supporting our Nation's military caregivers.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, in introducing this bipartisan bill.

In the United States, the annual cost of fires is enormous. In 2015, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), fires resulted in approximately $14 billion in direct property loss. In addition, more than 3,000 civilians were killed and more than 15,000 people were injured in fires. The NFPA also reports that a fire department responded to a structure fire every 63 seconds.

These statistics are of particular concern in Maine, which has some of the oldest housing stock in the country and which has experienced deadly apartment building fires. In 2014, an apartment fire resulted in the deaths of six people--Maine's deadliest fire in nearly four decades.

Historically, Maine has also seen commercial property damaged by fires. In fact, much of the construction in the historic areas of Portland was done following a devastating fire in 1866. This fire destroyed a third of the city, including most of Portland's commercial buildings, many of its churches, and countless homes.

The NFPA reports that when fire sprinklers are present during a large fire, they are effective 96 percent of the time, saving billions of dollars in property damage but more importantly, thousands of lives. Our bill would encourage commercial building owners to invest in fire safety upgrades. While building codes require sprinklers in new commercial buildings, a great number of structures across the U.S. were built and put in service before sprinklers were required.

Small business building owners, however, may find it difficult to fund retrofit sprinklers. To help these owners, our bill would provide two tax incentives to encourage them to make this lifesaving investment.

Currently, commercial building owners must depreciate fire sprinkler retrofits over a lengthy 39-year period. The period for residential buildings is 7\1/2\ years. This bill reclassifies fire sprinkler retrofits as 15-year depreciable property, thus allowing building owners to write off their costs more quickly. The bill also provides an option for certain small businesses to deduct the cost of the fire system upgrades immediately under Section 179 of the tax code. Together, these proposals will provide a strong incentive for building owners to install fire sprinkler systems.

This bill was originally drafted in response to the deadly nightclub fire in West Warwick, RI, in 2003, which killed a staggering 100 people. That building did not have a fire sprinkler system. Let us work together to lessen the chances of another tragedy like this one. I invite my colleagues to join Senator Carper and me in support of this bipartisan, common sense legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to support the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act of 2017. I commend Senator Feinstein for her leadership on this bill and for shining a spotlight on the atrocious crimes perpetrated against young American athletes.

Sexual abuse is a heinous crime that must be eradicated in every corner of our society. I have long worked to prevent sexual assault and ensure that survivors have access to the resources and support they need. Last year, the Indianapolis Star reported on allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct made against coaches, gym owners, and other adults affiliated with USA Gymnastics over several decades. These very serious allegations included sexual abuse against young athletes. Predatory coaches were allowed to move from gym to gym, undetected by a lax system of oversight. The investigation also revealed that officials at USA Gymnastics, one of America's most prominent Olympic organizations, failed to alert police to many incidents of sexual abuse that occurred on their watch.

These crimes have hurt hundreds of victims across various sports. This Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Assault Act would require amateur athletic governing bodies, such as USA Gymnastics and other U.S. Olympic organizations, to promptly report every allegation of sexual abuse to the proper authorities. This legislation would help survivors receive justice and protect more people from becoming victims.

In addition, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Assault Act would require these national governing bodies to develop robust policies and procedures for mandatory reporting to law enforcement and to develop training and oversight practices to prevent abuse. This bill would also bolster Masha's Law, the law that lets minors bring civil suits against sexual predators and extends the statute of limitations for such cases.

The young athletes who train to represent our country at the top levels of competition and those at all levels who aspire to compete should not have to fear victimization by trusted coaches and sports officials. I want to again thank Senator Feinstein for her leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act, which I have introduced with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin. Our legislation aims to help ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services available under the Medicare program.

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of healthcare services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply.

In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by those health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law.

Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home healthcare services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home healthcare for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the nonphysician provider.

In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist, or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home healthcare. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home healthcare can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home care that they need simply because a doctor is not readily available to sign the requisite form. The inability of these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for our seniors in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only healthcare professionals who are readily available.

For example, needed home healthcare can be delayed for up to days at a time for Medicare patients in some rural towns in my State of Maine, where nurse practitioners are the only healthcare professionals and the supervising physicians are far away. A nurse practitioner told me about one of her cases in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and, therefore, understandably, was not available. But here is what the consequence was. This nurse practitioner's patients experienced a 2-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another doctor.

Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ludicrous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home healthcare. How does that make sense?

One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the very same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility.

Think about that. Here we have a patient who is in a rehab facility, for example, or a subacute facility or a nursing home--a skilled nursing home--and that patient is ready to go home, but the chances of successful treatment of that patient--of that patient regaining function--is going to be diminished if there is a gap between the physical and occupational therapy and the home healthcare nursing that the patient would receive at home if there is no physician available to do the paperwork.

So that simply does not make sense. I would wager that it leads to additional cost for our healthcare system because, if that essential home healthcare is not available in the patient's home, the tendency is going to be to keep the patient in the facility for a longer period of time to avoid the gap in treatment. Yet we know that it is much more cost effective to treat the patient in his or her home. We also know that for many patients, that is their preference as well. They would rather be in the comfort, security, and privacy of their own home.

The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act would help ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care they need and when they need it, by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified nurse midwives to order home health services.

It only makes sense. They can order it when the patient is in certain facilities, but then they lose the right to order it when the patient goes home? That just doesn't make sense. These are skilled professionals who know what the patients need, and we should not be burdening the system with unnecessary paperwork.

Our bipartisan legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America.

A lot of times we deal with healthcare issues that are extraordinarily complex, and it is difficult for us to figure out what the answer is. This is not one of those cases. This is a commonsense reform that will improve and expedite services to Medicare beneficiaries, whether they are our disabled citizens or our seniors. It will help them get the home health care they need without undue delay.

I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this commonsense bill.

Seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing entitled ``Iraq after Mosul.''

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 28, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.''

committee on veterans' affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, at 2 p.m., in room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

select committee on intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., in room SD-106 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building to hold an open hearing.

select committee on intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, February 28, 2017, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 40, a resolution of disapproval of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to the implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. The rule in question would require the Social Security Administration to send to the Attorney General the names of certain beneficiaries for inclusion in the NICS background check database and would make it illegal for these beneficiaries to own or possess a firearm.

In matters where the government is promulgating regulations limiting the Constitutional rights of Americans, it is especially important that the regulations be drafted carefully. I am concerned that this rule targets individuals with mental illness without requiring the Social Security Administration to determine that the individuals whose rights are being limited are dangerous either to themselves or others. As a result, this rule inadvertently reinforces an unfortunate and inaccurate stereotype that suggests that most individuals with mental illness are violent.

Rather than focus on whether the beneficiary presents a danger, the rule instead turns on beneficiaries' ability to manage their finances. Because of this, the rule includes a test that could lead to absurd and unfair results. Under the rule, two individuals could present the exact same condition and symptoms, but if one of them required assistance with their financial affairs, that person would be reported to the NICS background check system, while the other would not.

I hope that the Social Security Administration will consider these suggestions as well as the comments from my good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, and others, and promulgate a new rule. Addressing these concerns would result in a more effective rule, consistent with Constitutional requirements, which would make Americans safer while protecting the rights of those living with mental illness.