Mr. Coons mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from delaware. Mr. Coons i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be vitiated and upon the conclusion of my remarks, the senator from rhode island be recognized prpb withouthe presiding officer . The quorum call is lifted. Mr. Coons i rise today to express my deep concern with the tax reform bill that the Senate Finance committee is likely to approve later this week. The latest version of this massive tax bill which will impact every single american was only released to the public late tuesday night, less than 48 hours later, the finance committee is ramming through this bill on a Party Line Vote without any hearings and without a thorough review of the bill. I strongly disagree with this process, with this closeddoor process of developing the substance of the bill which skews the benefits to the wealthy at the expense of middleclass families and with this bills irresponsible cost of 1. 7 trillion over ten years. But i also want to tell my colleagues and the president that there is still an opportunity for us to do the right thing and to Work Together on tax reform. We should follow the example of the last time there was successful tax reform enacted by congress. This was led by a republican by republican president ronald reagan, tip oneal and members of both parties who worked together back in 1986 to pass major tax reform legislation. Sure, they had strong disagreements, but they held lengthy public debates, compromised on both sides of the aisle and eventually passed a major tax reform bill that was bipartisan, was fair, and did not add to our deficits and National Debt. For some reason my republican colleagues seem to have forgotten the example of the last time that the Congress Actually passed tax reform. It happened because both parties worked together. It happened because both parties compromised. And while i believe there is still time for us to undertake this approach, what were seeing right now is the exact opposite. Mr. President , i think that is a big mistake. When im on the train back to wilmington or when im at home in my state of delaware, hearing from my constituents, my message about this bill is simple. Im worried what this bill will do to our Fiscal Health as a country and the middle class and you should be, too. Let me start by quoting a story from the Washington Post today whose headline reads, quote, Senate Tax Bill cuts taxes of wealthy and hikes taxes on families earning under 75,000 over a decade. Let me repeat that. The Senate Tax Bill cuts the taxes of the wealthy and hikes taxes on families earning under 75,000. This story, mr. President , is based on a report from the nonpartisan joint commission on taxation which shows that the claims from President Trump and my republican colleagues that this bill is all about tax relief for the middle class or simply are simply wrong. A quote again from this story, by the year 2027, americans earning 30,000 to 75,000 a year, solidly middleclass folks, would be forced to pay more in taxes even though people earning over 100,000 would continue to get substantial tax cuts. Unfortunately, though, thats not the end of my concerns with this legislation. Im also alarmed by how much this bill would add to our nations budget deficits and by the longterm impacts it would have on our debt. According to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, this tax bill, this republicanonly tax bill, will cost over 1. 7 trillion over ten years. Thats 1. 7 trillion with a t. What happened to my colleagues who spent years talking about the dangers posed by a growing National Debt . Now, these very same senators and representatives are willing to put almost 2 trillion on our nations credit card. Its an astounding figure, more than twice as large as the emergency stimulus package Congress Passed in 2009 to prevent the next great depression. Its more than twice as much as the much maligned socalled bailout that congress authorized to prevent the collapse of the financial system. What does 1. 7 trillion buy us . What is the great return on je. That would justify barring 1. 7 trillion mostly from china in a time of near record low unemployment . Speaker of the house paul ryan publicly bragged that their tax plan would produce one million jobs. That sounds good, but not when you consider the cost. My math may not be great but if you spend 1. 7 trillion to get a million jobs, thats 1. 5 million per job. Thats not a great return on investment. To add insult to injury, the majority believes they can use this bill to also cut access to health care for millions of americans because they decided the last moment to include a repeal of the Affordable Care acts individual mandate, a critical part of that bill which expwiews me that law excuse me that law which helps a healthy risk pool. Those who actually work in health care know this is a bad idea. Thats why the american medical association, the American Academy of family decisions, the American Hospital association, the american and Americas Health insurance plans have all come out against the inclusion of individual mandate repeal in this bill saying, quote, eliminating the individual mandate by itself will result in a significant increase in premiums, which would substantially increase the number of uninsured americans. Mr. President , the nonpartisan c. B. O. Agrees and found that repealing the mandate will cost 13 Million People to lose their health care by 2027 and average premiums would increase by 10 each year. The inclusion of the mandate repeal to pay for Corporate Tax cuts will hurt middleclass families across our country. Its politics at its worst, throwing aside the needs of our constituents to ensure that a small group of the wealthy get wealthier. Thats because at the core of this bill is based on a premise proven false time and again that tax cuts for the richest americans and most profitable corporations will somehow trickle down to help the majority of working americans. We know thats not how our economy has actually worked, even president reagans own budget director David Stockman said yesterday this bill isnt going to increase wages for the middle class. The senate bill proposes we cut the top corporate rate nearly in half. Exempt more wealthy individuals from the estate tax which impacts only the top 0. 2 of americans. Repeal the alternative minimum tax which affects those making hundreds of thousands annually and cut tax rates for those earning over a million. All together the core elements of the plan amount to 1. 7 trillion in tax cuts and my republican colleagues are simply asking us to trust them that the benefits will somehow reach the middle class. That isnt enough to prove this bill being rushed through in todays markup is bad policy, my colleagues in the majority went one step further in this latest version by eliminating all tax breaks for middleclass families in eight years while making the tax cuts for corporations permanent. This means that millions of middleclass families will see a tax hike in the future in order to fund permanen permanency fore tax breaks. Thats just not right. So, mr. President , heres what i think we should do. Lets slow down. Lets Work Together. Republicans and democrats, to pass a bill thats actually good for all americans. I believe we can get that done. I think it is our job and our duty. And we dont have to start from scratch. There are bipartisan ideas. There are introduced bipartisan tax bills that could make our code simpler and fairer and more effective. And ill just mention two examples of bills ive introduced. One with republican senator Shelly Capito and another with pat roberts which encourages manufacturers to use made in america parts and incentivize companies that invent something here to make it here. Ive introduced another bill with republican senator jerry moran. Its got eight bipartisan cosponsors and with republican congressman ted poe that would alter the tax code to boost every aspect of American Energy industry from oil and gas to the latest renewable and clean energy technologies. Mr. President , these are just a few ideas but they represent a simple truth that we can and should Work Together on tax reform instead of making this one more pointless partisan battle. The same thing is true for our Health Care System. The American People have overwhelmingly said they want a bipartisan and open process to fix health care, not a one party scheme by either party that throws our system into chaos with no plan to replace it. So i encourage President Trump and Republican Leaders to stop trying to pass tax reform with only republicans and to reach across the aisle to work with democrats and pass something we can all get behind. Mr. President , while i appreciated the opportunity to talk today about the very real need for bipartisan tax reform that helps working families grow the economy and doesnt increase our debt, id like to turn to another important topic. The impending departure from my office of megan oneal, my director of scheduling. Megan has been a part of our office for more than five years. She leaves later this month for an exciting new opportunity in new york city. Megan is quite simply one of the most capable, resourceful, intelligent, effective, and kind people i have ever had the honor of knowing or working with. One of the most well worn sayings here in washington is that everyone is replaceable. Well, that may be true for me and it may be true for you and it may be true for many others here. It is simply not true of megan. She is truly irreplaceable. I owe megan a huge debt of gratitude for years of service to my office, to delaware, and to our country. Many of us who have worked with her will gather to thank her and wish her well, but i also wanted to take a few minutes to talk about and probably embarrass this remarkable woman. She is from nearby chevy chase, maryland, but more importantly at least in my opinion, she graduated from the university of delaware as a fighting blue hen with a degree in economics and international relations. She interned in my will pington office during her senior year and quickly became a staff favorite. She moved to washington and i hired her at a staff assistant working at the front office in my d. C. Office, a particularly demanding job juggling visiting constituents, constant phone calls, supervising interns and she proved herself to be mature and capable and i promoted her several times in quick succession until she took over as my director of scheduling in august of 2015. Over the course of her time in my office, ive come to deeply respect her as a professional. But mr 0 importantly to admire but more importantly to admire her as a person. In addition to being competent and quick on her feet, it is megans boundless optimism that i will most miss. Regardless of how stressful, jampacked and uncertain a day will be, megan is always able to ensure that everything gets done, that every constituent is heard, every important issue is raised understand that this senator doesnt lose his mind. Megan is also famous for her seemingly permanent smile and sunny disposition. Some of her colleagues in my office chimed in with a few anecdotes. Oftentimes i was told throughout the day megan will announce shes off to get a fun drink which might sound like a marguerite at that but is always a raspberry. She also loves to travel but one thing that makes her different is 245 when she has a trip upcoming, she is just excited to point it out minute by minute. I cant talk about her without mentioning her family. She speaks frequently and lovingly about her parents and her young brother. As anyone who knows macon is well aware, each summer she is a key part of oneil week and she joins her family in beautiful beth knee beach, delaware. Mr. President , anyone who understands the senate knows how essential schedulers are to everything that goes on here, no half has a more challenging or complex role. We senators as big vow cab lears but the most important word a scheduler says is no. And megan mastered the art of saying no, in a firm, professional, appropriate way, even when this senator seems to always want to say yes. Schedulers wear too many hats to count. Theyre political advise,psychologists, diplomats, managers and air traffic controllers. They work as hard or harder than anyone else here but so often go unseen or unherald. Maybe thats why senate schedulers are a very tightnight group. Megan often speaks with great fondness ants respect for her counterparts in other Senate Offices and it doesnt is surprise me they think highly of her. One of megans counterparts said she is always quick to share advice and has been a great sows of support when any of her colleagues need kind words. She is nice and compassionate. Megans compassion is at the end of the day that makes her such an incredible person and irreplaceable part of our team. Regardless of who someone may be, when they work with megan, theyre treated with dignity and respect. Time and again ive heard from people so grateful for her generosity, patience, and kindness, and ive seen her help appeared stick up for her colleagues even when that was difficult to do. So, mr. President , let me close by simply saying to my friend and colleague, megan oneil, thank you. Thank you for everything youve done, for me, for your colleagues, for our friends in the senate, for the state of delaware and our country. The senate is a group of hardworking people, but even among them you have stood out and we will all miss you dearly. Thank you. Mr. Reed mr. President . The presiding officer the senator rhode island is recognized. Mr. Reed thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , it is our responsibility to ensure that future generations will have greater opportunity and greater security than we inherited from our parents and our forebearers. To accomplish this, we must put aside political expedience and take a sober look at the health of our National Economy and our ability to keep our commitment at home and around the world. I rise to urge my colleagues to reject the partisan and fiscally irresponsible republican tax proposals and the socalled tax cuts and jobs act. When we strip away the rosy but false Economic Projections and ideologically motivated economic theories that republicans have been using to hype this bill, it is clear that this bill trades away our nations longterm Economic Health and wellbeing of working americans the poor, the sick, and the old in order to benefit the wealthy. Moreover, this bill will take us trillions of dollars deeper into debt at a time when the cost of 16 years of debtfinanced wars continue to mount. Republicans owe it to our country and to future generations who will be stuck with the multitrilliondollar cost of this bill to go back to the drawing board and produce a balanced and permanent, bipartisan path forward on our nations broken tax code. It does not take an economist to see that the republican tax bill is an historic 1. 5 trillion transfer of wealth from poor and working americans to the very wealthiest among us. But a few of its glaring injustices are worth mentioning. According to the center for budget and policy priorities, it gives over twice as much tax relief to millionaires as it does to americans making under 50,000. Just 5,000 of the wealthiest American Families will receive hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade in the form of estate tax breaks. At a time when income and wealth inequality in this country are at historic highs, this transfer of wealth through the estate tax alone requires us to go back to the drawing board. On the other hand, the bill raises taxes on 19. 4 million households earning under 200,000 by as much as 500. 46 of households making under 100,000 and 50,000 and 50 , rather, of households making under 75,000, will either see their taxes go up over the next decade or see no change at all, and thats just the tip of the iceberg. While tax cuts for big corporations are made permanent, the republican bill plans to claw back what little it gives to everyone else after a few years. Setting up even bigger tax hikes to the middle class down the line. And this does not even big to return the return the trumpcare which has been added to this bill, which will take away health care to millions of americans and drive up cost to the poor, sick, and elderly. This bill is a bad investment and frankly it is one that we can illafford. According to the pennwharton budget model provided by the university of pennsylvania, the bill will reduce federal revenue by as much as 1. 7 trillion and inincrease our National Debt by 2 trillion in the tenyear budget window. By 2040, this becomes a 3. 6 billion trillion in lost federal revenue and up to 6. 9 trillion in debt. We would take on all this debt for an estimated 0. 4 to 0. 9 boost in g. D. P. For 1. 5 trillion, we could, on the other hand, make needed repairs to our streets and highways across america, creating tens of thousands of jobs in the process. We could pay off every americans credit card or student loan or lift every american above the poverty line for years. Instead, this bill would put yet another massive charge on americas credit card that will not create jobs, will not trickle down, and most certainly will not pay for itself. We still have a 5. 6 trillion in deficits and Interest Payments from the bush tax cuts to prove it. With over 20 trillion in National Debt, it is long past time to stop experimenting with peoples lives and livelihoods to prove yet again there are no merits to supplyside economics. America has pressing needs and very real bills coming due. Mr. President , id like to spend the remaining time of my remarks addressing something about which we have heard far too little in this debate, and that is the impact on our national Economic Health and of the unavoidable and compounding cost of 16 years of military conflict paid for almost entirely through debt. For the first time in our history of, the United States reduced revenue in the form of the bush tax cuts rather than the usual payasyougo process of the wars. While we would be adding potentially trillions of dollars of debt for an illconceived tax bill, the cost of war are coming due. The cost of calculations in the thorough report at the Watson Institute at brown university, even if the u. S. Stops spending on war at the end of this fiscal year, interest costs alone on borrowing to pay for the wars will continue to grow at pace. Future interest costs for overseas Contingency Operations spending alone are projected at more than 1 trillion for the National Debt by 2023. By 2056, a conservative estimate is that the interest costs will be about 8 trillion, unless the u. S. Changes the way it pays for its wars. In a sense, what we are doing is mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren as we continue to add debt, and this is unavoidable debt in so many cases. Because we know, mr. President , we cannot immediately stop our engagement in countries throughout the world. In afghanistan, in the middle east, and frankly we understand that we are facing tremendous challenges on the korean peninsula. The approximate combined president budget request for the departments of defense and usaid ared 14 billion for iraq and syria and 48. 9 billion for afghanistan. Furthermore, these costs do not account for muchneeded maintenance and modernization of our military assets. For example, modernizing, operating, and sustaining our nuclear triad, which includes submarines, bomb,and icbms, is projected to cost 1. 0 trillion in 2017 dollars over the next 30 years. So let me just stop for a moment we are going to take 1. 5 trillion and give it to the wealthiest americans, when we know we need an additional 1. 7 trillion over 30 years to secure the stability of the world through nuclear deterrence. Which begs the very simple question if we want to borrow 1. 5 trillion, why dont we invest it in a cost we know will come due, protecting our country and the world through the renovation and reinvigoration of the nuclear triad. The navy recently validated a from time to time for 35 ships. This would require the navy to purchase around 329 new ships over 30 years. An average cost of 102 billion a year through 2047, which is 13 more than the 9 billion needed to build and operate the current 254ship fleet envisioned in the navys 2017 plan. Once again, we are committing ourselves to billions of dollars of cost in our Navy Shipbuilding program while we are entertaining a 1. 5 trillion or more tax giveaway to the wealthiest americans. And we know these costs are coming due. Or were fooling ourselves to think were going to rebuild our naval forces. We can expect even greater costs of our military if we increase our end strength, as so many on both sides of the aisle are proposing. And thats because of the high operational tempo, which is not likely to diminish. For every additional 10,000 Service Members, it costs roughly 1. 8 billion per year for pay and benefits and to train and equip these personnel. If the army grows to 580,000 personnel, it will cost an additional 18 billion per year, but were taking that money and were giving it in tax cuts, the biggest amount is going to the wettiest americans. Were not the wealthiest americans. Were not investing it now in increasing our military forces. If the air force grows by 30,000, it will cost an additional 6 billion per year. If the marine corps grows by,000 person, it will cost an additional 23. 6 billion per yearment if you talk to the commandant or the chief of staff of the air force, they will tell you they have to increase the size of their force because of the operational tempo. Indeed, if you talk to the cheat of staff of the air force, he will tell you theyre in a desperate situation maintaining sufficient pilots. So we could be buying hundreds of new f35 aircraft at a significant cost and watch them parked because we cant afford the flight crews to fly them and to maintain them. We knew these costs to come and were ignoring them until they become due but were ignoring them now for the benefit of thats tax cuts. If we do not chart a responsible path forward, we will leave all these costs to the next generation, to the detriment of our children, our national security, and our position of world leadership. And frankly it might not be even that long before they materialize. Once the markets determine that the 1. 5 trillion is just a small reflection of what we have to do to protect ourselves, to continue our commitment in afghanistan, to continue to support allies across the globe, they will know very quickly that the deficit is beginning to devour us and the markets will react, as they have in the past. So we could see this problem created and causing a wicked Market Reaction long before even our children confront these debts. Thats why earlier today former secretary of defense leon panetta, chuck hagel, and ash carter sent a letter to congressional leadership and the house and Senate Armed Services committee warning us that the fiscal irresponsibility of the republican tax proposal will continue to a growing budget crisis and contribute to that crisis. The letter urges congress to instead address the question that threatens to hollow our military ability to sustain the mission. Mr. President , tax policies have real consequences. We can debate the value of one tax proposal over another, but this is not the debate before us. The simple facts of this tax break will give breaks to people who need it least, take money from working americans, leave millions of americans sicker and worse off, and further strain our ability to keep america safe from growing and changing and challenging threats across the globe. It also threatens expenditures on health care, education, infrastructure, and other vital domestic needs as the deficit balloons due to this bills unaffordable tax breaks for corporate ti titans. This is not what we owe the next generation. Its not what we owe to our children today and i urge my colleagues across the aisle to consider our nations future. Like so many here, i was here in 2001 when president george w. Bush came with his tax cuts, which i opposed, which assured us that our economy would grow, jobs would multiply. We would be fine. Let me remind my colleagues when he said that after the tough decisions we made in the clinton administration, we had a projected surplus of roughly 5 billion. In fact, the mantra from many people was lets give the money back to the American People. We dont have a surplus today. We have a significant deficit. It will grow with this bill because this bill says were going to increase it by 1. 5 trillion at a minimum and wont be just it wont be just 1. 5. Unless we abandon our commitments to the men and women of our armed forces, unless we decide to disengage from the the deterrents that we must have to defend the nation from a nuclear armageddon, unless we decide to leave afghanistan after the president announced no longer are we basing our decisions on time, its now conditions, there are trillions and trillions of dollars of unavoidable cost already that should be included in our deficit. This is not the time to take trillions of dollars and giving it in a disproportionate share to the wealthiest americans. This is a time for us to Work Together to provide the resources for our military, to provide the investment for our people, to deal with the issue of inequality between the wealthiest 1 and everybody el else, none of that was accomplished by this bill. In fact, this bill will complicate, compound, and make even more difficult the problems we face to defend the nation and give people a chance at a better future. With that i yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from iowa. Mr. Grassley before i speak, i ask unanimous consent that abbey holhollinstein and laura, law clerks at the judiciary be given floor privileges for the remainder of the day. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley earlier this week, i spoke about the history of the blue slip courtesy. I hope my colleagues will read that history as well. And i explained in that speech earlier this week in my nearly four decades in the senate, i regularly return my blue slip even when i would preferred the president had nominated someone else. Today im announcing that the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for two Circuit Court nominees, each of whom has one home state senator who has not returned a blue slip containing a positive endorsement. The hearing for Justice Davis strauss, nominee for the eighth circuit and kyle danka nominee to the fifth circuit will take place on november 29. Both of these nominees appear to be very well qualified and they deserve the Judiciary Committees further consideration. I therefore would like to offer an explanation as to why im choosing to proceed on these nominations and allow the hearing despite the lack of two positive blue slips. As i explained earlier this week, the blueslip courtesy is just that, a courtesy. For 100 years the Judiciary Committee chairman have asked for the views of home state senators on judicial nominees via the blue slip process. Its meant to solicit insights into nominees and ensure that the white house is adequately consulting with home state senators as the advise part of the advise and consent would imply. Let me be very clear. I will maintain the blue slip courtesy, but some of my democratic colleagues and leftwing outside groups mistakenly assert that the blue slip affords a home state senator veto power over a nominee. That is not true. Only two out of 18 previous chairmen in this committee in the last 100 years allowed a single senator to wield veto power over a nominee. Senator joe biden when he was Judiciary Committee chairman articulated what i consider a sensible policy with regard to the blue slip. He said that a negative blue slip will be a significant factor, a significant factor is his words, for the committee to weigh but that, and i quote further, it will not preclude consideration of a nominee, end of quote, unless the administration failed to consult with the senator. I intend to follow this practice for negative and nonreturned blue slips. This practice is consistent with the vast majority of blue slips history. Ill add that im less likely to proceed on a District Court nominee who does not have two positive blue slips from home state senators. But Circuit Courts, as we know, cover multiple states. Theres less reason to defer to the views of a single state senator for such nominees when that nominee is going to serve several states in a circuit. Its important to remember that the judicial confirmation process has changed over the last several years. Previously, when home state senators didnt return a positive blue slip, their colleagues often defeated that very same nomination on the floor, but not in committee. When president bush nominated carolyn coole to the ninth circuit, her home state senators didnt return positive blue slips. Chairman hatch, nevertheless, held a hearing and a vote for that nominee. Her home state senators, however, convinced her colleagues to filibuster the nominee on the senate floor. Carolyn coole was never confirmed. But a few years ago, as we know, i think it was 2013, democrats bol lived the filibuster for nominees to abolished the filibuster for nominees to the lower court. They argued that a number of senators should not be allowed to block nominees who had support. Our colleague said this and i quote, advice and consent was never envisioned as a check that involved a minority of the senate being able to block a president ial nomination. End quote. Now that senator is withholding his blue slip for a nominee to the ninth circuit. If he didnt believe 41 senators should be able to block a nominee, he surely wouldnt believe that a single senator would have that right . The democrats seriously now, i think, regret that they abolished the filibuster as i warned them about at that particular time when they were trying to add a lot of people that werent needed on the d. C. Circuit court of appeals, as an example. Packing the court, in other words. But they expect to use the blue slip courtesy in the place of a veto. I mean that they cant veto it because theres not a filibuster so then they want to use the blue slip for that purpose. Its very clear from the history of the blue slip, thats not what the blue slip was meant for. On the other hand, some have argued that the blue slip courtesy has no place in modern judicial confirmations. The l. A. Times recently suggested that getting rid of the blue slip as did the New York Times several years ago. Even our committees Ranking Member, senator feinstein, wants once advocated abolishing the blue slip. I disagree that we should abolish the blue slip. The blue slip serves the important purpose of encouraging consultation between the white house and the senate. Otherwise, the constitutional provision of advise and consent is just consent, but theres opportunity to advise ahead of time. Thats what the blue slip helps do. The blue slip serves the important purpose then of encouraging consultation between the white house and the senate. The white house has an obligation to engage in goodfaith consultation with home state senators for the purpose of advise. I would allow the white house i wont allow the white house to just steamroll home state senators, but as ive said all along, i wont allow the blue slip process to be abused. Ever since last november when the press has asked me about the blue slip, i said were going to honor the blue slip process, but there are always exceptions. So im not going to allow senators to prevent a Committee Hearing for political or ideological reasons. Those are the least reasons to not have a hearing. Using the blue slip for these purposes is not consistent with historical practice. This brings me, then, to the nomination one of the two nominations were having up on november 29, Justice David strauss of minnesota. Justice strauss appears to be exceptionally well qualified. Graduating first in his class from the university of kansas law school. He clerked for both the ninth circuit and the Fourth Circuit and then for Supreme Court Justice Clarence thomas. After several years in private practice in minnesota, Justice Strauss joined the faculty of the university of Minnesota Law School. He remained there until appointment to the minnesota Supreme Court 2010. In 2012 he was elected to a full sixyear term on the court by the 56 of minnesota voters. Now think about it, youre not returning a blue slip when someone is going 56 of the vote to be returned to the court. Justice strauss was raised by a single mother in kansas. Hes the grandson of a holocaust survivor. He carries the lessons passed down by his grandparents with him each day. I want to refer to a writing he just submitted to a leading newspaper, writing recently about their survival in auschwitz and then immigrating to the United States. He recalled that his grandfather had, quote, the uncommon gift of being able to see the light of human generosity in the midst of near total darkness, end of quote. He wrote that his grandparents embraced, quote, a message of optimism, intended to ensure that their children and grandchildren were able to lead a life free from the atrocities that they had witnessed, end of quote. Justice strauss has an impeccable reputation in minnesota legal communities. His former colleagues at the university of Minnesota Law School describe him as a person who, quote, engaged in debate respectfully, listening to opposing ideas while backing up his own views with facts and arguments and who, continuing to quote, wanted our students to be exposed to a wide range of beliefs, end of quote. Another group of colleagues of Justice Strauss from his days in private practice described this justice as the type of attorney who, quote, never talked down to people, and there was never any hint that he felt himself superior to anyone, end of quote. Instead, Justice Strauss, continuing to quote from this letter, listened to other views and worked to find an approach to legal problems that was both effective and acceptable to everyone on the team, end of quote. They also noted in that letter his dedication to mentoring young lawyers. Despite these accomplishments and accolades, one senator has withheld his blue slip. Evidently, my colleague from minnesota believes that Justice Strauss has not even earned a hearing before the senate Judiciary Committee. But the reasons given for withholding the blue slip are not consistent with the blue slips purposes and history. Justice strauss was nominated to the eighth circuit on may 8, more than six months ago. After many months, my colleague formally announced that he would not return a blue slip. He cited Justice Strauss, quote, deep conservative judicial philosophy, end of quote, as well as his admiration for Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. To me, this amounts to an ideological litmus test. Admirers of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia need not ever apply for being on a Circuit Court. The minnesota star tribune Editorial Board summed it up. They said the senator from minnesota, quote, rejected strauss for one reason the justices conservative views, end of quote from the newspaper. The Editorial Board of the largest newspaper in minnesota echoed retired justice paul anderson, quote, while strauss is more conservative than i like, that is not the point. The question is whether strauss is qualified to serve on the eighth circuit, and he is end of quote. My colleagues later claimed that he was my colleague later claimed that he was not adequately consulted by the white house, which would be a legitimate reason for withholding a blue slip, as i hope ive implied several times during my remarks today and before. So i looked into this by reviewing the records of consultation, and thank god the white house keeps pretty good records. Its clear the white house earnestly and repeatedly attempted to work with both home state senators. The white house reached out to my colleague from minnesota several times between january and may of this year to discuss this eighth circuit vacancy that the minnesota that minnesota splice the member for supplies the member for. It wasnt until may 2 that my colleague suggested alternatives to Justice Strauss. That was more than three months after initial contact by the white house. Nevertheless, the white house did what they should under the constitution, listening to senators, they considered my colleagues two suggested nominees. I am satisfied that the white house adequately tried to consult with both home state senators, as the constitution requires under advise and consent. Therefore, i am not going to deny Justice Strauss a hearing. I would like to say a brief word about Justice Strauss supposedly rigid conservative views. The Judiciary Committee has received numerous letters attesting to Justice Strauss intellectual honesty and, probably more importantly, openmindedness. It is clear that he has Great Respect for the rule of law and his tenure on the minnesota Supreme Court demonstrates that like any good judge he is able to put aside his personal views and apply the law faithfully. One letter written by a Bipartisan Group of attorneys from Justice Strauss former firm noted that they, and i quote, never doubted for a minute that he reached his decisions based on his wellconsidered view of the law and not personal, political, or ideological considerations, end of quote. But then they went on to note, and i quote again, the lawyers whose names appear at the bottom of this letter span the political spectrum, from democrat to republican, liberal to conservative. We differ on our personal political views, but we are united in our support of Justice Strauss nomination to the eighth Circuit Court of appeals, end of quote. Now, theres all kinds of people writing that letter. If you say democrat to republic, liberal to conservative, how come a senator is concerned about ideological views when people that know him well seem to think that thats not a consideration because hes going to make a good judge . A group of former colleagues at the university of minnesota agree. They wrote a letter to the committee stating, and i quote, we are minnesota law professors with diverse political views ranging from very conservative to very progressive. Some of us have appeared before Justice Strauss as advocates, and all of of us are familiar with his academic and judicial track record. Now, as i continue to quote, i would to say to i want to say to everybody, now get this continuing to quote, he is no extremist, and he has approached his academic and judicial work without bias or favoritism, end of quote. This support is echoed by his colleagues in my state of iowa. The committee has received several letters of support from the faculty at the university of iowa college law where Justice Strauss teaches as an adjunct professor. Among his supporters are the dean of the law school, gale egrol. And professor kurtz, a selfdescribed, quoteunquote, lifelong liberal. Justice strauss is widely Justice Strauss is a widely respected jurist and he should have a hearing. An ideological and ideological differences should not prevent the committee from moving forward. Id like to move on to another person that is up november 29, so i want to address my decision to hold a hearing for kyl duncan, a nominee for the fifth circuit. He also has not had two positive blue slips returned. He is a widely respected appellate lawyer who has litigated over 30 cases in federal state appellate courts, including the United States Supreme Court. My friend and colleague, senator kennedy of louisiana, has declined to return a positive blue slip. However, senator kennedy expressed that while he is undecided on mr. Duncans nomination, he does not oppose a hearing for mr. Duncan. Now, this seems to me to be a vincennesable approach. Its a correct distinction that a senator should make when deciding whether to return a blue slip. The blue slip is not meant to signify the senators ultimate support or opposition to the nominee. It only expresses a senators view about whether the nominee should have a hearing. Senator feinstein made this precise distinction in 2003 for carolyn cools nomination. I have referred to that nomination earlier in my remarks. Senator feinstein returned a blue slip that noted that she, quote, reserved judgment, unquote, on carolyn cool. She also supported holding a hearing for judge cool. Ultimately, after judge cools hearing, senator feinstein decided to oppose the confirmation. Eventually, the hearing served a useful purpose. And senator feinstein was able to distinguish between allowing a hearing and supporting a nominee. Senator kennedy has shown that he understands this distinction as well. I look forward to hearing from Justice Strauss and mr. Duncan at the senate Judiciary Committee hearing on november 29. I think that all 100 senators ought to look at the advice and consent clause. You have an opportunity to give advice to a president. You have an opportunity then, if that nominee comes up here, to vote for that nominee. Do you want to preserve the advice part of advice and consent . If you do, i would suggest that you look at the blue slip as a useful tool for accomplishing a very important part of the process, and maybe if it is abused, at least not while i am chairman you dont have to worry about going away, but if it is abused, it may someday go away. And then all youre going to have when its all said and done is consent. I yield the floor. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i listened carefully to the excellent remarks of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee outlining the history of the blue slip, and i must say to the chairman, mr. President , that he has outlined a sensible use of the blue slip, which involves consultation, but does not lead to a onesenator veto of a nominee. And so i thank the chairman for the History Lesson. Its a History Lesson the senate needed to hear. I also want to thank the chairman for the spectacular job that he has done all year long with this new administration in processing and bringing forward highly qualified nominees. For generations to come, americans will follow the third branch will be indebted to the chairman for the way he has handled these nominations, processed them, moved them out on to the floor, and given the senate the opportunity to express its will. And so i wish every member of the senate had been able to hear the chairmans remarks, but im certainly going to call these remarks to the attention of our members every opportunity i get, and i thank the senator from iowa. Mr. Grassley thank you, mr. Leader. Mrs. Fischer mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from nebraska. Mrs. Fischer thank you, mr. President. I rise today to speak about the National Defense authorization act. The process of negotiating the annual defense bill is one that has a long and important history on capitol hill. This afternoon the senate voted to pass the conference report. Continuing that tradition of 55 consecutive years where the National Defense authorization act has been a mustpass bill for the United States congress. People have a habit these days of assuming that congress cannot pass major legislation, but this bill is a testament to the fact that when it comes to supporting our men and women in uniform, we Work Together to provide them with the support they need. Im happy to say that this year we are carrying on this proud tradition. This years National Defense authorization act was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the senate and the house. As a member of the Senate Armed Services committee, ive been proud to do my part to help craft this bill and to be a part of the process. We live in a rapidly changing world, and unfortunately one that presents a growing number of threats and challenges our military must face. Across the globe we have witnessed the rise of dangerous new threats that make the mission of our war fighters even more challenging. In Europe Vladimir Putin has shown a complete disregard for International Law and order and threatens key allies and democracies that underpin the democratic backbone of europe. In the pacific we face a nuclear arm dictator in north korea who murders his own people while threatening mass death and destruction to the United States and to our allies. In the middle east we have witnessed the rapid and fearsome emergence of radical extremist groups like isis whose barbarism shocks the world. Their horrific acts of bloodshed show just how dangerous this warped ideology is and the efforts of the men and women in uniform have played a Critical Role in the fight to stem this dark tide. Unfortunately this same ideology of radical extremism is finding new followers in europe, africa, and asia. These threats demand that we be ready. The fact is the United States has faced challenges before, and if one thing holds true throughout history, it is that our armed forces will be called upon to defeat the enemies of freedom and safeguard this nation. For them to succeed, the United States Congress Must provide the men and women in uniform the support they need to execute their missions. Thats why i am so proud to stand before you today and speak about the National Defense authorization act. This legislation sends a clear message. Now is the time that we begin to rebuild our military. Contained in this bill is the necessary funding to start filling the gaps and ensuring our force remains the best in the world. This includes increases to the size of the army, navy, air force, reserves and our national guard. It also means that new battleready systems are going to get the funding that they need to be put in the field as quickly as possible. On land, the ndaa authorizes funding for 85 abrams tank upgrades and 93 bradley fighting vehicles. At sea, it revitalizes our fleet, authorizing 13 new ships for our navy. And in the air, it provides 90 new f35 aircraft and 53 u u860m blackhawk helicopters. The f. Y. To 18 ndaa authorizes funding for critical priorities to help ensure that on every battlefield the men and women of Americas Armed forces have the resources they need to complete the missions that they are given i serve as chair of the Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and my top priority has been the modernization of our Nuclear Forces and the department of energys Nuclear Weapons complex. This bill strongly supports Nuclear Modernization and makes a number of other key investments within the subcommittees jurisdiction. First, the conference report builds on important provisions included in the versions that passed both the house and the senate this year and includes the administrations request for additional Missile Defense spending submitted earlier this month. In total, the bill authorizes an additional 4. 4 billion above the level requested by the president when the budget was initially submitted to improve our Missile Defense systems. This includes a significant expansion of our groundbased Midcourse Defense System and authorizes resources to begin construction of another 20 interceptor silos at for the greely, alaska. To further enhance the systems effectiveness, the bill makes valuable investments in the networks of radars and other sensors that support the systems operations. The bill also contains reasonable reforms to our military Space Enterprise that are designed to achieve and streamline an agile system that is more responsive to the needs of our war fighters. Furthermore, the bill improves the oversight and management of our Nuclear Command and control architecture. Often overlooked, these programs form the connective tissue between our National Leadership and our Nuclear Forces. Their reliability and resilience are vital to the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. As the specter of great power conflict returns and the threat from a Nuclear Armed north korea continues to grow, our Missile Defense and Nuclear Capabilities will play an increasingly Important Role in protecting our homeland. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to further modernize and strengthen these vital capabilities to ensure that we stay ahead of the threats that our nation faces. Beyond the Strategic Forces portfolio, this bill recognizes that we must also rebuild our readiness and military infrastructure here at home, which is why we have included funding increases in the bill to support 90 of the requirements for Facilities Sustainment as well as a significant increase for facilities restoration and modernization. This means newly authorized funding to restore and modernize facilities and infrastructure ranging from barracks and hospitals to runways and hangars. But lets not forget the most important part of our effort in crafting this bill. That is providing for the one asset we can never replace our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. The people who wear the uniform are more valuable than any weapon system. The dedication, sacrifice, and honor that they exemplify every day is why we stand here today and enjoy the freedoms that this country has to offer. For that reason, included in this bill is the largest pay raise for our troops in eight years. We have also permanently preserved a special survivor indemnity allowance payments to surviving military spouses. There are more than 60,000 americans whose spouses have died on active duty or during retirement, and as a result this legislation, this important payment will no longer exist on a yearbyyear basis, but it will be preserved indefinitely. Make no mistake, these are challenging times for our nation, as the world is becoming an increasingly complex place. Now more than ever we are asking our military to tackle difficult problems and to face adversaries who consistently seek new ways to do us harm. No matter the day, no matter the situation, Americas Armed forces stand ready to answer the call and protect our nation. We need to uphold our solemn duty as members of the United States senate and keep faith with those who wear the uniform by giving them the tools that they need. The 55year legacy of passing the National Defense authorization act did not happen by accident. It has happened because members of this body know and members of this body recognize that this bill represents a promise to our Service Members. It is a promise that as you stand in harms way far from your families and loved ones, we stand with you. When you are deployed during a holiday or a special occasion, as many members of our own Nebraska National guard will be this thanksgiving, we stand with you. During late nights and early mornings, in the cold and in the heat, in battle and in peacetime, we stand with you. Passing the National Defense authorization act means keeping our end of the promise to those who serve. As a member of the Senate Armed Services committee, it has been my honor to play a part in helping craft this years bill. And i would like to thank our chairman, senator john mccain, for his leadership in guiding the committee through the process. I would also like to thank americas men and women in uniform for all that you do to keep us safe. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. I would suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Sasse mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from nebraska. Mr. Sasse i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Sasse mr. President , mr. President , the consideration of federal judges with Lifetime Appointments is perhaps the most important and long lasting work this body will do between now and the end of the year. Every senator, republican and democrat, took an oath to perform this duty. Nobody nobody took an oath to outsource this duty to any outside organization. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the senate Judiciary Committee are apparently willing to hand over their voting cards to the American Bar Association based on the claim that the a. B. A. Is an unbiased, indifferent umpire that just calls balls and strikes. The American Bar Association is not neutral. The a. B. A. Is a liberal organization that has publicly and consistently advocated for leftofcenter positions for more than two decades now. The a. B. A. Has no right to special treatment by members of this body. Its Pretty Simple if youre playing in the game, you dont get to cherry pick who the referees are. Take just for a moment a look at the amicus briefs that they have filed in recent years. In District Of Columbia v. Heller, the a. B. A. Supported denying an individual their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the a. B. A. Supported forcing christian organizations on campuses to accept members that reject their faith. In medianv. Texas, the a. B. A. Forced states to recognize the judgments of the world court in order to stop the execution of a gruesome murderer. In United States v. Windsor, the a. B. A. Supported the recognition of samesex marriage through judicial fiat rather than through legislative debate. In arizona v. United states, the a. B. A. Supported a constitutional ban on state and local law enforcement, assisting and enforcing federal immigration laws, and the list goes on. In each of these cases, the a. B. A. Decided to wade into divisive and contentious issues. This is their right, indeed, but it is definitely not neutral. In each of these cases and many more, the a. B. A. Took what can only be described as leftofcenter positions. In each of these cases, the a. B. A. Was picking a side. Again, to be clear, they are absolutely allowed to do this. It is what makes this country great. But its laughably naive to suggest that they are an objective and neutral organization. They are not. The a. B. A. Cannot make liberal arguments to the nine members of the Supreme Court and then walk across the street and seriously expect that the hundred members of this body in the United States senate will be treating them like unbiased appraisers. That is essentially what attorney general bill barr said in 1992 when the a. B. A. First began to openly take proabortion positions, which, by the way, led to thousands of members quitting in protest because those members knew that the a. B. A. Claims to neutrality about political issues were no longer even possibly defensible. Thenu. S. Attorney general bill barr commented on the a. B. A. s proabortion advocacy at the time, and i quote, by adopting the resolution and thereby endorsing one side of this debate, the a. B. A. Will endanger the perception that it is an impartial and objective association, close quote. 25 years later, barrs words were right. His words ring true. Again, i want to be perfectly clear. The a. B. A. Is allowed to have any view that their that its members want to have, and they are allowed to advocate and to protest on behalf of those views and on behalf of their members. This is america, and thats exactly what the First Amendment is about. That is fine, but whats not fine is that the a. B. A. , which is a liberal advocacy organization, would masquerade as a neutral and objective evaluator of judicial candidates. The a. B. A. Cannot take blatantly liberal positions on the one hand and then masquerade as a neutral party on the other and then demand a special seat at the table in the senate Judiciary Committee and in the senate in this body to try to tell us who is and isnt supposedly qualified to be a judge. Just like the a. B. A. Has every right to advance its liberal policy positions, every senator has the right and indeed the duty to give our advice and consent on judicial nominees. If senators decide that they like and value the a. B. A. s policy positions and they like and value the a. B. A. s ratings, they are free to give them due deference and consideration. But dont hide behind it. Dont pretend that the a. B. A. Is something that it is not. Do not ignore the facts of what the a. B. A. Has become. The American People deserve honesty, not thinly veiled partisanship. Thank you, mr. President. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from rhode island. Mr. Reed thank you, mr. President. Mr. President , i rise to discuss the fiscal year 2018 National Defense authorization act. After several months of negotiations, the house and Senate Armed Services committee have arrived at a completed conference agreement. Earlier today, we passed the ndaa for the 56th consecutive year. Let me highlight some of the important issues that we addressed in this agreement. This conference agreement authorizes a total of 692 billion, which includes 626. 4 billion in base budget funding. The department of defense and certain security activities at the department of energy, and 65. 8 billion in overseas Contingency Operations, o. C. O. Funding. And, of course, we could not have done it without the cooperation of all the members of the committee, including the president , and i thank him for his contribution and his service. This includes the administrations 5. 9 billion Budget Amendment received earlier this month which seeks an additional 4. 7 billion in base funding to both Missile Defense and to prepare two navy ships after recent cligz, as well as 1. 2 billion in o. C. O. Funding for operations in afghanistan and for additional capabilities in the Central Command area of operations. The conference agreement includes significant increases in Additional Resources aimed at restoring fullspectrum readiness as soon as possible across the military services. Specifically, operation and maintenance funding widely known as the lifeblood of readiness was increased by 1. 16 billion to the army, 277. 9 billion for the navy, 82. 3 billion for the marine corps and 1 billion for the United States air force. This conference agreement supports the top line of 700 billion for National Defense, the 050 activities, which is roughly 150 billion over the budget control act cap. If the cap is not adjusted and if this amount is fully funded by the appropriators, then we would trigger the harmful acrosstheboard cuts of sequestration. Just at the time when we are trying to restore. I want to be clear, i agree that department of defense needs Additional Resources, but we must address the caps of both defense and nondefense activities. I remind my colleagues that under the budget control act, the b. C. A. , National Defense activities include certain programs that the f. B. I. And the coast guard, while nondefense activities, the other cap, include the state department, veterans care, customs and border protections, and the t. S. A. We need to look at our nations needs holistically, and we must remain vigilant over the amount of money d. O. D. Can effectively utilize. The b. C. A. Has an arbitrary division between the department of defense and everything else. We have to look at national security, and that includes both sides and both caps. With regard to our overseas operations, the conference report authorizes the entirety of the funding requested for our efforts in afghanistan, including 1. 7 billion to invest in critical aviation capabilities, such as modernized rotary wing assets, and to continue to sustain and train the existing fleet. The report also authorizes 35,700 special 3,500 special immigrant visas to continue to uphold our commitments to the many brave afghans who are providing critical support to the u. S. Mission in afghanistan. In this regard, let me thank chairman mccain and senator shaheen without whose efforts this provision would not have been included, i believe, in the final conference. The conference report continues robust support for our counterterrorism efforts against isis, al qaeda, and the other violent extremes group including 1. 6 billion for the train and equip programs in iraq and syria. It also fully funds the departments budget request for the United States special operations command. With this bill, we will enhance public transparency and congressional oversight of military operations and the policies that underpin them. Most notably, it requires a public articulation of the legal and policy frameworks governing the use of military force outside of declared war zones, as well as additional reporting on civilian casualty incidents and d. O. D. Efforts to prevent them. The conference report includes a requirement for the secretary of defense to appoint a senior official in a department to lead an effort to harness and integrate all of the departments capabilities to confront and defeat the find of Strategic Influence operations that russia conducted against us and our allies over the last two years. It is vital that the Defense Department interrogated Cyber Capabilities with its integrated carve efforts to provide options in time for next years cycle in the United States and to support our allies in europe against Russian Operations directed against them. Additionally, the conference report includes a requirement for the secretary of defense and the secretary of state to develop and report to congress on a comprehensive whole of Government Strategy to counter the russian maligned influence threat. Such a detailed strategy must include measures to defend against and deter russian activities relating to national security, including hybrid warfare, cyber attacks, and information operations. The 2018 ndaa also authorizes the secretary of defense to establish the indoasia pacific Stability Initiative which will be used to improve our posture in the Asia Pacific Region and provide Additional Resources to increase partner capacity and multilateral exercises in the region. The chief of the Naval Operations force Structure Assessment for last winter identified a goal of 355 ships, including 66 attack submarines. This bill makes a good down payment on that goal by adding five ships to the budget, including one d. D. G. 51 destroyer, two combat ships, one l. X. R. Ship. Perhaps not as dramatic but no less important is the addition of 698 million to the budget request to not allow the navy to begin expanding the submarine Industrial Base. Achieving the c. N. O. s forced structure goal will require adding 18 attack submarines to the previous force structure goal of 48 boats. This will be no small challenge since the retirement of older submarines will exceed deliveries of new submarines during the tenyear period from 1991 to 2000. In that period, we ordered only four attack submarines connecticut, jimmy carter, virginia, and texas. And so we have to do some catching up. Providing the resources for the navy to expand the submarine Industrial Base in an orderly fashion will be a critical element of efficiency and a critical element in building up our fleet. The conference fully supports the budget request for the modernization of the triad and its Nuclear Command and control to ensure we can deter existential threats to our homeland. Our triad of submarines, icbms and bombers have been in service for decades and must be replaced. Secretary ash carter put the situation eloquently when he said that a failure to do so would in his words mean losing confidence in our ability to deter, which we cant afford in todays volatile security environment. In the area of technology and acquisition, i am pleased that this bill shows strong support for the Departments Network of labs and test ranges which help drive efforts to maintain our battlefield technological superiority. In particular, i think this bill makes significant strides in enabling d. O. D. To develop and buy the modern software and i. T. Systems that are integral to every system, platform, and Business System in the department of defense. Additionally, it reauthorizes the defense Experimental Program to stimulate Competitive Research to expand the number of universities capable of working with the pentagon on advanced research. This bill also pushes d. O. D. To make use of advanced big data, to manage business functions and processes. New ways of collecting, analyzing, and applying lessons of data are revolutionizing the commercial world. It is time that d. O. D. Apply these same techniques to lower costs and save money and time. The conference report also includes a provision that would allow the army to transfer all excess firearms no longer in active military service to an afghanistan facility for the purpose of melting and resurfacing. This provision not only allows the army to divest itself of these weapons, but it will also provide a steady stream of work to our organic foundries. Furthermore, the provision will authorize a section of the army to additionally authorize excess firearms that are no longer in military use to be repurposed. This commonsense approach will allow the army to save money on storage costs as well as repurposing these excess weapons for higher priority needs identified by the army. Im also pleased the conference report builds on a markup amendment by senator nelson and directs the department to conduct a threat assessment and deliver a master plan for Climate Change adaptation. The conference report includes house language from my colleague jim langevin that codifies several findings related to Climate Change and expresses the sense of congress that Climate Change is a threat to our national security. This accompln behalf of our Service Members and the department of defense. It has a 2. 4 across the board pay raise to the troops and extends authority to have special pays for recruitment, retention and continued service. It allows the secretaries to extend the time that the n. A. V. Recruits may delay in the Entry Program to ensure that background checks are completed. These are individuals who are here legally but their status is a result of joining the mavni program. If this were terminated, we would lose the service of our military forces and they would have to leave the country. There is a special survivor indemnity allowance. This ensures that widows of our veterans who die of annual costofliving adjustments to this benefit going forward. With regard to military family care, the report authorizes 50 million for impact aid including 40 million in supplemental impact aid and 10 million for military children with severe disabilities and to a military family and to local School Systems all across this country this is absolutely essential. It requires the department to improve pediatric care. This bill will also improve military Family Readiness by addressing the shortage of qualified child care workers, that the military hours be considered by increasing flexibility when the for families when the military requires them to move. Let me conclude by stating the obvious. The reason this bill passed is because of the extraordinary bipartisan leadership of senator john mccain, also because of the extraordinary bipartisan leadership of chairman Mack Thornberry of the house of Representatives Committee and Ranking Member adam smith. I look forward to working with them in if the future. Finally in the future. The conference agreement would not have been possible without the hard work of the entire Committee Staff who worked diligently. I would like to thank chris and eric and all the Committee Staff for their work. On the minority staff, i thank my staff director elizabeth king. Id also like to thank gary wheeling, care lynn shooter, maggie mcin mcnamara, jody benn, kirk mcconnell, mike, john, and john green. Let me state the obvious, that they do the work and sometimes we get the credit, but the work is theirs. I am deeply appreciative of all of these efforts, and, again, let me indicate what is obvious to all of our colleagues, without the inspirational, practical, dynamic leadership of chairman mccain, we would not be at this moment today, the 56th consecutive passage of the National Defense authorization act. With that, mr. President , i would yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from maine. Mr. King mr. President , before addressing the topic that i want to take up, which is near and dear to the presiding officers heart, rural health care, i want to express my thanks to senator reed and senator mccain for their incredible leadership of the Armed Services committee. They show us what it is like to lead. They show us what it is like to take difficult issues to work out difficult problems and i want to express my appreciation to them for that. I see the senator mr. Sasse i would like to associate myself with your comments, sir, in praising the Ranking Member. Senator reed went through a long list of people who got the ndaa across the finish line for more than a half century in a row. As a new by, newbie rookie, serving with the two of you on the committee is an honor. Much doesnt work, but that Committee Works incredibly well. I agree with the senator from maine that the Ranking Member is a huge part of why the Armed Services Committee Works so well. Thank you, sir. Mr. King senator reed, i appreciate your leadership. Mr. Reed if i could thank the senator from maine and the senator from the great state of nebraska. Once again, weve been following senator mccain and he took us all the way. Thank you. Mr. King mr. President , i did a mathematical calculation a couple of years ago and it resulted in an interesting conclusion. The senate is a rural body. 18 members of the United States senate represents a majority of americans. That means that 82 represent smaller states, more Rural Communities, and i want to talk today about a disastrous development that is headed for our Rural Communities that we have the capability to fix, and it is one that we should sooner rather than later. Im talking about federal funding for federally qualified Health Centers which expired on october 1. 70 of the funding for the fqhc expired on october 1, 100 of the National Health corps funding expired on october 1. These are vital programs that serve rrl america Rural America and provide incredibly Important Health care services. They are an overlooked part of our National Health care system, in part, because they are traditionally in rural and out back locations. In maine we have 20 centers we have 20 centers and 70 facilities scattered all over our state and they are providing Services Every day to over 200,000 people. This is a vital part of our Health Care System and yet the funding expired at the end of september and so far nothing has been done. How important is it . 1,700 employees at these facilities, an economic affect of over 300 million a year, 32 million in federal tax revenues. They provide 16 million worth of uncompensated care that goes to maine people who need the help. They are efficient. They save medicaid over 100 million in maine, 257 million is the estimate for what they have saved the overall Health Care System. Again, 1,700 jobs, 1,000 more jobs located in their communities. But this isnt only about economics and Economic Development in jobs, its about health care. One in six people in maine get their health care from fqhcs. 210,000 people. They accept everybody that comes in the door. Ive been to them all over the state. They use a sliding fee scale for people that are low income who dont have insurance and they provide all manner of services. They have it depends on the center. Different centers have different services. They have medical, behavioral health, dental, on optometry, ob gyn, pharmacy, raidology, schoolbased health care services. These are the Health Care Providers for Rural America, and its not only maine, its across the country. 10,000 sites across the United States, 26 million patients at risk. Whats the big deal . The big deal is people are going to lose their health care services. We estimate that in maine were going to lose about 400 clinicians and administrative and support staff will have to be laid off unless we solve this problem. At least 25 of these sites will be forced to close, and we believe there will be almost 30,000 maine residents who will lose their access to their Health Care System. Most of the health care fqhc, federally qualified Health Centers, are getting by on their funding from last year so that the shortfall of the expiration of the funding hasnt hit them yet, but it will begin to hit them on january 1, and thats what we have to respond to. It also is already having an effect just by creating uncertainty. I got an impassioned letter from the leader of one of our centers in maine about the fact that they had been very diligently recruiting a dentist to come to their community. Dentists are very hard to come by in Rural America. They had one that was ready to come and then suddenly they heard about the uncertainty surrounding the funding and it may or may not come through and that dentist is reconsidering their decision to come to this maine community. Thats a tragedy. Thats a tragedy for the people of that town where these services are literally not available. So what does it matter . It matters because were talking about people losing their health care services. This has never been a partisan issue. I dont think theres a heck of a lot of debate around here about the importance of fqhcs and that we need to get them refunded. In fact, the presiding officer and senator stabenow have sponsored a bill, the chime act, that would sponsor this issue. We just need to get it on the floor and get it done. We proved today by the passage of the National Defense authorization act that we can take major issues, bring them to the floor, and move them forward, especially those that arent particularly controversial. But my concern is even though there doesnt seem to be controversy, its just not happening, and now our centers are having to make plans for layoffs, closures, and for closing their doors for the people who need the care. This is something we can do, mr. President. It is something that we can resolve. Its within our power. The legislation is ready to go and we should get this done. If we are leaving today for the thanksgiving holiday, but if we leave at at the end of the yr and havent done this, it will be a tragedy for Rural America, it will be a betrayal of Rural America, it will be a betrayal of our constituents. All of us have been to these centers and have seen the care that they provide, the caring that they provide, the passion that the people bring to their services and their communities and how much they mean to their communities. This is one of the best federal programs ever created and it has always been supported on a bipartisan basis. So i urge my colleagues today to prepare ourselves to get this done as soon as we possibly can when we get back after thanksgiving. We have so much to be thankful for, and i want my people in maine to realize that they can be thankful for those Health Centers that are literally a lifeline in their communities that mean so much to them. And i believe this is something that we can and shouldnt will do. Thank you, mr. President. Thank you for being a leader on this issue, and with that, i will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.