Sherrod Brown

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, but this legislation does nothing to address one of the most critical problems at the VA. To improve the healthcare our returning heroes receive, we need a VA that is fully staffed with the best healthcare professionals we can find, and in many VA facilities throughout the Nation, including in Ohio, that is far from the case. Across the U.S., there are more than 49,000 VA vacancies that this administration has yet to fill. In Ohio, as of April of this year, there were more than 1,700 VA vacancies, and more than 1,500 of those positions were considered critical to public health and safety. That is a massive problem that needs immediate attention by the administration. These vacancies are not just numbers; they have serious consequences for our veterans who need care. When the VA is understaffed, it means longer wait times. It means veterans unable to see the specialists they need. It means overstretched doctors. Overworked doctors means mistakes are more likely and veterans are not getting the quality care they deserve. Imagine a doctor tells an Ohio veteran she needs an MRI. Well, if there is no MRI tech at that facility because they have not hired one, she has to wait longer for the test and diagnosis. She might have to find someone to drive her to another town. The last thing we ought to be doing is making it harder for these men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country to get the care they need. We owe all of our veterans--and the families who support them--our gratitude, our respect, and the best healthcare in the world. That means recruiting talented doctors, nurses, and other staff members has to be a priority for the VA. The agency must improve outreach to prospective employees to show that it is a desirable place to work. It needs to demonstrate that employee's voices, including those of whistleblowers, will be heard and protected when necessary. Future VA employees need to know that all efforts by VA workers to improve the quality of services provided to our veterans will be encouraged, appreciated, and acted on. We absolutely need to ensure that we are holding the workers who care for our veterans and servicemembers to the highest standards--but that is not enough. We can improve the quality of care by the VA by making sure it is properly and fully staffed. That is currently not the case, and I will continue to press the VA to provide answers as to why more than 1,700 positions in Ohio--positions that should be filled by Americans dedicated to serving our veterans--are vacant. When our servicemembers return home, they should be able to focus on spending time with loved ones and rejoining their communities, not worrying about whether they will be able to get the quality healthcare they deserve.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Russia remains a hostile, recalcitrant power that deploys its military, its cyber espionage activities, and its economic tactics to harm the United States of America--to drive a wedge between us and our allies. President Obama began to impose tough sanctions for Russia's cyber attacks, its cyber intrusion, its illegal annexation of Crimea, and its continuing aggression in Ukraine and Syria. Congress joined in that effort by enacting two measures to tighten and broaden those sanctions. Lifting and relaxing those sanctions now would only reward Russia's attempts to undermine our democracy. The administration continues to exercise a policy of strategic ambiguity when it comes to Russia, and the President, putting it mildly, has sent mixed signals. Just last month, Gary Cohn, the President's senior economic adviser, seemed to suggest that the United States could relax sanctions on Russia, and, as press reports confirmed 2 weeks ago, in its early days, the Trump administration considered removing all measures against Russia, according to former administration officials. Think of that. We all hear the discussion--maybe collusion, maybe not--about the Russians' friendship with the administration, whether the Trump family or the Trump businesses or the Trump White House has had some kind of relationships--almost everybody here thinks--with the oilmen, with the oligarchs, with the Kremlin, maybe even Putin himself. And to think that soon after taking office, before the public and the rest of us began to start learning more about Trump's ties with Russia, the administration considered the removal of any kind of measures punishing Russia. This amendment, written by Senators Crapo, Corker, Cardin, me, and our offices and our staffs, sends an unambiguous message that the United States will not accept Russia's continued aggression, will adopt tough measures to both punish its past actions and deter future aggression against our country and our allies. Over the last week, the chairs and ranking members of key Senate committees conducted intense negotiations over a package of tough and meaningful reforms and expansions to our current Russia sanctions regime. We have had good, positive, productive, bipartisan conversations. Last night we reached agreement on this broad package of new measures that substantially expands sanctions on Russia in response to its malicious cyber attacks, efforts to undermine democracy, and continuing aggression in Syria and in eastern Ukraine. This package assures Congress and the people we represent that we have more of a say in this critical national security debate. The amendment would do a number of things. It would codify and strengthen six existing Obama administration Executive orders on Russia and Ukraine and on Russian cyber activities and the sanctions flowing from them. It would provide for strict congressional review of any effort by the President to relax and suspend and terminate or waive Russian sanctions patterned after the Iran Review Act. It would require mandatory imposition of sanctions on malicious cyber activity against the United States, on corrupt Russian actors around the world, on foreign sanctions evaders violating the Russia, Ukraine, and cyber-related sanctions controls, on those involved in serious human rights abuses in territories forcibly controlled by Russia, and on special Russian crude oil projects around the world. It would authorize broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia's economy, including mining, metals, shipping, and railways, as well as new investments in energy pipelines. It would crack down on anyone investing in corrupt privatization efforts in Russia--something we have seen a lot of over 20 years. It would broaden the Treasury Department's authority to impose geographic targeting orders, allowing investigators to obtain ATM and wire transfer records so Treasury can better target illicit activity of Russian oligarchs in the United States. It would require Treasury to provide Congress with a study on the tangled web of senior government officials from Russia and their family members and any current U.S. economic exposures to Russian oligarchs and their investments, and that includes real estate. It would require the administration to assess and report to Congress on extending secondary sanctions to additional Russian oligarchs and state-owned and related enterprises. Since 2014, Congress has worked together--Republicans and Democrats-- to craft increasingly tougher sanctions to hold Russia accountable for a long line of misdeeds. It is a long line indeed, from Russia's violations of international law and of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, to its role in the brutal repression in the war in Syria, to the cyber attacks that we are learning more and more about on Americans. The Ukrainian community in my State--vibrant, successful, progressive--and around the world knows firsthand the dangers of unchecked Russian aggression. We should strengthen--not weaken, not relax, not peel back--Russian sanctions. I urge my colleagues here and in the House to support this amendment, and I will urge the President to sign it into law. We must continue to vigorously enforce and strengthen sanctions against Russia to send a message to its leaders and the world that the United States of America will not tolerate efforts to undermine democracy around the world. Freedom of the Press Mr. President, our democracy is founded on checks and balances--and not just among the branches of government. Our Founders enshrined the freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights for a reason. We can't have a functioning democracy without freedom of the press. That is why last week the Newseum marked its annual Day Without News to remind Americans what our country would be--what we would be like, what we would look like, how we would act--without a free press. Journalists' entire job is to ask tough questions and to challenge powerful interests. While in church, we comfort the afflicted, journalists afflict the comfortable. Reporters put their safety and far too often their lives on the line, whether it is covering floods and hurricanes at home or traversing the globe to bring us the stories of our troops. We depend on reporters in Ohio and around the world to both bring us the stories that impact our day-to-day lives and to tell the stories that simply otherwise might not be told. Supporting a vibrant, independent, proactive press corps has rarely been more important in our country. Yet, too often we see reporters restricted, vilified, attacked, and even physically threatened, all for doing the jobs for which they were hired. Today brought news in this body that some people in this building-- some Members of the Senate--are trying to bar reporters from asking Senators questions. This is outrageous. If Senators can't handle tough questions from reporters about their plans to take healthcare away from millions of Americans, maybe they should change the bill, not restrict the reporters. We remember that Oval Office meeting with Russian officials. We have seen the pictures of the President of the United States with the Russian Foreign Minister, with the Russian Ambassador. We have seen those pictures, but what we need to remember about those pictures-- those photos that ran on front pages around this country and all over the world--those photos weren't taken by American journalists. The President of the United States threw them out of the Oval Office. Those pictures were taken by the Russian state media. The Russian state media was allowed to be in the room with the President of the United States in the Oval Office--hallowed ground in our democracy--while the American press was thrown out. The Russian state media, the old Soviet news agency, TASS, the remnants of the old Soviet propaganda machine, was allowed in, while the American press was barred. When you hide from the press, you hide from the American people. On November 16, a group representing more than a dozen journalist organizations sent a letter to the President-elect. They wrote: ``This isn't about access for the press itself, it's about access for Americans in diverse communities around the country.'' Having a strong, independent White House and congressional press corps isn't just important for those reporters' stories. Think about the signal it sends to mayors and city council members and State legislators. If the Members of Congress--the President, by throwing press out of the Oval Office and bringing in the old Soviet news agency TASS, or the Senate, by throwing reporters out of the Senate--if they don't have to be accountable, why should a mayor, why should a city council person, why should a Governor think they should be accountable? It is not just Washington reporters who are vital to democracy. It is reporters in Ohio telling us the stories, bringing us the faces of the opioid epidemic that devastates families and communities. It is Ohio's editorial pages highlighting how important the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is to our drinking water and our State's economy. It has enabled Senator Portman and me and bipartisan Senators all over the Great Lakes, from New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota--Senators from both parties fighting back and stopping the cuts that would have destroyed so much of the progress in cleaning up the Great Lakes. It is journalists in every corner of my State highlighting the devastation that the proposed budget would have on our schools and our housing and rural communities. It is emphasizing again that 200,000 Ohioans right now are getting opioid treatment because they have insurance from the Affordable Care Act. It is reminding politicians in Ohio of both parties that those people need insurance. That is what a free press does. Parenthetically, I would add, my wife is a journalist. She is a Pulitzer Prize winner. She is a columnist. She is soon to be a novelist. She clearly has outspoken views about this, as I do. She is a member of the press. I am a Member of this body. We both believe in a free press. We both believe in a free democracy. We answer to journalists in this body because they are the eyes and ears of the people we serve. If you can't understand--if none of us are strong enough and articulate enough and gutsy enough to stand before reporters who ask tough questions about your positions, then maybe you ought to rethink your positions. We need diligent, courageous reporters to dig up their stories. We need independent editors to put them on front pages. We need media organizations willing to hold the powerful accountable. The American people have a right to know what is going on in their own government, from the White House down to the city council office. The behavior today of the Rules Committee--the Rules Committee decision to ban reporters--television reporters specifically--from this body is just reprehensible. Thomas Jefferson said, ``Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.'' That is as true today as it was more than 200 years ago at the time of our country's founding. To all of the reporters out there, thank you.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, often, upon returning from a week in my State when the Senate is out of session, I like to talk about some of the things I saw in Ohio. Much of that week I spent at roundtables at Akron Children's Hospital, in Cleveland, Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, and Youngstown--over the last couple of weeks but especially last week--talking about what Medicaid cuts would mean to my State. I throw in with Governor Kasich, the Republican Governor, who has admonished his colleagues--first in the House and now in the Senate--to not repeal the Affordable Care Act, to not throw, literally, 900,000 people who have insurance in Ohio today off insurance, as the House bill would do. At the same time, one thing we also know is that the average 60-year-old in Ohio will see her premiums go up $1,600 a year. We all know the terrible problem opioid addiction has inflicted on hundreds of thousands of people in our country. Unfortunately, my State has had more opioid deaths pretty much every month--certainly, over the last year--than any State in the United States of America. Today 200,000 Ohioans are getting opioid treatment who are able to get that treatment because they have insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Think about the 26-year-old who is on her mother's health insurance plan who gets opioid treatment. Think about the family with the 5-year- old with a preexisting condition who will no longer be able to get insurance and who gets insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, because we fixed the preexisting condition exclusion. If the House version were to pass, or something similar to it, that family would lose its insurance. There was example after example. That is one of the reasons the House of Representatives had so much trouble repealing the Affordable Care Act and one of the reasons that the 12 or 13 Senators are meeting--maybe tonight, for all I know; they never tell us--just down the hall, down there in Senator McConnell's office, to try to figure out how to repeal the Affordable Care Act and find a way to hold 52 Republican Senators together. Think about that. They are meeting in secret. First, it was the House of Representatives, when they repealed the Affordable Care Act, when they voted on what is called the American Health Care Act. I think that is what they called it, the AHCA. When they voted on it, they came up with a bill at 8 o'clock at night. They sprung it on the floor the next day. Almost nobody had a chance to read it. There were no hearings, no discussions--not even reading the bill. They jammed it through by twisting arms--the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, who used to be a Member of the House, the Speaker of the House, all of them--to get this bill through. They hadn't even taken the time to hear from the Congressional Budget Office to tell how much this bill would cost and how many people would lose their insurance. It turns out they estimated that more than 20 million people would lose their insurance. That came after the vote in the House. They are doing the same thing in the Senate. They are doing this meeting behind closed doors. It is a bunch of Republican leaders together. No Democrats are invited. No Democrats are asked their opinions. It is all about doing something to live up to this campaign promise that they are going to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Listen to Governor Kasich. They have no idea what they are going to do with these 20 million people, with 900,000 people in my State-- 900,000 people who have health insurance, most of whom are working. These are people who have jobs. They just aren't lucky enough to have jobs like we have, where their health insurance is paid for. Think about the morality of this--200-plus Republican Members of Congress, all of whom get health insurance paid by taxpayers, by all of you in the Gallery and anybody watching this. We get insurance here paid for by taxpayers, and they are going to just snatch it away from those 200,000 families in my State who are getting opioid addiction treatment because of the Affordable Care Act. What is the morality of that? Then, worse than that is that they do it without reading the bill. They do it, pretty much, in the middle of the night, and they are doing the same thing here. Clearly, the American public is on to this. The public overwhelmingly thinks this is a bad idea. But they move forward because there is a huge tax break involved for the drug industry, a huge tax break for the medical device industry, and huge help for the insurance industry. That is why they do it, because in the end so much of what happens in this body is so that the wealthiest 1 or 2 or 5 percent get their tax cuts, get their tax breaks, and the middle class gets stuck with the bill and the middle class loses the benefits it gets. That is the moral outrage that so many Americans feel about this process. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition, understanding that the vote has been taken but wanting to speak on the record about the nomination of Governor Terry Branstad to be Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. This is a critical diplomatic post today, perhaps more than at any time in our history. It has certainly been increasingly important through every administration as China's expansionist views of the world grow, as China's economy becomes more and more dominant in East Asia, and as China, by not playing fair on economic issues, has caused, with the acquiescence of many, many American companies, far too many jobs to move there. We have seen sort of a new business model for American business that has been around now for a quarter of a century--something that economic history never showed us before--where companies shut down in places like Willowick or Toledo or Dayton or Springfield, OH, and move overseas. They are getting tax breaks to do it. They build plants there and sell those products back into Ohio or into Oklahoma or into the United States in the other 48 States. Unfortunately, China has been part of that, while U.S. companies have acted, in many cases, irresponsibly, and China has played into it. We have serious issues with China, from their currency manipulation to trade cheating that hurts the American steel industry to their dismal, documented record on human rights and religious freedom. On all of these fronts, we need to take a firm position with China. We need an ambassador who will advocate for American workers, for American businesses, and, yes, for American values. I don't believe Governor Branstad will be that ambassador. When it comes to putting American workers first, Governor Branstad's record, frankly, is appalling. How can he advocate for American workers and for expanding the rights of working people around the world when he fought against it at home in his home State of Iowa? As Governor, Terry Branstad waged war on collective bargaining rights. He recently signed legislation that takes away the right of public employees to bargain for fair wages and for healthcare rights that they have guaranteed for 45 years--rights that were enshrined by a law signed by a former Republican Governor. When the State Department measures labor rights in countries around the world, they look at whether a country's laws allow workers to organize and engage in collective bargaining. China's results have always been poor. They have been criticized for deplorable working conditions. How can our country--how can the United States--lead by example when it comes to ensuring that hard work pays off when the man representing us in Beijing, when the man representing us at the negotiating table is taking away workers' rights in our own country? Don't think for a moment that the Chinese will not remind the American Ambassador of what he has done with workers' rights in his home State, as we perhaps argue--it is unclear if we will now, but perhaps we will argue--for expanding workers' rights in China. I appreciate the questions for the record that Senator Cardin submitted to Governor Branstad. Unfortunately, his answers were vague and did nothing to address the serious concerns that many of us have. The President made a lot of campaign promises when it comes to standing up to China. I have been clear since the days after the election, when I called the President-elect's transition team, and in conversations since then with President Trump and with the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Lighthizer, that I want to work with them on that--with the President and with the U.S. Trade Representative. After his meeting with Chinese President Xi, I sent a letter to President Trump outlining steps he should take for fighting for American workers, particularly in the steel industry, in his 100-day plan on trade. But the person negotiating that 100-day plan needs to have America's workers first in their mind. Governor Branstad has made it clear that multinational corporations, not ordinary American workers--not people in Youngstown, Warren, Steubenville, and Columbus-- will have his ear. We can see corporate fingerprints on these trade agreements. Rarely do we see workers at the table advocating for workers' rights. We only see trade policy that reflects the interests of large corporations. Those corporations then use these trade policies to outsource jobs around the world. It is not just workers' rights where China falls woefully short and where we need to take a tough stand. China's record on human rights and religious freedom is unacceptable. Our Ambassador needs to make that clear. When U.S. officials represent us in the world, they must not only be advocates for our business interests--they should be that, to be sure--but they must also be critical advocates on behalf of workers and on behalf of the Nation's values--values like freedom of speech, freedom to organize, and the freedom to challenge powerful special interests. These are values that go to the core of who we are as the American people. But, again, Governor Branstad has not led by example. He has waged war on women's access to healthcare. Just this week, Planned Parenthood announced that they will be forced to shut down four Iowa health clinics because of the law signed by Governor Branstad that blocked its funding. These clinics served 15,000 patients over the past 3 years--not providing abortions. The great majority of these 15,000 patients got primary care, preventive care, contraceptive coverage--all the things that women in every community in this country demand. Many live in rural areas. Many have nowhere else to turn for care. Now, where do all of these women go for cancer screenings, diabetes screenings, and other preventive care? Yet Governor Branstad has signed legislation taking it away, forcing the shutdown of these clinics. Access to healthcare is a basic right in this country, and it should be in all 50 States. We need to take care of American patients and American workers and set an example for the world. Our diplomats must be that example. But, instead, we now have a man at the negotiating table who again and again and again has proven that he wants to turn back the clock on healthcare and on workers' rights. We need an ambassador with a record of championing American values. Only then can we be confident that he will stand up to China and put Ohio workers and American workers first. Frankly, I question Governor Branstad's ability to be that ambassador--to represent the people of this great country in the People's Republic of China.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, our law enforcement officers and the families who support them give so much in service to our communities. As we were tragically reminded again last week--and this happens in far too many places, in far too many States--some make the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe. Last Friday in Kirkersville, OH, Police Chief Steve DiSario responded to a report of a man with a gun at a nursing home. Chief DiSario did what so many first responders do when most of us in the public run away from danger: He ran toward it. He arrived at the Pine Kirk Care Center to protect his community and was killed in the line of duty by a gunman who also took the lives of two nursing home employees. Chief DiSario was 36. He had six children and a seventh on the way. Our thoughts and our prayers are with Chief DiSario's family and the families of all of our first responders, who worry each day that their loved ones may not return home. Think about that. For soldiers, marines, sailors, police officers, and firefighters, so often when they kiss their spouse goodbye and go to work, there is always the anxiety at home. It is not just the sacrifice that our soldiers and our military personnel and our police officers make; it is the sacrifice their families make too. Sadly, Police Chief DiSario wasn't the only Ohio officer to lay down his life this year. In January, Officer David J. Fahey of the Cleveland Police Department was working the scene of an accident on I-90 and was struck and killed in a despicable act of hit-and-run. This week in Washington, we honor the five Ohio officers killed in the line of duty last year. Aaron Christian of the Chesapeake Police Department was killed in a car accident while on patrol. While conducting traffic, Trooper Kenneth Velez of Elyria was killed by a driver under the influence of drugs. Officer Sean Johnson was the first officer to be killed in the line of duty in the town of Hilliard when he succumbed to injuries from a motorcycle accident during a training exercise. Officer Steven Smith was shot and killed during a SWAT standoff in Columbus. Officer Thomas Cottrell, Jr., of Danville was killed in a heinous and cowardly ambush. Each of these losses is a tragedy for a family, for a community, and for fellow police officers. As we honor the work and sacrifices made by law enforcement throughout Police Week, we need to offer more than kind words; we need action to support law enforcement as they work to keep our communities safe. Yesterday, I was talking to Police Chief Richard Biehl of Dayton and Youngstown Police Chief Robert Lees about what more we should do to support officers and their families. This week, we have unanimously passed several pieces of bipartisan legislation that will provide new support to the officers who protect us and the families who sacrifice alongside them. The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act, which Senator Grassley introduced, will put pressure on the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the DOJ to speed up claims processing so families of disabled officers or fallen officers get their benefits more quickly. We passed the Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act, introduced by Indiana Senators Donnelly and Young, to help law enforcement agencies establish or enhance mental health services, like peer monitoring pilot programs and crisis hotlines, for their officers. I learned about this bill from my friend Jay McDonald from Marion, OH, whose advocacy for police officers and their families makes a huge difference for Ohio's law enforcement communities. He has been the president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police for some time. We approved Senator Cornyn's American Law Enforcement Heroes Act of 2017, which would allow local police departments to use Federal grant money to hire veterans as law enforcement officers. It is a bipartisan, commonsense idea that would open new doors for those who served our communities and our Nation in the military and who have accrued and developed skills that will serve well their communities in police work. We have a solemn obligation to the children of fallen officers whose lives are forever changed because of the heroism of their mother or father. The bipartisan Children of Fallen Heroes Scholarship Act--which I have introduced with Senators Casey and Donnelly, two Democrats, as well as two Republican Senators, Toomey and Collins--would increase access to Pell grants for the surviving children of law enforcement who lay down their lives for their communities. It would ensure that all children of fallen officers are eligible for the maximum Federal Pell grant. Of course, we can't repay the debt we owe these families, but we can ease the burden on their children as they prepare for their future. We need to do everything we can to ensure that officers and family members get the benefits and help they deserve. We also need to do more to give officers the tools they need to protect themselves. This week, I joined a group of Senators calling for full funding of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership. I have written to the Department of Justice thanking them for their work so far and urging them to speed up distributing funding we passed as part of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. The bipartisan bill created the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program to provide funding to police departments to train first responders as they deal with opioid-related incidents. More and more officers are being exposed to fentanyl out in the field. Just this week in Eastern Ohio, an officer in East Liverpool was the victim of an accidental fentanyl overdose. He survived, but the situation was perilous. We need to make sure officers have the equipment they need to handle this deadly opioid look-alike--only more toxic--safely. Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line each day to protect us. This Police Week, we owe them more than gratitude; we must show support to the selfless men and women who serve our communities and country every single day, and we must support their actions, their lives, and their families. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, today, with deep concerns, I wish to speak about the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer--LGBTQ--individuals in Chechnya, in southern Russia. Starting in early April of this year, news reports from the region told the horrific story of gay men being detained, tortured, and in some cases killed on the basis of their sexual orientation. At lease 100 gay men--and according to some press reports, as many as several hundred--were held and tortured in secret detention facilities in Chechyna. At least three men were killed: one after being tortured by authorities and two following calls by local officials encouraging so- called honor killings. As one Russian gay rights activist noted, ``there is little doubt that we are dealing with crimes against humanity.'' Stories of men being tortured and interrogated to reveal fellow LGBTQ individuals are also deeply disturbing. Ramzan Kadyrov, the Head of the Chechen Republic, has made a number of troubling comments that LGBTQ individuals ``don't exist'' in Chechnya, an abhorrent denial of the human rights of LGBTQ individuals in Chechnya. According to accounts by the British Foreign Ministry, Kadyrov is planning to ``eliminate'' gay men in Chechnya before the beginning of the religious month of Ramadan at the end of May. State- sanctioned violence that targets individuals based on their sexual orientation demands international condemnation, and the United States must be a strong voice for the human rights of all individuals. Though Russian President Vladimir V. Putin has stated he will support an inquiry into these reports, Russia's track record shows a lack of serious commitment to human rights, particularly on LGBTQ issues. I commend the work of nongovernmental organizations in Russia and abroad who have worked to evacuate LGBTQ individuals from Chechnya, and I am heartened by the advocacy of many Ohioans on this important issue. The U.S. must stand as a fierce advocate for the inalienable rights of all individuals. I urge the administration to take a strong stance in defense of human rights and publically condemn these acts of barbarous inhumanity. We must never forget lessons of the past concerning what happens when we allow unchecked hatred and bigotry to manifest, and we must always preserve the U.S. as a beacon of hope for individuals around the world.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I particularly appreciate the comments of my colleague from Maryland about the Affordable Care Act. The fact is, they are taking insurance from 200,000 Ohioans right now who are getting opioid treatment because of the Affordable Care Act, and the vote in the House of Representatives would turn those 200,000 families upside down. They should be ashamed of themselves. Then to go to the White House and celebrate--that is just the ultimate despicable, political act. I just can't imagine that in the 21st century people would actually do that. The FDA has incredible influence over Americans' lives, and the Commissioner of the Federal Food and Drug Administration will lead the agency dedicated to ensuring that our medicine and food supplies are safe. It is the job of the FDA Commissioner, and has been for decades, to be an independent check on big pharmaceutical companies, to crack down on Big Tobacco, and to oversee the safety and efficacy of new prescription drugs, including, most essentially in the last few years, opioid painkillers. Unfortunately, Dr. Scott Gottlieb's record gives me serious concern, as Senator Markey has pointed out so well, that this Commissioner will fall short on all of these measures. We know the havoc that opioid painkillers have wreaked on communities across the country. My State of Ohio has had more overdose deaths from heroin, OxyContin, oxycodone, Percocet, opioids, morphine-based opioids; we have had more deaths than any other State in the United States of America. In my State and across this country, people die because of the opioid epidemic; 91 Americans, including 12 Ohioans, will die today--91 Americans, 12 Ohioans will die today--from opioid overdoses. The Commissioner will have a lot of tools to fight this epidemic that is ravaging our families and our communities. We need all hands on deck to fight this crisis. We need the FDA. Unfortunately, Dr. Gottlieb's record indicates he would not take the epidemic and the FDA's authority to rein in prescription painkillers and other drugs seriously, which is why I cannot support his nomination. I don't want to point fingers, but there are a whole host of reasons for this epidemic. One of them clearly is the proliferation of prescriptions and the manufacture of so many of these opioids. They are getting to market, and doctors are prescribing them, and pharmacists are filling them. I don't point fingers at individual people and even individual industries; we are all at fault and not doing this right. But Dr. Gottlieb has had a cozy relationship with big drug companies for decades as an investor, as an adviser, and as a member of the board for a number of these companies. He supported allowing those same companies to rush their drugs, including potentially addictive opioid painkillers, onto the market before we were sure they were safe--more on that in a moment. He has called into question the Drug Enforcement Administration's authority to police opioids, despite the fact that these drugs are often sold on the black market. He has defended industry's efforts to market new drugs and devices with minimal safety oversight. He has refused to answer questions about his previous work for pharmaceutical companies that make the opioid fentanyl. We know he participated in a meeting on their behalf at the time that the company was under FDA investigation for pushing off-label uses of fentanyl. Anyone who thinks we need more fentanyl on the market in many of Ohio's 88 counties should visit the coroner's office. Imagine this: In some counties, the coroner's office has had to bring in refrigerated semitrailers to keep up with the growing body count from the lives lost to overdoses. Think of that; just think of that picture bringing in refrigerated semitrailers to keep up with the growing body count from opioid deaths. Let Mr. Gottlieb explain himself to the parents, the children, and the friends who have lost loved ones to this deadly drug. A friend of my wife's, a woman she knew growing up, lost her son to fentanyl. He had a 2-year-old child. He was starting to come clean. My understanding is that he relapsed, and he passed away just a few days ago. We need a leader at the FDA who will step up the agency's efforts to fight this addiction epidemic, which is tearing families upside down. It rips up communities. We need a Commissioner who will fight the addiction epidemic, not one who will roll over for his Big Pharma friends. We need a strong public health advocate to address probably the worst public health crisis of my lifetime, a public health advocate who will continue to stand up to Big Tobacco with strong rules for all tobacco products, including newer products like e-cigarettes, which are particularly appealing to kids. The opioid crisis is certainly a bigger health crisis that we face right now, and tobacco is an ongoing public health crisis. We have made huge victories; we have made huge strides and have had huge victories in this country. Young people smoke in significantly lower numbers than they used to. Tobacco companies don't much like that, so they have introduced e-cigarettes. Tobacco companies are buying more and more of the manufacturing capabilities of these e-cigarettes. The FDA hasn't stepped up the way it should. I implore Dr. Gottlieb to do that, but there is no evidence so far that he cares enough to. Once again, his extensive business dealings call into doubt whether he can seriously serve as the people's cop on the beat when it comes to policing Big Tobacco. Dr. Gottlieb himself invested in an e-cigarette company--the new FDA Commissioner. He probably will be confirmed today. I accept that because for every Trump nominee, no matter their ethics, no matter their background, no matter their inability to serve well, no matter their lack of qualifications for a whole host of their responsibilities, almost every Republican--it is sort of like when one bird flies off a telephone wire, they all do, and they have voted for almost every one of these nominees. But think of this: Dr. Gottlieb's job is public health, his job is to police Big Tobacco. His job is to stand between these multimillion- dollar marketing executives and the 15-year-old who is attracted to these e-cigarettes with the flavors and the colors and the marketing, and he has invested in the past in e-cigarette companies. What does that tell you? Can we really trust him to impose tough rules on these potentially dangerous products? Can we trust him to protect our children? Whoever is in charge of the FDA--whoever is in charge--must put the people's safety over drug company profits, whether it is addictive painkillers or e-cigarettes. I don't think Dr. Gottlieb is the right person for this. I hope I am wrong. I plan to vote no. I hope he proves me wrong. If he does, I will come back to the floor and applaud him. But from his background, from his statements, from his qualifications, from his investments, from his business background, I don't think he fits the bill. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. President, I withdraw the suggestion.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jay Clayton to serve as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Americans deserve a Chair who will run the SEC on their behalf, not for the benefit of Wall Street banks and big corporations. Far too many folks in this town have collective amnesia about the costs of the last financial crisis: $19 trillion lost in household wealth, 8 million jobs lost, more than 15 million foreclosures, hundreds and hundreds of them in the Presiding Officer's and my State. Those numbers don't seem to get better as time goes by. All over the country, in Ohio and elsewhere, families want strong rules that prevent banks from doing as they please, enriching themselves at the expense of others and then handing the bill to American taxpayers. The most basic duty of the Chair of the SEC is leading his fellow Commissioners through tough issues and policing Wall Street. Mr. Clayton will fall woefully short. His law firm, his former clients will create a steady stream of conflicts of interest, forcing him to recuse himself in cases involving former clients for 2 of the 4 years he would serve as Chair. He will be sitting on the sidelines on potential enforcement actions because of his representation in the work he did prior to being at the SEC. That is not draining the swamp. Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, UBS--he will have to recuse himself on all of those cases. That does not sound like someone who will be in there fighting for the American people or working to protect America's financial markets. It is not a theoretical concern. Former Chair White faced conflicts and recusals in more than four dozen enforcement investigations in her first 2 years. In those cases, big banks, like Bank of America, used those recusals to their advantage when the Commission was deadlocked. That undermines the Commission's authority. That is why I opposed Ms. White for her position--one of the same reasons I am opposing Mr. Clayton. Instead of confirming the same kind of nominees we have had in the past, with dozens of conflicts of interest and recusals, we should be considering someone who actually will work to protect investors. At his hearing, Mr. Clayton failed to provide clear answers to questions about how he would approach enforcement matters. He gave empty answers about punishing bad actors and individual accountability. Accounting fraud, selling toxic derivatives, and corporate foreign corruption usually involve senior management and happen because the tone from the top allows it to happen. Mr. Clayton does not see it that way. He spent his career representing--excuse me--protecting Wall Street banks. That history guides his view on how SEC enforcement should work. According to Mr. Clayton, the SEC should proceed with caution, even before opening an investigation. That is not his job. His job is to open investigations when it looks like there is wrongdoing. He says it would have serious adverse impacts on respondents. He has it totally backward. Not investigating companies that may be committing fraud or other abuses because it might create problems for them--how about the American public? How about the neighborhood I live in in Cleveland, OH, 44105? That ZIP Code had more foreclosures than any ZIP Code in the United States in 2007. That is partly because of a lack of enforcement at the SEC. I see it up close. I know what that means to our communities. I know what it means to our country. Acting Chair Piwowar began undermining the SEC's enforcement division in his first month on the job. He reversed steps taken by the two previous Chairs that empowered the SEC's enforcement staff to open and pursue investigations. I am concerned about Dodd-Frank rules. If he is confirmed, he will have to answer for the unilateral rollback of final Wall Street reform rules that this acting SEC Chair, Mr. Piwowar, has already undertaken. Wall Street reform rules requiring disclosure of CEO-to-worker pay ratios-- all the kinds of things that this Congress overwhelmingly decided Congress should do and the SEC should do. For years, Congress has funded the SEC below the levels requested, despite more responsibilities and increasing marketplace complexity and sophistication. I am concerned about Mr. Clayton's likely behavior in that regard also. Last, public service is important. It is valuable. It should not be viewed as a chance to push the favorite policies of big corporations. That is what we have seen too often in this town. This nominee, Mr. Clayton, who comes from Wall Street, who is part of Wall Street, we know from past experience will protect Wall Street at the SEC--the wrong thing to do. From his background, his answers to the questions in the committee's hearing and questions for the record, I am not convinced that Mr. Clayton comes close to being the best person for the job. I will oppose his nomination.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes and delay the vote until 5:25 p.m., until the completion of my remarks.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Presiding Officer's forbearance and also the cooperation always of the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Crapo. We had a good hearing today on reinsurance and on European Union issues on insurance regulation. I appreciated the work we were able to do there and the work we are doing on Russian sanctions, which is increasingly important, as we see, as the clear links between Russia and the American elections are becoming clearer. The links are becoming clearer and clearer to Senators in both parties. I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jay Clayton to the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have seen this movie before, where we nominate someone to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission who starts off almost handcuffed with their hands behind their back because he has--as did his predecessor--far too many conflicts of interest, far too many demands for recusal, far too many cases he has worked on. We hear of a President who talks about draining the swamp, who wants regulators and people in Washington who don't have conflicts of interest and who can look at this in a fairminded, clear-eyed way. Instead, we see a White House that is full of Goldman Sachs former officials. In fact, the White House on some days looks like a retreat of Goldman Sachs executives. That is a long way from clearing the swamp. What we are seeing in the case of Mr. Clayton--and we had a good meeting with him, and I thought his testimony was pretty good--is that he is smart, he is educated, he knows these issues well, but he is going to have to recuse himself because of conflicts with UBS, Deutsche Bank, and Goldman Sachs. He has worked on so many of these cases as a Wall Street lawyer for so many years that at this Securities and Exchange Commission--where the President still hasn't appointed a Democrat, which really he is supposed to do but hasn't seemed to have gotten around to it--that we are going to see all kinds of opportunities for mischief, we are going to see all kinds of delays and tie votes, and we will see an inability for the SEC to operate when they should. I oppose the confirmation of Jay Clayton. I think he is capable, but he will not serve this country well. He will not keep corporations and, especially, banks honest on all kinds of corporate governance issues. He will not be as supportive of the investor public because of these recusals and conflicts that he faces. I think it is a bad idea, again. I opposed the previous Democratic nominee for this job because she had far too many recusals and conflicts that she had to do. I think this is a mistake to do this again. I ask my colleagues to vote no, to oppose the confirmation of Jay Clayton to the Securities and Exchange Commission. I yield back my time.

Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize my friend and colleague, Congressman Steve Stivers, and congratulate him on his promotion to brigadier general in the Ohio National Guard. Steve has served our State and our Nation in uniform for more than three decades. When his guard unit was called up in 2005, he served our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. His leadership earned him the Bronze Star, and his service and sacrifice earned him the honor of a grateful nation. But Steve hasn't been content to only serve in uniform--he is working to support his fellow soldiers in Congress. He and I have worked together to make sure that servicemembers who suffer traumatic brain injuries have their medical records given from the DOD to the VA. We are working to designate the new Ohio veterans Museum in Columbus as the National Veterans Museum. As persuasive as Steve is, he is nothing compared to his mother. A few years ago, Steve's mother, Carol, brought to my attention the need to preserve the Parker House--a way station on the Underground Railroad located in Ripley, OH. She wanted to incorporate it into the National Park System. I worked with Steve, who of course couldn't say no to his mother, and others in the Ohio delegation, including Joyce Beatty, to preserve this house where a freed slave worked and helped others find their way to freedom. This January, the National Park Service award $50,000 to the Ohio History Connection to help preserve the sites throughout Ohio that played critical roles in the civil rights movement, including the Parker House. Steve is not the only member of our delegation to carry on the proud tradition of Ohioans serving our Nation in uniform. I would also like to congratulate my friend Brad Wenstrup on his promotion to colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. Brad also served a tour in Iraq as a combat surgeon. He was awarded a Bronze Star and a Combat Action Badge and earned the honor and gratitude of all Ohioans. It is not just overseas where Brad serves our troops. He fulfills his Reserve duties, treating our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed, and fights to ensure our servicemembers and veterans have the support they deserve on the House Armed Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee. Whether it is supporting our State's civil rights heritage or supporting our troops, Brad and Steve have always been dedicated public servants for Ohio. They are both so deserving of these promotions. We thank them and their entire families--Steve's wife, Karen, and children Sarah and Sam, and Brad's wife, Monica, and son Brad, Jr.--for their sacrifice for our country.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes--1 for Senator Donnelly, 1 for Senator Casey, and 1 for me. I thank Senator Boozman for the time to talk for 3 minutes on the mine workers healthcare law.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I always appreciate the remarks--the well- thought-through remarks of my colleague, and the history lesson putting it into context is always so important and something we should do more of in this body. I thank Senator Bennet for his words. The Supreme Court, as we know, has tremendous influence over the lives of our country, the lives of Ohioans, my State, and the lives of so many. Nominees must defend the rights of all Americans to make their own healthcare decisions, to collectively bargain for safe workplaces and fair pay, and to be protected from discrimination and Wall Street greed. Unfortunately, Judge Gorsuch is simply not that nominee. His record is clear. He has ruled that corporations are people. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that it is a relatively recent concept in American jurisprudence to equate corporations with people. When you do that, you simply give corporations more rights than individuals have. When you come from that position, it means that judges repeatedly rule to choose corporations over workers; they choose polluters over communities; they choose Wall Street over consumer protections; they choose special interest money over our citizens. We have seen too much of that in this country. We have seen a decline of the middle class, in part because the Federal judiciary is choosing corporations over workers. If chosen, polluters over communities; if chosen, Wall Street over consumer protections; if chosen, special interest money over citizens--that is the Court we have seen in far too many 5-to-4 decisions, as Senator Whitehouse has pointed out so effectively on this floor. The misguided idea that corporations are people is far outside the mainstream of what most Ohioans believe. It may work for graduates of Harvard and Yale Law School. Interestingly, if Judge Gorsuch is approved, all nine of the Supreme Court Justices will have attended Harvard or Yale Law School. I don't know what is wrong with Ohio State or the University of Toledo or Akron University or University of Cincinnati or Case Western or Michigan or Chicago or anywhere else. That is whom Presidents have chosen; those are the people we seem to confirm. But this view that corporations are people simply doesn't wash with the American people. It is how we got rules that allow Wall Street banks and hedge funds to wreak havoc on ordinary working people and ordinary working families, with no consequences. Judge Gorsuch himself has argued against the rights of working Americans to band together to hold Wall Street and corporations accountable. He ruled against children with autism. He ruled against students with disabilities. We have a President in the White House who makes fun of disabled people. Now, we are going to put a Justice on the Court who rules against students with disabilities. We have a Secretary of Education who barely knew what IDEA was--the provision of the law that guarantees disabled students an education. Why we are moving in this direction, I think, amazes most people in this country, whether you have a disabled person in your family or not. His views of protecting students with disabilities are so outside the mainstream that last month, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected his reasoning. A boy with autism, Luke, wasn't making progress in school, and it was recommended that he be placed in a residential program. An impartial hearing officer and two different judges agreed. But Judge Gorsuch disagreed. He said that, as long as a student with a learning disability is making ``merely . . . more than de minimus'' progress in his or her education, the school district didn't have to do anything else. Think of that. That student, he counts a little bit, but he really doesn't count that much. He doesn't count as a full human being with full rights and full citizenship in this country. If your disabled child is getting more than nothing, I guess that is good enough, according to Judge Gorsuch. Luckily, this Supreme Court, as conservative as it usually is, overturned Judge Gorsuch's precedent that denied a real education to students like Luke. Again, they overturned him unanimously. Chief Justice Roberts noted that a student offered an educational program providing merely more than de minimus progress from year to year--this is Justice Roberts, a very conservative Chief Justice--can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. In other words, what Judge Gorsuch thinks and thought about this case was that doing only a little bit for this student was meeting the obligation of this civilized society that we are proud of. Fortunately, the eight members of the Supreme Court--four Republican conservative nominees, four more moderate to liberal nominees from the Democrats-- unanimously came together and disagreed with Judge Gorsuch. But think about what can happen the next time. If an Ohio family has a child with a learning disability and struggles with that school system, they won't find sympathy from Justice Gorsuch. In fact, forget sympathy. They can't count on him to protect their child under the law. Take a look at the case of Alphonse Maddin, the truckdriver from Michigan. He was hauling meat through Illinois when he stopped to refuel. His brakes froze. He was stranded. He called for help, for a company repair unit. He waited for hours for help. He nearly froze to death. He couldn't feel his legs. It was 14-degrees below zero in the truck. He needed to get to shelter or risk losing his limbs or worse. But his company fired him. They claimed he abandoned his cargo. Mr. Maddin later returned to get the cargo and completed his job. But it just did not matter to the company. To the company, the cargo was more important than Mr. Maddin's life. To Judge Gorsuch, that company's interests were more important than Mr. Maddin, more important than his health, more important than his life. Imagine that. That is what we mean when we say he puts corporations ahead of workers. At the beginning, you remember I said there is this relatively new idea in American jurisprudence that corporations are individuals and people are corporations. When you say that, it means that you side with corporations over workers. You side with polluters over communities. You side with Wall Street over consumer protections. You side with big, dark money from billionaires in Citizens United over citizens. Take a look at the case of a mother who had leukemia and had to take time off for treatment. After the treatment was over, her doctors advised her not to return to work quite yet. There was a flu epidemic. Her immune system was compromised from chemotherapy. But her employer told her she needed to show up within a week or they would fire her despite 15 years of dedicated service. Guess who Judge Gorsuch sided with? It was not the worker suffering from cancer, who had dedicated a decade and a half of her life to her employer and who wanted to return to work, but she simply was advised against it by her doctor. This woman's daughter, Katherine, said that when Judge Gorsuch issued his ruling, ``he didn't even think about the impact that this had on our family.'' She said his ruling ``set the precedent that a company's needs come before workers like her mother.'' At a time when Americans work longer and harder than ever before, when we devalue work in this country, when workers' wages--for huge percentages of workers in this country--are stagnant, when people work longer and harder with less and less to show for it, the last thing we need to do is elevate someone who sees workers as nothing more than a cost to be minimized. That is what is at stake here. We are talking about putting someone on the Court who wants to give corporations special rights, but he has a record of ignoring the rights of ordinary citizens, choosing corporations over people, saying that corporations are, in fact, people. That means that he is almost always, in his cases, choosing corporations over workers, choosing polluters over communities. Judge Gorsuch's record makes clear that he would turn back the clock on a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions, or LBGT rights, or clean air and clean water, or safe food and medicine. That is what is at stake here. If the Senate does not reject his nomination, the decisions Judge Gorsuch hands down will haunt our Nation for generations. My opposition to this nominee has nothing to do with what has occurred in the Senate over the past 8 years, as despicable as it has been. It has everything to do with what could happen over the next 100. This is about our children and our grandchildren. Seven of the eight current justices have met the 60-vote benchmark. In other words, seven of the eight justices on the Court right now were fairminded enough and centrist enough and agreeable enough that far more than 60 Senators-- people in both parties--came together to confirm those nominees. With so much at stake, it is up to Judge Gorsuch to earn the votes of 60 Members of this body. I do not believe someone who fundamentally wants to give and has given corporations more rights than individual citizens has earned that broad support. The solution is not to change the rules; it is to change the nominee. That is what we mean by advice and consent. The American people need a Supreme Court Justice who looks out for the interests of all Americans, not just the 1 percent, not just the most powerful, not just the most privileged. That is why I oppose Judge Gorsuch's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today on the seventh anniversary of the tragedy of the Big Branch Mine, where 29 mine workers were killed. There is no better way to ask this Senate to do the right thing on extending healthcare for mine workers permanently. We have seen far too many times where mine workers in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and all over this country, the retired mine workers or their widows get a letter in the mail saying their healthcare is about to be canceled. We kick the can down the road for 3 or 4 months at a time. That is not acceptable. It is up to this Senate this month to make sure that we fix this once and for all so that mine workers who did so much for their communities and their families and their country can be assured that they will have healthcare for the rest of their lives as President Truman promised.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, nearly 70 years ago today, the United States and 11 other nations--in the face of Soviet aggression--joined together in mutual defense to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. Since its inception, NATO has expanded to 28 member nations. The breadth of its mission is impressive--from ensuring regional stability and combating terrorism to training partner countries and supporting humanitarian aid. While NATO was founded to ensure Western peace and stability in the face of the Cold War, its work has come to encompass all corners and peoples of the globe. NATO is more important than ever today in deterring regional conflict The U.S. must stand by its ironclad commitment to NATO's security and solidarity as Russian President Vladimir Putin flouts international law and exerts Russian aggression around the world, from meddling in our own election to the illegal annexation of Crimea. Our NATO allies need our support. I applaud Operation Atlantic Resolve, which coordinates the deployment of additional NATO troops to our allies in Eastern Europe. I also commend other U.S. efforts that support our NATO allies, like the European Reassurance Initiative. These play an essential role in bolstering our force readiness in the region to deter Russian aggression and demonstrate our commitment to the common cause and democratic principles that NATO embodies. American support for NATO is and must remain steadfast. The nearly unanimous vote in the Senate ratifying Montenegro's accession to be a member state is evidence of this well-established, deeply founded support. Ukraine's stated intention to achieve the criteria for joining NATO, too, is testament to the organization's renewed importance in our deterrence policy in the region. While the sentiment of NATO's article 5--``an attack on one is an attack on all''--helped guide the U.S. stably through the Cold War, NATO has remained a relevant source of stength for the international community, beyond regional deterrence. Since 1999, when NATO identified the risk international terrorism posed for member nations, the organization has remained a steadfast resource in the fight against terrorism. In fact, the only instance in which article 5 was invoked was in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Since then, NATO has helped ensure freedom of navigation in waters plagued by piracy, helped train Iraqi security forces counter improvised explosive devices, commanded counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan for more than a decade, provided support for Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, and innumerable other contributions. As threats to member nations evolved in the 21st century, NATO demonstrated its ability to adapt. NATO showed the power of strength through solidarity, not only for its member nations, but also for its dozens of partner nations around the globe. The power of NATO's partnerships lends strength to the global community as a whole, better equipping regions of the world to respond when disaster strikes. Programs like NATO's Centres of Excellence help partner countries fight corruption, piracy, and terrorism and collaborate to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction and other arms. By serving as a resource for nonmember countries, NATO not only strengthens the resolve of the international community to strife and instability, but also serves as a beacon for democratic values like gender equality and rule of law. Finally, NATO has long served as a force for human rights. It was central to ending the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995, and it helped bring an end to violence in Kosovo in 1999. NATO has served as a vital resource assisting with the waves of refugees escaping from violence and atrocity in Syria, and the organization has been at the frontlines to combat international human trafficking. NATO plays a critical role in combatting increased Russian aggression, but its mission is much broader than that. The world is a safer place thanks to NATO, from stemming regional conflicts, to assisting partners around the world. It serves as an indispensable, indisputable resource for the international community. As we celebrate the anniversary of this pivotal organization today, we must remain committed to its successful future.

Mr. BROWN

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

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the title X CRA. It is just a continued abuse of power, something we have never seen in this body--one after another, after another, along party-line votes--to overturn rules and overturn decisions that this government has made. It is disgraceful that this body is debating yet another effort that will threaten a woman's right to healthcare. Title X ensures that women across the country have access to affordable healthcare, including family planning at clinics that are convenient and affordable. These are a vital resource for preventive care and for primary care. Overturning this rule will allow States to discriminate against providers, allow States to pick and choose and potentially put thousands of healthcare centers out of business. We know that because we have seen this kind of activity in some State legislatures. These clinics are often the only places women and men have to turn to for basic health services. Why do this in the same week that the House, fortunately, failed to throw 20 million people off of health insurance and throw off 200,000 Ohioans who are getting opioid addiction treatment and who have insurance because of the Affordable Care Act? The House did not do that, but now the Senate wants to do this? Again, it compromises people's healthcare, as it takes away, in some cases, their insurance and, in other cases, their clinics and health services they cannot get elsewhere. Some 6 in 10 women who turn to title X for visits to family planning health centers say it is their regular source of healthcare. Many of them have nowhere else to turn. They either cannot afford healthcare elsewhere or they live too far away from another health center for there to be meaningful access to basic healthcare. Let's be clear. This is not about defunding abortion, clearly. The Federal Government does not provide funding for abortions. I will say that again. The Federal Government does not provide funding for abortions, period. I support a woman's right to make a personal, private healthcare decision for herself and with her doctor. No matter your personal feelings about abortion, whether you call yourself pro- choice or pro-life or something else, surely, we can agree that cancer screenings and programs that have helped bring down Ohio's teen pregnancy and STD rates are a good thing. Cutting these services will have a real and serious impact on women and families across Ohio. If these actions by men--and it is, overwhelmingly, by men in Washington--whose healthcare is paid for by taxpayers continue to chip away at women's healthcare access, we will see more undiagnosed cancers, more untreated illnesses, and more unintended pregnancies. I emphasize again that these are mostly men in this body, or men down the hall in the other body, who are voting--men with insurance that is paid for by taxpayers. Their insurance is subsidized by tax dollars. Last week, down the hall, they voted to take away healthcare--in this case, mostly for women but also for men--for people who are getting opioid treatment. In case after case, privileged Members of this body, who get insurance paid for by taxpayers, take healthcare services away from, literally, millions of Americans. It is shameful. It is morally questionable. It is something we, simply, should not do. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Melissa Rubenstein, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, one thing has become clear in this country: Hard work just doesn't pay off like it used to. Over the last 40 years, GDP has gone up, corporate profits have gone up, and executive salaries have gone up all because of the productivity of American workers, but companies are not investing in their workers the way they did. Workers don't feel like institutions--whether it is government or big companies--work for them. Again, GDP goes up, corporate profits go up, executive salaries go up, worker productivity goes up, but workers' wages do not. Actions like this today are the reason. Congress is voting to allow employers in our most dangerous industries to hide injuries to workers and to skirt worker protection laws. This Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, rule simply makes clear that it is the employer's responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious injuries that happen on the job. The rule simply makes clear that it is the employer's responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious injuries that happen on the job. It doesn't impose new costs. It doesn't affect small business. What it does is it holds companies accountable for maintaining their own records, as they have done for 40 years. These records are the most important tool we have to identify and root out the most dangerous workplace hazards. They are the basis for national statistics on workplace health and safety. Two former Commissioners from the Bureau of Labor Statistics--one from the George Bush administration and one from the Barack Obama administration--have written to this body, warning us that killing this rule could undermine nearly a half century of worker safety information. So a leading Republican and a leading Democrat have both written to this body saying: Don't do this; it will mean more workplace injuries. I know people around here who have these kinds of jobs--where workplace injuries rarely are even a fact of life--may not think about this enough. Pope Francis exhorted his parish priests to go out and smell like the flock. People in this body need to go out and talk to workers more. Go to union halls, go to workplaces, listen to what workers are saying, listen to what union members are saying, and listen to what nonunion members are saying about what these workplace safety rules mean. Worse yet, this vote today will allow employers to falsify their safety records with impunity. Companies can avoid OSHA rules and inspections by underreporting--underreporting--harm to their workers, and they can avoid making a real investment to make their workplaces safer. Over the past three decades, some of the worst offenders with dangerous workplaces hid injuries and kept fraudulent records. They hid injuries, and they kept fraudulent records. They claimed they were safe, while workers were being hurt on the job. These requirements only apply to the most dangerous industries-- industries where proper safety precautions could mean the difference between life and death or a permanent disability for these workers. We are talking about fall hazards, dangerous machines without proper guarding, workers handling dangerous chemicals without adequate washing stations. Look at the poultry processing industry. These workers face serious health and safety problems. In many plants, workers process 140 chickens a minute, and they are at risk for disabling injuries. Maybe people around here don't think much about people processing chickens. It is not a job that pays well. It is a job that is difficult. Frankly, people in this body don't know people who do those jobs, by and large. They are handling 140 chickens a minute. They are at risk for disabling injuries. We eat the chickens, but we don't see what happens when they are processed, and we are not paying attention to that. That is why it is so important we not vote for this rule change. Too many employers fail to report these injuries. If OSHA isn't empowered to enforce recordkeeping, processing plants will be able to hide their safety violations and expose their workers to crippling injuries. This CRA vote today is about workers' safety, period. Workers' safety is something so fundamental that it is hard to believe we are arguing about it. In the United States of America in 2017, companies shouldn't be able to put workers' lives and safety at risk just so they can make more money. They shouldn't be able to put their workers' lives and safety at risk just to make more money, and we shouldn't be part of that effort to help those companies do that. To my colleagues who are prepared to gut this rule, I ask: Would you be willing to work these jobs? Would my fellow Senators be willing to send their children to work in these dangerous industries while turning a blind eye to safety rules? I think we know what the answers to those questions are. This is why Americans are losing their faith in our institutions. Earlier this month, at the Glenn School in Columbus--which is named after my good friend, the late Senator John Glenn--I rolled out a plan to reinvest in the American worker, but instead of coming together to work on solutions, the Senate today is going in the wrong direction. We are debating a measure to give big corporations--which in many cases are more profitable than they have ever been--more ways to exploit American workers, more ways to evade the consequences, and more ways to pad their profits at the expense of everyday Americans. American workers aren't just a cost to be minimized. Protections for workers' safety aren't a luxury you can cut. It is disgraceful that this body fails to understand this. I suggest the absence of a quorum.