Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Dr. Susan J. Hunter, president of the University of Maine, on her retirement after 27 years of outstanding service in higher education. Dr. Hunter joined the faculty of the University of Maine at Orono in 1991 as a researcher in cell biology. In 2014, she was named the university's 20th president, the first woman to hold that position. It is a pleasure to join the people of Maine in expressing gratitude for Dr. Hunter's commitment to higher education. In her many roles during a truly distinguished career--from researcher, to professor, provost, and president--she has been an inspiring leader. Even if Dr. Hunter had remained solely in the research field, her contributions would be worthy of accolades. In addition to invaluable work in bone cell biology, she served as coprincipal investigator of an award-winning National Science Foundation grant that placed graduate teaching fellows in primary and secondary schools as science demonstrators. She also led the establishment of UMaine's Rising Tide Center, an important initiative to enhance opportunities for women faculty members in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and social-behavioral sciences. Dr. Hunter's service as an administrator includes chair of the department of biological sciences, associate provost and dean for undergraduate education, executive vice president for academic affairs and provost, and vice chancellor for academic affairs for the entire University of Maine System. Last year, while serving as president of UMaine's flagship campus at Orono, she also became president of the university's regional campus at Machias. Dr. Hunter's leadership at UMaine played a key role in bringing about advancements in enrollment, fundraising, and advocacy and partnerships. During her presidency, UMaine has recruited its largest incoming classes and the largest number of out-of-state students in the university's 153-year history, and the university has seen a 22-percent increase in private giving to its annual fund. Students and supporters have expressed their confidence in Dr. Hunter's leadership in the most meaningful ways. Dr. Hunter's contributions reach far beyond the campus. In the community, she has served on the boards of directors of the Maine School of Science and Mathematics, the Bangor Symphony Orchestra, and the Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance, and she worked with the Maine Arts Commission to develop a cultural strategic plan for the State of Maine. Currently, she serves on the boards of Maine & Company and the Maine Development Foundation to foster economic growth and job creation and on the advisory network for the Olympia Snowe Women's Leadership Institute. Her achievements have been widely recognized. In 2016, Dr. Hunter was inducted into the Deborah Morton Society at the University of New England in honor of her work to advance women in scientific fields. Last year, she received the Wilma Award from the Collins Center for the Arts at the University of Maine for her promotion and enhancement of cultural activities and the Kenneth M. Curtis Leadership Award from the Maine Development Foundation for her commitment to economic opportunity. In a recent interview, Dr. Hunter said that her leadership decisions have always been guided by the best interests of students and the people of Maine. Her decades of distinguished service and reverence for education have created a legacy that demonstrates how faithfully she has followed that guidance, and that will benefit our great State for many decades to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr, President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting Rational Incentives in Newsprint Trade Act of 2018, also known as the PRINT Act, which seeks to address an urgent crisis facing printers and publishers in the United States. I am very pleased to be joined by Senator King and a bipartisan and distinguished group of cosponsors, including Senators Blunt, Jones, Fischer, McCaskill, Moran, Wicker, Isakson, and Capito, to advance this legislation, which is endorsed by publishers representing more than 600,000 American jobs. Earlier this year, the Department of Commerce instituted import taxes on certain types of paper imported by the U.S. printing and publishing industry from Canada. The paper--technically known as uncoated groundwood paper, but better known as newsprint--is used by newspapers, book publishers, and numerous other commercial printers in the United States. These import taxes are being advanced under the principle of trade enforcement to protect the domestic paper industry. It is telling, however, that nearly all of the U.S. paper industry opposes these import taxes, including the large trade association representing the entire industry, the American Forest and Paper Association. The paper industry opposes the import taxes because they threaten to decimate the paper industry's customers and drive printers and publishers out of business forever. The import taxes are as high as 32 percent on some products. The printing and publishing industry is already facing a severe economic threat from the overall trends in the publishing market, including the shift to digital consumption of news. The printing and publishing industry simply cannot absorb the increased costs of paper caused by the tariffs. The Tampa Bay Times, for example, has announced that the tariffs are increasing the newspaper's operating costs by $3 million annually and, as a result, it must lay off around 50 employees. Other newspapers across the Nation face the threat of layoffs and closures, particularly smaller publications and businesses serving local communities. The Swift County Monitor News in Benson, Minnesota, reported a 43 percent net increase in its newsprint costs from the duties. But let's not forget the impact of these tariffs on such an important profession in our society. The Executive Editor of the Lewiston Sun-Journal and seven Western Maine weekly newspapers put it this way: ``While tariffs are going to cost the newspapers in real dollars, the real cost will be to the mission of journalists and the ability of newspapers--of all sizes--to carry on critical work in the public interest.'' Mr. President, I strongly support the robust enforcement of our trade laws to protect U.S. interests, but these new import taxes are having the opposite effect. The import tariffs are dramatically increasing costs for publishers, accelerating the decline of local and regional papers across the Nation, and undermining the United States paper industry's customer base without any chance of recovery. I trust that the Department of Commerce has accurately applied the trade enforcement remedies in this case, but that is exactly the problem. The antidumping and countervailing duty trade remedies are not equipped to address a situation like this where the import duties will actually harm the industry they were intended to protect. That is the reason that we are introducing the PRINT Act. Our bill would suspend the import taxes on this paper while the Department of Commerce examines the health of--and effects on--the printing and publishing industry. It is important to note that the legislation does not propose that Congress step in and substitute its judgment. The President would retain full authority to implement the duties after the Commerce Department completes its study. Moreover, the legislation is only a pause. It is designed to ensure that the government makes decisions about these import tariffs with an understanding of all the anticipated and potential collateral effects on the U.S. industry and jobs. Mr. President, this bill is both sensible and urgently needed. Printers and publishers throughout the country have indicated that the import taxes are threatening irreparable harm to their businesses. Adoption of the PRINT Act would ensure that we evaluate fully the impact of these tariffs before the duties kill American jobs for good. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr, President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting Rational Incentives in Newsprint Trade Act of 2018, also known as the PRINT Act, which seeks to address an urgent crisis facing printers and publishers in the United States. I am very pleased to be joined by Senator King and a bipartisan and distinguished group of cosponsors, including Senators Blunt, Jones, Fischer, McCaskill, Moran, Wicker, Isakson, and Capito, to advance this legislation, which is endorsed by publishers representing more than 600,000 American jobs. Earlier this year, the Department of Commerce instituted import taxes on certain types of paper imported by the U.S. printing and publishing industry from Canada. The paper--technically known as uncoated groundwood paper, but better known as newsprint--is used by newspapers, book publishers, and numerous other commercial printers in the United States. These import taxes are being advanced under the principle of trade enforcement to protect the domestic paper industry. It is telling, however, that nearly all of the U.S. paper industry opposes these import taxes, including the large trade association representing the entire industry, the American Forest and Paper Association. The paper industry opposes the import taxes because they threaten to decimate the paper industry's customers and drive printers and publishers out of business forever. The import taxes are as high as 32 percent on some products. The printing and publishing industry is already facing a severe economic threat from the overall trends in the publishing market, including the shift to digital consumption of news. The printing and publishing industry simply cannot absorb the increased costs of paper caused by the tariffs. The Tampa Bay Times, for example, has announced that the tariffs are increasing the newspaper's operating costs by $3 million annually and, as a result, it must lay off around 50 employees. Other newspapers across the Nation face the threat of layoffs and closures, particularly smaller publications and businesses serving local communities. The Swift County Monitor News in Benson, Minnesota, reported a 43 percent net increase in its newsprint costs from the duties. But let's not forget the impact of these tariffs on such an important profession in our society. The Executive Editor of the Lewiston Sun-Journal and seven Western Maine weekly newspapers put it this way: ``While tariffs are going to cost the newspapers in real dollars, the real cost will be to the mission of journalists and the ability of newspapers--of all sizes--to carry on critical work in the public interest.'' Mr. President, I strongly support the robust enforcement of our trade laws to protect U.S. interests, but these new import taxes are having the opposite effect. The import tariffs are dramatically increasing costs for publishers, accelerating the decline of local and regional papers across the Nation, and undermining the United States paper industry's customer base without any chance of recovery. I trust that the Department of Commerce has accurately applied the trade enforcement remedies in this case, but that is exactly the problem. The antidumping and countervailing duty trade remedies are not equipped to address a situation like this where the import duties will actually harm the industry they were intended to protect. That is the reason that we are introducing the PRINT Act. Our bill would suspend the import taxes on this paper while the Department of Commerce examines the health of--and effects on--the printing and publishing industry. It is important to note that the legislation does not propose that Congress step in and substitute its judgment. The President would retain full authority to implement the duties after the Commerce Department completes its study. Moreover, the legislation is only a pause. It is designed to ensure that the government makes decisions about these import tariffs with an understanding of all the anticipated and potential collateral effects on the U.S. industry and jobs. Mr. President, this bill is both sensible and urgently needed. Printers and publishers throughout the country have indicated that the import taxes are threatening irreparable harm to their businesses. Adoption of the PRINT Act would ensure that we evaluate fully the impact of these tariffs before the duties kill American jobs for good. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this week I cast my vote in support of the nomination of Kyle Duncan to serve as a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Duncan has been a successful trial and appellate attorney, as well as a law professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law. He was the assistant solicitor general for the State of Texas and the appellate chief for the State of Louisiana. He has tried cases at the State and Federal levels and has argued twice before the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Bar Association has reviewed his nomination and has rated Mr. Duncan ``well-qualified.'' Some have criticized Mr. Duncan for his work on certain high-profile cases. Nearly all nominees for the Federal courts who come before the Senate have advocated for various positions. Some of them have been involved in controversial, high-profile cases. In considering a nominee's fitness to serve on the bench, we should consider whether they have the intellect, the temperament, and the respect for precedent to fairly and faithfully uphold the law. One case that Mr. Duncan litigated has been mischaracterized in a way that suggests he is biased against the LGBT community. Mr. Duncan's opponents argue that his work in V.L. v. E.L., in which the opposing party was a lesbian, demonstrates this bias. What these critics fail to mention is that Mr. Duncan's client was also a lesbian. The matter was a custody case involving two women in a same-sex partnership. As his cocounsel in the case, Randall W. Nichols, has described in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, dated November 27, 2017: I note that some may criticize Mr. Duncan for representing clients in the same-sex marriage litigation. It must not go without notice that our mutual client, E.L., was a same-sex woman asserting a strong, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, legal argument. Mr. Duncan represented our mutual client without once making an issue of her sexual orientation, without once displaying any personal bias, and without once indicating a desire to advance any agenda other than winning the case for E.L. Mr. Duncan has testified to the Judiciary Committee that he would follow all applicable precedents of the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit. He demonstrated his deference to precedent during his time representing the State of Louisiana. While the Supreme Court was deciding the Obergefell case on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage laws, Mr. Duncan was representing the State of Louisiana in a challenge to its marriage law. Following the Court's decision, the Fifth Circuit instructed the parties in the Louisiana case to explain whether Obergefell resolved the matter for the court. The very next day, Mr. Duncan filed a letter explaining that, despite Louisiana's disagreement with the Obergefell outcome, the Fifth Circuit must follow the new Supreme Court precedent and strike down Louisiana's law. While still representing the State, Mr. Duncan announced that married same-sex couples would be able to have both of their names on their children's birth certificates. Mr. Duncan's actions following the Obergefell decision demonstrate that he will respect precedent and faithfully follow the law. By contrast, in a similar case, the lawyers for the State of Arkansas continued to fight over whether Obergefell required States to issue birth certificates with the names of both same-sex spouses. Unlike Mr. Duncan, they resisted the Obergefell precedent all the way up to the Supreme Court and lost. That case, Pavan v. Smith, confirms that Mr. Duncan did the right thing in advising the Fifth Circuit to apply the Obergefell precedent. It is also noteworthy that the attorney who argued against Mr. Duncan in the Louisiana case strongly supports his nomination. In an opinion article published in ``The Hill'' on March 25, 2018, Paul Baier, who is now a law professor at Louisiana State University, describes Mr. Duncan as a ``magnificent nominee for the Fifth Circuit who ought to be swiftly confirmed.'' He goes on to describe Mr. Duncan's qualifications in the following way: I always appreciated and respected Kyle's advocacy for his client and his respect for the humanity of the same-sex couples who would be most affected by the case. While I disagreed with many of his arguments, often emphatically, I never found a trace of bias, bigotry, or any disrespect towards the same-sex individuals in the case. Kyle knows well the difference between the advocate's role for his client (in the same-sex marriage case, the State of Louisiana) and what he would be called upon to decide as a judge on the Fifth Circuit. I maintain this view of Kyle even having faced off against him in the highly charged atmosphere of same-sex marriage litigation. His ability to act as a judge and not advocate will surely carry over to other questions of public importance facing the Fifth Circuit. The advice and consent role given to the Senate in the Constitution is one of the Senate's most solemn duties and one to which I give the utmost care. I apply no litmus test with respect to a nominee's personal beliefs, and have voted for judicial nominees whose personal views differ from my own, but evaluating whether a nominee possesses an ability to set aside emotion and personal views while applying the laws in a neutral and impartial manner is critical. In this regard, I believe Mr. Duncan will be faithful to the rule of law. He has pledged to the Judiciary Committee and to me that he will follow all precedents of the Supreme Court, and his actions in the Louisiana same-sex marriage case are evidence that he will do this, even if he disagrees with the outcome. I support his confirmation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for allowing me to speak for up to 12 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to make three points in response to the objection that was raised by my friend and colleague from Washington State. The first is timing. According to the Senator from Washington, we have all the time in the world. Regrettably, that is not true. Starting next month, insurers are beginning their calculations on what rates they are going to charge for insurance policies on the individual market next year. They are also making the decision as to whether they are even going to sell in particular counties across this country. There is already not much competition, so the time is urgent for us to act. Those rates get approved by the State insurance commissioners, and they are published on October 1. So the idea that we have tons of time to take care of this problem is just not accurate. Indeed, as Senator Alexander just said, the chairman of the HELP Committee, the HELP Committee has spent months on these concepts, has worked really hard on these issues, and has had extensive hearings and roundtables and discussions. The one thing we do not have is time, and that is why the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has urged us to act on this bill. The second is the concept that somehow this bill has brandnew concepts in it. The only thing that is new is the amendment that was just filed by the Senator from Washington State. I have no idea what is in that. It was not shared with me. To my knowledge, it was not shared with the Senator from Tennessee. I have no idea whether it covers cost savings reductions that help our lowest income people pay their copays and deductibles. I have no idea what it does to silver-loading, whereby insurers jack up the prices of silver plans in order to draw down more Federal dollars. I have no idea what it does on a whole variety of issues because I have never seen it. By contrast, the language of the Collins-Alexander proposal was shared with the minority. Indeed, I have had several discussions with the Senator from Washington State about the language, and all of the concepts in our bill have been debated. Hearings have been held on them. They have been talked about extensively. They are not new. There was a change in the reinsurance provisions, which I authored with my friend and colleague, the former State insurance commissioner from Florida, Senator Nelson, and that was to add a third year to the reinsurance. I would have thought my Democratic friends would have been thrilled with that--a third year. That was at the suggestion, I would say, of Congressman Costello and Congressman Walden in the House. We also put in a Federal backstop so every State could be assured of the benefits of reinsurance in the next year, even if they had not had time to file the application for a waiver under section 1332. Again, that is a concept my Democratic friends were pushing for us to include. It was one that I, frankly, had reservations about, but that is in there. So those are two changes in the reinsurance that our Democratic colleagues, I would think, would be applauding because it helps to drive down rates. Third, I hear from my Democratic colleagues that this is an enormous change in the application of the Hyde amendment because it applies to commercial insurers. That is just not true. The Hyde amendment already applies to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. That is the insurance program for 8.3 million Americans who are Federal employees, spouses, or family members of Federal employees, or retired Federal employees--8.3 million. How does the Presiding Officer think that program is administered? The answer is, it is administered through commercial insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Health Insurance, and many others. This is not the first time, and the language actually for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is more strict than what is in the bill we have proposed. So the idea that this is some new approach is just not accurate. The Federal Government spends about $1 trillion on healthcare through various programs--its share of Medicaid, Medicare, VA programs, the Children's Health Insurance Program, the TRICARE Program, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It is about $1 trillion. Guess what. That is 100 times more than the amount that is covered in this bill-- 100 times more. So this is not a new concept in any way. The reinsurance provisions and the cost-saving reductions have been discussed for months in the HELP Committee, both formally in hearings where, by the way, there was widespread support for them and in informal roundtables and in Senator-to-Senator discussions. Make no mistake about the stakes here, if we do not act--and it appears, due to the objection on the Democratic side, that we are not going to act--insurance rates will go up on October 1. That is going to hurt everybody who has to buy insurance who wants to be insured and has to buy through the individual market because they don't get insurance through the workplace. That is going to hurt very low-income people. That is also going to hurt those who receive no government help at all and do not have employer-provided insurance because they are self- employed. Why don't we want to take advantage of this opportunity to decrease insurance rates by as much as 40 percent over the next 2 years? Do you know how welcome that would be by the people in my State of Maine? Maine is a low-income State. We don't have Microsoft headquarters in the State of Maine. We are a low-income State. We need insurance rates to fall. This bill would do it. Oliver Wyman, the well- respected healthcare consulting firm, has verified that rates would fall. The CBO says premiums would be less, and Oliver Wyman says 3.2 million more people would be insured. Surely--surely--this should be a goal we can all embrace. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have known and admired Thad Cochran for 40 years--since he first came to the Senate. At the time, I was a young staffer for Senator Bill Cohen, who also was elected to the Senate that same year. I saw from the start that this gentleman from Mississippi was so bright, insightful, and creative yet also humble, kind, and devoted to helping others. He treated everyone with such dignity. He was nice to everyone, from the elevator operators to the highest officials around the world. He truly is one who leads by example. Those qualities are his legacy, and I have seen them time and again as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee when Thad was an important member and, of course, when he became the chairman. Last year was the 150th anniversary of the creation of the Appropriations Committee, and Thad marked that occasion by reminding all of us of our great responsibility to make thoughtful and informed decisions in the allocation of public funds. In managing appropriations bills, he was always so inclusive, willing to incorporate ideas and priorities from everyone who could make a persuasive case. The fact is, Thad has always placed careful consideration and compromise above partisan politics. That really reflects how Thad has led his life. He has excelled at everything he has ever undertaken. When he joined the Boy Scouts, he became an Eagle Scout. In his high school, he was valedictorian. In college, he had the highest scholastic achievements. He excelled in serving in the Navy, and, of course, we know how much he has accomplished as our esteemed and dear colleague here in the Senate. When Thad served as chairman of the Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, he traveled to the State of Maine with me, and we met with Maine's potato farmers and blueberry growers--not exactly staple crops of Mississippi. Thad listened intently to these farmers and growers. It was clear that he cared about them and that he valued our family farms and our rural communities. That night, we had a lovely Maine lobster dinner at an inn on the coast. During that dinner, Thad shared with me his passion for good literature, his love of music, and his passion for education that had been instilled in him by his parents. Of course, another issue that brought Thad and me together was making sure that our naval fleet was strong. As a U.S. Navy veteran who served for a time in Boston, MA, Thad has always been a dedicated advocate for his shipyard in Mississippi, as I am for Bath Iron Works in the State of Maine. Thad has twice visited BIW with me to see the great work done there. In 2013, Thad received the Navy's Distinguished Public Service Award in recognition of his longstanding commitment to American sea power. Through four decades in the Senate, plus three terms in the House of Representatives, Thad has compiled an admirable legislative record on issues ranging from education to libraries, the arts, our national defense, scientific and biomedical research, conservation initiatives, and civil rights. But perhaps his greatest legacy is that he taught us how a Senator should act, and that legacy will live on forever. Thad, our Nation is so grateful for your service, and I, personally, am so appreciative of your friendship. I offer my best wishes to you and to Kay. You will be greatly missed.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we have the opportunity today to take immediate action to lower the cost of health insurance by as much as 40 percent and to increase the affordability of insurance for millions of Americans who purchase plans in the individual market. I commend Senator Alexander, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, for his extraordinary leadership and hard work in this area. I am also very pleased with the work that has been done by Representative Greg Walden, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Costello. We have come together, along with a substantial number of our colleagues, including Senators Graham, Rounds, Isakson, and Murkowski, among many others, on this very important insurance stabilization and rate reduction package. Let me begin by outlining the major provisions of what it is that we are proposing, because there has been, unfortunately, a lot of misunderstanding and, dare I say, misinformation. First, our legislation, based on the Alexander-Murray bill, would fund the cost-sharing reduction subsidies for 3 years. These are vital for Americans who have incomes that are below 250 percent of the poverty level. CSRs provide government assistance to help them pay for their deductibles and their copays. Second, our proposal also improves the ability of the States to take further steps to lower insurance premiums for their citizens. We provide meaningful flexibility for States by revising section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, which authorizes State innovation waivers. Third, based on a bill that I authored with Senator Bill Nelson, our proposal provides a total of $30 billion over 3 years for States to have reinsurance, or invisible high-risk pools, by applying for a waiver under the section 1332 program I just mentioned. As I know the Presiding Officer well knows, reinsurance is a proven method for dealing with high-risk, expensive claims. It reduces uncertainty and has benefits not only for those who have preexisting conditions and need expensive healthcare but for the entire individual market, and it has been proven to work in States like Maine and Alaska. We have also included $500 million to assist States with the planning of the designs of their own reinsurance, or invisible high-risk pools. In the House, the Costello bill also had a Federal fallback in recognizing that we were late in the year and that we wanted to provide help immediately, which we have included for 2019, to give States time to apply for waivers under section 1332. What does our bill not do? Our proposal does not change the Affordable Care Act's essential benefit requirements. It does not change the guarantee that an individual will be able to buy insurance. It does not change the protections for people with preexisting conditions. Yet it ensures that the Federal funding directly benefits consumers and not insurance companies. In considering this plan, Congress faces a fundamental question: Do we want to take action to significantly reduce the cost of health insurance for millions of Americans or are we just going to sit back, say no, and let this opportunity pass us by? Time is short. If Congress fails to act, insurance rates in the individual market will skyrocket this fall. This will directly harm the 9 million Americans who pay for their own insurance without government or employer assistance. That is, for example, the fisherman in my State who is self-employed, the electrician, the plumber, the carpenter-- there are so many--the hair stylist. They are already paying far too much for their healthcare costs. Well, all of them will be facing another double-digit premium increase if they are to be insured, and rates can only be expected to continue to climb. Healthcare premiums are already too expensive under the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the problems with the Affordable Care Act that I have been committed to fixing. Last year, the average price of the Affordable Care Act silver plans, which are the most popular plans, increased on average by 34 percent. A growing number of counties in our country are at risk of having no insurers or only one insurer, leaving hard-working individuals with few or no choices for health insurance coverage. Inaction will only exacerbate the premium spikes and the market instability we have already experienced. When our country is confronted with such a serious problem--I mean, what is more important to people than healthcare?--Americans expect us to come together. They expect us to work constructively. They expect us to provide real relief from the rising cost of health insurance, which makes health insurance unaffordable for far too many Americans, and that is precisely what our plan would do. Let me be crystal clear. Our proposal is the last opportunity--the last opportunity--to prevent these rate increases that will go into effect, which will be announced on October 1. Our package will help to stabilize the insurance markets and make them more competitive. Every study has shown that our bill would make health insurance more affordable. According to the leading healthcare experts at Oliver Wyman, our bill would lower individual health insurance premiums in the individual market by as much as 40 percent compared to what people will otherwise pay if Congress fails to act. According to Oliver Wyman, it would also expand coverage to an additional 3.2 million Americans. I want to touch on a complicated but important issue that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have raised as a reason not to pass this bill. There have been two reasons. One is the application of the Hyde amendment, which has been law for decades, which I will talk about subsequently, but the first has to do with what is referred to as silver-loading and zero-premium bronze plans. First a little background. The Affordable Care Act was designed to provide two key subsidies for enrollees who purchased coverage on the exchange and qualified from an income standpoint. The first are premium tax credits to help cover the cost of premiums for individuals earning between 100 and 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. The second are cost-sharing subsidies, or CSRs, to help cover the cost of deductibles and copays and other out-of-pocket expenses for individuals who are very low-income--earning between 100 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. Despite the fact that Congress never appropriated the funds to pay for the cost-sharing reductions, the Obama administration paid them anyway. The House sued to block this strategy and won in Federal district court. Lacking an appropriation from Congress, President Trump stopped making these payments last year. That concerned many of us, but let me make clear--he was following the court's decision. In response, insurance companies came up with the silver-loading strategy, under which they increased the price of their silver plans to compensate for the cost-sharing reduction payments they were no longer receiving. In essence, insurers have created silver plans that mimic CSRs for low- income enrollees. Because the ACA's tax credits are tied to the silver plan premium, the tax credits ballooned in size, producing credits so large that they are often sufficient to fully cover the premiums on the bronze plans for lower income enrollees and, by the way, greatly increased the cost to Federal taxpayers, which is why the bill we put together, by right-sizing the market and avoiding the games that were played, actually pays for itself. We all remember the old saying that ``if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'' Well, free bronze plans for low-income individuals sounded too good to be true, and they are. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are listening to this explanation. The fact is that free bronze plans are only a good deal for low-income Americans who never get sick, who never get hurt, who never need to use their insurance. If they do, they will pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars more out of pocket. While these plans might have lower monthly payments or even be free, they have much higher deductibles and copays. Based on publicly available data pulled from the exchanges, I am going to describe an example illustrating that individuals with free bronze plans will face much steeper costs when they try to access care than if they paid the small premium for the silver plan. Let's take the example of Chris and Caroline, ages 34 and 32, who live in Portland, ME. They bought coverage on the exchange for themselves and their two young children for 2018. They make about $34,500 a year, which is about 140 percent of the Federal poverty level. They saw that they could get a ``free'' bronze plan, or they could choose to buy the cheapest silver plan for $54.83 a month. They chose the free bronze plan, not realizing that the silver plan would have given them access to subsidies, which provide lower deductibles and copays to low-income people. If Caroline gets pregnant this year and they are under the free bronze plan, they are going to have to pay out of pocket $7,350--and they make $34,500 a year. Had they picked the least expensive silver plan, they would have had to pay $500. Consider a hypothetical couple in their early thirties, Jacob and Emma, with two young children, living in Seattle, WA. They are making just under $35,000 a year. When they went shopping for coverage on the exchange, they, too, saw that they could get a free bronze plan, or they could buy the least expensive silver plan for about $84 a month. Jacob and Emma chose the free bronze plan, which doesn't come with the subsidies included in the silver plan to help low-income families with deductibles and copays. If someone in this young family faces a serious illness this year, the silver plan in Washington State would have capped Emma and Jacob's additional expenses at $660. Unfortunately, they have the so-called free bronze plan that some of my colleagues have been touting. They would face up to $7,210 in out-of-pocket expenses--hardly an affordable option for this low-income family. It used to be well understood by the affordability advocates in and out of the Senate that low-income Americans struggled to meet deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. Just 1 year ago today, the Kaiser Family Foundation issued a report arguing against the House reform bill because it did not contain CSRs, noting that ``cost-sharing reductions are a key part of the financial support currently provided to [low-income] enrollees'' and that without such support, deductibles ``are often out of reach for people with lower and modest income.'' A prior Kaiser Family Foundation report from 2015 showed that only 1 in 10 individuals earning between 100 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level--those are the individuals who would be eligible for CSRs under our bill--has savings or other assets large enough to cover a $6,000 deductible. In other words, without CSRs, 90 percent of these individuals will have to wipe out their savings to cover their medical expenses before they even meet their deductible. Those who can't meet their deductible won't get reimbursed. For these Americans, a zero-premium plan will really mean a zero-benefit plan. I cannot believe that silver-loading and free bronze plans is a credible long-term strategy. First, I would note, in addition to the examples I have given, that CBO assessments from last year were that the silver-loading strategy would cost the Federal taxpayers $194 billion over the budget window. Second, because low-income individuals will struggle to meet their deductibles, they will be unable to secure reimbursement of expenses. Sooner or later, taxpayers are going to be asking why they are paying nearly $200 billion more to subsidize policies that deliver such poor benefits. To be clear, the amendment we are offering prevents this strategy, protecting lower and modest-income enrollees, low-income families and individuals and the taxpayers. Now, let me discuss the Hyde amendment. I am disappointed, to say the least, that Democrats, who ought to have embraced this proposal, have instead rejected it because its funding is subject to the Hyde amendment. As a pro-choice Republican, I must say this puzzles me. The Hyde amendment has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortions for more than 40 years. It is not new policy. The entire Labor-HHS title of the omnibus before us today is subject to the Hyde amendment. There are variations of the Hyde amendment in other titles of the omnibus spending bill. It applies to a long list of Federal programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, TRICARE, Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Service, the Peace Corps, the Bureau of Prisons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I have heard it said that it doesn't apply to commercial insurance that is offered by the Federal Government--that is just not true. It applies to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, through which 8.3 million employees, retirees, and their families get their health insurance coverage. I have not seen my Democratic friends make any effort to change the applicability of Hyde to that insurance program. Together, these programs account for more than $1 trillion in government spending each year--all of which is covered by the Hyde amendment. That is 100 times the amount of reinsurance we are proposing in our amendment. A trillion dollars of Federal healthcare funding is already covered by the Hyde amendment, which has been policy for 40 years. So how is this, in any way, a radical departure from current policy? I find it frustrating that some on the other side of the aisle are choosing to block this important package that will provide relief to those who need it most because of the application of the Hyde amendment. Let me say, they cite the Stupak amendment, which is section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act. We leave that in place, we don't touch it, and we do not change the Hyde amendment's exemptions found in section 507, which allow private entities, State governments, or individuals to use their own funds to provide coverage for abortion. In other words, this is nothing radical or new, and it is baffling and gravely disappointing that this should be used to block this package. Dozens of healthcare consumer and business groups, as well as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners--those State commissioners whose job it is to look out for consumers--have called upon Congress to take action to lower premiums for millions of Americans and their families. These groups include the American Hospital Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Federation of American Hospitals, and there are a wide range of groups representing people with diseases, such as arthritis, cancer, epilepsy. The United Way has called for action, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the American Lung Association. Just yesterday, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners put out a new letter in support of market stabilization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these three letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, how incredibly disappointing it would be if some Members derailed this serious effort to reduce the cost of health insurance for millions of Americans. While Members may disagree with certain provisions, the time has come for each and every Senator to decide: Are you for lower rates and more affordable coverage for the 18 million Americans who get their insurance from the individual market or are you content to just sit back and let their insurance rates soar once again this fall, making health insurance even less affordable than it already is? In my view, the answer is clear and obvious. We must not lose sight of our goal, and that is making health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans. Including our insurance package in the omnibus funding bill is the right thing to do, and it is urgent that we do it now. Thank you.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate proceeds to the consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 1625, the omnibus appropriations bill, the Collins-Alexander amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this week I joined my colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in introducing the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. This bill would update and reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs, which have provided lifesaving services and housing for America's homeless youth for more than 40 years. Homelessness is affecting youth in unprecedented numbers. According to a recent study by Voices of Youth Count, an initiative of Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, approximately 4.2 million young people experience homelessness in the United States each year. Some of these youth may stay away from home for only 1 or 2 nights, and others have been living on the streets for years. Approximately 73 percent experienced a homelessness episode lasting more than 1 month. The study also found that homelessness is as prevalent in rural communities as it is in urban communities. The Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act would reauthorize and strengthen the programs that help homeless youth meet their immediate needs, and secure long-term residential services for those who, sadly, cannot be safely reunified with family. Three programs--the Basic Center Program, Transitional Living Program, and Street Outreach Program--help community-based organizations reach these young people when they need the most support. These programs help runaway and homeless youth avoid the juvenile justice system, and early intervention helps these young people escape victimization. As chairman of the Senate Housing Appropriations Subcommittee, working to end the scourge of homelessness--in both youth and adults-- has been one of my top priorities. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, there has been a 27-percent drop in chronic homelessness since 2007. We must build on this success so that homeless youth have opportunities to succeed just as other youth. This bill is an important step in that direction. The RHYA programs have produced powerful success stories. In 2015, the Housing Appropriations subcommittee held a hearing during which Brittany Dixon, a former homeless youth from Auburn, ME, testified about her personal experience as a homeless youth. After becoming homeless at age 18, she connected with New Beginnings, a service provider in Lewiston, ME, where she received the help and support she needed to develop critical life skills and become self-sufficient. She went on to earn a college degree and obtain a full-time job as an education technician at an elementary school. New Beginnings has used RHYA resources to connect with youth who need food, a safe place to sleep, health services, and education support. More than 135 young people were served at its 24-hour youth shelter in 2016, where they gained the support to return home safely, find independent living options, and deal with trauma, substance abuse, and mental health challenges. The Street Outreach Program, which would be reauthorized by our legislation, allows New Beginnings to operate an outreach drop-in center that reaches more than 500 youth annually. Staff at Preble Street, a youth shelter in Portland, leveraged a grant from the Transitional Living Program, also reauthorized by our bill, to support First Place, a program that helps young people break out of homelessness and plan for independent living. They work with local landlords to secure affordable apartments for youth who cannot safely reunite with their families and help them develop the life skills they will need to achieve their goals. For more than 25 years, Shaw House, in Bangor, has served Maine youth living in five rural counties. The Basic Center Program, BCP, reauthorized in our bill, helps Shaw House offer food, clothing, and other basic needs assistance, with the goal of increasing family reunification and reducing youth homelessness across Maine. In fiscal year 2014, 94 percent of the minors who entered BCP exited these programs safely and appropriately, and 69 percent were reunited with their families. One of the improvements in our bill would allow BCP grantees to serve youth for up to 30 days, instead of the current 21 days. Teens run away and become homeless for many reasons. They are also at high risk of victimization, abuse, criminal activity, and death. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children estimates that, in 2017, 1 in 7 of nearly 25,000 youth reported to them as runaways were sex-trafficking victims. In Maine, recent reports show that, of the more than 10,000 reported human-trafficking cases last year, 26 percent involved minors. Several hundreds of these victims identified as runaway or homeless youth. This population is at greater risk of suicide, unintended pregnancy, and substance abuse. Many are unable to continue with school and are more likely to enter our juvenile justice system. Our bill focuses on this tragic problem by supporting trauma- informed, wraparound services for victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation. Congress has passed legislation in recent years to combat these horrific crimes and support survivors, and the policies and tools included in the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act are important pieces of the Federal response to human trafficking. Homeless young people need access to safe beds at night and oftentimes services during the day. A growing number of homeless youth identify as LGBT. According to the Voices of Youth Count report, LGBT young people are twice as likely to be homeless. Our bill would ensure that those seeking services through these Federal programs are not denied assistance based on their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act will support those young people who run away, are thrown out, or are disconnected from families. A caring and safe place to sleep, eat, grow, and develop is critical for all young people, and the programs reauthorized through this legislation help extend those basic services to the most vulnerable youth in our communities. I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership on this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Senior$afe Act, which I am pleased is included in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. My good friend Senator Claire McCaskill and I have been working on Senior$afe for several years now. This bill originated with testimony offered by Maine Securities Administrator Judith Shaw in a hearing before the Senate Aging Committee in 2015. I am the chairman of that committee, and Senator McCaskill was the ranking member at that time. We introduced the bill that year, and reintroduced it in January of 2017. Today, the bill is cosponsored by almost a third of this body, balanced nearly evenly on both sides of the aisle. I am disappointed to learn that my colleague Senator Warren has filed an amendment that would seriously undermine the Senior$afe Act by restricting its provisions just to liability that may arise under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If this amendment were to pass, financial service providers that report suspected frauds against seniors could still face liability under other laws or causes of action, which would discourage providers from making these critical reports. I understand that the proponent of this amendment contends that Senior$afe could somehow shield a financial service provider from its own fraud. That is simply not correct. In order to receive the protections of the Senior$afe Act, financial service providers must train their employees to spot suspicious activity that may indicate fraud targeting seniors, and make good faith, reasonable reports of that suspicious activity to the proper authorities. The bill is clear that it only shields reporting a suspected fraud; there is no protection for committing a fraud. Combating financial abuse of seniors requires consumers, regulators, law enforcement, and social service agencies at all levels of government to work collaboratively with the private sector. The stakes could not be higher. According to the GAO, financial fraud targeting older Americans is a growing epidemic that costs seniors an estimated $2.9 billion annually. Stopping this tsunami of fraud is one of the top priorities of the Aging Committee. Over the years, we have held numerous hearings exposing an endless variety of financial abuses targeting our Nation's seniors. These range from the notorious IRS phone scam that burst onto the scene in 2015, to the incredible ``drug mule'' scam, where trusting seniors have been tricked by international narcotics traffickers into unwittingly serving as drug couriers, and then find themselves arrested and locked up in foreign jails. Just last week, our committee heard the story of Stephen and Rita Shiman from Saco, ME, who lost more than $1,200 in the notorious grandparent scam. In this scam, fraudsters call a senior pretending to be a family member, often a grandchild, and claim to be in urgent need of money to cover an emergency, medical care, or a legal problem. Sadly, not all scammers are strangers to their victims--in too many cases, seniors are exploited by someone they know well. Sometimes, that abuse is perpetrated by ``friends'' or family members who are handling the victim's affairs informally. Other times, the abuse is committed under the color of a fiduciary relationship, such as a power of attorney or guardianship. No matter the scheme, one factor is common to all: The fraudsters gain the trust and cooperation of their victims. Without this, their schemes would fail. The scammers also push their victims to act fast and not to tell anyone what they are doing. Unfortunately, due to the ruthless cunning of the scam artists, many seniors do not see the red flags that signal fraud. Sometimes they are too trusting or are suffering from diminished capacity, but just as often, they miss the signs because the swindlers who prey on them are extremely crafty and know how to sound convincing. Whatever the reason, a warning sign that can slip by a victim might trigger a second look by financial service representatives trained to spot common scams, who know enough about a senior's habits to question a transaction that doesn't look right. In our work on the Aging Committee, we have heard of many instances where quick action by bank and credit union employees has stopped a fraud in progress, saving seniors untold thousands of dollars. Let me give you an example. In 2016, an attorney in the small coastal city of Belfast, ME, was sentenced to 30 months in prison for bilking two elderly female clients out of nearly a half a million dollars over the course of several years. The lawyer's brazen theft was uncovered when a teller at a local bank noticed that he was writing large checks to himself on his clients' accounts. When confronted by authorities, he offered excuses that the prosecutor later described as ``breathtaking.'' He submitted bills for ``services,'' sometimes totaling $20,000 a month, including charging her $250 per hour for 6 to 7 hours to check on her house, even though his office was just a 1-minute drive down the road. In another example, a senior citizen in Vassalboro, ME, was looking to wire funds from his account at Maine Savings Federal Credit Union to an out-of-State location, supposedly to bail out a relative who was in jail. Something about this transaction did not sound right to the credit union employee. She asked the customer, and he said he had received a call from an ``official'' at the jail, but that official had instructed him not to speak to anyone about this. The official, of course, turned out to be a con artist. Fortunately, the credit union worker recognized this as a scam, and her quick thinking saved her customer from falling victim and losing his savings. These stories demonstrate the critical nexus that financial institutions occupy between fraudsters and their victims. Their employees, if properly trained, can be the first line of defense protecting our seniors from these criminals. Regrettably, various Federal laws can inadvertently impede efforts to protect seniors because financial institutions that report suspected fraud can be exposed to litigation. The Senior$afe Act encourages financial institutions to train their employees and shields them from lawsuits when they make good-faith, reasonable reports of potential fraud to the proper authorities. There is no doubt that financial fraud and scams targeting seniors is a growing problem. In 2016, the Aging Committee heard testimony from Jaye Martin, the executive director of Maine Legal Services for the Elderly, who told the committee that her organization had seen a 24- percent increase in reports of elder abuse in just 1 year. Many of these cases involve financial fraud. In a letter describing her support for the Senior$afe Act, Ms. Martin said that: In a landscape that includes family members who often wish to keep exploitation from coming to light because they are perpetrating the exploitation, the risk of facing potential nuisance or false complaints over privacy violations is all too real. This is a barrier that must be removed so that financial institutions will act immediately to report to the proper authorities upon forming a reasonable belief that exploitation is occurring. These professionals are on the front lines in the fight against elder financial exploitation and are often the only ones in a position to stop exploitation before it is too late. I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Martin's letter be printed in the Record following my remarks. Our bill is based on Maine's innovative Senior$afe program, a collaborative effort by Maine's regulators, financial institutions, and consumer and legal organizations to educate bank and credit union employees on how to identify and help stop financial exploitation of older Mainers. This program, pioneered by Maine Securities Administrator Judith Shaw, also serves as the template for model legislation developed for adoption at the State level by the North American Securities Administrators Association, or NASAA. The Senior$afe Act and NASAA's model State legislation are complementary efforts, and I am pleased that NASAA has endorsed our bill. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from NASAA regarding the Senior$afe Act of 2017 be printed in the Record following my remarks. I am pleased that our bill has received bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. Besides receiving broad support in Congress, our bill has the support of a wide range of stakeholders, ranging from the State securities administrators and insurance commissioners to advocates for seniors, such as AARP. The Senior$afe Act encourages financial institutions to train their employees and shields them from lawsuits when they make good-faith, reasonable reports of potential fraud to the proper authorities. I am pleased the Senior$afe Act is included in the bill currently before the Senate, and I look forward to it finally becoming law.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, across America, nearly 100,000 public schools open the door of opportunity to more than 50 million students from kindergarten through high school. In honor of this remarkable national accomplishment, I rise today to join Senator Tester in recognizing March 12 through 16 as Public Schools Week. I have visited more than 200 schools throughout my home State of Maine, and I have seen firsthand an inspiring commitment to excellence. It is a commitment that is shared by dedicated educators and staff, involved parents and community members, and enthusiastic students. Public education has had a profound impact on our Nation's history and continues to shape our future. Nine out of 10 students in the United States attend public schools. Last year, our public high schools achieved an alltime high graduation rate of 83 percent, and nearly 70 percent of our high school graduates went on to higher education. Public schools both inspire students and give them tools to achieve their dreams. Not only do our public schools create lifelong learners, but they also help to foster active citizenship. In addition to academics, athletics, and the arts, schools throughout Maine offer programs to encourage environmental responsibility, civic engagement, and community service. I am so proud that every Veterans Day and Memorial Day, schools throughout my State hold assemblies to honor the men and women of their communities who served our Nation and defended our freedom. Our schools have become so much more than places where children are taught. From nutritious meals to health and emotional support services, public schools play a vital role in the lives of our young people. Education has been described as ``not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a flame.'' We are fortunate to have many keepers of the precious flame of learning throughout our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Tester and me in recognizing them during Public Schools Week.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to express my gratitude to Heideh Shahmoradi, who since 2011 has served as clerk for the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, or THUD, for her many years of distinguished public service. Heideh's 24 years of public service have included time on both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, where she first started as a part-time employee at the age of 16. In her 7 years with THUD, Heideh has played an instrumental role on a host of issues. Her programmatic knowledge and technical expertise have been critical in policy-making decisions that ensured air traffic controllers were able to get back to safely managing our Nation's air traffic control system following the across-the-board spending cuts in 2013. Heideh has also worked to make groundbreaking transformations in how we address youth homelessness, which afflicts far too many young people each year. Thanks to Heideh's dedicated efforts, we have successfully created targeted programs that are designed to meet the unique needs of teenagers through the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program, in ways that our traditional approach to homelessness was unsuccessful in addressing. Heideh is truly a consummate professional, a brilliant expert, and most importantly, one of the kindest and friendliest people in the Senate. She is known by her colleagues as being an honest broker who is able to work in a truly bipartisan fashion in order to help us advance important legislation. As Heideh leaves the Senate after years of hard work and dedicated public service, she leaves behind an impressive list of accomplishments and colleagues whose lives she touched because she was such an exceptional role model and mentor. I wish her continued success and much happiness in the years to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act, which would prohibit suspected or known terrorists from legally purchasing a firearm. I thank my colleagues--Senators Heitkamp, Flake, Heinrich, Toomey, Baldwin, King, Nelson, Manchin, and Kaine--for their cosponsorship of this bipartisan bill. I particularly recognize the leadership of Senator Heinrich, who has joined me on the floor this evening as we introduce the bill and explain it to our colleagues. Often referred to as ``no fly, no buy,'' this bill represents one of the sensible steps that we can take to reform our Nation's gun laws to better protect our people. Our bill is based on a simple principle: If you are considered to be too dangerous to board an airplane, then you are too dangerous to buy a firearm. Our legislation would grant the Attorney General the authority to block the purchase of a gun by a person who is on either the no-fly or the selectee list. Remarkably, current law does not prohibit a person known or suspected of engaging in terrorism from walking into a gun shop and buying a firearm. The no-fly list and the selectee list are the narrowest subsets of all of the government's terrorist watch lists. These lists include the names of individuals who pose the greatest threat of committing an act of terrorism against aviation, against our homeland, or against U.S. interests abroad. This bill would also provide an immediate alert to the FBI and to local law enforcement if an individual who has been on the government's terrorist watch list at any time during the past 5 years purchases a firearm. Our hearts are all broken by the horrific shootings of the students in Florida. There was another horrendous shooting in Florida in 2016 that demonstrates why this look-back provision in this legislation is so important. The gunman, Omar Mateen, was on the selectee list for approximately 10 months, but he was no longer on the list when he purchased the 2 guns that he used to murder 49 people and injure scores more. If our bill had been enacted, the FBI would have been notified immediately when Omar Mateen purchased his first firearm in the weeks leading up to the shooting. Then the FBI would have been notified a second time that Mateen had sought to purchase additional firearms. Surely, that would have caused the FBI to reopen its investigation of Omar Mateen. If our proposal had been law at that time, perhaps that massacre might have been prevented. I note that our bill would provide robust due process procedures to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Any American who would be denied a purchase under this bill would have the opportunity to petition a Federal district court and receive a decision within 14 days. If the government, which would have the burden of proof, would fail to prove its case, it would have to pay attorneys's fees for that individual, and, of course, the purchase of the firearm would go forward. In 2016, when the Senate voted on our bill, it won majority and bipartisan support. Our bill was endorsed by a distinguished group of military and intelligence leaders. I note that during the 2016 Presidential debates, both candidates agreed with our principle of no fly, no buy. Surely, this is a sensible, reasonable policy around which we can build consensus. Another step that we can take right now is to pass legislation I introduced with Senator Leahy to explicitly outlaw straw purchasing. Straw purchasing is intended for one purpose only, and that is to put a gun into the hands of a criminal who cannot legally obtain one. Our bill, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, would provide law enforcement with an effective tool to fight the violence that too often goes hand in hand with drug trafficking and gang-related crimes. Today, gun traffickers exploit weaknesses in our Federal laws by targeting individuals who can lawfully purchase firearms. Sadly, according to briefings that I have had from Federal officials, in the State of Maine gang members from other States have targeted addicts to go buy firearms for them, and then they swap firearms for drugs. Right now a straw purchaser can be prosecuted only for lying on a Federal form, which is treated far too often as just a paperwork violation. Instead of a slap on the wrist, our bill would create new, specific criminal offenses for straw purchasing and trafficking, punishable by hefty prison terms, particularly for those who have reason to believe that the firearms will be used to commit violent crimes. Our bill would also outlaw firearms and ammunition smuggling out of the United States to another country. That is vitally important for combating drug trafficking near and across our southern border, which is contributing to the heroin crisis here at home. Let me again be clear that the bill I have introduced with Senator Leahy protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. These are just two commonsense reforms that we can pass while fully protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We can make it as difficult for a terrorist to obtain a gun as it is for him to board an airplane. We can outlaw straw purchasing by increasing the penalties to make a real difference. I urge my colleagues to support both the bipartisan Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act and the straw purchasing bill, as well as other commonsense reforms. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act, which would prohibit suspected or known terrorists from legally purchasing a firearm. I thank my colleagues--Senators Heitkamp, Flake, Heinrich, Toomey, Baldwin, King, Nelson, Manchin, and Kaine--for their cosponsorship of this bipartisan bill. I particularly recognize the leadership of Senator Heinrich, who has joined me on the floor this evening as we introduce the bill and explain it to our colleagues. Often referred to as ``no fly, no buy,'' this bill represents one of the sensible steps that we can take to reform our Nation's gun laws to better protect our people. Our bill is based on a simple principle: If you are considered to be too dangerous to board an airplane, then you are too dangerous to buy a firearm. Our legislation would grant the Attorney General the authority to block the purchase of a gun by a person who is on either the no-fly or the selectee list. Remarkably, current law does not prohibit a person known or suspected of engaging in terrorism from walking into a gun shop and buying a firearm. The no-fly list and the selectee list are the narrowest subsets of all of the government's terrorist watch lists. These lists include the names of individuals who pose the greatest threat of committing an act of terrorism against aviation, against our homeland, or against U.S. interests abroad. This bill would also provide an immediate alert to the FBI and to local law enforcement if an individual who has been on the government's terrorist watch list at any time during the past 5 years purchases a firearm. Our hearts are all broken by the horrific shootings of the students in Florida. There was another horrendous shooting in Florida in 2016 that demonstrates why this look-back provision in this legislation is so important. The gunman, Omar Mateen, was on the selectee list for approximately 10 months, but he was no longer on the list when he purchased the 2 guns that he used to murder 49 people and injure scores more. If our bill had been enacted, the FBI would have been notified immediately when Omar Mateen purchased his first firearm in the weeks leading up to the shooting. Then the FBI would have been notified a second time that Mateen had sought to purchase additional firearms. Surely, that would have caused the FBI to reopen its investigation of Omar Mateen. If our proposal had been law at that time, perhaps that massacre might have been prevented. I note that our bill would provide robust due process procedures to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Any American who would be denied a purchase under this bill would have the opportunity to petition a Federal district court and receive a decision within 14 days. If the government, which would have the burden of proof, would fail to prove its case, it would have to pay attorneys's fees for that individual, and, of course, the purchase of the firearm would go forward. In 2016, when the Senate voted on our bill, it won majority and bipartisan support. Our bill was endorsed by a distinguished group of military and intelligence leaders. I note that during the 2016 Presidential debates, both candidates agreed with our principle of no fly, no buy. Surely, this is a sensible, reasonable policy around which we can build consensus. Another step that we can take right now is to pass legislation I introduced with Senator Leahy to explicitly outlaw straw purchasing. Straw purchasing is intended for one purpose only, and that is to put a gun into the hands of a criminal who cannot legally obtain one. Our bill, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act, would provide law enforcement with an effective tool to fight the violence that too often goes hand in hand with drug trafficking and gang-related crimes. Today, gun traffickers exploit weaknesses in our Federal laws by targeting individuals who can lawfully purchase firearms. Sadly, according to briefings that I have had from Federal officials, in the State of Maine gang members from other States have targeted addicts to go buy firearms for them, and then they swap firearms for drugs. Right now a straw purchaser can be prosecuted only for lying on a Federal form, which is treated far too often as just a paperwork violation. Instead of a slap on the wrist, our bill would create new, specific criminal offenses for straw purchasing and trafficking, punishable by hefty prison terms, particularly for those who have reason to believe that the firearms will be used to commit violent crimes. Our bill would also outlaw firearms and ammunition smuggling out of the United States to another country. That is vitally important for combating drug trafficking near and across our southern border, which is contributing to the heroin crisis here at home. Let me again be clear that the bill I have introduced with Senator Leahy protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. These are just two commonsense reforms that we can pass while fully protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. We can make it as difficult for a terrorist to obtain a gun as it is for him to board an airplane. We can outlaw straw purchasing by increasing the penalties to make a real difference. I urge my colleagues to support both the bipartisan Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act and the straw purchasing bill, as well as other commonsense reforms. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senator Rounds and Senator King, in clarifying the intent of a provision from the Immigration Security and Opportunity Act, which has been offered as an amendment. What this provision seeks to do is send a strong message to people who come to the country after the bill is enacted that they are going to be a priority for deportation just like a person who has committed a felony is prioritized for deportation. I commit to changing this date from June 30, 2018, back to the beginning of the calendar year, January 1, 2018, in conference should the amendment be adopted by the Senate.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the city of Auburn, ME. Auburn was built with a spirit of determination and resiliency that still guides the community today, and this is a time to celebrate the generations of hard-working and caring people who have made it such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families. Auburn was first settled in 1786 and incorporated as a town in 1842. The name was inspired by a popular poem by Oliver Goldsmith that begins with this line: ``Sweet Auburn! Loveliest village of the plain.'' With the mighty Androscoggin River providing power, Auburn soon was home to many lumber, grain, and textile mills. When the factory system of shoe manufacturing was developed there, the people of Auburn formed a skilled and dedicated workforce that built a great Maine industry. The factories attracted many French-Canadian immigrants, whose culture continues to enliven the city. The prosperity produced by hard work and determination was invested in schools and churches to create a true community. On February 12, 1868, the fast-growing community incorporated as the city of Auburn. Together with Lewiston across the Androscoggin River, an economic powerhouse was created and the cities of the Androscoggin today form Maine's second most populated municipal region. The decline of traditional industries in the 20th century posed a great challenge. Auburn's response is described in words etched into the walls of Auburn Hall, a Latin phrase that translates to ``No Steps Backward.'' Auburn is a community that was built by the power of a great river. Now, the power of community is building a new future on that river with new economic opportunities, wonderful food, vibrant arts and entertainment, and exciting recreation. Auburn cherishes its history as it continues to move forward. Auburn is a city of compassionate, involved people. It is home to the Good Shepherd Food Bank, the largest hunger relief organization in Maine. The Auburn Police Activities League, which provides educational and athletic opportunities to children and teens after school and during the summer, is an outstanding example of public officials and committed citizens joining together to change lives today to create the leaders of tomorrow. It is the hometown of a role model for all leaders, former Senator Olympia Snowe. The energy and planning that are going into Auburn's 150th anniversary celebration demonstrate the pride residents have in their city. The celebration of the city of Auburn's 150th anniversary is not merely about the passing of time. It is about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who, from the dawn of our Nation to our time, have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Auburn, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those there today, it has a bright future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in expressing my serious concern with the 5-year oil and gas leasing plan released by the Interior Department that proposes opening up vast portions of U.S. waters for possible oil exploration and development, including along the Atlantic seaboard and the coast of Maine. I am opposed to any effort to open waters off the coast of Maine or any proximate area to offshore drilling, which could negatively affect the health of Maine's fisheries and other coastal resources, threatening to harm not only the environment but the State's economy as well. The Maine lobster industry, for example, has an estimated $1.7 billion impact to the State's economy annually, not to mention the many other fishing, aquaculture, and coastal tourism industries that help to drive the State's economy. These critical industries are dependent on Maine's pristine waters, and even a minor spill could damage irreparably the ecosystem in the gulf of Maine and create serious economic disruption. I look forward to working with the administration to ensure that the Interior Department's plan is revised to pose no unnecessary threats to the economy and way of life in coastal Maine.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the town of Mexico, ME. Mexico was built with a spirit of determination and resiliency that still guides the community today, and this is a time to celebrate the generations of hard-working and caring people who have made it such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families. The year of Mexico's incorporation, 1818, was but one milestone in a long journey of progress. For thousands of years, the land of fields, streams, and forests of what is now Oxford County was the home of the Abenaki. The reverence the Abenaki had for the natural beauty and resources of the region is upheld by the people of Mexico today. In 1789, the Massachusetts General Court granted 30,000 acres on the banks of the Androscoggin River to Colonel John Holman, a hero of the American Revolution. Officially named Township Number 1, the new settlement was popularly known by its growing population as Holmanstown. Upon incorporation in 1818, the townspeople chose a name that was inspired by the ongoing struggle by the country of Mexico for independence from Spain and that reflected their own commitment to American liberty. With the mighty Androscoggin River providing power, Mexico soon was home to many lumber, grain, and textile mills. When the first paper mill opened across the river in Rumford in 1893, the people of Mexico were part of the skilled and dedicated workforce that built a great Maine industry. The prosperity produced by hard work and determination was invested in schools and churches to create a true community. Today visitors and residents alike enjoy Mexico's scenery, historic buildings, and outdoor recreation opportunities. The energy and planning that are going into Mexico's 200th anniversary celebration demonstrate the pride townspeople have in their town. The celebration of Mexico's 200th anniversary is not merely about the passing of time; it is about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who, from the dawn of our Nation to our time, have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Mexico, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those there today, it has a bright future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the city of Sanford, ME. Sanford was built with a spirit of determination and resiliency that still guides the community today, and this is a time to celebrate the generations of hard-working and caring people who have made it such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families. The year of Sanford's incorporation, 1768, was but one milestone in a long journey of progress, a journey that is inextricably linked to the history of our Nation. In 1661, British Army General William Phillips purchased large tracts of land from two chiefs of local Abenaki Tribes for his growing lumber business. Called Phillipstown, the lands remained largely uninhabited due to the ongoing conflict between England and France for control of the northern American Colonies. Hostilities in the region ceased in 1739, and the new community grew rapidly, reaching a population of 1,500 within just a few decades. At the time the town was incorporated in 1768, Maine was a province of Massachusetts, and the Governor of Massachusetts used the occasion to honor Peleg Sanford, stepson of William Phillips and former four-term British Governor for the State of Rhode Island. When the American Colonists fought for independence, Sanford stood with them. The city's cemeteries contain the headstones of 33 patriots who joined freedom's cause. With the Mousam River providing power, Sanford was home to more than a dozen sawmills and gristmills. In the 1860s, Sanford truly became a city of industry when Thomas Goodall established a massive textile mill that produced everything from material for clothing to railroad car upholstery. Skilled textile workers poured into Sanford from Europe and French Canada, giving the city an international flavor that still exists today. In the 1950s, the owners of Sanford's textile mills began moving operations to southern States, leaving behind thousands of jobless workers and vast, empty factories. Local business and community leaders responded with the energy and determination that defines the city, traveling throughout the country to entice new employers. Noting this remarkable effort, LIFE magazine called Sanford ``the town that refused to die.'' Today Sanford has a diversified industrial base, from textiles to technology. Sanford is among Maine's oldest municipalities, but it also is Maine's newest city, having changed its charter from the town form of government to that of a city in 2013. It is also new in the sense of embracing the technology of the future through the construction of both the largest municipally owned broadband network in Maine for economic development and a 50-megawatt solar array for renewable energy generation. The new Academic and Career Technical High School that will open this summer reaffirms Sanford's commitment to education. The celebration of Sanford's 250th anniversary is not merely about the passing of time. It is about human accomplishment. We celebrate the people who, for longer than America has been a nation, have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Sanford, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those there today, it has a bright future.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 80th anniversary of the Shawnee Peak Ski Area in Bridgton, ME. Shawnee Peak is the oldest continually operated major ski facility in Maine and possesses natural beauty, which combines with the love of the outdoors and the strong sense of community of the region's residents. Originally called Pleasant Mountain Ski Area, the facility opened with a rope tow on January 23, 1938. That day of celebration was preceded by many years of hard work by Bridgton's Lions Club and Chamber of Commerce, Bridgton Academy, the Pleasant Mountain Ski Club, and the local Civilian Conservation Corps to plan, raise money, and clear trails. With Maine's Western Mountains providing spectacular views of the Lakes Region and Mount Washington, Pleasant Mountain soon began attracting skiers from throughout New England. Renamed Shawnee Peak in 1988, the ski area has long been a place of innovation, including the site of Maine's first T-bar and chairlift. Shawnee Peak pioneered night skiing and in the 1970s helped to lead the acrobatic freestyle skiing movement that is now a favorite event in the Winter Olympics. Shawnee Peak also is a leader in offering youth programs in skiing and snowboarding to encourage children to stay active and to challenge themselves. In 1994, Shawnee Peak was purchased by business leader and entrepreneur Chet Homer and his family. Echoing the conservation ethic that defines our State, Mr. Homer has stated he does not think of himself as owning the mountain, but rather of being its steward. For 80 years, Shawnee Peak Ski Area has strengthened Maine's skiing industry, spurred economic development in a rural region, and brought families and friends together in wholesome recreation. It is a pleasure to congratulate Chet Homer and his team for the accomplishments of this Maine family business and to wish them continued success in the years to come.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the point of order that will be offered by the Senator from Kentucky, which would have the effect of allowing harmful, indiscriminate budget cuts to be triggered. While there are certain safety net programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and Social Security that are exempt from these automatic cuts, the Medicare Program is not exempt, and there are a number of other vital programs in addition to Medicare, including Federal education programs, agricultural support for farmers, and funding for Citizenship and Immigration Services, among others, that would be subject to immediate automatic cuts if we failed to take action tonight to avert that outcome. It has been deeply disturbing to me to see seniors frightened about the possibility that a $25 billion cut in Medicare--that is a 4-percent reduction--would be automatically triggered. By waiving this point of order, we will prevent such cuts from taking place, reassuring our Nation's seniors and their loved ones. Although the law that could cause this reduction has been waived some 16 times--and indeed never implemented since it was enacted--I felt that it was essential that our leaders publicly commit that Medicare reductions would not be triggered, given the amount of fear, anxiety, and misinformation that is out there. I wrote to the Senate majority leader, urging that we immediately remove the threat of an automatic cut in Medicare's funding. In response, I am pleased to say that both the majority leader and the Speaker of the House released a joint statement that pledged this will not happen, and that is the issue before us tonight. Medicare provides essential healthcare benefits to our Nation's seniors. We must remove, immediately, the threat that an automatic reduction in the program's funding could occur, which would affect healthcare providers and diminish access that beneficiaries--including our seniors and disabled individuals--have to the services they need. Earlier this month, AARP sent a letter to the House and the Senate leadership, alluding and supporting my inquiry and warning Congress of the potential consequences. The letter says: The sudden cut to Medicare provider funding in 2018 would have an immediate and lasting impact, including fewer healthcare providers participating in Medicare and reduced access to care for Medicare beneficiaries. Healthcare providers may choose to stop accepting Medicare patients at a time when the Medicare population is growing by 10,000 new beneficiaries each day. . . . Furthermore, Medicare Advantage plans and Part D prescription drug plans may charge higher premiums or cost sharing in future years to make up for these cuts now. These potential cuts would have an enormous impact on our hospitals, our nursing homes, our home health agencies, and other essential healthcare providers who play a critical role in providing healthcare services and also as important economic drivers in our communities. It is critical for Congress to act quickly, to act tonight before we go home, so seniors do not have the anxiety of wondering whether the tax bill will somehow negatively affect their healthcare. We can act tonight to remove that anxiety and assure them it will not. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters I had with Majority Leader McConnell and also the letter from AARP be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.