Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daines for the opportunity to come to the floor and talk about a bill that passed with bipartisan unanimous support out of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee addressing defense spending. I thank the Senator for inviting me to join our freshmen colleagues--new Members of the Senate, all elected in 2014--to come to the floor and have this conversation and this colloquy, to be joined by the Senator from Oklahoma who speaks so clearly on why our Nation would allow a policy to send $1.7 billion in currency to Iran but not fund our troops. Think about what the Senator from Oklahoma said. He said it so well; that our Nation's policy is to pay off Iran before we pay our troops. The Senator from Alaska--whom I commend for his courage in standing up on the frontlines of freedom for our country, his service to our country, we thank him for that service--spoke eloquently on the floor earlier, where he talked about six times this Senate has blocked, through the use of a procedural motion, funding for our men and women in uniform--six times--over the past 1\1/2\ years. This isn't a bill that people come to the floor and they are outraged about, they are opposed to it, they want something different. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a piece of legislation to fund our men and women in uniform that passed 30 to 0 out of the Appropriations Committee--16 Republicans, 14 Democrats, no opposition, 30 to 0--to fund our troops. That can't move forward because of tactics of obstruction--tactics of obstruction that changed this body in 2014 because the American people were sick and tired of it, watching the 113th Congress fail to do its job, fail to vote on important legislation. Over the past 1\1/2\ years, we have passed bipartisan Transportation bills, we have passed bipartisan Education bills, we have passed bipartisan human trafficking bills. We have changed the way this Congress is working to actually achieve things together, but somehow there is a dictate that came down that we would stop working together now because they are blocking funding for our troops. When did we go from having the ability to accomplish things together to we are going to stop everything? Have people come and talked to us on the floor about why they object to this legislation? Have we heard statements in opposition to funding our troops? Have we heard alternate proposals about funding our troops? No. The bottom line is, a partisan minority--a partisan minority--is blocking the funding of our troops. Why? Because they can, I guess, they decided, because they were told to do so, because they refuse to break ranks with the grip of a leadership office that has said: Block the funding of our troops. Tell the American people that. Explain to the American people why you are opposed to funding our troops. Let me tell you why I am here from Colorado. I am here from Colorado because we have the 9th largest Active-Duty military population in the United States out of 50 States, 12th largest combined Active and Reserve Force population. Colorado is home to more than 35,000 Active- Duty servicemembers, nearly 14,000 Reserve and National Guard Forces, more than 5,000 Department of Defense civilians. These numbers don't even include all the family members and contract employees who directly depend on the passage of this legislation--3,000 DOD contractors in Colorado--which make the defense industry in Colorado the third largest basic industry in our State. El Paso County, CO, population center of the State of Colorado, is the only county in the Nation that is home to five military bases: Fort Carson, U.S. Air Force Academy, Peterson Air Force Base, Schriever Air Force Base, Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, also home to NORTHCOM at Peterson, our strategic missile command, space cyber command. Together, these five bases employ approximately 60,000 people, with at least $6 billion to the local economy, and yet a bill that passed 30 to 0 that would have addressed the needs of this Nation, that would have fixed this crisis we are facing in terms of funding our troops, is being filibustered, being blocked, being held up for partisan reasons-- strategic reasons, tactical reasons. This isn't a time when our military is sitting back at home just guarding the homeland from within the 50 States. This is a time where men and women across this country are standing on guard, engaged in combat today around the globe. This is a nation whose military is standing guard in South Korea, watching a madman in North Korea detonate nuclear bombs--not because he just thinks they are fun to show off but because he wants to use them against the United States and our allies. Yet a partisan minority wishes to block this legislation that funds those people on that line in South Korea protecting the United States and our allies. We had a chance to visit with the Secretary of State today to talk about what is taking place in Syria, what is taking place in Saudi Arabia, what is taking place in Iran, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East. A bill that passed 30 to 0 that would fund those efforts-- our troops, defense of this country, the security of our home, our men and women in uniform--is being blocked, and the bill hasn't changed. Our colleague from West Virginia, Senator Shelley Moore Capito, talked about how nothing has changed between this bill passing out of the Appropriations Committee and today, standing here in this colloquy with our freshmen colleagues. Nothing has changed. Yet the individuals who voted in favor of the bill are now standing in the way of the bill moving forward, refusing to even debate. If they have a difference of opinion, if they think there needs to be an amendment, if they think something needs to change in the bill, then stand forward and talk about it, but instead they are blocking it, using politics and strategic reasoning to keep this bill from coming forth. This bill isn't about strategies of political tactics or strategies of political maneuvering. It is about funding our men and women in uniform--a bill that passed without opposition. It is good for our military, it is good for our country, 1.2 million servicemembers--a much needed, much deserved pay raise for our military personnel. It funds U.S. NORTHCOM, headquartered right there in Colorado, protecting the homeland from threats like North Korea, the Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center, the JICSPOC, that protects and defends critical National space infrastructure in Colorado. This bill funds it. The European Reassurance Initiative that helps our NATO allies counter the destabilizing threat of a resurgent Russia is funded in this legislation--legislation that passed 30 to 0 out of committee but somehow is being stopped and held up and blocked by partisan dissent. It funds our major military installations in Colorado--170,000 jobs and related jobs in Colorado. It prevents moving Guantanamo Bay detainee terrorists to Americans' backyards, something all Coloradans are worried about. I have talked to many of my colleagues on the floor before about what is happening in Colorado and the possibilities that this detention facility at Guantanamo Bay could be unilaterally shut down by the President, and instead of having terrorists located offshore, they would be onshore and put in Colorado. This bill would keep that from happening. It had bipartisan support out of the Appropriations Committee, but it is now being blocked. Why is such a bipartisan bill--such an important bill--that will serve so well our men and women in uniform, that was put together by listening to senior military leaders who are true subject experts on the subject matter being blocked? Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Allyn, has said: ``We must have . . . predictable and sustained funding to deliver the readiness that our combatant commanders require to meet the missions that continue to emerge.'' Marine Gen. John Paxton, Jr., recently testified: ``The strains on our personnel and equipment are showing in many areas, particularly in aviation, in communications and intelligence.'' Earlier this year, General Goldfein--now Chief of Staff of the Air Force--said the current Air Force is ``one of the smallest, oldest and least ready in its history.'' The 2016 DOD appropriations bill put us on a path to address concerns of these military leaders. The bottom line is, preventing this bill from moving forward jeopardizes the ability of our military to effectively, efficiently, and safely do their job and keep our country safe. It is an honor to serve with my colleague from Alaska who served this country in our military; to serve with Joni Ernst, the Senator from Iowa, who served this country; Tom Cotton, the Senator from Arkansas, who served this country, and so many others. Let's listen to them and their leadership, and pass the bill, do what is right for this country, and not listen to the narrowest of partisan voices. I thank the Senator from Montana for the opportunity to join the colloquy.

Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, just moments ago I joined a group of my colleagues from the freshman class to talk about the importance of passage of the Defense appropriations bill. Six Members of that class came to speak about the need to pass a bipartisan bill that passed 30 to 0 out of the Appropriations Committee--16 Republicans, 14 Democrats--unanimously. The American people engaged in this debate know the arguments on each side, but that is only one side because it was 30 to 0. There is no opposition, but yet this bill has been held up by a filibuster six times over the past year and a half. So I come to the floor on behalf of my colleagues who are so engaged in this to ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of H.R. 5325, the Senate proceed to H.R. 5293, the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Illinois. We will continue to work on this issue until we pass this important appropriations bill. We will hear from our colleagues across the country, particularly those who were just elected in 2014. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the veterans of Honor Flight Northern Colorado and the organization's 16th trip to Washington, DC. This group includes veterans from various wars and generations, who are all joined together by their service to our country. In 2008, Honor Flight Northern Colorado was created as a local chapter of the National Honor Flight Network. The organization flies World War II veterans to Washington, DC, to allow these veterans the opportunity to see the national memorial built in their honor. Honor Flight Northern Colorado now welcomes veterans of any war the chance to fly to Washington, DC, free of charge, to visit the memorials of the wars in which they fought. Currently, there are more than 21.8 million veterans living in the United States. No matter the conflict, these veterans made exceptional sacrifices in order to serve and defend our country, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Of the 123 veterans on the most recent honor flight, 23 served in World War II, 53 served in Korea, 47 served in Vietnam, and 1 served in Iraq. Please join me in honoring Robert Armstrong, Leonard Branecki, Richard Ciesielski, Lawrence Colby, John Davis, Melvin Engeman, Irene Hunter, Walter Hunter, Malachi Kenney, William Klun, Donald Kreutzer, Alfred Martin, Joseph Moren, Thomas Paterson, Stanley Raddatz, Raymond Rader, Gerald Ravenscroft, Harold Stoll, Douglas Stratton, Henry Tagtmeyer, Sidney Waldrop, Peter Zarlengo ,Donald Ziemer, Louis Balogh, Donald Begalle, Robert Braden, Walter Brown, William Budd, Robert Burgess, Gerald Clinton, Thomas Dixon, Edward Dreher, Jim Ferguson, William Gaede, Ronald Henderer, Clarence Hill, Wallace Horihan, Clifford Hughes, Dale Johnke, Gordon Kilgore, John Knapp, Arthur Kompolt, James Lambert, James Leavell, Clint Lincoln, Joseph Lutz, Elvin McIntosh, Elmer McLane, Jack Middleton, Leonard Muniz, John Obourn, Bill Overmyer, James Parker, Wallace Pond, Douglas Quigley, Leroy Rady, Lloyd Rausch, Katherine Ravithis, Eugene Reller, Morris Rider, Arthur Schildgen, Darvin Schoemaker, Yersel Scott, Donald Sewald, Robert Smith, Carl Sorensen, Elvin Spreng, Carold Stickler, James Thomason, Albert Tighe, Harvey Tomky, Robert Wagner, Albert Weber, Robert White, Duane Wilsey, Norbert Wilson, Jay Adams, Myron Adams, Darrell Armstrong, James Becker, Gordon Benton, Elden Billington, Jeff Birdwell, Roger Bollenbacher, Jerral Brasher, Gary Curry, Danny DeJiacomo, Jon Erickson, Carl Erikson, Vernon Fresquez, Ronald Fritzler, Kenneth Gillpatrick, Jr., Larry Hull, Frederick Harlow, Marion Herman, Richard Herrera, Dale Hicks, Wilbur Hosman, William Howes, Jerry Iossi, Jerry Kennedy, Gerald King, Leonard Kippes, Philip Lucas, Robert Martinez, Michael Miller, David Moore, John Pickett II, Raul Saenz, Richard Schauermann, James Schlote, John Heitman. Kenneth Seifert, Francis Skolnick, Leonard Sokoloski, Kenneth Spooner, Larry Spooner, Dean Taylor, John Trierweiler, Jimmy Wiles, Michael Wilkinson, Wallace Young, and Steven Larsen.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, on July 5, the United States lost a great public servant, and Colorado lost one of its fiercest advocates. Bill Armstrong's contributions to Colorado and the country embody the virtues of integrity, devotion, and kindness and reflect his priorities of liberty, faith, and family. His mark on this world will never be forgotten. Over the course of his life, Senator Bill Armstrong was known for many of his achievements and titles: U.S. Senator, U.S. Congressman, youngest majority leader in the State legislature, and, most recently, being elected president of Colorado Christian University, just to name a few. But what has been reinforced to me over the last number of days since his passing were not the titles he held or the bills and the amendments he passed through committee or the Senate, but the way in which he carried himself, the respect he gave his staff, his family, and his constituents. He was a thoughtful, peaceful, graceful individual, and he always interacted with those values in mind. It is the stories about how he treated his staff and how he listened to his constituents that stand out in our minds. Today, as we reflect on the impact he had on this country, it is the stories about the lasting effect his words had on impressionable young minds at Colorado Christian University and the relationships he built with Democrats and Republicans alike, despite the frequent bitter and partisan fights that riddled Congress while he served. He once described himself as ``relatively inflexible on principles, but flexible on the details,'' never confusing the two when working toward meaningful solutions that required compromise, always listening, ever respectful of those he may have disagreed with. While I never worked for Senator Armstrong, a number of my closest friends, advisers, and so many of the elected officials in Colorado are a part of the Armstrong legacy and alumni of his great work. The stories they shared with me about their time with Bill Armstrong are incredible. Sean Conway, a former staffer for Bill Armstrong, now a county commissioner in Colorado, talks about the time that Senator Bill Armstrong went to meet with the refuseniks, as they came to be known-- Jewish people living in the Soviet Union who were being persecuted for their views and wanted to leave the Soviet Union for a better life. He went there without contacting his staff, without letting them know how he was or where he was, because he was afraid that the KGB would find out the work that he was doing and the harm that it could cause the people he was meeting with and perhaps even to the staff back home. But he knew he had to bring that message of what was happening with the persecution in the Soviet Union back to his colleagues in the Senate to make sure they understood so they could put an end to the tragedy that was happening in the Soviet Union. His staff remember Bill Armstrong fondly--a number of whom got married as a result of having met while working for him. One former staff member, Roy Palmer, recounted this: ``Bill Armstrong was one of the brightest and most successful persons I've ever met. Yet he didn't have a college degree . . . He spent his life improving his education; reading, studying, debating . . . with a discipline I've never seen before. But he was reluctant to divulge the fact that he didn't have a degree not because he was embarrassed by it, or ashamed about it. Rather he thought it might set a bad example for young people to abandon their education. I think he knew God gave him a special gift of intellect, discipline and drive . . . but he was also extremely aware, compassionate and tolerant of others around him who didn't have the same gift. As he became more successful and older he also became more humble.'' And while there are likely hundreds of other stories about how Bill Armstrong embodied true Christian virtues, lived out the words he spoke, and touched people's lives on a very personal level, the work he did in Congress simply cannot go unnoticed. As one former staffer said, ``Bill Armstrong should be known as the Father of Tax Indexing.'' And no doubt, every taxpayer should thank him for his work on tax indexing because without it, many Americans would be forced to go into a higher tax bracket because of inflation. He fought for it because he believed that just because someone got a well-deserved cost of living adjustment--or COLA--increase they shouldn't have to pay more taxes because of it. Bill Armstrong was also instrumental in the passage of the Colorado National Forest Wilderness Act of 1980 that helped preserve 1,400,000 acres of land in Colorado. The lands, which stretch across the entire State, are areas visitors and Coloradans alike enjoy each and every day. We can all only hope that when we pass on from this life it is first, not the memories others hold of our earthly accomplishments, but what God knows in our hearts to bring us truly home, and then to know we are remembered for the good we have done in this world. Long after our crowning achievements in Congress have faded away from memory, we can all only hope that we are remembered for who we were and the things we did to help lift others up and help them find their purpose in life. As evidenced by the tributes and statements made over the last week since his passing, Bill is known for just that. He lived out the Christian faith he taught. He led hundreds of prayer breakfasts and served on the board of Campus Crusade for Christ and Christian Businessmen's Committee USA. But perhaps more importantly, he was a mentor--as evidenced by the countless stories of students whose lives were changed just because of thoughtful words from Bill Armstrong. A staff assistant in my office wrote an email to me after his passing describing his ``life-changing conversations'' with Bill Armstrong-- part of which I'd like to read: ``The first time I met President Armstrong was before I started attending CCU. I asked to meet with him for five minutes, but true to Armstrong form, he took an hour out of his day to talk about the school and shared why it might be a good fit. After I was convinced and started at CCU, a year later I got to have lunch with him to discuss my interest in economics; he told me to pursue that passion at George Mason for graduate school--his words from that conversation are the reason I'm in D.C. . . . President Armstrong's legacy is bound up in the life he led, walking the walk, adhering to principles and a devotion to serving others.'' Alan Simpson, on the day that Senator Armstrong was giving his farewell speech, said: You have heard the saying that you would rather see a sermon than hear a sermon. Alan Simpson and all of us got to see that every day in Bill Armstrong. On the day Senator Armstrong came to the Senate floor to say farewell, he was joined by others, including our colleagues and many others. He left the Senate in his farewell speech to colleagues, and from my understanding in conversations with his family, he left this life hearing these words from the Scriptures read by his family, from the last verse of the last book of the Holy Scriptures: The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen. As Senator Armstrong walked off the floor of the Senate, he served his fellow man over the last 10 years at Colorado Christian University. He served in the House, in the Senate, and in the Colorado Legislature. He has now walked into a far better place, where we all hope to join him some day. I yield to my colleague from Colorado.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, today I want to celebrate Bill Coors' 100th birthday, and recognize his extraordinary leadership, innovation, and drive to help build the Coors Brewing Company, a great symbol of success in the State of Colorado. Bill was born in Colorado on August 11, 1916, and went on to earn his undergraduate degree at Princeton University. After finishing his master's degree, Bill started his work at Coors and eventually became the president of the company in 1952. The success of Coors is a direct result of Bill's impressive leadership and desire to produce only the highest quality products. Under his management, Bill advanced Coors from a regional brewery to one that was marked as a major competitor on the national stage. Known for the innovative two-piece aluminum can, implementing a program to offer customers money back on returned cans, and bolstering efforts to strengthen recycling programs, Bill demonstrated remarkable creativity and an evident desire to protect Colorado's environment. Colorado is steeped in rich history, and Bill has without a doubt played a major role influencing that history. Bill not only helped transform Coors into a national brewery sensation but also advanced the prosperity of Colorado. Congratulations on this incredible achievement.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about American leadership in the Asia-Pacific region, an area that will be more and more critical to our economy and national security for generations to come. Earlier today, an international tribunal issued an important ruling regarding maritime claims in the South China Sea, which can potentially have lasting consequences for peace and stability in that region and global security in general as the world chooses between an order of rule or an order of lawlessness. Today, the tribunal ruled in favor of our ally the Philippines and against the People's Republic of China, which has refused to recognize and participate in the tribunal altogether, a tribunal sanctioned under international agreement both nations are a party to. The tribunal began its work on January 22, 2013, when the Philippines served notice to China in international court regarding the violations of its sovereignty and China's claims in the South China Sea. On February 19, 2013, China rejected and returned the Philippines' notification, and since that date, China has refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings. On October 29, 2015, the tribunal held that despite China's nonparticipation, it has the jurisdiction to deliver a binding legal ruling in this case since both nations are treaty participants. Today, the panel ruled that China ``breached the sovereign rights of the Philippines'' with regard to maritime disputes between the two nations. More importantly, the tribunal invalidated China's sovereignty claims over almost the entirety of the South China Sea, stating that ``China's claims to historic rights or jurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the `nine-dash line' are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect.'' While the United States is not directly a party to this dispute and takes no position on the sovereignty claims among the various claimants, this ruling is important for many reasons: First, the South China Sea is one of the most important commercial waterways in the world. Almost 30 percent of the world's maritime trade transits the South China Sea annually, including approximately $1.2 trillion in ship-borne trade bound for the United States. Moreover, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are approximately 11 billion barrels and 190 cubic feet of proven and probable oil and natural gas reserves in the South China Sea itself which China wants to claim. Second, the ruling reinforces the right of our military to operate freely in the region, utilizing our longstanding rights of international transit on the high seas--the rights long established by international law. On May 30, 2015, speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter stated: The United States will continue to protect freedom of navigation and overflight--principles that have ensured prosperity and security in this region for decades. There should be no mistake: The United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as U.S. forces do all over the world. The United States has since conducted three freedom of navigation operations--or FONOPs--in the area in October of 2015, January of 2016, and May of 2016, transiting inside the 12-mile nautical zone of the contested features in the South China Sea. Last month, I attended the Shangri-La Dialogue along with a number of my Senate colleagues, and we heard a tremendous amount of concern from regional leaders, not only about the South China Sea but also about whether or not the United States can endure regionally and globally. The South China Sea and what happens there are important tests of American leadership and our ability to support our close allies in the face of aggression that is outside of international norms. So we need to start this conversation, as well, by asking the simple question: How did we get here? I wish to point out a chart that helps show what is going on in the South China Sea. The situation in the South China Sea stems from a Chinese claim called the nine-dash line. It is the red dash line here in the South China Sea, which covers more than 90 percent of the South China Sea. We can see it on the chart, within the lines. China has never offered any detailed explanation or any legal basis for this claim. As the ruling stated today by the tribunal: As far as the Tribunal is aware, China has never expressly clarified the nature or scope of its claimed historic rights. Nor has it ever clarified its understanding of the meaning of the ``nine-dash line.'' For decades we did not pay much attention; the U.S. did not pay much attention to these groundless claims because, while there are certainly incidents and skirmishes, China did not take the highly coercive actions to enforce its claims that we see today. However, over the last several years, China has significantly upped the ante and undertaken a massive effort to reclaim a number of the disputed features in the South China Sea and to militarize these islands. According to the Department of Defense, ``[s]ince Chinese land reclamation efforts began in December of 2013, China has . . . reclaimed more than 2,900 acres of land'' and ``has deployed artillery, built aircraft runways and buildings and positioned radars and other equipment.'' According to the Director of National Intelligence: We assess that China has established the necessary infrastructure to project military capabilities in the South China Sea beyond that which is required for point defense of its outposts. These capabilities could include the deployment of modern fighter aircraft, surface-to-air missiles, and coastal defense cruise missiles, as well as increased presence of Peoples' Liberation Army Navy surface combatants and China Coast Guard large patrol ships. With these capabilities, China could easily intimidate and, if needed, overpower its much smaller and less capable neighbors. So let me point out the second chart here today. In the next year, we will be able to see just how fast the Chinese can build these islands. According to reports and expert assessments, what we are seeing here is ``an artificial island''--what it looked like in the very beginning, the original structure--``covering 75,000 square yards--about 14 football fields--including two piers, a cement plant and a helipad, at a land formation called Hughes Reef. . . . The reef, which is above water only at low tide, lies about 210 miles from the Philippines and 660 miles from China.'' So here is what this looked like in 2014--this original structure right here, the Hughes Reef. We can see what it looked like here, and in January of 2015: 75,000 square yards of land reclamation activities, the helipad over here, the original structure--we can see it right here--and the cement plant. There are 14 football fields worth of land reclamation on a structure that is only 210 miles away from the Philippines yet 660 miles away from China. These actions not only show blatant disregard for the rights of the other claimants in the South China Sea, but it undermines international law. This is what the international tribunal confirmed today. Now it is up to the United States and the world to address the question as to what comes next. Make no mistake, through these activities, China has sent a message not only to its neighbors but also to America as a Pacific power, and we must be ready to answer. So today I am proud to submit a resolution with my colleagues, Senators McCain, Cotton, Sullivan, Rubio, and Ernst, that offers some policy guidelines moving forward on how to address the challenge of the South China Sea. Our resolution, first of all, supports the July 12, 2016, ruling issued by the tribunal as binding on all parties and calls on all parties to pursue peaceful resolution of outstanding maritime claims in the South China Sea consistent with international law. It urges all parties to take action to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in South China Sea and take steps toward early conclusion of a meaningful, binding code of conduct which would provide agreed-upon rules of the road to reduce tension among claimant States. It states that we will oppose any actions in the South China Sea to change the status quo by coercion, force, or the threat of use of force. It calls on the People's Republic of China to cease all reclamation and militarization activities in the South China Sea and to end provocative actions in the East China Sea, which undermine peace and stability in the region. Furthermore, the resolution reaffirms article V of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines, and article V of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan. It urges the U.S. State Department to utilize all diplomatic channels to communicate worldwide, unwavering U.S. support for freedom of navigation and overflight of the South China Sea, and it urges the U.S. Department of Defense to routinely enforce freedom of navigation and overflight in East and South China Seas, which is critical to U.S. national security interests and peace and prosperity in the Asia- Pacific region. It is my sincere hope that instead of an escalation, China chooses the opposite track and abides by this ruling and immediately ceases its destabilizing activities. But should that not come to pass, the United States and our allies must be ready to lead and defend our allies, our values, and our principles. The world is better served when those of us around the globe recognize rules of international behavior, international law, and that we can together reinforce responsible behavior. And we will know going forward from this ruling if China is going to be a responsible rising power that respects the rules of international law, or if the history books will later look back at this time period and show a nation that decides to ignore international law, to ignore the law that binds itself with its neighbors and, instead, acts out of self-gain and self- interests. No matter what happens going forward, the United States must show leadership, resolve, and we must show our allies that we are committed to making sure that international law is respected and upheld. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, anybody who has been watching the news knows what has happened with the FBI investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I think that the FBI's press conference detailing the findings of the FBI's investigation has made it very clear that Secretary Clinton has proven she cannot be trusted in protecting this Nation's most sensitive secrets. That is the takeaway from the FBI Director's press conference just days ago. That is not opinion; that is the conclusion that can be derived and taken from the findings of a very intensive FBI investigation. There were details in press reports earlier today which indicated that classified information had perhaps been handled in an extremely careless way by members of the military, and maybe others, who were punished; however, FBI Director James Comey said he did not recommend punishment in the case of Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information, but in the other cases, he pointed out that there had been adverse consequences. We saw the news reports today that talked about security and administrative sanctions on those who violated the policies and laws of handling classified information. That is why Senator John Cornyn and I have introduced legislation to address this very serious abuse of handling and mishandling classified information. The bill we have introduced is called the TRUST Act because it makes sure that there are consequences for people who handle our classified and most important secrets in an extremely careless manner. The TRUST Act provides consequences for anyone who exercises extreme carelessness in handling classified information. Any clearances that Secretary Clinton holds ought to be revoked because of her mishandling of these secrets, and she should be denied access to classified material unless and until she has a legal right to such access by becoming President- elect. In addition, those around the Secretary and the people to whom she emailed classified information--emails that were marked ``classified'' in some cases--ought to lose their security clearances as well. Secretary Clinton has consistently misled the American people about her emails. Just look at the Associated Press report published yesterday. In a news conference in March of 2015, Secretary Clinton said: ``I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.'' That is not true. In an NBC interview on July 16, Secretary Clinton said: ``I never received or sent any material that was marked classified.'' That is not true. During a news conference in March of 2015, Secretary Clinton said: ``I responded right away and provided all of my emails that could possibly be work related'' to the State Department. That is not true. In March of 2015, Secretary Clinton said: The server was ``guarded by the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches.'' As we can see through the FBI Director's statement, that most likely is also untrue. Time and again, Secretary Clinton has not told the truth to the American people, and there should be consequences related to these actions, especially when her recklessness relates to the most sensitive classified information this country has. Even President Bill Clinton noted the immense harm that results from dangerous actions like those outlined by the FBI Director. In Executive Order 12968, President Clinton said: ``The unauthorized disclosure of information classified in the national interest can cause irreparable damage to national security and loss of human life.'' Secretary Clinton is an intelligent person. She knew this information was classified, and some of it was even marked ``classified.'' The FBI Director himself has said that even if it is not marked ``classified,'' but you know it is classified, you should be aware of it. If you have the potential to carry forward and disclose classified information, then you shouldn't send it over an unsecured server, as Secretary Clinton did hundreds, if not thousands, of times. The New York Times reported today that based on the words and comments, which you can parse from the FBI Director's statements just a couple of days ago, you can basically tell that Clinton's unsecured server was very likely hacked by foreign actors who ``were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.'' That is why Secretary Clinton's security clearance ought to be revoked, and she should be denied access to classified material unless and until she has a legal right to such acts. That is also why those who acted with extreme carelessness around her--because they know better--should have their security clearances revoked. So they can't continue to perpetrate this kind of extreme recklessness, this kind of extreme carelessness, as identified by the Director of the FBI. The Clintons are the great escape artists, the Houdinis of American politics. They push the law to the very edge, and just when they get caught or trapped, they pull back. It is a double standard the American people are sick and tired of dealing with, and I hope my colleagues will support the TRUST Act to protect the integrity of Americans and American classified information. North Korea Mr. President, I also rise to speak about the threat from North Korea and the role Congress has played in enacting tougher policies to counter the Kim Jong Un regime. On January 6, 2016, North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test, which is the third such test since President Obama has taken office. On February 7, North Korea conducted a satellite launch, which is essentially a test of an intercontinental ballistic missile but just disguised as something else, but the launch was certainly to test a missile that would, in their words, be capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. In response, on February 10, the Senate came together 96 to nothing to pass the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, a bill I authored in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee along with Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey. Together, our legislation mandated--not simply authorized but mandated--sanctions against individuals who contribute to North Korea's nuclear program and proliferation activities, malicious cyber attacks, censorship of its citizens, and the regime's continued human rights abuses. The legislation imposed the first-ever mandatory sanctions on North Korea and the first-ever mandatory cyber sanctions as well. This legislation was a recognition that this administration's policy of strategic patience has been a strategic failure. As the Washington Post editorial board stated on February 8, just 2 days before our bill passed on the Senate floor, ``President Obama's policy since 2009 of strategic patience has failed. The policy has mostly consisted of ignoring North Korea while mildly cajoling China to pressure the regime.'' I am pleased to see the administration is now shifting its failed policies by implementing key portions of the North Korea legislation that cracks down on the North Korean regime. On June 1, the Treasury Department designated North Korea as a jurisdiction of ``primary money laundering concern'' under section 311 of the PATRIOT Act, which will further isolate North Korea from the international financial system. Yesterday, Treasury took another important step by designating Kim Jong Un and a number of his top officials as human rights abusers. This designation is long overdue and came about only because Congress mandated it, along with a human rights report that was delivered to Congress yesterday. We have known for years that this regime is one of the world's foremost abusers of human rights. The North Korean regime maintains a vast network of political prison camps, where as many as 200,000 men, women, and children are confined to atrocious living conditions and are tortured, maimed, and killed. I have spoken to defectors. I have had conversations with a defector from North Korea who served in the military there and who spoke to me of their torture in these prisons, of people who were put in jail because of their opposition to the Kim Jong Un regime, people who were tortured because of their defiance of Kim Jong Un's leadership. On February 7, 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Commission released a groundbreaking report detailing North Korea's horrendous record on human rights. The Commission found that North Korea's actions constituted a ``crime against humanity.'' Now, we all are probably asking ourselves why it took so long for the administration to come to the same conclusion and then finally do something about it. Nonetheless, this week we finally are, but more remains to be done to send the strongest message we can to this regime, which poses a very serious threat to peace and stability throughout Asia, Eastern Asia, and the United States. Last month, we learned that North Korea successfully tested a missile that is capable of reaching U.S. bases in Japan and the U.S. territory of Guam. According to open sources, the DPRK currently fields an estimated 700 short-range ballistic missiles, 200 medium-range ballistic missiles, and 100 intermediate-range ballistic missiles. To counter this threat, we need to proactively work with South Korea to immediately station the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense--or THAAD--in South Korea. The regime's nuclear stockpile is growing fast. Most recently, nuclear exports have reported that North Korea may currently have as many as 20 nuclear warheads and has the potential to possess as many as 100 warheads within the next 5 years. Our military leaders have repeatedly stated that North Korea may have already developed the ability to miniaturize a nuclear warhead, to mount it onto their own intercontinental ballistic missile called the KN-08, and to ``shoot it at the homeland.'' Pyongyang is also quickly developing its cyber capabilities as another dangerous tool of intimidation--an asymmetric threat to the United States--as demonstrated by the attack on the South Korean financial and communication systems in March of 2013 or the Sony Pictures hacking incident in November of 2014. According to a report that was released last year in 2015 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, ``North Korea is emerging as a significant actor in cyberspace with both its military and clandestine organizations gaining the ability to conduct cyber operations.'' According to the Heritage Foundation, ``Contrary to perceptions of North Korea as a technically backward nation, the regime has a very robust and active cyber warfare capability.'' The Reconnaissance General Bureau, North Korea's intelligence agency, oversees 3,000 cyber warriors dedicated to attacking Pyongyang's enemies. Cyber experts have assessed that North Korea's electronic warfare capabilities were surpassed only by the United States and Russia. Last month, South Korean authorities uncovered a massive North Korean cyber attack into more than 140,000 computers at 160 South Korean firms and government agencies. Reports indicate that more than 40,000 defense-related documents were stolen, including the blueprints for components of the F-15 fighter jet. Let me say that again. North Korea perpetrated a hack on South Korea that resulted in them obtaining the blueprints for the F-15 fighter jet. Yet, in light of these gross violations, the administration still has not acted to impose sanctions on North Korean cyber criminals as required by the law that passed 96 to 0 by this Senate. In fact, the administration is now nearly 2 months late in producing a report required under the bill which would name and shame those violators--the perpetrators of these cyber attacks. However, the crux of the success of the sanctions efforts rests with Beijing's compliance--with China. Nearly 90 percent of North Korea's trade is with China and, at least so far, we have seen only mixed evidence that Beijing is serious about changing its policies toward Pyongyang. While the administration needs to pursue constant and vigorous diplomatic efforts with Beijing, it should also not hesitate to impose penalties on Chinese entities as appropriate, if they are found in violation of the sanctions this Congress has passed. Finally, we also need to make sure we develop a strong trilateral alliance between South Korea and Japan, including enhanced defense and intelligence cooperation, to better deter the North Korean threat. We must never forget that more than 20 years ago, North Korea pledged to dismantle its nuclear program, and yet now we see a regime that has no respect for international agreements or international norms and is on the cusp of over 100 nuclear warheads. The United States should never again engage in negotiations with Pyongyang without imposing strict preconditions that North Korea take immediate steps to halt its nuclear program, to cease all military provocation, and to make credible steps to respecting the human rights of the people of North Korea. If the United States does not pursue increased actions against North Korea now, we will face a much greater threat in the future, and these threats will be immensely consequential to the safety and well-being of the U.S. homeland. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Mountain View Electric Association's 75th anniversary. On December 6, 1940, Mountain View Electric's 249 original members filed for incorporation of the cooperative. Since then, the company has provided power to Arapahoe, Crowley, Douglas, Elbert, El Paso, Lincoln, Pueblo, and Washington counties in Colorado. Its territory covers 5,000 square miles, powering homes, schools, churches, small businesses, and hospitals. For more than seven decades, Mountain View Electric has been an important source of electricity for many of Colorado's rural counties. In particular, the company has worked diligently to help the residents who lost their homes in the Black Forest Fire in 2013. In the wake of this devastation, Mountain View Electric worked to quickly restore service to the area, at no additional cost to the property owners. Rural electric cooperatives play an important role in communities around the United States, serving an estimated 42 million Americans. This business structure connects consumers directly to the operations of the company, keeping electricity prices affordable. Electric cooperatives also contribute to development and growth across the country's rural areas. I commend Mountain View Electric for its decades of service to rural Colorado. Congratulations again on this significant anniversary.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2016, at 2 p.m., in room SR-301 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2016, at 2 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Implications of the Supreme Court Stay of the Clean Power Plan.''

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2016, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I will continue to state the number of people who believe it is important that we approach this from the standpoint of an amendment that Senator Nelson and I have filed, along with a bipartisan group of legislators. I will begin with Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force Chief of Staff. This is testimony before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee in 2015. [V]irtually everybody agrees that we would like to, as the United States of America, not be so reliant on a Russian engine going forward into the future. . . . But the question is how to do it and when will we be ready, because we don't want to cut off our nose to spite our face. . . . all of the technical experts with whom I've consulted tell me this is not a one or two or three-year deal. You're looking at maybe six or seven years to develop an engine and another year or two beyond that to be able to integrate. Of course, our amendment would cut it off at 2022 because we believe that is the transition we would need in order to provide the kind of security that the people of this country expect. Let me show some of the national security missions that will be delayed if we don't have the ability to use all of the components of our current rocket set today. The space-based infrared system warning satellites that are designed for ballistic missile detection from anywhere in the world, particularly countries like North Korea, would be delayed. I had the opportunity to go to South Korea just last week where I met with General Brooks who talked about the need for us to provide more intelligence over North Korea. The day we were there, North Korea once again tried to launch a ballistic missile. Thankfully it failed, but what happens if it doesn't fail? Are we going to be able to have the space-based infrared system in place that we need to be able to protect the people of this country? Because if they succeed and we don't know, that is catastrophic. The Mobile User Objective System and Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite system designed to deliver vital communications capabilities to our armed services around the world would both be delayed. According to a letter dated May 23 from the Deputy Secretary of Defense--again somebody who is very much interested in the future and current security of this country--``losing/delaying the capability to place position and navigation, communication, missile warning, nuclear detection, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance satellites in orbit would be significant.'' The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said before the Senate when asked about what would happen with the loss of these rockets: They are counting on these rockets to be able to get the number of engines that would satisfy the requirements for NASA to fly the Dream Chaser when it comes around in 2019. The Dream Chaser already has a resupply service contract for the International Space Station. It is designed to fly on top of one of these rockets. If we were to change that, it would no longer have that rocket available, and they would undergo significant cost and delay in trying to retrofit the rocket just like the Orion space program. We can talk about more experts. In April of 2015, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics said: There's going to be a period of time where we would like to have the option, possibly, of using RD-180s if necessary. There are much more expensive options available to us but we prefer not to go that way. We have shown the chart of how expensive it would be, and now I want to show one final chart. When we talk about how much money is being spent on rocket engines, I would like to point out this chart. If we are concerned about cronies from Russia, then let's talk about other areas where we are importing from Russia. This is from 2013. If you look at where we are, engines and motors represent .32 percent of this pie chart. That is how much money is being spent on importing engines and motors from Russia. Let's look at something like nickel. Nickel is .59 percent of our imports from Russia. Arms and ammunition are .56 percent, more than engines and motors. Here is an interesting one. Fish, crustaceans, and aquatic invertebrates are 1.2 percent of our imports from Russia. Engines and motors represent only .32 percent of that. We are going to continue to have a very good debate in this body. I think Members can come at this from a different approach, and I look forward to working out a solution that all Members can be proud that we have done what is best for our country, our taxpayers, and our security. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I have great respect for my colleague from Arizona. The service he has given to this country and the sacrifices he has endured are tremendous, and nobody can underestimate what he has done for this Nation. I don't think anybody here would ever think they have done that in whatever legislative action they take. So while we may disagree on certain issues or agree with a different course of action, I believe everybody wants to do what is best for their Nation. When it comes to this particular issue of having access to space, having reliable access to space, maintaining competition in our industry so that we can provide the best value and cost savings to the American taxpayer while achieving the level of security we need, that is where I believe this debate is rightfully focused, and that is also where the debate from our own Department of Defense is focused. Nobody in this Chamber wants to continue the status quo. In fact, I have filed an amendment with Senators Nelson, Bennet, Hatch, Inhofe, and Sessions--a number of people who believe we should end the status quo and go in a new direction. In fact, that is what this entire debate is about, to make sure we no longer have to rely on the rocket as we do today. But we cannot leave the security of this country blind to capacities that we would lose if we pursued the direction of the Defense Authorization Act as it is written today, because if we pass this legislation, there are assets that will protect the people of this country that we may not be able to put into space. And if we do, in this bill is language that will cost up to $1.5 billion because that is what this bill will force to be done--legislation that will result in a $1.5 billion to $5 billion tax increase. I just supported an amendment to add dollars to our defense and security because I believe it is important that the men and women of this country have the tools and the resources they need to protect and defend themselves. I supported that--billions of new dollars. Yet the actions under this bill would cost the American taxpayers somewhere between $1.5 billion and $5 billion in more money. While we are adding more money, we are taking it away with passage of this act, while reducing reliability, reducing access to space, and reducing competition. I believe as organizations like the Tea Party Patriots, organizations like AEI, organizations across the country that believe we can do better, that we should keep competition, that we should keep reliability--those are the things we believe in. Let me read comments by Defense Secretary Ash Carter, the Secretary of Defense, who is truly interested in making sure we protect the people of this Nation from bad actors: We have to have assured access to space, so we have to have a way to launch our national security payloads into space so our country's security depends on that. One way to do that which is reflected in our budget is to continue to use the Atlas booster including a limited, but continuing number of RD-180 engines. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James on January 27, 2016: Maintaining at least two of the existing systems until at least two launch providers are available will be necessary to protect our Nation's assured access to space. This is coming from somebody who believes we need to protect this country and the people of this country from bad actors. She goes on to say: As we move forward, we respectfully request this committee allow the Department the flexibility to develop and acquire the launch capabilities our warfighters and Intelligence Community need. Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, William LaPlante, July 16, 2015: We believe authorization to use up to 18 RD-180 engines in the competitive procurement and award of launch service contracts through Fiscal Year 2022 is a reasonable starting point to mitigate the risk associated with assured access to space and enable competition. This is somebody who is interested in protecting the people of this country from bad actors--people who would do harm, people who would do evil acts to this country and our allies. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Katrina McFarland, June 26, 2015, talks about the need for this program. Intelligence Director James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter on May 11, 2015, together said: We are working diligently to transition from the Russian- made RD-180 rocket engine onto domestically sourced propulsion capabilities, but are concerned that section 1608 presents significant challenges to doing so while maintaining assured access to space. They care about the security of this Nation. They care about the secure future of this Nation. In fact, just a few days ago, in an article from former General Shelton, four-star commander in the U.S. Air Force, he talked about the need to move away from these rockets to transition to an American-made rocket but in the meantime not allow our capacity, our capability, or our competition to suffer. Here is what it would cost. This is what it would cost. Here is the graph. This is what the American taxpayers would be paying--35 percent more, $1.5 billion to a $5 billion increase in spending if the language of the bill, as it is written today, goes into law. That is not some staffer in the cloak of darkness in the mailroom trying to come up with figures. That is what the experts agree will happen. While this body is talking about there is not enough money to fund defense, while this body is voting on amendments to increase spending on defense, the same policies enshrined in this bill would cost up to $5 billion more. If we truly want to make sure we have the resources needed to defend this country, let's not self-inflict $5 billion worth of harm when we all agree to transition to an American-made system. Let's do so in a way that relies on the ability to do what is right with competition, with reliability, instead of transitioning to a system that can't even reach 60 percent of projected NSS needs-- national security space mission needs--unless you use a 35 percent more expensive rocket. General Shelton believes we should keep this rocket--a five-star general in the U.S. Air Force, Russian rocket engines are essential for now. General Shelton begins: ``The U.S. Senate is debating the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act.'' An amendment proposed ``would provide relief'' from restrictions that we are facing right now, ``recognizing that the current draft legislation would significantly harm the national security space program.'' A four-star general in service to our Nation has said that if we don't change the bill as it is written, it would significantly harm the national security space program. General Shelton is the former commander of Air Force Space Command. I think he knows what he is talking about. I think he is an expert. I could read more quotes from others. The NASA Administrator believes that without this language, we are going to increase costs in NASA, not just the Department of Defense, and we are going to hurt our ability to access space and access launches. You talk to the intel communities--intel communities that believe they would lose the capacity to launch satellites that provide missile launch detection that can protect our people and our country. Yes, let's make sure we transition, yes, let's make sure we change the status quo, but let's do it in a way that is smart, good policy, and protects the interests of the American people. That is what this amendment is about, and we can all agree to that. Mr. President, I would like to change topics quickly, if I could. Marion Konishi and Camp Amache Pilgrimage Mr. President, just a couple of weeks ago in Colorado, Channel 9 News in Denver reported that a bus was going to leave Denver to make a 4- hour drive to a place called Amache. It is where some 7,000 people lived, worked, and called home during much of World War II. Ten weeks after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 996, creating internment camps for people of Japanese descent. One of those camps was in Colorado. Just a couple of weeks ago marked the 40th year that Japanese Americans have made a formal pilgrimage to that camp. Those 7,000 people lived in barracks, formed their own schools, planted gardens, and had beauty parlors and Boy Scout troops. Their sons volunteered to fight and die for the country that imprisoned their parents. Many of the visitors to the camp were elderly, in their nineties. There were some college students who made the visit as well, but amongst the people who visited Camp Amache just a couple of weeks ago was the valedictorian of the 1943 Amache Senior High School class. Her name is Marion Konishi. It was her first visit to Camp Amache since she left the camp more than 70 years ago. She was a valedictorian, and 73 years ago she gave a speech as the head of her class. Just a few weeks ago, she returned to Camp Amache where she reread that speech again for the first time. I thought I would read excerpts of that speech today, her speech titled ``America, Our Hope is Anew,'' June 25, 1943. One and a half years ago I knew only one America--an America that gave me an equal chance in the struggle for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I were asked then--``What does America mean to you?''--I would answer without any hesitation and with all sincerity--``America means freedom, equality, security, and justice.'' The other night while I was preparing for this speech, I asked myself this same question--``What does America mean to you?'' I hesitated--I was not sure of my answer. I wondered if America still means and will mean freedom, equality, security, and justice when some of its citizens were segregated, discriminated against, and treated so unfairly. I knew I was not the only American seeking an answer. Then I remembered that old saying--all the answers to the future will be found in the past for all men. So unmindful of the searchlights reflecting in my windows, I sat down and tried to recall all the things that were taught to me in my history, sociology, and American life classes. This is what I remembered. America was born in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, and for 167 years it has been held as the hope, the only hope, for the common man. America has guaranteed to each and all, native and everyone foreign, the right to build a home, to earn a livelihood, to worship, think, speak, and act as he pleased--as a free man equal to every other man. Every revolution within the last 167 years which had for its aim more freedom was based on her constitution. No cry from an oppressed people has ever gone unanswered by her. America froze, shoeless in the snow at Valley Forge, and battled for her life at Gettysburg. She gave the world its greatest symbols of democracy: George Washington, who freed her from tyranny; Thomas Jefferson, who defined her democratic course; and Abraham Lincoln, who saved her and renewed her faith. Sometimes America failed and suffered. Sometimes she made mistakes, great mistakes, but she always admitted them and tried to rectify all the injustice that flowed from them. . . . Her history is full of errors but with each mistake she has learned and has marched forward onward toward a goal of security and peace and a society of free men where the understanding that all men are created equal, an understanding that all men whatever their race, color, or religion be given an equal opportunity to save themselves and each other according to their needs and abilities. I was once again at my desk. True, I was just as much embittered as any other evacuee. But I had found in the past the answer to my question. I had also found my faith in America--faith in the America that is still alive in the hearts, minds, and consciences of true Americans today--faith in the American sportsmanship and attitude of fair play that will judge citizenship and patriotism on the basis of actions and achievements and not on the basis of physical characteristics. Can we the graduating class of Amache Senior High School, still believe that America means freedom, equality, security, and justice? Do I believe this? Do my classmates believe this? Yes, with all our hearts, because in that faith, in that hope, is my future, our future, and the world's future. To Marion Konishi, today Marion Kobukata, her husband Kenneth, who served in the 442nd, thank you for sharing these words 73 years later. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 487, submitted earlier today.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 8:15 a.m., Friday, June 10; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2943; further, that the filing deadline for second- degree amendments to S. 2943 be at 8:45 a.m. tomorrow; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture vote with respect to S. 2943 occur at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, when I was growing up in the Eastern Plains of Colorado, one of the things I was hoping to do after graduating from college and entering the workforce was to work in the space program. I desperately wanted to be an engineer--an astronaut. I wanted to live that dream that was played on the television when I was growing up and when there were movies such as ``The Right Stuff.'' When I was growing up in the mid-1980s, the movies they showed idealized the world of space exploration. I grew up idolizing the astronauts. I can remember as a child writing a letter to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, and basically telling them that I was really interested in becoming an astronaut and how I could someday do that. Little did I know that my mom, all these years later, kept the response from NASA, and the letter had the old ``worm'' NASA logo on top. The response came with a picture of the most recent space shuttle mission, which included Sally Ride. Of course we know Sally Ride, the first female in the space shuttle program. I remember how excited I was to get that letter back. Years later, I looked at the actual content of the letter and noted that they weren't necessarily quite as kind in confirming my aspirations when they laid out how difficult it would be to become a rocket scientist--to become an aerospace engineer and to go on and pursue that dream. Lo and behold, they were right. I ended up pursuing a different direction in college and beyond, but I always had great admiration and respect for the men and women of our space program. Growing up on the Eastern Plains of Colorado was a fascinating experience. I learned how people ran their businesses and how today many of our tractors and combines rely on the very space programs that I was admiring. The roots of the space program that we saw in the 1970s and 1980s are being utilized today to steer tractors, satellite-guided equipment, to locate the best yield in a field through combines that use global positioning systems and precision farming data to better their operations. Of course, we have these debates today that remind me about those conversations. We have debates today over policy about how we are going to see the future of space, how we are going to see the future of security, how we are going to see the future of rocket launches in this country. It reminds me of the conversations that I had with those farmers in the Eastern Plains. My family sells farm equipment today in a little, tiny town out by Kansas. Oftentimes farmers would come in and talk about how they would be more productive this year and what kind of equipment they needed to be tailormade for their operation, how they could create a farming program with the farm equipment they would buy in order to have the right type of tractor, the right type of combine, or the right type of tillage equipment to meet the needs of their operation. When they would come in and talk to us about what kind of farm equipment best fit their needs, they would look at what price range they had to deal with--what was more affordable or less affordable. They would look at the utility of a single piece of equipment. Could this tractor or combine meet all of their needs? Could it harvest corn and sunflowers? Could it harvest soybeans? Could it pick sunflower seeds? Could it pick up dried beans? Those are the conversations we would have. What they didn't do was come in and say: Hey, I want to buy a piece of equipment that costs 35 percent more than any other piece of equipment and doesn't fit the needs of our operation. We sold red farm equipment. There may have been equipment that somebody would want to do that with, but the fact is this: When they came into our store, they wanted farm equipment that would fit their needs at the right price and was able to meet the demands of all of their operations so they wouldn't have to use a tractor for this field and a different tractor for that field or pay for a tractor that costs 35 percent more over here and a tractor that didn't fulfill all of their needs over there. When I look at the debates today over the National Defense Authorization Act and how we are handling our Nation's rocket program, the EELV programs--the debate that has occupied this Congress for a number of years--I think back to the common sense of those farmers on the High Plains of Colorado because what is common sense on the High Plains is just plain sense in Washington, DC, and that is what we are facing during this debate over what rockets we are going to allow this country to use in the future. That is the argument that we are making today. It is an argument about competition, it is an argument about costs, and it is an argument about what is actually going to fulfill all of our needs in space and not leave us without the capability to meet our national security space missions. That is the critical part of what we are talking about today. Just as those farmers on the Eastern Plains did--they talked about the best fit for their mission to make sure they could plant their crops, to make sure they could get the crops out of the field and do it in an affordable manner so they would still be in operation the next year despite the fact that they had historically low commodity prices, just as we are facing a historically tight budget in the U.S. Congress. What we are talking about is our national security. It is not about tractors in a field, and it is not about whether we are going to have the right combine. This debate is about national security space missions. This debate is about having the right kind of rocket to launch a critical mission that might include a satellite on top that is for missile launch detection, or perhaps it is a rocket that is going to put into orbit a device that will listen and provide opportunities for us to know what is happening across the world or across the United States. Maybe it is something that is related to that organization that I was so desperate to join, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA. Maybe it is the Dream Chaser from Sierra Nevada Corporation, which is attempting to build a vehicle that will be placed on top of one of the rockets that might be no longer available, should the current language of the National Defense Authorization Act move forward. We have the same kinds of debates every day in our business, whether you are a farmer or a car dealer, but this is about our security, this is about our defense, and this is about our ability to provide competition in space, to provide rockets that compete for business, to provide rockets that are cost effective for their mission, to provide rockets for this country to meet those critical missions that we talked about that are reliable and have a proven record. That is what we are doing today, and that is why Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and I have together worked on amendment No. 4509 to make sure when it comes to our ability to reach space, to reach the orbits that we need to, we can do it in a cost environment that reflects the reality of budgets today and do it in a way that we know can be reliable. This amendment will address those concerns by peeling out the language of the National Defense Authorization Act to ensure competition, to ensure reliability, to ensure affordability, and to assure that those agencies such as NASA or perhaps USGS and other agencies that are relying on space more and more have the ability and capacity to reach the orbits they are trying to reach. The Nelson-Gardner amendment assures competition. That is something we have all agreed is critically important as we look to the future of our space and launch programs. This addresses the certification of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, the EELV program that I mentioned before, to make sure that a provider can be awarded a national security launch for one of these critical missions by using any launch vehicle in its inventory. Why is that important? Because we need to make sure that the U.S. Government has the ability to receive the best value. It is the same conversation those farmers were having about what farm equipment they were going to use back home, except this is a critical national security space mission. If we prevent this language from being removed or if we don't allow the Nelson-Gardner amendment to move forward, then it is going to be very difficult for us to have that competition. For instance, you are looking at the possibility that a rocket we are using right now known as the Atlas V rocket, which has never failed, would be forced to bid for future rocket missions; that is, United Launch Alliance, which makes the Atlas V rocket right now, would be forced to bid using more expensive Delta forerunners. To be expensive is one thing, but to cost 35 percent more than what we already have today is missing that common sense that I talked about on the High Plains of Colorado. This amendment will make sure that we abide by the request of the U.S. Air Force, which is concerned that if we allow the provision of the National Defense Authorization Act to move forward today, that would bar our ability to use certain rocket engines; that if the Atlas V, which relies on this rocket engine, is banned prematurely from DOD's use, that alternative--which means they would have to use that Delta IV rocket--would cost an additional $1.5 to $5 billion more versus simply relying on the proven and effective rocket that we have today. I think everybody in this Chamber agrees that we can move to a different rocket than the Atlas V, which relies on the engine prohibited under the act. Everybody agrees with that, but what they don't agree with is the fact that we would spend $1.5 billion more to achieve this goal. We are going to be debating very soon an amendment that will add $18 billion and put that money into our defense because people are concerned that we have a dwindling capacity in our military to meet the needs around the globe for U.S. national security needs; that our men and women in uniform don't have the dollars they need to fix the equipment they are relying upon. This Chamber is going to be voting on putting more money into national defense. Allowing the language that is currently in the bill would bar our ability to use this engine in an existing rocket, and it would cost $1.5 billion more. The fiscally responsible thing to do is to allow for competition, to allow this rocket to continue to be used, to allow this engine to continue to be used as we transition out of this engine and in a few years to have a different type of engine and different type of rocket that they are working on right now. And in a few years we will have it. To say that we are going to change and eliminate competition today, we are going to drive up costs by 35 percent, and we are going to turn to a rocket that can't meet all the orbits, can't meet all our needs, and doesn't have the track record of the Atlas V--that is the definition of irresponsibility. Adding $1.5 billion to $5 billion of cost and also eliminating competition is not what I think this place should stand for. The Senate should stand for competition. We should achieve what remarkable changes we have seen in the space program, as more people are entering into the rocket market. We have seen new entrants into rocket launchers--and that is what we are talking about today--to continue the competition, not lessen the competition by eliminating it, taking offline models of rockets and then spending $5 billion more. We have already talked about the farmer sitting in the field. If he has a combine that could cost 35 percent more but does the same job as the one that cost 35 percent less, which one is he going to choose? Which one would his banker want him to choose? The American people would want us to go with what is proven and what is reliable. Let's transition off of it--you bet--but not at an increased cost to our defense of $1.5 billion to $5 billion more. To support this amendment and the rocket competition that this Nation deserves is what is fiscally conservative. The pro-competition position ensures that the U.S. Air Force and National Aeronautics and Space Administration will have access to space. It is about meeting the needs of those in our Air Force, NASA, and others who have said that we need this critical mission. As General Hyten testified before this Congress, the Department of Defense will incur additional costs to reconfigure missions to fly on a different rocket--the Delta IV we have been talking about and the Delta IV Heavy--because the competitor to the Atlas V doesn't have a rocket as capable as the Atlas V and can fly to only half of the necessary orbits. In 2015 and 2016, the Air Force and the Defense Department leadership testified to the need for additional RD-180 engines--that is the engine that we have been talking about that is stripped out of the Atlas V, ending the Atlas V program--to compete for launches and to assure that the United States doesn't lose assured access to space, making sure we can get to where we need to go to place a satellite in the orbit it needs to be in to provide security for this country. We can do it with a reliable system at an affordable cost. We talked about competition. The Nelson-Gardner amendment promotes competition by allowing the Defense Department to contract for launch services with any certified launch vehicle until December 2022, allowing competition to 2022 and transitioning out of the RD-180 so that we can have more competition in the future. The language we have been discussing--I believe it is section 1036 or 1037 of the National Defense Authorization Act--eliminates this competition. It puts an end to it by ending the use of these engines and basically taking out the Atlas V rocket. The Atlas V, again, is the United States' most cost effective and capable launch vehicle. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Atlas V rocket, which is powered by the RD-180 engine, has had 68 successful Atlas V launches since 2000. The Atlas V has never experienced a failure. When talking about competition, cost, reliability, and putting a satellite on top of a rocket--where many times that satellite costs more than the rocket itself--we can't afford a failure from a fiscal standpoint, and we certainly can't afford a failure from a security standpoint. That is why we need reliability and a proven track record. This debate is complicated. People for years have talked about the Atlas V, the Delta IV, and the Falcon 9. People ask: What does it all mean, which engine do we use, how do we transition, and why did we end up in this position in the first place? There are a lot of people who have come to the floor on different issues, saying it is not rocket science, but, indeed, today we are talking about rocket science and the need to have an Atlas V rocket that provides competition, reliability, and the opportunity for the United States to meet our national security needs. Without the Nelson-Gardner amendment, the underlying language of the National Defense Authorization Act legislates a monopoly. It creates a monopoly with the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program, or EELV, because only one company would be allowed to fairly compete. While we have all committed to competition and we all have said we are going to transition away from this rocket engine, we actually would be passing legislation that would create a legislative monopoly. That is not plain common sense; that is nonsense. It is important to note that the Department of Defense isn't the one that is buying these rocket engines in the first place. The Department of Defense buys the launch services. The Nelson-Gardner amendment would allow United Launch Alliance and others to compete for missions with the Atlas V. The ULA is competing with the Atlas V. Others could be competing as well. If the ULA does not win the competition, the Department of Defense will not be using the RD-180 engine. It makes sense to me. Promoting this open and fair competition to get the best deal for the taxpayers of this country--to get the best deal for national security needs in this country--is the fiscally responsible path forward and allows the DOD to achieve those priorities. It allows the Air Force to reach the space that they need to. It is not just the Air Force; it is the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of the Air Force, Commander of the U.S. Space Command, the Air Force teaching staff, and many others who have testified before this Congress in support of continued use of the RD-180 rocket engine until a new domestic engine is certified for national security space engines. Compared to the Delta IV, the Atlas V can reach every national security space mission that we need with certified, 100-percent reliability from the Atlas V. We don't have that anywhere else. It has been made clear by the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Commander of Space Command that ensuring America's access to space is an issue of national security, as well as protecting the taxpayers' dollars that are already so scarce in the defense budget. Why would we add an additional $1 billion in cost by eliminating competition when we ought to be doing the exact opposite? The Nelson-Gardner amendment promotes national security by assuring reliable access to space that we talked about, to make sure that we have a certified launch service available with a proven track record. The Atlas V rocket is one of the most successful rockets in American history. Since 2000, we have had 68 consecutive successful launches with zero failures, according to the Congressional Research Service. That is a 16-year track record. According to the Department of Defense--and this is important--if Atlas V restrictions are imposed, certain missions would sustain up to 2\1/2\ years of delay. We have threats emerging around the globe. This past week I had the opportunity to visit South Korea. We met with General Brooks, and we talked about the need this country has in assuring a denuclearized Korean peninsula to make sure that North Korea doesn't possess the capability to launch a nuclear weapon that could hit the mainland of the United States. That is not something that can wait year after year because we made a decision that costs the taxpayer more and lessens our capacity and capability of going into space. In fact, what I heard from General Brooks and from others in South Korea is that our intelligence needs and requirements in North Korea are only increasing. So why would we decrease competition? Why would we decrease access to space? Why would we increase costs when our security needs are growing? The Nelson-Gardner amendment assures that we have this access because we know if there is a 2\1/2\-year delay, not only does that prevent us from putting important assets into space, it will also drive up costs. The space-based infrared system, SBIRS, warning satellites designed for ballistic missile detection from anywhere in the world, particularly countries such as North Korea, would be delayed. The Mobile User Objective System and Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite systems that are designed to deliver vital communications capabilities to our armed services around the world would both be delayed. According to a letter dated the 23rd of May from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, ``losing/delaying the capability to place position and navigation, communication, missile warning, nuclear detection, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance satellites in orbit would be significant.'' Challenges to our freedom around the globe in the Middle East, North Korea, along with what is happening in Southeast Asia and the radicalization occurring in certain countries mean we can't afford delay. We can't afford cost increases. It is not just the defense bill. It is not just the Secretary of the Air Force. It is these agencies that we have also talked about tonight, like NASA. The Nelson-Gardner amendment supports our civil space missions by ensuring access and allowing Federal Government agencies to contract any certified launch service provider because many of those missions that are critical to NASA's success outside of the DOD are designed to fly atop an Atlas V rocket. According to the Wall Street Journal, while the underlying NDAA language only directly impacts the Department of Defense, the result ``is likely to raise the price of remaining NASA missions because massive overhead costs would have to be spread across fewer launches.'' That goes back to the conversation about buying one piece of equipment, not a separate combine to harvest corn, a separate combine to harvest wheat, a separate combine to pick up beans. Buy one combine with different attachments, and you can do it all. That is what we are trying to do to make sure that we have the capability in the equipment because if there is a NASA mission and they are placing a Dream Chaser on top of it, or if you are placing something to do with the Orion mission, which is designed to be on top of the Atlas V, you are going to drive up the costs. You have the costs being driven up by the rocket because there are higher costs being spread across fewer agencies. You have a higher cost because you have to redesign the Orion and the Dream Chaser to fit the new rocket. You are going to be delayed, possibly, because of those changes, and it is going to result in higher costs. So we have a responsibility to the American people in how we transition away from the RD-180 engine while ensuring reliability, access, and maintaining competition. It is by keeping the Atlas V. At a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on March 10, NASA Administrator Bolden highlighted the need for the Atlas V by stating, ``We are counting on ULA being able to get the number of engines that will satisfy requirements for NASA to fly.'' That is not a congressional staffer making it up in the back room of the mail office; that is the Administrator of NASA. He went on to talk about the mission's impact. He talked about the Dream Chaser, which was recently awarded a cargo resupply services contract. This isn't pie-in-the-sky kind of stuff; this is a company that has already been awarded a cargo resupply service contract to supply the International Space Station. The Dream Chaser was designed to fly atop the Atlas V rocket. The language in the NDAA would strip this ability to use that rocket. Our amendment, the Nelson-Gardner amendment, would allow us to use the commonsense approach, to use that plain sense that I talked about. Michael Griffen, former NASA Administrator, weighed in on the issue, stating: A carefully chosen committee led by Howard Mitchell, United States Air Force, Retired, made two key recommendations in the present matter: 1. Proceed with all deliberate speed to develop an American replacement for the Russian RD-180 engine [and we agree], and while that development is being carried out, buy all the RD-180s we can to ensure that there is no gap in U.S. access to space for national security payloads. I see no reason to alter those recommendations. We are talking about a hard stop of 2022 so that we can replace the rocket with our own. But in the meantime, let's use some common sense. Let's make sure we are saving the taxpayer dollars. Let's make sure we are not putting an additional cost--pulling $1.5 billion out of our defense budget to cover something that we can already do, when their resources are already far too scare. Let's make sure we have a reliable platform to reach all of the orbits we need to, a platform that has had 68 consecutive launches to achieve the mission needs. This is high-risk stuff. I mentioned as a kid growing up in the Eastern Plains of Colorado how fascinated I was with this rocket science. I believe this body has a responsibility to adopt the Nelson-Gardner amendment to assure that we can protect our people fiscally and from a defense standpoint. So later this week, as we debate and offer amendment 4509, I hope and encourage everyone to do what is fiscally responsible, to promote competition, to promote access and reliability from the DOD to NASA by adopting the Nelson-Gardner amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his words. Obviously he is an expert on health care. He is somebody who spent his entire life treating patients and working to improve the health care of others in Wyoming and beyond. His expertise on this issue is particularly important as we debate the real-life ramifications of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act--the so-called Affordable Care Act. I come to the floor today to talk about the broken promise of ObamaCare and the negative impacts this poorly planned law has had on my State of Colorado. In essence, what ObamaCare did was create a pay- to-play scheme--mandates and dictates of a law where you will pay higher premiums to abide by the law. As ObamaCare continues on a downward trajectory, Americans are the ones who are bearing the brunt of its failures, particularly those who are living in rural America, in rural Colorado. Month after month, headline after headline, Americans are no longer surprised when they hear of another ObamaCare disaster as they continue to foot the ever-increasing bill. There are fewer choices, less competition, and higher costs. ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' Do you remember those famous words? The President assured Americans time and time again not to worry. ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' He said it countless times. It was echoed by almost every Member in this body who supported ObamaCare. Coloradans and millions of Americans around the country learned that this promise was far from the truth. In late 2013, roughly 335,000 small-group and individual policies in Colorado were canceled due to the requirements of ObamaCare, 335,000 Coloradans who witnessed through a letter in their mailbox--including a letter I received in my mailbox canceling my insurance because of ObamaCare. Those 335,000 people realized that ``if you like your plan, you can keep your plan'' was simply not true. The cancelations in 2013 were just the very beginning. In 2014, a couple months later, the Colorado Division of Insurance canceled another 249,000 plans because these plans didn't meet the requirements of ObamaCare. When we talk about these plans being canceled because they didn't meet the requirements of ObamaCare, some people on the left, those who supported ObamaCare, would argue they must have been bad plans, bad insurance, or bad policies. But that presumes that the government knows what is best for everyone involved, that the government has a better idea of what their insurance ought to be, and that the government should take care of and think for people who chose these plans themselves individually. But 249,000 people, on top of the 335,000 people in January of 2014, had their insurance canceled. Again, in 2015 the story continued with an additional 190,000 plans on the individual and small group markets being canceled. In total, according to the Congressional Research Service, over 750,000 health insurance plans in Colorado were canceled between 2013 and 2015. Three-quarters of a million people who were promised that ``if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your plan'' had their plans canceled under the broken promise of ObamaCare. That is still not the end of it for Coloradans because Coloradans are still receiving cancellation notices. Within the last 2 months, two of the Nation's largest insurers, UnitedHealthcare and Humana, announced their intent to exit the individual marketplace. UnitedHealth Group's CEO cited that the marketplaces were a risky investment and that UnitedHealth could not serve these exchanges on an ``effective and sustained basis.'' This decision will impact roughly 20,000 more Coloradans, and beneficiaries of these plans can expect cancellation notices in July. The disappointment and frustration over a canceled plan that your family once enjoyed is made worse by the rising costs of the remaining plans, and that is what many Americans are faced with today. After losing 750,000 of them in Colorado--losing the health insurance plans they were promised they could keep--they looked at the second promise made under ObamaCare--that this will lower the cost of health care. Now they are met with the second broken promise--the broken promise of cost. They were told they would see reduced costs with ObamaCare. Yet the Colorado Division of Insurance found that individual insurance premiums for 2016 on the Western Slope of Colorado rose by an average of 25.8 percent. The Western Slope of Colorado had a nearly 26-percent rate increase. When people think of Colorado, that is often the part of Colorado they think of most. Denver is on the Front Range. The mountains have the ski communities. The rural communities have farming and agriculture. The mining communities and the oil and gas industries are on the Western Slope. These rural areas watched their health insurance premiums increase by 26 percent--premiums that were promised would be going down. A woman who lives on the Western Slope was recently interviewed by the Denver Post. She said she saw her premium cost alone rise from $300 per month to $1,828 per month, or nearly $22,000 a year in increased costs. She says: It's actually like another mortgage payment. I have friends who are uninsured right now because they can't afford it. Insurance is hard up here. The Western Slope of Colorado had two promises broken--the promise that if you liked your health care, you could keep it and that this would lower the cost of your health care. They had an increase of nearly 26 percent. If you live on the Western Slope of Colorado, you saw your increase go from a premium of $300 a month to over $1,800 per month--a $22,000 a year increase. This is incredible. In 2014, a study found that nearly 150,000 Coloradans saw their insurance become 77 percent more expensive. Where is the promise of ObamaCare? Where are the people who supported the Affordable Care Act today defending this law, defending the promise, or explaining how these promises weren't broken? They are not here because they can't explain it. They know the promise was broken. They know that 750,000 people had their promises broken. In Colorado alone, there are people facing 26-percent and 77-percent increases. As we approach the new rates for 2017, it appears there will be no limit to the additional costs that Coloradans will have to bear as a result of this poorly conceived partisan law. Marilyn Tavenner, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, served as a key Obama administration health official as Administrator of CMS. She has testified multiple times before committees of the House and Senate and has made warnings that the Affordable Care Act premium increases are coming. She predicted that the increases for open enrollment in 2017 will be higher than ever before. This is coming from a former administration official who helped run ObamaCare and was in the room during the discussions and the crafting of policies of ObamaCare. In Colorado, insurers submitted their initial premium bids last Friday, May 13. We will soon know the rates that have been approved by the Colorado Department of Insurance in late September or early October, but it looks like Coloradans are in for yet another rude awakening. The people in Colorado have already had their health insurance plans canceled, and more are losing their policies in July of this year and trying to figure out how to make ends meet. If they are in a situation like the one I spoke of before--the example I used before--this person is going to have to figure out over the next year how they are going to basically create a $22,000 a year payment they didn't face before. I was speaking to an executive with an insurance company who said they believe the rates they will be submitting for increases this year to their department of insurance commissioner will be between 60 and 70 percent. That is a 60- and 70-percent insurance rate increase under ObamaCare for the 2017 cycle. Premiums are expected to rise and many parts of the country are going to experience double-digit rate hikes. Plans are getting canceled, plans are getting more expensive, yet the ObamaCare mandates continue. I believe what we need in this country is greater competition and greater choice. That is what President Obama promised in the marketplace, but data shows that because of unbearable bureaucratic hurdles, competition has actually decreased. On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled ``Insurance Options Dwindle in Some Rural Regions.'' I live in a very rural part of Colorado, on the Eastern Plains, as opposed to the Western Slope, which we spoke of before. I live in a town of about 3,000 people. The nearest big town is 60 miles away, and that town has 9,000 people. The article in the Wall Street Journal explains how rural areas have experienced the greatest decline in competition and how many rural counties will only have one insurance plan to choose from. I think most people understand that rural areas aren't exactly the wealthiest areas in the Nation. There are pockets of wealth, absolutely, as there are in most places, but by and large our rural communities represent some of the poorest and least economically driven counties in the country. A Kaiser Family Foundation study found that over 650 counties across this country will have only 1 insurer on the exchanges to choose from during the open enrollment in 2017. This is a number which is up by 225 counties from 2016. Let me say that again. There are 650 counties across this country that will only have 1 choice when it comes to open enrollment. They will only have one plan to choose from under ObamaCare. This is the plan for competition that the Affordable Care Act was supposed to address. But instead of adding more insurers to the marketplace, it actually resulted in fewer insurers in the marketplace. We will see 225 additional counties down to 1 choice in 2017. These 650 counties are 70 percent rural, and these rural areas are fearful that the dwindling competition will create a monopoly and costs will continue to rise. The President also insisted that the competition would increase through consumer-run co-ops. Over 80,000 Coloradans felt the impact of this broken promise when Colorado HealthOP was declared to be insolvent by the Colorado insurance commissioner and expeditiously liquidated. To date, 12 of the 23 co-ops created by ObamaCare have been shut down. That is an additional 80,000 people in Colorado who had their insurance policies canceled because ObamaCare created a system that allowed insurance co-ops and companies to bank on a bailout. They were able to bank on a bailout and use that to create some aura of economic feasibility on their balance sheets. When the government couldn't provide any bailouts--because the government shouldn't be in the business of bailouts--the ObamaCare promises were shown for what they truly were--poor policy. Collectively the failed co-ops were loaned over $1 billion in taxpayer money to help get them off the ground. Now, with these failures, the taxpayers will never get their money paid back and tens of thousands of people lost their insurance. Today, this Congress has shown a path forward. With each passing dis- aster of ObamaCare, it continues to become clearer how much of a failure this law is. Americans continue to demand real health care reform that will increase competition, reduce costs, and expand access to lifesaving care that improves the quality of their lives and, most importantly, will provide predictability and sustainability in the marketplace. This crisis demands real leadership, and I continue to remain committed to working with my colleagues on free-market solutions that will bring about real change that will actually uphold the promises that were made. In Colorado, I heard from countless individuals who have been displaced from their plans, and it is time for Congress to stand up as well. The Denver Post article that I referred to about the broken health care system in Colorado's Western Slope begins with a statement from Terri Newland of Glenwood Springs, CO. This is the headline: ``Colorado mountain residents struggle to pay for health insurance.'' The story starts like this: ``The new era of affordable health care bypassed Terri Newland.'' Millions of Americans have seen the Affordable Care Act's era of affordable health care bypass them, and this body's responsibility for that law can only be made up by repealing the law and putting in its place a bill that actually increases the quality of care and decreases the cost of care. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate a group of eighth-grade students at Horizon Middle School in Aurora, CO. Recently I met with Simon-Peter Frimpong and Grayson Fast who participated in the Samsung Solve for Tomorrow STEM Education Competition. Grayson, Simon-Peter, and their classmates were among just five grand prize winners out of more than 4,000 contestants nationwide. This competition brings together schools from across the country to encourage the use of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, to solve complicated problems. As a national winner of this competition, Horizon Middle School will receive funds to purchase cutting-edge technology for their school. To win this competition, the students at Horizon Middle School created a more comfortable and versatile prosthetic limb for a local veteran. Along with providing more comfortable everyday use, the students designed multiple attachments, including an attachment for a longboard, to allow him to participate in various activities. This project required enormous amounts of time and dedication, as well as an in-depth study of STEM disciplines. Along this journey, the students had the unending support of their teacher Melinda Possehl and the school's principal, Nichole Bell. Congratulations again to the students of Horizon Middle School on your outstanding accomplishment. I look forward to what the future has in store for these tremendously bright students.