Cory Gardner

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, today I wish to discuss the REACH Act, legislation that I have introduced with my colleague, the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, to establish a new category for critical access hospitals in financial distress. Rural hospitals are an essential yet vulnerable part of our health care system. Rural residents face a unique set of challenges in relation to their urban counterparts. According to the American Hospital Association, rural residents are typically older, poorer, and more likely to have chronic diseases than those living in more developed cities. The unique challenges of caring for patients in underserved areas are not the only hurdles that face rural hospitals today. They have a hard time simply keeping their doors open. Since January of 2010, approximately 55 rural hospitals nationwide have closed because they could not generate the kind of support or the volume necessary to continue operation. In Colorado, nearly 60 percent of care for patients in underserved areas is provided by hospitals dependent on rural payment mechanisms, and many hospitals are in danger of closing their doors. I would like to share with you a story about the impact of a rural hospital in my hometown of Yuma, CO, as shared by the CEO of the hospital. Now, I will also tell you that the name of the CEO of the hospital is John Gardner. John Gardner also happens to be the name of my father. They are two different people. My father sells farm equipment. This John Gardner runs a hospital. I think I can tell you that both of them have gotten complaints. My dad has gotten complaints about the emergency room bill, and John Gardner, this CEO of the hospital, has gotten complaints about a tractor overhaul bill. But they are two different people. But this John Gardner, the CEO of the hospital, does live right next to me in this small town of right around 3,000 people. This is what he said, the CEO of the hospital: Because we are located in a rural farming community, we see many farming accidents and motor vehicle accidents. Gravel roads are not the driver's friend. In partnership with the city ambulance service, we have invested a lot of time and training and equipment to be prepared to respond to these accidents. We have two young adults in our community who were involved in serious automobile accidents on gravel roads. Both had severe head trauma which without immediate stabilization would have had terminal outcomes. Because of our hospital we were able to treat and transport both to level 1 trauma centers for complete treatment and following extensive rehabilitation are now back with their families. Stories like this and the invaluable lifesaving services provided by rural hospitals are why we need a new system, a new system that recognizes the financial challenges and obstacles that rural hospitals face today. Without an adjustment, there may be more facilities closing. A 2014 report by the National Rural Health Association identified 283 additional hospitals at risk of closing. Now, we saw 55 nationwide hospitals already close. An additional 283 rural hospitals around the country are at risk of closing. Ensuring that rural communities have access to the lifesaving care they need is why I am introducing--and joining Senator Grassley--the Rural Emergency Acute Care Hospital Act or the REACH Act. The REACH Act aims to allow rural hospitals which are in financial distress to become a new category of hospital, called a rural emergency hospital. Here is the problem and why we need to pass the REACH Act. Under current law, critical access hospitals are classified as hospitals maintaining no more than 25 acute care beds. These hospitals rely on rural payment mechanism for Medicare reimbursements for outpatient, inpatient, laboratory, therapy services, and post-acute swing-bed services. As the medical service industry has evolved, patients find it more and more attractive to have services requiring rural hospital admission performed in large city hospitals because inpatient services are delivered there on a more routine basis. We see more people leaving rural hospitals to go to the city hospitals because they perform these inpatient services more regularly. The problem, of course, is that leaves rural hospitals without enough inpatient volume to cover their costs, oftentimes resulting in hospital closures. So when a critical access hospital--again, these are hospitals defined under the law as 25 acute care beds. When a critical access hospital has to shut its doors for inpatient services, it has to stop providing inpatient services, it also means the emergency care closes with it. So now you have a hospital no longer providing inpatient services and no longer offering emergency care. But as highlighted by my hometown story--the story I just shared from the CEO of the hospital, timely access to emergency services is truly the difference between life and death. Those two young men who would have faced a terminal outcome were saved because of the availability of a rural hospital emergency room. So when dealing with life-threatening injuries, it is critical for patients to receive the kind of health care they need, that lifesaving care to prevent the terminal outcome within the golden hour. That is something doctors and hospitals use--a term for medical professionals-- meaning that hour after injury where it is absolutely critical that they receive treatment, that can make the difference between survival-- if they do not receive their care during this critical golden hour, their condition could rapidly deteriorate. Recent statistics from the National Conference of State Legislatures found that 60 percent of trauma deaths in the United States occur in rural areas but only represent 15 percent of the overall population. So if we are talking about why we need access to rural emergency hospitals, the statistic is very clear: 60 percent of rural trauma deaths in this country occur amongst a population that only represents 15 percent of the overall population. That is a pretty dramatic number. It is critical that we provide rural hospitals that are under financial distress the necessary tools to prevent closures for those living in isolated areas, to make sure they have the same access to emergency services. The solution is the REACH Act, a solution Senator Grassley and I are working on together, to allow rural hospitals in financial distress to switch from being a critical access hospital to this new category called a rural emergency hospital. This new category would offer reimbursement rates that are consistent with the care, needs, and capabilities of rural hospitals, but more importantly allowing them to remain open, keeping that critical emergency room service open. Now, the emergency hospital must provide emergency medical care and observation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by onsite staff. So we are still providing quality care, but we are allowing them to overcome the fact that they have seen their inpatient services decline, enabling them to keep their emergency services open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to make sure trauma patients can see the doctor and be provided the necessary medical care they need during that all-important golden hour. The bill would also establish protocols for the timely transfer of patients in need of a higher level of care and patient admittance. The Presiding Officer and I both came from rural States, where we know-- there are hospitals in our States that are facing financial challenges. There have been stories in newspapers in Colorado about the struggles some communities are having maintaining their services, keeping their doors open. But there are stories in each and every one of these communities like the story John Gardner told about those two young people in my hometown who otherwise would have had a terminal outcome but for the availability of the emergency care in rural Colorado. So to avoid missing out on the services necessary to keep people alive, to make sure rural patients have access to care during that critical golden hour, the REACH Act provides our hospitals with an opportunity to keep health services and hospitals available across rural America--available, open with emergency care, giving troubled hospitals an avenue to keep their doors open and to keep providing the lifesaving care we all so desperately want in each of our communities, rural or urban. I thank the Presiding Officer for the time on the floor today. I urge my colleagues to support the REACH Act. We are always reaching out for more cosponsors in a bipartisan fashion to make sure we can do the best job possible providing health care to rural America, to urban America, and to make sure we keep these hospitals open. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

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

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, as we are moving toward concluding debate on trade promotion authority, I rise to speak about what the Trans- Pacific Partnership will mean for our Nation's global standing. As we have heard throughout this debate, the potential economic benefits from TPP for our Nation are simply enormous. According to the Congressional Research Service, total trade in goods between TPP member countries reached $1.6 trillion in 2014; that is, the nations represented in TPP, $1.6 trillion in trade between those countries, representing nearly 40 percent of all global trade. In my own State of Colorado, trade with countries involved in TPP currently supports over 265,000 jobs. The nations represented by the TPP agreement--the negotiations that are taking place right now-- 265,000 jobs in Colorado result from those nations. But we know the TPP is more than just an economic agreement. It is a critical test of U.S. strategic leadership in the Asia-Pacific region, a region that will be integral to our economic and national security for generations to come. As stated in the 2015 National Security Strategy: Sustaining our leadership depends on shaping an emerging global economic order that continues to reflect our interests and our values. Despite its success, our rules-based system is now competing against alternative, less-open models. . . . To meet this challenge, we must be strategic in the use of our economic strength to set new rules of the road, strengthen our partnerships, and promote inclusive development. Those are important words from the National Security Strategy issued just this year. Defense Secretary Ash Carter echoed that sentiment when he said on April 6, 2015, the ``TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier.'' If we fail to pass the TPP, we know others will rush to fill the vacuum left behind with such ``alternative, less-open models,'' as the National Security Strategy laid out. So we should not be surprised when a rising China tries to fill the vacuum and that they would, indeed, exert efforts to fill that vacuum with policies and programs crafted from their own vision of what is beneficial for themselves and their region. Let's take China's recent establishment of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank, the AIIB, as an example. On the face of it, the AIIB is a positive response to address the infrastructure challenges in the region. It is also the clearest evidence yet that the United States faces a very serious credibility gap in the Asia-Pacific region. The AIIB is envisioned as a $100 billion enterprise, with China as the largest shareholder that will hold veto power over major investment decisions. Its rules of governance and standards remain unclear. Yet 56 nations, including some of the strongest U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea, have indicated they will join the Chinese-led AIIB. We need to understand why. Do they believe the AIIB is primarily an economic opportunity for their companies? They might. But I would contend that the reason is a lack of leadership from the United States, again going back to that credibility gap. China is also part of ongoing negotiations for another regional trade pact, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which would join China, Australia, India, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea with nations comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN. In addition to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, Beijing is also entering negotiations to consider 6 agreements comprised of an additional 11 countries. That brings China's total trade agreement portfolio to 33 countries. While the United States should continue bilateral and multilateral economic engagement with China that brings high levels of transparency and accountability, the fundamental question before us today is this: Do we want the United States or do we want China writing the rules? It is clear that while our partners and allies in the region may welcome additional Chinese investment, they want more American leadership, not less. They want more American standards, not fewer. We know the standards TPP and U.S. engagement brings include not only important economic benefits, such as removal of tariff or nontariff barriers, but fundamental American values such as transparency, good governance, respect for the rule of law, and basic human rights. U.S. economic statecraft in the Asia-Pacific reflects our values and cements our leadership in the critically important region. We must look at TPP as just one step forward in this enduring commitment. Despite the crises of the day that are occurring in the Middle East, where the United States does and should play an important role, our Nation's future lies in Asia. Just consider the following estimates from the Asian Development Bank. By 2050, Asia will account for over half of the global population and over half of the world's gross domestic product. The Asian middle class will rise to a staggering 3 billion people. Per capita GDP income in the region will rise to around $40,000, making it similar to the Europe of today. We cannot miss the opportunity to be a part of this historic transformation. Working with Japan and regional partners, we must ensure that our policies strengthen existing friendships and build new partnerships that will be critical to U.S. national security and economic well-being for generations to come. Unfortunately, the administration's efforts to date with regard to the Asia-Pacific region have fallen short. While I commend the President's leadership on TPP and our Asia rebalance, which many of us agreed to, the Asia rebalance policy has yielded few tangible results, and it is in need of a serious overhaul. The administration has consistently stated that the rebalance represented a ``whole-of-government'' effort to redirect U.S. military, diplomatic, and commercial service resources toward the Asia-Pacific region. But in April of 2014, just a year ago, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a report stating that ``while the United States has successfully moved forward with the initial phases of implementing the military aspects of the rebalance,'' the State Department and the Department of Commerce have not substantially prioritized their resources to increase engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. The report concluded that ``the administration can improve the effectiveness and sustainability of the rebalance policy by increasing civilian engagement, strengthening diplomatic partnerships, and empowering US businesses.'' It is clear we need an integrated, multiyear planning and budget strategy for a rebalancing of the U.S. policy in Asia. That is why I was proud to offer an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that passed unanimously that would require the President to submit a strategy within 120 days to promote U.S. interests in the Asia- Pacific region. Our partners in the region must know every day that the United States is here to stay. The TPP is the first step in the process. This is an important debate that we have this week. Later on today, we will have the opportunity to vote for trade promotion authority. I hope this Chamber will see the wisdom of passing that legislation-- 265,000 jobs in Colorado from a region responsible for TPP, responsible for increasing economic opportunity, increasing wage growth, and the number of jobs that we have not only in Colorado but around this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, our country stands on the brink of a great opportunity in the Asia-Pacific. Since 2008, the United States and 11 other Pacific nations, including Japan and New Zealand, have worked to conclude negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This agreement represents nearly 40 percent of the global gross domestic product, or GDP, and is the most ambitious free-trade agreement in history. By upending antiquated international tariff systems and tearing down barriers to trade, we can unleash American ingenuity and send our Nation's products from Main Street to Malaysia. Much has been said about the national benefits of concluding TPP, but I want to focus on some of the particular benefits for my home State of Colorado. Colorado, like most States, benefits immensely from international trade, particularly with Asia. According to the Business Roundtable, more than 265,000 Colorado jobs are supported by the countries that would be affected by TPP. These trade-related jobs include the farmworker harvesting world-famous melons down in Rocky Ford and the meatpacker shipping American beef from Greeley. They are the electrical engineer designing computer systems in Boulder and the natural gas worker maintaining a rig in Parachute. Collectively, these everyday working Americans help drive the economic and trade engine of Colorado. Last year, my State exported more than $8 billion worth of goods all across the world. Approximately half of them, or $4 billion, went directly to TPP countries. While nations like Vietnam and Japan have imposed hefty tariffs on our Colorado goods in the past, TPP presents an opportunity to level the playing field. American goods would flow more freely to the region and American workers stand to benefit. That is why I strongly support granting the President trade promotion authority, or TPA, and finalizing a high-standard TPP. A vote for TPA is a vote for the American worker. It is a vote for more active engagement in the world and a higher standard of living, and it is a vote to recognize that through increased trade, we can indeed deliver upon the promise of a better tomorrow. Unfortunately, however, some in Congress have opted for isolationism and retreat. They have sounded the alarm over supposed failure of past trade agreements and argued in favor of taking cover rather than taking charge, and they have doubled down on the false notion that trade is always bad for the American economy and the American worker. But a quick review of the facts will dispel these myths very quickly. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, national beef exports to Colombia and Panama have more than tripled since 2011 when we enacted free-trade agreements with these countries. National wheat exports to Chile more than doubled from the enactment of our 2003 free- trade agreement through 2014, while dairy exports increased more than 20 times to that country, and our beef exports have increased more than eight times to the participant countries of the Central America and Dominican Republic free-trade agreement. Colorado businesses have played a large role in expanding overseas as well. My State witnessed a 37-percent increase in goods exported to countries with free-trade agreements between 2003 and 2013. Exports to Korea have increased 61 percent since the conclusion of our free-trade agreement with that nation in 2011. And NAFTA, which anti-trade forces frequently dismiss as the poster child for trade deals gone awry, has resulted in a 293-percent--that is right, 293 percent--increase in Colorado exports to Canada and Mexico since 1994. Beyond the numbers, though, it is important to meet with the workers and business owners who understand that freer trade helps their bottom line. Just a few days ago, I traveled to Eastern Colorado on my annual wheat tour. It is a tradition that Senator Wayne Allard started in the 1990s--then a U.S. Representative--and one I was excited to continue in the Senate. I invited my colleague from Colorado Senator Bennet, so we could both hear the needs directly from Coloradans and see the positive impacts that agreements such as TPP could have not only on Eastern Colorado but farmers across this country. On the tour, we had the chance to marvel at the truly incredible production level of Colorado wheat growers. We are just about 2 weeks away from the height of the winter wheat harvest in Colorado--a time when I have always enjoyed working at our family implement dealership in Yuma--and a reminder that Colorado helps feed the world. The vast majority of Colorado's wheat crop is exported. In fact, in 2013, we shipped more than $235 million worth of wheat across the globe. Eighty percent of the wheat we produce in Colorado is exported. Most of the wheat growers we met on the Eastern Plains aren't interested in retreating from the international marketplace. In fact, they want to expand the international marketplace. They understand that freer trade means improved opportunities to place their product. And with a high-standard TPP, Colorado wheat growers could penetrate notoriously difficult markets in countries such as Japan and begin to ship from Thurman to Tokyo and beyond. It isn't just wheat either. Colorado farmers and ranchers already export millions of dollars in Western Slope beef, Southern Colorado onions, and San Luis Valley potatoes. In fact, according to the Department of Agriculture, Colorado potatoes represent around 70 percent of all U.S. potato exports to Mexico. That market stands to grow significantly if TPP is successfully concluded, considering that Mexico is a member nation in the negotiations. There is no question that trade benefits rural America. We should be promoting Palisade peaches in Perth and Olathe sweet corn on the streets of Singapore. Growing up in rural Colorado, I saw the potential that our hard-working farmers and ranchers created for Colorado and for Colorado products abroad. Their determined spirit and hard-working attitude are what keep America at the top of the global economy, and TPP will expand that promise in the Asia-Pacific. Urban and suburban America succeed with increased trade as well. As do their rural counterparts, urban and suburban Coloradans benefit from a wider selection of cheaper goods. The mechanics of free trade stretch dollars a little bit further for the teenager with a part-time summer job as well as for the family struggling to make ends meet. Aside from the benefit of cheaper products, increased trade creates jobs here at home. A couple of months ago, I was fortunate enough to visit a company in Boulder, CO, that manufactures zip lines and other adventure equipment. This company has successfully expanded their business to Europe and Asia, helping people across the globe enjoy rain forest canopy tours, free falling, and more. As this business expanded overseas, they had the ability to hire more employees and boost the local economy in Boulder. They doubled their Colorado office and are still looking to grow. An agreement such as TPP will open further opportunities for this company in the Asia-Pacific and beyond, perhaps facilitating world-class bungee jumping in New Zealand or advanced rock climbing in Peru, and with those new opportunities come more Colorado jobs. That is the essence of free trade. It encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. It connects the world while growing our workforce at home, and it presents an opportunity for Colorado and our country to spread our goods and ideas across the globe. That is why I have supported free-trade agreements in the past-- agreements that have yielded significant economic and strategic benefits for our Nation. That is why I supported the latest generation of trade promotion authority and look forward to supporting it again. We will continue to support it this week as it goes to the President's desk to be signed into law. That is why I urge my colleagues to continue their support for free-trade agreements, so the United States can help grasp the great opportunity that awaits us in the Asia- Pacific. We have held several hearings over the past couple of months in the Foreign Relations Committee and beyond talking about the benefits of free trade. A couple of weeks ago, we were joined by experts from Asia and economic leaders around this country, all of whom believe we have an important role to play in expanding trade and expanding the opportunities that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will lead to when that agreement comes to this floor, thanks to trade promotion authority. It is an important measure that we must enact. It is an important statement of good faith that the United States truly is interested in the Asia region, the Asia-Pacific region, making good on our efforts to truly pivot to Asia to rebalance policy we all support but making good on our word that we are indeed in the region to stay. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I wish to honor Mark W. Thalhammer, Pueblo, CO, police detective corporal, and recognize his retirement after 34 years of service to his community and to his country. Detective Thalhammer has served with distinction in a variety of roles for the Pueblo Police Department. During his tenure, Detective Thalhammer has served as a police officer, a criminal investigator, a narcotics enforcement officer assigned to a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration multiagency drug task force, a gang reinforcement detective, a felon enforcement officer, and a tactical officer assigned to high-risk law enforcement endeavors. His dedication to law enforcement for more than three decades has left an indelible mark on the community, the country, and the Pueblo Police Department. Please join me in honoring Pueblo Police Department Detective Corporal Thalhammer for his devotion to his community and our State's law enforcement profession. His years of courageous service and commitment deserve great recognition and admiration.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the PORTS Act, legislation I have introduced to protect the American economy from crippling labor disputes at our seaports. Somebody asked why a Senator from Colorado was interested in legislation dealing with the work stoppage or slowdown that occurred on our ports on the west coast. Well, I will tell you why. I was contacted by numerous businesses and people that had their entire furniture lines taken out of their furniture stores. I talked to ranchers who had to face threats of a $1 billion ag export market. I talked to onion growers who watched as their domestic commodity prices crashed due to the port slowdown. I watched as stories were written in newspapers about apple growers in Washington unable to export apples so they dumped apples just to rot in the fields in Washington State. Trade through U.S. seaports is critical. We have been spending weeks on this floor and the floor of the House talking about the Trans- Pacific Partnership and talking about the importance of trade promotion authority, and none of that is possible without an active, successful port system in this country. According to the American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. ports support 23 million jobs, and the value of related economic activity accounts for 26 percent of our national gross domestic product. Contract negotiations and related labor disputes at our ports clog up these vital arteries and lead to delays, higher costs, and lost business for industries throughout our country. Strikes, lockouts, and slowdowns may have been business as usual for labor unions in the past, but an increasingly global economy means that the collateral damage done to American workers and businesses has increased exponentially. The U.S. economy recently endured a 9-month labor dispute that affected all 29 of our west coast ports. The resulting logistical nightmare caused delays, higher costs, and lost businesses for industries in Colorado and throughout the United States. Ships full of cargo were anchored off our coast waiting for longshoremen to do their job on unloading international goods and loading American-made products for shipment to markets across the world. In Los Angeles and Long Beach alone, dozens of container ships sat anchored and idle. After 9 months and huge financial costs to our national economy, the parties reached an agreement in February to allow cargo to begin moving normally through the west coast ports again. Four months later, we are finally seeing that congestion beginning to ease, but it has taken this long. Many economists, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors cited the labor dispute as a primary cause of the 0.7-percent decline in GDP in the first quarter of 2015. That means 29 west coast ports were primarily responsible for a 0.7-percent decline in GDP. Agricultural exports, including apples, hay, and Christmas trees lost export opportunities to overseas customers because they couldn't get products to market. Meat and poultry companies lost sales and faced port charges in excess of $30 million per week. Retail shipments were delayed from reaching store shelves, and some stores resorted to expensive air freight to stock goods. Manufacturers waiting on shipments had to shut down production lines and risked losing contracts with foreign customers. Colorado supplies Asia with over $500 million in beef products through the west coast ports, which accounts for about 23 percent of Colorado's total exports and 57 percent of Colorado's international exports. These and other meat and poultry exporters saw many of their products spoil as shipments were turned away at the port gates. Grain, machine parts, coal, fishing supplies, furniture, fresh produce, and pliable metals are all products of Colorado, and all were damaged by the labor dispute. Our exporters' relationships with Asian customers disintegrated as their orders were caught in the bottleneck. And storefronts lost customers because products took months to reach show floors. When Congress enacted Taft-Hartley nearly 70 years ago, Congress decided the health and reputation of the greatest economy in the world should not be used as leverage in labor contract negotiations. The opening statement of the act explains that Congress intended to minimize ``industrial strife which interferes with the normal flow of commerce.'' That means current law had provided a remedy, but unfortunately the administration did not use it. Under that very provision of Taft-Hartley, when a labor dispute threatens the national economy, the President is empowered to use the Federal courts to seek an injunction to end labor practices causing widespread disruptions. With 70 years of case law backing it up, this is a tried-and-true process that ensures that the self-interests and greed of a few does not impact the livelihoods of the many. Yet, when the west coast ports dispute threatened businesses and entire industries in States across the country, the President refused to act. For months, the Federal Executive decided not to exercise his authority under Taft-Hartley, depriving the country of critical dispute resolution powers. Legislation I have introduced, known as the PORTS Act, prevents this kind of economic disruption. It would discourage disruptions at U.S. ports by strengthening and expanding the well-known Taft-Hartley process. As we saw recently, the President of the United States may not be willing to adequately protect the economic rights and interests of American citizens. The PORTS Act would solve this by granting State Governors Taft-Hartley powers currently reserved for the President. A Governor from any State would have the opportunity to form a board of inquiry and start the Taft-Hartley process whenever a port labor dispute is causing economic harm. Once the board reports back, any Governor can petition Federal courts to enjoin slowdowns, strikes or lockouts at ports in their State. The act would also explicitly include slowdowns as a trigger for Taft-Hartley powers, preventing the President or Governors from using legal ambiguity to excuse an action. As a result, this legislation would give a stronger voice to local leaders by allowing those who are most affected by disruptions--local community leaders, business, employees, and consumers--to apply pressure on their Governors rather than trying to mobilize a national campaign to convince the President to act. In just 5 years, the labor contracts at both the east coast and the west coast ports will expire, possibly leading to labor disputes on both ends of the country. When the health of the national economy is threatened, the Federal Government has a duty to act, but it is clear the current Taft-Hartley powers depend too heavily on who controls the Presidency. It is critical that we have the necessary tools in place to prevent another debilitating crisis. So I urge my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Countless retail organizations, individual businesses, and people across this country recognize the need to avoid in 5 years simultaneous slowdowns or shutdowns on the east and west coasts--what we just went through. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be 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 H. Con. Res. 54, which is at the desk.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. I thank the Senator from Wyoming through the Chair for bringing that point to our colleagues about what is happening in western Colorado and the Colowyo mine. The Senator from Wyoming mentioned in his comments that sometimes the regulations from this administration can and should be measured in a matter of feet and not just pages because that is how many new regulations are being piled upon businesses in this country. In the case of the Colowyo Mine, though, a 2007 permit is being brought into question by a Federal court that has given this mine 120 days--the Office of Surface Mining--to rectify a decision that was made back in 2007. This is a court case that was brought 8 years after the 2007 permit was granted. If the 120 days go by and the court decides that the review was not complete by the Office of Surface Mining, it could result in a shutdown of the Colowyo Mine. As you mentioned, this will result in 220 layoffs. Communities in western Colorado of Craig and Meeker will be devastated. This mine is responsible for about $200 million in economic impact to Western Colorado. It pays almost $10 million to the Federal Government in terms of taxes. It pays about $1 million to the State of Colorado in terms of severance taxes. Think about the impact that losing 220 people would have on the Main Street of Craig, CO, and on the people of Meeker, CO. Think about the impacts this would have on families and the kids of the 220 employees who are being pulled out of school systems. Maybe $100,000 or more of impact to schools that can barely afford the loss already. That is just to mention the direct impacts to those communities of this court decision, and, by the way, we only have about 85 or 86 days left to rectify this permit decision if the Department of the Interior decides they are not going to appeal this decision. You have about 80-some days to make this decision that could affect the lives of 220 people, that could affect $200 million worth of economic activity. You mentioned that this power is from an electric co-op. The Senator from Wyoming mentioned that this power is from an electricity co-op, a cooperative. There are no shareholders. There are no stockholders. There is no guaranteed income to Tri-State. This is an organization that is a cooperative. It is designed to be owned by its members, those people who receive power through the cooperative. When we increase the cost of electricity by closing down a mine that feeds the Craig Power Station, in this case, you are increasing the cost of that electricity. You are taking money out of the hands of members across the Tri-State region, whether that is in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico or Nebraska. Those costs will get borne by the members of the cooperative. One thing that we know as well is that Tri-State is one of those cooperatives that provide electricity to some of the poorest areas in Colorado. They are some of the areas that can least afford it. As a result of this decision, it will increase the cost of electricity, and those costs will be borne by those people who can least afford it-- people on low income, people on fixed income, people in rural areas of our State who do not have as high an income as other areas in the State or country may have. This will have a significant economic impact. In fact, the Senator from Wyoming may or may not know that a number of Members of Congress from the Colorado congressional delegation have written letters to the Department of the Interior urging them to appeal this decision as well as to put a stay on this decision, as we have 80- some days left and because 220 people, their lives, their livelihoods, their jobs are at stake, and these are small communities. They are communities that can be economically devastated with 220 job losses. The Presiding Officer represents a State where there are many towns where five jobs are a really big deal, two jobs are a really big deal, one job is a really big deal. For a community that is the size of the town that I live in--3,000 people or so--to lose 220 jobs would be economic catastrophe. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Governor John Hickenlooper to the Honorable Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, asking for an appeal of this decision. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter written by Congressman Ed Perlmutter to appeal this decision. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter that I wrote, as well as Congressman Scott Tipton wrote, asking and urging for an appeal of this decision.

Mr. GARDNER

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

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1568, introduced earlier today.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Isakson of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for his tireless work on this legislation and Senator Blumenthal as well as the cosponsor of this legislation tonight, Senator Bennet, my colleague from Colorado. This gives us the breathing room we need to finish the job in Colorado. We have more work to do with the Veterans' Administration, but tonight we can begin the process of starting to finish this job. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 95, H.R. 615.

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Georgia be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, June 15, at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to Executive Session to the en bloc consideration of Executive Calendar Nos. 131 and 132; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that following disposition of the nominations, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday, June 15; 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; that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that following morning business, the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 1735; and, finally, the filing deadline for all first-degree amendments to both H.R. 1735 and the McCain substitute 1463 be at 4 p.m.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, 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, I wish to talk a little bit about what is happening on Colorado's Western Slope this morning. Several weeks ago, a judge in Denver, CO, ruled that a permit was improperly given to a mine known as the Colowyo mine on the Western Slope in Northwestern Colorado. This lawsuit was brought, I think, some 8 years after this permit was granted. Mine employees number around 220 people on Colorado's Western Slope. It is critical to the region's economy, and it is critical to the economy of Craig, CO. Without these employees and without this mine, it will truly be an economically devastating moment in Western Slope history. So I hope the Department of the Interior will pay attention to the multiple letters they have received from our colleague Senator Bennet, from Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado, who have urged this to be taken seriously, to be reconsidered and appealed. It would be economically devastating for these communities to lose 220 jobs. I certainly hope the administration is paying the serious attention to this matter that it deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to talk about an amendment I have filed to the National Defense Authorization Act, amendment No. 1708. This amendment would require the President to submit a comprehensive strategy within 120 days to promote U.S. interests in the Asia-Pacific region. This language or similar language was already placed in the House version of the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment would assure that the U.S. Government is effectively marshaling resources and employing a whole-of-government approach to implement an effective, multifaceted engagement policy in the Indo- Asia-Pacific region. This region will be vital to U.S. national interests for generations to come, and the administration's Asia pivot or rebalance policy was intended to reflect that. This is something the administration has talked about for years, this Asia rebalance or Asia pivot. But currently, the administration does not seem to have such a comprehensive strategy or approach that seamlessly incorporates U.S. military, diplomatic, and commercial activities to make the rebalance an effective policy. In April of 2014, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a report stating that U.S. Government agencies ``have not substantially prioritized their resources to increase engagement in the Asia-Pacific region.'' In fact, if we look at U.S. foreign military assistance, I believe it ranks somewhere around 4 percent of spending. If we look at the Bureaus, this region we are addressing, hopefully through the Asia pivot and rebalance, receives about 1 percent or so of funding, depending on how we measure it. In fact, it is last among the Bureau funding. Last month, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced a new initiative that envisions a boost in U.S. military assistance over the next 5 years to enhance maritime security efforts with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Thailand. This effort is a welcomed step forward but alone is not enough. These initiatives cannot take place in a vacuum. Department of Defense efforts need to be more effectively wedded with other efforts of U.S. Government agencies into a coherent and comprehensive strategy of assistance and engagement in the region. In light of the shared threats in the region, this lack of a comprehensive policy sends the wrong message to our allies throughout the region. The amendment will ensure that Congress is a genuine partner to the administration's effort to implement this important effort. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. One of the challenges we have seen going forward, of course, in the Asia-Pacific region is--as we talk about Asia balance, as we talk about a pivot--our day-to-day attention seems to be more and more drawn to the Middle East, rightly so. But our long-term interests lie in Asia and these regions that we are trying to negotiate a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement with. Hopefully, the House will pass trade promotion authority later this week, and we can begin to work in earnest on ideas that represent our commitment through the Asia pivot or Asia rebalance. I am concerned that we have talked a lot of good talk and we have put together some fancy rhetoric and put a pretty good label on our foreign policy efforts as it relates to the Asia Pacific, but what we haven't done is actually followed through. While I commend Secretary Carter for his efforts and commitment, we can't just stop there. We must make sure we are doing everything we can to grow our opportunities in this region through an Asia pivot or Asia rebalance that truly does need reenergizing. One of the best ways to help a rising China truly become a great nation is to make sure it is abiding by the norms and standards of acceptable international behavior. We have talked before about the challenges we have--from violations of intellectual property rights and cyber theft. In fact, five PLA officers have been indicted. President Obama has put forward an Executive order listing possible sanctions on cyber threats. We know that if we can start avoiding these kinds of bad behaviors when we start engaging Asia and our neighbors and friends throughout the region, the region we will be dealing with through the Trans-Pacific Partnership--it is my hope we can truly bring this amendment through the National Defense Authorization Act to bring coherence and clarity to the rebalance strategy we have talked about but so far have not been the best in our execution.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I wish to welcome a great new diplomatic development in my home State of Colorado. Last week, Denver was proud to officially welcome the opening of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, TECO, the de-facto consulate of Taiwan in the United States. The TECO office in Denver will serve Colorado, as well as the States of Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. I thank Taiwan's leadership for this wise decision, particularly Dr. Lyushun Shen, the Representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States, TECRO in Washington, DC, as well as Mr. Jack J.C. Yang, the Director General of the new TECO Office in Denver. As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Cooperation, I am committed to ensuring that the U.S.-Taiwan partnership continues to grow and prosper. Our nations must continue to work together to ensure regional stability and to advance economic ties, including through landmark initiatives such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP. Our friendship has never been stronger. Taiwan is now the tenth largest trading partner for the U.S., while the U.S. is Taiwan's largest foreign investor. Our people-to-people relations are flourishing, with over 20,000 Taiwanese students studying in the U.S. each year. Over 75 U.S. cities have established sister city relationships with their Taiwanese counterparts, including Colorado Springs, CO, which has been a sister city to Kaohsiung since 1983. I know our nation's bonds with Taiwan will only grow stronger, and I am proud that Denver will now be front and center in ensuring the continued friendship between our nations and peoples. I am confident that our Taiwanese friends will not find more hospitable and welcoming hosts for their diplomats and visitors than the people of the great State of Colorado.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I, too, echo the thanks to my colleague from Colorado, Senator Bennet, for his leadership on this effort. It is time that we take the VA hospital from the thorn of the VA system to the crown of the VA system, which we know it will be once it is completed. But in the meantime, there is a tremendous amount of work we have to do. I would like to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee for allowing this time today on the floor. I would note that there are four Members of this body who have actually visited the facility in Denver in recent months. The Presiding Officer has witnessed this hole in the ground right now that has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars, projected to be $1.73 billion at this point. We have talked about the need to complete it and have committed to that need to finish this project, along with the chairman of the Veterans' Committee, who has joined us on the floor today, Senator Isakson, who is here today with us, who is in support of this amendment to bring more accountability to the VA system so that we can understand what went wrong when they were building not only the Aurora facility but what went wrong around the country as project after project has seen cost overruns and delays. Veterans gathered this past week in Colorado to rally to finish the darn thing. We have a Veterans' Administration that time and time again has failed to take into account the necessary measures and policies to fix it and to prevent it from ever happening again. With this amendment, we can start to find out where they went wrong and to hold them accountable. When the only person who has been fired is the person who said we were going to have a problem, there is something wrong with that. I commend Senator Bennet for his leadership on fixing this problem, building the hospital, and giving our veterans what they were promised. I thank the Presiding Officer for his time today. I thank the chairman of the committee for enduring this conversation this morning. I yield the floor.

Mr. GARDNER

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Blumenthal for up to 5 minutes, the Senate recess today until 2 p.m., and that the time during recess count postcloture.