Heidi Heitkamp

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. That is OK. I am from the better Dakota. I just have to tell you. Mr. President, I am always perplexed when the opposition party, the Republican Party, says: We are the party of business. We are the party that believes that government should function more like a business. We are the party that believes that we have to make the tough decisions, we have to do the work that needs to get done, and we have to do it in a timely fashion. OK, I get that. There is not a corporate board in America confronted with the challenge that we have in healthcare that would not shore up the cost-saving payments. When you look at those of us who have served on corporate boards, those of us who have spent some time in the private sector, and, certainly, those of us who have been county officials or State officials, where we have actually had to make decisions, we look at how you make those decisions. The first thing you do is to try to make sure that while you are deliberating and while you are making decisions, you don't create market disruption. You don't do the things that create more uncertainty. You stabilize what you can, triage what you can, and then take a look at what the advantages are and what the experience you can bring to bear is to resolve bigger, broader, and more systemic issues. If we look today at where we are right now with our constituents or our customers, if we can put it in a business sense, our customers are Americans and American families. Guess what. As for those of us who have been in our States and who have spent time looking at healthcare, talking to people about healthcare, talking to providers about healthcare, I will tell you that there are two emotions they have. They are mad, and they are scared. They are probably more scared than mad because under the bills that are being deliberated here, the Republican healthcare bills, they don't know if they can continue to keep their disabled children at home with them. They don't know if they can continue to provide for their parents in a nursing home. They don't know if their rural hospital is going to be able to survive the kinds of reductions in payments that are anticipated under this bill. Today in North Dakota, $250 million is the value of Medicaid expansion. I have institutions in North Dakota, providers in North Dakota that are operating on razor-thin margins. They can't make ends meet without making sure that they keep that amount of uncompensated care greatly reduced. They need the cash flow. If we raise uncompensated care, two things will happen. The first thing that will happen under this bill is that they will have a hit to their bottom line. The second and obvious consequence of that is that, when they negotiate with the private insurance market on what those next payments are going to be, they are going to ask for more money to put back on the private insurance market the cost of uncompensated care. Let's also take a look at the growing issue in this country of opioids. I have a facility in southwestern North Dakota. Their new hospital anticipates that Medicaid is going to be about 14 to 17 percent of the billings they have. As they are trying to respond--as responsible healthcare providers would--to the opioid crisis, they are looking at converting the old hospital into a long-term facility, a facility where people can go and get healthcare when they are addicted. They anticipate that the facility will have to rely on about 60 to 70 percent Medicaid reimbursement. When people tell you that these issues aren't intertwined, that the population that is going to need assistance in recovery from addiction is not our Medicaid population, they are wrong. Every person who has looked at this has come to the same conclusion. The other thing I am going to tell you about the people whom I talked to is that most of them have never been involved in politics. They are not partisans. They don't really even care about politics, but they wonder why they are caught up in this tidal wave of political rhetoric when people are scaring them about whether they are going to have health insurance. They are wondering: What kind of responsible leaders would ever do that? What kind of responsible leaders would not do what they could today to provide some assurances in the near term that the health insurance is going to be available, that their Medicaid is going to be available, and that they are going to be able to take care of their kids? I am telling you that, instead of continuing to release bad bill after bad bill, I hope the Republicans will come and honestly take us at our word. We stand ready to work with Republicans on a truly bipartisan bill that is going to deliver quality healthcare to North Dakotans and quality healthcare to the people of this country. People think bipartisanship can't happen. That is not true. Yesterday I held a press conference on a completely separate issue that involves clean coal. Standing side by side when we announced that bill, we had Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the most vocal advocates for aggressive action on climate, and Senators Barrasso, Capito, and me, the most vocal advocates in support of coal. We all stood together introducing this bill because we wanted to offer a real solution on 45Q. We wanted to find out where that lane is where we can all coexist and solve the problems of the American people. It is not impossible to do this. It is not impossible if we park the partisanship, if we park the ideology, and if we start examining what the true problems and the true issues with our healthcare system are. The answer is usually in the middle. Has Medicaid worked to get more people with chronic conditions, to manage care, and to lower costs? The answer is yes. Are there too many people on Medicaid? The answer is yes. We need to grow our economy. We need to help people move them into a workplace where they have workplace insurance. Instead of talking about how we are going to grow the economy, instead of talking about how we are going to raise wages, instead of talking about how we are going to help people get set, we are talking about shifting the responsibility of the sickest among us, shifting that responsibility to the States and back to the patients. Just 2 weeks ago, I joined 15 of my colleagues trying to bring some commonsense bills forward. I thought we made a great case. We have been challenged: You really don't want to work with us. That is all facade. That is not true. We are back here again, saying: Please, please, work with us. Let's just for a moment do what Senator McConnell suggested we do. Let's take care of what is happening with the 2018 plan year. Let's remove the uncertainty as we are looking at premiums going up and skyrocketing because of that uncertainty. Let's remove that uncertainty and solve this problem. That is why I am supporting my colleague Senator Shaheen's legislation that makes cost-sharing payments permanent and increases the eligibility and generosity for that benefit. I also cosponsored Senator Carper and Senator Kaine's bill to make the reinsurance program for the individual marketplace permanent and to devote resources to outreach and enrollment efforts. As a result, it would encourage insurance companies to offer more plans in a greater number of markets, improving competition, and driving down costs. Isn't that what we all want? Everyone can agree that is the consequence of this legislation. Also, earlier this week I introduced another commonsense bill--the Addressing Affordability for More Americans Act. That helps make healthcare more affordable for middle-class families. What does that mean? We know that right now on the exchanges--when we look at subsidization of families on the exchange--we have what we call a cliff event. You are either in or you are out, and there is no stepdown. Many of our middle-class families could experience a joyous event called a pay raise, only to find out that the pay raise evaporates because they lose some of the tax advantages that they received because they bought health insurance on a private exchange. Why don't we glide that out? The same is true, actually, for Medicaid. Is there an opportunity to take that slide out, or that glide out, and moving more people into the workplace who are on Medicaid? I share concerns that people have that the subsidization on both Medicaid and on the individual marketplace may result in people not taking economic opportunities that are available to them because, in the long run, it doesn't pencil out, given where they will be with healthcare. Let's take that incentive out. Let's work together. Let's solve that problem. I think our bill is the starting point. If people have a better idea on how to address that concern, I stand willing and ready to make that work. I want to say that we are here saying: Let's work together. We are here saying: We do not believe that, on this side of the aisle, we have all the answers. Guess what. I don't believe that, on that side of the aisle, they have all the answers. I believe we could learn an incredible amount from a hearing with a bipartisan group of Governors who are going to be responsible. They are going to get this heaped into their lap if this passes. That is why you see a bipartisan group of Governors saying: You know what, keep it, because that is not a path forward. If you want to hear some good ideas, I think we could hear some great ideas from the corporate America that has become self-insured--as they look at wellness programs, as they look at using big data metrics to help keep their population healthier and drive down costs, and as they negotiate for better deals with providers. There are hundreds of ideas out there. There are hundreds of opportunities to learn more before we take this step, but what is the process we are in? The process we are in is this: Don't confuse me with the facts. Don't confuse me with a new idea. Don't confuse me because, politically, we have to do this. Do you know what? No one, politically, has to do this. What we have been sent here to do is not to fulfill political promises. We have been sent here to legislate in the best interest of the American people and the people of our States. That is our job--not to represent a partisan political idea. Let's do it. Let's bring in a whole lot of ideas, and let's park the ideology at the door. Everybody, park the ideology at the door. As so many people on the other side of the aisle would say, let's start acting in a business, yeoman-like manner and start working through these problems. We have to do what Senator Shaheen has suggested, and that is to buy some time by making sure that we don't disrupt the marketplace today. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, Congress and our country desperately need to have an honest, meaningful, transparent, and bipartisan conversation about improving our healthcare system. It shouldn't be a tall order, but around here things that seem common sense to the rest of the country are never simple. Instead, partisanship too often wins. We have seen that with the Senate Republican healthcare bill, as it was crafted behind closed doors without allowing any Democrats or the public to see it until it was a proposal. It is good news that a vote on the bill was delayed, but we must continue to have this conversation as the debate continues. That bill was bad for North Dakota. Only when we seek real bipartisan solutions do I believe we will be successful in improving our healthcare system. We need to reform our healthcare system. I have been saying it for years. In fact, I have proposed a number of fixes over the past 3\1/2\ years, but none of those fixes are embodied in the Republican healthcare bill. It is just not the right direction. Just yesterday, I joined many of my colleagues to bring up some commonsense bills we can and should take up right now to make sure American families aren't hurt in the near term. We called on Republicans to work with us, but, unfortunately, they objected. I want to work in a bipartisan way. I want real healthcare reform. But, unfortunately, I do not believe everyone in Congress feels that way. First, we need to talk about the facts of the Senate Republican bill--facts that are from very reputable nonpartisan sources. Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report reinforcing that the Senate Republican bill is just as terrible as the bill that came out of the House of Representatives a few months ago. The Senate bill would rip away health insurance from 22 million Americans by 2026, including 31,000 North Dakotans who would lose private health coverage. You can't put a few bandaids on a bad bill and expect that North Dakota would not feel that pain. Just as in the House bill, the biggest savings would come from severe cuts to Medicaid--a program that would see a 26-percent cut in 2026. The bill would slash a lifesaving program that 90,000 North Dakota children, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and low-income families rely on for affordable, quality care. That includes 36,000 children in my State. The Senate Republican healthcare bill would get rid of the Medicaid expansion and cap the amount of Federal funding States can get to cover those traditional Medicaid patients. That would drastically reduce the amount of Medicaid funds going to the States. This would push those remaining costs onto States and counties that can't afford it. Importantly, it also would push the cost onto other patients. The American Hospital Association estimates that North Dakota Medicaid would lose $1.2 billion through 2026. At the same time, North Dakota forecasts a $46 million shortfall for 2015 through 2017--that is our biennial period--and another $103 million shortfall for 2017 through 2018. You tell me how our State would pick up these extra costs for our families and our children. Unfortunately, we just will not be able to do it. We would be forced to discontinue care. That is just wrong. Those Medicaid cuts would also imperil rural hospitals, which have seen their amount of bad debt fall by 45 percent because of Medicaid expansion. Helping those rural hospitals keep their doors open and deliver care close to home for farmers, ranchers, and communities is absolutely vital to rural development and vital to those people who are still working in rural America to put food on our table. Additionally, the North Dakota Hospital Association released a study showing that healthcare and social assistance accounts for one of every seven workers in this State. I am going to repeat that: Healthcare and social assistance accounts for one of every seven workers in our State. Spending reductions under this Senate bill would curtail those jobs, hurt economic development--especially in rural communities--and make delivery of healthcare even more expensive for our rural families. The cuts to Medicaid would take away coverage from many North Dakotans who are also seeking treatment for opioid abuse and addiction, which has reached an epidemic level in our State, as well as across the Nation. In fact, I had one North Dakota healthcare provider who was looking at providing additional behavior and mental health services. In the traditional hospital setting, about 14 to 15 percent of the patients are on Medicaid. He believes that once this hospital opens, anywhere from 60 to 70 percent of the patients will be dependent on Medicaid funding for their healthcare. If that money is not there, if there is no reliability about that money, how do we build the treatment services we need to attack this epidemic? I want to dispel a myth about Medicaid, and that is that these are just people who can go to work every day, that they are not even working, that they are just on the public dole, and that they are just getting this money. The truth is that in North Dakota 83 percent of adult Medicaid enrollees are in families with a worker. That is a statistic according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. For North Dakotans who get coverage on the individual marketplace, this bill would raise premiums 76 percent higher than what would be required to be paid under the current law. That statistic, again, is according to Kaiser Family Foundation. Seniors would be especially hard hit, with premiums more than doubling for those older than 55. The bill would disproportionately push the costs on to older Americans, who tend to live in rural communities, like all of those across North Dakota. Under the Senate bill, in 2026 a 64-year-old with an income of $56,800 would pay annually $20,500 for a silver-level healthcare insurance plan. That is more than one-third of his or her entire income, and that is more than eight times what the same person would pay under the current law, which is $6,800. The bill would also enable insurance companies to impose lifetime maximums on coverage, once again, making it unaffordable for many people with life-threatening or long-term illnesses or disorders to get the treatment they need to live by. This bill is a not so thinly veiled attempt to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals at the expense of rural communities, like those across our State. Nearly 45 percent of the tax cuts in the Senate bill would go to the top 1 percent of incomes, those people making over $875,000 a year. I will say that again. Nearly 45 percent of the tax cuts in the Senate bill would go to the top 1 percent of incomes, those making over $875,000 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. But what is more telling about these striking statistics is the stories. I have heard from so many North Dakotans about how scared they are that this bill could pass and how it would hurt them if it ever happened. I have heard from North Dakotans with preexisting conditions, like cancer or asthma, parents of children with disabilities on Medicaid, adults with elderly patients in nursing homes, farmers and those in rural communities who rely on rural hospitals, and those receiving treatment for opioid abuse. The consequences of this bill for North Dakotans are real. I want to tell some of those very real stories across my State, because way too often we forget this is an issue that could not be more personal. I want to introduce you to Allison and Jennifer Restemayer. This is her wonderful family. This is Allison here. Allison, from West Fargo, was almost 2 years old when she was diagnosed with a rare genetic disease. Allison's parents were told she would become severely mentally delayed by age 3, and she would likely pass away by the time she was 10 years old. I am so proud to tell you and so glad to tell you that this prediction did not come true. Over the past several years, Allison has been able to get new, very expensive therapy that helps slow the progression of her disorder. Because there are currently no lifetime limits on coverage, Allison's family has been able to afford this treatment. Today, Allison is 16 years old. Allison needs physical therapy multiple times per week to truly make a difference in her life day to day and to help her live longer. Her private insurance covers just 12 physical therapy appointments per year. Allison is one of many children with disabilities or special needs on Medicaid, which covers the rest of her physical therapy. For her and her family--you can see them here--who are so proud of the courage of Allison, it has been a lifeline, and it has been a lifegiver. But the Republican bill would enable insurance companies to impose lifetime maximums on coverage, which many North Dakotans, like Allison, would reach in no time. It would slash Medicaid--both expansion and traditional Medicaid--making it harder for families like Allison's to afford coverage and critical treatment for their children with special needs. The Restemayers should never ever have to worry. I have spent a lot of time with Allison, and I think anyone who meets her knows that this world is a much better place with Allison healthy and alive. We are so proud to call her one of our friends. She has been an inspiration to me and my staff. She has participated in a lot of dialogues, and her advocacy has been absolutely instrumental in telling the story of families like hers in North Dakota. I want to talk about Emerie and Amy Thom. At just 2 months old, Emerie, from Bismarck, had her first set of seizures and was diagnosed with a rare neurological condition. Her parents, Amy and Johnny, have crisscrossed North Dakota and visited many hospitals out of State to get Emerie the care she needs and to control her life-threatening seizures. Emerie is now almost 4 years old and has spent a total of 8 weeks in the hospital since she was born. She receives therapy multiple times per week and needs various medical equipment. Just 1 month of therapy out-of-pocket would cost her family--good, hard-working people--$3,000. Emerie is on Medicaid, which has enabled her family to afford her hospital stays, her home healthcare, and her therapy. It has also enabled them to keep their daughter home with them in a loving family relationship, in a lovely family situation. It is because of the access to Medicaid that this family has been able to stay in their home and keep their jobs, but the Senate Republican healthcare bill would rip Medicaid away from families like Emerie's. This family does not deserve that, and neither does any family who is working hard to take care of their children. These are all of our children, the children we see today who suffer from disabilities, who live and inspire us with their disabilities and their hope. This small help these families ask for from the Medicaid system should not be threatened, and these families should not be calling congressional offices begging us to please, please do everything we can. Finally, I want to talk about Frances. Frances is one of the nicest people you are ever going to meet. For 25 years, she was a third grade teacher in Fessenden. When she was 21 years old, while she was teaching, she was diagnosed with a syndrome that affects the nerve endings in her body. She became paralyzed but taught herself to walk again. For the rest of her life, she will have to face the challenges that come with this disorder. Today, Fran can't walk anymore, and she has been in a wheelchair for the past 24 years. For most of her life, Fran lived independently with her husband, who passed away in 2000. In the past few years, she has reached a point where she needs full-time care. She is now 84 years old. She lives in a nursing home in Harvey, and she has been there for 4 years. Fran had been in and out of nursing homes a few times beforehand, all which required private pay. Because of the extreme costs, Fran doesn't have any money or savings left. She spent it all on her healthcare. Now she is one of many seniors on Medicaid, which enables her to afford the quality, long-term care she needs to live with dignity and support. At the nursing home, she gets extensive assistance with bathing, dressing, and doing any activities. Fran doesn't know what she would do without Medicaid. She doesn't have any children to help her. Her siblings are all older than she is, and they wouldn't be able to provide her with the level of care she needs. If it weren't for Medicaid, Fran would be out of options. The Senate Republican bill threatens the coverage that Fran has and that so many others rely on. You know what, we cannot let that happen. This issue has many faces. These are just three North Dakota faces I want to talk to you about. These families aren't interested in politics. They couldn't care less about politics. They want the ability to take care of themselves. There is no guilt to any of these conditions. There is no ``you did it to yourself'' to any of these conditions. This is the human condition. We have to decide as a country, are we together in taking care of each other, or are we all on our own? That is the issue. How do we take care of the sickest among us? Are we together, or are we on our own? I believe we are stronger when we stand together to provide care to each other and to those who are not as fortunate. I was talking to some of the families. It is hard when you are a mom, I think, to think about, well, what was your life with your child growing up? I had two children, born extraordinarily healthy. They barely missed a day of school, they were so healthy. They had an opportunity to engage in every level of activity, giving me and my husband the freedom to pursue other things in our lives. That is a gift. It is also a gift that we as a society can help those who don't have that level of good fortune but have children who need some special attention, children whose care you cannot afford on your own. From the discussions I have had with so many of the families, very few of us could ever afford the medications and the therapies that guarantee quality of life not only for the child but for the family in terms of respite care. Allison, Emerie, and Fran, we are going to keep talking about this, and we are going to keep evaluating all of the proposals that come our way. When they don't do right by you, Emerie, Allison, and Fran, when it is not the right solution for your family, it is not the right solution for North Dakota, and it is not the right solution for this country. We have work to do. I know the Presiding Officer has been one of the leaders in analyzing and reviewing these bills. We have had a chance to have some discussions. I hope we will have further discussions about how we can continue to care for these wonderful North Dakotans. The Presiding Officer knows story after story, having been a physician. Being a physician, my husband can tell you story after story about people who are challenged. In this system of healthcare, we all have to decide whether we stand alone or together. I believe America is stronger when we stand together and help each other. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I wish to make some concluding remarks. No. 1, I share the concerns that Senator Barrasso expressed. I hear from ranch families and I hear from farm families about the unaffordability of their healthcare premiums. I hear about high deductibles. I hear about how what has happened in the health insurance market has made it more difficult for them to cover their families. I hear that. We have solutions we have been talking about that could lower those costs. I would include dealing with people with chronic conditions. Reports from the RAND Commission tell us that 12 percent of the people in this country who have five or more chronic conditions cost the healthcare system over 40 percent. Some of those people are on the exchanges, and when they are on the exchanges, that drives the healthcare costs up. But I have a question. I have a question for people who are advancing the Republican healthcare bill: Why do you have to give the richest Americans in this country a tremendous tax break to solve that problem? How does giving the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers in this country over a $250,000 a year tax break--how does that fix the problem for my ranchers? How does that fix the problem for my farm families? You know the honest answer: It doesn't. I need to understand how taking billions of dollars out of the Medicaid system, driving sicker, older people who tend to be in the Medicaid population onto the exchanges into the individual marketplace--how does that help that farm family we talk about almost every week on the floor of the Senate, that farm family, that individual who is paying excess premiums? It does nothing for them. This is all some smoke-and-mirrors deal. What we have done today-- almost 15 of us have come to the floor, and what we are saying is: Let's fix the problems. We can all acknowledge that we have a healthcare system where really sick people have a hard time finding affordability. When you put really sick people into an insurance pool, it drives up the cost for everyone. How do we manage that? The insurance industry tells me the average time on the individual exchange is 10 months. How do you take someone with five chronic conditions and manage them in a 10-month plan? You know what, you don't. So they hop from plan to plan, costing more and more. If you want to reduce costs, you have to figure out how we can better treat the sickest among us. Until we do that, we will not achieve the common goal, which is reducing and bending the costs of healthcare in this country. We cannot achieve that goal. When all we are doing is saying: No, we don't want to pay, we are going to make the States pay or we are going to make people on the individual exchange pay or we are going to make people do what they have done before, which is not have coverage and put them into uncompensated care, that will not solve the problem. We have some great examples here for the immediate concern that we have about the premiums that are going to be expressed. In some ways, this reflects concerns about the increased costs of healthcare and what is happening in that individual market, but it is being driven by the failure to fulfill the statutory obligation--reinsurance, cost sharing. I do have to point out that I found it interesting that the objection to Senator Shaheen's bill was that, oh, we haven't had time to take a look at it, haven't had time to even considering this cost-sharing issue. Really? This is the last page of the Republican bill, page 145, stating in section 208, ``Funding for Cost-Sharing Payments.'' I will give you, it is a different schedule, different formula in the Shaheen bill, but this is not a new concept. If we wanted today to give the insurance industry the certainty they needed that would make sure that the premium increases reflected not uncertainty but reflected actual costs, we would do this: We would take up Jeanne's bill. The very bill that the Republicans have advanced says, ``There is appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums that may be necessary for payments for cost-sharing reductions authorized by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (including adjustments to any prior obligations).'' The same provision was in the House bill. How can it be objectionable to have a debate about a provision that has been advanced in both Republican bills? How can that be objectionable when so much is riding on that, when the healthcare and availability of insurance to our families is riding on making sure we at least have some kind of stopgap measures in the exchanges that will guarantee a stability that will make insurance available. If we don't know what is going to happen with those counties--we know we have huge counties that don't even have uninsured in them. Senator McCaskill offered an opportunity. Guess what. How about they get their insurance where our staff get our insurance or some among us get our insurance? That is objected to because it is some kind of Washington solution. What is ironic about that is that provision that made Senate staff in our home States get their health insurance on the DC exchange came from Senator Grassley during the debate on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, not a Democratic idea. It was a Republican idea and certainly something that bears at least a discussion, certainly something that ought to be talked about here. Let's not pretend there has been an outreach to people on the Democratic side. Today the Democratic leader offered to go to Blair House, offered to bring people together at Blair House, have a sitdown on healthcare, offered to go to the Senate--the Old Senate Chamber, no cameras, let's talk about healthcare. What we get is: You are not serious. I want you to know I am dead serious about sitting down and trying to fashion a healthcare plan that actually fixes the problems we have right now in affordability of health insurance. When someone says, well, you have to accept tax breaks as part of that for the richest Americans, think about this: 400 Americans will get a tax break under the Republican bill--400. Just 400 Americans will get a tax break under the Republican bill, equal to what it would cost for Medicaid expansion in four States. Make no mistake, this is not healthcare reform we are talking about. That bill is not healthcare reform. It is entitlement reform in Medicaid, shifting costs to States and patients. It is tax reform, making sure the wealthiest among us get a tax break. If we want to talk about healthcare reform, if we want to talk about fixing the ACA, let's not throw out what is working. Let's make sure we are fixing and addressing the problems that we here express every day that come in our mail and that we know we have to address in order to make the system fair; that is, younger, healthier people need a break. They need to find an affordable product. How are we going to do that? We have seen ideas here today, ideas that could take care of--even if we just made them temporary, even if we said this is only going to be there until 2019, we could stabilize all of this today and begin that today, but yet it is objected to. I think the message we want to send is we stand ready to fix the healthcare system. We stand ready to work with the other side of the aisle. We stand ready to address the concerns we hear from our constituents about the healthcare system. If we really want to respond to the concerns the American public has about the U.S. Congress, we better start working together. We better start finding a path forward to solve problems, real problems, not pretend problems but real problems in this country. That way we will, in fact, enrich and enhance our democracy. Until we do that, we continue to struggle to get credibility with the American public, and that is not, ladies and gentlemen and Members of the Senate, a formula for success for our democracy. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, one of the things that the healthcare law changes here have demonstrated is that partisanship in Congress has reached a new high--or I would say a new low. I am tired of reading about who is to blame for what, and I know Americans and North Dakotans are too. Most importantly, it certainly doesn't do anything to help American families' healthcare get any better. We should all want to improve our healthcare system so it works better for families and for businesses. It should be a bipartisan discussion, not a political exercise. I am here, as are many of my colleagues, because that is what we hope to accomplish. For years, I have been offering reasonable reforms to make the current health reform law work better. I want such reforms to be bipartisan. I want to have a larger conversation about healthcare in this country. But the Republican Senate bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act, is simply not the way to have those discussions. Frankly, this bill is a nonstarter. I have heard from so many North Dakota children with disabilities, seniors in nursing homes, men and women with preexisting conditions in my State, and hospitals, doctors, and nurses, especially in rural communities, who are deeply concerned--in fact, I can tell you, deeply panicked--about how this bill would make care less available and less affordable. There are commonsense actions we can and should take right now to make sure American families aren't hurt in the near term. That is why we are here today. Action and uncertainty caused by the administration, as well as House Republicans, exacerbated instability in the insurance markets, threatening significant cost increases for consumers in 2018. The administration has been unwilling to commit funding for cost-sharing reduction payments, and some Republicans have been working to dismantle the health reform law by not funding critical reinsurance programs. These actions make it extraordinarily difficult for insurers to plan and make business decisions for 2018--yes, 2018, the year we are talking about today. If insurers can't rely on these funds to support healthcare programs that make it possible for health insurance costs to remain affordable for families, the health insurance premium filings for the next term year will reflect that uncertainty. Health insurance rates for 2018 that have already been filed in some of our States demonstrate that fact. Let's talk about the facts. Independent reports from the Congressional Budget Office and Standard & Poor's have said that the insurance markets were expected to stabilize this year and could stabilize this year unless the administration causes disruption. If you look at the numbers from last year, you will see that health plans were offered in every county in this country. Today, we are here to offer a few bills that will make an immediate and real difference for families to address health insurance rate increases that we expect in 2018. These are commonsense bills that should be bipartisan. We hope our colleagues across the aisle will work with us in a bipartisan way so we can provide immediate relief and guarantee stability for the individual market--stability that will enable individuals and families in all of our States to avoid serious increases in their health insurance rates. No family should face bankruptcy to cover their healthcare costs because in Washington, DC, we can't implement the bill that we have and instead continue to stall and play the game of politics against the interests of the American people and, certainly in many cases, some of sickest among us and people who have a whole lot of healthcare insecurity. This is politics. We cannot continue to play politics with people's health. Some of the issues we are working to address were included, interestingly enough, in the Senate healthcare bill--a clear acknowledgment from the Republicans that these changes are necessary for the health market to function in 2018. Right now, we are standing here because time is of the essence. I hope our colleagues will join us in this effort. We want to work with them. We hope they will work with us. We hope we can at least at a minimum get together and solve the problem for 2018 while we are debating the future of healthcare delivery in this country. I will call on my friend, the great Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, to offer what I think is a terrific idea and to talk about a bill on which I am a cosponsor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I thank my good friend the Senator from Minnesota. She just exists to the east of me. We share a common border, but we also share a common belief that Washington is not devoid of ideas. Somehow, it has just lost the capacity to bring those ideas to fruition. As my great friend the Senator from Minnesota can attest, there are hundreds-- and probably thousands--of great ideas for small business, for workers, for improving the economic conditions of people in this country that are here, ready for debate, and ready for passage. What is not a formula for success for America is the budget. The President's budget would devastate rural communities. I am not given to hyperbole, and I am not given to exaggeration, but the absolute, bare fact is that this budget will decimate economic opportunity not only for American agriculture but for economic opportunity and security for rural communities. When we think about North Dakota, it is hard to imagine a State that most of the people in this country would imagine more equated with rural America. I tease Amy many times when I tell her: Oh, it is coming up from the Cities, because our big opportunity to travel and to see the sites of the big city really is Minneapolis and St. Paul. But a lot of Minnesota--a lot of western Minnesota in particular, the area that I know about--is engaged in agriculture, and we share a common border, but we share a common purpose. I wanted to start off by saying that in North Dakota, we understand the value of rural communities. We understand the value of investing in agriculture and infrastructure and how important those things are to boosting our local economy. We see the direct impacts of it on our families, businesses, and towns. Most of us--me included--come from towns of fewer than 100 people. In fact, I am proud to say that growing up, there were nine people in my family, and my family was one-tenth of the population of the small town I lived in. We are proud of that. We are proud of our rural roots, and we are proud that from those life experiences growing up, we learned a lot about compromise, we learned a lot about work ethic, and we learned a lot about the importance of community and working together. We also learned a lot about the importance of investment. Without critical investment, our rural communities are at risk, and I think that could have dramatic and drastic ramifications for our State, our counties, our families, and our neighbors. Instead of lifting up rural communities, the Presidential budget pushes us down. Rural communities and the jobs there--including agriculture--are vital to many of the families I know but really families across the country. There are over 30,000 farmers and ranchers in North Dakota who lead the country in producing spring wheat, durum, sunflowers, canola, dry edible beans, flax, honey, and many more specialty crops and grain crops. These farmers feed North Dakota, our country, and the world. In 2015, agriculture contributed more than $9.1 billion to my State's economy. That may not seem like a lot when we are talking about California, but that is a huge amount when we are talking about North Dakota. About one-third of North Dakota's jobs are directly tied to agriculture. There are implement dealers, veterinarians, agriculture retailers, and many more who are closely associated with agribusiness. There are countless other jobs that support these rural communities, such as teachers, firefighters, police officers, and more. Since the election, there has been a great deal of talk in Washington about rural America. I think rural America reared up its head in this past election and said ``We are not to be forgotten'' and they believed they had secured an advocate in Washington in this current administration, only to be basically told otherwise by a Presidential budget. So what does the budget mean, and why should we pay attention to it? I think the first thing we need to know about a budget is that it is about priorities. It is really a values document. Unfortunately, the President's budget shows that the administration doesn't value North Dakota or really, in fact, rural America. In fact, it targets both. Today I want to talk a little bit more specifically about how devastating this budget would be for rural communities across my State and across the country. This budget would slash USDA's budget by over 21 percent, cutting $231 billion from funding from the farm bill over the next decade. It would specifically cut $29 billion--$29 billion--from crop insurance over the next decade. This is crop insurance our farmers rely on, especially at a time of challenging weather and low commodity prices. Crop insurance helps prevent family farms from going under when disaster strikes. Without an affordable crop insurance program, a drought or a flood could wipe out the wealth of an entire family and basically bankrupt a family farm. When ranchers and farmers do well, North Dakota does well, and so will all the rest of the country. To challenge these farmers with a crop insurance program that will be nonexistent is to take away the opportunity for food security in this country--food security that is so closely linked and important to national security. By drastically reducing field staff, the President's budget also prevents USDA from achieving its mission to support rural communities. The budget calls for reducing staffing levels at USDA by 5,200 employees. Nearly 2,500 of those employees are with the Farm Service Agency, Rural Development, and Natural Resources. What does that mean? The Farm Service Agency's caseloads have increased in North Dakota, and the current hiring ban has hampered efforts to administer the farm programs--those efforts which are critical to farmers as they make their business decisions. I can't tell my colleagues the number of times farmers across my State have come up to me and said how grateful they are that the Farm Service Agency is available in their county and available to them to provide advice and much needed documentation on their decisionmaking on how they are going to implement the farm program. In fact, I tease those farmers a little bit, because they always say: You know, that Farm Service gal--usually a woman who has been with the Agency over decades and knows that farm as well as that farmer, and when that farmer walks through the door to get that advice and to get that number, they know that not only do they have a friend sitting across the table from them--probably a neighbor--they also have an advocate sitting across the table. We don't want to lose that connection to this vital service, the Farm Service Agency, by making this about picking up the phone and pressing buttons and talking to someone who would barely even understand or even know North Dakota or the county the farmer is in. So at a time when farmers and ranchers are already experiencing low commodity prices, these cuts to the Farm Service Agency would limit the ability of that Agency to provide timely, accurate, and useful services to our family farmers and our ranchers. The budget would create huge challenges for rural healthcare. On top of the $800-plus billion taken out of the Medicaid Program by the Republican healthcare bill, this budget would also cut $610 billion from Medicaid by reducing it to a block grant program. Medicaid is a lifesaving, cost-effective program that enables more than 90,000 seniors, individuals and children with disabilities, and low-income families to get affordable, quality care. I want my colleagues to think about the enormous challenge of delivering healthcare in a sparsely populated area. One of the challenges my rural healthcare providers have not had in the last many years since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is uncompensated care. But when we go back to uncompensated care, on top of operating on razor-thin margins, we are now going to say that not only are you operating on razor-thin margins, but you are not going to have your bills paid, making it impossible for you to meet payroll and impossible for you to continue to provide these resources. So we have real challenges in rural healthcare as a result of this budget and the Republican proposal. The President's budget also cuts nearly $400 million in Federal funds for substance abuse prevention and behavioral health workforce training programs at the same time that every part of this country--particularly rural parts of our country--is facing opioid abuse. In North Dakota alone, fatalities from opioid abuse have grown 125 percent. I met just yesterday with the North Dakota Medical Association, which told me that every day this week in Fargo, ND, there has been a death as a result of overdoses. It is hard to imagine that is happening in our rural communities in places like North Dakota, but it is. I talked to a healthcare provider in Dickinson, ND, who told me that while his average percentage of Medicaid recipients in his hospital is about 15 to 20 percent, as it relates to opioids and behavior and mental health, it is well over 60, bordering on 70 percent. So the population, without Medicaid dollars, would not be able to get important rehabilitation and treatment services. Last week, I also visited one of our rural airports that are dependent on the Essential Air Service. That is absolutely critical to maintaining air service in Jamestown, in Devil's Lake, and now in Dickinson, which has gone back to Essential Air Service after years of not needing that support because of the growth in the Bakken oilfield. Last week, while talking to the folks in Dickinson, they told me there are 475 jobs which are dependent on the airport, which helped generate $76.6 million for the area in 2015. The Dickinson Airport would receive about $4.2 million in assistance from the Essential Air Service each year, but when we look at how that investment pays off in terms of dividends, it seems like a small price to pay. It would eliminate funding to protect water programs and infrastructure in rural areas which have improved water and wastewater systems for more than 40 North Dakota towns, Tribal reservations, and water districts since 2010. This budget would also eliminate the Community Development Block Grant Program, which helped the State of North Dakota improve housing conditions for low- and moderate-income families with $4.9 million in investments in 2016. It would eliminate the Economic Development Administration, which has provided over $34 million in investments since 2009 to local economic development organizations in North Dakota, particularly those in rural towns. The list goes on and on and on. We haven't talked about the reduction in services for export markets. We haven't talked about research reductions at USDA and what that would mean. We haven't talked about eliminating trade assistance. All of these things have huge consequences for large pieces of the United States of America. What I would say to the administration is that rural America expects better. Rural America thought they were going to get better than this. Rural America has enough challenges. We have volatile commodity prices, healthcare shortages, declining populations, and I will tell my colleagues that today in North Dakota, there is a potential disaster from drought. The President's budget would not only not help rural America thrive, it would only make matters worse. Rather than taking an ax to proven, successful programs that strengthen our rural communities, we need strong investments in rural communities, jobs, and families, that help support North Dakota's future. With this budget, the administration's priorities are clear for everyone to see. It is now Congress's job to set spending priorities and fund programs in rural America to a level so that we know rural America can not only survive but can thrive. North Dakota needs and deserves a strong voice at the table. I will make sure that we tell the story of all of these programs, that we tell the story of how critically important these programs are to maintaining our opportunity to produce food in our country but also to raise our children in rural settings. It is beyond belief to me that we are in this situation given the level of support that rural America provided to this administration and to this President during the last election. We know we can do better, and we will do better. We know we can't waste money. We know we have to deploy these valuable resources in ways that actually produce results. I can show my colleagues result after result after result and the importance of providing these services so that rural communities can thrive. I will close with this: A little-known fact is that so many of our rural communities today are the most impoverished places in America. When people think of poverty, they think of inner city poverty, they think of other pieces of America they have seen, but we know that the rates of poverty, the rates of challenges in terms of healthcare, education--those challenges are much greater in rural America. The last thing we need to do is saddle rural America with a 500-pound rock, put it on their backs, and still expect them to thrive. This budget is a 500-pound rock on the backs of our farmers who work every day to put food on their table, but more importantly, work every day to feed America. With that, I yield the floor and turn it back to my friend from the State of Minnesota.

Ms. HEITKAMP

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

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to honor the incredible men and women of our Nation's law enforcement agencies. Each year, peace officers from all over the country and from countries all over the world come to Washington, DC, to celebrate and remember the lives of their colleagues whom they have lost in the line of duty. The men and women who serve as peace officers in our Tribal, Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies selflessly put their lives before the lives of those whom they have taken an oath to protect and serve. I am here to not only remember those peace officers we have lost but to thank each and every officer who puts on a uniform and a badge every day to protect our citizens and our communities. As a former attorney general of North Dakota, I have always had a special relationship and appreciation for law enforcement. Serving as the top law enforcement officer in my State will always be one of the most meaningful moments in my professional career. When I began serving as attorney general, law enforcement wasn't one of the goals I had. So I told my head of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, a brilliant leader by the name of Bill Broer, that he could just deal with the law enforcement portion of the job, and I would take responsibility for the rest of the job. Bill was going to have none of that, and consistently invited me along as he visited peace officers from all over the State, as we went to intel meetings, and as we talked about the challenges of equipping and staffing our law enforcement agencies. I can tell my colleagues that after 8 years of being North Dakota's attorney general, that portion of the job was the job I miss and love the most because I worked with the finest collection of peace officers in the country, and I could not be more proud to continue that work and work alongside of them as their U.S. Senator. I am here to thank each and every one of the peace officers who selflessly serve in communities throughout North Dakota and to let you know I don't just appreciate the work you do and the sacrifices you and your family make each and every day, but I also have your back, 24/7, 365 days a year. I also come to the floor with a heavy heart, as I have had to come to the floor twice already in less than a year, to honor North Dakota peace officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. We lost Officer Jason Moszer of the Fargo Police Department on February 11, 2016. Less than a year later, we lost Rolette County Deputy Colt Allery on January 18, 2017. I say ``we'' because the loss of these fine, young peace officers was felt across the entire State of North Dakota, and it still impacts their families, their departments, and our communities to this day. Both of these young men made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their State and their communities, each succumbing to gunshot wounds inflicted by individuals who were prepared to inflict even more damage and take more lives. The brave actions of these two peace officers prevented that from happening. Officer Jason Moszer's name was etched into the Peace Officer Memorial here in Washington, DC, this week, and his name was read out loud during a ceremony this past weekend honoring all the officers who died in the line of duty last year and whose names have been added to the wall. Officer Moszer's name will now serve as an example not just to North Dakotans but to people from all over this country and all around the world who visit the memorial each year. He will serve as an example of the best our State and country has to offer, an example of what it truly means to have lived and died so others may be safe; quite simply, an example for everyone of what it means to be a hero. We must also remember the families of our peace officers that sacrifice so much, not knowing if their loved ones will return each time they walk out the door. I want to recognize Officer Moszer's family, his wife Rachel, his children Dillan and Jolee, his brother Brian, his sister Michelle, and especially his parents Dave and Karen, who care so much and have sacrificed so much and today suffer that loss with their community, but, more importantly, in private. So I know what Jason meant to you. I know what he means to you. He now belongs to the entire State of North Dakota. We will never forget his name or his sacrifice. To the men and women of the Fargo Police Department, led by a great guy, Chief David Todd, I commend all of you for your courage and strength, for standing alongside the Moszers every step of the way. Jason's loss was your loss too. I stand in awe and appreciation of the job you do each and every day, and I thank you. Next year, unfortunately, I will be coming to the floor again to honor Deputy Allery, as his name will be engraved on the memorial wall. My heart breaks about having to do this again, but I also consider it an incredible privilege to honor the very best of what we as a State and country have to offer. To all of our peace officers, especially those back home in North Dakota, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your sacrifice to the people of Fargo and the State of North Dakota. I also want to mention that we walk by peace officers every day-- peace officers who have the responsibility of protecting the most iconic image of American democracy; that is, the U.S. Capitol and the buildings we serve in. They stand ready to take anything that walks through that door. Let me tell you, anyone who thinks that is an easy job--trying to anticipate, trying to pay attention, and trying to know how to treat our citizens with the utmost respect but also recognizing that every one of those people coming through the door at any of these gates, any of these doors, could be intent on doing damage to this institution and causing death among the people we work with every day-- it is an awesome responsibility and I think a responsibility that too often goes unattended and unrecognized and unappreciated. I want to stand today and give a shout-out not only to the great peace officers of my State but the great peace officers who serve with us every day. Whether they are in border patrol and protection, whether they are in Customs and Border Protection, whether they are police officers at the parks, whether they are police officers serving all across these Federal agencies, whether it be ICE or the FBI, we should be proud of the work that they do. We should be standing with them in the work they do because their job is as important as our job, and that is to protect our country and protect our people. So I want to say it is not enough to just stand here and recognize the heroes. If we really want to appreciate peace officers and peace officer week, and if we want to really honor peace officers, every day is a day that we say thank you. Every day we pass a uniform of a peace officer who is protecting us, we say thank you. We recognize their service, we recognize their sacrifice, and we recognize that all too often they are the only people who stand between us and chaos, who stand on that line and protect our country and protect our children and protect our citizens. May God bless all of our peace officers and may God bless the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator Carper.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, will my friend from Mississippi yield the floor for one moment?

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to recognize that the environment is critically important. One of the true issues States face is getting back to the promises of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to make sure States enjoy primacy, and I think that is a critical component that is not being discussed today as we look at guaranteed clean water and clean air--making sure that those closest to those issues have the ability to have the input that was anticipated by almost every environmental statute. So I would remind my colleagues that when we focus many times on Federal issues and Federal appointments, one of the most important things that we can do is focus on the fact that these Federal agency heads need to work cooperatively with State organizations. Scott Pruitt, who is a soon-to-be former attorney general, understands the State role, and I think that is a critical qualification and an important distinction to make.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I come to talk about a topic that is near and dear to my heart. Although I don't serve on the committee of jurisdiction, I will tell some stories today that will demonstrate to you about why I feel so strongly about this nominee and so strongly about this position. I want to start with my dad's story. My dad grew up on a small family farm outside the town of Barney, ND, not that you would know where that is. When he became an eighth grader--when he graduated with an eighth- grade education, he wanted to go to high school in Wyndmere, but as was the custom at the time, the oldest son was expected to stay on the farm and not get an education beyond the eighth grade and help support the family. That is not unusual. There is probably a number of people in this body whose parents have a similar experience, but this story really came home to me when my dad was diagnosed with melanoma. Unfortunately, with part of that disease, the cancer moved to his brain and something remarkable happened for all of us, and that was that he would relive parts of his life. He would believe--as the cancer took over his brain, that part would activate his memory, and he would be doing things like calling bingo in the middle of the night during this time when he was in hospice care. It would alarm us, and maybe sometimes even amuse us, but he would truly believe he was calling bingo at the Mandan VFW Hall. I remember taking care of him one night, when he started reliving the experience of not going to high school and started really talking about how that affected his life, begging his father. I would never have known that without the cancer, but that education experience was so critical to his future and the future of his children. That experience that he had taught us and informed us and mandated that we appreciate public school education and the opportunity that came with it. That leads to our story, the seven children of Ray Heitkamp who had a great public school education in Mantador, went to high school in Hankinson. Some of my siblings were fortunate enough to go to parochial school before St. Francis closed down, but we all graduated from Hankinson High School. Then something truly remarkable happened in this country--truly remarkable because we had a chance to go to college. From the time we were just children, my mother would tell us we were going to college. We would wonder, back in the sixties, how that was ever possible. Then the Federal Government did something truly remarkable. It said our most important asset and our greatest future lies in the education of our children, and we want to help our children advance with that education. We saw what happened with the GI bill when GIs came home from World War II and went to college and became doctors and lawyers, became bankers, became businessmen, and worked to build their communities. We saw that. We said: Wouldn't it be great if every kid had that opportunity, not just returning veterans but every kid. So I remember coming here, my first day that I presided in the U.S. Senate after I was elected in 2012, and I was so busy getting ready to serve that I hadn't really gotten to that spot where I realized: Wow. I am standing in the most deliberative body in the world, and I am a U.S. Senator. I remember gaveling in, asking Pastor Black to come forward and give the prayer, and then we turned--as the pages know, we turned to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It was at that moment when I asked myself, ``In what country can the daughter of a school cook and a construction worker serve in the U.S. Senate?'' We are blessed in this country to have opportunity, but that opportunity is diminished if we don't support public school education. That opportunity will not be available to future generations. We will continue to divide this country in ways that will destroy our democracy. So where do we go today and how does this have anything to do with today? This is our Nation's story. Public school education, which began in Massachusetts, and every step and every development of public school education has expanded the opportunity for children with disabilities to achieve their highest calling through public school education. Children of a school cook and a construction worker can become a U.S. Senator. Any achievement we all have is because someone cared about our education and cared about our opportunities. I was fortunate, I had parents who believed in education. Way too many children today are in homes where education isn't a priority. Maybe that home is racked with poverty, addiction, huge challenges. Even homeless children deserve a public school education, deserve access to education. We are the envy of the world. Children in other countries die for the opportunity for public school education. This is foundational, not just to the individual development but to the future of our country. So where are we today? Sure, we have challenges in education. No one is denying that. No one is saying our public school education, our entire education system is perfect. The challenge I have in North Dakota is achieving quality education in a rural setting. How do we do that when maybe there are only two high school seniors, and if they are going to go to the next school, they are going to drive at least an hour and a half a day. That is not unheard of. I can only imagine what that looks like in Alaska. There are parts in our State where we are challenged every day to deliver high-quality education. We have a technology barrier. Fortunately, in North Dakota, we have technology and broadband in many of our schools. That is not true across this country. We need to do more in broadband, bringing high-quality education tools to schools. We need to recruit the best teachers for our rural schools, the best teachers for our urban schools--the best people. During my time as Attorney General, I did a project involving juvenile justice. We went around to all of the schools, mainly talking to junior high kids because we believed that was the point at which they were making choices that may change the trajectory of their life. We were going around high schools talking to junior high kids. One of the things that kids told us over and over again is, they did not want their teachers to know when they had done something illegal. Why is that? It is not because they didn't trust their teachers with that information. The other group they didn't want to know was their parents because they didn't want to disappoint the heroes in their lives. Contrary to what people think--because they think children's heroes are some sports hero or some rapper or some performer, and that is absolutely not true. Do you know who kids' heroes are? First, they will say their grandparents or parents or a sister or a brother, one of their family members. Next what we hear is their third grade teacher, their seventh grade math teacher, their high school coach who maybe made their life a little bit easier when they were in school. Those are their heroes. These are the people who are doing the critical work all too often of helping to raise our kids in very challenging circumstances. So when we do not support public school education with highly qualified nominees for the highest education job in the country, what does that say to people who may choose an opportunity in education? It says we don't think very much of them because we are just willing to go ahead with a D-minus applicant because maybe that applicant had a big checkbook. I want to talk a little bit about my colleague who is on the floor today, Patty Murray, and a colleague who is not, and that is Senator Alexander. I can state that I was in State office when No Child Left Behind was passed. It was so apparent to me and everyone at that level that this was not a public policy that was going to achieve the intended results, but yet we maintained that public policy for decades--through gridlock, through the inability to sit down and compromise, through the inability to put politics aside and put children first. Then something remarkable happened in the last Congress. In a highly contentious partisan environment, two great leaders, Senator Murray and Senator Alexander, sat down, and they knew the time had come to reverse the No Child Left Behind Act and replace it with something that was going to be much more successful so the Every Student Succeeds Act was passed, and we are now on the path of implementation. We set a new policy for public school education. We need a leader in the Department of Education who believes in public school education and who can administer that policy, who can leave policy to the local and State school boards, to parents, to PTAs, and to local folks. We want policy. We need someone who can collaborate and implement and work with schools across our country to make this policy work and then report fairly back to us when something is not working to tell us that wasn't a good idea. We need more afterschool programs. We need a hot lunch program that actually serves more kids in the morning so kids are ready to learn. That is what we need. So what did we get with this nominee? In my opinion, we got a highly unqualified nominee for one of the most significant positions in government for our most precious resource, our children. That is what we got. So I am standing today, explaining my belief that we need to do something different than approve this nominee. We need to send the right message to all of those educators, all of those State officials, and all of those parents who came together and worked with Senator Murray and Senator Alexander to form a policy. Dissent was hardly anywhere. If it was, it was whispered on the edges. We need somebody who appreciates that work, who understands that work, and who would never say public schools are a dead end. Public schools are not a dead end. They are the beginning of opportunity. We have to work hard to make sure that happens, but we have to start from a foundational belief that public school education is critically important and needs to be protected, supported, and advocated for. We have to start there, and I think we are not there with this nominee. I wish to say it is not just my judgment that I bring to the floor of the Senate today. I bring to the floor the judgment of thousands of North Dakotans who have called me. Hopefully, I did something to give people greater access to my advocacy in the Senate for them. I opened a portal on my Web page and asked people to tell us what they wanted to have done with these nominees. I have received thousands--in fact, 4,600. It may not sound like a lot to other offices, but that is a lot from a State of only 730,000 or 740,000 people. Of those 4,600, over half were on this nomination. Of those who called this office or sent a message to the portal, 92 percent of them said: Please, do not vote to approve Betsy DeVos. These are incredible statistics, very telling statistics. I wish to read some of the comments I received from North Dakotans. I received a comment from Amber of Burleigh County, who said: My husband and I are both public educators and we know how critical a good public school education is for students all across North Dakota, including our two daughters. We need a leader at the U.S. Department of Education who supports students, teachers, and public schools. Unfortunately, Betsy DeVos wants to dismantle public schools. Judith from Cass County said: DeVos has no public education experience or training of any kind; she has never been a teacher or school administrator, served on any public board of education, or even attended a public school. It is clear DeVos is not qualified to be the head of the U.S. Department of Education. Patricia from Bottineau County told me: As a former public school teacher and grandmother of 6, I do not support Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. She should not get this job with no experience in education other than trying to get rid of public schools. An editorial today in the Fargo Forum, a very conservative newspaper in my State--I might say, it is not known for its liberal bias--said: Of Trump's Cabinet nominees, DeVos is among the least qualified for the intended job because of her uninformed and ideologically skewed views of public education. Her ignorance was on display during her Senate committee hearing during which she was unable to answer even softball questions about long-standing education policies. If we were inclined to support Ms. DeVos, I felt it was my job to watch the hearings. By anyone's measure, I think the hearings were clearly a disaster for this nominee. But I think it also represented-- more than the lack of knowledge and qualifications--an attitude. That attitude is that it is clear she doesn't understand the importance of public schools and refused to rule out taking Federal investments away from public schools. In fact, I think it was very clever in not revealing the true agenda, which is to privatize--not just charter schools. In fact, some of the greatest charter school advocates in this country do not support her nomination. She doesn't understand basic education policy, yet she wants to lead the Federal agency overseeing education in our country. She doesn't understand or know of current Federal laws that support and protect students with disabilities. She has shown her severe lack of knowledge about rural schools, which represent about one-third of the public schools nationwide. She never attended or taught in a public school or had any of her children in a public school. Students, parents, and teachers across North Dakota have stood up to say no to Betsy DeVos. In the Senate, only one more vote is needed to stop this nomination from proceeding. I ask my colleagues who have not made up their mind, my colleagues whom I know care deeply about children to think about the great history of our country and think about the enormous privilege we had as children and as young adults to access that public school education. I ask them to think about how else someone who is the daughter of a school cook and a janitor and a seasonal construction worker could be in the Senate if it weren't for public school education. Please, we can find someone so much better--someone who understands the new Federal policy, who has the ability to collaborate with public officials and not criticize, someone who hasn't said the work of these people who have dedicated their lives is a dead end, and someone who has respect for public school education. We can do so much better. Our kids need it and deserve it. Children in the most precarious and difficult situations need a champion, whether it is because they have disabilities or whether they come from poverty and don't have a parent who really cares about their education or is too busy trying to put food on the table to worry about whether the homework gets done. We can make a difference here. We can send a message out to all of those school teachers who have dedicated their lives, who are our kids' heroes, that their life work matters. We are going to send them the best this country has to offer to be their leader. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor, and I yield my time to Senator Murray. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator Murray.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I think all of us understand the gravity of moving forward on a CRA. It is not a usual procedure; it is limited in terms of filibuster rules, and it is extraordinary. In this case, unfortunately, it is necessary. Had the previous administration actually listened and worked constructively with Senator Manchin and me and my utilities and the coal industry in North Dakota, we would not be standing here now. This was a rule that had a specific intent of addressing mining practices in Appalachia. Yet the former administration made the rule applicable to the entire country. I don't know that any of those folks drafting the rule had ever been to North Dakota to see just how different our mining practices and geology are compared to Appalachia, so I invited former Assistant Secretary Schneider out last year to take a look for herself. When she came out, she heard directly from North Dakota utilities, regulators, and coal companies, and she saw how our operations differ and how my State is a national leader in reclamation. Based on the final rule, it is apparent that the rule was already made before her visit, and the input of the folks back home in my State, quite honestly, was not taken seriously. North Dakota coal stakeholders estimate that the rule could cost coal producers in North Dakota alone approximately $50 million annually in additional compliance costs and take more than 600 million tons of otherwise mineable, affordable coal off the table. I will tell you, when you look at the landscape of North Dakota and you are sitting there and you are explaining this and you are showing how one rule would require equipment to be moved, draglines to be moved, and how all of that makes absolutely no sense in terms of the resource and, in fact, in terms of the difficulty of actually doing reclamation that needs to be done in that situation; when you are standing out there and you actually look at it, the only conclusion you can come to when you see the net result of this rule is that it was intended to shut down coal mining. That is the only conclusion I could come up with. It wasn't about clean air and clean water; it wasn't about protecting this resource; it was about shutting down the coal mines. So this impacts not only the ability of our utilities to access this affordable and abundant resource, it hits thriving rural communities throughout North Central North Dakota, communities like Hazen, Washburn, and Beulah that rely on coal for good-paying jobs, for funding our schools, for fire protection, for law enforcement and other community resources that allow our rural communities and healthy middle class to thrive in the State of North Dakota. One-size-fits-all rules do not make any sense. And when you look at the application of this rule and once-size-fits-all, it clearly makes no sense. The beautiful mountains, forests, and streams that dominate the West Virginia landscape, as just described by my great friend Senator Manchin, are nothing like the rolling prairies, the buttes, and the prairie potholes of North Dakota. How anyone can look at these two States and think that a rule which is promulgated which will be universally applied can logically be applied to those two different landscapes--the logic of that completely escapes me. A rule that requires enhancements to the land, including trees and permanent fencing to keep livestock away from streams--well, in North Dakota, we are pragmatists. Not only do we return the land to the same or better condition, we usually convert that land from farm or ranchland to this beautiful landscape we see here. I want everyone to understand what reclamation looks like. I want you all to understand that this used to be a strip mine. This used to be a big hole in the ground producing coal. And over generations, and restoring this to the topography--the biggest challenge we have in North Dakota is convincing the original landowner, who would love it to be straight so it is easier to farm, that we have to put it back the way it was. My colleagues can look at this landscape, and they cannot tell me that the company that did this and the State that set the standards and the commitment that was made to reclamation was not honored; that it is not working in North Dakota and that we need a one-size-fits-all stream regulation to fix a problem that doesn't exist--a problem that is going to cost us $50 million and hundreds of jobs in my State. This is exactly why the people of this country get frustrated, and the people of this country do not understand why Washington, DC, thinks they know it all. As a matter of fact, our reclamation programs are highly regarded, and we are, in fact, recognized for doing the best reclamation in the country. I would point to the 2016 Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Small Project Award that went to our mine reclamation project in Bowman, ND. Our coal industry and our utilities are always willing to work with the Federal Government on regulations that focus on actual results, on improving environmental safety and standards. They are willing to do that again. They have never had an issue with updating this regulation. All that was asked was that the former administration listen to them, actually believe their eyes when they see the work we are doing and understand the impact of that rule. It was done in haste, it was done hurriedly, and it was done so they could check a mark and say: See, we really are leaving it in the ground. If you want to be leave-it-in-the-ground, then have the courage to come here and say that this country, in the next 20 years, will not extract one fossil fuel from the ground. I have great respect for Senator Markey. He was just here talking about how we have made progress because of the conversion from coal mining to natural gas. It is a little disingenuous, I would say, because the whole while, we are talking about how this conversion would not have been made possible if it weren't for industry practices of utilizing fracking to extract natural gas. This is a structured movement using bogus regulations to promote a national policy without having the courage to just advance that national policy forward, which is to leave it in the ground. We heard from Senator Manchin. I want everyone who says: We are going to pursue a leave-it-in-the-ground national policy--I want them all to think about what that does to women and children who live on fixed incomes. I want you to think about what that means for reliable, redundant, and affordable power generation in our country. We are going to let the market decide. We have moved toward wind energy, which, ironically, the big movement of wind energy was facilitated by a compromise we reached over a year ago that dealt with allowing for the export of crude oil out of this country--the lower 48--in exchange for more permanency and for production tax credits and investment tax credits. We can, in fact, achieve a public policy result if we work together and if we don't have hidden agendas like ``leave it in the ground.'' This rule was wrong, it was structured wrong, and it attacks an industry that does this. I will tell my colleagues, I have been out there. I have worked in this industry and I have been a regulator of this industry. This is not unique. This is what reclamation looks like in North Dakota. And to suggest that we have not been good stewards, to suggest that somehow we are contaminating this beautiful resource by what we are doing, is wrong on so many levels. It is costly to our consumers. It costs us jobs, and it is wrong on so many levels. With that, I would say, please--this is a process that should only be used very rarely but I think is being used appropriately in this situation with the stream rule. So I stand with my friend Joe Manchin in helping sponsor this CRA. We will continue to fight for our industry, fight for our good-paying jobs, and fight for commonsense regulation that actually achieves the purpose of protecting this beautiful resource we have in North Dakota. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I come here again today on what is a sad day and really a sad week for law enforcement in North Dakota, for the community of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, and certainly for the family of Colt Eugene Allery. Colt was a deputy in the Rolette County Sheriff's Office who tragically lost his life in the line of duty last Wednesday night near Belcourt, ND. Colt joined in a high-speed chase with several fellow officers Wednesday evening after a report and identification of a stolen vehicle. As the stolen vehicle was coming to a forced stop, shots were fired, and the call came over the radio that shakes all of North Dakota law enforcement and our entire State to the core: ``Officer down.'' Colt never got back up that evening, succumbing to his injuries not very far from the small community where he grew up. He leaves behind five beautiful young children, including a stepdaughter; his fiance, Alexandria; his grandparents, Gene and Rita Allery, who raised him; his family, his friends, and a community that will miss his constant smile and playful attitude. He also leaves behind his fellow deputies and colleagues in the Rolette County Sheriff's Office. I know this is an incredibly tough time right now for Rolette County Sheriff Medrud and his deputies as well. I know that the people across the State of North Dakota and I have your back during this difficult time. This is now the second time in less than a year that I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to talk about the heroism and service of one of North Dakota's peace officers--one of those peace officers who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. It is heartbreaking to have to stand here yet again to make one of these speeches in recognition of a North Dakota peace officer. In fact, during my 8 years as North Dakota's attorney general, I saw two deaths, two violent deaths of peace officers in my State. In less than a year, we have two. Talking to many of my friends in law enforcement in my State, they will tell you that the business of law enforcement and the work of law enforcement in our State have become more and more dangerous and more and more challenging. As I have said many times--and I will say it again here today--North Dakota has the finest peace officers in the entire country. Colt Allery personified that dedication of our peace officers to protect and serve their communities. Losing an officer in the line of duty is always devastating, but in States like North Dakota, where we often say we know everyone, Colt's loss is being felt in communities across the State. Colt and his family will know that the entire State mourns his loss and that we had his back in this life and we will have theirs as they struggle with this incredible and unimaginable loss. Growing up in St. John, ND, and as an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Colt never strayed far from home. And he made a commitment to do more than just be part of his community, he made a commitment to protect his community as a peace officer. Colt started out as a corrections officer for Rolette County. After graduating from law enforcement training academy, he started work in the Rolla Police Department. He then went to serve his fellow tribal members as a tribal police officer of Turtle Mountain before recently moving to the Rolette County Sheriff's Office. In North Dakota, we have a proud history of peace officers like Colt serving their State and local communities with distinction. I have had the privilege over my years in public service to work with law enforcement officials, from highway patrol, to State and local officers, to various Federal officers and our tribal police, and I will tell you again that these are some of the finest men and women I have ever worked with. These are the men and women--just like Colt--who could have chosen a different path. Instead, they chose to take the oath to protect and serve. They chose to selflessly put themselves in harm's way so they could make North Dakota a safer place for each and every person who lives there or who may by chance be passing through. They chose to put the needs of others before their own needs and, in fact, before their own families' needs. They chose a more difficult path to tread than most of us would be willing to follow. Putting that uniform on each and every day places you in a unique and special group, a tight-knit community that very few people could understand what it takes to get the job done. All too often, it takes a tragedy like this one outside of Belcourt, ND, last week to recognize and appreciate our peace officers and the sacrifice they and their families make every day so that we can feel safe and secure in our daily lives. I stand here this morning not only to celebrate the life of Colt Allery but to celebrate each and every peace officer working in the State of North Dakota and across the country. I know that although Senator Hoeven and I cannot be at the ceremony and at the celebration of Colt's life today, we stand today with the community and with the State in appreciation, and we stand today in mourning for the loss of Colt Allery and for the terrible sacrifice his fiancee, his children, and his family have made in service to our country and our State and their community. Deputy Allery, I thank you for your service and your sacrifice on behalf of the people of North Dakota. May God bless you and welcome you, and may He bless your family. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP.--who receive health care in my State in rural hospitals who do not know how they are going to get health care if this passes without a replacement, I vote no.

Ms. HEITKAMP. On behalf of the thousands of people--

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, how am I recorded?

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, before I begin my remarks on why I came down to the floor today, I would like to join with my colleague from Iowa in saying it is a very good idea to have a Rose Garden ceremony talking about whistleblowers, supporting people who want to do the right thing in the bureaucracy, and I am willing to work with him in any way that is appropriate to talk about what we need to do to make sure that whistleblowers in our bureaucracy have the protection and the appreciation. There are many great people in government who see things every day. We spend a lot of time in our Subcommittee on Homeland Security talking about what we can do to get those good ideas from the bureaucracy, those good ideas from folks who actually work in the government percolated up to the Congress and implemented. So I applaud the work he has done on whistleblowers. Senator Grassley, I look forward to having another conversation about what we can do to put America first by making sure our public employees have an opportunity to feel pride in what they do every day, knowing that they are working for a cause in the most efficient, effective manner for the American people. I applaud your work. Coal Miners' Health Care and Pensions and the Ex-Im Bank Madam President, I want to talk a little bit about this past election. There has been a lot of Monday night quarterbacking about what happened. I guess you can't say that anymore now that they play football on Monday nights, but there has been a lot of backseat driving over what happened. For this Senator, the message of this election could not be clearer that people who go to work every day--particularly those people who shower when they come home at night or come home in the morning if they are working shift--feel like we left them behind. They feel like things happened to them that are unexplainable to them even though they are working as hard as they can. They think that the government and the people in Washington, DC, aren't working for them and they are getting left behind. Now there is an important opportunity to work in a bipartisan way to learn the lessons of this past election and to stand up and fight for American workers, to listen to American workers and hear about the challenges they have and to respond to those challenges, especially when those challenges clearly represent injustice. Every person in America being told these stories would say that shouldn't happen. There is no clearer indication of a ``that shouldn't happen'' story today than in the dialogue and debate in Washington, DC, and what is happening to the coal miners in this country. Last night, I stood with 20 to 30 coal miners from the Presiding Officer's State. These are good people who work hard--and I know the Presiding Officer has been fighting for them as well--who simply want what they have earned. They simply want the opportunity to take care of their families and the people in their communities. You know, it was pretty cold out when we were standing out there. A number of the reporters were giving me a hard time because, being from North Dakota, everybody assumes it is always 20 below zero there, even in July, and I had some choice words. I said: You know, we were only out there for about 20 minutes in the cold, but if we leave here without a clear message, without an opportunity for those miners to know not only that we care but know that we are making their concerns a top priority, then they will be left out in the cold for a lot longer than 20 minutes by this Congress. I made the point that there is a coal miner on the flag in West Virginia but there is also a farmer on the flag in West Virginia. That farmer, for me, represents the people who I know built the country in my State. We don't have coal miners who went underground, but we have a lot of coal miners who helped build our region. This is a moment where we can say to people who go to work every day, people who believe and built this country, whose ancestors built this country, that they are going to get what they earned--not what they deserve but what they earned. When you look at many of the miners in these communities, there isn't a lot of economic opportunity and there aren't a lot of other jobs available. They risked their health, but they took that risk knowing they were going to get something in return: financial stability for their families. Suddenly, they are told that all they bargained for and all they agreed to is gone. There is something wrong with that. There is something wrong when we don't learn the lessons of the last election. The other reason I react personally to this is I see the string that goes back to what is happening with Central States Pension Fund in my State. My good friend from Minnesota has joined with me in many of the efforts that we had on Central States to hear the stories of people who worked hard at a time when people were lifting packages and delivering goods with much heavier weight requirements than we have today. They talk about the surgeries they had, the hip replacements and knee replacements, and they talk about why they did it--to put food on the table for their families. Will all of that go away because of an irresponsible financial sector that destroyed this economy and made it virtually impossible for these pension funds to cash flow? I think it is time that we stand up for these workers. I think it is time that we take the right fight. I came to the floor and listened as Presiding Officer when we were in the majority, and I wish I had a dollar for every time someone talked about the American people and the American worker and what they were going to do for them. We now have an opportunity to do a lot. We have an opportunity not only to give the people who earned financial security the financial security they earned, but we have an opportunity to make sure we have good American jobs. There is another provision that got left behind despite a lot of people who support it, and that is the ``Buy American'' provision, which is in the WRDA bill. The ``Buy American'' provision has broad- based support throughout this country, but yet when we get into the Halls of Congress, we cannot negotiate and get it done. Finally, I wish to talk about something on the floor that I have spent a lot of time talking about; that is, the Ex-Im Bank. We started basically shutting down the Ex-Im to any new credit by not reauthorizing it. Guess what. We got it reauthorized by huge majorities, a huge majority in the Senate and over 70 percent in the House. Victory, right? Well, guess what. We cannot make any deal over $10 million at the Ex-Im Bank unless we have a quorum. We have singlehandedly seen this body hold up the quorum at the Ex-Im Bank. People want to say this is simply about: Well, why do you want to bail out or help out GE? Why do you stand for Caterpillar? Why do you stand for Westinghouse? Why do you stand for Boeing? Those are the big benefactors. That is an argument that so misunderstands what happens in America. To give you an example, Boeing has 16 suppliers just in North Dakota. Boeing, with the ability to sell airplanes across the country and across the world, means we get good jobs in North Dakota, good jobs we will lose out on. I have said it once, I have said it many times. I don't stand here and cry for the CEOs of GE or Boeing. That is not whom I am standing for. I am standing here begging this body to basically get the Ex-Im Bank approved once again. I will tell you why--because $20 billion or $30 billion of deals are waiting for us to get a quorum. What does that mean? That $20 billion supports over 116,000 jobs in America. If those CEOs are forced, by a lack of export credit assistance, if they are forced to take those jobs overseas--which they already have, thousands have already left this country--that means workers in this country don't get those jobs. Once again, people say: Well, what kind of government subsidy is this? In the face of the reality that the Ex-Im Bank actually returns dollars to the Treasury of this country, we are going to shut down the Ex-Im Bank and continue to keep it hobbled to the point where it cannot do its job, it cannot allow our manufacturing interests to be competitive. As we leave this Congress and we open up the opportunity for further dialogue, I hope all the rhetoric we have heard over and over again about American jobs, American workers, and about American opportunity-- I hope we live up to that rhetoric. I hope we take the steps we need to take to guarantee that American workers come first whenever we set our policies. There is no better place to address these pension concerns, there is no better place than the ``Buy American'' provisions, and there certainly is no easier way to get an immediate result than to get the Ex-Im Bank up and running. It is a tragedy that we are so unwilling to do this, not because it doesn't make huge common sense but because it doesn't fit in with an ideological position that was taken by the hard right against the vast majority of American interests and certainly the majority of people in this body. With that, I turn to my colleague from the great State of Minnesota for her comments.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, today I wish to honor my friend, colleague, and mentor from Maryland, Senator Barbara Mikulski, who is retiring at the end of this year. Barbara has an impressively long and distinguished career in public service, representing her home State of Maryland in Congress for nearly 40 years. Since I came to the Senate in 2013, it has been a pleasure to serve alongside titans like Senator Mikulski. As a matter of fact, my first official Senate office was tucked in-between hers and then-Senator Rockefeller's on the fifth floor of Hart. As neighbors we formed a friendly bond, and I oftentimes would stop by to chat with her or sometimes just Mrs. O'Malley, who runs a tight ship. On occasion, Senator Rockefeller and I would overstay our welcome, and Mrs. O'Malley would kick us out and send us back to our offices. For those of you who don't know, Mrs. O'Malley has played a critical role in Senator Mikulski's office for nearly 30 years and has helped instill the values of hard work and dedication to a generation of Hill staffers. As the longest serving woman in Congress, Senator Mikulski has inspired a generation of women to pursue careers in public service and run for higher office. As dean of the women Senators, Barbara worked to mentor new women Senators on how to be effective legislators and build coalitions across party lines to advance landmark legislation. The bipartisan women's group has met regularly under her leadership, helping bridge partisan divides that so often plague this Chamber by getting Senators to know each other on a personal level over her homemade Maryland crabcakes. One cannot mention Senator Mikulski without also mentioning her fierce advocacy and determination to make Maryland and our country a better place to live, work, and raise a family. One of the first bills I cosponsored when I came to the Senate was the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, VAWA, which Barbara played a critical role in originally passing. Since its passage in 1994, VAWA has been effective in responding to domestic violence. Additionally, she has worked tirelessly in the fight to close the pay gap for women, who currently earn about three-quarters of what men earn, by advancing the Paycheck Fairness Act, which I have proudly cosponsored twice now. Women shouldn't make 77 percent of what men earn for the same job. This hurts families who are just looking to take care of their kids, put food on their table, and keep a roof over their heads. Just as Senator Mikulski has been an advocate for families, she also understands the critical role science, research, and innovation play in creating economic growth in the United States. Maryland is home to several great institutions, such as the Goddard Space Flight Center, which I had the pleasure of visiting last fall, that are at the forefront of their respective fields. When I was at Goddard, the Director showed me the fascinating work their researchers and engineers are engaged in and how NASA's various missions help us enhance crop production and be better stewards of our planet. Her work on the Senate Appropriations Committee has helped keep the United States at the forefront of scientific discovery and technological innovation. Senator Mikulski is the best of American public service. She is smart, honest, empathetic, and outrageously funny. She has earned her reputation as a force to be reckoned with. And on her next chapter, I wish her Godspeed--and may the force be with her.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, today I wish to honor my dear friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Kelly Ayotte, who is departing from the Senate at the end of this year. Over the last 4 years, I have been consistently impressed with Kelly's pragmatic approach to her role as a U.S. Senator. Time and time again, I have seen her be a strong advocate on behalf of her State and have admired her willingness to forge the tough, bipartisan compromises that our country needs. Senator Ayotte started her career clerking for an associate justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. After about a year of clerking, she started practicing law. She eventually moved on to be a prosecutor for the New Hampshire Attorney General's office, quickly gaining experience and know-how to become the first female attorney general of her State-- something we have in common. When I came to the Senate in 2013, Kelly and I were the only female former attorneys general in the Chamber at the time. She had been elected to her first term 2 years before me, so as new Senators, we bonded through our common experience that later pushed us to pass laws and create real change. Our shared knowledge of the issues, dedication, and common interests led us to become good friends. I am also proud to say that our relationship extended beyond the Senate Chamber, as we played together on the congressional women's softball team. Kelly and I worked with each other to make real and substantial progress on many issues using common sense and our desire to do what is best for our States and the country. We both came to the Senate with an understanding of rural America. As the wife of a small business owner, Kelly understands the real life implications policy can have on small businesses, which she displayed as we worked together on the Small Business Committee. We also sat next to each other on the dais for 4 years as we served together on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Her commitment to keeping our Nation safe shined through time and time again as our committee worked on border security, cyber security, and improving our Federal Government's efficiency and effectiveness. Together we passed two bills, one of which has been signed into law and the other which awaits the President's signature. The first was the Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin Act, which created a commemorative coin to help fund the Breast Cancer Research Foundation's efforts to fight breast cancer. Her dedication to help the one in eight women who will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of their lifetimes will not be forgotten. The second bill was the Northern Border Security Review Act to ensure that our Nation's northern border gets the attention and resources it needs to keep our communities safe. I am extremely proud to have worked with her on these issues. Senator Ayotte has been an outstanding public servant for the people of New Hampshire and this country. I know that she is proud of her accomplishments in her time as a Senator, and I am proud to be a part of some of those accomplishments. The women's softball team will definitely miss her because, let's face it, she is a better softball player than I am. I know Kelly will continue to be a champion for New Hampshire no matter what she does. And since we each have taken our turns in the batting cages, we never step down from the plate. I guess imitation truly is the best form of flattery. I truly wish her the best.

Ms. HEITKAMP

Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my friend from the Department of Homeland Security--U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Richard Gil Kerlikowske, who is retiring in January 2017. I have known Gil since his days as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, during which time he worked tirelessly to promote policy reforms, particularly in the area of substance abuse treatment. In 2013, he visited North Dakota at my request and saw firsthand the substance abuse dilemma that we were experiencing in the western part of the State. He worked with me to direct Federal resources to assist our State partners in reducing drug abuse, and for that, I will always be grateful. Gil was appointed Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, in 2014, and, as a Senator on the committee that oversees CBP, I saw firsthand the dedication he brought to the position. On his retirement, it is fitting that we recognize the successes achieved under his leadership. Gil worked to counter terrorism and transnational crime by creating a counter-network capability to identify and disrupt illicit networks and adapt to emerging threats along the border and abroad, placing under one roof the National Targeting-Center Passenger and Cargo facilities to enhance the agency's efficiency and effectiveness in identifying potential high-risk individuals and freight. He made efforts to enhance transparency and accountability by implementing the CBP Integrity Strategy, enhancing the agency's ability to address corruption and misconduct in the workforce; initiating a review and redesign of CBP's complaint and discipline system to promote a timely, transparent, and accountable dispute resolution process; fostering the agency's commitment to respond to use of force incidents by creating an incident team to conduct investigations and by initiating a National Use of Force Review Board to assess policy compliance and best law enforcement practices; implementing firearms and less-lethal use of force simulator training; implementing National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search, the first nationwide standards that govern interaction with detained individuals. He engaged stakeholders and partners globally to enhance U.S. border security. Such actions include signing new preclearance agreements with Sweden and the Dominican Republic; creating increased security, economic growth opportunities, and an improved passenger experience with CBP performing the same immigration, Customs, and agriculture inspections of air passengers on foreign soil prior to boarding a direct flight to the United States; assisting the Government of Tanzania in establishing a sophisticated canine program to combat the smuggling of contraband; and sponsoring ten Customs Mutual Assistance Agreements with various countries. He worked to advance border security and management by addressing the surge of unaccompanied alien children and family units by enhancing the agency's capabilities and coordination with Federal partners while sustaining all border security responsibilities; deploying advanced technological solutions to provide additional layers of surveillance; initiating a Naloxone pilot program, becoming the first Federal law enforcement agency to train and equip officers with the potentially lifesaving drug for the treatment of overdoses; installing facial comparison technology in two airports and continuing work towards a comprehensive biometric exit system; establishing the Missing Migrant Initiative in the south Texas corridor--a proactive program to establish preventative procedures in order to preserve human life. He worked to enhance economic competiveness through lawful trade and travel with a continued commitment to the strong partnership between the U.S. and Canada by leading CBP to deliver on key Beyond the Border Action Plan commitments related to joint commerce and travel facilitation and security initiatives; transitioning to the Automated Commercial Environment, which serves as the ``single window'' for the electronic transmission of import and export information for 47 agencies; streamlining the import-export process and eliminating more than 200 forms; developing ten centers for excellence and expertise to facilitate trade for compliant importers; achieving positive results in CBP's Traveler Satisfaction Survey administered at the top 25 airports between September 2015 and February 2016. He promoted organizational integration, innovation, and agility by raising levels of engagement and commitment higher than at any other time since 2011, according to the 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. He led creation of advanced hiring hubs and other recruitment initiatives that reduced overall costs and hiring delays for CBP officers and Border Patrol agents. The agency was recognized by Monster.com and Military.com's ``Best Companies for Veterans 2016'' as the second best organization for veterans among government and private sector employers. I would like Congress to recognize the significance of these accomplishments and to express my appreciation and the appreciation of the American people for Gil Kerlikowske's selfless dedication to service. I wish him the best of luck as he pursues the next chapter of his life.