Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the Senate continues to consider nominees to lead our Nation's top agencies, we are once again faced with the difficult decision to confirm an individual whose interests run counter to the mission of the agency he or she will be tasked to lead. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the nominee for Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, is another such nominee. Dr. Scott Gottlieb is a physician and current medical consultant for pharmaceutical, medical device, and other healthcare companies. From 2003 to 2007, Dr. Gottlieb was a senior adviser to the FDA Commissioner for Medical Technology. He was also the Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs under two different FDA Commissioners. In 2013, Dr. Gottlieb served on the Federal Health IT Policy Committee for the Department of Health and Human Services. He also worked as an adviser to Mitt Romney during his 2012 Presidential campaign. While I appreciate that Dr. Gottlieb has qualifying experience, I remain concerned about his policies and conflicts of interest. For instance, while serving as the FDA's Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Gottlieb defended the Bush administration's position to deny the availability of certain contraceptive care drugs over-the-counter, despite the science that pointed to lifesaving benefits from such drugs. Additionally, while serving with Kure, a company that operates vaping and ecigarette products, Dr. Gottlieb was noncommittal in supporting regulations over commerce in such products, which directly targets young kids through marketing, when there is a lack of appropriate medical science to suggest vaping and ecigarettes are less harmful than tobacco products. He has also historically sought ways to ensure that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 can better support the industry instead of better protecting patients and their families. This is especially problematic, given that the law provided the FDA with the authority to regulate tobacco in order to further curb smoking. I am also concerned with Dr. Gottlieb's public disagreement with proposals that would allow patients to access affordable medications through drug importation. I have always supported policies that would allow patients to access safe and affordable medications from Canada because this is a cost-effective method to provide patients with the resources they need to manage their health needs. Of course, Dr. Gottlieb has long been an outspoken critic of the Affordable Care Act, ACA, making troubling assertions along the way. He has been quoted as opposing the ACA's medical loss ratio, which ensures that the dollars consumers pay on their healthcare go to just that and not to CEO salaries and overhead costs. He has also publically opposed the individual mandate and has supported converting the ACA's premium tax credits from an income-based to an age-based rating system, which would significantly bar patient access to quality, affordable care. Most concerning are Dr. Gottlieb's undeniable ties to some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the marketplace. As an adviser for New Enterprises Associates, Dr. Gottlieb currently manages more than 40 drugs now in development that could come before the FDA for approval. He has also received compensation from many of these companies, earning more than $400,000 from multiple pharmaceutical and medical device companies from 2013 to 2015 alone. Dr. Gottlieb also served on six pharmaceutical company boards, two insurance company boards, one medical laboratory company board, and several other similar boards, all of which have hundreds of drugs currently awaiting FDA approval. Without proper recusal, which Dr. Gottlieb has not committed himself to in full, these conflicts are in direct contradiction to the ethics and objective work required of the Commissioner of the FDA. The leader of the FDA has a firm responsibility in promoting policies and overseeing drug development with the purpose of enhancing the health and well-being of the American people. We should put ourselves in the shoes of the American people, our constituents, in evaluating nominees to head agencies that bear directly on the public's healthcare needs. Given Dr. Gottlieb's significant conflicts of interest, combined with his ideological approaches to public health policy, which suggest that he would rather deny patients access to lifesaving resources than support ways to improve healthcare and promote prevention efforts for all, I cannot in good conscience support his nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as one of the Senators who has read this bill, I would note that most of this bill has been here since November. We were prepared to go in November and vote on each part of it separately. I would advise the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona, who is a friend of mine, that his party did not want to go forward in November. They were asked by the then-President-elect not to go forward with it, and his party said it would not go forward with it. We could have passed all of the bills separately in November. I would also note, as the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska said on the floor a few minutes ago, that Republicans and Democrats have been working very closely on this appropriations bill. She expressed--and I absolutely join her in this--that we go back to the way it always has been. My party is not in control of the schedule in the Senate, but I would ask that all of us in both parties work together and start doing the appropriations bills one by one, as we always have. In fact, this bill is the product of many long weeks and days and nights and weekends. I know. A lot of times, I went to bed at midnight, and my staff kept on working. I thank Republican Chairman Thad Cochran, of Mississippi, for his leadership in reaching this agreement of keeping the government open for business. It is how Congress can and should work. Forget the rhetoric. Forget political brinkmanship. This agreement shows something we have worked on and that when we come together and work through our differences--both parties here and both parties in the other body--that we can do the work of the American people. I think the package before us is a good deal for the American people, and I will vote for it, but we should not be celebrating this fact. On this, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Arizona in that we should not be finishing our work 7 months into the fiscal year. I wish his party had allowed us to do it last November. These bills could have been and should have been finished then. In fact, we were 98 percent done with our negotiations, both Republicans and Democrats, when then- President-elect Trump said: Pencils down, and put everything on hold. The Senator from Arizona and his party have been operating on a continuing resolution ever since. I am glad to hear him say this is not the way he wants to do it. I, certainly, agree with the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska when she says this is not the way to do it. Those of us who have been here for a while know that does not work and it is no way to govern. It is my goal--and I believe Chairman Cochran shares this goal--to return to regular order, which is when we consider each appropriations bill in committee, debate each one publicly on the floor, and then vote it up or down. That is the way we should operate. That is what the American people deserve. I look forward to working with Chairman Cochran to make this a reality when we return, in very short order, to the fiscal year 2018 bills. I have been on the Appropriations Committee for decades, and I have served as either chairman or ranking member of different subcommittees there, just as I have served as chairman or ranking member on Agriculture and the Judiciary. Yet I decided this year to take on the vice chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee because I believe in the power of the purse, in the ability of this committee to make a real difference in people's lives, and because of the respect I have for Chairman Cochran. Our national budget is a reflection of our Nation's priorities, and the appropriations bills are where our priorities become realities. I am pleased to report we have worked hard to reflect Americans' values in the fiscal year 2017 consolidated appropriations bill before us. I think we have reached a good deal. I am pleased that on a bipartisan basis we have rejected President Trump's ill-considered proposal to slash domestic programs by $15 billion, including deep cuts in the NIH and low-income energy assistance. I am glad to see a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health. I was proud to have brought then-Vice President Biden to the University of Vermont last October to discuss his Cancer Moonshot Initiative and to see and hear how Vermonters are contributing to research to better treat--and hopefully cure--cancer. NIH funding is central to this effort. Last year, the NIH accounted for nearly $40 million in research funding for the University of Vermont. Everybody--Republicans and Democrats--agree they have spent it well. This research is leading to advancements in lung disease treatments, cancers, and to more effectively using genome testing to advance the emerging and promising field of precision medicine. In this bill, we were able to protect funding for LIHEAP. As the distinguished Presiding Officer and I know, we are in States in which the temperatures can often plunge way below zero. LIHEAP is a vital lifeline--certainly in the State of Vermont--to prevent people from being forced to make the wrenching choice of putting food on their tables for their families or keeping them warm. We have also put in $512 million--nearly double the resources available last year--to combat the opioid epidemic. This is a plague that grips every community in the country. It does not make any difference whether one is a Republican or a Democrat. It is hitting all of us. It is a problem that does not know the difference between rich or poor, urban or rural, Republican or Democrat. I think every Senator probably knows someone or a family with someone who has been in the grips of opioid addiction. My wife and I have sat down at kitchen tables with grieving parents who have lost their children. We have spoken to first responders who have seen so many people die. We have to confront this problem head-on in this country. We are doing a number of other things. We are protecting funds for the EPA at the critical moment of confronting climate change. In that regard, I was pleased that Marcelle and I were able to host hundreds of Vermonters who had driven all night long in order to join the hundreds of thousands of people in the Nation's Capital for the Climate March. I see that the distinguished chairman has come on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield to him, without losing my right to the floor, so I may finish my speech when he is finished.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I note that the chairman and I are well aware of how well things go when we take each one of these bills. He certainly has led that effort, and that is the way we should do it. I mentioned this when the Vermonters were here last weekend. Marcelle and I hosted them, so many of whom had driven through the night to join the hundreds of thousands of people in the Nation's Capital for the Climate March. Many of them asked: Why can't we do it the way we used to? I told them we were ready to go to all of the bills in November, and I am sorry that leadership said no. There are things on which we have done a lot in this bill. Those of us on the Appropriations Committee have read this bill, and we have read most of it since last November. The EPA provides funding to improve the environmental quality and ecological vibrancy of our small State's great Lake Champlain, the jewel of New England, as well as crucial funding for similar partnerships all over the country. I am also pleased to report what is not in this bill. In a bipartisan way, we get rid of more than 160 poison pill riders--riders that would have undermined the health insurance of millions of Americans by attacking the protections they have under the Affordable Care Act and riders that would have slapped restrictions on women's access to healthcare, especially in rural areas, and riders that would have rolled back consumer financial protections of Dodd-Frank regulations and weaken environmental protections. Let's have votes up or down on those issues, anytime you want, but not in a must-pass spending bill. I also particularly welcome the fact that not a single cent in the bill will go toward building President Trump's misguided wall on the southern border. When that issue came up in our debate, I said: Well let's have a vote, up or down, in the House and in the Senate, on the wall, where all Republicans and all Democrats vote. If it passes, then I will stop my objection. Nobody wants such a vote because not enough people support it. The American people should not, and they will not, be forced to pay tens of billions of dollars for a bumper-sticker solution to an incredibly complex problem--a wall that the President promised that Mexico, not American taxpayers, would pay for, even though all American taxpayers know that Americans, not Mexicans, would pay for it. His own department estimates that it would cost U.S. taxpayers $22 billion. Some said during the debate: Show me a 30-foot wall, and I will show you a 31-foot ladder. I can also show you pictures of small prop planes and boats and tunnels. A wall is nothing more than an illusion. It is a false promise of security. Instead of debating this boondoggle, which Democrats as well as Republicans and Independents oppose, let's consider real solutions with comprehensive immigration reform. In 2013, the Senate passed the large effort of Republicans and Democrats working together on comprehensive immigration reforms. Let's resume that debate and not throw money at this expensive illusion, where we are cutting vital medical research at the National Institutes of Health and others to pay for it. There are a lot of anti-science proposals and impulses in the proposals that came from the administration, and I am proud that both Republicans and Democrats rejected them. So I support the bill before us. I am proud to join with Chairman Cochran. It is not a perfect bill, but no products we all come together on are perfect. But on balance, it is a good deal for the American people. It reflects values of both Republicans and Democrats. The bipartisan work that brought us to this point shows what is possible and it lays the groundwork for our negotiations on the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills. So I want to extend again my thanks to Chairman Cochran and to the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. It takes a tremendous amount of work to draft each of the underlying bills contained in this consolidated appropriations bill. While we were negotiating, I remember being on the phone at 10, 11 o'clock at night, night after night, but I went to bed, and the staff would keep on working until 2 or 3 in the morning. So I thank the staff of the Appropriations Committee and subcommittee clerks on both sides of the aisle, who have been here day in and day out for many weeks. I certainly thank my staff director, Charles ``Chuck'' Kieffer, deputy staff director Chanda Betourney, and Jessica Berry, Jay Tilton, JP Dowd, and Jean Kwon, as well as Senator Schumer and his staff, including Gerry Petrella, Meghan Taira, Mike Lynch, and Mike Kuiken for the assistance they provided. I want to recognize and thank Bruce Evans and Fitz Elder from Chairman Cochran's staff, the majority staff director, and deputy staff director. They worked very, very hard and in their usual professional and courteous manner. I want to thank Bob Putnam, Hong Nguyen, and George Castro for the support they provide to the committee every day. And finally, I want to thank the editorial and printing staff, without whom we could never have produced this bill. Valerie Hutton, Penny Myles, Elmer Barnes and Karinthia Thames were here day and night, week after week, editing the dozens of drafts that ultimately became this consolidated bill. They work in relatively obscurity, but their expertise and dedication is not lost on us. We depend on them and we greatly appreciate what they do. Lastly, on a personal matter, I wish to take a moment for special recognition of Charles Kieffer. Chuck is well known to the Senate. He is a familiar figure here in this Chamber. He has served on the Appropriations Committee for many years, under numerous chairmen and vice chairmen. I was grateful that he was willing to take on and continue there when I took over as vice chairman. What a lot of people don't know is that he has been working around the clock on this, and in March he lost his father Jerry. Just a few weeks ago, he lost his mother Fran. If you know even a little bit about his parents, there is no doubt where Chuck gets his dedication to public service. His father Jerry served as the executive director of the National Cultural Center at the Kennedy Center. He held positions in the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations. Chuck's mother Fran was a longtime member of the League of Women Voters. She dedicated time to numerous civic institutions throughout her lifetime. At 93 and 89, respectively, Jerry and Fran lived a long and full life, including a marriage of 68 years. Their loss will be profoundly felt by their family and friends. My and Marcelle's thoughts are with Chuck, his wife Meg, and their family. I thank him for his tireless dedication to this institution, even during a time of great personal sorrow. I would like to think that his parents are looking down from their place of eternal reward with a great deal of pride in their son. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Acting President pro tempore.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as we know, the Senate is considering a stopgap--continuing resolution--to keep the government of the American people open for business. The stopgap, of course, helps us forget the fact that in November we had all the appropriations bills ready to go, but the leadership asked us to hold it off. Now, I am going to support this 1-week continuing resolution, because I believe we are close to a bipartisan agreement that would avoid the devastating consequences of a government shutdown and save the Congress from once again facing the disruption and humiliation of failing to meet Congress's obligation to fund the basic functions of our government. But we shouldn't be in this situation. We shouldn't have allowed partisan politics to once again turn a looming deadline into a political standoff and what is really a manufactured crisis. As I have said, our work could have been and should have been completed in November. We were prepared to do that. We were 90 percent to the finish line--98 percent, actually, to the finish line. Republicans and Democrats had worked together. But at the request of then-President-Elect Trump, all work ground to a halt. For 5 months we have faced one partisan obstacle after another from the Trump administration, including a demand to fund a misguided wall on the southern border at the expense of billions of dollars that would have to be paid for--not by Mexico or anybody else. It would be paid for by the American taxpayers. The administration then threatened to hold hostage the basic health insurance of millions of Americans, crippling the Affordable Care Act. This is more than insulting. It is malicious, and it is wrong. Now the other side of the aisle is holding the budget of the American people hostage, insisting we include dozens of poison pill riders as the price for funding the people's government and to advance their partisan agenda on abortion, Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reforms, and the environment. The Republicans control both Houses of Congress and the White House. If they want to pass legislation on these divisive issues, then bring the bills to the floor and vote on them, instead of trying to hide them in an appropriations bill. If they really believe in all these poison pill amendments, then vote on them. Bring up legislation. They control the House and the Senate. They can bring it up anytime they want. Partisan politics should not be tied to must-pass spending bills, because it is never the right time to play politics with the lives of the American people and the government of the wealthiest and most powerful Nation on Earth. I think it is very obvious why they want to hide them in an appropriations bill. They don't want to vote on it and give great speeches on the wall, on our southern border. They know that they don't have enough Republican votes to pass it. One party now controls the White House and both Chambers of Congress. It is incumbent upon the Republicans to ensure that the government of the American people stays open and is fully funded. I am afraid that the partisan bluster threatens to derail months of bipartisan negotiations. As vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, I have been involved in those negotiations. Charles Kieffer and Chanda Betourney have worked almost around the clock for weeks representing us on the Appropriations Committee. If the bluster and the posturing would stop, we could wrap this up. I hope that with one more week, our bipartisan and our bicameral negotiations, consistent with the bipartisan budget agreement and without poison pills, can continue, because this is no way to govern. To date, negotiations have produced many positive outcomes for the American people. We have increased investments in the National Institutes of Health. We secured full year Pell grants. We made investments in transit. As to something that should be of concern to every single Senator from every single State, we made funding available to address the opioid crisis. That is not a Democratic or Republican issue. That is a human issue. Every single State in this country is facing an opioid crisis. I am pleased that Republicans and Democrats came together to address it. Let's not govern by partisan manufactured crises. Let's do what the American people expect us to do and come together to pay the bills of our country. Stop posturing. We are the greatest democracy on Earth, the most powerful and the wealthiest Nation on Earth. Let's start acting that way. Let's start governing as we should. Let's not hide these divisive issues in an appropriations bill. Let's have votes straight up or down. Let people vote and show their constituents, the American people, where they stand. Don't hide behind a must-pass appropriations bill. It is not the way we should govern. It is not the way I want to do it. I am perfectly willing to cast votes on major issues, even if they are controversial. We have 6-year terms here. We ought to be willing to be the conscience of the Nation. That is what the Senate is supposed to be. In my years here, I have seen times when we have been under both Republican and Democratic leadership. We are not acting as the conscience of the Nation now. We have to go back to that. I really hope we will. We have good men and women in this body on both sides of the aisle. Let's start showing the conscience of this great Nation. Let's start governing in reality, not by rhetoric. Governing is not a Twitter feed. Governing is debating the issues and coming to a conclusion for the American people. I see nobody else seeking recognition. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Vermont Small Business Development Center, VtSBDC, is joining SBDC's across the country in celebrating its 25th anniversary as a crucial resource for entrepreneurs. These centers provide services to facilitate the creation, sustainability, and growth of viable businesses. In Vermont, it is no secret that we take particular pride in our local businesses. Our entrepreneurs and their businesses are at the heart of our vibrant communities, and they are the roots of a thriving economy. Over the past 25 years, VtSBDC has helped countless businesses capitalize on their potential. From glassblowers to forestry and sugarmakers to restaurants, VtSBDC has delivered thousands of hours of professional business counseling and training that is focused on strategic planning, business development, financial planning, and cash flow management. After the devastation of Tropical Storm Irene, VtSBDC reached out with State and Federal partners to offer small business owners the assistance and support necessary to undergo full recovery efforts. I am regularly reminded of VtSBDC's worth to entrepreneurs through client testimonials, regularly highlighting that, without the assistance of VtSBDC staff, their business would not have been able to reach the next levels. In addition to working with individuals to achieve their dreams, VtSBDC has also supported business incubators, or coworking spaces, where fledgling businesses and industries find their footing alongside other new businessowners. Founded as a pilot program run by the Small Business Administration in 1977, national small business development centers have a long history proving public-private partnerships and, when done right, are a successful tool in expanding local pilot programs that benefit communities and States across our Nation. Small business owners always face many obstacles, but the professionals at VtSBDC provide invaluable resources, support, and advice to help overcome these challenges. I want to congratulate the Vermont Small Business Development Center on their 25th anniversary and thank their dedicated staff for their commitment, energy, and time working to make sure that Vermont's small businesses remain strongly grounded and growing in Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few years, the national headlines have been dominated by stories about the high cost of pharmaceuticals. We have seen jaw-dropping examples, such as the unconscionable price increase overnight by Turing Pharmaceuticals of their drug for patients with HIV, from $13.50 to $750 per pill. Pharmaceutical companies should be compensated for their important work developing lifesaving treatments. But when companies engage in predatory practices at the expense of consumers, we must act. That is why today I am reintroducing the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples, or CREATES, Act, bipartisan legislation to end inappropriate delay tactics that are used by some brand-name drug manufacturers to block competition from more affordable generic drugs. I am glad to be joined by Senators Grassley, Klobuchar, Lee, and Feinstein, and several other Senators of both parties in introducing this bill today. The first delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the withholding of drug samples that generic manufacturers need to gain regulatory approval. Federal law requires generic competitors to prove that their low-cost alternative is as equally safe and effective as the brand-name drug with which they wish to compete. Unfortunately, some brand-name companies are preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining the samples they need to make the necessary comparison. This simple delay tactic uses regulatory safeguards as a weapon to block competition. The FDA has reported receiving more than 100 inquiries from generic product developers who were unable to access samples of a brand-name drug to compare their generic product. The second delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the development of shared safety protocols. For some high-risk drugs, Federal law requires a generic drug manufacturer to join the brand-name drug manufacturer in a single, shared safety protocol for distribution of the drug. Despite this requirement, some brand-name companies are refusing to negotiate shared safety protocols with potential generic competitors, again undermining those competitors' ability to gain FDA approval for their generic versions of such drugs. The revised version of the CREATES Act also allows the FDA more discretion to approve alternative safety protocols, rather than require parties to develop shared safety protocols. Any safety protocol approved by the FDA must meet the rigorous statutory standards already in place. These exclusionary practices thwart competition and deny consumers the benefit of lower drug prices. I share the concerns of Vermonters and Americans across the country that many prescription drugs are simply too expensive. When brand companies can artificially raise the price of drugs by using predatory practices, patients suffer. Illnesses get worse. Families, government programs, and other payers in the healthcare system ultimately bear those added, unnecessary costs. This legislation is not a silver bullet to address all of the complex problems driving the high costs of medications. In addition to the delayed entry of generic drugs, I am troubled by the rising cost of treatments for opioid overdoses, which remain expensive for local law enforcement agencies, even though there are generic competitors. In Vermont, many patients are grappling with the extremely high cost of a new drug for hepatitis C that will likely have years of market exclusivity before generic alternatives can be made. Last year we learned the price of EpiPen had increased by almost 500 percent since 2009, now costing roughly $600 for a two-pack. The sharp increase in price combined with the relatively short shelf life of the product--1 year to 18 months--has put this lifesaving drug out of reach for many. Think for a moment about the impact of price hikes on the family of a patient facing a life-threatening illness. Across the country, hardworking Americans feel like the system is rigged against them by corporations that are looking to make a profit at any price. With examples like Turing and Mylan, it is no wonder they feel that way. The CREATES Act is one piece of the puzzle, addressing anticompetitive behavior that delays the creation of affordable generic drugs. Drug affordability is a bipartisan issue that affects each and every American. These reforms will make a difference. I hope other Senators will join us in supporting these bipartisan reforms.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few years, the national headlines have been dominated by stories about the high cost of pharmaceuticals. We have seen jaw-dropping examples, such as the unconscionable price increase overnight by Turing Pharmaceuticals of their drug for patients with HIV, from $13.50 to $750 per pill. Pharmaceutical companies should be compensated for their important work developing lifesaving treatments. But when companies engage in predatory practices at the expense of consumers, we must act. That is why today I am reintroducing the Creating and Restoring Equal Access to Equivalent Samples, or CREATES, Act, bipartisan legislation to end inappropriate delay tactics that are used by some brand-name drug manufacturers to block competition from more affordable generic drugs. I am glad to be joined by Senators Grassley, Klobuchar, Lee, and Feinstein, and several other Senators of both parties in introducing this bill today. The first delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the withholding of drug samples that generic manufacturers need to gain regulatory approval. Federal law requires generic competitors to prove that their low-cost alternative is as equally safe and effective as the brand-name drug with which they wish to compete. Unfortunately, some brand-name companies are preventing generic manufacturers from obtaining the samples they need to make the necessary comparison. This simple delay tactic uses regulatory safeguards as a weapon to block competition. The FDA has reported receiving more than 100 inquiries from generic product developers who were unable to access samples of a brand-name drug to compare their generic product. The second delay tactic addressed by the CREATES Act involves the development of shared safety protocols. For some high-risk drugs, Federal law requires a generic drug manufacturer to join the brand-name drug manufacturer in a single, shared safety protocol for distribution of the drug. Despite this requirement, some brand-name companies are refusing to negotiate shared safety protocols with potential generic competitors, again undermining those competitors' ability to gain FDA approval for their generic versions of such drugs. The revised version of the CREATES Act also allows the FDA more discretion to approve alternative safety protocols, rather than require parties to develop shared safety protocols. Any safety protocol approved by the FDA must meet the rigorous statutory standards already in place. These exclusionary practices thwart competition and deny consumers the benefit of lower drug prices. I share the concerns of Vermonters and Americans across the country that many prescription drugs are simply too expensive. When brand companies can artificially raise the price of drugs by using predatory practices, patients suffer. Illnesses get worse. Families, government programs, and other payers in the healthcare system ultimately bear those added, unnecessary costs. This legislation is not a silver bullet to address all of the complex problems driving the high costs of medications. In addition to the delayed entry of generic drugs, I am troubled by the rising cost of treatments for opioid overdoses, which remain expensive for local law enforcement agencies, even though there are generic competitors. In Vermont, many patients are grappling with the extremely high cost of a new drug for hepatitis C that will likely have years of market exclusivity before generic alternatives can be made. Last year we learned the price of EpiPen had increased by almost 500 percent since 2009, now costing roughly $600 for a two-pack. The sharp increase in price combined with the relatively short shelf life of the product--1 year to 18 months--has put this lifesaving drug out of reach for many. Think for a moment about the impact of price hikes on the family of a patient facing a life-threatening illness. Across the country, hardworking Americans feel like the system is rigged against them by corporations that are looking to make a profit at any price. With examples like Turing and Mylan, it is no wonder they feel that way. The CREATES Act is one piece of the puzzle, addressing anticompetitive behavior that delays the creation of affordable generic drugs. Drug affordability is a bipartisan issue that affects each and every American. These reforms will make a difference. I hope other Senators will join us in supporting these bipartisan reforms.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Rod Rosenstein's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General comes at a unique moment in history and critical juncture for the Department of Justice, as well as for this country. It has been 44 years since the Senate considered a Justice Department nominee who will be in charge of an active criminal investigation into a sitting President's campaign and administration. Since the Judiciary Committee reported Mr. Rosenstein's nomination to the Senate earlier this month, further press reports underscore how important it is that we have an independent and impartial investigation into Russian interference in our elections and connections with the Trump campaign and administration. In just the past 3 weeks, we learned that a notable Trump campaign adviser was reportedly the subject of a FISA warrant. CNN reported that this adviser was among those who ``Russian operatives tried to use . . . to infiltrate the Trump campaign.'' The AP reported that Paul Manafort, who worked for free as the Trump campaign chairman, previously received at least $1.2 million for consulting work on behalf of a Ukrainian ally of Russian President Putin. That is in addition to reports that Mr. Manafort earned $10 million per year for secret work on behalf of Vladimir Putin. We learned that President Trump's first National Security Advisor ``failed to list payments from Russia-linked entities'' on his financial disclosure forms. We also learned that the President's son-in-law and top adviser failed to disclose meetings with the Russian Ambassador and other officials on his application to obtain top secret security clearance--just like when the Attorney General provided false testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to questions from me and Senator Franken about his own Russian contacts. If confirmed, Mr. Rosenstein will assume leadership of the sprawling investigation into Russia's multifaceted attempts to interfere with our elections, an investigation that embroils not only individuals in the Trump campaign, but also those who are now in the President's Cabinet and senior officials in the White House. Attorney General Sessions was forced to recuse himself from this investigation after the press revealed that he had misled the Judiciary Committee and the American people about his connections to Russian officials and agents. There is no question that the Attorney General's recusal was required--and should have happened on day 1 after assuming office. Justice Department regulations required him to recuse himself because of the integral role that then-Senator Sessions played in the Trump campaign and his continuing contacts with those directly under investigation. These Department of Justice regulations protect the impartiality of all Justice Department investigations. The Justice Department's regulations regarding appointment of a special counsel are equally significant. These regulations direct appointment of a special counsel when there is ``a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances'' and ``it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.'' The current situation unquestionably meets that standard. Mr. Rosenstein acknowledged at his confirmation hearing that it would be an unusual challenge to lead an investigation that potentially includes the Attorney General, his direct supervisor. This investigation now not only includes Mr. Rosenstein's potential boss, but also several others inside the White House. Americans deserve an investigation that is independent and inspires public confidence, and that requires appointment of a special counsel who is free from political influence. This issue is too important for us to skew for partisan motivations. Country must come before party, and I hope and trust Mr. Rosenstein will understand that if he is confirmed. We know that this administration and this President have already interfered with the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian activity and connections to the Trump campaign. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, recused himself from his own committee's investigation after what Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker called a ``coordinated effort between the Trump Administration and [Chairman] Nunes . . . to manufacture a fake scandal'' in order to distract from, as well as obstruct, any real investigation. Earlier this month, President Trump even said that ``it's not too late'' to fire FBI Director Comey. This administration cannot be trusted to respect the independence of any investigation, which is why we need an outside special counsel. Whoever assumes the role of Deputy Attorney General in this administration will face extraordinary tests of integrity. Mr. Rosenstein has a reputation for integrity that is unusual for this administration's nominees, and I hope he is up to the challenge. We already know from the intelligence community's public report that Russian President Putin waged a multifaceted influence campaign to delegitimize Secretary Clinton and help Donald Trump win the Presidency. Worse, he intended to undermine public faith in our democratic process. This interference did not end on November 8th. It is ongoing and, according to the intelligence community, President Putin will continue using cyberattacks and propaganda campaigns to undermine our future elections--but there is still much we do not know. We need a thorough, independent investigation. President Putin's goal last year was to undermine our democratic institutions--to corrode Americans' trust and faith in our government. If we do not get to the bottom of Russian interference, he will have been successful, and he will no doubt do it again. I hope that Mr. Rosenstein will do the right thing and appoint a special counsel to lead a truly independent investigation--one in which all Americans can have confidence. If confirmed, Mr. Rosenstein will face other critical tests as well, including whether he will continue to support the Justice Department's Smart on Crime initiative, focusing the most serious criminal penalties on the most serious offenders. With his 27 years of experience in the Justice Department, I hope that Mr. Rosenstein will be an independent check on the excesses of this administration, which has already sought to undermine the principle of judicial review. He has served as U.S. Attorney under both Democratic and Republican administrations, so I hope that, as Deputy Attorney General and as Acting Attorney General in matters relating to the Trump campaign, he will remember that he is not the President's attorney, but the people's attorney.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tomorrow, April 26, is World Intellectual Property Day, an opportunity for people around the world to appreciate and learn about the role of intellectual property rights in promoting innovation. Our Founders believed that the right to enjoy the benefit of one's own inventions was so important to the progress of science that they included it in the Constitution. More than 200 years later, limited exclusive rights for inventors continue to incentivize the research and development and make the United States the global leader in innovation. In the spirit of this year's theme, ``Innovation--Improving Lives,'' I am proud to partner with Senator Grassley to reintroduce the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act. Patents for Humanity is a perfect example of how intellectual property rights encourage inventors to develop creative solutions to some of the world's most pressing humanitarian challenges. Since 2012, the Patents for Humanity Program of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, has honored patent holders whose inventions apply cutting-edge technology to meet global challenges in medicine, nutrition, sanitation, energy, and living standards. The winning inventors receive a certificate to accelerate future PTO processes, such as a reexamination or additional patent applications. The Patents for Humanity Program provides an important incentive for talented innovators to use their expertise and intellect to enhance the public good. The winners of the Patents for Humanity Program have addressed some of the toughest challenges in the developing world. One lab developed a vaccine cooler that has been used in the fight against the Ebola virus. A nonprofit organization created a strand of rice enriched with vitamin A to prevent a nutritional deficiency that is the leading killer of children globally. A social enterprise made a low-cost solar light that can replace dangerous kerosene lamps in areas without electricity. These life saving inventions are exactly the kind of innovations that our intellectual property system should incentivize. In 2012, the Director of the PTO testified before the Judiciary Committee that Patents for Humanity would attract even more innovators if the winners could transfer their acceleration certificates to a third party. Frequently, successful small businesses and individual inventors are unable to continue their projects or are prevented from taking advantage of the accelerated process because of acquisitions and reorganizations. Transferability of the award certificates would increase the incentive for these small businesses and individuals to develop innovative technologies that would benefit the public and international development. This bipartisan legislation would allow Patents for Humanity winners to transfer their acceleration certificates. This straightforward, common sense reform to the Patents for Humanity Program passed the Senate by unanimous consent last Congress. I am hopeful that it will again this Congress and that we can finally enact into law this simple improvement to a successful program. We should take every opportunity we can to encourage and support enterprising Americans with bright ideas that will benefit both our country and the world.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, tomorrow, April 26, is World Intellectual Property Day, an opportunity for people around the world to appreciate and learn about the role of intellectual property rights in promoting innovation. Our Founders believed that the right to enjoy the benefit of one's own inventions was so important to the progress of science that they included it in the Constitution. More than 200 years later, limited exclusive rights for inventors continue to incentivize the research and development and make the United States the global leader in innovation. In the spirit of this year's theme, ``Innovation--Improving Lives,'' I am proud to partner with Senator Grassley to reintroduce the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act. Patents for Humanity is a perfect example of how intellectual property rights encourage inventors to develop creative solutions to some of the world's most pressing humanitarian challenges. Since 2012, the Patents for Humanity Program of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, has honored patent holders whose inventions apply cutting-edge technology to meet global challenges in medicine, nutrition, sanitation, energy, and living standards. The winning inventors receive a certificate to accelerate future PTO processes, such as a reexamination or additional patent applications. The Patents for Humanity Program provides an important incentive for talented innovators to use their expertise and intellect to enhance the public good. The winners of the Patents for Humanity Program have addressed some of the toughest challenges in the developing world. One lab developed a vaccine cooler that has been used in the fight against the Ebola virus. A nonprofit organization created a strand of rice enriched with vitamin A to prevent a nutritional deficiency that is the leading killer of children globally. A social enterprise made a low-cost solar light that can replace dangerous kerosene lamps in areas without electricity. These life saving inventions are exactly the kind of innovations that our intellectual property system should incentivize. In 2012, the Director of the PTO testified before the Judiciary Committee that Patents for Humanity would attract even more innovators if the winners could transfer their acceleration certificates to a third party. Frequently, successful small businesses and individual inventors are unable to continue their projects or are prevented from taking advantage of the accelerated process because of acquisitions and reorganizations. Transferability of the award certificates would increase the incentive for these small businesses and individuals to develop innovative technologies that would benefit the public and international development. This bipartisan legislation would allow Patents for Humanity winners to transfer their acceleration certificates. This straightforward, common sense reform to the Patents for Humanity Program passed the Senate by unanimous consent last Congress. I am hopeful that it will again this Congress and that we can finally enact into law this simple improvement to a successful program. We should take every opportunity we can to encourage and support enterprising Americans with bright ideas that will benefit both our country and the world.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today I will vote for Sonny Perdue to be the next Secretary of Agriculture. Governor Perdue, with his lifetime of experience with farming and agribusiness, stands out as one of the few nominees to this Cabinet who appears well qualified for the position to which he has been nominated. But to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, and American agriculture, Governor Perdue must represent the broad spectrum of interests before USDA and do all he can to hear from all sides because this truly is the ``People's Department.'' USDA touches the lives of every American, in many ways that include but go far beyond farming itself. This Department's workforce is spread across all 50 States and another 99 countries. I hope that Governor Perdue will continue the important work that Secretary Vilsack diligently led for the last 8 years, to help USDA look forward to addressing the changing needs of agriculture and rural America. We must stand by our rural communities, communities that, thus far, seem to be forgotten by this administration. These small towns desperately need USDA's help to access broadband, to make critical infrastructure improvements to their water and wastewater systems, and to support new rural businesses. I also hope that he succeeds in elevating the status of USDA among government agencies in an administration that appears to have forgotten about both this Department, as well as the rural communities that depend on its work. I am hopeful that, as the President's top adviser on matters of agriculture, rural development, safe and affordable food, the role of immigration in our farm labor needs, research, agricultural trade, and countless other issues, he will carefully provide advice that reflects good judgment and independence from the President and respect for the law. I was grateful when Mr. Perdue said in his confirmation hearing that he would be a voice and an advocate for agriculture at the highest levels of government. As I reminded him at his hearing and in our private meeting, he must represent all of agriculture. This includes not only the farmers he has gotten to know during his tenure as Governor of Georgia, but also our new and beginning farmers, organic farmers, Vermont's dairy farmers, those selling directly to consumers or focused on local food systems, those trying to develop new markets for energy crops, as well as researchers promoting new farm practices, forestry opportunities, and sustainable practices. He must also stand up for our hungry and malnourished families, both here and abroad, and for consumers who want to know that their food is safe to eat and grown in responsible ways. This Department's work is vast and far-reaching--from helping those with the least, to stewarding Federal forest and range lands, combating climate change, ensuring food safety, conserving water and wildlife, and preserving farmland, to researching new technologies, feeding young school children healthy meals, advancing international trade, supporting rural communities and housing, and ensuring fair and competitive markets for farmers. I do have concerns about some of Mr. Perdue's past statements and positions. I am concerned that he continues to question broadly accepted science regarding the role of humans in the mounting climate crisis. I don't feel that every question has been answered related to past ethical issues. I have heard from many Vermonters concerned not so much with the policies and positions of Mr. Perdue himself, but who are alarmed by this administration overall. Some Vermonters fear that Mr. Perdue will not fully defend our vital social programs and environmental regulations. I do appreciate that, in his confirmation hearings, he said that he recognizes that as Secretary he must work hard to improve the lives of the least among us and that he knows that it is our responsibility to leave the land better than we found it. In these challenging times for agriculture and our rural communities, I call on Governor Perdue to provide a loud voice of reason and a thoughtful balance within what continues to be an undisciplined and impulsive administration led by a President who continues to put forward extreme proposals, such as budget cuts that would starve small towns and communities of jobs and opportunity and have a disproportionate impact on small towns, and the rest of the Cabinet appears in many cases to have very little understanding or interest in the needs of rural Americans. As a chairman and most senior member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee as we begin to write the next Farm Bill, and as vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working closely with Mr. Perdue in his new role.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on April 19, CNN published a guest column by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, ``An unprecedented step on human rights.'' At a time when President Trump has praised Egypt's President el-Sisi and Turkey's President Erdogan, both of whom are responsible for brutal crackdowns on dissent and for subverting the institutions of democracy, and after the White House lifted human rights restrictions on the sale of military equipment to Bahrain and Secretary of State Tillerson did not participate in the public release of the Department's Annual Report on Human Rights Practices, Ambassador Haley's op-ed is welcome. In it, she made several statements that I think bear repeating. For example, she said: ``[W]idespread human rights violations are a warning sign--a loud, blaring siren--that a breakdown in peace and security is coming.'' ``[T]here is hardly an issue on the agenda of the Security Council that does not in some way involve human rights.'' ``The next international crisis could very well come from places in which human rights are widely disregarded . . . we know from history that it will happen. And when it does, the United Nations will be called upon to act. We are much better off acting before abuse turns to conflict.'' I strongly agree with all of that and commend her for saying it. Ambassador Haley singled out several countries, including Syria, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, where violations of human rights--although of different types and on vastly different scales--are common. A few days later, Secretary Tillerson rightly criticized the government of Venezuelan President Maduro, who has locked up his political opponents and sought to decapitate what remains of the institutions of democracy in that country. It is not sufficient, however, as some in this administration have been doing, to defend human rights only in countries whose governments are regarded as adversaries of the United States. That is the politically safe approach, and it weakens the credibility of those who seek to defend human rights. It is important to note that the governments of a number of U.S. allies, such as Egypt, the Philippines, Turkey, Ethiopia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, also routinely violate human rights by arresting and imprisoning dissidents, independent journalists, and members of organizations who peacefully protest against government policies. In the Philippines, anyone suspected of using or selling drugs is in danger of summary execution by the police. Thousands have been killed with impunity in the past 9 months. In Honduras, scores of journalists and environmental activists have been assassinated, and rarely is anyone arrested or punished. In Colombia, thousands of social activists and human rights defenders have been killed, many of them victims of the security forces and rightwing armed groups, and few people have been held accountable. There are many other examples. I hope Ambassador Haley's statement is a sign that human rights will become a visible and consistent focus of the Trump administration's foreign policy. Freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, and due process--these are all rights and ideals that Americans cherish. They are also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the world's oldest democracy, we have a responsibility, and it is in our interest to defend them wherever they are violated because protecting fundamental rights is necessary, not only for justice and the rule of law, but, as Ambassador Haley points out, for global peace and security, including America's security. I ask unanimous consent that Ambassador Haley's guest column be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first I wish to commend the senior Senator from Washington State for her terrific statement. I know, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, that we reported the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch by the narrowest margin--a party-line vote. The majority leader then filed cloture to cut off debate on this nominee. He has shown that he will use whatever tactic is necessary to ensure this nominee is confirmed, no matter the concern of Senators or millions of other Americans. Today is just the 75th day of the Trump administration. After only 75 days of having a Republican-controlled White House and Congress, the Republican leader has promised to vitiate the historic rights of the minority in this institution. He is prepared to abdicate the Senate's constitutional duty to serve as a check on the President and our responsibility to protect the independence of the Federal judiciary, all in the service of Donald Trump's agenda and because, as we know, Donald Trump asked him to. Senate Republicans seek to justify their tactics by claiming that Democrats would do no different were the shoe on the other foot. They are free to make that argument, but it is wrong. There is one claim in particular that I need to address. Some Republicans have asserted that, if President Bush had made a Supreme Court nomination in 2008, the final year of his term, Democrats would have pocket filibustered that nomination the same way that Senate Republicans did to Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Well, I was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee during that time, and I can assure them that they are wrong. Democrats did not invent an election year exception to the Constitution. Look no further than when a Democratic-led Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy during a Presidential election year. If President Bush had made a Supreme Court nomination in 2008, that nominee would have had a hearing, and all Senators would have had the opportunity to debate that nomination on the floor. As Senator Hatch and I wrote in 2001, ``The Judiciary Committee's traditional practice has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the Committee has completed its consideration. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee.'' This Senator would not have disregarded precedent and constitutional obligation because of partisan politics. Whether such a nominee would have been confirmed would have depended on his or her views, but the nominee would have been given a fair process, which Senate Republicans denied Chief Judge Garland when they pocket filibustered him. My record in 2008 shows that I treated President Bush's nominees fairly. We confirmed 28 circuit and district nominees in 2008, including 10 in 1 day, just weeks before the election, and reduced the number of judicial vacancies to just 34. Compare that to 2016, when Senate Republicans allowed just nine circuit and district nominees to be confirmed in total. That is less than 33 percent of the 2008 number. Moreover, Republicans' pocket filibusters, even for nominees supported by home State Republican Senators, allowed the number of judicial vacancies to skyrocket over 100. Of course, they had done the same thing at the end of the Clinton administration, pocket filibustering more than 60 nominees. Those are the facts. Anyone who claims that judicial nominees were never obstructed before 2001 has conveniently forgotten those facts. When Senate Democrats changed the cloture rule for lower court nominations in 2013, we did so reluctantly and only after Senate Republicans repeatedly abused Senate rules to wage in unparalleled obstruction of President Obama's nominees over a period of years. By November 2013, the Republican leader had orchestrated an unprecedented number of filibusters, including requiring cloture motions on 34 circuit and district nominees in less than 5 years--compared to 18 nominees who faced cloture motions during the entire 8-year tenure of President Bush. When it comes to judicial nominations, the filibuster has been a tool to protect the independence of our courts by compelling Presidents to find mainstream, consensus nominees who do not bring an agenda with their lifetime appointments to our courts. Senate Democrats filibustered a small number of President George W. Bush's nominees, but it was not because they were conservative, or had been nominated by a Republican President. It was because we had serious doubts about their ability to put partisanship and ideology aside and be fair, neutral judges. Or it was because the President had ignored the traditional role of home State Senators when selecting the nominee. We confirmed numerous conservative nominees, including Judge Neil Gorsuch. In fact, during the 41 months that I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee while President Bush was in office, the Democratic-majority Senate confirmed more circuit and district nominees than were confirmed during the 55 months when Republicans held the majority. When President Obama took office, Senate Republicans imposed a new standard. Just 2 days after he was sworn in, a group of extreme conservative activists instructed Senator McConnell to treat President Obama's judicial nominees in an ``unprecedented'' way, and that is what he did. For the first time, even noncontroversial district court nominees were subject to filibusters--Leader Reid was at one time forced to file for cloture on 17 of them in a single day because of Republican obstruction, even though none were particularly controversial and many actually had the support of their home State Republican Senators. Republicans filibustered judicial nominees they ultimately supported. They stalled Senate action for weeks and months on judicial nominees who they did not oppose and who they ultimately voted to confirm once their filibusters ended. Senate Republicans kept making up new excuses for filibustering nominees that had nothing to do with the nominees themselves. They abused the Thurmond Rule to filibuster Judge Robert Bacharach, even though he had been reported almost unanimously and was supported by his two very conservative Republican home State Senators. It was obstruction for obstruction's sake. But the final straw was when Republicans blockaded the DC Circuit. The Senate had confirmed four of President Bush's nominees to that court, but only one of President Obama's five nominees. When Senate Republicans filibustered President Obama's last three DC Circuit nominees in late 2013, they barely even bothered to pretend to find fault with the nominees themselves. These were mainstream nominees with broad support. Their only alleged flaw was that they had been nominated by President Obama. Senate Republicans unilaterally decided that President Obama should not get to make additional nominations to that court, effectively trying to nullify the results of the 2012 election-- a prelude to their unprecedented treatment of Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Compare that to the situation we are in this week. We are told that we must rubberstamp Judge Gorsuch or the majority leader will change the rules. Now, some may remember reports from last year where several Senators promised to blockade any Supreme Court nominations by one of the Presidential candidates if that candidate won the election. Of course, those were Republican Senators talking about Secretary Clinton. But that proposed blockade is not what is happening here. The fact is that there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and that vacancy should be filled with a qualified, mainstream judge. I know that a Republican President would probably make a different selection than the one I would make, but I have always been willing to consult with Presidents of both parties to find mainstream, consensus nominees. That is my constitutional obligation as a Senator. Now, all Presidents, including President Trump, are entitled to have their Supreme Court nominees considered on the merits. Over my 42 years in the Senate, I have evaluated every nominee on the merits, and I have never gone to reflexive partisanship. In fact, I have voted to confirm six Supreme Court nominees of Republican Presidents. I do not know if there is any Republican in this Senate who could say that about nominees of Democratic Presidents. Although I had concerns that Judge Gorsuch would bring a partisan agenda to the Court, I went to his hearing with an open mind. I had hoped he could convince me that he was a conservative I could support, as I did Chief Justice Roberts. I voted for Chief Justice Roberts not because I thought I would always agree with him--and I do not--but because I was able to take him at his word that he did not have an ideological agenda. I cannot take Judge Gorsuch's word that same way. It is no secret that Judge Gorsuch is very conservative--that much was evident back in 2006 when he was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit. Back then, he did not have a judicial record, but he gave answers that were reassuring. He discussed the importance of following precedent and of judicial restraint and deference to Congress. He said, ``Precedent is to be respected and honored. It is not something to be diminished or demeaned. It is something you should try to uphold wherever you can, with the objective being, follow the law as written and not replace it with my own preferences, or anyone else's.'' He explained that judges should not be ideologues who disregard precedent ``to effect [their] own personal views, [their] politics, [their] personal preferences.'' Well, I wish that same judge were before us today, but he is not. Judge Gorsuch has a fine resume. I do not take issue with the qualifications on paper, but my concern is that he has not lived up to his own standard. I am concerned that his personal views and his politics have permeated throughout his judicial philosophy. That is, in fact, the reason why his nomination is before us today. To know what kind of a Justice Judge Gorsuch would be, we have to understand why he was chosen. President Trump made very clear right from the beginning that he had a litmus test: Anyone he nominated to the Supreme Court would automatically overturn Roe v. Wade. Then- candidate Trump proceeded to outsource the selection process to far- right interest groups. The leader of that unprecedented vetting process admitted they were not driven by ``Who's a really smart lawyer and who has been really accomplished?'' but by a search for someone ``who understands these things like we do.'' Let us be clear. These are not groups that support independent judges who act with restraint. These groups search for nominees who will skew the courts, who will call to reject precedent, and who will further their partisan agenda. And they gave President Trump a list and said: Here, you are allowed to pick from our people. If these groups sought a mainstream, widely respected, and independent jurist, they would have been as supportive as I was of Chief Judge Merrick Garland. Instead, they funneled money to push Senate Republicans to hold Chief Judge Garland's nomination hostage and to have the Senate defy the Constitution of the United States for the first time ever in not allowing advice and consent. The Federalist Society's purpose statement, which is on their website, calls for ``reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on,'' among other things, ``traditional values.'' These groups and the billionaire donors who fund them have a clear agenda-- one that is antichoice, antienvironment, and procorporate. I am not one to gamble, but in my mind they would not have gambled with millions of dollars on Judge Gorsuch. They chose and invested in him for a reason. They are supremely confident he shares their far-right agenda. So is the White House. The White House Chief of Staff has said that Judge Gorsuch ``has the vision of Donald Trump.'' He said that, with this nomination, ``We're talking about a change of potentially 40 years of law.'' It is clear that the people who vetted Judge Gorsuch do not want a nominee who will ``call balls and strikes.'' They want a nominee who will expand the strike zone to the detriment of hard-working Americans. We should all find that concerning. At his public hearing, Judge Gorsuch did nothing to allay my concerns. In fact, he solidified them. I cannot recall a nominee refusing to answer such basic questions about the principles underlying our Constitution. These were fundamental questions that we should ask every nominee seeking a lifetime appointment to our Highest Court, but Judge Gorsuch would not answer. Some of the questions that I asked him were not intended to be difficult. Several could have been answered by any first-year law student, with ease; yet, unless we were asking about fishing or basketball, Judge Gorsuch stonewalled and avoided any substantive response. He was excruciatingly evasive. His sworn testimony and his approach to complying with the Judiciary Committee's historic role in the confirmation process was, in my view, patronizing. Judge Gorsuch claimed that he did not want to prejudge potential cases. That is a valid concern, but only within reason. It should not be used to evade questions on long-settled precedent or on the meaning and purpose of constitutional provisions. Judge Gorsuch would not even state whether he agreed with certain landmark Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education. He refused to say whether he believes that the Equal Protection Clause applies to women. He refused to say whether the framers of the First Amendment believed it permitted the use of a religious litmus test. He refused to provide information regarding his selection by extreme special interest groups and a billionaire businessman. And he even refused to confirm whether he would continue to recuse himself from matters involving that billionaire--as he has done on the Tenth Circuit--even if presented with the exact same facts. Other Supreme Court nominees have been far more forthcoming. When asked whether he agreed with important precedents, then-Judge Alito answered the questions. When I asked then-Judge Roberts whether Congress has war powers, he said, ``Of course. The Constitution specifically gives that power [to declare war] to Congress.'' I asked whether Congress has the power to stop a war, and he said, ``Congress certainly has the power of the purse,'' but added, ``as a judge, I would obviously be in a position of considering both arguments, the argument for the Legislature and the argument for the Executive. The argument on the Executive side will rely on authority as Commander in Chief, and whatever authorities derive from that.'' It was perhaps not the answer I would have liked, but he certainly engaged with the question and showed that he understood the issue in a way that did not prejudge any potential case. I later asked then-Judge Roberts whether ``Congress can make rules that may impinge upon the President's command functions.'' He responded: ``Certainly, Senator. The point that Justice Jackson is making there is that the Constitution vests pertinent authority in these areas in both branches. The President is the Commander in Chief, and that meant something to the Founders. On the other hand, as you just quoted, Congress has the authority to issue regulations governing the Armed Forces, another express provision in the Constitution. Those two can conflict if by making regulations for the Armed Forces, Congress does something that interferes with, in the President's view, his command authority, and in some cases those disputes will be resolved in Court, as they were in the Youngstown case.'' Whether one agrees with it or not, that was a substantive answer. I asked Judge Gorsuch a similar question in writing--whether he agreed that ``the Constitution provides Congress its own war powers and Congress may exercise these powers to restrict the President--even in a time of war'' as the Court held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Here is the totality of his response: ``I agree that Hamdan v. Rumsfeld recognized limitations on the power of the President. It is a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to all the weight due such a precedent.'' Perhaps that is better than no response at all, but not by much. When I asked Judge Gorsuch a straightforward question about whether the Framers of the First Amendment believed it permitted the use of a religious litmus test, he refused to answer. Any first-year law student knows the answer to that one. I asked then-Judge Roberts a similar question--whether he would reject Korematsu and hold it unconstitutional to intern U.S. residents who ``have a particular nationality or ethnic or religious group.'' He said: ``I suppose a case like that could come before the Court. I would be surprised to see it, and I would be surprised if there were any arguments that could support it.'' I do not think he prejudged any cases, but he was still able to provide a real answer to a basic question--and he earned my support. I had hoped that, if Judge Gorsuch was not willing to be transparent for the lights and cameras, he would at least answer written questions--given time to carefully craft answers. Again, he declined. He refused to expressly acknowledge that Congress has war powers, even though we know we do. Every high school student knows that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. He again misstated the holding of Citizens United in an attempt to evade my question about Congress's ability to enact campaign finance legislation. He provided no answer at all to questions regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County to gut the Voting Rights Act or about women's rights to obtain contraception. And, again, he refused to answer whether the First Amendment prohibits the President from imposing a religious test, even when the Trump administration has adamantly claimed such a litmus test is not at issue with his travel ban. Previous nominees respected the Judiciary Committee's constitutional role by answering questions in a substantive way, not with mere platitudes. The difference is clear to Vermonters. As an editorial in the Rutland Herald put it: Gorsuch's affable muteness sent a message: I am above the people and their concerns. I have no responsibility to anyone but the narrow band of millionaires and ideologues who have advanced my nomination and to the President who has declared war on the American government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks the full editorial. Judge Gorsuch claimed that his personal views do not matter so he would not share them. But that did not stop him from speaking at length about overcriminalization and arguing that there are too many Federal criminal laws and regulations. Those of us on the Judiciary Committee know this is a substantive and controversial policy issue that has been vigorously debated in recent years. I have to wonder why this was the only issue where he put forward his actual views. That is not good enough for me. As the article by Garrett Epps in the Atlantic put it, Judge Gorsuch's refusal to answer questions implied that the role of a judge is ``a job which calls, apparently, for neither values nor any firm connection to human life as it is lived.'' The American people know better. All of this matters because court decisions, especially Supreme Court decisions, are not simply detached applications of neutral principles. If there were, all judges would reach the same results. They do not. Legal decisions are not mechanical. They are matters of interpretation and, often, matters of justice. One Supreme Court Justice said more than a century ago: ``When we take our seats on the bench we are not struck with blindness, and forbidden to know as judges what we see as men.'' Whether he will acknowledge it or not, Judge Gorsuch's record says a lot about his judgment and his sense of justice. In a policy role at the Justice Department, he embraced broad and discredited assertions of Executive power. Judge Gorsuch once complained about liberals relying on the courts to vindicate their constitutional rights, but, once on the bench, he had no problem rubberstamping the far right's social agenda when he ruled that employers could control their employees' access to contraception. As a judge, he twisted statutory language to limit the rights of workers, of women, and children with disabilities. Judge Gorsuch also reached for broad constitutional questions that were not before him in order to advance his agenda. Just last summer, Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurrence to his own opinion in a case called Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch. His unanimous panel opinion decided the case on narrow grounds. But Judge Gorsuch nevertheless wrote a separate concurrence to argue that the Chevron doctrine should be overturned. The Chevron doctrine not only forms the basis for our modern government, but it is well-settled law and has been for decades. As Emily Bazelon and Eric Posner wrote in the New York Times, ``The administrative state isn't optional in our complex society. It's indispensable.'' Judge Gorsuch's rejection of that has shown that he is not a mainstream nominee. His judicial record demonstrates a partisan agenda--a hostility toward our government's power to enact environmental, labor, consumer rights, and other regulations that keep hard-working Americans safe and ensure a level playing field--not just for the wealthy few, but for all hard-working Americans. Between not answering questions, Judge Gorsuch spoke repeatedly about the limited role that judges play in our democracy. His actual record belies that claim. I think that is precisely why these extreme-right interests groups selected Judge Gorsuch. That is why the President's Chief of Staff promised he will bring a change of 40 years of law, and that is why I cannot support this nomination. It is for this nominee that Senate Republicans have brought us to this precipice, but perhaps we should not be surprised. Republican leadership has sought to govern only by simple majority since day 1 of the Trump administration. They paraded before the Senate the most extreme and partisan slate of Cabinet nominees I have ever seen. Their signature legislative goal--to repeal the Affordable Care Act-- collapsed under the weight of their own intraparty infighting. Then, they dusted off the Congressional Review Act and, by party-line votes, rolled back more than a dozen environmental, workplace, privacy, healthcare, and transparency protections--all over the objections of the minority. Think about that. Republicans have not sought compromise on anything in this Congress. That is not the way to govern. To give you one example, they repealed an important internet privacy rule that protected Americans' online activity. That means that by party-line vote, hard-working Americans will now see their private internet activity sold to the highest bidder for greater corporate profits. They are allowing these companies to basically come in and spy in your house because they are making money. But Senate Republicans didn't stop there. They rolled back protections to ensure that all students have the same educational opportunities. They eliminated rules requiring employers to maintain records of workplace injuries so employers could avoid accountability. In other words, if you have major injuries, you do not have to keep a record of that to make sure nobody knows this is a dangerous place to work. They rolled back rules holding coal companies accountable for their pollution. Most recently, Republicans undermined healthcare access for millions of Americans, rolling back protections under the title X program. In underserved communities and rural areas like Vermont, title X is critical in making sure women have access to the basic healthcare they need. But that is what one-party rule gets you. They are great at looking out for corporate interests. They struggle at looking out for the interests of hard-working Americans. The irony of it all is that even these partisan efforts have been too partisan for some Republicans. Three times this year--the most of any Vice President since 1911--Vice President Pence was forced to make the trip to Capitol Hill to break a tie and ensure some of these extreme measures passed. With the Gorsuch nomination, Republicans are proving they have no interest in playing by the rules; they prefer to break them. The unprecedented obstruction of Chief Judge Merrick Garland is going to be a permanent stain on this body. But then, days after the 2016 election--after Republicans turned their back on the Constitution for a whole year, even though they had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, which calls for advice and consent, they refused to advise and consent and have a vote on Chief Judge Merrick Garland-- Republican leaders threatened to change the rules to get their own nominee through--before we even had a name. After disregarding his constitutional obligations for nearly a year, the majority leader now tells us we must rubberstamp President Trump's nominee or he will forever damage the Senate. It is interesting that the majority leader's argument for obstructing Chief Judge Merrick Garland was that the American people needed to weigh in on this decision, as if they had not weighed in when they reelected President Obama in 2012. But when the American people did vote last November, nearly 3 million more of them chose Secretary Clinton over Donald Trump. In fact, Ezra Klein had it right 2 months ago when he wrote that this nomination ``makes a mockery of the popular will.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the article, ``The country deserves a compromise Supreme Court nominee. Neil Gorsuch isn't one,'' by Ezra Klein, also be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Because of the divergence between the popular and electoral vote, Klein argued, ``This is a time, if ever there was one, for a compromise nominee, and Gorsuch is not a compromise nominee.'' This is exactly what the 60-vote threshold is for. It helps ensure that Presidents consult with Senators of both parties and find mainstream, consensus nominees. The filibuster protects the rights of the minority and of individual Senators; it protects the constitutional role of the Senate, and it helps us protect the independence of the Supreme Court. The Court is no place for someone with a radical, partisan agenda. Senate Republicans are defending their threat to change the rules by claiming that Judge Gorsuch is essentially a perfect nominee and that, if Democrats filibuster Judge Gorsuch, then we would filibuster anyone. That is nonsense. We have asked only for a mainstream nominee. Perhaps they are confusing our approach with their blockade of Chief Judge Garland. Unlike committee Republicans' treatment of Chief Judge Merrick Garland, I take my constitutional duty to independently evaluate a President's Supreme Court nominees seriously. As I have said, my votes on Supreme Court nominations have never been about reflexive partisanship. I have evaluated every nominee on the merits--and I have voted to confirm six Supreme Court nominees of Republican Presidents. If the Senate does not vote to end debate on this nomination, that is a judgment on defects of this nominee. I remind the Republicans that they do have a choice here. We can work together with President Trump to find a mainstream, consensus nominee. I expect that an actual mainstream nominee would be confirmed easily, even if nominated by President Trump. Recall the process President Obama used when he selected Chief Judge Merrick Garland. He sought advice from both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress and was told this was a person who would get a solid majority vote. He said: ``We have reached out to every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to constitutional scholars, to advocacy groups, to bar associations, representing an array of interests and opinions from all across the spectrum.'' President Obama nominated somebody who, in normal times, would have gotten the vast majority of votes of Republicans and Democrats. If President Trump would have followed that template, we would not be in this extraordinary place. Let me conclude with this. In the committee, I said I respect this institution as much as anyone. I have been here for more than 42 years. I have devoted myself to the good the Senate can accomplish. We 100 Senators stand in the shoes of 320 million Americans. We should be the conscience of the Nation. First and foremost, we must do what is right by 320 million Americans. And I am not going to vote solely to protect an institution when the rights of hard-working Americans are at risk. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this nomination.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not see anybody on the floor, but I understand that this time has been reserved for the Republican side. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week, Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is in Washington where he is meeting with President Trump and other senior administration officials, as well as some Members of Congress. President Trump has spoken glowingly of President el-Sisi, as he has of Russian President Putin and Philippine President Duterte. ``Strong leaders,'' he calls them, as if that is enough to justify our wholehearted support. Unfortunately, world history is replete with examples of strong, messianic leaders who abused their power in ways that caused immense hardship for their people and divisiveness and conflict in their countries. Despite that, the White House has voiced its strong support for President el-Sisi, and for U.S.-Egyptian relations. I have been to Egypt many times, and I have voted for billions of dollars in U.S. aid for Egypt to support economic and security programs in that country. I have recognized positive developments in Egypt when they occur, such as President el-Sisi's decision to undertake economic reforms, including by reducing some subsidies. Far more needs to be done, however, if Egypt's economy is to break free of decades of state control, endemic corruption, and gross mismanagement. I am also aware of the security threats Egypt faces in Libya and in the Sinai, although I and others have expressed deep concern with the flawed tactics the Egyptian Government is using to combat those threats. The U.S. has an interest in helping Egypt confront these challenges by addressing the underlying causes in a manner that is effective and consistent with international law. President Trump has called President el-Sisi a fantastic guy. Ironically, that says a lot more about President Trump than it does about President el-Sisi. President el-Sisi, a former general who seized power by force, has ruled with an iron fist. He has effectively banned public criticism of his government since the removal of former President Morsi, enforcing what amounts to a prohibition on protests and arresting hundreds of people in connection with the ban, many preemptively. President el-Sisi's government has engaged in one of the widest arrest campaigns in the country's modern history, targeting a broad spectrum of political opponents. Local civil society organizations estimate that between 40,000 and 60,000 people are detained on political grounds, such as for protesting or calling for a change in government. Police have accused many of having links to the Muslim Brotherhood, usually without evidence that they have advocated or engaged in violence. Many other detainees belong to other political organizations or have no party affiliation. A systematic crackdown on Egypt's independent civil society has left it on the verge of collapse. According to human rights groups, nearly every prominent Egyptian human rights defender or civil society leader is banned from leaving the country as part of a judicial investigation into the foreign funding of their organizations. A law signed by President el- Sisi in 2014 would allow prosecutors to seek 25-year sentences for illegally receiving foreign funding. Parliament has also proposed a new law regulating civil society organizations which, if adopted, would effectively outlaw independent human rights work in the country. Despite repeated requests by U.S. officials, including some Republicans and Democrats in Congress, President el-Sisi's government has refused to release those detained for political reasons for months or years without charge or on trumped up charges like Egyptian-American citizen Aya Hijazi. The media has also been targeted, with authorities threatening and jailing journalists who reported on political opposition. Some foreign journalists have been barred from the country after writing articles critical of the government. As of December 2016, Egypt was the third- highest jailer of journalists, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. This pattern of harassment and arrests is not new. It has been happening for years, and, contrary to the representations of Egyptian officials, it is getting worse. According to Human Rights Watch, members of the security forces, particularly the Interior Ministry's National Security Agency, routinely torture detainees to elicit confessions. This torture usually occurs during periods of enforced disappearance that can last for weeks or months. The widespread use of torture has also been reported by the State Department. Despite hundreds of reported cases of torture and enforced disappearance, since 2013, only a handful of police officers have reportedly been punished for violating the law. According to information I have received, prison conditions remain deplorable, and political detainees are beaten, often deprived of contact with relatives and lawyers, and denied access to medical care. The government's use of U.S. aircraft and other military equipment in its counterterrorism campaign against a local ISIS affiliate in the northern Sinai has not only resulted in indiscriminate attacks against civilians and other gross violations of human rights, it has made the terrorism situation worse. Requests by myself, as well as State and Defense Department officials and by independent journalists and representatives of human rights groups, for access to conflicted areas, have been denied. While President Trump and other U.S. officials unabashedly praise President el-Sisi, I wonder how they reconcile their portrayal of him with his crackdown against civil society and brutal repression of dissent. In fact, it can't be reconciled, and it damages our own credibility as a strong defender of human rights and democratic principles. I want to reiterate what I said in this Chamber on September 27, 2016, when I spoke about Aya Hijazi, the young Egyptian American social worker currently detained in Egypt. Ms. Hijazi, along with her Egyptian husband and five employees of their organization Belady, has been accused of salacious crimes that the government has yet to corroborate with any credible evidence; yet she has been jailed since May 21, 2014. Just last month, a decision in her case was inexplicably delayed until later this month. It is long past time for her ordeal to end. The United States and Egypt have common interests in an increasingly troubled region. Egypt has acted to reduce the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, and it has helped to broker ceasefires with Hamas. Our support for Egypt is demonstrated by the fact that, over the past 70 years, U.S. taxpayers have provided more than $70 billion in economic and military aid to Egypt. I doubt that many Egyptians know that, as most have a decidedly unfavorable opinion of the United States. After three decades of corrupt autocratic rule by former President Mubarak, Egypt once again has a former military officer as President who has chosen to rule by force. It is neither justified, nor is it necessary. If, on the contrary, President el-Sisi were to demonstrate that he has a credible plan for transforming Egypt's economy, for improving education and creating jobs, for respecting due process and other fundamental rights, and for addressing the discrimination and lack of economic opportunities that are at the root of the violence in the Sinai, the Egyptian people would support him. They would also have a brighter future. Instead, I fear that, by relying on repression, he is sowing the seeds of misery and civil unrest, which is in the interest of neither the Egyptian people nor the American people.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to express my serious concerns with the budget for fiscal year 2018 recently proposed by President Trump. If adopted, this budget would have severe consequences on many Americans, but I am particularly concerned that it would be low-income families who are impacted the most. As vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will do everything in my power to make sure that does not happen. Among countless examples within a budget that is out of touch and that will drive more American families into poverty, the President's proposal to eliminate the Community Service Block Grant, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, and the Weatherization Assistance Program should be concerning to all of us. These are resources that are essential not only to Vermonters, but to millions of families throughout the country. The Community Service Block Grant ensures that low-income families receive the support they need for basic food and housing assistance, financial planning tools, and fuel in winter months. LIHEAP and weatherization services ensure that families do not have to choose between food and heat. They ensure that families stay safe from harmful asbestos that may be in the walls of their old Vermont farmhouses or their inefficient mobile homes. In States like mine, home heating is a life-and-death matter. We need to show compassion when drafting our budget and provide support for those programs that help hard-working families in need. We must see the faces behind these proposed budget cuts. Vulnerable people should never be at the whim of politically driven priorities. We have to do better. I would like to begin by recognizing the crisis so many families will face in this country without the help of our community action agencies. Without them, families will go cold. They will choose not to eat so they can heat their homes. They will deny themselves healthcare and miss rent payments so that they can stay warm, so that they can stay alive. Last month, I had the pleasure of seeing a longtime friend and fellow Vermonter Jan Demers, who serves as the executive director of the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, CVOEO, Vermont's largest community action agency in Burlington. It was Jan who said it best, noting that, ``President Trump's budget is like one amputation after another. Not bringing health to the community but cut after cut-- loss after loss.'' I am proud that CVOEO and the other community action agencies continue to meet the needs of these families and hope all Senators will continue to support them as I have during my time in the Senate. In recognition of their leadership, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Jan Demers be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the legislative situation?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to speak for just a few minutes about H.J. Res. 43. I see this as a misguided and unfortunate attack on healthcare for women. Certainly that is what I am hearing from women from the State of Vermont. Three months into the 115th Congress, the Senate has yet to consider real legislation aimed at addressing the many challenges we Americans face today. Instead, the Senate, with simple-majority votes-- permissible through the rarely used Congressional Review Act--is rolling back key protections for the American people that were put in place by the last administration. Never mind that the current administration has the power to address certain aspects of regulations that they wish to rewrite. No. They could address these. They could seek a rewriting of them. They could seek legislation. But, instead, Republicans in Congress are intent on using this blunt procedure to unravel years of very careful and deliberative work. These raw power plays are part of the Trump-Republican ``know-nothing, anti-science'' agenda, in which the winners are not the American people. They are not the women of my State. They are not the average person you might meet. Instead, they are typically the wealthy and powerful special interests and big polluters. They win, and the losers are real Americans. Today, we are considering the 12th such resolution, one that rolls back protections under the Title X program. Title X of the Public Health Service Act is the only Federal grant program dedicated to providing those eligible with comprehensive family planning and preventive health services. In rural areas--and every single State has a rural area, but my State is especially rural--we know that Title X is crucial in making sure women have access to the basic healthcare they need. Unfortunately, in recent years, some States have made exceptions about which providers may deliver services under Title X, excluding family planning clinics. Seeing the burden these rules would place on women seeking healthcare, the Obama administration finalized a regulation in December 2016 that protects these providers from this type of discrimination, and women from these hardships. The resolution we are considering today would undo this regulation, once again allowing States to discriminate against providers, thereby limiting access to healthcare services for millions--that is not hyperbole; it really is millions--of women and their families. Worse still, the resolution would prevent a similar rule or regulation from being implemented in the future. In Vermont, our sole Title X provider is Planned Parenthood. Even in a State as rural as Vermont, no one has to drive longer than 45 minutes to reach a clinic. That is important to us. We consider 4 to 5 inches of snow a heavy dusting, but we often have 10 to 15 inches of snow. Nobody should have to drive farther than that to reach healthcare. This type of access is critical for those who need these services. It is especially important because for 40 percent of women, their visit to a family planning health center is the only healthcare they receive during the year. Vermonters are lucky because our State recognizes that this issue isn't about abortion, it is about ensuring the best network of providers for the people of our State. But other States have already worked to undermine family planning clinics like Planned Parenthood. The passage of this resolution will allow these discriminatory efforts to advance, especially discriminatory efforts against women. There is no question about it: A vote for this resolution is a vote against women. This resolution would not only affect the lives of millions of American women, but it would also affect the lives of men and young people who trust and depend on family planning clinics for their basic healthcare needs, including for annual health exams, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and HIV screenings. Last year in Vermont--keep in mind that Vermont has a population of just over 600,000 people--Planned Parenthood centers provided vital primary and preventive services to more than 16,000 patients. In a small State like Vermont, this harmful impact cannot be overstated. Those who support this resolution argue that the States should be able to determine who receives Title X grants, and that women under this program can simply find another clinic to go to. Well, that is simply not the case. In fact, that argument is false. It is a lie. Family planning clinics overwhelmingly serve populations in rural and medically underserved parts of the country where access to healthcare, especially for low-income individuals, is difficult. It is easy--easy--for Senators to vote to cut off this healthcare for women and children and people in rural areas because each one of us, if we need healthcare, can walk 2 minutes down this hall and walk to the Capitol physician and say ``I am a U.S. Senator. I need healthcare,'' and we are going to get it. While that may be the reality for 100 people in this body, it is not the reality for millions and millions of people in every single State we represent. What this partisan resolution would do is force women and families in States who depend on family planning clinics for their healthcare to find another doctor--and often very few are available--or what is more likely, go without care at all. So they don't get preventive care, they don't get checkups, and they don't find the first indication that they may be facing melanoma or some other serious health problem. That undermines all of our efforts, which we should be joining, to strengthen our Nation's healthcare system, to try to make our healthcare system at least as good as many other countries', and to ensure access to care for everyone. This Republican resolution marks just the latest overreach and intrusion into women's healthcare. We even voted for a resolution to allow people to spy on what you do on the internet, and then sell that information for their own profit, destroying your privacy, but making money doing it. Until the House failed to even take it up, the Senate was scheduled to consider a reconciliation bill this week that would have defunded Planned Parenthood and would have allowed health insurers to deny coverage for maternity care, thus requiring women to pay more for health insurance. In the last Congress, it was more of the same--deny coverage for maternity care, and then go out and say: We believe in the right to life. Clearly not so much for the mother when she needs maternity care. Should we really walk back from the remarkable progress we have made as a nation in women's health? Of course not. But I am concerned that we will still see the same irresponsible attack surfacing again and again. Look, it is 2016; it is not 1917. It is time for the mean-spirited and ideological assaults on women's healthcare to end. Women are not second-class citizens. My wife is not, my daughter is not, and my three granddaughters are not. They deserve the same access to care as men. I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution that will degrade the healthcare and access to healthcare, of so many Americans. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.