Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by warnings from leading health insurance companies and State insurance commissioners that the Trump administration is now deliberately undermining the Affordable Care Act, leaving insurance plans no choice but to sharply raise premiums or exit the marketplaces. I understand--I think we all do--that the Affordable Care Act continues to experience stresses and that it needs to be strengthened. There is no doubt about that. I have been saying from the beginning that we need to correct what is not working, that we need to keep what is working, and that we need to work together to change it. Yet, in 2016, there were abundant signs that the law was working and that insurance markets were stabilizing. For instance, in my State of New Hampshire, health insurance premium increases last year averaged just 2 percent. That is the lowest annual increase in history. Today, it is a very different picture. Because of the efforts of the Trump administration to undermine the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies in New Hampshire and across the country face widespread uncertainty. Many of them are deciding that they have no choice but to protect themselves by drastically increasing premiums. This week, there was a report in the New Hampshire Union Leader, which is our State's largest newspaper, that premiums in New Hampshire could increase by as much as 44 percent. Now, President Trump says that the Affordable Care Act is ``exploding,'' but let's be clear. If ObamaCare is exploding, as President Trump says, it is because this administration lit the fuse and has been working aggressively to undermine the law. We can see on this poster what is being reported in other parts of the country. In the LA Times, we see that health insurers and State officials say that Trump is undermining ObamaCare and pushing up rates and that health insurers plan big ObamaCare rate hikes, and they blame Trump. Perhaps the greatest damage has been done by the administration's refusal to commit to funding cost-sharing subsidies, which are the Federal subsidies that help millions of people pay for coverage. To protect themselves, many insurance companies are preparing two sets of premiums for next year--one premium level if the administration agrees to fund the cost-sharing subsidies and a second, dramatically higher premium level if the administration says no to cost-sharing subsidies. More broadly, the administration's mixed signals and erratic management of the Affordable Care Act are causing uncertainty in the marketplace. Paul Markovich, the CEO of Blue Shield of California, has said that health plans are being forced to raise premiums to compensate for all of the turmoil. It gets worse. Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Seema Verma, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, shocked a meeting of insurance industry executives by threatening to cut off funding for cost-sharing reductions unless insurers agreed to support the House Republicans' bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act-- the bill that was passed several weeks ago. Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler criticized the administration's actions as playing Russian roulette with Americans' health insurance coverage. He said: ``This has real impact on people's lives.'' One insurance company executive said this about the administration's actions: ``There's a sense that there are no hands on the wheel, and they are just letting the bus careen down the road.'' Physicians and other healthcare professionals live by a time-honored pledge to do no harm, but the Trump administration is pursuing a course that will do tremendous harm to millions of Americans who have gained health coverage for the first time because of the Affordable Care Act. Unless and until Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act, it is the law of the land, and this administration has a responsibility to administer this law with fairness, with rigor, and with competence. The administration certainly does not have the right to take active steps to undermine or even sabotage the law or to threaten insurance companies with such steps if they do not support the repeal of ObamaCare. It is time for the administration to reconsider its approach to healthcare reform. To date, regrettably, the administration's approach has been highly partisan, with no outreach to Democrats. Instead of a ``do no harm'' approach, instead of taking steps to fill President Trump's pledge that we are going to have insurance for everybody--and he came through New Hampshire on multiple occasions during his primary campaign and during the general election campaign. What he said about health insurance was that we were going to make sure that everybody has it; we are going to make sure that they pay less and that they get quality coverage. The administration now seems determined to take health coverage away from tens of millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House Republicans' bill--the first one--to repeal the Affordable Care Act would take coverage away from 24 million Americans. Yesterday, the administration proposed a budget that would cut Medicaid by as much as $1.3 trillion over the next decade. That would end coverage for millions of low- income Americans, people with disabilities, and so many of our elderly in nursing homes. In New Hampshire, where we are really on the frontlines of the heroin and opioid epidemic, it would end treatment for many people who are getting treatment for their substance use disorders because of the expansion of Medicaid. When we think about the people who would be hurt by this, it is unconscionable to hear Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney say: ``There is a certain philosophy wrapped up in the budget, and that is that we are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those programs.'' I disagree with that view. By deliberately taking healthcare coverage from 24 million Americans, it shows the lack of compassion of this administration. This is not about numbers. He is right about that. This should not be about numbers. This should be about people, about their families, and about what these proposals will do to everyday Americans who will no longer have access to affordable health coverage. Whether they have preexisting conditions or whether they need to get treatment for cancer, for substance use disorders, or for whatever their healthcare needs are, under this proposal, they are not going to be able to afford it. Millions of Americans will not be able to afford it. I think there is a better way forward. Instead of tearing down the Affordable Care Act and taking health coverage away from people, we should be building on the gains and on the achievements of healthcare reform. On that score, I want to share an extraordinary letter to the editor that was written by Carol Gulla, of Newmarket, NH. I am reading her letter: I was in good health; why bother with a physical? That was my mentality for years before the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). I work for a small nonprofit business, so we don't qualify for group health insurance plans. An annual physical wasn't included in the high premium, high deductible plans that were available to me on the individual health insurance market so they were often a luxury. But it was OK; I felt great! Why bother with doctors? Because of the Affordable Care Act, last June I went for a routine physical. During [the exam] a lump was discovered in my breast. Ten days later, breast cancer was diagnosed. . . . Fast forward to today. I've just completed my final chemotherapy treatment and my prognosis is very positive. That physical saved my life. Let me restate that--Obamacare saved my life. That crucial physical in June would not have happened had it not been an essential preventive service included in all health plans under the ACA. While not perfect, my insurance through the ACA is far better than anything available to me as an individual in the past. Ms. Gulla's letter continues: Up until this point I have been pretty quiet about my diagnosis simply because I didn't want cancer to be the main topic of every conversation I had. But, with the Republican majority in Washington, including Secretary of Health & Human Services Tom Price, promising to repeal the ACA, being quiet is no longer an option. I am being asked to entrust my health and well-being to hollow promises of it will ``be replaced by something better; it will be great.'' Forgive me if I'm skeptical! This is my life we're talking about! Do not tell me to be patient. Do not tell me to ``wait and see.'' Either outline a . . . plan for improving the Affordable Care Act, or leave my health insurance alone! She signs it with her name, Carol Gulla, of Newmarket, NH. I think we need to listen to Carol and to so many other people like her all across America. Instead of allowing this administration to undermine and even sabotage the Affordable Care Act, we in the Senate need to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to strengthen the parts of the Affordable Care Act that are working in the real world, including Medicaid expansion, and to fix what is not working. According to multiple recent polls that I have seen on this issue, this is what the great majority of Americans want us to do. It is time for us to listen to the American people. The Affordable Care Act has had a profoundly positive impact all across America, but it needs commonsense repairs and it needs strengthening. Mend it, don't end it, and certainly don't sabotage it. This should be a bipartisan focus in the Senate. I intend to do everything I can to encourage such a bipartisan effort. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would be willing to do this important work if they understood how much the American people want to see us do this. We know that the Affordable Care Act has had positive impacts in each of our States, including giving people peace of mind, knowing they can't be denied coverage based on preexisting conditions. So let's work together. Let's ensure that the Affordable Care Act works even better in the future for all Americans. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Those numbers came out while I was speaking on the floor, because I was talking about the first House-passed bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. What the Senator from Illinois is telling me is that the numbers for the bill they passed to fix the first bill they couldn't pass are just as bad and in some ways even worse than the original bill.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Well, that was going to be my followup question. In New Hampshire, we have the second highest percentage of overdose deaths in the country. We lose more people in New Hampshire to deaths from overdoses of opioids and fentanyl and heroin than we do to car accidents. And an overwhelming percentage of people--over 90 percent-- are getting treatment for their substance abuse disorders through the expansion of Medicaid, which has been a bipartisan program in New Hampshire that has covered about 60,000 people, many of whom are getting treatment for substance abuse disorders. So what the Senator from Illinois is telling me, from the CBO, is that based on the plan that passed the House that Republicans have supported, those people who are getting their treatment--lifesaving treatment for mental health issues and substance abuse disorders--they are going to be kicked off of their plan, and they are not going to have any other option for getting that care.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Actually, the New Hampshire Hospital Association also opposes the bill for the very same reason. We have hospitals at risk if this bill is passed.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in strong support of the U.N. Paris climate change agreement and in opposition to efforts to undermine this international agreement that is vital to the environmental and economic well-being of New Hampshire, the Nation, and the world. In 2015, I joined nine of my Senate colleagues in Paris to attend the 21st U.N. Climate Change Conference, also known as COP 21, where the climate agreement was negotiated. What we witnessed at COP 21 was monumental: 195 countries representing more than 95 percent of global carbon emissions worked together to adopt the first universal climate agreement that calls for international cooperation on addressing the causes of global warming and helping poorer nations most affected by it. The following year, on Earth Day, the United States and more than 170 nations signed the international climate agreement in New York; and on November 4, 2016, the Paris Accord entered into force. I am proud to say that the U.S. was a big part of that effort. That is why I am so disappointed to see that President Trump is currently considering whether to pull the United States from this historic agreement. This would be a huge mistake. No country is insulated from the increasingly present and escalating effects of climate change. In the United States, we are seeing it throughout the country, and this is certainly true in New Hampshire. Rising temperatures are shortening our fall foliage season, which is so important to our State's tourism economy. Milder winters have led to increases of insect-borne diseases that endanger our wildlife. In New Hampshire, we have already seen a 40 percent decline in our moose population. The changing climate is also putting more stress on sugar maples, and this is already affecting syrup production. The Paris Agreement establishes a long-term, durable global framework for countries to work together to reduce carbon emissions and keep the global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius in order to avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change. For the first time, countries have committed to putting forward ambitious, nationally determined climate targets and reporting on their progress towards those targets using a standardized process of review. The Paris Agreement encourages transparency, accountability, and collaboration among nations not only to meet their climate targets, but to encourage innovation while doing so. That is why American business leaders are strongly in favor of continued U.S. participation in the Paris accord. From oil giants to tech firms, corporate leaders understand that the transition to clean energy presents one of the biggest economic opportunities of this century to create jobs and build wealth in this country. In fact, the International Energy Agency projects that, over the coming decades, more than $60 trillion will be invested in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies as countries address the threat of climate change. The United States stands in a unique position to be the leader of the clean energy revolution. This would be jeopardized if the President decides to remove the United States from the international climate agreement. Climate change represents an enormous challenge, but the solutions are within reach if we put into place policies that allow for swift action. The United States must help ensure that the goals of the Paris Agreement are realized. That is why I joined with my colleagues to introduce a resolution stating that the United States should work in cooperation with the international community and continue to exercise global leadership to address the causes and effects of climate change. We have a responsibility to help protect our children and grandchildren from the most severe consequences of global warming by reducing emissions now. This President must not remove the United States from this important agreement.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to join my colleague, who is the chair of the Small Business Committee--and I am the ranking member--to celebrate National Small Business Week. This is an opportunity for all Americans, regardless of party affiliation or geography, to come together and support the small businesses that drive the American economy and make such an enormous contribution to our local communities and culture. I am pleased to be able to work with Senator Risch. We have enjoyed a terrific working relationship. We are there, at this moment in the committee, to try to make a difference for the small businesses of not only our States of New Hampshire and Idaho but throughout the entire country. I ask my chairman if he would like to start out and then turn it back to me, and we can talk a little bit about what we see happening on the Small Business Committee.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Idaho.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Risch. As you point out, we were both Governors, so we had a chance to see small businesses from the perspective of the States and how States can be involved in supporting small businesses. But we also have been small business owners and operators ourselves. My husband and I had a family- owned seasonal retail business, and you operated a family-run ranch in Idaho. So I am sure you share with me the challenges of small business owners, the things that kept me awake at night and that I know keep other small business owners awake: meeting payroll, balancing budgets, attracting workers, finding customers, and complying with local, State, and Federal regulations. As you pointed out, and I certainly agree, our committee works in a bipartisan way not only on supporting public policy to help small businesses but also supporting the Small Business Administration, which has programs that help nurture our small businesses and address their unique concerns. On Monday, I visited one of those small businesses. I was kicking off Small Business Week in New Hampshire, and I visited a company in Dover, which is a neighboring community to where I live. The company is called Popzup, spelled just like it sounds. It is a family-owned business that created an innovative microwave popcorn box without harsh chemicals, plastic, or silicon. The company's popcorn that goes in that box is environmentally friendly. It comes from American farms that don't use GMO products. It is great. They also have all of these seasonings that go on the popcorn, everything from a seasoning called Everything Bagel to one that is maple syrup. So it is a unique company. Its founders, Julie and Marty Lapham, launched the company in 2015. They have received a lot of support from the Small Business Development Center in New Hampshire. In fact, Julie told me about preparing for a ``Shark Tank''-style competition she was participating in and how she got tremendous help from the SBDC in her presentation. She said: Without that help, I wouldn't have been able to do it. She actually won first prize in the competition--$10,000--because the SBDC had helped her sort through financing options, and she and her husband continue to work with them as they grow the company. As we look at Small Business Week this week, it is important to also recognize the great work SBA does with outstanding entrepreneurs from all 50 States and territories. I know you have some similar examples of small businesses in Idaho.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I very much thank Senator Risch. I share his enthusiasm for the Office of Advocacy and all of the programs SBA administers and appreciate the good work of the new Administrator there, Linda McMahon. You bragged a little bit on your Small Business of the Year in Idaho, and I would like to do the same. Our New Hampshire Small Business Person of the Year is Dr. Jake Reder, who is the cofounder and CEO of Celdara Medical in Lebanon, NH. I think it is important to point out that small businesses create 16 times per employee the number of patents that large businesses do, and Celdara Medical is a great example of that. They were founded in 2008. They are a biotech startup that identifies early-stage medical technologies and provides financing and business guidance to move lifesaving products from university laboratories to high-potential medical companies. They really show that entrepreneurship can be a positive force to cure disease and save lives. During their startup, Celdara secured funding through the SBA's SBIR Program, the Small Business Innovation Research Program, which was extended last year--thanks in large part to the work of the committee-- for 5 years because of its great track record, enabling entrepreneurs across the country to participate in R&D to keep us at the vanguard of innovation. They were also assisted by the SCORE counseling network, which provides mentors to small businesses. There are so many things we can do to support our small businesses, and that is the goal of the Small Business Committee. We also want to continue to support a modern and flexible SBA that can respond quickly to economic conditions that confront small businesses in this global economy. Like you, I thank all of our colleagues who are going to help us recognize small businesses throughout the country. I also thank the Appropriations Committee for its bipartisan work on the omnibus bill to fund the SBA and our critical rural development programs. We have heard about many of them at the rural hearing you talked about. Hopefully the spirit of cooperation we share on the committee will spread throughout the Congress. So happy Small Business Week to all of our small businesses, and I thank all of the entrepreneurs in New Hampshire and Idaho and across the country for their hard work, for their innovation, and for their grit. They have our gratitude and our respect. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the good work we will continue to do for small businesses in this country.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to speak to the CRA legislation before us that would overturn the Department of Labor rule designed to help Americans save for retirement, but before I speak to that, I just want to join all of my colleagues on the floor in applauding what has happened to support the miners and to get them health benefits and to thank my colleague Joe Manchin for his leadership. I know how personally he has fought for this, as so many people who spoke on the floor have. You know, we don't have any coal miners in New Hampshire, Joe, but we have hard workers. We have people who understand that when you make a promise to them, you need to keep that promise. Thank you for leading this fight and to everyone who made this happen because we need to reassure Americans that when we say we are going to do something, we actually follow through and we do that. So thank you for making that happen. Now, Mr. President, it is disappointing that actually on the issue that is before the Senate right now, this effort to change the labor rule on retirement, that we are actually going to take something away from Americans. States across America have been developing and implementing innovative, low-cost retirement savings options to improve their citizens' retirement security. That is really important at a time when we have so many people who have not been able to save for retirement, who are worried about what might happen if something happens to them and they can't work into the retirement age. Sadly, the misguided legislation that is before us would shut down these efforts and effectively take away from States the right to establish retirement options for workers. Now, across the country we have had Republican and Democratic State treasurers join with groups, including the AARP and the Small Business Majority, to oppose this effort. I want to join them in asking two what I think are obvious questions. First, why do the sponsors of this resolution want to deny Americans new, attractive retirement savings options? Second, why in the world are they doing this at a time when the United States faces a growing retirement savings crisis--a crisis that threatens to strand millions of seniors without any personal savings and at risk of falling into poverty? And why do this when it doesn't include any mandates and there is no cost to taxpayers either at the Federal level or, in most States, at the State level? This is something that is paid for by people who are looking to get a pension. Facts matter, and we shouldn't ignore them. Some 55 million Americans lack access to a workplace retirement plan, and 45 percent of households don't have any retirement account assets--zero savings. Polls show that more than three-quarters of private sector workers fear not having enough money to live comfortably in retirement. To address this nationwide crisis, many States have stepped up to the plate, experimenting with public-private partnerships to help small businesses provide low-cost, turn-key payroll deduction options. The legislation being debated today would abruptly compromise the future of these State initiatives. In my State of New Hampshire, nearly 99 percent of our employers are considered small businesses. That number is hard to believe. They employ over 50 percent of New Hampshire's workers. Nearly 43 percent of Granite Staters work for an employer that does not offer a retirement plan. As the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I talk to small business owners regularly, and as a former small business owner myself, I understand the challenges they face. For many, it is a challenge just to meet payroll and to keep the doors of their businesses open. I know that many of them would like to offer a company retirement plan because they want to do right by their employees, but they just can't afford it. A Pew Foundation survey found that three-quarters of owners of small and medium-sized businesses across the country support the idea of these State-run options because they offer a way for employees to save for retirement at little or no cost to the employer. So these programs are sort of like starter plans for small businesses. A company that is still trying to gain its financial footing can offer this option to its employees. Then, once the company gets on more solid ground and it needs to attract and retain talent, it can transition to a more ambitious retirement plan that allows it to contribute to its employees' retirement savings. It is especially troubling to me that the Senate is even considering whether to deny Americans this retirement option at the same time that we are seeing leaders on the House side trying to pass a healthcare bill that would make it more expensive for many preretirement seniors and for people with preexisting conditions to purchase health coverage. Again, I would ask: Why would we want to deny this new, innovative retirement option to millions of employees who work for small businesses without retirement plans? Why would we want to deny small businesses the choice of offering these options? Why should the Federal Government stand in the way of States and small businesses that want to take positive steps to address the retirement crisis and help their citizens? I think this legislation is misguided. It is legislation in search of a problem, and, worse than that, it would put a massive roadblock in the way of States and small businesses that are striving to solve the real and growing problem of inadequate retirement savings. So I urge my colleagues to really take a look at what would happen in their home States. I urge them to stand up for America's small businesses, to vote no on this legislation. Let's ensure that Americans have more, not fewer, options to save for retirement. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, last month I introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Todd Young of Indiana to create greater transparency about foreign individuals and organizations that are operating in the United States to advance the interests of foreign governments, including governments that are hostile to the United States. In particular, our bill will give the Department of Justice new and necessary authority to investigate potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by RT America, the U.S. branch of RT News or Russia Today News. The Foreign Agents Registration Act was passed back in the late 1930s in response to concerns about Nazi propaganda being disseminated in the United States without people knowing what it was. It is absolutely appropriate today for us to take a look at what Russia and other countries may be doing to our news. RT America, which broadcasts from studios here in Washington and is available on cable TV across the United States and across the world, for that matter, is one of the most high-profile assets in Vladimir Putin's vast $1.4 billion propaganda machine. According to the U.S. intelligence community, the Kremlin selects the staff for RT and closely supervises RT's coverage, including disinformation and false news stories designed to undermine our democracy. Here we have a photo that shows exactly what I believe seems to be happening with RT. This photo was taken from a declassified U.S. intelligence report, and it shows RT's editor-in-chief--and former Putin campaign staffer, by the way--Margarita Simonyan briefing Putin on RT's facilities. So clearly he is interested. Well, I believe the American people have a right to know if a Russian Government entity is exploiting our first amendment freedoms to harm our country. It is galling that RT news has publicly--publicly--boasted that it can dodge our laws by claiming to be financed by a nonprofit organization and not the Russian Government. Well, what my bill--our bill--would do is strengthen the Foreign Agents Registration Act by giving the Department of Justice authority to compel foreign organizations to produce documentation to confirm funding sources and foreign connections. This is investigative authority that has been recommended by the Department of Justice inspector general, the Government Accountability Office, and the Project on Government Oversight. Our bill would create transparency by giving Justice the authority it needs to investigate RT America and publicly expose its ties to the Kremlin. The audacity of Russia's interference in Western democracies, including extensive meddling in our 2016 Presidential election, is deeply alarming, and we have learned that Russia's influence campaign reaches tens of millions of unsuspecting Americans. False news stories can end up on our Facebook timelines and our Twitter feeds. They shape the political conversations that we have with our friends at the supermarket and our colleagues at work. These are just a few of the headlines from RT. This one is actually from Sputnik, which is another Russian news outlet. They show the extent to which these false news stories are being spread around. This one talks about how ``1,000s Turkish forces surround NATO's Incirlik air base for `inspection' amid rumors of coup attempt,'' which suggests that we were involved in that coup attempt. ``FBI wiretapped Trump Tower in search of `Russian mobster.' '' ``Spying on Trump: CIA Whistleblower Points Finger at Clapper, Brennan, Comey.'' ``Ukrainian Su-25 fighter detected in close approach to MH17 before crash.'' You will remember that this was the plane crash over Ukraine-- that the Russians shot down. During our Presidential campaign in 2016, dozens of narratives and false news stories originated in Russia--for instance, this one, the baseless story that the Obama administration launched a coup against the Turkish Government from the U.S. airbase in that country. Earlier, RT News ran numerous reports on supposed U.S. election fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities, claiming that the results of the U.S. elections could not be trusted and did not reflect the people's will. Well, researchers have traced these and other stories to a common source: the Kremlin's sophisticated, multifaceted propaganda empire, which reaches some 600 million people across 130 countries and in 30 languages. If you watch RT News, you will agree that it is not clear whether you are watching a U.S. news station or a Russian station because it has slick production values. It is arguably the jewel in the crown of this propaganda empire. According to the U.S. intelligence community report declassified in January: The Kremlin has committed significant resources to expanding the [RT News'] reach, particularly its social media footprint. . . . RT America has positioned itself as a domestic US channel and has deliberately sought to obscure any legal ties to the Russian government. A prime objective of this propaganda barrage is to influence U.S. and European public opinion, create confusion, and shape election outcomes. The Associated Press has identified a building in Moscow where an estimated 400 internet trolls--fluent in English and well-versed in American politics--work 12-hour shifts, creating false narratives and fake news stories. These stories are then seeded on the internet, they get validated, and they get passed on by popular websites and eventually end up on our radios, TVs, and smartphone screens. In an incident earlier this month, a discredited former CIA employee went on RT News to charge that President Obama had asked British intelligence to spy on Donald Trump. Well, this false news story was then spread by legal commentator Anthony Napolitano on the FOX News show ``Fox and Friends,'' which is regularly watched by the President. The claims were then cited by President Trump and White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to defend the President's claims that his predecessor had wiretapped Trump Tower. Well, we know that during testimony before Congress 2 weeks ago, the NSA Director, ADM Michael Rogers, agreed with our British allies that the original RT News story was utterly ridiculous. At an Armed Services Committee hearing last month, Gen. Philip Breedlove, Retired, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, told us that when Russian-backed forces shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine in 2014, the Russians put out four stories within two news cycles placing the blame on the Ukrainian Government and others. This is the headline that we see from RT. The general said it took 2 years for the West to finally debunk these false news stories. We know that Russia interfered in our 2016 Presidential election. We know that a Russian influence campaign was one aspect of that interference. Our intelligence community has concluded that RT America is an arm of the Russian propaganda juggernaut, operating openly in our country and taking full advantage of our First Amendment freedoms. I am sure we would all agree that everyone in the United States, in every organization, has a right to speak, write, and broadcast freely. That is what our First Amendment says. We are a resilient democracy. We are confident that our values and institutions will prevail in the free marketplace of ideas. Our Constitution protects the right of individuals and organizations to spread those Russian viewpoints, disinformation, and even outright lies, but the American people have a right to know if RT America is a Russian propaganda organ that takes its direction from the Kremlin. They have a right to know who is funding their operations. RT has publicly boasted that it uses a shell nonprofit corporation to dodge U.S. laws. This legislation, the Foreign Agents Registration Modernization and Enforcement Act, would put an end to that charade. The legislation Senator Young and I recently introduced would give the Department of Justice the authority it needs to request documentation from RT News on funding sources and foreign connections. As we see here, clearly the legislation has hit a nerve because Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov defended RT News, and Russia's State Duma is considering measures to retaliate. What RT says about our legislation is that ``US senator wants to probe RT as a `foreign agent' . . . What's next, public executions''? Well, that is ridiculous. The editor-in-chief at RT News has said that my legislation is a ``persecution of dissenting voices.'' As I said, that is just nonsense. I welcome dissenting voices. That is what our First Amendment and the United States are all about. But it is not reasonable or acceptable for an individual or organization working in the United States on behalf of a hostile foreign government to conceal funding and direction that it receives from that government. Vladimir Putin is not going to stop us from enforcing our laws and protecting our country. We have a responsibility to expose RT News, RT America, and the entire panoply of tactics that Russia has used to interfere in our 2016 election and that they continue to currently use to sow confusion and distrust and spread around stories which pretend to be news but which are not accurate. Make no mistake, the Kremlin's influence campaign is an ongoing enterprise, and to the extent that it is successful, that it can operate under the radar screen, it will become even more brazen and more aggressive in the future. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last December, Dr. Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution said that Russia's broader objective is to subvert Western democracies, and we see that going on now in Europe. He said: ``For the United States to ignore this Russian tactic, and particularly now that it has been deployed against the United States, is to cede to Moscow a powerful tool of modern geopolitical warfare.'' That was a direct quote. This is a profound test for our country. Our democracy has been attacked and continues to be under attack from this kind of news that is being put out by a Kremlin-funded organization which is a hostile foreign power. We need to understand the Kremlin's tactics, and we need to expose this propaganda here in the United States, including RT America. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the Foreign Agents Registration Modernization and Enforcement Act. Let's give the Department of Justice the tools it needs to investigate and expose RT America. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor to join my colleagues in opposing this misguided measure, which would leave millions of women and families with fewer healthcare options, and it would drastically decrease women's access to basic primary and preventive health services, including lifesaving cancer screenings and HIV testing. Make no mistake about it, as my colleagues have said, the primary target of this legislation is Planned Parenthood. For years now, we have seen Republican leaders in Congress attempt to defund this essential healthcare provider, which serves millions of women nationwide, including nearly 12,000 women in New Hampshire, most of them with incomes below or near the poverty line. The sad irony of these attacks is that study after study has shown that restricting access to birth control and other family planning methods actually increases the number of abortions. The authoritative Guttmacher Institute estimates that in 2014 alone, contraceptive care provided under title X helped women avert more than 900,000 unintended pregnancies and 326,000 abortions. Without contraceptive care provided by title X funded centers, the U.S. rates of unintended pregnancy and preventable abortions would be an estimated 33 percent higher, and the teen pregnancy rate would be 30 percent higher. At the end of the Obama administration, teen pregnancy in the United States was at its lowest point since we have been keeping track. As Senator Hirono said, these services don't provide abortions. Federal law expressly forbids the use of Federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the mother. So the real issue here is not about abortion. This is about ensuring that American women have access to the basic healthcare they need, where they want to receive it. This is just a mean-spirited effort to keep women from seeing the provider they want to see and getting care at rates they can afford. For 40 percent of women, their visit to a family planning center is the only care they receive annually. In 2015 alone, title X provided basic primary and preventive healthcare services such as Pap tests, breast exams, birth control, and HIV testing to more than 4 million women and men at nearly 4,000 health centers. Planned Parenthood plays an essentially important role in delivering health services to low-income, uninsured, and vulnerable individuals, including in rural areas. I am sure that every person in this Chamber has received letters and emails and phone calls from constituents on this issue. They are pleading with us: Don't take away our access to healthcare from Planned Parenthood. I received a letter from Sandra Sonnichsen of Goshen, NH. She writes: Planned Parenthood was my only affordable source of gynecological healthcare for most of my life. I received good, wise, and thoughtful care. I think it is not extreme to say they saved my life. Abortions were not involved. They-- Meaning Planned Parenthood-- remain very important, especially for poor or uninsured women. There are not enough alternate low cost women's clinics available. Not providing birth control services to women who want it is not a good economic or social solution. Don't let it be defunded. In a follow-up call, Sandra said that without Planned Parenthood, she would not have had any healthcare at all. Because her mother died of breast cancer, Sandra is deeply grateful that she has been able to receive mammograms, thanks to Planned Parenthood. I also heard from Meredith Murray of Exeter, NH. She says: Nine years ago I graduated from college and immediately began my journey to become a medical provider. . . . During this time in my life, I was surviving almost entirely on student loans. And I knew that during this time, especially, I needed to ensure that I was doing all I could to prevent pregnancy. . . . With my insurance--an IUD would have cost $900. That was not possible for me to afford. Then I remembered--Planned Parenthood. . . . I was informed, due to title X funding, my IUD would be completely covered. I continued to use Planned Parenthood services for the next 5 years for my routine screenings while in medical school. The care I received was phenomenal. As I proceeded through my medical training, I strived to be as kind, compassionate, and knowledgeable as those who work Planned Parenthood health centers. I am now a practicing medical provider, married, and still using an IUD because Planned Parenthood offered me that opportunity. I received this letter from Samantha Fox of Bow, NH. She writes: In 2007, I was a 19-year-old just barely starting out when I was denied health insurance due to a preexisting condition. Had I been able to access affordable coverage, my preexisting condition, a reproductive system disorder, would have been easily manageable. . . . At that time, I was able to access care through Planned Parenthood, which likely preserved my ability to conceive in the future. And finally, let me share this message from Robina Parise of Rye, NH. She says: I started utilizing the services at Planned Parenthood for birth control when I was about 17 years old. . . . Planned Parenthood made sure I was protected and healthy. They gave me access to vital protection and healthcare when I could not get it anywhere else. They regularly called me with reminders to have exams and to pick up my prescription. Planned Parenthood is the reason my husband and I were able to graduate from high school and college. . . . I'm not sure what our lives would be like now without their support. I don't know. Do the people who are voting for this CRA believe it would be better to have allowed the people whom I just talked about--to prohibit their access to these healthcare services so that their lives would have been disrupted, so they might not have finished college, so we wouldn't have another doctor in the world, so they wouldn't be able to afford healthcare? I hope we will listen to our constituents who have been speaking out in passionate support of Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics. This is about respecting women's access to healthcare services, including millions of vulnerable women who have nowhere else to turn for essential care. This is also about respecting women's constitutionally protected right to make our own reproductive choices. We must not allow Congress to strip away investments in family planning clinics by allowing States to discriminate. Finally, I want to point out that we haven't heard from any of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are voting for this measure about why they think it is so critical. I don't know. Maybe they are not willing to come to the floor and tell my constituents why they should be denied access to healthcare from the provider they want. Well, I am disappointed that we haven't heard from anyone who is willing to stand up and defend this vote. I hope they are going to have to defend it to the American people. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the importance of the Senate's vote to ratify the accession of Montenegro into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. I am confident we will see an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of our colleagues here in the Senate support Montenegro's effort to join NATO. This is in Montenegro's interest, it is in Europe's interest, and it is in the national security interest of the United States. NATO is the most successful security alliance in history, and it is essential to the stability, freedom, and prosperity that Europe enjoys and that the United States has enjoyed, and, really, to that stability that has existed since after World War II. NATO has provided the security and stability for the freedoms we enjoy and the prosperity. Montenegro's accession to NATO will help the alliance become more resilient, and it will deter Russian aggression on Europe's eastern flank, which is why the alliance invited Montenegro to become its 29th member last year. I agree that Montenegro is a small country, but it is geopolitically important. Its membership in NATO will complete the alliance's control of the Adriatic coastline, and that will strengthen NATO's southern border. Since its independence from Serbia 10 years ago, Montenegro has pursued inclusion in Euro-Atlantic institutions, and it has been a good partner to NATO. For example, Montenegro has contributed ably to the mission in Afghanistan, which is the only time article 5 of NATO has been invoked. It was after the attacks of 9/11 on the United States, and our response was to go into Afghanistan. Montenegro joined us, along with our other NATO allies in this effort. Montenegro also imposed sanctions on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. Montenegro's accession to NATO is also critically important for the wider Balkan region, which faces increasing Russian influence and interference. After all, remember that the two major wars of the last century, World Wars I and II, started in the Balkans. We need to do everything we can to maintain stability there. This is one of the things that I believe Montenegro's accession to NATO will help us do. We saw the increasing Russian influence and the increasing effort to destabilize the Balkans last year in Montenegro's fall elections. Since those elections, Montenegrin authorities have arrested several people in connection with a coup attempt and a plot to assassinate Montenegro's Prime Minister. There is indisputable evidence that ties both violent plots back to Russia, which was trying to eliminate a high-profile supporter of Montenegro's accession to NATO and install, instead, a pro-Kremlin political party there. Montenegrin police are still working with international authorities to locate the suspected Russian masterminds of these efforts. But when the bipartisan codel from the Senate and House, led by Senators McCain and Whitehouse, went to the Munich Security Conference in February, we had a chance to meet with Montenegro's Prime Minister Djukanovic. He told us in very vivid detail about the efforts to assassinate him and about Russia's efforts to install instead a pro- Russian government. Do we really think that Mr. Putin, who desires nothing more than to weaken the NATO alliance, would work so hard to disrupt Montenegro's inclusion in NATO if he didn't think it would strengthen the alliance? Approving Montenegro's accession to NATO would signal support for Montenegro's independence and sovereignty and for their continued efforts to move towards the West and away from Russia. It would also demonstrate our solidarity with countries like Montenegro that Vladimir Putin is trying to bully, especially in light of our own recent experience with Russian meddling in our Presidential election. Now is a critically important time to send Russia the message that we will not tolerate this behavior. Last fall, a bipartisan group of diplomats, national security experts, and former administration officials sent a letter to Congress urging quick action on Montenegro's accession. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wrote a letter to Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer detailing the reasons Montenegro's accession to NATO is in our interest and urging that we schedule a prompt floor vote on the accession. Virtually all NATO members have already formally blessed Montenegro's inclusion in the alliance. So it is just the United States that hasn't taken this important step forward. The case for the Senate to support Montenegro's NATO accession is overwhelming. That is why it is so frustrating that it has taken so long. With Senator Johnson, I cochaired the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on this subject back in September of last year. In December and again in January, the Foreign Relations Committee approved Montenegro's accession protocol, and efforts were made to secure the necessary agreement for the full Senate to do the same. These efforts have been blocked by just a few Senators, despite the overwhelming bipartisan support for approval. I am glad that Montenegro's accession is finally getting the vote in the Senate that it deserves. The United States has long stood for freedom and democracy in Europe, and I urge my Senate colleagues to stand strong for freedom and democracy now by voting to approve Montenegro's accession to NATO. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, as ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, it is a privilege to join Chairman Risch as we celebrate the first ever Small Business Development Center Day, which will unite the more than 1,000 small business development centers, SBDCs, across the country with the hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs they have assisted in their 37- year history. Small businesses are the engine of our economy, creating two out of every three new jobs in the United States. As Chairman Risch stated, since 1980, America's SBDCs have provided these small businesses with high-quality, low- or no-cost consulting, and a variety of educational programs across the country. Together with SBA's other resource partners--women's business centers, veterans business outreach centers, and SCORE chapters--SBDCs have enhanced the ability of America's small businesses to grow and create jobs. To provide some context for what this means to our economy, the association representing SBDCs estimates that SBDC clients start a new business every 30 minutes, create a new job every 5 minutes, generate $100,000 in new sales every 7.5 minutes, and raise $100,000 in capital every 11 minutes. Job growth for SBDC clients is nearly 10 times greater than job growth for the average business. Under the leadership of Dr. Richard Grogan, the New Hampshire SBDC State director, New Hampshire SBDCs have helped thousands of small business owners and entrepreneurs realize their dreams, start new businesses, and create jobs. Last year alone, New Hampshire SBDC counseled and trained more than 2,500 businesses and assisted in the formation of more than $39 million in capital for New Hampshire's small businesses. For example, NH SBDC has been instrumental for Julie Lapham, the founder and chief sales officer of a startup in Dover, NH, called Popzup. Popzup is a family-owned business that provides a new popcorn product for health-conscious consumers. As Julie explained it, her local SBDC helped to prepare her for a Shark Tank-style pitch competition in which she took home a first-prize award of $10,000. They have helped her understand her financing options and continue to stay involved and support her company's growth. I hope my colleagues will join me and Chairman Risch in celebrating SBDC Day and acknowledging their local SBDCs for their accomplishments and the role that they play in helping small businesses create jobs.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor again today to speak about a program I have been working on that has had bipartisan support for a number of years; that is, the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program. This program allows Afghans, including interpreters, who have supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and who face threats as a result of their service to apply for refuge in the United States. As I said, this has had strong bipartisan support. I have worked with Senators McCain, Tillis, Leahy, Graham, and so many others here in the Chamber to try to make sure we provide enough visas for those Afghans who are being threatened and who want to come to the United States. I wish to point out that the Trump administration, even as it has sharply restricted immigration and refugee programs, has made exceptions for those who served alongside our soldiers and diplomats. In fact, when the administration's original Executive order on immigration was released, there was bipartisan anger that Iraqi interpreters were not protected because this program has served not just those in Afghanistan who have helped us but also those in Iraq. So the administration recognized its mistake and has made an exception for Iraqi SIV recipients, and now they have exempted Iraq from their Executive order. It is really past time that we rally renewed support for the Afghan SIV Program. Last week, we learned that the State Department has stopped interviewing applicants for the Afghan program because there are more applicants in the final stages of the process than there are visas. Unless Congress acts, the final visas will be exhausted by the end of May. It is estimated that more than 10,000 applicants are still in some step of the process of obtaining these visas. For these Afghans, it really is no exaggeration to say that this is a matter of life and death. Interpreters who served the U.S. mission are being systematically hunted down by the Taliban, and unless Congress acts, this program will lapse and we will abandon these Afghans to a harsh fate. The United States promised to protect those Afghans who served our mission with great loyalty and at enormous risk, and it would be a stain on our national honor to break this promise. It would also carry profound strategic costs. U.S. forces and diplomats have always relied on local people to help us accomplish our missions. We continue to require this assistance in Afghanistan, and we will need this support in other places in the future where we face conflict. So we have to ask, if we don't keep our promise, why would anyone agree to help the United States if we abandon those who assist us? This is exactly why the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, GEN David Petraeus, and his predecessor, GEN Stanley McChrystal, have pleaded with Congress to extend the Afghan SIV Program. In a letter to Congress last year, more than 30 additional prominent generals, including Gen. John Allen, the former commander in Afghanistan, GEN George Casey, the former commander in Iraq, and two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also urged Congress to extend the program. In addition, our soldiers and marines are keenly interested in protecting the interpreters who served with them in Afghanistan. Many of them owe their lives to the interpreters who went into combat with them. In recent years, I have gotten to know one of those servicemen, a former Army captain, Michael Breen, who is a Granite Stater. He served with the infantry in Iraq and led paratroopers in Afghanistan. He speaks with admiration about one interpreter in particular who was an Iraqi--part of the Iraqi program--a woman in her early twenties who was named Wissam. On one occasion, Captain Breen and his soldiers were at a small forward operating base in Iraq. He said that a man approached, frantically pointing to his watch and indicating an explosion with his hands. The Americans didn't speak Arabic, so they couldn't tell if the man was trying to warn them or threaten them. Wissam hurried over toward Captain Breen to assist. Wissam was beloved by her American comrades, always cheerful and eager to help. She listened to the man and said that he was actually there warning of an improvised explosive device on the main road. As Captain Breen later told me, ``A trusted interpreter can be the difference between a successful patrol and a body bag.'' He noted that every night, he and his fellow soldiers would hunker down in their heavily guarded perimeter, but Wissam would leave the compound and go home. One evening after she left the American compound, three gunmen ambushed her car. She was killed--one more interpreter who paid the ultimate price for serving the American mission. As Captain Breen later said, one day there will be a granite monument with the names of all of the American servicemembers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wissam deserves to have her name on that monument, too, because she took great risks and she gave her life while serving the United States. To be eligible for a visa through the Afghan SIV Program, new applicants must demonstrate at least 2 years of faithful and valuable service to the U.S. mission. To receive a visa, they must also clear a rigorous screening process that includes an independent verification of their service and then an intensive interagency review. We know that the service of these individuals has been critical to our successes in Afghanistan. Last month in Keene, NH, I met with a remarkable recent immigrant from Afghanistan named Patmana Rafiq Kunary. Patmana had worked closely with the U.S. Agency for International Development in Kabul. She went door to door, encouraging women to take out microloans to start their own businesses. Patmana eventually became vice president for operations at the USAID-sponsored Microloan Program. In fact, just today I talked to a woman reporter from Afghanistan who wanted to know what message of hope I could provide to the women of Afghanistan. Well, I told her about Patmana, and I told her that one of the things that keep us in Afghanistan supporting our soldiers is concern about what is happening to the women in Afghanistan. For Patmana, going door to door and working closely with Americans-- this was dangerous work. She drew unwelcome attention wherever she went, and she became a high-profile target for the Taliban and others. And then one day in 2013, she got a call at her USAID office. It was from the distraught wife of one of her USAID colleagues, another Afghan. The caller's husband had just been murdered, apparently in retaliation for his work with the Americans. Realizing that her life was in danger, too, Patmana applied for a special immigrant visa. For 2 years, she and her husband were subjected to repeated interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. Her background was checked and rechecked before visas were finally granted. She told me that they would move frequently. They couldn't stay in one place very long because the Taliban would find them. And she said occasionally there was a knock on her relatives' door, saying ``We know where Patmana is,'' and that would be a signal to move. She and her husband now live happily in Keene, NH. I am pleased to say her husband has found work as an auditor with a local financial company, and they have a 2-year-old daughter. They are welcomed as valued members of the Keene community and of our larger Granite State family. The many contributions of these Afghans--both in Afghanistan and now as residents or citizens of the United States--those contributions help explain why senior U.S. commanders and diplomats have urged Congress to extend the Afghan SIV Program. Our Secretary of Defense, GEN James Mattis, during the confirmation process, said: ``Most of our units could not have accomplished their missions without the assistance, often at the risk of their lives, of these courageous men and women.'' We would never leave an American warrior behind on the battlefield. Likewise, we must not leave behind the Afghan interpreters who served side by side with our warriors and diplomats. We made a solemn promise to these brave people, and I am going to do everything I can to ensure that we keep this promise. I know there is a lot of bipartisan support in this body to do that. So today I am introducing the Keep Our Promise to Our Afghan Allies Act with Senators McCain, Reed, and Tillis. This legislation would authorize additional special immigrant visas and would help ensure that the program does not lapse and leave behind thousands of Afghans who helped us with the threat by the Taliban. In addition, I intend to work closely with Senators who are negotiating legislation to fund the Federal Government in order to ensure that additional visas are included. I urge my colleagues to join me. Let's keep the promise we made to our Afghan allies and support these efforts.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I just wanted to say how pleased I am to be able to join my colleague from New Hampshire on the floor for her official maiden address. It is so nice to see so many of our women colleagues here for this as well. As she pointed out, I just wanted to echo the great work Senator Hassan has done, especially as Governor, in expanding the Medicaid Program in New Hampshire so that it provides treatment for so many people, especially when it comes to the heroin and opioid epidemic, and why we are so concerned about any efforts to roll that back--because that would kick thousands of people in New Hampshire off of treatment with nowhere else to go. I certainly plan to continue to join her as we fight for this effort, and I know our colleagues are going to help us in that. I believe that if we all work together, we can make progress, as she has so eloquently stated. So congratulations to Senator Hassan for her first official maiden speech. I know it will be just one of many more to come. (The remarks of Mrs. Shaheen pertaining to the submission of S. 630 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.)

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor again today to speak about a program I have been working on that has had bipartisan support for a number of years; that is, the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program. This program allows Afghans, including interpreters, who have supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and who face threats as a result of their service to apply for refuge in the United States. As I said, this has had strong bipartisan support. I have worked with Senators McCain, Tillis, Leahy, Graham, and so many others here in the Chamber to try to make sure we provide enough visas for those Afghans who are being threatened and who want to come to the United States. I wish to point out that the Trump administration, even as it has sharply restricted immigration and refugee programs, has made exceptions for those who served alongside our soldiers and diplomats. In fact, when the administration's original Executive order on immigration was released, there was bipartisan anger that Iraqi interpreters were not protected because this program has served not just those in Afghanistan who have helped us but also those in Iraq. So the administration recognized its mistake and has made an exception for Iraqi SIV recipients, and now they have exempted Iraq from their Executive order. It is really past time that we rally renewed support for the Afghan SIV Program. Last week, we learned that the State Department has stopped interviewing applicants for the Afghan program because there are more applicants in the final stages of the process than there are visas. Unless Congress acts, the final visas will be exhausted by the end of May. It is estimated that more than 10,000 applicants are still in some step of the process of obtaining these visas. For these Afghans, it really is no exaggeration to say that this is a matter of life and death. Interpreters who served the U.S. mission are being systematically hunted down by the Taliban, and unless Congress acts, this program will lapse and we will abandon these Afghans to a harsh fate. The United States promised to protect those Afghans who served our mission with great loyalty and at enormous risk, and it would be a stain on our national honor to break this promise. It would also carry profound strategic costs. U.S. forces and diplomats have always relied on local people to help us accomplish our missions. We continue to require this assistance in Afghanistan, and we will need this support in other places in the future where we face conflict. So we have to ask, if we don't keep our promise, why would anyone agree to help the United States if we abandon those who assist us? This is exactly why the former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, GEN David Petraeus, and his predecessor, GEN Stanley McChrystal, have pleaded with Congress to extend the Afghan SIV Program. In a letter to Congress last year, more than 30 additional prominent generals, including Gen. John Allen, the former commander in Afghanistan, GEN George Casey, the former commander in Iraq, and two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also urged Congress to extend the program. In addition, our soldiers and marines are keenly interested in protecting the interpreters who served with them in Afghanistan. Many of them owe their lives to the interpreters who went into combat with them. In recent years, I have gotten to know one of those servicemen, a former Army captain, Michael Breen, who is a Granite Stater. He served with the infantry in Iraq and led paratroopers in Afghanistan. He speaks with admiration about one interpreter in particular who was an Iraqi--part of the Iraqi program--a woman in her early twenties who was named Wissam. On one occasion, Captain Breen and his soldiers were at a small forward operating base in Iraq. He said that a man approached, frantically pointing to his watch and indicating an explosion with his hands. The Americans didn't speak Arabic, so they couldn't tell if the man was trying to warn them or threaten them. Wissam hurried over toward Captain Breen to assist. Wissam was beloved by her American comrades, always cheerful and eager to help. She listened to the man and said that he was actually there warning of an improvised explosive device on the main road. As Captain Breen later told me, ``A trusted interpreter can be the difference between a successful patrol and a body bag.'' He noted that every night, he and his fellow soldiers would hunker down in their heavily guarded perimeter, but Wissam would leave the compound and go home. One evening after she left the American compound, three gunmen ambushed her car. She was killed--one more interpreter who paid the ultimate price for serving the American mission. As Captain Breen later said, one day there will be a granite monument with the names of all of the American servicemembers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wissam deserves to have her name on that monument, too, because she took great risks and she gave her life while serving the United States. To be eligible for a visa through the Afghan SIV Program, new applicants must demonstrate at least 2 years of faithful and valuable service to the U.S. mission. To receive a visa, they must also clear a rigorous screening process that includes an independent verification of their service and then an intensive interagency review. We know that the service of these individuals has been critical to our successes in Afghanistan. Last month in Keene, NH, I met with a remarkable recent immigrant from Afghanistan named Patmana Rafiq Kunary. Patmana had worked closely with the U.S. Agency for International Development in Kabul. She went door to door, encouraging women to take out microloans to start their own businesses. Patmana eventually became vice president for operations at the USAID-sponsored Microloan Program. In fact, just today I talked to a woman reporter from Afghanistan who wanted to know what message of hope I could provide to the women of Afghanistan. Well, I told her about Patmana, and I told her that one of the things that keep us in Afghanistan supporting our soldiers is concern about what is happening to the women in Afghanistan. For Patmana, going door to door and working closely with Americans-- this was dangerous work. She drew unwelcome attention wherever she went, and she became a high-profile target for the Taliban and others. And then one day in 2013, she got a call at her USAID office. It was from the distraught wife of one of her USAID colleagues, another Afghan. The caller's husband had just been murdered, apparently in retaliation for his work with the Americans. Realizing that her life was in danger, too, Patmana applied for a special immigrant visa. For 2 years, she and her husband were subjected to repeated interviews at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. Her background was checked and rechecked before visas were finally granted. She told me that they would move frequently. They couldn't stay in one place very long because the Taliban would find them. And she said occasionally there was a knock on her relatives' door, saying ``We know where Patmana is,'' and that would be a signal to move. She and her husband now live happily in Keene, NH. I am pleased to say her husband has found work as an auditor with a local financial company, and they have a 2-year-old daughter. They are welcomed as valued members of the Keene community and of our larger Granite State family. The many contributions of these Afghans--both in Afghanistan and now as residents or citizens of the United States--those contributions help explain why senior U.S. commanders and diplomats have urged Congress to extend the Afghan SIV Program. Our Secretary of Defense, GEN James Mattis, during the confirmation process, said: ``Most of our units could not have accomplished their missions without the assistance, often at the risk of their lives, of these courageous men and women.'' We would never leave an American warrior behind on the battlefield. Likewise, we must not leave behind the Afghan interpreters who served side by side with our warriors and diplomats. We made a solemn promise to these brave people, and I am going to do everything I can to ensure that we keep this promise. I know there is a lot of bipartisan support in this body to do that. So today I am introducing the Keep Our Promise to Our Afghan Allies Act with Senators McCain, Reed, and Tillis. This legislation would authorize additional special immigrant visas and would help ensure that the program does not lapse and leave behind thousands of Afghans who helped us with the threat by the Taliban. In addition, I intend to work closely with Senators who are negotiating legislation to fund the Federal Government in order to ensure that additional visas are included. I urge my colleagues to join me. Let's keep the promise we made to our Afghan allies and support these efforts.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Cardin, in urging the Senate to approve Montenegro's accession into NATO. It is long overdue, as they have both said. This is something that has been approved by the Foreign Relations Committee not once but twice--last year in the last Congress and again in January of this year. We have heard expert testimony from a whole bipartisan group of diplomats, national security experts, and former administration officials, urging quick action on Montenegro's accession. There is no reason for any further delay. My colleagues here who have been such great leaders on the importance of responding to Russia's actions, of addressing their interference in our elections here in America, but also of addressing what they are doing in Europe, have said it very eloquently. We need to get this done; and 25 of the 28 member states have already ratified the protocol, according to their own procedures. The Senate must act. One of the priorities of the NATO summit last year in Warsaw was bolstering NATO's resilience and its capacity to deter Russian aggression against NATO's eastern flank. At that summit, NATO invited Montenegro to become its 29th member. As Senators McCain and Cardin have already said, Russia is opposed to Montenegro's accession into NATO. It has warned Montenegro of retaliation if it pursues NATO membership. Furthermore, we have seen what that retaliation looked like. During Montenegro's general election last October, 20 people were arrested on suspicion of plotting, with support from Russia, to overthrow the government and assassinate the Prime Minister--all because he has supported NATO accession. When we were in Munich for the security conference a couple of weeks ago, Senator McCain and I and the congressional delegation that was there heard from Montenegrin Prime Minister Djukanovic, who talked about what he experienced from the Russians and about the Russian effort to overthrow his government, a duly elected democracy. Just last month, their chief special prosecutor announced that his government had evidence that Russia's Federal Security Service was involved in a failed coup. Mr. President, I have two news articles about this story that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record so that everybody understands that it is very clear what is going on.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. The best thing we can do in the United States in the Senate is to approve Montenegro's accession because that sends a very clear message to Russia that we are not going to put up with that kind of interference. What I don't understand is why anybody in this body wants to prevent us from approving this accession. Are they supporting Russia in their activities? Are they opposed to NATO? What is the deal here? They need to come forward and tell us what their objections are. Why aren't they letting this go through? Why are they willing to stand up for Russia and not for Montenegro and not for Europe and not for the United States? Those are the questions that I have, and I want whoever objects to come to the floor and tell us why they are objecting, because Montenegro and our NATO partners deserve at least that much. It is now time to stand up strong for Montenegro, for their right to self-determination, for their right to join NATO, for the West and for NATO. I hope that we are going to be able to get this through this afternoon. I will defer to my colleague from Arizona to make the unanimous consent request.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I just have to follow up on Senator McCain's comments. How disappointing it is that we saw the Senator from Kentucky come to the floor to object to something that is clearly in the national security interests of this country--to support Montenegro's accession to NATO. It is in Europe's interest, in Montenegro's interest, and it is in America's interest. I have to agree with Senator McCain. He is working in support of Russia's interests in America or he is holding this hostage for something that is totally unrelated to what we are doing with Montenegro's accession into NATO. In either case, it is totally inappropriate. When are people in the Senate going to stop holding hostage things that are totally unrelated to the work on the floor of the Senate and start acting like adults and doing what we ought to be doing in this body? It is so hard to understand why somebody is here doing that, and, you know, I am disappointed that he is not willing to come to the floor and say why he is holding this up. If he has a good reason, he should be here talking about that reason, and let's see if we can find a compromise. But if he is not willing to come to the floor and talk about it, what does that mean? What does that mean for the future of this kind of treaty? And what is Montenegro's right to self- determination and our national security interests? It is just unfathomable. So I am going--I think we should all keep coming to the floor on a regular basis, and I am hopeful that if we do that, we will eventually be able to find out what Senator Paul's objection is and address that because we can't let this stay in limbo in perpetuity.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. I think that is a huge problem. New Hampshire has a population that is one of the fastest aging in the country. As Senator Wyden points out, not only does the TrumpCare legislation change how people on Medicare are charged for their health insurance, but it also would change the other aspects of the Affordable Care Act that have been beneficial, such as preventive care under Medicare. It would also change the effort to close the doughnut hole--the cost of the prescription drugs that seniors buy. That has been a huge benefit to people in New Hampshire over the last few years because they are beginning to see their costs for prescription drugs affected positively. So it will have a huge impact on seniors in New Hampshire. The other issue that will have an impact not only on seniors but on everybody is what will happen to our rural hospitals. In New Hampshire, because we have a lot of rural areas in the State, we have a lot of small towns. Most of our hospitals are small and rural. They have benefitted significantly under the Affordable Care Act because they have been able to get paid for people who come to the emergency room for treatment. We have gotten a lot of people out of emergency rooms and into primary care. Most hospitals have seen about a 40-percent decline in people using emergency rooms for their healthcare. That has been a huge, important benefit to our rural hospitals that are operating on very thin margins that we need to keep open, not just because of the healthcare they provide but because of the jobs they provide. In most of our small communities, those hospitals are among the biggest employers. There are huge impacts if we repeal the Affordable Care Act and we put in place this TrumpCare policy that doesn't cover as many people. It is going to cost more, it is going to reduce the help people are getting through their healthcare coverage, and it is going to have a detrimental impact on people in the State of New Hampshire and across this country.