vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 95, the nays are 3. the bill as amended is passed. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i move to proceed to h.r. 5325. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 516, h.r. 5325, an act making appropriations for the legislative branch, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous

consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i have nine requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and the minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. leahy: madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, let me first of all -- and i will just be very brief here, but i do want to -- what we just did was a major bill. it took a lot of effort on behalf of a lot of people. many times the members get more credit than they should because the real heroes are the ones that are back there doing the work, and i want to thank the staff responsible for the hours, a lot of late nights. i could single out my chief of staff, ryan jackson, and alex

harrigott. they do a lot of night work on these things as well as many on the other side. it's -- in the case of alex harrigott who was kind of driving this thing, he has been doing this for me for over a dozen years. we have had a lot of successes. and on -- i also want to recognize susan bodine who is sitting right here. she is a long-time wrda expert, going back to the last time, two years ago, that we had the wrda bill, 2014. and she worked actually on wrda in the house side for what? 20 years. 20 sounds better. and charles brittenham, these are the two actually who spent their time on my side of the aisle who did really the hardest and longest hours. he was originally on loan to me from senator vitter. now he is a full member of the e. pes w. committee.

few have better expertise on the core operation than charles. i want to thank joe brown for his long hours and jenny wright, andrew nealey for their work on oklahoma priorities on this bill, along with carter vella and amanda hall. i want to thank be jason albritton and ted britton on senator boxer's staff for their work on this team. thanks patina as always, patina poyer for the hard work she did. thank the quick and hardworking aurora swanson of c.b.o. we put the burden on c.b.o. they had to respond immediately in order to get this done as everybody said would be impossible during this work period. she played a major part in that. also, the scoring was necessary for legislative counsel deanna edwards and maureen katriny.

i want to thank neil for his work from the leader's office. it's very, very helpful and i've already mentioned the hard work of my colleague, senator boxer, in making this thing a reality. it was a project that couldn't have been done any other way with any other people, and i'm very proud to have that behind us now. with that i will yield the floor leag madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i would ask consent that to statements of mine be placed in the record as if though read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: one i noticed about my dear friend who is recently departed, robert dun f.y., sr. if i could take a moment, i don't think people realize outside how many men and women on both sides of the aisle work

so hard to make the senate work, to keep things going. i've often said only partially in jest the u.s. senators are merely constitutional impediments to the staff who do all the work. one of those people is tim mitchell. he has -- i have been here from the day he began, 25 years ago today. i know his wonderful wife, alicia, and his son ben who is in my grandson's class. we see them playing sports together. and if i'm ever feeling down about prospects of the red sox, i simply ask tim.

and you know the sun will come up tomorrow because tim will point out we saw the chance -- still have the chance of this or that the. i have also been at the white house with him when the red sox have come and we've had the world series trophies there. but more importantly, madam president, tim is a true professional and one of the most honest people i've known. he -- if it's bad news, he'll give you the bad news but his personality is so nice, it's almost acceptable. but i can go to him. he'll keep confidences if we ask him to. he understands the senate, every single aspect of the senate as well as anybody i've ever worked with and i've been here 40 years. he is a person everyone who

works for the senate, they should model themselves after him. he's -- he works very well with his republican counterparts, and he has respect of all senators. so, madam president, i don't want to embarrass tim but as the dean of the senate, the one who's served here the longest, i think it's safe for me to say i know of no one finer. he's a wonderful person, and i commend him. i commend the sacrifices that alicia and ben put up with because there are some nights we're here very late. i know what it is to miss a child's game or play or school matter. tim has had to do that. but i would address this part to

alicia and to ben. be very proud. ben, be extrord nairl -- extraordinarily proud of your father and aleash yarks i know you love -- alicia, i know you love and respect and can be proud of your husband. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon wide before he leaves -- mr. wyden: before he leaves the floor, i note the very fine statement of the dean of the senate democrats, and i would just like to say that i want to subscribe to senator leahy's view and be a charter member of the caucus. i thank you, senator la leahy. madam president and colleagues, i come here to discuss s. 2979, the presidential tax transparency act. i'm very pleased that my

colleague on the finance committee, such a valuable member, senator cardin, is here as well. madam president, in america, nobody forces you to run for president. you volunteer to run for president and this year we have had a bumper crop of volunteers. now, since watergate, there has been a bipartisan tradition honored by all candidates that they would release their tax returns. every democrat, every republican, every liberal, every conservative has subscribed to honoring this particular tradition. why is it so important?

tax returns say so much about a candidate for the world's most demanding job rather than the spin and deception that count as messaging in a presidential campaign the tax returns are legally required to be an accounting in black and white of a candidate's honesty, integrity, and their personal priorities. a return can show whether a nominee has intimate connections to powerful interests in foreign governments whose priorities run contrary to the interests of typical americans. a return highlights important questions about integrity. are you the person giving to charity? or as some have wondered, are

you converting another donor's gift into your own? are you using charities for personal gain? a return shows if you pay any taxes at all or if you use the complexity of this byzantine tax code to hide your income while working americans have their taxes taken out of their paycheck. today -- i made it clear i'm going to shortly try to get support for the presidential tax transparency act. today honest taxpayers who dot every "i "and cross every "t" are faced with a major presidential candidate who refuses to show even one single page of his tax return. did a tradition honored by every

candidate since watergate is just too dangerous to ignore. so shortly i will ask unanimous consent that the senate pass 2979, the presidential tax transparency act. it is a straightforward proposal. it says within just over two weeks of becoming a nominee, party convention nominees are required to release at least three years of tax returns. if they refuse, the treasury secretary provides the returns to the federal election commission and they are put online automatically. now, madam president, since i introduced this bill in the spring, i was asked again and again what was behind my thinking. i remember talking to senator cardin, my colleague on the finance committee about it. and i said at home, through town

meetings, to colleagues here, oh, how i wish this bill was not necessary. i think certainly millions of americans say hey, lots of laws already. why do we need more laws? and i think we all should feel very proud of this 40--year bipartisan voluntary tradition that all the candidates have honored and i have waited to bring this bill up in front of the senate until it was clear that the tradition would not be honored this year. sol i believe it is time for -- so i believe it is time for the senate to act on s. 2979, the presidential tax transparency act to protect honesty and accountability and transparency in our presidential election

process. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent the committee on rules and administration be discharged from further consideration of s. 2979, the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: reserving the right to object. if my friend from oregon wants to discuss transparency and bringing the presidential election here to the floor of the united states senate, i think the person we should start with is the former secretary of state. she has had to put it charitably innumerable challenges on the topic of transparency but let's

just look at one. all we need to do is look at the way she exposed some of our nation's most highly classified information by setting up a private e-mail server in her home and the ensuing investigation produced nothing but stonewalling, obfuscation and misleading statements she made to the american public. when f.b.i. director james comey announced the agency was closing the investigation, his statements made clear that hillary clinton had not been telling the truth. she did send, she did receive classified information again at some of the various highest levels. director comey said she and her staff who aided and abetted her were -- quote -- extremely careless in their handling of this highly sensitive information. in response, i've introduced legislation with the junior senator from colorado, senator

gardner to help hold her and her staff accountable. the bill is called the trust act and it would revoke the security clearance of any person found to have been extremely careless in the handling of classified information and it would keep them from receiving a security clearance in the future. it would also clarify that when someone has been found by investigators to have been extremely careless in handling classified information, that is tantamount to gross negligence. so i would ask the senator from oregon to modify his request so that s. 2979 and s. 3135 be discharged from their respective committees and the senate proceed to their immediate consideration. i'd ask consent that the bills be read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: will the senator so modify his

request? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, madam president. madam president, first of all, it is with great disappointment and regret that i note that senate republicans are willing to throw aside a 40-year tradition of honesty and openness in our presidential elections by blocking the presidential tax transparency act. now, with respect to their own proposal, i want to be clear on this point. the bill that i have authored, s. 2979, the presidential tax transparency act, affects all the candidates for president in

an attempt to preserve the tradition of openness and accountability that is no longer being honored. the proposal offered by my colleague from texas on behalf of senate republicans responds with a bill targeted at one candidate, one candidate. a proposal that all our true national security experts have said would harm america's security -- it's not just for their benefit. it's for the benefit of the american people so that we have a smooth democratic transition of power without risk to our national security. this attempt to hide the dishonoring of a tradition of openness and accountability

between a -- behind a political witchhunt ought to tell americans all they need to know about senate republicans at this point and for that reason i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the -- is there objection to the original request? mr. cornyn: madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, i join with senator wyden in my deep disappointment that the republicans have objected to the continuation of a policy that has voluntarily been done for 40 years, and that is those that are running for president of the united states to release their tax returns. i just really want to underscore a couple points that senator wyden made, and i thank him very much for his leadership on this. madamadam president, i just came from a hearing where i have the

privilege of being the ranking democrat. a large part of that hearing dealt with transparency, good governance, corruption, anticorruption. that's a key fundamental for afghanistan's success. this morning i also had a chance to meet with the new leader of burma. she has tremendous challenges in that emerging country: transparency and anticorruption are critically important to the success of that democracy. so when the united states stands internationally for good governance, anticorruption, transparency, we first have to deal with our issues at home. it's hard for us to demand transparency globally when we ourselves fall victim to the failure to make information available to the public that they desperately need. let me tell you why that is important. this is not theoretical.

the "panama papers" indicate that heads of state -- current heads of state and former heads of state -- have used ways to avoid public disclosure of the gains of their office, the connections that they've had. there's a reason why for 40 years we've seen the release of tax returns by those running for president. the public has a right to know before they vote of the potential conflicts that that individual brings to the office of the presidency, the highest office in the land. senator wyden pointed out accurately that that tax return could very well show international contacts, international business, offshore activities that the public has a right to have debated during the course of a campaign. it may show a presidential

candidate's use of our provisions within our tax code to pay a different tax rate -- or no taxes at all -- and the public mass a right to know that before they cast their votes, so they can question about that. the tax return may show that certain statements made in regards to the use of charities are either appropriate or not appropriate, but they have the right to debate that before they cast their votes. so senator wyden's bill carries out current practice. i don't think anyone thought six months ago that someone would step forward to run for the presidency of the united states, accept the nomination after major political party, without disclosing their tax returns. i don't think that's been an issue. and senator wyden has been very patient with this bill. secretary clinton has disclosed

her tax returns. secretary clinton has made available her e-mails through appropriate channels. that's been done. that transparency has been made. but there is a person running on the republican side who has refused to disclose his tax returns. that's wrong. that denies the american people the transparency they need to judge the candidate and to engage in a political discourse during the campaign, which is critically important to their decision as to who the next president of the united states should be. i'm extremely disappointed that there's been an objection to senator wyden's request that we require those who want to be president of the united states, the highest office of this land, the highest office in the free world, the right -- the responsibility to file their tax returns. i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: 0

quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: are we in a quorum call? i'm here to talk about the tax transparency act, a proposal that would require every candidate of a major part to release their tax yearns. hillary clinton has already done it. in fact, every single general election candidate in the past nine elections has done it. so i'll be honest, this is not the kind of legislation i thought congress would ever need to pass. but, like a lot of people, i never thought that someone like donald trump would be the nominee of a major political party. now, donald trump makes a big show of strutting around pretending to be tough, but he's too chicken to show his tax returns to the american people. he's had a million excuses, but we all know why donald trump isn't releasing his taxes.

he's hiding something. for a long time i wasn't sure what he was hiding, but thanks to the tireless work of journalists and experts we at least have some clues about what he's hiding. we don't have everything but some of his secrets are starting to leak to the public and they are not pretty. let's start with the tax scams that we know about. here are just three of them: the first scam is claiming tax credits for homeowners who make less than $500,000 a year. he wasn't eligible, so he lied. nothing fancy. eventually the press caught wind of it and trump paid up. and if he hadn't been caught, he'd still be lying about it today. here's another trump tax scam: scoop up hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate developer subsidies, then skip out on paying any income taxes. in 1978, 1979, 1991, 1993, trump paid zero dollars in

income taxes. zero. and that's not a comprehensive list of his zero tax years. it's just the years when, for one reason or another, his tax returns were public. and here's the third trump tax scam: in this campaign trump claims the charitable deduction when he gives money to his own foundation, and then he uses that foundation for personal expenses and campaign fund-raising. now, that's just the stuff we know about, so how bad are the things we don't know about? the american people should see donald trump's tax returns so they can decide for themselves if his shameful and in some cases illegal behavior disqualifies him from being president. the tax scams are awful, but they are a sideshow compared to what else is probably tucked away in his tax returns.

those tax returns would show his personal deals with foreign governments, arrangements that could put him in direct conflict with american interests. we already know about some of trump's foreign dealings. we know that he has gotten russian oligarchs with close ties to vladimir putin to fund his businesses. is he still doing that? we know that he has financial ties to political dynasties in turkey. we know that he's wrapped up in aggressive pipeline plans in north and east india. the list of countries where trump has financial conflicts is staggering: south korea, india, turkey, libya, russia, ukraine, united arab emirates. remember the libyan dictator qadhafi? back in 2009 trump was set to lease his own estate to the

dictator, but local protests shut that down. so who else has he been leasing his home to? putin? i mean maybe trump's next business will be air bnb for dictators. tax returns will not tell us everything, but we know that they would tell us something about what trump is hiding. donald trump praises brutal dictators and murderers. he threatens our allies. he denigrates democracy right here at home. he's right out front with all of that stuff. so what is so bad that donald trump has to hide it? would his tax returns show how deeply donald trump's personal financial interests run directly counter to the national interests of the united states of america? it's eight weeks before a national election.

everyone -- everyone -- wants donald trump to do what other candidates, republican candidates and democratic candidates, have done and disclose his financial information to the american people. george w. bush's i.r.s. commissioner has said trump should release his taxes. period. the i.r.s. chief counsel for ronald reagan has said the same thing. trump should release his taxes. period. ted cruz has released his taxes. john kasich released his taxes. jeb bush released his taxes going all the way back to 1981. now look, it's no surprise that trump thinks the rules don't apply to him. he never does. but the american people are not going to buy a pig in a poke. he should release his taxes voluntarily. but since he won't, then we should pass the presidential tax transparency act and make him release those taxes.

no one knows what he's up to with russia or libya or any other country. let's take a look at his taxes and find out. thank you, madam president. i yield and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: madam president, yesterday i joined senator manchin, senator warren and others, senator capito about the mine workers pension, and i want to come to the floor again today. i don't think -- i just can't believe that my colleagues are going to go home. some wanted to go today, make this the last day of session. others are saying next week. i think there's no excuse for the senate to leave here without taking care of the long time starting with harry truman agreement that we've made with the people to go down in coal mines and do their work. they are -- they powered this country and have for decades. it's one of the most difficult, least safe jobs in the country.

i wear on my lapel a depiction given to me at a workers memorial day rally of a canary in a bird cage. the mine workers used to take a canary in the mines. they had no union 100 years ago to protect them. they had no government that cared enough to protect them, protect them and their safety. they relied on this canary. if the canary died, they got out of the mines. they were on their own. we know this proud history of mine workers in ohio and west virginia and kentucky and western pennsylvania and southwest virginia. we have an obligation. the antilabor sentiment in this body, particularly in republican leadership, that they -- that these mine workers when they negotiated their wages at the bargaining table, they gave up wages 20 years ago or 30 years ago or 40 years ago, so they gave up wages then so they would have pension and health care later.

they were some of the most patriotic people, have been. when we had our rally the other day outside the capitol for the -- to push senator mcconnell to do his job, to push this senate to do its job -- this is a senate that's been out of session more than any senate in the last 60 years. they simply don't want to do its job. even -- forgetting about nominating, having hearings on a supreme court nominee, forgetting about the zika virus for a moment but this senate isn't doing its job and it starts down the hall, the majority leader's office simply refusing to bring to a vote this very simple bill to protect miners' pension and health care. it doesn't cost taxpayer dollars. it's moving money from the mine, abandoned miner's fund into this pension, this umwa pension and health care fund. it's a betrayal of those workers. it's simply saying we don't care about those workers.

and i can't believe in this body, which doesn't seem to care much about workers, doesn't seem to care much about people that work with their hands, doesn't seem to care much about the safety of workers, doesn't seem to care much about the air they breathe and the conditions they work in, this is a chance finally for this body to go on record saying, yeah, we actually think mine workers who are -- who have dedicated their lives to working in some of the most difficult jobs in the country that we live up to our obligations. other than that it's a betrayal of those workers coming straight out of the majority leader's office. it's shameful that the senate is thinking about going home without doing its work. i again ask the leader to schedule this so we can move forward. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. provide the clerk will call the roll. -- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as you hear in montana and i hear in wyoming weekend after weekend as we go home, as we travel the state over the summertime, we're hearing from more people, we're seeing more articles in the newspaper about how the obamacare health care law is falling apart. every member of this body, every member of this body probably hears the same stories that i hear and heard again today visiting with people from wyoming. stories from people who can no longer afford their health care premiums, their health care coverage, their co-pays, the deductibles, all of the things that have happened because of the obama health care law. so i think it's interesting, mr. president, to reflect on that new survey done by the gallup organization, well-known pollsters from around the country, with a long history. they released numbers last week

about what people are seeing around the country with regard to obamacare, the things that we have been hearing at home every weekend. the first thing that we found is that more americans disapprove of obamacare than approve of it. now, it was interesting because the senate minority leader, harry reid, was on the floor yesterday saying repeatedly isn't obamacare great? well, i would say to my friend and colleague from nevada that no, as a matter of fact, more americans disapprove, thumbs down, about the obama health care law than people that approve. well, that's not what was supposed to happen. oh, no, when the minority leadey leader, then the majority leader, came to the floor a number of years ago with a bill that was written behind closed doors in his office, when they forced this through the house and the senate, they said it would be great. senator schumer, who may likely

become the new leader of the democrats in a new senate after the minority leader retires, he predicted from the floor right over there that the law was going to be much more popular as time went on. he said -- quote -- "when people see what is in the bill and when people see what it does, they will come around." well, mr. president, it's now been six years. people have seen what's been in the bill. remember nancy pelosi saying first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. people have seen what's in it. they have not come around. people disapprove of the president's health care law thumbs down 51%. and it's interesting because the numbers have actually gotten worse. in spite of what the senate minority leader said yesterday repeatedly when he said isn't obamacare great. well, four years ago when gallup

asked the same question, the numbers were actually only 45%. now it's 51% disapproves, so it's actually heading backward. obamacare is becoming more unpopular as time goes on, as people see why it has actually hurt them personally. yes, mr. president, that's what i said. hurt them personally. the president's signature law hurting them personally. so let's take a look. how many people tell others that the obama health care law has hurt them personally? them and their families? record numbers say obamacare hurt their family, 29%. have people been helped by the health care law? yes. only 18% of people, though, say they were helped by the health care law. mr. president, what i hear repeatedly in wyoming and i assume you hear repeatedly in montana is that the president

should not have had to hurt this many americans to try to help people that didn't have insurance. why should they have hurt people that had insurance to help those that didn't? that's why this law continues to be so unpopular. it's a record number. it's not what the president or the democrats have said would happen with the health care law. what does the president say about the law? he says forcefully defend and be proud, and i think that's why we see the minority leader on the floor yesterday saying isn't obamacare great. the minority party whip came to the floor on tuesday. he said the major aspects of the law are working. that's what he said. this doesn't look like a law that's working to me. more americans have been hurt by the law than have been helped.

the senator from illinois says hey, the majority of the parts, the major aspects of the law are working. well, what are the major aspects? premiums, what people have to pay, premiums are going through the roof. in that senator's home state of illinois, the average person in an obamacare exchange is going to be paying 45% more next year than this year. that's when they select their plans november 1, when they go to the exchange, see what's available, they're going to find 45% more expensive than this year. so it doesn't seem like the fundamental parts of the law are working. why did the rates go up? it's because of obamacare and the mandates that come from a washington that decides it knows better than the people know themselves. because they have to buy insurance that the president says they have to buy, not what they think might work best for them or their families. that's why record numbers say obamacare has hurt their family. they can't buy what they want,

they are paying a price that's too high, the deductibles are too high, the co-pays are too high, and so we hear the story of what's happening with obamacare. there was one other question in this poll that i'd like to point to, mr. president, and they asked all these american families about obamacare. they say in the long run, in the long run, how do you think the health care law will affect your family's health care situation? will it make it better for your family as the democrats promise, will it have no effect or will it actually make things worse for you and your family? mr. president, over one-third of americans, 36%, say that the health care law will make health care for them and for their family worse. less than one in four say it's going to make it better. so more say obamacare will make their family's health care

situation worse. mr. president, that's an overwhelming margin. now, it's even higher margin than last year, so as people see the impact of the health care law, see the impact on themselves and on their families, they are looking at this saying things are going to continue to get worse because premiums will continue to go up, co-pays have continued to go up, deductibles have been continuing to go up, and their options are fewer and fewer. what's the administration say about that? well, the secretary of health and human services, sylvia burwell, wrote an op-ed that appeared in cnn. it was an op-ed entitled "the reality of the health insurance marketplace." she said that all these higher prices that people are experiencing all around the country, the reason that people are saying it's worse for them and their family, that they have been hurt by the health care law, she described these as growing pains. that's what she said,

mr. president, growing pains. well, as a doctor who practiced medicine for 25 years, i can tell you that growing pains generally happen when something is growing. but that's not what's happening here. what's actually happening here is obamacare is shrinking. the obamacare exchanges are shrinking. millions of americans will have fewer choices this year when they go to the obamacare exchange than they had to buy insurance last year. in about one out of every three counties in america, in one out of every three counties in america, people are going to be limited to only one single obamacare coverage choice in 2017. well, in her op ed, the secretary talked about the health insurance marketplace. mr. president, when there's only one coselling insurance to a third -- company selling

insurance to one-third, that's a monopoly. that's why so many people say for them and their families, they've been personally hurt by the law and they believe it is going to make things worse for their family. this democrats health care law is turning the country into an obamacare wasteland, a wasteland without choice, without opportunities to make decisions about what's best for you and your family. that's why the american people are so worried about the future of their health care and why an incredible spike in the number of people who think for the future their health care will get worse. people look at these unsustainable price increases and they say what am i going to do. they can't afford the insurance now. maybe they can make it through this year. what about next year? mr. president, people want and need relief because even if you are down to one choice, even if there is a monopoly and you're down to one choice and you have

to buy it because if you don't, president obama and the democrats say you must pay a fine, you must pay a penalty, you mix pay a tax even though you -- you must pay a tax even though you have no choice. that's the democrats' health care. penalize them and tax them but we're not going to give them a choice. there is a monopoly. people want and deserve relief and republicans are offering that kind of relief. we're offering relief and saying if you live in one of those counties where you're one out of every three, you have no choices, the penalty, the mandates and fines should not apply to you. the democrats say pay up anyway. if you live in a location where your premiums have gone up over 10%, the republicans say you deserve relief from what president obama and the democrats have forced upon you. the democrats say tough, pay up anyway, pay the fine, pay the penalty, pay the tax. mr. president, the american people deserve relief. people around the country are frightened by what they're

seeing. they're frightened by what's happening with the health care law and the impacts and they can see it getting worse and worse and worse. mr. president, this didn't have to happen. didn't have to happen. when the president wrote this law and had harry reid's office behind closed doors, have it written over in that area, ignoring the pleas of the republican, ignoring the please of the american people -- pleas of the american people who said do not do this to us. the democrats and the president said they know better. they know better than all of us. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. turned out to not be true. if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. turned out to not be true. premiums will drop by $2500 and that was per year. turned out to not be true. mr. president, the plight of this health care law has been very damaging to so many americans. there are people that needed help but the democrats should not have hurt so many americans

in their effort who had insurance, who had something that worked for them, who had something they could afford in an effort to help others that didn't have insurance. and that's why, mr. president, these people are desperately asking for relief from a one-size-fits-all approach with washington mandates, with unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats forcing more regulations on hospitals, on doctor, on nurses, on nursing homes across the board and that's why the american people say the health care law is going to make things even worse. mr. president, it's really distressing to hear a democrat senator come to the floor and say isn't obamacare great because, mr. president, the american people know that it is not. they know they have been hurt, they have been harmed, they have been taxed, they have been penalized. they have been forced to pay more, lost choices, lost opportunities because of this law and this administration and the way that this was passed

without listening to people from both sides. so i think it's time for the democrats to stop trying to spin this destructive law. it's time for them to work with republicans, to give the american people what they wanted from the beginning. they wanted the care that they need from a doctor that they choose at lower costs, not a health care law that so many americans believe is going to continue to make health care in this country worse. tank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call being vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominee comaition nation, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, susan s. gibson of virginia to be inspector general of the national reconnaissance office. the presiding officer: under

the previous order, there will be 15 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i rise to take a stand against russia's attempts to tamper with the american presidential electoral process to create chaos in our elections and at the end of the day undermine the integrity of the results of our election to serve its own purposes. i remind my colleagues that in 2012 i was a victim of such election tampering attempts. "the washington post" reported that while i was running for reelection and preparing to become chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, the c.i.a. had credible evidence, including internet protocol addresses linking cuban agents to planted stories in the united states and latin american publications. it was reported that those were sent by secure tables to the

f.b.i.'s counterintelligence division. despite all of our government's capabilities, they supposedly could not find who was behind the smear. maybe our government didn't want to rock the boat, as they were prepared to establish relations with cuba, but you would that i our government would do everything possible against a foreign government that was trying to upset the election of a sitting senator to effect u.s. policy. so let's be clear. in this new digital world of open and accessible personal information available to anyone who has the technical savvy to find it and use it for nefarious purposes, the election of anyone in this chamber is at risk. and we need to take a stand in this election cycle. we need the administration to come forward and tell us what they know about vladimir putin's efforts to influence our presidential election. we need to know what putin knows, and we must find out exactly who is behind it, what they have, and what's their

purpose. certainly more than my experience, and more than the republican nominee's deplorable admiration for dictators and strongmen. it's about protecting the american political process from outside interference and influence. let's be very clear. i know from my experience that we cannot underestimate the tradecraft of seasoned operatives like vladimir putin. we certainly cannot be naive enough to praise them for perceived strength and conflate it with the rut ruthless abuse f powmplet there is a difference between strengths. neither the government nor putin are friends of the united states. in putin's case, as he is, as my colleague from arizona who like me woos sanctioned by putin, has publicly called him a thug and a butcher. he is in fact a dictator who has been connected to the brutal

deaths of his enemies and now has shown a willingness to use cyber warfare to undermine our democratic process. he clearly is attempting to shape the bedrom integrity of our political system, as cuban intelligence tried to undermine my last election in an effort to prevent me from becoming chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. from my perspective, the purpose is not only to undermine credibility and faith but create a result that would benefit russia. these actions are beyond the scope of any acceptable international norm and cannot be tolerated. now with a laptop, a computer code and a k.g.b. pension to rebuild the russian empire, wage cold war 2.0, and use every technological tool to tip the geopolitical balance in russia's favor, we cannot in any way praise putin or anyone else who attempts to influence our election process for their

leadership. we've seen the manifestation of putin's methods in the latest cyber attack on the d.n.c. and in the long list of egregious conventional interventions from the the annexation of crimea to the orchestrating of supposed russian separatists who shot down malaysia airlines flight 17 over ukraine, his invasion of eastern ukraine to the use of irregular russian forces, now his troops amassing along the ukraine border, his invasion of georgia not long ago -- and you can see it in his efforts to undermine sovereignty through both broadcasting and sovereign efforts against those governments. we've seen it in his military and political maneuverings to maintain control of his naval base in syria by intervening with assad in the syrian civil war. in syria, putin has stepped up his support for his friend and dictator bashar al-assad. while its own citizens are

suffering and while innocent syrian disiflians shall shall civilians continue to suffer under the barrel bombs of assad, putin continues to provide military and tactical support to this murderous regime, attacking schools and hospitals with cluster munitions. further ignore the basic rights of all people as russia sells weapon systems to assad, refuses to grant asylum or basic museumtarian support to syrian refugees who are directly suffering under russia's continued snrovment their country. i remind my colleagues, putin is no friend to the united states. his brand of leadership is to be condemned in no uncertain terms and should be denounced in this chamber and by all responsible american presidential candidates. he is not a strong leader. he is a ruthless dictator who clearly knows his tradecraft has not only hacked into the d. th

c. computer files, capitalized on whatever businessize that paul man a foafort has or had t. mr. president, there is no room in n. chamber or in the american political landscape for the support of putin's actions or leadership. this former k.g.b. agent has a clear purpose in mind: he is engaged in a soviet cold war style brand of dicta editorial actions including state-sponsored surveillance censorship and repression. just look at the record. human rights groups continue to report that in 2015 the kremlin's crackdown on civil society, media, and the internet took a sinister turn as the government furthe. putin's thugs would routinely harass anyone and anyone who dares to question putin's authority. early this year a vocal critic was shot down in front of the

kremlin. quoting two reports, russia's police harassed environmentalists and russia tv published a smear campaign. the real spying, the dangerous activity comes from russia itself. it was july when russian hackers broke into the e-mail servers of the democratic national committee, a clear and blatant attempt to interfere it in our domestic political process. we know that russian actors released tens of thousands of e-mails with the intention of undermining the democratic nominee for president while amazingly the republican nominee seemed to encourage it. he encouraged an international adversary, someone he clearly admires for his supposed strength, to hack into the e-mails and the account of a former american secretary of state. this is not normal political campaign behavior. it is, in my view, treasonous, and there are no excuses, no

excuses for it. there's no defending it, there is no reasonable justification or explanation for defending it, and every one of my colleagues in this chamber should condemn it. encouraging hacking and government surveillance wreaks of authoritarianism that has no flais our democratic society and threatens each and every one of us. it's outrageous that anyone would invite a foreign leader of an adversarial country to undermine or threaten any american, let alone a former secretary of state and presidential candidate. putin clearly prefers a candidate who's willing to cozy up to dictators, who lavishes praise on his leadership styles, like those of saddam hussein. someone aspiring to be commander in chief, who praises the behavior of leaders who murder their own citizens, jail journalist whose dare to question their activities, or consistently take actions to isolate themselves from the international community in my view should not be someone seeking higher office. the presiding officer: the

senator's time has expired. mr. menendez: i ask for one additional minute. fer snrer objection? without objection. mr. menendez: any praise of putin for any reason, a cold warsameier who continues to seek its rule and control, holds false collection collections wi, stages war crimes -- war games on crimea's shores, clearly must raise a red flag to every american voter. we must respond to russia's continued muscle flexing and provocation. so i call on the administration for appropriate responses to russian's nefarious involvement in our elections. it is attacking the u.s. political system in a putin-led cold war 2.0 type. and it is clear this old k.g.b. spy has no boundaries. let's not confuse strength with ruthlessness, as some have. it's the hope that every one of my colleagues will in no

uncertain terms condemn any attempt by any nation to influence any american election as well as russian interventionism and putin's actions around the world. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: my understanding is that we have seven minutes left on the republican side. i would like to ask unanimous consent to use those seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i rise today to talk about this epidemic of heroin, prescription drugs, and now fentanyl and other synthetic heroin. it's devastating our communities. my home state is one of those states that's seen the tragedy of this epidemic unfold. the grip of this addiction has affected every single state in this chamber, though. people are talking about it more and more here in this chamber because it's affecting every one of us. every community, by the way. it knows no zip code. in the rural areas, suburban areas, inner city. no community is safe from it. yesterday i had a coffee, which

i do once a week -- our buckeye coffee. a woman came up to me at the coffee whose name was sheilah. sheilah told me about her son. and her daughter-in-law. they had overdosed. they were unconscious. she luckily had narcan this miracle drug, the name -- the brand name of name naloxone. she was able to bring them back to life. she then start add group that's all over our state called friends of addicts. they're in five different counties. they are focused on the hope of treatment and recovery, but they're also focused on when narcan is administered going to peernlings intervening with people, getting them into treatment, longer-term recovery and saving lives. i so appreciate her and other parents like her who around the state today are ensuring that, yes, we save people's lives with n.r.a. karntion which is so porntion but that we also ensure that we are getting people into

the treatment they need so they can get back to their life and families. this chamber passed legislation called the comprehensive addiction and recovery act earlier this summer. that is now being implemented by the administration. i hope they accelerate that implementation. they must because the re epidemc is so urgent. unfortunately, that legislation, which was written over the last three and a half years, doesn't address one specific issue that i think must be addressed now in the context of what's happening in my state of ohio and around the country. be because it's not just prescription drugs and not just heroin. increasingly it's synthetic heroin called fentanyl or carfentanil or u-4. this is poison and getting into our communities. it is more powerful than heroin. just having a few flakes of it ingested can kill a human being. what we've seen in ohio over the last couple of months is huge spikes in overdoses. in my hometown of cincinnati we

had 174 overdoses in the space of six days. miraculously most people were saved by narcan but sometimes having to be administered multiple times the authorities knew it wasn't just heroin and sure enough we were able to get a sample to them of car -- carfentanil which is 100 times stronger than fentanyl in some cases. it is a large animal drank -- large animal drank lieser -- tranquilizer. we need to be able to stop sin they tick drugs from -- synthetic drugs from coming into the communities. we're told drugs come in by way of the mail system and primarily from china and sometimes india.

there are chemists sending these poisons into our community. all we're asking in our legislation is to say let's ensure that packages coming from those countries have the information provided so we know where they're coming from, where they're going to, what the contents are. unbelievably that is not required now. it is required of fedex, ups, other private carriers but not of our mail system including the u.s. mail system. talking to law enforcement including customs and border protection, the d.e.a. folks, people who are day to day in the trenches dealing with this issue they all agree this legislation makes sense to try to stop some of this poison from coming into our communities. so mr. president, i've been on this floor every single week since our legislation came up here back on march 10. i've been talking about the importance of getting legislation passed. that's now happened. i've been talking about the importance of implementing quickly. that's now happened. the cara act was supported by a 92-2 vote in this chamber because every state is affected. now i believe we need to do even

more with regard to the specific issue of these synthetic drugs coming in to our country through the mail system, and i ask my colleagues who support it, with 92 of us supporting that legislation, please look at that legislation, support this, get it to the floor and a vote and let's begin saving lives with this new wave of synthetic heroin comings into our communities. mr. president, i yield back my time. the presiding officer: all time is expired. the question now is on the gibson nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. 123450 vote:

vote: