[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3398-S3419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL TO BE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar No. 8
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, 2 weeks ago I came to the Senate floor
to ask unanimous consent to ratify the protocol amending our tax treaty
with Switzerland. I argued that the new protocol would no longer permit
Swiss banks to withhold information on U.S. individuals who have hidden
behind Swiss bank secrecy laws to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
Today I come to the Senate floor to ask unanimous consent to ratify
the bilateral income tax treaty with Chile.
If the protocol with Switzerland is the perfect example of how tax
treaties enhance our efforts to prevent tax evasion, the treaty with
Chile--the first between our two countries--is the perfect example of
why the United States pursues tax treaties. We pursue them to promote
greater trading investment.
[[Page S3399]]
We pursue them to protect American companies from double taxation. We
pursue them to expand new markets and develop new business
opportunities for companies and investors.
On April 1 the Foreign Relations Committee, with strong bipartisan
support, reported favorably on a proposed new income tax treaty with
Chile. If ratified, the treaty would be only the third U.S. tax treaty
in all of Latin America, but it would be a significant step forward in
a region critical to U.S. international economic interests and would be
with one of our strongest allies in the hemisphere.
What does this treaty do? Simply put, it promotes trade and
investment between the United States and Chile. It provides for reduced
withholding rates on cross-border payments of dividends, interest, and
royalties. It would prevent avoidance or evasion of the taxes, includes
rigorous protections against treaty shopping, and ensures exchange of
information between our nations' tax authorities.
Let me also add, the American private sector's support for this
treaty is unequivocal. To quote from a 2013 letter to Senate leaders
from the National Foreign Trade Council, the National Association of
Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other major U.S.
business associations, `` . . . ratification would represent an
important milestone in lowering tax barriers to U.S. companies
operating in Latin America . . . and would protect the interests of
U.S. taxpayers'' in Chile.
This protects and grows U.S. investment in Chile. It expands U.S.
economic engagement in the region, and that is a win-win-win.
I know there are those in the Chamber who do not see it that way, but
these are the facts of economic engagement and economic statecraft in
the hemisphere.
In the last decade, Chile has taken a regional leadership role on
trade issues. It is one of our most important bilateral economic
partners in the region. Total bilateral trade has nearly tripled since
2003, and U.S. investment in Chile has more than tripled from $10
billion in 2004 to roughly $35 billion today. Ratifying this treaty
will take the bilateral commercial relationship to the next level.
I understand newly inaugurated Chilean President Michelle Bachelet
plans to travel to Washington later this month to continue the close
partnership between our two countries. Ratifying this treaty would send
President Bachelet a strong message that we value our partnership with
Chile and we are serious about further expanding economic opportunities
between our two countries.
Madam President, 1,421 days have passed since the last time this
Senate ratified an income tax treaty. We can end that ignoble streak
right now.
So I ask unanimous consent, at a time to be determined by the
majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 8, treaty
document No. 112-8; that the treaty be considered as having advanced
through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the
presentation of the resolutions of ratification; that any committee
declarations be agreed to as applicable; that any statements be printed
in the Record as if read; that if the resolution of ratification is
agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I think it
is important to remember that the vast majority of Americans are law-
abiding Americans who reside either here or overseas and that they do
have an expectation of privacy and they do have a right to privacy.
Those who break the law should be punished, but we can't forget about
the innocent Americans who are not breaking the law who do have a right
to privacy.
We have had treaties such as this for decades, and I am not opposed
to the treaties. There are beneficial aspects to the treaties. Past
treaties have had a standard which said that one had to be committing
tax fraud or that one had to be engaged in fraudulent activity, the
same way every American here expects that the government is not going
to look at a person's bank account unless they have gone to a judge
with evidence that a person is cheating on their taxes. The government
can't just look at everybody's information in the bank without probable
cause. The previous standard was that there had to be some evidence
presented that a person was cheating on their taxes. I think there
should be some evidence presented.
The new standard is they can look at any of a person's records that
may be relevant. This is a much lower standard, and I think it will be
injurious to the vast majority, if not the overwhelming majority, of
Americans who are actually innocent but just happen to be living
abroad.
I would be willing to work with whoever is willing to work with me on
this to get the treaties passed if we can keep the same standard we
have had previously, which is a standard of fraud, not a standard that
these may be relevant.
So for this reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I would have more extensive remarks,
but I know my colleague from Maryland has a different unanimous consent
request. Let me make just three quick points.
Chile's and other tax treaties the Foreign Relations Committee has
reported favorably do not represent the first time the Senate has
considered treaties providing for information exchange based on a
``foreseeably relevant'' or ``may be relevant'' standard.
In fact, since 1999--so that is about 15 years now--the Senate has
adopted resolutions of advice and consent for at least eight other tax
treaties using the relevant standard. This standard has been part of
the model of U.S. tax treaties since 2006. So it is not correct that
the ``may be relevant'' or ``foreseeably relevant'' standard is vague
or ambiguous. In fact, it has been extensively defined in agreed
guidance to which no country has expressed a dissenting opinion to
date.
I must say that not only are these objections ultimately not
providing all the benefits that all of the private-sector interests
have expressed--as I referred to before, the entire business
community--but by the same token, I simply have a tough time accepting
that those who cheat get away with cheating and that somehow we are
going to make it easier for them to cheat when the average American
does not have the opportunity nor the desire nor do they cheat in terms
of their payment of whatever are the taxes they owe to the Federal
Government in a way that helps sustain all of the things we seek as
Americans: the best armed forces in the world, security here at home,
educational opportunity for our kids.
So there is a fundamental difference here. I will push these tax
treaties, and I will urge the majority leader to give us votes then in
a process because it has overwhelming support and we cannot have one
Member of the Senate object to a process that can provide such benefits
and such equity across the board.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar No. 9
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me underscore the point Senator
Menendez, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has made in
regard to these tax treaties.
I want to make two principal points, and then a few other comments,
and then I am going to propound a unanimous consent request in regard
to the Swiss protocols.
The two points I want to raise--first on the standard of fraud, the
relevancy standard that has been included in tax treaties ratified by
the Senate since the 1990s. There are at least eight treaties that have
used this standard. This is the international standard on fraud. It is
not the U.S. Standard. It is not the Swiss standard. It is not the
Chilean standard. It is the international standard.
There may have been one time when the United States could dictate
what tax treaties would include. But we are part of an international
community. It is part of international negotiations.
[[Page S3400]]
This is the international standard for cooperation among taxing
authorities in order to establish a level playing field.
Secondly, our Constitution provides for the ratification of treaties
by the Senate and provides for a two-thirds vote. It is an
extraordinary vote. It is a heavy vote. It is a heavy burden for
ratification of the treaties. It is not 100 percent; it does not
require every Senator to agree to it, but it takes two-thirds of the
Senators.
I would urge my colleagues that we need to return to regular order.
Everyone talks about returning to regular order in the Senate. Well, if
we need to go through lengthy debates and votes on a treaty that is
totally noncontroversial, I am not sure we are serving the best
interests in the Senate. Let's have an open debate, but let's vote. If
some Senators disagree, well, at least allow the vote to go forward so
we can get the two-thirds of the Senate to agree.
I want to thank the chairman of the committee. He gave me the
opportunity to chair the hearings. So I was at the hearings during
consideration of these treaties. We had a full panel of witnesses. Not
one testified in opposition and not one was concerned about the issue
that my colleague from Kentucky has raised on the fraud standard. In
fact, they all said this is the level playing field. This will allow
our country to support our companies and provide a level playing field
for international investment in the United States.
The absence of this treaty affects America's ability to attract
investment. Make no mistake about it. It hurts our companies. It hurts
American companies that want to do business in other countries. They
need a level playing field, to be protected against multiple layers of
taxation and compliance issues. So this allows for that level playing
field, so we can have fair agreements.
Let me mention one company that has come to us and said this is very
important: McCormick. McCormick is a company that has been
headquartered in Maryland for 125 years. They have 2,000 employees in
my State of Maryland and 10,000 employees globally. They are hurt by
the failure to have these treaties ratified.
It presents a level playing field. It allows for investment. It
protects the privacy. Our laws protect privacy. Swiss laws protect
privacy. What this does is establish a level playing field so all are
protected.
I appreciate the fact that we may want to negotiate this in a
different way. Well, let's work with our negotiators and work with the
international community. It is not going to be the United States
dictating what that standard should be. Quite frankly, the relevancy
standard has worked well. There have been no complaints whatsoever on
privacy issues on the eight treaties we have ratified. To the contrary,
what it does is it removes the veil from those who are tax cheats, to
allow us to get that information. It provides for the transparency
necessary between taxing jurisdictions so you cannot hide and commit
fraud against one country where you have the treaty.
So I would urge my colleagues to allow us to proceed on these
treaties. It is very important to economic growth in our own State.
With that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to
be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the
Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider
Calendar No. 9, treaty document 112-1; that the treaty be considered as
having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and
including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; that any
committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; that any statements
be printed in the Record; that if the resolution of ratification is
agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's
action and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me make
one point very clear. One Senator cannot prevent a vote in this body.
The vote can occur at any point in time. One Senator can prevent sort
of expedited passage without extensive debate.
One of the things our Founding Fathers did with this body, by
allowing filibuster and by allowing procedural ways to slow things
down, was to allow Senators who are in the minority to try to influence
legislation.
I am open to a discussion on the language of this treaty, and I am
open to a discussion on how we would have the standard promulgated. But
I am very aware that when people talk about the criminal aspect of
people they want to punish--I am in favor of that as well--you have to
be aware that the vast majority of Americans who reside overseas are
not criminals, are not tax cheats, and are law-abiding citizens.
So I do not think we should agree to a standard that is less than our
normal standard here in the country. I also do not think we should
agree to a standard that might allow bulk collection of data on
everyone who lives overseas. Realize that this can be putting us
beholden to other countries as well, accessing records of their
citizens who are here as well.
So I think we have to be very careful about lessening the standard,
and it is very much worth a debate. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, let me point out that it has now been 4
years since we have ratified treaties--4 years--because of time
restraints of doing business in the Senate. It is one Senator holding
up an expedited way under the Senate rules so we could get a vote. He
can cast his vote any way he wishes on this issue.
I will just say, we have so many of these tax treaties that are
backed up now, not just the two we have spoken about today. There are
other tax protocols and treaties that are waiting for Senate
ratification. I would hope we could find a way that would satisfy
colleagues to allow an up-or-down vote on these treaties. They are
noncontroversial, but they are extremely important to the businesses of
our country and moving our economy along.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With regard to the Selig nomination, under the
previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid
upon the table, and the President will be immediately notified of the
Senate's action.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
majority control the time from 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. today and the
Republicans control the time from 3 p.m. until 4 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I come today and I am honored to
support my friend Sylvia Mathews Burwell. Sylvia is a native of West
Virginia, and I have always said that we are all a part of our
environment. If you know where Sylvia came from, the type of area where
she was raised and the neighborhood, it will tell you everything about
who she is today and why she has been so successful and why public
service runs through her veins, truly giving something back.
The little town of Hinton, WV, is where Sylvia is from. It is in
beautiful Summers County in the southern part of the State. It is right
on the New River. It is a train town. Trains will come there and
dispatch, and they will get them turned around to go in the right
direction.
I will never forget when they introduced Sylvia. I think it was
Senator Alexander who was speaking. He was talking about his father,
who worked in the rail yard and was always responsible for turning the
trains and getting them moving. I said: Well, one thing about that,
Sylvia comes from a train town. She knows how to get the train on the
track and how to get it moving in the right direction, and she has
proven that.
[[Page S3401]]
She is an unbelievable, blessed person. She is gifted, as smart as
they come--a Rhodes scholar. In West Virginia we are so proud to have a
person with those types of skills and the ambition to serve.
Now we will get into a little bit about her mom and dad because it is
really who she is. Her father is an eye doctor there and is well
respected in the town, and he is an immigrant who came from Britain.
Her mother Cleo Mathews was the mayor. When I was Governor of West
Virginia and I would come to town, Cleo would always call and tell me
everything I did wrong. She was usually right, and we would get things
worked out. We always had a great relationship. But she had skills and
she had to give something back. You had to be involved. You just
couldn't sit around. You couldn't be satisfied with your life just
thinking, well, I work and I have a paycheck. There was always
something.
I think that comes from--I am second generation also--coming to this
country and hearing your grandparents talk about all the wonderful
opportunities they have been provided and how privileged they believe
they are and how honored and why we always have to give something back.
You had to volunteer, be involved. You had to go out and contribute.
You had to do something. That is the type of background Sylvia comes
from.
When you look at every job she was asked to do, she was in the
Clinton administration. If fame and fortune were her desire, she could
have gotten it a long time ago. She did public service, and she did it
in an exemplary fashion. Then after the Clinton administration she went
to the Gates Foundation. She went to the Walmart Foundation. She is
always with a foundation. She is somebody who is willing to help others
and give back, trying to invest in the best of America. Then she came
back and she became our Director of OMB. She got totally unanimous
support.
Now the President has tasked her to come and take the reins of the
DHHS. I say to my friends, whether or not you support the Affordable
Care Act, Sylvia is not coming here to change your minds. She is not
going to tell you: I am going to tell you why you should be for it, and
you are wrong if you are not for it. She is not going to do that. She
is going to make the system work. She is going to be following the law
and listening to everybody--those who support it and those who do not
support it--and making adjustments and recommendations. I trust that
she will take good, solid recommendations to the President: If change
is needed, this is where we need it. If this is not working, this is
why it is not working. If the numbers don't add up and we cannot afford
it, we will make adjustments to make sure it does work so all Americans
can benefit.
I come to the floor because I know Sylvia Mathews Burwell. I know
where she comes from. I know her family. I know her friends. I know her
town. That speaks volumes. As I said in the opening, we are all
products of our environment. Sylvia Mathews Burwell is a product of her
environment, which is as nurturing and loving and caring as any one of
us could ever hope for. To have that quality of a person who is going
to be serving at the highest level is something I am very proud of--not
just because she is a West Virginian but because she is such an
accomplished person and she wants to give something back. She has lived
the American dream. Her parents made that come true for her, and that
is who she is.
I would ask all of my colleagues, when they are voting, who do you
think would have better values, who would have the ability, and who has
the knowledge and the experience to make sure there is fairness and
bipartisanship? Every person is going to be listened to, and she will
give a direct answer as to exactly how she has come to a decision. That
is all you can ask for. When you have an opportunity to get somebody at
that level in the private sector, you would jump all over it. You would
do whatever it would take to get somebody with her qualities.
In public service, we have such a hard time today recruiting the
young, recruiting this new crop of leaders. Some of them will be
Senators, some of them will be Congresspeople. They are going to be
leaders in their communities. They care at a young age. We have a hard
time recruiting this younger crop of people, and when we have it, we
better hold on to it.
We have a chance to hold on to Sylvia, to take us to a new level
where health care could be affordable for the masses. We could have a
healthier population. We don't have to rank 43rd in the world as far as
wellness and longevity. It shouldn't be that we are spending more money
than anybody else and not getting results. We need somebody like Sylvia
Mathews Burwell, who could put all of this together and make sense out
of it because she comes from a family and a community that is all-West
Virginian and all-American.
I say to my colleagues, I hope you will vote in favor of Sylvia
Mathews Burwell and show that we can come together, we can work in a
bipartisan fashion and pick the best person for the job--not because
they are Democratic or Republican or Independent or have any political
affiliation but because they are the best qualified person for the job.
I would say thank you to all of my colleagues for allowing me to give
a little bit of insight into a most amazing young lady, a mother, a
daughter, and a loving friend to all who really gives all she can.
Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in support
of Sylvia Burwell's nomination to lead our efforts at HHS and to follow
up on the comments of her great friend Senator Manchin.
I would like to add two points to what I think was a great
presentation by the Senator from West Virginia. We rarely get someone
who has this kind of background in both the public and private sector
and of course who is perfectly suited for a tour of duty at the helm of
the Nation's largest public-private partnership.
HHS is obviously the payer for our Medicare Program and for much of
our Medicaid Program, but they are doing business with literally
hundreds of thousands of private entities and private companies all
throughout the country--primarily health care practitioners from the
east coast to the west coast--and the Affordable Care Act is an
enormous private-public partnership. We expanded coverage through both
the traditional Medicaid Program and also through millions of people--8
million and counting--who have signed up for private insurance with a
little bit of help from their government through tax credits. It is
this background that she has on both sides of the public-private divide
that I think will put her in a perfect position to lead this agency.
When she came before the HELP Committee, I was particularly pleased
that she was very willing to be flexible and aggressive in her work
with Governors throughout the country who have not yet expanded
Medicaid. I think there is growing willingness on behalf of many
Republican Governors to look at some innovative ways to expand
Medicaid, and Sylvia Burwell is the perfect Secretary to work with
Governors to find a way--perhaps with subsidies--that will help people
in the lower income brackets afford private insurance that could
capture those 5 million individuals across the country who do not have
access to Medicaid because their States have not expanded it.
I wish to spend a few minutes in the context of this debate answering
what I imagine will be a growing chorus of concerns and criticism from
our Republican friends regarding some of the new rate announcements
from exchanges all across the country. It has been hard to follow a lot
of the criticism of the Affordable Care Act because it seems as though
it mutates on a pretty regular basis. It started out with claims that
the Web site could never work given its initial rollout problems. Of
course it is working very well today.
Another criticism was that nobody would sign up for this new benefit
because it was not affordable. We hit 8 million in terms of those who
signed up for private insurance.
[[Page S3402]]
They said young people would not sign up. Private insurers are
telling us their mixes of enrollees are exactly as they hoped,
especially with respect to the young people signing up.
Then they said people would not pay their premiums. In a House
hearing about 1 month ago, the private insurers said that in fact 80 to
90 percent of people were paying their premiums, which is comparable
with the non-ACA plans.
Of course, there was the general claim that it will bankrupt the
Treasury, even though it is saving us trillions in terms of deficit
savings as well as savings to the overall health care spending line
items of the Federal Government.
Now the critique is that these rate increases are unjustifiable as
insurers are getting ready to offer rates on the new exchanges coming
out for open enrollment at the end of this year.
First of all, it is important to note that there are a lot more
insurance companies offering health care on these new exchanges.
Connecticut will get at least one new entrant. New Hampshire, for
instance, went from one insurer to five insurers. There is very good
news coming with the new exchanges. There will be a lot more options
because the insurers have figured out it is a pretty good deal for them
as well as their consumers.
It is important to have a little bit of context. I have a couple of
examples of the kind of premium increases that have been asked for by
private insurers all across the country in the last several years. In
2010, Anthem in California proposed a 25- to 39-percent increase in
premiums. Again in 2010, Anthem asked for a 23-percent increase in
Maine. The year before in Michigan, Blue Cross Blue Shield asked for
increases up to 56 percent for some populations.
The reality is that on average we have seen a premium increase for
the individual market of 15 percent or above over the last 10 years.
That is not good news, but it does provide some context for the
requests for premium increases we are going to see in the exchanges
this year. Actually, the reality is that since the law passed, there
has been a fairly precipitous decline in the number of premium
increases above 10 percent that have been requested by private
insurers. There are less requests for premium increases above 10
percent today than there were in the corresponding period before the
Affordable Care Act was passed.
Just because the rate increases that are being requested--or may be
requested--as we roll out the next year of open enrollment for the
State-based exchanges may be below the historical averages of the last
few years, that certainly is not any reason for people to jump for joy.
Fifteen percent is unaffordable, fifty-six percent is unaffordable, and
10 percent is still unaffordable.
It is also important to note some of the protections that are in the
bill. For instance, one of the most important provisions of the
Affordable Care Act that very few people have noticed is the provision
that says that an insurer has to spend 80 percent of all the money it
takes in on care. If at the end of the year they have not spent 80
percent of the money they have taken in from ratepayers and premium
payers on direct care, then they have to rebate money to consumers.
Thus, if these premium increases are above what is justified based on
the actual experience, there is going to be a rebate paid to
ratepayers. Those rebates thus far have saved patients and consumers
all across the country $5 billion, and it is a significant, historic
protection against unjustifiable premium increases that are not
backed by actual experience in terms of claims paid.
The protections are even broader. While rate increases are not new,
what is new is that consumers are back in charge of their health care
again. Ten years ago insurers were charging 15 percent, 20 percent
increases and they were also denying health care to millions of
Americans who were sick. In some parts of the country they were
charging women 50 percent more than what they were charging men. They
were putting annual limits on health care coverage that ended medical
insurance for many of the sickest individuals and families all across
the country. All of those abuses, under the Affordable Care Act, are
history.
While I will admit we still have work to do to bring down the cost of
health insurance in this country, at the very least today consumers are
back in charge of their health care, the worst excesses and abuses of
the insurance industry are no longer permitted.
While I want to see a day when health insurance premium increases are
2, 3, and 4 percent, what we are seeing thus far in the wake of the
passage of the Affordable Care Act is premium increases that are less
than the historical average before the law was passed.
Those are the facts. I know that is not solace for individuals who
are receiving these premium increases, but what we have seen are
premium increases coming down and not going up since the Affordable
Care Act was passed.
There is still an enormous amount of work to do. The news is
generally very good. More people are being enrolled in the Affordable
Care Act than what was expected. Over the last 6 months alone, the rate
of uninsured individuals in this country has come down by 20 percent.
Medical inflation is at a near-term historic low. Whether it be
infection or readmission rates, outcomes are getting better.
Our next Secretary of Health and Human Services will have a lot of
work to do to continue to perfect this law, but she is going to have a
lot of good work and a lot of good outcomes upon which to build, based
on her experience in both managing private sector entities and large
public sector entities. Even with these challenges, Sylvia Burwell is
the right choice for HHS, and I hope we will confirm her in a big vote
tomorrow.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the
nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services because as a
physician I am very concerned and want to make sure Americans can get
health care. I think getting care is actually much more important than
getting the insurance component of that, but that is nothing new, and I
said that to the President. In so many ways, the President has actually
offered empty coverage but is not actually providing an opportunity for
care for people. We have seen situations where people are paying higher
premiums, higher copays, and higher deductibles, all of which are the
many side effects of the President's health care law.
When I hear my colleague from Connecticut make reference to rates
going up, let's face it. What the President of the United States said
is that premiums would drop $2,500 per family by the end of his first
term. The President didn't say, well, it will not go up as fast or that
it will go up some, but don't worry about it. The facts are that people
are continuing to be hurt by the health care law, and much of it is as
a result of the expense of the law.
Last week USA Today had a report that said: ``Many employees hit with
higher health care premiums.'' They go on to say:
More than half of companies increased employees' share of
health care premiums or co-payments for doctors' visits in
2013. . . .
Why? Because of the health care law. What other things have
businesses that are trying to provide health insurance for their
employees had to do? Thirty-two percent of the time the businesses
delayed raises for the individuals because the cost of insurance under
the President's health care law has gone up so much. People who are
concerned about take-home pay are getting hurt by the health care law.
According to this USA Today report, 22 percent eliminated or cut back
on benefits, and 21 percent of these folks were cut back from full-time
work to part-time work. That is obviously a hit to somebody's take-home
pay.
The report says health care premiums have increased 80 percent since
2003, nearly three times faster than wages and nearly three times
faster than inflation. The health care law has actually failed to do
what the President promised when it comes to actually providing care
and affordable care.
As I look around the country, it is interesting to see what is
happening. There was a report out very recently about hundreds of
thousands of Iowans who don't have coverage. The report goes on to talk
about a woman who said she drove a half hour from
[[Page S3403]]
Mitchellville recently to seek care for flu-like symptoms at a free
clinic in Des Moines. She is an assistant manager of a convenience
store. She has been offered insurance by her employer but would have to
pay $111 every 2 weeks for her part of the premium, and she said: ``I
can't afford that. . . . There's no way on Earth.''
Our colleague from Connecticut said it is working. It is not working,
and it is because of the mandates of the law, such as the mandate that
people have to get insurance that the government says they need as
opposed to what may be good for them or their family.
The woman, Reinna, said she heard most Americans are required to have
health insurance this year or pay a penalty. Democrats who voted for
this said if someone doesn't buy the insurance, they have to pay a
penalty. She heard that and learned it was equal to 1 percent of her
income.
According to this article from the Des Moines Register where they had
their primary elections yesterday, in Iowa, the Des Moines Register:
The lady laughed ruefully at the prospect. ``I don't care. They can
fight me for it.''
So this is a woman in Iowa, knows about the penalty, knows about the
mandates, and she would say to my colleague from Connecticut who was
just on the floor that it is not working for her.
She bristled at the new requirement to obtain insurance. She said, if
we could afford it, do you think we would be standing out here? Of
course, where she was standing was in a line for a free clinic, nodding
at a half dozen others in line on the sidewalk waiting for the free
clinic to hold one of its twice-a-week sessions.
I come to the floor today, as I have repeatedly, to talk about the
issues of the health care law as a doctor trying to make sure patients
get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, and
seeing that the President's health care law has failed miserably
because so many people have been hurt by this health care law. They
have had their insurance canceled, even though the President said, Oh,
no, it won't happen. He said, If you like what you have, you can keep
it. National folks who assessed this called that the lie of the year.
We also see that many people cannot keep their doctors, and they are
finding out that their copays are higher, their premiums are higher.
It is interesting, because it is affecting people in so many
different ways. Minnesota is another State where there has been a lot
of debate and discussion about the health care law. The headline in the
Mankato Times: ``Minnesota Schools to lose more than $200 Million
because of ObamaCare.'' My colleague from Connecticut just said it is
working. Well, if it is working, why are the Minnesota schools losing
$200 million because of the health care law? The article says: State
Representative Paul Torkelson said the wasteful spending on ObamaCare
that has left many taxpayers outraged will soon be making a significant
impact on Minnesota's schools--a significant impact on Minnesota
schools. According to documents released by Minnesota's management and
budget office, over the next 3 years, the total unfunded costs
associated with Affordable Care Act compliance will cost school
districts statewide at least $207 million.
It is troubling news for our schools, the State representative said.
This is $200 million that school districts won't be able to use to hire
more teachers or improve their educational programs. This is an
unneeded expense that does absolutely nothing for our students.
The senator concludes by saying: It is pretty sad when schools are
forced to prioritize ObamaCare compliance over the education of our
children.
So I come to the floor when I hear my colleague from Connecticut
saying it is working to say it is not working all across the country.
It is not working in so many ways that the President said it is. The
President said Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the
health care law. I don't know how a Senator can stand up who voted for
this and be proud of what we are seeing happening to school districts
all across the State of Minnesota.
The President continues to tout some number of people who signed up
across the country, and I always ask, How many of them actually have
insurance?
In Oregon, a story just out in the last week or two, in The
Oregonian: Thousands have not paid premiums for Cover Oregonian health
policies, placing coverage at risk. So in spite of what my colleague
from Connecticut may have said, this article says a large number of
people who have signed up for private health insurers through the Cover
Oregon health insurance exchange have not paid their first month's
premiums, meaning they are at risk of going without coverage through
November.
More than 81,000 people went through Cover Oregon--either through
paper or electronic applications--to select a private plan. We know
about the failures of that exchange. We know that the FBI, I believe,
is investigating it. Of those, 5,000 have already canceled policies or
been terminated for lack of payment. Thousands more have not yet paid
their first month's premiums, meaning they have not completed their
enrollment, according to the carriers.
The President talks about the numbers of enrollees. I don't know how
many people actually paid to continue--to consistently say they have
insurance, and consistent insurance, all the way through. Insurers say
anywhere between 66 to 80 percent of consumers have paid, meaning
anywhere from 20 to 34 percent have not. So it is hard for me to say
that things are working.
It is interesting. Unions, which have supported the law, have come
out with concerns. UNITE HERE, a union in Las Vegas, representing many
of the casino workers, 2,000 housekeepers, waiters, others at 9 of 10
downtown Las Vegas casinos, are concerned about the cost. One of the
union leaders has said, when we first supported the calls for health
care reform, we thought it was going to bring costs down.
That did not happen, and that is why I am here on the floor.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BARRASSO. Certainly. Absolutely. Yes, Mr. President.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Senator. I couldn't help but hear outside
the Chamber the Senator from Wyoming talking about Oregon. So I just
wanted to ask, in Oregon, 400,000-plus people have signed up for health
care through the Affordable Care Act. Some of those may have had
insurance before. We are not sure if it is 25,000, maybe it is 50,000;
there are conflicting numbers on that. But is it a good thing or a bad
thing that 350,000 or more individuals have gained access to health
care through this plan?
Mr. BARRASSO. I would say that many people in Oregon have been helped
and many have been hurt. That is the problem with this health care law.
There are people who have been helped, absolutely. I just believe that
the costly side effects, the harmful side effects, the dangerous side
effects of this health care law have actually hurt people. So for
people who may have been helped, there are as many, if not more, who
have been hurt through higher premiums, higher copays, loss of their
doctor, can't go to their hospital--all of those things--plus, at the
expense of significant amounts of taxpayer money wasted. I think we are
seeing that situation in Oregon right now with potential lawsuits being
filed, FBI investigating, whether there was oversight, and hundreds of
millions of dollars, as reported in today's Wall Street Journal, of
wasted taxpayer dollars. Oregon, I believe Massachusetts as well;
Maryland, Minnesota, States that I have been talking about here.
Mr. MERKLEY. Could the Senator explain how it is for those 350,000 or
more--maybe 400,000--who have newly gained access to health care, how
they have been hurt by gaining access to health care?
Mr. BARRASSO. I am referring to people who have been hurt by the
health care law all across the country. I worry about the more than 5
million people who have lost their coverage as a result of the health
care law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The time of the Senator from
Wyoming has expired.
Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you. I am merely trying to respond to my
colleague.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. MERKLEY. I thank very much the Senator for responding to my
questions.
[[Page S3404]]
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Student Loan Debt
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am very proud to begin a
conversation on the floor with a number of my colleagues about one of
the most urgent and pressing challenges that face us as a body here in
Washington, making laws, but even more preeminently to families and
students around the country who literally, right now, are sitting at
their kitchen tables, in their living rooms, in family gatherings,
trying to find a path forward in financing their education, their
children's education, their grandchildren's education.
We must do better as a nation. We have to do better in giving a fair
shot to them--to the innovators and entrepreneurs and investors of the
future--the people who will power our economy with ideas and energy as
a result of college education, which is part of the American dream--
part of giving everybody in America a fair shot at that dream.
I have been doing a lot of listening over these past weeks, over
these past 3\1/2\ years, and over three decades in public service. I
think listening is one of the most important things we do as public
officials. There is an old saying that God gave us two ears and one
mouth so that maybe we do a little more listening than talking. When I
talk to students--and I have been doing a lot of that at commencement
addresses and classrooms and roundtables around the State of
Connecticut--I tell them I want to listen. What I have been hearing at
Ansonia High School and Windham High School and The Stanwich School--
high schools around the State of Connecticut--is they are seeing dreams
crushed by the cost of college education. The pages who are here today,
our children, when we go home at night can tell us about how
devastating these costs are, how their hopes and aspirations for the
future are constrained and sometimes crippled financially by the cost
of college education. We must bring it down. The costs of tuition and
expenses must be reduced.
At the same time, we need to find better financing options for our
students. That is the reason we are reintroducing today the Bank on
Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, with some minor changes,
because we have listened to people who have told us improvements that
could be made in that measure. But, most importantly, we have listened
to students, both the high school students and college students, who
are telling us about dreams deferred and dreams devastated by the costs
of college education. So we must make sure that the $1.2 trillion that
overhangs them and our economy is addressed.
This measure would help the students of today and tomorrow. It would
help the students of today because it offers promise for the future,
and the students who already have debt would be able to reduce that
debt. Those students who are paying 7 or 8 or 10 or 11 percent would be
able to reduce it, refinance, not just--we all do refinancing of our
home loans and our car loans right now. There is no possibility of
doing it with student debt loan, and that is what this measure would
enable them to do. For folks who have graduated and who cannot start
families, begin businesses, buy homes, contribute to our economy, it
would enable them to accomplish those dreams rather than deferring or
abandoning them.
I am often heartbroken, as I talk to people who have these debts.
They did the right thing; they played by the rules, went to college,
and now find themselves crushed by that debt. Those who are laboring
under these crushing debt loans often have pursued careers in medicine
and other professions such as nursing that would enable them to do an
enormous good for this country if they were helped, if that crushing
burden were somehow reduced. Giving them a fair shot is good for our
economy because it will increase consumer demand. It is also good for
our social fabric--literally economically, socially, and physically
good for our health by enabling some of those doctors and nurses to
work in communities that are underserved right now. We ought to give
them public service options, enable some of that debt to be paid down
or paid off through community and public service. But the measure I
think we can agree is urgent and pressing, where there ought to be
consensus, is enabling the commonsense refinancing of current debt.
There are other measures that are vitally important, such as
clarifying and requiring more accuracy and truth in the forms that are
given to students at the time they take these loans so they know what
their debt will be; enabling more of them to have grants rather than
loans, bringing down the cost of tuition; enabling more public service
options as a means to pay down or pay off debt. But let's focus right
now on what is clearly an imperative--a moral imperative and a social
imperative for our Nation--to enable more refinancing right now. For
federal student loans that were originated in the years between 2007
and 2012, the government will make $66 billion. Mr. President, $66
billion. That money goes into the U.S. Treasury fund when, in fact,
instead it should be invested in our students and our communities.
I urge my colleagues to join in this effort and to focus on those
additional measures we can achieve.
I see my colleague from Illinois is here. He has championed and I
have been pleased to join him in efforts to enable student debt to be
discharged in bankruptcy. One of the great, gaping gaps in our present
bankruptcy system is that students cannot find any relief from this
student debt. Almost every other form of debt can be discharged from
bankruptcy but not student debt.
So there are other measures we can and should achieve, but a fair
shot for everyone ought to begin right now with this measure on the
floor, enabling students and former students to refinance so they have
the best shot at paying off those loans and a fair shot at the American
dream.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for
referencing a measure in which we both share an interest. He is right;
a student loan is not like another loan. It is not like the mortgage on
your home. It is not like the money you borrowed to buy a car or a boat
or a line of credit you might have needed at some point in your life. A
student loan is a debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. No
matter how bad things get, you are going to carry that debt with you to
the grave, and believe me, they will pursue you all the way.
We just had a report in the Wall Street Journal. There was a
grandmother receiving Social Security benefits. They levied her
benefits because grandma decided to befriend her granddaughter by
cosigning her student loan, on which her granddaughter defaulted. So
now grandma finds her Social Security check being levied to pay off her
granddaughter's student loan. It never ever ends.
So I support my colleague from Connecticut. He and I both believe
this ought to change. This is awful. For goodness' sake, we have to
have some recognition of what is happening with student debt today. It
is not the way it used to be. Those of us fortunate enough to get the
early government loans--the National Defense Education Act, that is how
I went to college and law school. Scared to death when the Soviets
launched sputnik, this Senate and the House created a loan program for
kids like me from East St. Louis, IL, to borrow money to go to college.
I had to pay it back over 10 years with 3 percent interest. I did not
think I ever would, but I did. Now look at what students are faced
with.
Hannah Moore, of the suburbs of Chicago--I have gotten to know
Hannah. I want to tell you Hannah Moore's story. This young lady went
to community college first. A good idea, right--affordable, a local
college. Then she decided to sign up at the Harrington College of
Design. They were going to give her a special education. Well, they
sure as heck did. The Harrington College of Design is a for-profit
college. Hannah Moore signed up for the course. It is owned by Career
Education Corporation. It is a for-profit school. You ought to know
something. Career Education Corporation is under investigation in 17
different States for their activities in luring students into worthless
college courses. Hannah Moore was one of those victims.
What happened to Hannah? Well, at the end of the day, when she
finished
[[Page S3405]]
her so-called course at the Harrington College of Design, she ended up
$124,000 in debt, and it is growing. She cannot keep up with it. She
cannot earn enough money to keep up with it. Do you know what has
happened? She has moved into her parents' basement. That is where she
has to live now. Her dad has come out of retirement to help her pay off
the loan. That is what she faces.
So we are going to do something about it with the help of a few
Republicans. I hope a few of them will stand and join us. We are going
to give students across America who are not in default an opportunity
to refinance their college loans with lower interest rates. Those of us
who have had a few mortgages in our life know what that means--a lower
interest rate, a lower payment or more money reduced from the
principal. It is the only way some of these people ever get out from
this burden of student debt. Senator Elizabeth Warren put the bill
together. I have cosponsored it with a number of others. We think this
is the only way that students deep in debt have a fair shot at a
future; otherwise, they are going to be swamped with debt and never get
out of it.
The prospect of going back to school for Hannah? Impossible. She
cannot borrow money for that. Buying a car? Out of the question. Her
own apartment? No, sorry, you cannot do that either. I have met young
couples who have said: We are putting off raising a family because of
the debt.
Now we have a bill that is going to be introduced by Senator Warren,
brought to the floor, and we need Republican support. We cannot pass it
without Republican support. So far not one Republican has joined us--
not one--for refinancing college debt. But that can change. It will
change if our Republican colleagues will simply go home to their States
and have a town meeting and ask the people in attendance: What do you
think; should we give college students a lower interest rate? Should
the Federal Government make less money off these college students so
they can get out from under this debt once and for all?
They will find what I found in Illinois--overwhelming support for
this approach.
So if we are going to do something in the Senate Chamber that really
affects the lives of working families--where young people and their
parents can say, well, thank goodness somebody in Washington is finally
listening to problems families face--this is it: refinancing college
student loans. This is our opportunity to give a fair shot to kids from
working families all across America, the kind of opportunity I had, the
kind of opportunity millions of others have had.
There is a lot more we need to do to clean up this mess when it comes
to college loans and when it comes to the schools that are ripping off
students, but let's start at the right place. Let's help students in
debt get out from under that debt.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois.
Order of Procedure
I ask unanimous consent that Senators be permitted to speak for up to
5 minutes each during the majority's controlled time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I would like to yield now to Senator
Merkley and then to Senator Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I am honored to be here joining Senator Blumenthal, Senator Durbin--
Senator Baldwin is going to be here--Senator Schumer, and many others
to come and address this important topic, and this topic is the college
loan debt trap.
I have a letter here from Stephanie from Oregon, and she writes to me
about the trap she and her husband feel they are in. She says:
I am writing to you as a potential investor into Oregon's
economy and the economy of the United States. Unfortunately,
however, I will not be able to be this investor until mine
and my husband's Private Student Loans . . . are paid off. We
owe a little less than $100,000 in . . . Student loans and
pay $1,100 per month. We will pay this amount for the next 12
years. Because of our student loans and the 7-7.2% interest
[rate] they are set at, we cannot afford to purchase a house
in the neighborhood we love . . . cannot buy a car, and
cannot even fathom starting a family. We can't even afford to
go on vacation, whether that is around Oregon, or outside of
that to the many other wonderful states and countries. We pay
rent, utilities, and try and buy good, healthy food, but in
order to even afford these basics I have to work 2 jobs at 7
days a week.
She goes on later to say:
It has been nothing but spinning in place. . . .
This is a growing reality for millions of Americans who have
graduated with student loan debt the size of a home mortgage and higher
interest that make these huge student loans the equivalent of a
millstone around their necks. When our aspiring young adults in
America--who have graduated, who have gone on to start their careers--
when they cannot afford to buy a house, that enhances inequality in the
United States of America because home ownership is the major vehicle by
which middle-class families in America establish a nest egg, establish
wealth, establish a slice of the American dream. What is more joyous in
life than having children, being able to raise children? That is the
most tremendous, tremendous experience. But she is saying she and her
husband cannot even think about starting a family.
The picture was quite different when I was graduating from high
school in 1974. My father--when I was in grade school, we lived in a
working-class neighborhood--had taken me to the school doors and said:
Son, if you go through those doors and you work hard, you can do just
about anything here in America.
Well, that was a message about the fact that there is a pathway to
thrive, a pathway to fulfill your potential, a pathway to pursue your
dreams, and in the process of doing that you are strengthening our
entire Nation because when you aspire to your potential, when you
aspire to your dreams, then you also find yourself giving back in all
kinds of other ways, including having enough income to pay a Federal
income tax and contribute property taxes and revenue, as well as the
talents or fruits of your profession.
Well, I still live in that blue-collar community. My kids still go to
the same high school I went to. But the message to our students today
is very different. They are familiar with many families such as
Stephanie and her husband. They are familiar with the fact that student
tuition has gone up faster than virtually anything else in our society.
It is a much bigger share. I think a rough estimate is about 2\1/2\
times the amount in terms of a working income than it was when I was
going to school, starting college. Let's make this comparison: In
Germany, the cost of a year in college is around 4 percent of the
median income. In the United States of America, the cost of a year in
college is about 50 percent of the median income. Well, what a
difference between less than $1 out of $20 and $1 out of every $2. What
an incredible difference. So, at a minimum, shouldn't we be acting
today to enable those who have these high-interest student loans to
refinance them to a reasonable low rate? Shouldn't we be able to do
that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President.
I will wrap up simply by saying that this is common sense. Let's
lower this burden, and then let's go on and do much more: control the
cost of tuition, raise the impact of Pell grants, and pursue low-
interest student loans as a tool for our students from here going
forward.
Mr. President, I am delighted to have had this chance to speak to a
fundamental challenge to young Americans in every State of the United
States of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first let me salute my colleague from
Connecticut for bringing us all together to talk about this important
issue, the good words of my colleague from Oregon--always on the money,
always understanding what average folks need
[[Page S3406]]
and have to go through--and, as well, our sponsors of this legislation.
I salute Senators Warren and Franken, who are our two lead sponsors.
The bottom line is very simple. It is amazing to think that there are
40 million Americans and their families--at a time when interest rates
are at about a record low--who are paying 7 to 14 percent on their
student loans. It is amazing to think that the average student
graduates with over $30,000 of loans on his or her back. It is amazing
to think that so many of our young people are living at home because
they cannot afford not to because of student loans. Thirty-six percent
of all individuals between 18 and 31 live with their parents--the
highest percentage in 4 decades.
Why should people be paying more? And even more outrageous, guess who
is making the profit much of the time? Sometimes it is the private
banks. That is bad enough, but sometimes it is the Federal Government.
For the Federal Government to charge people nearly double the going
rate for their student loans is so unfair.
So we Democrats are hoping to give people a fair shot, a fair shot at
being able to repay the cost of college at a reasonable interest rate.
That is all we want. We are dedicated to helping the middle class, to
helping working people, to helping people who do not have so much money
get a fair shot at living decently well, the way they always have in
America but in a way that is beginning to decline.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we would beg of them
not to stand in the way but to join us. How do they defend charging
those who have graduated from college 7, 10, even 14 percent for their
student loans?
Now, we just got a CBO score. Our bill, which is paid for by simply
the Buffett rule, which says that someone making over $1 million should
pay the same rate as their secretary, as an average person.
Well, that is how we pay for it. Again, I cannot believe my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would disagree with that.
Anyway, we have a $21 billion net positive on our bill. So for anyone
who is worried that we do not pay for the bill, we actually pay for the
bill and return some money to the Treasury. So a fair shot is what is
needed here, a fair shot for everyone to afford college.
Last year we lowered the interest rate for people already in college.
But what about the 40 million who are out of college and are saddled
with high interest rates, people who got out of college before 2010?
Let's not forget the effect this has on the rest of the economy and new
homes. Young people are not buying homes at the rate they used to--
first time home buyers. Why? Well, one of the reasons--we cannot
quantify how much yet, but we will be doing that--is that they are
saddled with so much student debt at high interest rates.
So it affects our entire economy because construction jobs are not up
to what they should be. A large part of that is because people are not
buying homes the way they used to. So the bottom line is, it is very
hard to resist the logic of the proposal that Senators Warren and
Franken have put together.
Here are some numbers from my State. Fifty-four percent of Long
Islanders between the ages of 25 and 29 live at home with their parents
or relatives--more than one in two. Amazing. That is the American
dream, to be able to get out of college and go live on your own, find a
job, maybe find the person you want to spend the rest of your life
with. That is the American dream. It is a lot harder to do that when
you are living at home, as much as we all love our parents. But because
of student debt, because of high interest rates on student debt, people
are forced to do that.
So, again, I thank all of my colleagues who have joined in our fair
shot effort--our fair shot effort on minimum wage, our fair shot effort
on pay equity, and our fair shot effort on college affordability. We
will continue to fight as hard as we can to see that the average
middle-class family is finally given a fair shot. We hope and we pray
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not stand in the
way.
I know my colleagues from Connecticut and from Minnesota, who has
been a great leader on this--and very few in America, let alone in this
Senate, have such an understanding of the needs of average families and
the middle class than the Senator from Minnesota. So I am happy to
yield the floor so she may say a few--what I am sure will be very
prescient--words.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the Senator
from New York, and also his keen focus on these issues for the middle
class, giving everyone a fair shot.
I rise today to talk about the problems of student debt in this
country and the effects that it has on millions of Americans. I think
we all know that it is not just students, as much as that is the first
group we think about--students--it is also their parents. Those are the
ones I hear from a lot, and how hard it is, and how they have that next
kid coming.
While maybe they were able to patch together loans and some income to
help one kid go through college, the second one comes along and it is
incredibly difficult. They literally have this Sophie's choice about
which kid they are going to send to college or what are they going to
do with the third kid. It just should not be happening in America
today.
I thank Senators Franken, Blumenthal, and Baldwin for bringing us
together on the floor, as well as Senators Harkin, Warren, and Durbin
for their leadership on this issue. In the United States we appreciate
the value of education. We know it leads to higher-paying jobs, better
health, and even longer lives. I know the value of education. My
grandpa worked 1,500 feet underground in a mine in Ely, MN. He was not
able to graduate from high school because when his parents died, the
two oldest boys had to go to work in the mines. They were only 15 years
old. That is what they did. They went to work in the mines. They were
able to keep the entire family together.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S3406, June 4, 2014, in the second column, last
paragraph, the following language appears: I thank Senators
Blumenthal and . . .
The online Record has been corrected to read: I thank Senators
Franken, Blumenthal, and . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
The youngest girl had to go to an orphanage in Duluth for a while,
and then they were able to bring her back. Those two oldest boys never
got to graduate from high school, never went to college, and worked in
the mines their entire life, worked underground at a very dangerous
time in our country. When the sirens would go off, they would not know
whose family member had been killed.
That is what my grandpa did. He wanted a better life for my dad. He
literally saved money in a coffee can in the basement of their house so
that he could send my dad to college. Then my dad went to college and
became a newspaper reporter. My mom, during the same time period,
growing up in Milwaukee during the Depression, ended up going to
Milwaukee Teachers College and then came to Minnesota and was a
teacher.
Here I am standing today on the Senate floor, the daughter of a
teacher and a newspaper man and the granddaughter of an iron ore miner.
It would not have happened without education. It would not have
happened without my mom's parents struggling to make sure she went to
college, and without my grandpa saving that money in a coffee can after
working underground in the mines and never being able to go to school
himself.
That is what I know about education. That is a story we hear again
and again from people in this country. Higher education provides
students with the skills they need to be competitive in today's global
economy. At a time when more and more jobs require some form of
postsecondary school, we cannot allow cost to be a barrier to that
opportunity. We cannot allow only the wealthy to be able to send their
kids to college. It is really that simple.
This country was built on the middle class. This country was built on
this idea that no matter where you come from, if you are in a little
iron ore mining town in northern Minnesota, that there is a chance that
your kid can go to college. My dad did not start at some fancy college.
My dad went to a community college which is now Vermilion Community
College, which was then Ely Junior College, and got his 2-year degree.
Then he went to the University of Minnesota. Back then it was so
incredibly affordable. He would still send his laundry back to my
grandma in Ely, and she would do his laundry and she would send it
back. He got by on barely nothing.
[[Page S3407]]
But he went on from that degree at the University of Minnesota to
become a journalist and interview everyone from Ginger Rogers to Mike
Ditka to Ronald Reagan. It all started in that hardscrabble mining
town. That is what education is about in this country. Outstanding
student loans now, they are not like something you can fit in a coffee
can. Outstanding student loans now total more than $1.2 trillion,
surpassing total credit card debt and affecting 40 million Americans.
One in seven borrowers defaults on Federal student loans within 3
years of beginning repayment. Other borrowers are struggling too.
Thirty percent of Federal Direct student loan dollars are in default,
forbearance or deferment. It costs a lot of money. When there are not
high-paying jobs right out of school or when kids have really high
costs from school, and when they are in a job that maybe eventually
they will get enough money, they have trouble paying off their loans.
But make no mistake, student loan debt impacts everyone, not just
students. Student loan debt hangs like an anchor around not just
individual students but around our entire economy. It is dragging us
down. Graduates with high debt may delay making key investments like
saving for retirement or getting married or buying a home. Student debt
may even impact a person's career choices, by deterring some graduates
from taking jobs in crucial fields like education.
According to a report I released as chair of the Joint Economy
Committee on the Senate side, Minnesota actually has one of the highest
rates of student debt in the country. Seventy percent of the recent
graduates in Minnesota have loan debt, compared to 68 percent
nationally. So it means a lot in our State.
The good news is that there are actions we can take----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent for another 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Last summer we acted to prevent the interest rate from
doubling. We have also introduced the Bank on Students Emergency Loan
Refinancing Act. I urge the Senate to consider this very important bill
so more students can manage their debt and build a better future for
themselves and their family. I am proud to support this bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, we need to rethink financial aid in this
country. We need urgent action if we are to reform our system, to
return to the roots, the ideals that made college affordable for
generations past, and hopefully for this generation and generations to
come. Back in the 1970s and 1980s when several Members of today's
Senate were college students, the Pell grant, which is the cornerstone
of our Federal student aid programs, covered as much as 72 percent of
the cost of attendance at a 4-year public college.
For the 2014-2015 academic year, the maximum grant is expected to
cover less than one-third of the cost. Investing in things like Pell
grants is critical to ensuring the doors to higher education remain
open to all students with the talent and desire to pursue a college
degree.
Young people today deserve the same fair shake that Members of this
body got when we were undergraduate students, when grants and not loans
covered most of the cost of college.
Now, I was fortunate enough at 17 to join the Army and attend West
Point. So I did not have to face the rigors of financing college
education. But everyone I know in my generation will tell you it was
easier then because there was a strong Federal commitment to supporting
men and women of talent and desire to go on to college. Ever-rising
costs today are just pricing out a whole generation from college
education.
We see more and more hard-working young people and their families
falling behind as they try to pay for their degrees that were supposed
to help them get ahead. In fact, an analysis of student loan debt by
Demos predicts that today over $1 trillion in outstanding student loan
debt will lead to a total lifetime wealth loss of $4 trillion for
indebted households. Not only do people start off after college with
great debt, but their ability to build assets in the future is also
reduced. So it is a much deeper hole than even the initial debt.
Student loan debt is jeopardizing this generation's ability to buy a
home, to start a business, to start a family, to do things that my
generation took for granted after getting out of college. For the last
30 years, tuition increases have outpaced inflation. Outstanding
student loan debt has quadrupled since 2003. It is time for action.
First, we must provide relief for borrowers who are currently
repaying their loans. We must ensure that student loan servicers are
held accountable for providing borrowers with accurate and clear
information and the full range of borrower benefits they are due. That
is why I was pleased to join Senator Durbin in introducing the Student
Loan Borrower Bill of Rights Act.
Even more important to families' bottom line is reducing their
payments and overall debt burden. We should allow borrowers with high
fixed-rate loans to refinance at the lower rates approved on a
bipartisan basis under the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act that
became law last year. That is the premise of Senator Warren's Bank on
Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act which I am also very proud to
cosponsor.
I hope my colleagues will let us vote on this proposal so we can
provide relief to millions of Americans who are struggling under the
weight of student loan debt.
We also have to demand more responsibility from colleges and
universities. While student loan debt skyrockets, we are also seeing
college executive salaries climb ever higher. Clearly institutions need
to have more skin in the game when it comes to student loans. That is
why I introduced, along with many colleagues, the Protect Student
Borrowers Act, specifically with Senators Durbin and Warren. The
Protect Student Borrowers Act will hold colleges and universities
accountable for student loan default by requiring them to repay a
percentage of defaulted loans. As the percentage of students who
default rises, the institution's risk-share payment will rise.
Essentially, they will now have an interest, and a real interest, in
ensuring that their students take out appropriate loans and they have
coursework that leads to remunerative employment after they graduate.
Colleges can play a key role in all of these things. Today it is a
spotty record. Some are very good, some are indifferent, and some are
very bad.
The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for
institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt and
reduce default rates. Institutions can reduce or eliminate their
payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management
plan--again, if they talk to their students, if they advise them what
to do, if they help them manage this debt.
The risk-sharing payments will be invested to help struggling
borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and reducing
shortfalls in the Pell Grant Program. This money will stay in the
system to help other students.
With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair
that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program. I
would argue a basic premise, that they will do a lot better as
custodians and managers and advisers for the students when they have
money at risk.
Right now, it is the students and their families who bear it all--and
the government, if there is default. As a result, you don't have the
active participation at the institutional level that could make a real
difference.
In many respects, this is a lesson we learned, at a very expensive
cost, during the financial crisis in the mortgage markets, where
mortgage makers had no interest in who was borrowing money. They didn't
care if they could pay it back, because the minute the paper was
signed, they sold it off to the secondary market and they walked away
to the next closing. We can't have that attitude pervasive in higher
education.
[[Page S3408]]
We know there are many forces that are driving increases in costs in
higher education, and one of the cost drivers is, frankly, the falloff
on State contributions to public higher education. According to the
State Higher Education Finance report, state spending per full-time
equivalent student reached its lowest point in 25 years in 2011.
I have introduced the Partnerships for Affordability and Student
Success Act to reinvigorate the Federal-State partnership for higher
education with an emphasis on need-based grant aid. Remember back in
the sixties and seventies, nearly 80 percent of the financing was grant
aid. You didn't have to pay it back. You had a chance to get an
education and start off without a lot of debt.
Simply put, I believe the States have to begin to renew their
investment in education at the college level.
I urge the Senate to come together with a sense of real urgency on
finding solutions to all of these issues, to move forward, and to give
this generation and the next generation the same opportunity that many
of us here took for granted in the sixties, seventies, and eighties.
I yield back the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, who has been
such a champion and a leader in these efforts over so many years. Well
before I came to the Senate, he was there working and fighting for more
affordable loans for our students.
The comments that have been heard on the Senate floor over the past
hour reflect a growing awareness and worry in the country, a worry
about what happens to America in the future, whether we will leave a
lesser America, and whether the American dream will be not only
deferred but denied to so many students who are wondering and worrying
right now about their personal futures as well as the future of the
country.
These comments and this conversation will be extended over this day
and the days to come as we prepare for a crucial vote next week on this
bill. One of the chief authors of this bill, Senator Warren, is to be
thanked and commended. She will be on floor later today or tomorrow to
speak for herself, but she has shown, through her career, how often
people who most need this kind of help, whose finances most cry out for
this assistance, are impacted, and in fact constrained in their futures
by the big banks and lending institutions that take advantage of them--
and, in this case, even the U.S. Government itself that is profiting
off their backs--billions of dollars in profit at the expense of our
students when we should be investing in them.
We have an obligation and a historic opportunity to make things right
for young people and older people, whose present lives are impacted and
whose futures are constrained by the daunting and financially crippling
overhanging debt. It is an overhanging debt that impacts our economy
because it prevents the entrepreneurs from taking risks. It prevents
young people from buying homes and starting families. It financially
cripples our economy as well as those individual lives.
So in the light of self-interest, we ought to argue for all of us to
support this legislation. For myself, I am going to be listening to
those students who discussed their futures with me at Ansonia High
School, Stanwich, at roundtables across Connecticut, at the
commencements where I spoke, and the college students who spoke to me
at Quinnipiac, or the law school students there who talked to me about
how their present lives and their spirit, their hope for public
service, as well as for gaining for themselves the promise of their
futures, will be impacted and maybe put out of reach by the debt they
have, not just hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars, but tens of
thousands of dollars and, for some, hundreds of thousands of dollars.
We can do better for them and for ourselves if we enable them to
refinance. Right now, student debt is not only one of the few debts
that is nondischargeable in bankruptcy, but it is one of the few debts
that is nonrefinanceable.
Let's treat these students as we would other debtors. In fact, let's
give them a fair shot. Let's give our country a fair shot.
I am proud to support this legislation. I thank all of my colleagues
who are here today, and all who will support--I hope on both sides of
the aisle--this vote we will have next week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise for a moment to talk about the
Sylvia Burwell nomination, pending confirmation to be Secretary of
Labor at HHS, and also to talk about the Affordable Care Act, because
you can't separate the two.
I have the good fortune of being on the Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee and the Finance Committee. The good fortune of that
is it allowed me to twice be able to interrogate--and I use the word
interrogate understanding its many definitions--Ms. Burwell over issues
that were important to me both in the Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee, as well as in the Finance Committee.
I found her to be articulate, forthright, straightforward, and
candid--something we haven't had in the Secretary of Labor-HHS for the
last year or so. I am looking forward to having somebody in there who
will be able to answer the hard questions. I might not like the answer,
I might not agree with the solutions, but I like having somebody who
has the intellect, the capability, and the willingness to communicate
with Members of Congress, regardless of their party. So I will vote for
Sylvia Burwell to be confirmed as Secretary of Labor and HHS, and I
wish her the best.
No one should confuse that vote, however, for being a vote in support
of the Affordable Care Act and what it is doing to health care in the
United States today. I want to talk about that for a second. Some of
these things I want to talk about are questions I asked Ms. Burwell in
the confirmation hearing.
When I was on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee,
and we did the markup in terms of the health care bill, we met for
69\1/2\ hours. I heard every debate on every amendment; I heard every
debate on every philosophy; I heard every proposal that was made, and
it became quite clear to me that the premise of that legislation, based
on the President's recommendation, was diametrically opposed to my
personal philosophy in terms of where government's role should be.
I think the President--and it has been said by the leader Harry Reid
recently--thought a single-payer health care system was the right way
to go. I think the Affordable Care Act is designed to drive America
toward a single-payer health care system.
I would rather have a competitive private sector system that is on a
playing field that the government makes sure is fair and level but that
the winners and losers in health care become those who compete the best
in terms of quality and service.
In fact, the intent of the ObamaCare act and Affordable Care Act has
directed a lot of things to happen. Three of them were not good.
Premiums have gone up. The costs to the consumer have gone up,
principally because taxes have been levied on the insurance industry.
That is No. 1.
Access has been more limited and more restricted based on the Bronze
Plan, the Silver Plan, the Gold Plan, and differences between the
exchanges.
Third and foremost, there is a great uncertainty in America about
what happens next and where health care is going, because the President
has selectively given waivers and put off the impact of certain
provisions of the law, while lifting up and actually repealing with his
own signature and his own pen provisions that were in the law. So there
is a lot of uncertainty.
Two things I want to focus on from the cost standpoint. One of them
is what is called the HIT, the health insurance tax, which went into
effect this year. This year $8 billion in taxes were levied against
small- and medium-size group insurance providers in the exchanges for
health care. It is an arbitrary number that was used to help determine
and pay for the Affordable Care Act, and it is assessed based on the
market share of the companies.
[[Page S3409]]
Think about this for a second. The U.S. Government is taxing health
insurance providers based on their market share of health insurance,
and adding that cost to where? To the premium that is paid by the
consumer.
It has been estimated that the premium cost is going to go up about
$512 a year for the average consumer, just in order for the moderately
small- and medium-sized group provider to pay the fine or pay their
share of the tax of $8 billion. That $8 billion in 2014, in 2019 goes
to $14.3 billion and will go up ad infinitum as it will continue to
climb--which means costs will continue to climb.
Access has been restricted because a lot of people aren't playing in
the system. A lot of specialty hospitals have chosen not to join the
plans. That has meant that specialty care to a lot of children and
adults is not available.
Another problem we have had is with navigators, and I want to focus
on the navigator point for a second, because it fundamentally
underscores my belief in the private sector.
For years I ran a business. It was a business where we had some
employees but mostly had independent contractors. We provided group
medical benefits for our employees, but only access to salesmen who
would sell group plan health plans for independent contractors.
They got a commission when they sold a plan, when they provided the
services, and the employee or the independent contractor in my company
decided to buy. What we did in the Affordable Care Act--or what the
Affordable Care Act and those who voted for it did--it basically did
away with all the salesmen in the country who were selling group
medical plans to individuals and small businesses. Why? Because it had
a medical-loss ratio maximum of 80 percent or 85 percent, meaning your
medical costs had to be 80 percent to 85 percent of the premiums.
Administrative costs could only be 15 to 20, and it counted the
commission for selling the product as an administrative cost, which
meant commissions weren't available to be paid.
So what happened? All the people in sales in terms of group medical
insurance got out of the business and went to selling something else.
What happened because of that? Navigators came about.
So we ended up hiring a bunch of unqualified, unknowledgeable,
limited-talent people as navigators to offer to try and sell insurance
under the new exchanges created by the ObamaCare act. What happened is
sales of those policies were not very robust. In fact, it was very
difficult for the President to get his minimum goal of 7 million people
being covered. Why? Because the navigators weren't salesmen, No. 1; No.
2, they weren't as well educated as they should have been; and, No. 3,
the States did not embrace it.
So that is the private sector solution that had been used for years
and years in our country; that is, independent agents making sales of
independent insurance products through independent contractors. That
has now gone away. They have to now go find an employee who is a
navigator, who has no incentive, because they are on a salary and not a
commission, to provide a plan or to sell a plan. They merely are there
to collect their paycheck and offer information, if in fact somebody
can find them.
My point is this: Ms. Burwell is taking on a serious challenge in
terms of Labor HHS. The Affordable Care Act presents a lot of problems
in terms of access, cost, and quality of health care for the American
people that will only get greater as the years go by. We are going to
take somebody of her competence and her candid nature to help us join
together to see to it that what has become a major problem that looms
for our country, the Affordable Care Act, is revisited to look at a new
way to go back to the private sector, go back to competition, go back
to a level playing field and out of the business of selective taxation,
less access, more cost, and more bureaucracy. That is what we have with
the Affordable Care Act right now. That is what is untenable.
I wish Ms. Burwell the best. I intend to be very aggressive and
active in my work on the Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee
and the Finance Committee in trying to get to the bottom of some of the
questions that have gone unanswered from the Department. I wish her the
best, and I hope I get the answers to those questions when she is
confirmed as the new Secretary of HHS.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
(The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 2430
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Energy Regulation
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, this last fall Environmental Protection
Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy embarked upon a national listening
tour to gather feedback on possible new energy regulations that could
be ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency's regulatory power.
Notably absent from her tour across the Nation were the major coal-
producing or user States.
Now, my State of Indiana was notably absent from that despite our
request that she listen to what Hoosiers had to say about their source
of energy, what it does for the state's economy, how it helps attract
jobs to our State, and how it helps our residents to keep utility bills
in line. So we were very disappointed that we were not included in that
listening tour. Other States, surprisingly--or maybe not surprisingly--
which are also coal-producing energy States were also bypassed.
Apparently, they didn't want to hear from us.
I think on Monday we found out exactly why it was done that way,
because in the latest installment of the administration's ongoing ``war
on coal'' as it is described, Administrator McCarthy announced that the
EPA is putting forward new rules on existing fossil fuel powerplants.
These new proposed regulations are essentially an energy tax that will
damage our national economy as well as the economy of Indiana and hike
electric bills for every Hoosier.
As the seventh highest coal-producing State in the Nation, Indiana
relies on coal-fired electricity to meet well over 80 percent of its
energy needs. Our industry provides thousands of jobs and contributes
three-quarters of a billion dollars to the Indiana economy. Because of
this, the EPA proposed rule will place a choke hold on Indiana's
primary and most affordable energy source, driving up utility costs,
and putting our State at a disadvantage in competing with other States
to lure companies and to attract residents.
It is worth noting that the EPA's announcement ignores the progress
the utility industry has made in recent years, and, in fact, in recent
decades. Energy providers in Indiana and across the country have spent
billions of dollars to control air pollution that has resulted in
significant declines in emissions. In fact, we have significantly
cleaned our air and water through environmental regulation and through
capital investment to produce an environment that is the envy of many
nations. This has been done at a competitive disadvantage to our
companies, because we are competing in a global economy and we know
that nations such as China and India and others have not made the same
commitment that Americans have in controlling their emissions.
We have also been a leader in Indiana in reclamation and restoration
on the mining front. So those who say it is a desecration of the land
to extract coal need to come and see what we have done in terms of
reclamation. Instead of barren hillsidesbarren of grass and trees, you
will find lush pastures and scenic views where you would never have
known mining had taken place.
Penalizing Hoosier energy producers with unattainable environmental
restrictions, I believe, is the wrong approach. In effect it is a
backdoor way
[[Page S3410]]
for unelected bureaucrats to impose regulations similar to the cap-and-
trade scheme previously pushed by the White House. Not only did a
totally Democratic-controlled Congress fail to pass this similar
proposal in 2010, I think it is clear that there will not even be 50
votes for the EPA's proposed regulations in the Senate today, much less
the 60 votes required for passage. I think the President realizes this.
So what does he do? He bypasses Congress, which I think is an
unconstitutional means of enforcing what ought to be done through
legislation--debated and passed by those who are elected and are
responsible to the people who elected them--and bypasses that by
essentially moving it to an agency and saying: You do it by rulemaking.
Then unelected bureaucrats make the decisions that we ought to be
making in this Congress.
This is not the first time that one country has had to limit one type
of energy to the detriment of economic growth and the pocketbooks of
hard-working families. These new sweeping rules on coal-fired
powerplants brought to mind my friends in Western Europe. As U.S.
Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005, I had a front row seat for the
similar transition away from fossil fuels that most Germans now regret.
When the German legislature passed a renewable energy law in 2000,
Germany gave solar and wind producers 20 years of fixed high prices and
preferable access to the country's electricity grid. Following a
fashionable green wave of the moment, the main political parties in
Germany reached a hasty decision to phase out all 17 of that country's
nuclear power plants. German leaders vowed to eliminate clean nuclear
power while simultaneously aiming to reduce carbon emissions from 80 to
95 percent by 2050. These overly ambitious and seemingly contradictory
targets they said would be achieved by an extravagant government plan
to encourage the development of renewable energy production methods.
Under the plan the so-called ``energiewende'' or ``energy
transition'' renewables, mostly solar and wind, would supply--they
said--80 percent of Germany's electricity and 60 percent of the
country's total energy requirements. If those goals look impossible, it
is because it has been impossible for them to reach and they realize
that. Germany's ongoing subsidization of alternative energy means
Germans pay significantly higher prices for energy than the global
average, putting their industries at a competitive disadvantage. Their
consumers pay some of the highest electric rates in the world.
Earlier this year the German government revealed that nearly 7
million families--and they only have 80 million in the country--are in
``energy poverty,'' meaning they have to receive major subsidies from
the government in order to pay their electric bills. Today German
citizens and their businesses and manufacturing entities complain
loudly about these extra costs that Americans and most other European
nations do not face. It has triggered a potential crisis from an
economic standpoint. Companies are threatening to move offshore,
elsewhere in Europe or to the United States or to other places. Users
and residents are complaining loudly about the fact that they are
subsidizing an unworkable plan.
While the government subsidies finance inefficient technologies and
the government obsesses about emissions goals, Germany has ramped up
its coal use, ironically, to 45 percent of total electricity
generation.
Think about this for a minute.
A government plan to mandate and subsidize alternative energy
sources, to close their nuclear plants, to cease using coal-fired
plants to provide power has now put Germany in a situation where 45
percent of its energy is provided by the import of coal--high sulfur
coal with high emissions, because that is what burns the hottest.
Now the question here is: Can we learn some lessons from this? What
we are embarking on here essentially is a plan very similar to what has
already been tried and failed. This is a cost too high for our economy
in the United States. Without a course correction, I think President
Obama's war on coal will receive the same results as Germany's or
perhaps even worse, higher prices and real potential for electricity
supply disruptions.
I talked to a number of the electric companies that derive from coal
a source of energy that provides a very reliable base load. Base load
is what you absolutely have to have to keep the lights on and to run
the factories and to keep energy flowing. Their concern is that the
current plan will disrupt that base load to the point where we cannot
guarantee energy will reach homes at a time when a polar vortex has put
people at subzero freezing temperatures or when the temperatures climbs
to triple digits during the summer. These baseloads cannot be reached
by turning windmills, and many days--particularly in my State and
others--the Sun is not shining. That is not a dependable source for
providing the baseload that is necessary, particularly at times of
stress on the system.
President Obama has often seen elements of European socialism as
something he would like to impose on Americans. Well, this is one time
when I think the President should learn from European socialism and
European mistakes and avoid duplicating the situation in Germany by
simply letting proven energy providers do their jobs and produce the
energy that is needed.
Once again, I have to say the United States has a pretty commendable
record of addressing the issues of emissions. We all want clean air, we
all want clean water, and we all want to have a safe environment for
ourselves, our children, and the future.
Hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars have been spent
over the years trying to control those emissions, and we have a pretty
good record. Can we go farther? Absolutely. Can we do more? Absolutely.
Can we put ourselves on a much more sustainable path to a cleaner
environment with less emissions? Absolutely. But setting a mandatory
number in terms of percentage and a mandatory deadline in terms of
reaching something that has proven to be unreachable and threatens our
ability to provide sustained energy to our businesses and residents is
something we need to take careful assessment of before we rush into
arbitrarily setting a rule that bypasses the debate that would take
place in Congress, bypasses the positions of our elected Members of
this Congress, and done through a process the Constitution has
established in terms of how we make decisions.
I urge my colleagues and the President to take a second look at what
the possible consequences could be. It is nothing but pie in the sky,
ideologically driven rules and regulations that are driving this. We
have a model of a major industrial nation that has taken similar steps
and has seen those steps fail.
Again, I urge my colleagues to look very carefully at what is
happening through this proposed rule, and I trust we will be able to
effectively address this situation in a responsible and reasonable way.
I see my colleague from Tennessee is prepared to remark on perhaps
this or something else, but there is probably no one better suited to
talk about alternative energy and its consequences than my colleague
Senator Alexander.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor to
hear the distinguished Senator from Indiana, and former Ambassador to
Germany, tell the story of Germany, which has gotten itself into what
can only be described as an energy mess.
He summed it up pretty well. They basically adopted the policies the
President seems to be suggesting. Where did they end up? They closed
their nuclear plants and they are buying their nuclear power from
France. They subsidized wind and solar, and now they are buying natural
gas from Russia--of all unreliable people. As a result of all this,
they ended up having to build coal plants.
I think I was with the Ambassador in Germany, and I said to the
Economic Minister: This has produced a situation where you have nearly
the highest electricity prices in the European Union. What do you tell
a manufacturer when they say they want to come to Germany? The minister
said: I tell them to go somewhere else.
Well, somewhere else is the United States today, and we want those
jobs.
I thank the Senator for his experience.
[[Page S3411]]
I come to the floor on another subject. Tomorrow we will vote on the
nomination of Sylvia Matthews Burwell to be the Secretary of Health and
Human Services. I intend to vote yes on the nomination. Ms. Burwell has
a reputation for competence, and she is going to need it. She is being
asked to oversee a big mess this administration has created in health
care and so far has lacked the leadership to clean up. Republicans know
how to clean it up. We want to take our health care system in a
different direction, and we need to be able to work with Ms. Burwell to
do it.
In a few minutes, I am going to spell out two things: first, what Ms.
Burwell can do to avoid the mistakes of her predecessor in working with
Congress and serving the American people, and second, what Republicans
would like to do with our health care system. I have five items to
suggest for her to work on with us.
No. 1, end the secrecy. Last year I said the NSA could have learned
something from Secretary Sebelius because getting information about the
ObamaCare exchanges was next to impossible for Members of Congress.
The administration owes the American taxpayers and their elected
representatives under the Constitution information about how the
administration is spending our money. We should not have to rely on
anonymous news sources.
No. 2, work with Congress. This administration has made at least 22
unilateral changes in the new health care law, many of which should
have been made by Congress. At this rate, the President may be invited
to speak at the next Republican convention for having done the most to
change his own health care law.
Our Founders did not want a king. Some Presidents have stepped over
the line the Founders intended, but I don't think any President has
gone as far as this one. He has appointed more czars than the Romanovs.
He made recess appointments when the Senate was in session. He turned
his Education Secretary into the chairman of the national school board.
This President has swung the furthest from the kind of elected leaders
our Founders envisioned, George Washington modeled, and our
Constitution prescribed.
Will Ms. Burwell follow the President's steps or will she seek to
work within the framework of the Constitution? I hope she chooses the
latter.
No. 3, please don't solicit from companies you regulate. This is
pretty simple, but the former Secretary solicited from companies she
regulated, and she should not have. This kind of behavior should leave
with her.
No. 4, be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. Apparently the
government is set to spend more than 1 billion Federal tax dollars in
technology costs on the ObamaCare Web site. We know that nearly $\1/2\
billion was wasted on four failed State exchanges. This kind of waste
makes American taxpayers furious. They earned those dollars, paid those
taxes, and don't deserve to see that money flushed down the drain by
Washington bureaucrats who didn't care enough to see that things were
done right.
No. 5, show Americans some respect. That means don't announce major
policy changes in blog posts. When Congress asks if you are in trouble,
don't pretend everything is fine. If Secretary Sebelius had been
upfront about the Web site problems before the rollout, we might have
saved Americans precious time and money.
Most importantly, recognize that the majority of Americans disapprove
of the new health care law and start taking a look at Republican health
care proposals as a way to repair the damage done by ObamaCare.
At Ms. Burwell's hearing before the Senate HELP Committee, where I am
the ranking Republican, I laid out again what Republicans would do if
we could--what we would like to do with our health care system. We have
been saying this since 2009 when the legislation was first introduced.
When I was a boy, my grandfather was a railroad engineer in Newton,
KS. He drove a big steam locomotive. He would drive a switch engine
into a roundhouse and onto a turntable. It might have been headed to
Santa Fe, and then he would turn it around and head it off to another
direction, maybe to Denver or Houston. It is hard to turn a big train,
so that is what they had the turntables for.
Ms. Burwell understands this. She is from a railroad town in West
Virginia, as it turns out, and that is what Republicans would like to
do with our health care system, we would like to turn it around and
head it off in a different direction--not back but in a different
direction. We want to repair the damage ObamaCare has done, and we want
to prevent future damage as responsibly and rapidly as we can. We would
like to move in a different direction to put in place health care
proposals that would increase freedom, increase choices, and lower
costs. We trust Americans to make those decisions themselves, and we
believe that is the American way.
Four years ago Congress and the President made what we believe was an
historic mistake. Congress passed a 2,700-page bill. Republicans said
we don't believe in trying to rewrite the whole health care system.
Let's instead go step by step to create more freedom, more choices, and
lower costs.
Let me take you back for a moment to the health care summit at the
Blair House 4 years ago. The President invited three dozen Members of
Congress. He spent 6 hours with us, all on national television. I was
asked to speak first for the Republicans. I said what I thought was
wrong with the President's plan. I said it would increase health care
costs, and it has.
USA Today reported that health care spending in the first quarter of
this year rose at the fastest pace in 35 years. The Hill newspaper
reported that insurance executives say premiums in the new exchanges
will double or triple in parts of the country the next year. Even with
subsidies, many Americans are finding that deductibles, copayments, and
out-of-pocket expenses are so high they can't afford health insurance.
We said people would lose their choice of doctors, and many have. We
said ObamaCare would cancel policies, and it has. At least 2.6 million
Americans have had their individual plans outlawed by ObamaCare. I
remember that Emilie from Lawrenceburg, TN, had a $52-a-month policy.
She has lupus, and her policy fit her needs and her budget. It was
canceled. Now she is in the exchange, and it costs about $400 a month.
She says it is more coverage than she needs and she can't afford it.
Millions more Americans who get their health care through small
businesses will find the same thing will happen to them later this
year.
We said jobs would be lost, and they have. The President of Costa
Rica is hosting jobs fairs and welcoming medical device companies that
have been driven out of the United States by the onerous 2.3-percent
tax on revenues.
We said Medicare beneficiaries would be hurt, and they have. The
average cut for a Medicare Advantage beneficiary will be $317 between
this year and next.
We said the only bipartisan thing about the bill would be opposition
to it, and it is. A recent Gallup poll says that 54 percent of
Americans are opposed to the law.
During the debate, I said every Senator who voted for the new health
care law ought to be sentenced to go home and serve as Governor in
their home State and try to implement it. There are 16 Governors
struggling with that today who won't implement the Medicaid expansion
because they are worried about costs down the road, and they should.
When I was Governor of Tennessee, Medicaid costs were 8 percent of
the State budget, and that was in the 1980s. Today it is about 30
percent. These Governors are wondering what costs will be in 10 years.
The most important thing we said was what we would do if we could. We
said: Let's go step by step in a different direction. Our Democratic
friends said: Wait a minute, that is not a comprehensive plan. We said:
You are right; we don't believe in comprehensive. If you are expecting
Mitch McConnell to wheel in a wheelbarrow with a 2,700-page Republican
health care bill on it, you will wait until the Moon turns blue because
we are policy skeptics. We don't believe we are wise enough to write a
2,700-page bill that will change the whole system, but we believe we
can go step by step in the right direction, and we outlined our steps.
Senator Johnson has a proposal that would allow more Americans to
keep
[[Page S3412]]
their insurance plans, as the President promised.
Senator McCain has a proposal that allows you to buy insurance in
another State if it fits your budget and your needs.
Senator Enzi has a proposal for a small business employer so that he
or she can combine purchasing power with other employers and offer
employees lower cost insurance.
Senators Burr, Coburn, and Hatch have a proposal to allow to you buy
a major medical plan to ensure you against a catastrophe and a health
savings account to pay for everyday expenses.
I have a proposal to make it easier, not harder, for employers to
reward employees who live a healthy lifestyle. That is what we mean by
doing what my grandfather did with that train and turning it around and
heading it off in a different and correct direction.
As rapidly and responsibly as we can, we would like to repair the
damage ObamaCare has done. We would like to prevent future damage. We
want to move in a different direction that provides more freedom, more
choices, and lower costs. We trust Americans to make decisions for
themselves. That is the American way.
Since President Obama will still be in office for the next 2 years,
if Ms. Burwell is confirmed, as I fully expect she will be by a good
vote, we will need her help to accomplish that.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
VA Challenges
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss important veteran and VA
issues--issues we are all properly focused on like a laser beam right
now--and I will be joined over the next several minutes by Senators
Rubio, Inhofe, and Heller, who share all of my concerns.
I have been coming to the floor pretty relentlessly--because
apparently that is what is necessary--to talk about one specific
priority with regard to veterans in Louisiana; that is, moving--there
is no good reason we can't move--on expanding outpatient clinics that
are overdue in 27 locations and in 18 States, including 2 new expanded
outpatient clinics in Louisiana, specifically in Lafayette and Lake
Charles. These clinics have been planned for, on the books, and paid
for for several years now. They are not being built, they are not being
moved into purely because of an administrative glitch at the VA that
delayed the whole process by a year. Then, in that intervening year, a
so-called new scoring issue came up on Capitol Hill at the CBO. We have
blown through all of that. We have solved those problems, finally,
after a lot of delay. We have solved those problems, and now there is
absolutely no reason to not take up a bill that has been passed by the
House, put a simple amendment on the bill and pass it through the
Senate, and get on with building these new and necessary expanded VA
clinics at 27 locations around the country, in 18 States, obviously
including the State of Louisiana. There are two locations there, as I
mentioned--in Lafayette and Lake Charles.
I again take the floor in the context of this much broader VA scandal
to urge us to come together and act in this simple but important way. I
have been coming to the floor to urge this action for months now--well
before this current VA scandal erupted. But I think that new context of
this national VA scandal makes bipartisan action on this and anything
else we can agree on more necessary than ever. So I again urge all of
my colleagues to come together to get this simple but important work
done and to continue to work on all of the other very necessary changes
we need at the VA.
In terms of these 27 outpatient clinics, there is no disagreement
about this. A bill has been passed through the House--with one
dissenting vote--to get this done. It sits in the well of the Senate.
There is no objection to the merits of the bill as long as we add one
perfecting amendment that has been worked out with every Member of the
Senate. There is no substantive objection to that. However, it has been
held up and objected to by Senator Sanders, the head of the veterans
committee, purely because he wants to use it as leverage to pass his
much broader veterans bill on a host of other topics.
As I have said many times before, those other topics are very
important. Those broader topics have only been underscored in the last
few weeks with this developing VA scandal. We need to address many
areas, but we shouldn't hold veterans hostage and we shouldn't hold up
progress in any area we can agree on simply to create a hostage to try
to forge movement in these other areas.
In fact, in terms of that general proposition, I think Senator
Sanders agreed with me. Back on November 19 of 2013, Senator Sanders
adopted and endorsed this approach with regard to other matters. There
was another set of work on other veterans issues, and issues were
worked out so that a specific proposal could move forward by unanimous
consent. Senator Sanders came to the floor and basically said: Yes,
let's agree on what we can agree on. Let's move forward with what we
can move forward on.
I am happy to tell you that I think that was a concern of his.
He was speaking about another Senator on this other veterans issue.
We got that UC'd last night. So we moved that pretty
quickly, and I want to try to do those things. Where we have
agreement, let's move it.
Senator Sanders was urging us, particularly in the context of the
overall VA scandal and VA mess: Let's start acting. And where we have
agreement, let's move it.
We are not going to solve every veterans problem in one bill
overnight, but we can start. A bite at a time, a step at a time, we can
start to do positive work, and these 27 clinics in 18 States are very
positive, very concrete.
So where we have agreement--and we have complete agreement in this
area--``let's move it''--a direct quote from Senator Sanders from late
last year. I am sorry to say that Senator Sanders is not allowing us to
move it. We have absolute agreement on the substance of these clinics.
We can call that bill off the calendar right now. We can put the
perfecting amendment on it. There is absolutely universal agreement on
the substance of that bill with that amendment. But we are not moving
it, apparently because he wants to use that as some sort of leverage
for other VA proposals. I want to work on those proposals, but where we
have agreement, let's move it.
Veterans want us to come together in a bipartisan way. They want us
to act not in a month or a year, not after more and more studies, they
want us to start to act now where we can, where we have agreement.
I think it is very important that we act. It is very important that
we do so in a bipartisan way. This is one focused area where that is
possible immediately, today, so I urge us all to do that.
There are other areas where we need to act. Senator Sanders is in
discussions with many of us, being led on the Republican side by
Senators Burr and McCain. I hope that broader agreement comes together.
I hope it comes together very soon. I have been assured by both sides--
by Senator Sanders on the Democratic side and Senators Burr and McCain
on the Republican side--that certainly this clinic issue will be
included in any such agreement. But let's come together here and now
where we have agreement--and we do on these clinics. Let's act for
veterans as soon as we can, and we can right now with regard to these
clinics.
I urge us to adopt that positive, commonsense approach: Act where we
have agreement, immediately. Build consensus and continue to work on
those areas where there is continuing discussion, and act and build
agreement and build consensus as quickly as we can in those other
areas. I urge us to do that as soon as we can, wherever we can,
whenever we can, and that can start today--if Senator Sanders will let
us--with regard to these 27 expanded outpatient clinics in 18 States.
I see Senator Heller has joined us on the floor, and I will defer to
him. I look forward to the comments of Senators Rubio and Inhofe as
well about the broader veteran and VA challenges as well as this
specific clinics issue.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I first wish to thank my good friend from
Louisiana for putting together a proposal that would ultimately
increase
[[Page S3413]]
veterans access to care. As does he, I believe our veterans are
entitled to a VA system that provides them with the services they were
promised--not only promised but to receive them in a timely manner. As
my colleague from Louisiana mentioned, I support his efforts to
authorize 27 VA clinics, and I cannot understand why the Senate is not
acting on this commonsense proposal.
I would also like to thank my other friends; for example, Senator
Rubio from Florida, who is fighting to bring some sort of
accountability to the VA. His bipartisan, bicameral proposal is a much
needed step in the right direction to give the VA the tools to fire VA
executives who are not doing their jobs.
Unfortunately, after talking extensively with veterans in Nevada, I
believe these problems of management, of accountability, and of
efficiency extend well beyond the Veterans Health Administration. The
Veterans Benefits Administration continues to struggle to eliminate the
veterans disability claims backlog as it operates in what I consider to
be a 1940s system here in the 21st century. There are more than 3,600
veterans in Nevada and nearly 300,000 nationwide who are stuck in a VA
disability claims backlog. My home State of Nevada has the longest wait
in the Nation at 348 days for a claim to be processed.
What veterans need is for Congress to take action to reform a broken,
outdated claims-processing system. That is why Senator Casey and I came
together a year ago to address this issue with a targeted approach to
fix the claims process. So here is what we introduced. It is the ``VA
Backlog Working Group March 2014 Report.'' These solutions we are
speaking about are included in our 21st-century Veterans Benefit
Delivery Act, which Senator Casey and I introduced in March.
Our legislation addresses three main areas of the claims process:
submission, VA regional office practices, and the agency's response to
VA requests. I recognize that the claims process is complex, and there
is no silver bullet that will solve this problem, but the VA's current
efforts will not eliminate this backlog.
I think my colleagues here today would agree this is a bipartisan
issue. There isn't a Member of the Senate whose State is not impacted
by the VA claims backlog. Yet this bipartisan legislation remains in
the backlog of bills yet to be considered by the Senate.
It is past time for Congress to give this issue the attention it
deserves. Congress needs to reform the VA and when doing so cannot
ignore the problems that plague its benefits administration.
Thank you, Mr. President.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to applaud the work of the Senator
from Nevada and echo his sentiments. I am a member of this bipartisan
working group on the claims backlog. I am a coauthor of the bipartisan
legislation he helped spearhead, along with Senator Casey. It is
another very good example of a bipartisan consensus where we can act.
We can move it. So let's come together and let's act in a responsible,
bipartisan way, and let's move it. That is what veterans want. That is
what veterans tell me all across Louisiana. That is what the veterans
service organizations are saying.
This crisis demands action. It demands bipartisan action. This is an
area where we can act now and act effectively. We should. The clinics I
spoke about are an area where we can act now and act effectively in a
bipartisan way. We should.
I also applaud Senator Inhofe, who may be coming to the floor, for
his leadership on this clinics issue. We need to authorize those and
move on with them and get that done.
I also thank Senator Rubio, who will be speaking later about the
legislation he has that has already passed the House to give the
leadership--the new leadership, thank goodness--of the VA the authority
they need to take dramatic action when necessary, to clean house when
necessary, and get people in place who are going to make a difference
in that broken bureaucracy.
So let's act now, in a bipartisan way, where we can. Again, that is
absolutely possible in these areas, including these 27 outpatient
clinics in 18 States, the 2 in Louisiana that I discussed.
We have complete agreement in the Senate on the substance of these
clinics. We have legislation that has already passed the House. So
please, Senator Sanders, release your obstacle, release your blockade.
Let's move forward. Let's agree where we can agree. Let's act where we
can act, here and now, and continue to work on those other vital areas
where we also need agreement.
There is a common saying: Time is money. Well, in terms of what we
are talking about, time can be lost lives. We have seen cases of that,
documented cases of that with regard to veterans who were waiting for
so long they died. Time in health care can be lost lives.
This past week, as I traveled in Louisiana, I had a townhall meeting
in New Orleans, among other places, and a New Orleans police officer--a
female police officer--came and told me about the case of her father
who, because of a lack of attention and time lapsed in the VA system,
died, literally died directly related to that. Her name is Gwen Moity
Nolan, and although she has lost her father, she wants to make sure
that does not happen to any other veteran's family, that what happened
to Richard Moity does not happen to others. Her case was looked at by
the VA, and they admitted fault, they admitted negligence, and they
actually reached a substantial settlement with her over their lack of
attention to her father. But she really wants to make sure that does
not happen to any other veteran's family. She came to me pleading: Can
you make sure they have taken the necessary steps to fix those problems
in the New Orleans VA?
So I have written to the VA and said: I want to see the results of
that investigation with regard to Richard Moity. You say you have taken
corrective action? I want to understand exactly what that corrective
action is.
Time is money? No. In this case, time can be lost lives--the life of
Richard Moity, the lives of veterans in Arizona, the lives of veterans
around the country for whom inattention, delay, and lack of
responsiveness in the VA system meant lost lives.
So let's not delay here in the Senate. Where we have agreement, let's
move, let's act. We have agreement on these clinics. We have agreement
on action to address the VA backlog Senator Heller talked about. Let's
act. Let's move because delay can lead to serious consequences in
health care, even the loss of life.
I thank Senators Inhofe and Rubio, who may be coming to the floor
later to talk about these issues, for their determined work. I look
forward to moving on this issue. I look forward to Senator Sanders
hopefully reaching agreement on a broader set of proposals, including
this clinics issue, in the very near future, and if not, I will be back
to the floor demanding action on these clinics within a few days.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Vermont is
recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Leahy relating to the introduction of S. 2428 are
printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and
Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not see anybody seeking recognition,
so I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 69th straight
consecutive week that the Senate has been in session to try to wake us
up to the harm that carbon pollution causes to our oceans, to our
communities, to our ecosystem, and to our health.
The effects of climate change are all around us, from melting
glaciers in our national parks, to drought-stricken land across the
American Southwest, to rising seas along my eastern seaboard. In
Washington, DC, the iconic cherry blossoms are blooming earlier. Snook,
native to South Florida, are being caught off the coast of Charleston;
tarpon and grouper off the coast of Rhode Island.
[[Page S3414]]
This is all happening now--not tomorrow, not sometime in the distant
future but now--right now. Projections show that it will get much worse
in the coming years unless we wake up and take real action. Happily,
this week, the Environmental Protection Agency used its Clean Air Act
authority as established by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court
to propose carbon pollution standards for the country's existing
powerplants.
Before this, there were no carbon pollution limits--believe it or
not--none. As you can see on this chart, the 50 dirtiest U.S.
powerplants--this is the whole U.S. powerplant fleet. These are the 50
dirtiest powerplants. They put out more carbon than Korea, which is a
pretty industrialized country. They put out more carbon than Canada,
our neighbor to the north.
I congratulate the administration on developing these smart, sensible
limits that will put our Nation on a better path economically and on a
better path environmentally. Thank you to the scientists, the
engineers, the staffers, the attorneys, and the experts who invested so
much time and energy in developing this historic standard. Through an
unprecedented public engagement, EPA held more than 300 public
meetings, working with stakeholders of all kinds and all across the
political spectrum.
The result: EPA has put the States in the driver's seat to come up
with their own plans to meet State-specific targets. States and power
companies will have a wide variety of options to achieve carbon
reductions, like boosting renewable energy, establishing energy savings
targets, investing in efficiency or joining one of the existing cap-
and-trade programs. States can develop plans that create jobs, plans
that cut electricity cost by boosting efficiency, plans that achieve
major pollution reduction.
What is not to like? Already, a diverse array of groups support the
new EPA pollution standard. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in
a letter to Administrator McCarthy wrote: ``These standards should
protect the health and welfare of all people, especially children, the
elderly, as well as poor and vulnerable communities, from harmful
pollution emitted from power plants and from the impacts of climate
change.''
The Catholic bishops went on to point out that ``the best evidence
indicates that power plants are the largest stationary source of carbon
emissions in the United States, and a major contributor to climate
change.''
We are also hearing from 600 State and local elected officials who
recently sent a letter to the President in support of the EPA plan.
These are the mayors, council members, and State legislators for whom
climate change is a day-to-day reality at home right there in their
communities.
The letter is signed by officials from both red States and blue,
including Texas, Iowa, Arizona, and the ground zero of climate change
in this country, the State of Florida. The business community has
weighed in. Over 125 companies including American giants like Nike,
Levi's, and Starbucks sent a letter of support for the new rule.
Our support is firmly grounded in economic reality. The new
standards will reinforce what leading companies already know:
climate change poses real financial risks and substantial
economic opportunities and we must act now.
VF Corporation is an American apparel manufacturer in North Carolina
whose brands include North Face, Timberland, Wrangler, and many others.
``As a company that makes innovative apparel and footwear for people
who love the outdoors, we know how important addressing climate change
is to our consumers, and therefore, our business,'' said Letitia
Webster, VF's director of global sustainability. ``Today's rules
provide the long-term certainty that VF needs to continue to invest in
clean energy solutions so that we can do our part to reduce the impacts
of climate change.''
Major utilities are behind the new rule. Tom King, the President of
National Grid, which serves my home State of Rhode Island, said:
The Obama administration, through the good work of EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy and her staff has worked in a
transparent manner to craft regulation that promotes
environmental and human health through a host of clean energy
options. Rather than picking winners, this proposed rule
supports market-based solutions.
Major public health groups agree. Here is what Harold Wimmer,
national president and CEO of the American Lung Association had to say:
``For the 147 million--nearly half of all Americans--already living in
areas with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution, curbing
carbon pollution emissions is a critical step forward for protecting
public health from the impacts of climate change happening today.''
As widespread and broad as the support is for this rule, not everyone
is applauding. Big polluters have enjoyed a long and happy holiday from
responsibility for the carbon pollution they have dumped into our
atmosphere and oceans. This free pollution they have enjoyed emitting
is a market failure, a market failure recognized even by groups as
conservative as the American Enterprise Institute--a market failure
which allowed these polluters to dump billions of dollars in costs and
harm on their fellow Americans.
They did this to their fellow Americans without apparent shame or
regret, and they are fighting desperately to preserve this loophole.
They do not want you to know that we can achieve these reductions
responsibly. They do not want you to know that we can do this and help
our economy. Indeed, before the proposed rule was even available to
examine, the climate deniers at the so-called U.S. Chamber of Commerce
said it would cost electricity customers hundreds of billions of
dollars and zap the U.S. economy of tens of billions in GDP and
hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Do not believe it. These claims are exaggerated at best and flat out
false at worst. Do not just take my word for it. Republicans, citing
the chamber's report--of course some of our colleagues jumped to cite
that report. When they did, they earned a PolitiFact ``false'' and four
Pinocchios from the Washington Post fact checker.
The problem with the big polluters is that they only look at one side
of the ledger. They ignore the costs of carbon pollution on the rest of
us. These costs are real. People see them in their lives, in real lives
at home in our communities--damage to coastal homes, roads, and
businesses from rising seas and erosion; asthma attacks in children
triggered by smog, sending them to the emergency room; forests dying
from beetle infestations and swept by unprecedented wildfire seasons;
farms ravaged by worsened drought and flooding. Our side of the ledger
counts too.
If the big polluters were accountants and they filed financial
statements that only looked at one side of the ledger, they would go to
prison. But this is politics, so without consequence or shame or
regret, they ignore the harm they cause the rest of us.
If the Chamber of Commerce and the big polluters want to talk about
jobs, let's not forget about the jobs they hurt by their carbon
pollution. Fishermen in Rhode Island have seen their winter flounder
catch nearly disappear in recent decades as the water temperature in
our Narragansett Bay has risen 3 to 4 degrees. That is an ecosystem
shift for these species.
Actually, there are now more jobs in clean, green energy than in oil
and gas, more jobs in solar than in coal mining.
This rule is a job creator in innovation and clean energy. The
polluters just won't count that side of the ledger.
It is an old story: tobacco, seatbelts in cars, acid rain, lead
paint, ozone depletion, and more. Same old strategy: Muddle the
science, manufacture doubt, manufacture cost, exaggerate the costs, and
ignore the economic benefits.
The Clean Air Act, according to a 2011 EPA assessment, will benefit
Americans more than it costs by a ratio of 30 to 1, $30 of value in
preventing hospital visits and premature deaths, avoiding missed work
and school days, improving environmental quality, helping people live
healthier, more productive lives--$30 of value to Americans for every
$1 they had to pay in cleanup costs.
Opponents of clean air standards have been proven wrong time and
again. Here is the bottom line: Excessive carbon pollution is bad for
our health, bad for our environment, and bad for our economy, even bad
for our
[[Page S3415]]
national security, if you read the Department of Defense's own
Quadrennial Defense Reviews.
The largest source of carbon pollution in the United States is
powerplants. Until now there were no limits on the carbon pollution
these plants could spew into our atmosphere and oceans. This week
changes that. If the big polluters don't like the change, many of us
will work with them on a legislative alternative. Perhaps as many
Republicans support an economywide price on carbon pollution, which
could generate a financial benefit for taxpayers and even provide
transition assistance to affected industries. But they can't just keep
dumping their pollution on the rest of us. Doing so might be free for
them, but the costs are too high for us. Their long holiday from
responsibility has to come to an end. It is time for them to wake up.
A number of my Republican colleagues have come to the Senate floor to
respond to the administration's proposal. Those of us seeking to stave
off the worst effects of climate change welcome this opportunity to
engage in a bipartisan discussion on the challenges of climate change.
In the past, Republican colleagues have coauthored and voted for
bipartisan climate change legislation. They have spoken out in favor of
a carbon fee and, of course, our Republican colleagues represent States
such as Florida that are every bit at risk from the effects of climate
change as States represented by Democrats. So we think our Republican
colleagues could have a lot to offer if they wish to join us in
exploring solutions.
A number of us have requested that time after votes on Monday, June
9, next Monday, be reserved for us to engage in a robust, bipartisan
exchange of views about carbon pollution. We invite all our colleagues,
Republican and Democrats, to join us then on the floor. We hope to find
the Republican Party in the Senate is not a uniform monolith of climate
denial.
We earnestly believe the costs of failing to exercise American
leadership and solve this carbon pollution problem are very high,
terribly high, with ramifications for our health, safety, economic
well-being, our food and water supplies, and our national security and
standing.
I look forward to a vigorous discussion on Monday. I hope my
colleagues show up.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Today I would like to discuss the nomination of Sylvia
Burwell to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. I am going to
make some criticisms of her performance and the background she lacks in
taking on this huge agency.
I have met with her, worked with her some as OMB Director. I like
her, and she is courteous and capable, so I am not talking personally
in any bad way about her, but this is an important agency, one of the
most important agencies in our Nation. The Secretary of Health and
Human Services oversees several of the largest programs in the entire
Federal Government. Crucially, the Secretary is also the person tasked
with implementing the President's health care law. It is essential that
anyone who fills this position possess great skill, relevant
experience, proven managerial experience, and who will act with
independence and in the best interests of the American public--one who,
at this critical time, puts country over politics. They cannot be a
political loyalist, but they must be someone of stature, integrity, and
sound judgment who is willing to tell the President no if asked to
circumvent the law, provide false information, or otherwise act against
the public interest.
From the President's own perspective, he needs desperately someone
who is able to evaluate these major programs such as ObamaCare with
wisdom and tell him and help him--and particularly tell the American
people the truth.
Ms. Burwell does not have the background one associates with a
position of this magnitude. She just does not. Nor does she possess the
specific skills critically needed today. The OMB office she now holds
has 500 employees. HHS has 72,000.
Aside from her short tenure at the Office of Management and Budget,
which has just been 13 months, she is just now beginning to find her
way around, presumably, that office. She has never run any major
department, any major health care department, a department or an
agency, a major business, a significant city, or a State. There are
many very capable people in this country who would be much more ready
to assume the august responsibilities of this job.
It appears her most significant health care role prior to this was
serving as a board member--part-time board member--of a local
university medical center.
In fact, 2 months ago in a Budget Committee hearing, Ms. Burwell
declined to answer a basic health care question until she said she
would seek Secretary Sebelius's expertise on the matter, but she never
provided that answer anyway.
Her time as Director of the Office of Management and Budget was
controversial. The budget plan she submitted to Congress plainly
violated the spending caps Congress and the President agreed to and
passed into law. She produced a budget plan that would increase
spending by nearly $791 billion over 10 years. That is above the Ryan-
Murray agreement that passed in Congress that set these spending limits
just a few weeks before, including, in that budget, a proposal to
increase spending by $56 billion over the budget next year.
As the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I have been
involved in this and observing it. To my dismay, she went to enormous
lengths during her testimony before the committee to try to conceal
this increase in spending. It was very amazing to me.
On the day the President's budget was submitted, the Associated Press
reported that the plan Ms. Burwell authored ``lays waste to the
spending caps that the White House and Congress agreed to late last
year.''
Also at the same time The Hill reported the budget this way--Obama's
``$3.9T budget busts spending limits.''
Remember, Ms. Burwell was the Director of Office of Management and
Budget. Her staff produces the budget and defended the budget.
It goes on to say in the first paragraph the truth of the situation
in The Hill. The article is by Erik Wasson.
President Obama on Tuesday released a $3.9 trillion
election-year budget blueprint that would bust the bipartisan
budget ceiling agreed to in December with $56 billion in new
stimulus spending.
This was 10 weeks after they had agreed to one level of spending. She
walks in and produces a budget that is $700-, $800 billion almost more
in spending over the budget of 10 years, and $56 billion more the next
year.
When I asked her about that, apparently it was politically sensitive.
Apparently they had decided they didn't want to admit they were
spending more money. The Associated Press says they did. Politico said
they did. The budget they submitted that was in law--laid before the
Budget Committee--plainly demonstrated it spent more than they agreed
to spend.
I asked her about it. It went something like this. It was a very long
exchange. It was frustrating for me. I will quote from some of them,
because I think we need to understand these issues. I asked her about
the spending excess:
Mr. SESSIONS. So you're proposing that we alter Ryan-Murray
[that is the law that set new spending limits, allowed more
spending than we previously agreed to, but it continued to
set some limits] so you can spend $56 billion more next year
alone. Yes or no; is that correct?
Ms. BURWELL. We propose a paid-for [initiative] . . .
Mr. SESSIONS. Can't you answer that question simply? Yes or
no? Do you propose to spend $56 billion more than Ryan-Murray
allows?
Ms. BURWELL. Senator, we do propose a change in the law
that would be fully paid for that would invest in things that
we believe are necessary for the economic health of the
nation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Do you want to spend more than the President
agreed to when he signed the Ryan-Murray 10 weeks ago?
Ms. BURWELL. Senator, we signed Ryan-Murray . . .
[[Page S3416]]
Mr. SESSIONS. Now, I'm just asking, yes or no; are you
[spending] more or less?
Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I think there are some questions that
are not simply yes or no questions . . .
Mr. SESSIONS. This one is a yes or no question. You're
refusing to answer it . . .
I simply asked a public servant who is paid by the taxpayers: Are you
spending more money than the Ryan-Murray budget had agreed to and the
President signed? And she refused to answer. It was really frustrating.
But I think it is indicative of the fact that they were allowing
politics to interject itself here--because the White House didn't want
to admit, and she stood up for the White House and wouldn't admit it.
But, as Politico says, it plainly was true that they were spending
more.
So rather than acting as an independent steward of taxpayer dollars
and simply telling the plain truth to a simple question, she acted as
an extension of the President's campaign arm--advancing their spin
without honestly acknowledging the clear and plain facts to the
American public asked by a representative of the people of the United
States. There was no doubt that they spent more money than Ryan-Murray
would allow, but they never acknowledged it because she politically did
not want to admit it.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is more than a
political position. The Director serves the President, yes, but it is
at bottom an important public servant, and the person who holds that
job must act as a disciplined manager of taxpayers' dollars and do so
with clarity and openness. The Director is managing the world's largest
budget.
However, Ms. Burwell submitted a financial plan--a budget--that would
have increased spending more than $700 billion above the current,
agreed-upon, in-law budget levels while, amazingly, suggesting her plan
reduced spending. It was a tax-and-spend budget that would have added
$8 trillion to our debt while doing virtually nothing to reform the
entitlement programs heading for impending insolvency. It completely
busted the budget law the President signed. It was a grossly
irresponsible plan.
According to Ms. Burwell's own budget submission, the plan would have
caused interest payments on the debt to nearly quadruple, from $221
billion in interest paid last year alone to more than $800 billion 10
years from now. So this is really a serious matter. There is no attempt
to balance the budget in her plan even over 10 years. Indeed, it flatly
rejected the very idea of a balanced budget.
Additionally, despite her public commitment during her confirmation
that she would deliver the budget in accordance with the legal
deadlines, the President's budget was again delivered more than a month
late.
Importantly, Ms. Burwell failed to comply with Federal law requiring
her to submit Medicare improvement legislation after the Medicare
trustees issued their funding warning. Medicare is heading to financial
ruin. The law says that if Medicare reaches a point where its future is
financially in doubt, it must notify the President, and the President,
through his Office of Management and Budget Director, is supposed to
submit to Congress a plan to get Medicare off the path to disaster. It
was submitted to President Bush. He submitted a plan to Congress to fix
Medicare. But this President has steadfastly refused to do so, and so
did Mrs. Burwell as his Office of Management and Budget Director.
It states that within 2 weeks of the budget submission, legislation
must be sent to Congress to comply with this so-called Medicare
trigger. It requires a plan to fix the program. During her confirmation
as OMB Director, she was asked about this duty she was going to have,
and she made a commitment to respond and produce the Medicare trigger.
Specifically, she said she would ``do everything in her power'' to
comply with the Federal law, bringing an end, in effect, to the
administration's several-years-long defiance of plain law.
As the President's Budget Director, under 31 USC, 1105, Sylvia
Burwell was the person responsible for complying with the Federal law.
Having willfully violated this requirement, it is ironic now that, if
confirmed as Health and Human Services Secretary, she will serve on the
board of trustees of the Medicare trust fund, she will be responsible
for overseeing their finances, and she will be issuing to her former
office--OMB--the same funding warnings that the administration received
and ignored while she served as budget director.
Ms. Burwell has also violated law and denied Congress needed
transparency with respect to the President's troubled health care law.
Specifically, the Omnibus appropriations bill signed into law in
January required HHS to include in its fiscal year 2015 budget a
detailed accounting of spending to implement the health law. Fair
enough. But neither the budget Ms. Burwell delivered nor the agency
justification that later joined it satisfied the requirements set in
law. They should do that. They are public servants. They should tell us
how to handle the problems of financing in health care law.
As OMB Director--the budget submitted to the Congress by Ms. Burwell
reclassified the budgetary treatment of the ObamaCare risk corridor
program without statutory authority to do so. Under this approach, it
appears HHS attempts to escape congressional accountability for its use
of certain funds. So this is a clear violation of the congressional
power to appropriate money, and it is pretty clear that to fund this
program they are going to have to ask Congress to fund it. But by
moving this around, they are attempting to spend money without asking
Congress to appropriate it--against the Constitution.
Regrettably, it seems Ms. Burwell followed a consistent pattern.
Rather than using OMB as the central agency to reform this massive,
out-of-control spending government, to stop wasteful spending and tame
the debt--as former OMB Directors such as Mitch Daniels and Rob Portman
did; now-Senator Portman submitted a balanced budget when he was OMB
Director under President Bush--she has not submitted any reforms to
bring our government under control in OMB.
One of the concerns I had about her appointment was that it is such a
critical part of our government, we have to have a strong OMB Director
to control this massive government and control wasteful spending. That
is the President's right arm. That is the person who brings the Cabinet
Secretaries in to say: You are spending money. I hear complaints about
waste. I hear about duplication. The President wants you to fix this.
We saw none of that under her leadership. Her tenure at OMB evidenced
no drive to even tackle the magnitude of our financial challenges. She
proposed to bust the spending caps that Congress and the President
agreed while trying to suggest otherwise. She ignored the Medicare
trigger. She tried to put a positive spin on a dangerous financial plan
instead of trying to actually solve the serious financial challenges
facing our country today.
With ObamaCare in chaos and disarray, threatening the very economy
and the health care of Americans by the millions, what we desperately
need in this key position is someone who will be independent,
forthright, and honest, someone who will resist political pressure from
the White House, and someone who knows what they are doing. This
position demands that we find one of the best and most respected health
care experts in the world. That is what we should be looking for. Ms.
Burwell, as nice as she is, sadly, is just not that person. She does
not have those skills.
ObamaCare was passed into law on a series of egregious falsehoods.
The American people intuitively recognized that this was an overreach
and would not work, and the American people are now paying the steepest
of prices for this complex, failed piece of legislation. One of the
falsehoods was that it would not add to the debt--not a dime, the
President said. Well, we now know it would add more than $6 trillion to
the long-term debt of the United States. That is a huge amount of
money.
A Secretary of Health and Human Services must tell the American
people the truth about the law's finances. If they fail to do so, if
the Secretary will not acknowledge the truth and the challenges that
our finances face, then the entire future, financially, of America will
be at risk.
So I believe Ms. Burwell is a good and well-meaning person. Senators
Manchin and Rockefeller from West
[[Page S3417]]
Virginia like her, and Senator Wyden of the Finance Committee and I
like her. But I cannot support her bid to control the health care
future of millions of hard-working Americans by placing her in charge
of this massive agency that so desperately needs mature, aggressive,
strong leadership--somebody who understands these issues before they
take the job. I will vote no on her nomination as Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
(The remarks of Ms. Warren pertaining to the introduction of S. 2432
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. WARREN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Ohio.
Concern for Veterans
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, during Memorial Day and last week, I spent
much of the time traveling Ohio with Michael Fairman, a retired Navy
corpsman and a Columbus resident, who served with the Marines in
Afghanistan from 2007 to 2011. His son Zack is a third-generation Navy
corpsman serving with the Marine Corps First Tank Battalion deployed in
the Middle East.
Based on his own combat experiences and his concern for other
veterans and the suicide of a friend, a fellow veteran, Mr. Fairman
came to my office with an idea of how we can help both servicemembers
and veterans--veterans like Alexander Powell, a student at the
University of Toledo who joined us in Northwest Ohio. Mr. Powell was
deployed in Iraq in 2006 when his gun truck was struck by an IED. He
had no physical or visible injuries. He went back to duty the next day,
but he began experiencing blackouts and dizzy spells. It wasn't until
2009 that he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and
hospitalized to begin treatment.
Mr. Powell is not alone. The VA reports that some 300,000 veterans
struggle with post-traumatic stress. The Defense Department reports
that out of 300,000 TBI injuries, there are 25,000 cases of what they
call mild traumatic brain injuries because mild TBI is an invisible
injury. Think of an NFL player getting a concussion or a series of
concussions over a period of a career. Think of a soldier getting what
a number of soldiers said to me--marines and air men and women and
soldiers and sailors talk about getting their ``bell rung'' when they
get a head injury. It is an injury that is not serious enough for an
NFL player to sit down, not serious enough for a soldier to be sent
home, perhaps not serious enough for a soldier to get any medical
treatment at all, but one of a series of concussive events of invisible
or minor head injuries can lead to problems a number of years later.
So when veterans or servicemembers seek service-connected
disabilities for related injuries, they often don't have the necessary
documents needed to establish the connection between their military
service and their claim with the VA. That was the case for Mr. Powell.
He told me last week:
It was my job [after returning home] to gather up any proof
that I had to show that my truck was hit by an IED and gather
statements from people who were there to corroborate my
story. That is a task, if not done immediately after the
incident, that is almost impossible to accomplish.
So 5 years, 6 years, 7 years later, Mr. Powell is back in Ohio trying
to piece together the series of head injuries he sustained, what
exactly happened, finding witnesses, his unit commander, and comrades
to be able to prove to the VA that his disability is earned and
warranted and trying to explain to his doctor what his head injuries
might have entailed. The burden is on the veteran to provide the VA
with information establishing the connection between their claim and
their service. This can lead to denied claims. It can lead to improper
medical care. It increases the disability claims backlog.
We are all concerned--even though the VA has shrunk that backlog by
50 percent in the last year or so, we also know that one of the reasons
for the backlog at the VA is it takes so much more time for the VA
employee and the soldier to try to piece together the record of
injuries that might have taken place 5 years ago, a decade ago, a
decade and a half ago. That is why I introduced the Significant Event
Tracker Act, which Mr. Fairman helped to create. This bill will improve
the claims process for veterans and servicemembers. Mr. Fairman visited
a number of House and Senate offices. The only one who responded was
actually Senator Cornyn's office, from Texas. He and I have talked
about this bill, and we both understand how important this can be to
veterans. Let me explain the bill.
First, it would allow unit commanders to document events, such as a
roadside bombing, that each servicemember in their command is exposed
to and which might later be connected to these ``invisible injuries.''
Second, recording this information on an individual basis will help
military medical officers better diagnose and treat military members
who have mental health concerns.
Finally, for veterans and military retirees, this act will help them
file better initial claims--claims with supporting documentation from
DOD. In other words, veterans should be able to focus on their
recovery, not on having to prove the cause of their injury.
Let me say that again. A soldier going to the VA in Dayton, OH, or
Cincinnati or to a veterans clinic in Mansfield should be able to focus
on her recovery and not having to prove the cause of her injury. This
bill puts the responsibility on the Army, on the Marines, on the
Defense Department, not on the veteran, to track and connect
significant events to individual servicemembers that would later
potentially lead to post-traumatic stress or to traumatic brain injury.
Commanders already report major injuries. We want commanders to report
about individual servicemembers who were involved in any kind of a
minor or ``invisible'' head injury.
This was a big idea that came to me from Michael Fairman. He visited
a number of Senate offices and House offices. Senator Cornyn showed
interest in it. My office has written the legislation with Michael
Fairman. This Nation is rightfully proud of our veterans. This idea
came from a veteran. This idea deserves to be seriously entertained by
this Senate and, frankly, by the Defense Department, if we can work
with them, on finding ways to implement some of these ideas.
25th Anniversary of Tiananmen Square
Mr. President, I rise to commemorate an event that happened 25 years
ago today not just in Beijing, China, but in other places in China when
millions of people across that country, in Tiananmen Square and other
places, rallied in support of democracy, human rights, and an end to
official corruption.
Like many Americans, I was inspired. At the time, I wasn't a Member
of Congress. Living in Ohio, I was inspired by the courage and pursuit
of individual fundamental freedoms--freedoms that we hold dear in this
country and sometimes take for granted, that are not always granted in
other countries around the world. I recall the optimism of that moment
and how it was crushed when the tanks rolled in.
Today we assess what the last 25 years meant to the Chinese but also,
more importantly, to U.S.-China relations and what our policy should
be. China has made tremendous leaps forward in the past 40 years since
normalization, but following Tiananmen Square we have missed
opportunity after opportunity to integrate China into the global rule-
based community of nations to protect our economic interests and to
move China in the right direction on political reform.
It is not an easy task, but 25 years later China is still
fundamentally undemocratic. It too often refuses to play by the rules--
rules that would benefit China short term and long term. The question
now is whether China will address the challenge facing it or will it
continue to take a more doctrinaire and hardline stance, one that
undermines the progress China has made and, because of China's
influence, could undermine the global system and regional stability.
In many respects China has reaped the benefits of open trade with the
rest of the world while avoiding many of its obligations. Our trade
deficit with China at the time of Tiananmen Square 25 years ago stood
at $6 billion; that is, we bought from China $6 billion in goods more
than we sold to China. Last year it grew to 50 times that
[[Page S3418]]
amount--$318 billion--the highest ever. That means almost every single
day of the year on the average, every single day of the year, we buy
from China $900 million more in goods than we sell to China. That trade
deficit and China's currency manipulation has cost Americans millions
of jobs and significantly reduced our Federal budget.
I know what unbalanced, unfair, and not playing on a level playing
field trade with China has done to places such as Springfield, OH,
Marion, OH, and Chillicothe and Lima, and my hometown of Mansfield, and
Ravenna, OH, all over my State, all over the Midwest, all over the
country. In the end, we compromised as a nation too much. We bought
into the myth that China's economic integration after Tiananmen Square
would bring about human rights and respect for the United States and
international rules. That is not what has happened.
Through the commission I chair, the Congressional Executive
Commission on China, we have tried to honor the memory of Tiananmen
Square by making sure that China's obligations toward human rights and
the rule of law are not forgotten.
The commission highlighted many concerns: cyber theft threats to
democracy in Hong Kong, illegal, unfair trade practices, denial of
visas, or threats of denial of visas to foreign journalists, food
safety, environmental, and public health concerns, a crackdown on human
rights activists, including Ilham Tohti, a peaceful activist for the
Uyghur minority group in Tibet.
It is my hope we have an open and transparent debate about our China
policy. Whether it be on trade agreements, where we continue to be on
the short end every single year, or whether it is about growing Chinese
foreign investment in this country, this debate must be given proper
weight rather than ignoring our concerns over human rights, the rule of
law, labor, public health, and the environment.
Above all, the debate about U.S. policy toward China must include all
segments of our society and not the way we typically do trade
agreements in this country, supported by newspaper publishers,
economists at Harvard, but not fundamentally supported by the American
people and the public.
Our workers and small businesses need to be included, NGOs and human
rights groups, instead of being led by powerful interest groups such as
large corporations. Debate needs to be inclusive and it needs to draw
on the interests and aspirations of all parts of American society.
More must be done as we honor 25 years in the memory of Tiananmen
Square. The world must continue to seek improvements on China's record
of human rights and the rule of law. More must be done. Only by
recognizing the legitimate aspirations of its people and the
obligations of the international system can China assume the role to
fit its history and its size.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Freedom of Speech
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in the wake of some recent Supreme Court
decisions touching on our system of campaign finance, there has arisen
in the Senate, frankly, this bizarre notion that we are going to amend
the Constitution to undo the Bill of Rights, and particularly the First
Amendment and its protection of the freedom of speech.
Of course, the proponents don't describe it that way. To hear the
majority leader, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee
yesterday, he said: They are merely trying to keep what he called dark
money out of American politics.
By giving Congress the ability to regulate political speech and the
means by which that is paid for and disseminated, this amendment would
invite all manner of partisan mischief and abuses and effectively
dismantle one of the most fundamental liberties secured by our
Constitution which makes America the envy of the world, and in many
ways unique in that we protect freedom of speech without regard to the
content of the speech and without regard to the identity of the
speaker, whether they be rich, poor, or a member of the middle class.
Whether that opinion is informed or not necessarily well-informed, we
believe in the marketplace of ideas where the American people are the
only judge as to what they believe the truth is. We don't try to stifle
or squelch speakers, particularly in the political process.
As our good friend the Republican leader said yesterday:
If incumbent politicians were in charge of political
speech, a majority could design the rules to benefit itself
and diminish its opponents. And when roles reversed, you
could expect a new majority to try to disadvantage the other
half of the country. And on it would go.
So this power the majority leader has proposed in amending the
Constitution so Congress could regulate political speech could be an
instrument of incumbent protection where the party in power could use
that as a weapon against the minority trying to persuade the country
that they should be restored to the majority rather than linger as a
minority.
Is this really the kind of system our colleagues who are proposing
this constitutional amendment want? Well, you have to ask whether they
have any realistic belief that this will actually become law. And of
course it would have to pass both Houses of the Congress by a two-
thirds vote, and it would have to be ratified by three-quarters of the
States. I don't think it is an overstatement to say they have no chance
of this becoming law.
Why in the world is such an outlandish proposal being made by
somebody such as the distinguished majority leader of the Senate and
other folks in his party? Well, it is no exaggeration to say this
proposed amendment would undermine American democracy as we know it, so
there has to be some other reason other than the substance of the
amendment they are trying to get at.
Lest we forget the whole purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure
that all political speech--as a matter of fact all speech, period--is
protected from government interference, and that is why it is in the
Bill of Rights, at the time our country was founded there was a serious
debate about whether we needed an explicit Bill of Rights or whether
the very structure of our government with its checks and balances and
our shared power between the judicial, executive, and legislative
branches would itself provide that protection. But the Federalists
said, no, we are not going to settle for that. We want an explicit
protection of those rights that are not derived from government but
which precede government--which don't come from government but come
from our Creator.
Under the logic used by the proponents, the government should change
this provision in the Bill of Rights that has been the law of the land
for more than 200 years and now start regulating how much money
newspapers, magazines, and Web sites are allowed to spend on articles
concerning politics and public policy. After all, when media outlets
publish this information, they are using their financial advantage over
ordinary citizens to be able to get their views out to the public. And,
of course, they are trying to persuade citizens and voters and trying
to affect political outcomes, both in terms of public policy choices
and elections.
The majority leader, if he were on the floor, might say: Well, we
have a provision in here that we will not grant Congress the power to
abridge freedom of the press. If you could turn off and on the money by
which the press disseminates its point of view, if you can regulate
perhaps even to the point of zero on the part of political actors and
their ability to disseminate their views in the public or influence
voters before the election, this carveout is effectively meaningless.
It would most certainly grant Congress the power to abridge the free
speech of individuals and groups as disparate as the American Civil
Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and the Sierra Club,
which obviously have different views but enjoy and are entitled to the
same freedom to speak their views and persuade people to their point of
view as much as anybody else. It would also grant Congress the power to
abridge other freedoms in the First Amendment, such as freedom of
assembly and freedom to petition government for the redress of
grievances, and it would allow State governments to ride roughshod even
over freedom of the press.
You have to wonder why in the world would intelligent, highly
educated, experienced Senators--people who are
[[Page S3419]]
knowledgeable about all of the matters I have talked about--propose
such a wrongheaded idea and one they know will never become the law of
the land?
Well, unfortunately, this is part of an effort to intimidate and
stigmatize people from participating in the political process. We know
the majority leader comes out to the floor and talks daily about the
Koch brothers, whom he happens to disagree with, and he disagrees with
their right and ability to participate in the political process and to
affect elections. He doesn't talk about other political actors, such as
organized labor, which has essentially been carved out of the
limitations on political contributions and political spending. He
doesn't talk about people such as Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund
manager who says he will spend $100 million against anyone who supports
the Keystone Pipeline or anyone who opposes his views on climate
change.
This cherry-picking in terms of trying to intimidate people and to
squelch political speech is pretty apparent. It becomes apparent
because obviously the majority leader is very worried about the
upcoming midterm election and what might happen when we see the
pushback from voters in the Senate races all across the country over
the last 5 years, and this great, huge growth in government and its
intrusiveness in their lives.
Here is the bottom line: Free speech is free speech, period. To quote
a recent Supreme Court decision:
There is no right more basic in our democracy than the
right to participate in electing our political leaders.
As they said, there is nothing more basic.
As I mentioned a moment ago, thankfully the Founders were wise enough
not only to give us the Bill of Rights and our Constitution but to make
it very difficult to amend it in the first place, so we know the
majority leader's amendment has no chance of actually passing. Yet its
mere introduction, the fact that a major political party and a majority
in the Senate apparently believes in shrinking the First Amendment in
order to weaken their political opponents, should be a cause of
broadspread concern in the country. People ought to ask the question:
Why in the world would you propose to do something as draconian and as
damaging as that?
Well, it is the kind of amendment we would expect to see not in the
greatest deliberative body in the world, and certainly not in the
Senate, but maybe some banana republic or some country that does not
have our experience or our foundation in constitutional self-
government. Therefore, it is not merely enough to reject this amendment
and then quickly move on to something else. We need to send a clear,
unambiguous message that the Bill of Rights is not up for debate. We
need to send a clear, unambiguous message that our First Amendment
freedoms represent the bedrock of American democracy, and we will not
agree to undermine that, damage it, or otherwise impair it on our
watch.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my friend from Wyoming wishes to speak,
we will go through the process for 3 or 4 minutes, and we will put the
Senator on what we call automatic pilot if he cares to speak.
Mr. BARRASSO. I will be less than 2 minutes.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
rule XXII, on Thursday at 1:45 p.m., all postcloture time be expired
and the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 798;
further, that following the vote on that nomination, which is Burwell,
the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 519, and the
Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination; further,
that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no
further motions be in order to the nominations; that any statements
related to the nomination be printed in the Record, and that the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. With this agreement, there will be two rollcall votes
beginning at 1:45.
Mr. President, we are moving this up because we have 10 or so
Senators who are going to the 70th anniversary of Normandy.
____________________