[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 23 (Thursday, February 9, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S987-S994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about two of President 
Trump's nominees. I will first address Nominee Gorsuch to the Supreme 
Court. Then I will discuss the nomination of Tom Price to be Secretary 
of Health and Human Services, which is currently pending before the 
Senate.
  Last week, President Trump nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch 
to fill the vacancy left by the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin 
Scalia. I want to address both the process and the substance of what 
lies ahead for the Senate.
  The Constitution gives to the President the power to nominate and, 
subject to the Senate's advice and consent, the power to appoint 
judges. The first step in the Senate exercising its power of advice and 
consent is to decide the best way to handle a nomination made by the 
President.
  The Constitution does not mandate a one-size-fits-all process. In 
fact, the Senate has handled the Supreme Court nominations in at least 
a dozen different ways.
  Nearly 1 year ago, shortly after Justice Scalia's death, I explained 
on the Senate floor the two reasons the next President should choose 
his replacement. First, the circumstances and timing of the Scalia 
vacancy supported separating the confirmation process from the 
Presidential election season, which was a hard-fought Presidential 
election.
  When he chaired the Judiciary Committee in 1992, then-Senator Joe 
Biden urged the Senate not to consider a Supreme Court nomination in 
that Presidential election year. Each of his four reasons applied, with 
even greater force, to the circumstances we faced last year.
  Second, I said that elections have consequences. The American people 
were increasingly concerned about the illegal and unconstitutional 
actions of the Obama administration, actions that the courts struck 
down dozens of times.
  The two Presidential candidates last year represented very different 
ideas about the power and proper role of judges in our system of 
government. The American people, therefore, had a unique opportunity to 
address the future course of the judiciary in general and the Supreme 
Court in particular.
  Not surprisingly, the percentage of American voters who said that the 
Supreme Court was a very important issue tripled between 2008 and 2016. 
The issue was always when, not whether, the Senate would consider a 
nominee to fill the Scalia vacancy.
  Plunging into a divisive, ideological confirmation battle in the 
middle of a confrontational and ugly Presidential campaign would have 
done more harm than good to the judiciary, the Senate, and the country. 
We were right to avoid such damage and, as a result, today we can focus 
properly on the appointment of Justice Scalia's successor.
  Democrats and their left-leaning allies, however, sound as though 
they exist in some kind of parallel universe. In editorials since the 
election, for example, the New York Times claims that Republicans stole 
this Supreme Court seat from President Obama.
  I am sure they are in denial about the election results, and some 
observers have called this bizarre fiction sour grapes. I think that 
gives sour grapes a bad name, between you and me.
  No judicial position, including the Supreme Court seat occupied by 
Justice Scalia, belongs to any President. President Obama exercised the 
power that the Constitution gives him by nominating someone to that 
vacancy. The Senate exercised the power that the Constitution 
separately gives us by not granting consent to that nomination.
  I have news for my Democratic colleagues: Not getting your way does 
not mean that anyone stole anything; it just means that you did not get 
your way.
  When Chairman Biden refused to give a hearing to more than 50 
judicial nominees during the 103rd Congress--a record, by the way, that 
still stands--the New York Times never said that those seats were being 
stolen from President Bush.
  When Democrats blocked a confirmation vote 20 times during the 108th 
Congress, the Times never accused Democrats of theft but was right 
there egging them on.
  Republicans last year decided to defer the confirmation process 
without knowing who would win the election. Democrats this year are 
objecting because of who won the election, even though at the time, it 
looked as though Hillary Clinton was a sure winner.
  I think we should stop the nonsense and act like grownups because we 
have work to do.
  Turning to that work, the task before us is to determine whether 
Judge Neil Gorsuch is qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal 
experience and judicial philosophy, and I believe we should look at a 
nominee's entire record for evidence of these qualifications.
  Judge Gorsuch's legal experience is well documented and widely 
acknowledged. Judge Gorsuch clerked for two Supreme Court Justices, 
spent a decade in private practice, and then served as Acting Associate 
Attorney General. His qualifications for the U.S. Court of Appeals were 
so obvious that the Senate confirmed him in 2006 without even a roll 
call vote.
  Let me put that into perspective. During the 4 years that Republicans 
were back in the majority, 2003 to 2006, the Senate took roll call 
votes on 86 percent of judicial nominations. Democrats were demanding 
roll call votes even when, as happened 82 percent of the time, the 
nominations were unopposed. In other words, it was a very rare 
exception for a judicial nomination to be confirmed without a roll call 
vote at all. That is how self-evidently qualified this nominee was for 
the appeals court.
  In 11 years on the appellate bench, he has authored hundreds of 
majority or separate opinions, many of which have been widely praised. 
There is no question that Judge Gorsuch has the legal experience to 
serve on the Supreme Court.
  As I have said many times, the conflict over judicial appointments is 
really a conflict over judicial power. The more important qualification 
for judicial service, therefore, is a nominee's judicial philosophy, or 
his or her understanding of the power and proper role of judges in our 
system of government--in other words, the kind of Justice he will be.
  Federal judges have two basic tasks. They can perform those tasks in 
two basic ways. Their tasks are to interpret and apply the law to 
decide cases. They can perform those tasks impartially or politically.
  An impartial judge interprets statutes and the Constitution to mean 
what they already mean, while the political judge interprets them to 
mean what he wants them to mean. When an impartial judge applies the 
law, he deliberately excludes his own views and does not put his thumb 
on the scale to make sure the results of the case benefit a particular 
party or group.
  The political judge accepts, and even embraces, that his background 
and biases shape his decisions and considers how individual decisions 
will affect other parties, groups, or issues.
  Our system of government, and the liberty it makes possible, requires 
impartial judges in all cases.
  In his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington said 
that the heart of our system of government is the right of the people 
to control the Constitution. One of his original Supreme Court 
Justices, James Wilson, described our system of government by saying 
that here, the people are masters of the government. Our liberty can be 
secure only if the people control the Constitution, only if the people 
remain masters of the government. That cannot happen if judges control 
the Constitution because then, government will be the master of the 
people. That is why the kind of judge Presidents appoint is so 
important. Impartial judges

[[Page S988]]

let the people govern; they let the people govern themselves. Political 
judges do it for them.
  The best way to tell which kind of Justice the nominee before us will 
be is to assess the kind of judge he already is. One of the most 
obvious places to look is in the opinions he has been writing for more 
than a decade. Last year, for example, the Tenth Circuit had to decide 
whether to use the Constitution to create new categories of lawsuits 
against law enforcement officers. Judge Gorsuch agreed that the courts 
should resist doing so and wrote:

       Ours is the job of interpreting the Constitution. And that 
     document isn't some inkblot on which litigants may project 
     their hopes and dreams . . . but a carefully drafted text 
     judges are charged with applying according to its original 
     public meaning.

  In other words, the Constitution is not a blank check a judge may 
write to whomever, and for whatever amount, they like. It is not a 
shape-shifting blob that judges can manipulate into whatever they want 
it to be.
  In this view, Judge Gorsuch was merely echoing America's Founders. 
Thomas Jefferson, for example, argued that if the Constitution means 
whatever judges say it means, the Constitution will become ``a mere 
thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and 
shape into any form they please.''
  He was right. The Constitution, after all, is the primary way the 
people set rules for government, including for the judiciary. If the 
people are to remain masters of the government, they must remain 
masters of the Constitution, and that includes not only what it says 
but also what the Constitution means.
  Impartial judges take statutes and the Constitution as they are, not 
for what they say but also for what they mean.
  Political judges act as if the people and their elected 
representatives established a Constitution or enacted statutes that are 
merely collections of words with no meaning until judges fill in those 
blanks. Judge Gorsuch is an impartial judge. Anybody looking at the 
record has to know that. He knows that he is to interpret but cannot 
make the law. He knows that the Constitution must control judges, not 
the other way around.

  Last year, Judge Gorsuch delivered a lecture about Justice Scalia's 
legacy at Case Western University School of Law. In that lecture, Judge 
Gorsuch embraced a defined judicial philosophy and made clear the kind 
of judge that he is.
  I referred to this lecture in my remarks last week, and this week I 
sent it to each of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I truly 
hope each and every Member of this body will read it carefully because 
it helps answer the most important question before us in exercising our 
power of advice and consent: What kind of Justice will this nominee be?
  In his lecture, Judge Gorsuch said--and I will refer to the chart 
again--``Judges should be in the business of declaring what the law is 
using the traditional methods of interpretation, rather than 
pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own 
political views, always with an eye on the outcome.''
  Some Senators and liberal groups have already stated that they oppose 
this nomination. Perhaps they think judges should be in the business of 
pronouncing the law as they might wish it to be in light of their own 
political views.
  Judge Gorsuch said in his lecture that the task of a judge is to 
interpret and apply the law rather than, as he put it, ``to amend or 
revise the law in some novel way.'' Perhaps his critics believe the 
opposite, that judges actually do have the power to amend and revise 
the law in novel ways.
  Last year, Judge Gorsuch echoed America's Founders in saying that the 
power of the legislative branch to make law and the power of the 
judicial branch to interpret law should be kept separate and distinct. 
Confusing them, he said, would be a grave threat to our values of 
personal liberty and equal protection. Perhaps his critics believe it 
does not matter whether judges make or interpret the law.
  Last year, Judge Gorsuch said that judges must ``assiduously seek to 
avoid the temptation to secure results they prefer.'' What the law 
demands, he said, is more important than the judge's policy 
preferences. Perhaps his critics think judges should give in to that 
temptation, putting their preferred results ahead of what the law 
demands?
  The more we find out about Judge Gorsuch and his judicial philosophy, 
the more we should ask what his opponents and critics really find so 
objectionable. If Democrats and their leftwing allies believe that 
judges, rather than the people, should control the Constitution, they 
should come right out and say so. If they believe that the political 
ends justify the judicial means, that judges may manipulate the law to 
produce politically correct results, then they should be honest about 
it and defend that radical idea to the American people.
  As I close, I want to offer some wisdom from Daniel Webster, who 
served in the House and Senate and twice as Secretary of State under 
three different Presidents. In a speech on March 15, 1837, he said:

       Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption 
     of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the 
     Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers 
     of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to 
     govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good 
     masters, but they mean to be masters.

  Well, there are also judges who mean to be good masters, but they do 
indeed mean to be masters. They mean to govern well, but they do mean 
to govern. That kind of judge compromises the heart of our political 
system and undermines the liberty that it makes possible.
  Judge Neil Gorsuch has no intention of governing, of being any kind 
of master of the Constitution or of the people. He is, instead, an 
impartial judge, the kind who follows rather than controls the law. He 
will be the kind of Justice that America needs on the Supreme Court.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Washington State and the Senator from Michigan for allowing me to sneak 
in here quickly.
  I thank the Senator from Utah for his comments.
  Mr. HATCH. I still have one more speech to give.
  Mr. SASSE. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. HATCH. I will try to make this very brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to turn to the business 
currently before the Senate and express my support for the nomination 
of Representative Tom Price to be the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services at this critical juncture.
  HHS encompasses an extremely large and diverse set of agencies, 
including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, 
and the Food and Drug Administration, just to name a few. All told, its 
annual budget is more than $1 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t.''
  The various programs and agencies that fall under HHS's purview have 
an enormous impact on our Nation's fiscal and economic outlook. I am 
not exaggerating when I say that HHS affects the daily lives of more 
American taxpayers than any other part of the Federal Government.
  Management of all these agencies is not for the faint of heart. Once 
confirmed, Dr. Price will have his work cut out for him, but I believe 
he is more than up to the challenge. He has proven that over the years.
  Dr. Price has extensive insight into our Nation's health care system, 
having practiced medicine for two decades in a variety of settings. 
That experience has informed his years of service in the House of 
Representatives, which included a tenure as chairman of the House 
Budget Committee and in the leadership in the Ways and Means Committee.
  While many who come to Washington are content to sit back and talk 
about our Nation's problems, Dr. Price has always sought to find 
solutions. At a time when our health care system is in distress, I 
believe Dr. Price will put his

[[Page S989]]

vast experience to good use and be decisive in not only working with 
Congress to find solutions but implementing them as well.
  My view on his qualifications is shared by a great number of people, 
including many who see the problems in our health care system up close. 
For example, former HHS Secretaries Mike Leavitt and Tommie Thompson 
enthusiastically support his nomination. Major stakeholder 
organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American 
Hospital Association, most surgical specialty groups, and others, also 
support him. In their letter of support, the Health Care Leadership 
Council, which represents a wide range of health care providers, said 
that ``it is difficult to imagine anyone more capable of serving his 
nation as the Secretary of HHS than Congressman Tom Price.'' I couldn't 
have said it better myself.
  Of course, none of this seems to matter to some of my colleagues on 
the other side. They aren't coming to the floor to criticize Dr. 
Price's abilities or qualifications; instead, most of what we have 
heard for weeks now is focused on a vague patchwork of allegations of 
ethical impropriety on the part of the nominee.
  I have participated in quite a few confirmation debates during my 
time in the Senate, and even over this agency. One thing I have learned 
is that if the opponents of a particular nomination keep moving their 
focus from one set of allegations to another, more often than not, they 
don't have a leg to stand on. That is very much the case with regard to 
the attacks that have been hurled at Dr. Price.
  First, we heard about supposed conflicts of interest in his finances, 
until it was pretty clear that Dr. Price had followed all the required 
ethical guidelines and disclosure requirements of the House.
  After that, he was accused of lying to the Senate Finance Committee 
during our vetting process because he had to file an amended disclosure 
to include some mistaken omissions. Of course, this is not altogether 
an uncommon occurrence, particularly given the fact that the Finance 
Committee's vetting process is uniquely exhaustive. It happens in 
almost every case where you have people who have had a complicated life 
or work life. Furthermore, he was asked about this during his 
confirmation hearing, and his answers were reasonable, and I haven't 
heard anyone credibly argue that he was intentionally trying to mislead 
the committee.
  I will set aside the fact that the particulars of Dr. Price's 
disclosures to the Finance Committee--information which is typically 
kept private among members and staff--were apparently managed and 
embellished in order to create and reinforce a partisan narrative with 
the media. Instead, I will simply say that the Finance Committee's 
bipartisan vetting process for nominees has historically operated on an 
assumption of good faith, both on the part of the nominee and the 
members of the committee. The fact that my colleagues on the committee, 
in many respects, have decided to cast all that aside in recent weeks 
is not evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Price.
  When the overblown claims about his disclosures failed to gain 
traction, my colleagues on the other side turned their focus to a 
particular investment in an Australian biomed company in 2015. Their 
claim: Dr. Price received a ``sweetheart deal'' from the company which 
allowed him to purchase stock at a discounted price. They also argue 
that he lied during his confirmation hearing when he said he paid the 
same price for the stock as everyone else at that time.
  Now, my colleagues would have everyone believe that private placement 
investment arrangements are inherently shady and nefarious. Let's just 
get that out of the way right now. Private placements are a commonplace 
and appropriate means for companies to raise--
  Madam President, let me yield the floor to Senator Scott.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, I yield 30 minutes of my time during the 
debate of Congressman Price to Senator Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. HATCH. I sure appreciate my colleague because I have run out of 
time here and I still have things to say.
  Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.
  Mr. HATCH. Well, let me just go back.
  Let's just get that out of the way right now. Private placements are 
a commonplace and appropriate means for companies to raise additional 
capital from a small number of investors. I know because I used to 
practice law and I did a number of private placements in my experience.
  The facts in this matter are relatively simple: The Australian 
company, Innate Immunotherapeutics, had a relatively small number of 
U.S. investors at the time. It is my understanding that all of the 
investors who had participated in a previous share offering were 
offered an opportunity to purchase additional stock as part of a 
private placement arrangement. Dr. Price purchased additional stock at 
the price that was offered to all the investors in that group.
  Once again, private placements are commonplace investments, not 
nefarious conspiracies that some of our colleagues would have us 
believe. And I can certainly testify to that. According to all the 
available details, this particular investment was in compliance with 
all of the laws and regulations that govern those types of deals. In 
fact, as private placement investments go, this one appears to be 
fairly unremarkable, unless, of course, you just assume without 
evidence that there simply had to be something fishy going on--an 
assumption that I don't think could be made.
  Put simply, this investment arrangement was a perfectly normal, 
commonplace affair. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that 
there was any insider trading, as some of my colleagues have alleged.
  On top of that, Dr. Price's statements before the Finance Committee, 
despite many claims to the contrary, appear to be truthful unless you 
simply want to assume without evidence that he has to be lying. What a 
situation that our colleagues try to put this good man in. It is 
disreputable, in my opinion.

  By all accounts, Dr. Price purchased the Innate stock at the same 
price offered to all other participants in the private placement which, 
by the way, also included a few thousand investors from Australia and 
New Zealand. That is what he told the committee and that, by all 
appearances, is the truth. We certainly haven't seen any evidence to 
the contrary. Sure, my colleagues on the other side have thrown a lot 
of dots on the wall, apparently hoping they can create a cloudy 
impression that something nefarious just had to be going on with this 
investment, even though they haven't come close to connecting any of 
the dots. They have parsed words, they have divined alternative 
meanings behind the nominee's statements. But let me be clear, no one 
has produced any credible evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Dr. 
Price. Those of us who know him know that he never did any wrongdoing 
and, frankly, never intended to do anything that was wrong.
  That being the case, it is utterly shameful that my colleagues would 
go to such elaborate lengths in order to malign not only a nominee for 
a Cabinet position but a sitting Member of the U.S. Congress. There 
ought to be some courtesy here, and I am kind of shocked that there 
isn't. Of course, we went through a fairly ugly episode the other night 
about the same issue, though that one hit a little closer to home as 
the nominee under attack was a fellow Senator.
  I don't want to rehash that argument here today. Instead, I will say 
this. I know some people like to fight around here. For some, it seems 
the fighting is half the reason they are here to begin with, and 
neither party is blameless in that regard. Do you know what? If my 
colleagues wanted to have a fierce and lively debate about this 
nominee's qualifications or his views on policy, I welcome that debate. 
He is a tremendous human being, a tremendous doctor, with all kinds of 
experience, and has been a wonderful Member of the House of 
Representatives for both parties--as a Republican. If they want to 
fairly debate his record as a legislator

[[Page S990]]

and a public servant, I am game. I will be glad to do it with them, but 
to throw accusations at a congressional colleague, and even go so far 
to accuse him--without evidence--of criminal wrongdoing is, in my view, 
beneath the dignity of the Senate.
  That is precisely what has happened to Dr. Price. Ultimately, my 
colleagues' specious arguments and their desperate attempt to block Dr. 
Price's confirmation would all seem far more sincere if he were the one 
nominee or even one in a small handful of nominees they deemed unfit to 
serve, but that is not what is happening.
  My colleagues on the other side have appeared to be apoplectic about 
almost every single nominee we have had before us. The confirmation of 
any of President Trump's Cabinet nominees, it seems, will bring about 
untold destruction, the likes of which America has never seen.
  With so many of these nominations, the entire process has been 
wrought with fever-pitched arguments, accusations, and apocalyptic 
visions of a future world gone mad. We hear it in committee. We are 
hearing it on the floor. Then the Senate votes, the nominees are 
confirmed, and my colleagues immediately switch gears to do the very 
same thing with the next nomination. Some of them even switch gears and 
come up to the nominee with smiles on their faces and congratulate him 
or her.
  One can only wonder how so many Senators can keep their outrage 
settings turned to 11 without getting completely exhausted around here. 
I expect they are able to do so because their outrage is more show than 
anything else. Indeed, I suspect that the outrage that has been on 
display has less to do with the particular nominees and more to do with 
a longer term political agenda. In service of that partisan agenda, my 
colleagues appear to be more than willing to cast aside the traditions, 
respect, and assumptions of good faith that have long been the hallmark 
of the Senate confirmation process and of the Senate itself.
  I am very concerned with the way this has gone on here. I am 
concerned with the way my colleagues are treating another respected 
colleague from the House. We have seen it in committee. We are seeing 
it on the floor. In my view, it is a tragic shame.
  The bottom line is, Dr. Price is, by any reasonable objective 
standard, qualified to serve as HHS Secretary. Some people would say he 
is qualified just because he has made it all the way to Congress and he 
ought to be treated with equal respect, but I will not even go that 
far. I will just say, by any reasonable and objective standard, he is 
qualified to serve as HHS Secretary. There is nothing in his past 
record or statements that disqualifies him to serve in that capacity. 
In a better world, he would be confirmed already. People would be 
shouting hooray that this good man will take the time and spend the 
effort to take this very thankless, very difficult job--and to leave 
Congress in the process. I suspect he will be confirmed in short order.
  Once again, I do urge my colleagues to vote with me to confirm 
Representative Price. I really believe we ought to get past this is 
picayune stuff that has been going on, on the floor. We ought to get 
past that and truly, truly support a good man from the other body who 
we all know is honest and decent and allow him to see what he can do to 
straighten out this tremendously complex Department of Health and Human 
Services.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, I rise in defense of Michigan seniors 
and working families and to speak on the nomination of Representative 
Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a Member of 
this body, it is my duty to only support a nominee for this position if 
I trust that he or she will put the health and wellness of American 
families first.
  Representative Price has failed to convince me that he will do this. 
As a doctor, he should be familiar with the Hippocratic Oath. Reciting 
this oath is a rite of passage for our physicians and our Nation and 
across the globe. While it is known most widely for its overarching 
message of ``do no harm,'' I wish to recite a passage from the modern 
version of the Hippocratic Oath that should resonate with all of us. It 
reads:

       I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart--a 
     cancerous growth--but a sick human being--whose illness may 
     affect the person's family and economic stability. My 
     responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to 
     care adequately for the sick.

  We should all heed these words. Health care is deeply personal. Some 
of the most important decisions Americans will ever make will be with 
the advice of their loved ones and their doctor.
  Health care affects our families and the economic stability of our 
families. Quality, affordable health care can literally be the 
difference between life and death. A Medicare system that works for 
seniors can be the difference between a retirement with dignity and 
having to spend their golden years in poverty.
  When it comes to our Nation's seniors, Congressman Price has crafted 
extremely dangerous proposals that would end Medicare as we know it. He 
has introduced legislation that would turn Medicare into a voucher 
system, increase the eligibility age for seniors to enroll in the 
program, and lead to increased drug costs.
  Our Nation's seniors worked hard their entire lives and they deserve 
a dignified retirement--not higher drug costs or a voucher that could 
be worth less each and every year, putting a significant strain on 
their fixed budget. We must honor our promises to current and future 
retirees by refusing to confirm any HHS nominee who is not fully 
committed to protecting our seniors and ensuring they have the health 
care they need. We need a Secretary who wakes up every morning thinking 
about how to provide the best care possible to as many Americans as 
possible and as affordably as possible.
  I am concerned that Representative Price sees our health care system 
as a profit center, a profit center for special interests and a profit 
center for himself. He has proposed dangerous plans to end critical 
investments that make our health care system better so he can give 
large tax breaks to some of his wealthy friends.
  The American people should be confident that the men and women 
leading Federal agencies are thinking about the bottom line of 
taxpayers and not themselves. We must be faithful stewards of taxpayer 
dollars. I wish to remind my colleagues that Medicare and Medicaid 
spend far less on overhead and operations than private insurance.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that the Republican budget 
plan that includes repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase our 
national debt by upward of $9 trillion over the next decade. Yes, that 
is trillion with a ``t.'' We must continue efforts to cut waste and 
inefficiencies across the Federal Government, especially in health 
care. Increasing efficiencies allows us to invest in what works.
  Medicare and Social Security are two of the most popular Federal 
programs ever created, and they are popular for a reason. They work. 
They work for seniors, they work for the disabled, they work for 
orphans, and we should too.
  When I hear from Representative Price that he wants to fundamentally 
change Medicare and Medicaid and implement health care reforms that 
will limit care for American families, this is something I cannot and 
will never support.
  Representative Price has introduced proposals to cut over $1 trillion 
from Medicaid that will jeopardize care for millions of low-income 
working Americans, senior citizens that require long-term care in 
nursing homes and individuals with disabilities. This is not a vision 
of America that I see, and it is not one I can possibly support.
  We need to find a bipartisan path forward. We need to invest in 
prevention, increased efficiencies, embrace technologies like 
telemedicine, and capture the full potential of promising medical 
research, like precision medicine, to yield better care and at lower 
costs. We need to make it easier for small business owners who want to 
do right by their employees to provide them with coverage. We can 
strengthen our health care system without cutting the quality of care 
by investing in commonsense changes to save money. For example, 
Medicare spends $1 out of every $3 on diabetes treatment. While the 
total economic cost of diabetes is estimated to be $245 billion per 
year, I have

[[Page S991]]

introduced bipartisan legislation that allows Medicare to enroll 
individuals at risk for developing diabetes into medical nutrition 
therapy services proven to decrease the likelihood they will develop 
diabetes.
  I have also introduced bipartisan legislation that expands Medicare's 
use of telemedicine, increasing access for patients in rural and 
underserved communities, and bringing down future health care costs by 
ensuring patients get the preventive care they need to stay healthy.
  Instead of focusing on these critical challenges or sensible 
solutions, Representative Price wants to move us backward and push 
policies that could leave 30 million Americans without health 
insurance.
  We can't look at this as simple budgetary math, we are talking about 
30 million of our friends, family members, and neighbors, including 
over 800,000 Michiganders--Michiganders who could once again face 
bankruptcy and loss of their economic security just because they get 
sick.
  We live in a nation where historically the No. 1 cause of personal 
bankruptcy has been medical debt. That is simply unacceptable in this 
great country of ours. Whether we are policymakers or physicians, we 
should adhere to the central tenet of the Hippocratic Oath of ``do no 
harm.''
  Our Nation's seniors, children, and all hard-working Americans 
deserve a Secretary of Health and Human Services who will, at the very 
least, do no harm. Representative Price is not that person.
  It is for this reason that I have decided I will vote against his 
nomination for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I urge all 
of my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
announce I will be voting against Congressman Price to be the Secretary 
of the Department of Health and Human Services. Despite some of the 
remarks people have expressed, I feel passionately about the fact that 
he is the wrong person to serve in that job. I have heard from a 
remarkable number of my constituents who also believe he is the wrong 
person for the job.
  Congressman Price is an outspoken advocate for repealing the 
Affordable Care Act, which would cause up to 30 million Americans to 
lose their health insurance and put at risk the lives of thousands of 
people in New Hampshire and across America who rely on the Affordable 
Care Act--or ObamaCare--for treatment of substance abuse disorders. He 
is a rampant supporter of defunding Planned Parenthood and denying 
women our reproductive rights. If he defunds Planned Parenthood, it 
would mean that women would lose access to contraceptive services and 
cancer screenings.

  In New Hampshire we have thousands of women who rely on Planned 
Parenthood as their only source of health care. Congressman Price is 
determined to make billions of dollars in cuts to the Medicaid program, 
which would jeopardize the health of some of our most vulnerable 
citizens, including millions of children living in poverty and millions 
of seniors living in nursing home care.
  I am especially troubled by the threat that Representative Price 
poses to women's health. I urge my colleagues to listen to the millions 
of women across America who marched last month in opposition to the 
policies of the Trump administration and Congressman Price. Those of us 
who marched on that day had a simple and powerful message: We will not 
be dragged backward. We will not allow the Trump administration to take 
away our constitutional rights and to interfere with our deeply 
personal health care choices. Yet Dr. Price's extreme policies would do 
exactly that. They would drastically undermine women's access to health 
care, and they would turn back the clock on women's reproductive health 
and rights.
  Representative Price has spent his entire congressional career 
authoring, sponsoring, and voting for legislation that would put 
women's health at risk. He cosponsored and voted 10 times--10--to 
defund Planned Parenthood, repeatedly championing slashing funding and 
access for family planning services. If we want to cut down on 
unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country, we need to give 
families access to family planning services.
  If Congressman Price succeeds in making good on this threat as 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, it would result in 1.5 million 
Medicaid patients losing the ability to see the family planning 
provider of their choice.
  As Senator Peters said, Congressman Price does not support the 
Affordable Care Act and the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that 
women have access to FDA-approved methods of contraception with no out-
of-pocket costs. Indeed, he rejects the very idea that women should 
obtain birth control with no out-of-pocket costs. He said:

       Bring me one woman who has been left behind. Bring me one. 
     There's not one.

  Well, that statement is not only wrong, but it is arrogant, and it is 
gravely out of touch with reality.
  Throughout his career in Congress, Dr. Price has been a zealous 
advocate of restricting women's access to contraception and abolishing 
our constitutionally protected reproductive rights. He has cosponsored 
an ``extreme personhood'' bill--so-called--that would establish that 
life begins at conception, and he supported a bill to ban abortion 
after 20 weeks, despite the Supreme Court's rulings that similar bills 
are unconstitutional. He even voted for a bill that would alter the 
recommended medical training for obstetrics and gynecology by 
preventing grant funding from being used to train medical students on 
how to safely perform the abortion procedure.
  The policies advocated by Representative Price would have profoundly 
negative impacts on the health and well-being of the people in my State 
of New Hampshire. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act would have 
devastating effects on people in New Hampshire. Some 120,000 Granite 
Staters--nearly 1 in 10 people in New Hampshire--have enrolled in 
health care coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act, thanks to 
ObamaCare. That is an enormous step forward for the health and well-
being of the people of my State. Yet Dr. Price is determined to destroy 
that progress. Indeed, he seems to have no higher priority than to 
terminate health coverage for millions of people across this country.
  Make no mistake. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act would destroy much 
of the progress we have made in New Hampshire and in other States to 
fight the heroin and opioid epidemic. Across this country, more people 
are now killed by drug overdoses than by traffic accidents. There were 
more than 52,000 overdose deaths in 2015. But statistics can't fully 
capture the profound human toll. It is not only the thousands of 
individual lives that have been destroyed. Entire communities are being 
devastated.
  In dozens of visits to New Hampshire during his campaign, President 
Trump pledged aggressive action to combat the opioid crisis. Keeping 
that promise is a matter of life and death. Make no mistake. 
Representative Price's determination to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
has put millions of Americans at risk.
  I am especially concerned that repeal would abruptly end treatment 
for thousands of Granite Staters fighting addiction. The Affordable 
Care Act, and Medicaid expansion in particular--what we call in New 
Hampshire our New Hampshire Health Protection Plan--which has 
bipartisan support from then-Governor, now-Senator Maggie Hassan and 
the Republican legislature, has been a critical tool in combating the 
opioid epidemic. More than 48,000 Medicaid claims were submitted in New 
Hampshire for substance use disorder services in 2015.
  Having traveled across our State in the past year, visiting treatment 
centers and meeting with individuals struggling with substance use 
disorders, I am convinced that Tom Price's plan to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act would mean that thousands of Granite Staters would 
lose access to treatment, with devastating consequences because right 
now, even as we are beginning to ramp up treatment, we have the second 
highest overdose rate in the country.
  We need a Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services

[[Page S992]]

who will respect women's health care choices and our constitutional 
rights and who will defend the enormous progress we have made, thanks 
to the Affordable Care Act and the expansion of Medicaid. 
Representative Price is the wrong person for this critically important 
position in our Federal Government, and I will vote against his 
confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, before I begin, I wish to note my 
disappointment about how rushed the consideration of this nominee has 
been. Calls for a thorough investigation into Congressman Price's 
ethically questionable and potentially illegal health trades have been 
ignored.
  Hundreds of questions HELP Committee Democrats asked Congressman 
Price as part of the official committee process have gone unanswered, 
and the vote to advance Congressman Price's nomination to the floor 
took place without Democrats getting any notice--a clear break from 
long-standing committee rules. Unfortunately, those are just a few of 
the examples.
  It is clear that Senate Republicans are doing everything they can to 
protect President Trump's nominees from tough questions, which is only 
helping him rig his Cabinet against workers and families. That is 
really concerning, especially on issues as critical as our families' 
health and well-being.
  As I have said before, when I evaluate a nominee for Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, I am interested in whether that person has a 
record of putting people first--not politics, partisanship, or those at 
the top. I want to know they put science first--not ideology. 
Critically, I consider whether their plans for health care in our 
country will help more families lead healthy, fulfilling, and secure 
lives, or take us backwards.
  Unfortunately, I am very concerned that Congressman Price falls far 
short in these categories and that his nomination sends another clear 
signal: President Trump is setting up his Cabinet to run our country in 
a way that benefits those at the top and their allies, but it really 
hurts the workers and families we all serve.
  I will start with women's health and reproductive rights. I believe 
that when women have access to quality, affordable health care, when 
they can afford contraception and exercise their constitutionally 
protected rights to make their own choices about their own bodies, our 
country is stronger for it. That is because access to health care, 
which includes reproductive health care, is fundamental to women's 
economic independence and opportunity. When women have more resources, 
more freedom, and more ability to give back in whatever way they 
choose, we move forward as a country.
  Congressman Price has a long record of fighting to take women's 
health care in the wrong direction. He has advocated for defunding 
Planned Parenthood, our country's largest provider of women's health 
care, time and again. He has been determined, since the start, to 
dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which has really helped millions of 
women gain coverage and essential benefits. Especially given his 
background in medicine, he has displayed a shocking lack of 
understanding when it comes to the need for continued work to help 
women access birth control. He even suggested there ``was not one'' 
woman who couldn't afford contraception.
  Well, I have certainly heard the opposite. I know for a fact now that 
Congressman Price has, too, because I made sure to tell him about my 
constituent Shannon in our hearing.
  Shannon has endometriosis and would have struggled to afford 
contraception, which is often used to treat that condition, were it not 
for Planned Parenthood. How can a Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, who won't listen to stories like Shannon's and who can't 
understand their need to access basic health care, possibly be trusted 
to work for all of our communities?
  Unfortunately, there is more. While President Trump has magically 
promised now insurance for everybody that is both lower cost and higher 
quality, Congressman Price's plans would do the exact opposite. From 
the start, he has led the fight for repealing the Affordable Care Act, 
even though Republicans cannot agree on what they as a party would do 
to replace it.
  Congressman Price's own proposals, however, would cause millions of 
people to lose coverage, increase the cost of care, and leave people 
with preexisting conditions vulnerable to insurance companies rejecting 
them or charging them more.
  I am hearing constantly from the families who are scared about what 
the future holds for their health care, given Republicans' rush to rip 
apart our health care system, and plans like Congressman Price's, which 
would leave so many so vulnerable, are simply not the answer.
  Donald Trump campaigned on promises to protect Medicare and Medicaid, 
but Congressman Price said that he wants to voucherize Medicare in the 
first 6 to 8 months of the administration, ending the guarantee of full 
coverage so many seniors and people with disabilities rely on. He has 
put forward policies that would shift $1 trillion in Medicaid costs to 
our States, squeezing their budgets and taking coverage away from 
struggling children and workers, and people with disabilities, and 
families.
  While President-Elect Trump has said that Medicare should be able to 
negotiate lower drug prices for seniors, Congressman Price has 
repeatedly opposed efforts to do so. He even went so far as to call 
legislation to address high drug prices ``a solution in search of a 
problem.''
  Well, I couldn't disagree more.
  In addition, I am deeply concerned about Congressman Price's extreme 
approach to key public health challenges, including his history of 
opposing regulations to keep tobacco companies from luring children 
into addiction.
  In fact, it is hard to imagine who in America would be better off 
under Congressman Price's leadership at HHS--certainly not women who 
can no longer be charged more than men for the same health care; 
children or their families who get peace of mind from having coverage 
through the exchanges or Medicaid; workers who know they can still get 
coverage, even if they find themselves between jobs; communities that 
count on public health protection; or seniors who shouldn't have to pay 
more for prescription drugs or worry about what the future holds for 
Medicare.
  All in all, Congressman Price's vision for our health care system is, 
to me, disturbingly at odds with the needs of families I hear from 
every day. But what makes this nomination even more troubling are the 
serious ethics questions that have not been resolved as it has been 
jammed through the Senate. I would hope that any Member of Congress--
Republican or Democrat--would take seriously the need to ensure that 
incoming Cabinet Secretaries are free from conflicts of interest, fully 
prepared to put the public interest first, and have demonstrated a 
commitment to service for the sake of service, rather than a pattern of 
mixing personal financial gain with public office. Unfortunately, when 
it comes to this nomination, Senate Republicans have avoided those 
questions at every turn.
  When reports first came out that Congressman Price had traded more 
than $300,000 in medical stocks while working on legislation that could 
impact companies whose stocks he had purchased--including one whose 
largest shareholder, Representative Chris Collins, encouraged Price to 
invest in--Democrats called for an investigation before this nomination 
could move forward. Senate Republicans refused to join us. When outside 
consumer advocacy groups and an ethics counsel raised concerns, Senate 
Republicans went ahead with the hearings. The day before a vote on his 
nomination in committee, when a story broke indicating that Congressman 
Price misled members of our HELP and Finance Committees in responding 
to their questions about his investments, Senate Republicans met 
secretly to jam his nomination through in a closed-door vote.

  Congressman Price and Republicans have insisted that everything 
Congressman Price did was above board and legal. I certainly hope that 
is the case, but we shouldn't have to take their word for it, and 
neither should the families and communities we serve. I am deeply 
disappointed that so many of my Republican colleagues appear to be 
willing to overlook the need for a thorough independent investigation.

[[Page S993]]

  Congressman Price's backward views on women's health, his harmful 
vision for our health care in our country, and the ethical questions 
that remain unresolved even as this nomination is headed to a vote, I 
will be voting against Congressman Price for Secretary of Health and 
Human Services.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me 
in opposing the confirmation of Congressman Tom Price to be Secretary 
of the Department of Health and Human Services.
  Congressman Price has a long political record in Washington of siding 
with Big Business and not American families. He has led efforts that 
would force families to lose their health care coverage, that would end 
Medicare as we know it, and increase costs for our seniors, and that 
would let politicians choose what health care is best for women and 
their doctors. Perhaps most troubling, though, are recent revelations 
about Congressman Price's deep and ethically questionable financial 
ties to health companies that are looking to turn a profit.
  The people of Wisconsin elected me to the United States Senate to 
stand up to powerful interests, to stand up for the working people of 
my State. They surely did not send me to the Senate to take away 
people's health care. That is why I simply cannot vote for a nominee 
whose financial activities with health companies raise such serious 
ethical questions and who has repeatedly opposed measures that would 
improve the health of our hard-working middle-class families in 
America.
  During his time in Congress, reports show that Congressman Price 
traded more than $300,000 in shares of health companies while he was 
advancing health-related legislation which could directly impact these 
companies' profitability. Congressman Price's financial disclosures 
show that he has purchased stock in medical device companies, leading 
pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment companies. He also led 
a number of legislative efforts to restrict or delay implementation of 
several Medicare programs that would have impacted reimbursement for 
these very industries.
  I don't know who Congressman Price is working for. Is he working for 
the American people or is he working for the powerful corporations to 
help advance his financial interests and his investments in them? This 
ethically questionable activity raises too many unanswered questions 
about his professional judgment and his ability to fairly lead a 
department that is charged with protecting the health of all Americans.
  Even more troubling are reports that he had access to a special 
private deal to buy discounted stock in an Australian biomedical firm, 
Innate Immunotherapeutics. Reports show he received this special deal 
from his colleague in the House, Congressman Chris Collins, who sits on 
the company's board and is their largest investor. I sent a letter 
asking Congressman Price to explain his relationship, his involvement 
with Innate Immuno, and how his relationship with Congressman Collins 
influenced those purchasing decisions, but he hasn't responded. His 
financial dealings raise serious concerns about potential STOCK Act and 
insider trading law violations. That is why I have called on the U.S. 
Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate his stock market 
trading activities. These questions must be answered and his stock 
trading should be fully investigated before the Senate is able to 
adequately consider his nomination. Yet we are probably hours from the 
vote without all the information.
  While there are so many unanswered questions about Congressman 
Price's ethical judgment, there is a lot we do know about his record as 
a politician that is deeply concerning.
  We know Congressman Price wants to end Medicare as we know it and 
raise costs for our senior citizens. Medicare is a promise, a promise 
to current and future generations that guaranteed health care will be 
there for them when they need it. Congressman Price wants to break that 
promise, that promise to millions of seniors across this country. He 
has spearheaded proposals that would convert Medicare into a voucher 
system, essentially privatizing Medicare. He also supports raising the 
eligibility age for participation in Medicare, forcing hard-working 
Americans to wait to receive the benefits they have already earned. His 
dangerous proposals would force seniors to pay more and would 
jeopardize guaranteed access to the Medicare benefits they have today, 
but we don't need to take my word for it. Listen to the thousands of 
Wisconsinites who have written to me just since the start of this year, 
urging me to oppose Congressman Price's confirmation and to fight 
against any efforts that would take away their Medicare benefits.
  Richard from Fond du Lac, WI, is just one of those Wisconsinites. 
Richard and his wife are now retired and on Medicare. He wrote to say:

       We both spent decades in teaching and while we knew we 
     would never get rich, we believed we were doing important 
     work with our students.
       Both of us felt secure in knowing that Medicare would be 
     there for us when we left the profession and moved on to our 
     retirement years.

  Richard cannot understand why politicians like Congressman Price are 
proposing to fundamentally change a system that has worked well for 
decades. He told me: ``Now we feel as if our world is being turned 
upside down.''
  Congressman Price's views are not only out of touch with America's 
seniors, but they are also, interestingly, in conflict with President 
Trump's promise not to cut Medicare. Price's legislative record also 
conflicts with President Trump's public commitments to improve this 
program by allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for our 
seniors. Just this week, the White House confirmed the President's 
support for this proposal again. Yet, during his hearing before the 
Senate Health Committee, Congressman Price refused to answer my 
questions when I repeatedly asked him if he would commit to standing 
with the President and with American seniors by supporting Medicare 
negotiation of better prescription drug prices. We don't know where he 
stands on this issue, but we do know Congressman Price does not stand 
with seniors, and he does not stand for protecting the guarantee of 
Medicare coverage that our families rely on.
  We also know that Congressman Price does not stand for the millions 
of Americans who rely on the health care coverage and protections 
available under the Affordable Care Act. Congressman Price almost 
personifies the Republican agenda and battle to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act and all of its benefits and protections, which would force 30 
million Americans to lose their current insurance through participation 
in the program. He has led the effort in the House to take away 
guaranteed health care coverage and has championed dangerous measures 
that would put insurance companies back in charge of health care and 
lead to higher costs and more uncertainty for American families. 
Congressman Price's agenda is putting the health care coverage of over 
200,000 Wisconsinites at risk.
  I wish to share the story of Sheila from Neenah, WI. She is a small 
business owner and relies on the premium tax credits that helped her 
purchase her health plan through the marketplace. She wrote:

       I just wanted to let you know how devastating it would be 
     for my family if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. To take 
     away the subsidies would pretty much turn the plan into the 
     Unaffordable Care Act.

  Sheila said that premium tax credits under the law have made it 
possible for her to buy decent insurance for the first time in her 
whole career.
  I am listening to Chelsea from Shelby, WI. Her daughter Zoe was born 
with a congenital heart defect. At just 5 days old, Zoe needed to have 
open heart surgery. Chelsea said:

       The Affordable Health Care Act protects my daughter. . . . 
     I'm pleading to you as a mother to fight for that and follow 
     through on that promise. There are so many kids in Wisconsin 
     with heart defects (as well as other kids with pre-existing 
     conditions) that are counting on you to protect that right.

  I am listening to Maggie, who attends college in DePere, WI. Maggie 
was diagnosed with cancer in 2015. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 
she was able to stay on her parents' health insurance, which covered 
most of her

[[Page S994]]

care. The Affordable Care Act also ensured that Maggie did not face 
lifetime limits on coverage for her multiple rounds of chemotherapy and 
radiation. Thankfully, Maggie is now cancer-free, but Maggie is 
terrified--terrified that if the law's benefits are repealed, she could 
face a situation where her chemo isn't covered if she ever needs it 
again. She also fears being denied coverage because of her preexisting 
condition or not being able to stay on her parents' plan.
  During my time serving in the House of Representatives, I championed 
the provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows young adults like 
Maggie to remain on their parents' health care plan until age 
26. Congressman Price would take that away, as well as other 
protections that Maggie relies on, and instead go back to letting the 
insurance companies decide what to do.

  During his HELP Committee hearing, I asked him directly if he 
supports the current requirement that insurance companies cover young 
adults until age 26. Essentially, he refused to answer my question but 
instead said that he trusts insurance companies to do this on their 
own. He said: ``I think it's baked into insurance programs.''
  Our future leaders like Maggie can't afford to take his word for it 
that insurance companies will choose to protect their care. The stakes 
are too high when it comes to accessing the lifesaving health care for 
cancer or other serious conditions.
  As I travel my State, I listen and I hear the voices of people who 
are struggling. Too many people feel that Washington is broken and it 
isn't working for them. People are scared because they can't make ends 
meet and provide a better future for their children. We need to change 
that. Our work here should be focused on making a difference in 
people's everyday lives.
  I am concerned that if confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, Congressman Price would make it harder for people to get 
ahead. I am concerned that he will work with special interests who 
already have too much power here in Washington instead of working for 
the Wisconsin families I was sent here to serve.
  For all these reasons, Congressman Price is not the right choice for 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose his confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Nebraska.