Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 23 (Thursday, February 9, 2017)

[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.