[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 7, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1625-S1633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
     Education relating to teacher preparation issues.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 26, a 
resolution to disapprove the Obama administration Department of 
Education's regulation on teacher preparation issues. This resolution 
is simple. It overturns the last administration's overreach into scores 
of States and territories, into thousands of college and university 
teacher preparation programs, and into millions of American classrooms.
  Last night, I drafted a fairly detailed statement on some of the 
problems deep inside this regulation, but I have decided to skip past 
most of that. Why? Because the problem with this regulation is actually 
much more basic than all of the substantive problems in the regulation. 
This regulation actually makes the assumption that bureaucrats in 
Washington, DC, are competent to micromanage teacher training programs 
in America. That is what this regulation ultimately does, and that is 
absurd.

[[Page S1626]]

  So I would like to ask three questions of folks who plan to vote to 
defend this regulation. First, do you really think that bureaucrats in 
this city know better how to run teacher training programs than people 
who have spent most of their lives inside actual classrooms with actual 
future teachers and with students? How many of you have ever run a 
teacher training program? Has anyone in this body ever run a teacher 
training program? Because I have--almost. I have spent a lot of my life 
around these programs. As a kid, with my dad, who was a lifelong public 
schoolteacher and coach, and I have been in many of these classrooms 
with him when he was getting master's and continuing education 
programs; then with my wife who is also a public high school teacher; 
and then I was a college president at a university that had multiple 
teacher training programs. I know Keith Rohwer, and I know the other 
deans of education that have been at Midland University and at many 
other colleges and universities across Nebraska. Yet, even though I 
have been around a lot of these programs in some detail, I wouldn't 
possibly think I am ready to decree all the details inside those 
programs from thousands and thousands of miles away.
  Question No. 2, has anyone actually read this regulation that folks 
are going to say they want to defend on this floor? Because I have been 
reading in it. I will not claim I have read it, but I have read in it. 
This is the 695 pages of the regulation itself. There is actually a lot 
of guidance material as well, but I didn't bring that because I didn't 
want to have both of my hands occupied. This is the 695 pages of the 
regulation we are talking about today, and it is actually really silly. 
If you read inside it, it is filled with enough specificity that if you 
tried to explain it to thoughtful, generally educated Americans, I 
submit to you that you would blush. There is a level of detail and a 
level of specificity in this that we are not possibly competent to 
defend at the micro level.
  Question No. 3, can the folks who think this is what Washington, DC, 
ought to be doing right now--please show me somewhere in this document, 
the Senate version of the Constitution--show me somewhere in this 
document where we are given the specific authority to micromanage local 
programs like this from here. Because, honestly--I mean this sincerely 
to my colleagues who plan to vote to defend this rule--I don't see how 
you can defend this document and think that this is conceivably our job 
from here. We are not competent to do this.
  Now, a couple of qualifications are in order. Am I suggesting that 
all teacher training programs in America work well? Heavens, no. There 
are some that are fairly strong, and there are actually a lot that are 
really, really poor and weak, but having a good intention to make them 
better is not the same as actually having accomplished something that 
will make them better. Good intentions are not enough. For us in this 
body to act because we have compulsory governmental powers, we would 
need not merely good intentions, we would also need competence and 
authority. We have neither of those about teacher training programs.
  Everyone in this body agrees that education is darn near the center 
of the future of our country. We all want and we need good teachers. 
Most of us can remember specific teachers who stood out because of her 
or his creative presentation, because of their unexpected humor, 
because of their charm and their compassion, because of their tireless 
drive, because of their inspired mentorship. None of us in this Chamber 
who has the privilege of serving our fellow country men and women 
regret or are unaware of the fact that the skills and the guidance and 
the abilities that we have are the function of the mentorship and the 
pedagogy of life-changing teachers early in our lives. We have 
benefited from and we need good, prepared teachers.
  If we all agree teachers are critically important to our future, and 
since we all agree teacher training programs are important and we also 
agree that some of them aren't very good, the question would be, What 
would we do about that? What kind of debate should we have about why 
much education in America isn't good enough? Does anyone in this body 
sincerely believe that the big, pressing problem in American education 
is that there aren't enough rules like this coming out of bureaucracies 
in Washington, DC?
  Because if you believe that, I would humbly suggest that you should 
go and meet with some of the ed school faculties back in your State and 
ask them if you can read them these 695 pages so you can tell them that 
we have the answers. Read it to them, and then please come back and 
tell us in this body that they agree with you, that what we really need 
is more 700-page regulations from Washington, DC, micromanaging things 
as specific and local as teacher preparation programs.
  Oh, and one more thing, which is actually kind of big. This 
regulation explicitly violates the plain language and the congressional 
intent of the Federal education law that was passed in this body last 
year. You will all recall that the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act was passed in this Chamber with overwhelming bipartisan support 
last year. I think it got 83 votes. The act prohibits the Secretary of 
Education from prescribing ``any aspect or parameter of a teacher, a 
principal, or other school leader evaluation system within a State or 
local education agency'' or ``indicators or specific measures of 
teacher, principal, or other school leader effectiveness or quality.'' 
There is nothing ambiguous about this language.

  In addition, the Higher Education Act is clear that the levels of 
performance used by a State to assess teacher training programs ``shall 
be determined solely by the State.''
  This rule overrides State authority over literally tens of thousands 
of discipline-specific teacher preparation programs across the Nation, 
burdening States with a federally defined and expensive mandate. Under 
this regulation, States would be required to create elaborate new data 
systems that would link K-12 teacher data to data on evaluations of 
teachers and administrators in particular schools and then on to the 
data back into the teacher preparation programs. This regulation's goal 
would be to measure the success of teacher preparation based largely on 
teachers' students' subsequent test scores, and it would all need to be 
backlinked in the data. This is data that is not currently gathered.
  Rube Goldberg is smiling somewhere because this sounds like a 
bureaucrat's dream, a paperwork trail monitoring all the strengths and 
weaknesses of some vast machine spitting out layers and layers of new 
data over which Washington's experts could then postulate and tinker. 
Again, I have no doubt the bureaucrats who wrote these 700 eye-glazing 
pages--pages about rules, about data to be gathered that States are not 
currently gathering--I have no doubt the people who wrote this mean 
well. I also have no doubt the people who are going to defend this rule 
as somehow commonsensical--then why is it 700 pages--also mean well, 
but those good intentions don't change the fact that what they have 
actually done in this rule--what they have actually done--is build a 
much larger requirement set of paper trails, demanding further burdens 
on our teachers, on our principals, and on the professors who are 
teaching teachers, and then require all of them to report back through 
new or expanded bureaucracies at the State level, though the States 
have not chosen to gather this data, and then pass this data on to a 
bureaucracy a couple of blocks from here.
  These Rubik's Cubes of rules and data collection are not being done 
today, and supposedly we are going to make teacher preparation programs 
better by all of the specificity that comes from this rule.
  The fact that these regulations will likely cost States millions of 
dollars to implement simply adds insult to injury. Let's be honest. 
Education is not some vast complex machine that just needs a little bit 
more tinkering from Washington-level intervention before it will be at 
utopia. It isn't true, and this rule is not an effective way to 
actually help the teachers who care so much that they are investing 
their lives in our kids.
  Nebraska's parents and educators and locally elected school boards 
are better equipped and better positioned to tackle the most important 
educational challenges. They are better equipped and they are better 
intentioned, even than the smartest, the

[[Page S1627]]

nicest, and the most well-meaning experts in Washington, DC. If you 
disagree, again, I humbly challenge you to go and try and read this 
rule to elementary and secondary school teachers in your State and to 
those who are running the programs that train them. Read the 695 pages 
to them and then report back to us that they actually share your view 
that the really big problem in American education is not enough 700-
page rules from educational bureaucrats from DC.
  Good intentions are not enough. Federal intervention and reforms 
should never make problems worse, and that is what this rule would do.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to rededicate ourselves 
to the duties that really and fundamentally are ours, to the duties the 
Federal Government is exclusively and monopolistically empowered to 
carry out because it isn't this. We are not competent to displace the 
expertise of the district and the State level, and we should not be 
trying to regulate teacher training programs from Washington, DC. We 
are not competent to do this.
  Thank you for your consideration.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor actually on behalf of 
students across the country, and for those who are so passionate about 
their education that they want to dedicate themselves to teaching, and 
to urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and support strong and 
accountable teacher preparation in America today.
  While this rule may not be the rule that any of us would have written 
on our own, it is important.
  Let me say at the outset that there are many great teacher prep 
programs that exist around our country, and they are doing a great job 
preparing our teachers to succeed in the classroom, but there are also 
teacher preparation programs out there that are struggling and need 
support to help make sure they produce great teachers for our schools.
  Now, as a former preschool teacher and as a mom, I know how important 
it is to have great teachers in our classrooms, and I understand how a 
good education, with an amazing teacher, can change a child's life. I 
am sure all of our colleagues think back on that one special teacher 
they had who shaped their mind and changed their life. They teach us 
not only how to read and write and do arithmetic, but good teachers 
teach us how to think critically, how to be creative, how to form an 
argument. I know I am not alone in saying that I owe much of what I 
have to the quality of the public education I received growing up, and 
I have spent my career fighting to make sure every child in America has 
the same opportunity I did.
  Unfortunately, too many teaching students today are forced to take 
out huge amounts of student loans to afford continuing their education 
so they can realize their dream. They are willing to make this 
sacrifice. They don't complain. The very least we can do for those who 
want to become teachers is to make sure they are actually getting their 
money's worth when they make an investment in themselves.
  That is what this rule does. It helps make sure students can make 
informed decisions about the quality and preparedness of their 
education.
  Here are a few of the ways this rule does that--and I am hoping my 
colleagues will see that this shouldn't be controversial. This rule 
strengthens and streamlines reporting requirements of teacher prep 
programs to focus on employment placement and retention of 
graduates. It provides information from employers to future teacher 
candidates so they can make an informed decision about their education 
by choosing a school that improves the likelihood they will find 
employment after graduation. It makes sure that prospective teachers 
can access this information they need before they take out massive 
amounts of student debt.

  When teacher programs are struggling, this rule helps States identify 
at-risk and low-performing programs so States can provide them the 
support they need to adapt or adjust their programs and help their 
teaching students succeed.
  There is one more reason I would urge my colleagues to oppose this 
resolution today. Simply put, it would put more power into the hands of 
Secretary DeVos, and many of us don't yet have the trust that she would 
use that power to promote the best interests of students in higher 
education. Secretary DeVos does not come from a higher education 
background. We don't know whether she supports providing information on 
teacher placement rates and retention rates before prospective teachers 
take out student loans. We have no idea what she would do if this rule 
went away, and I believe it would be too risky to find out.
  By investing in our teachers, we are investing in our future 
generations. Our future teachers have the right to know whether they 
are receiving a quality education, and they deserve to know that before 
they take out massive amounts of student debt.
  It helps to improve teacher prep program accountability and gives 
prospective teachers the information they need to make an accurate 
decision on which program is most likely to make them a successful 
teacher in the classroom.
  It ensures that Secretary DeVos does not have more power to implement 
unknown policies that could hurt students and reduce the number of 
qualified great teachers in our public schools.
  Without this rule and the information that it ensures, students will 
have a hard time finding a quality teacher prep program that will help 
them get a job after they graduate. I think that is simply wrong. We 
should be working to make sure teaching students have full access to 
information and options. This rule would give them less.
  For all the future teachers out there, I urge my fellow Senators to 
vote against this CRA because every young adult deserves to know that 
the program they enroll in is actually preparing them to be a 
successful teacher in the classroom, and every student deserves to have 
an amazing teacher in every classroom.


                      Every Student Succeeds Bill

  Finally, Mr. President, I wish to bring up one more thing that is 
very important to me--the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act--and a 
potential serious threat to it. It seems that Republicans are thinking 
about bringing to the floor another CRA that would eliminate the rule 
that provides States with flexibility and guidelines to create their 
State plans. I want to be very clear. I hope Republicans reconsider 
that approach.
  The Every Student Succeeds Act is a critical part of our bipartisan 
education law. It is an important part of the civil rights protections 
it offers, as well as the assurances it made that every student would 
have an opportunity to succeed, no matter where they live or how they 
learn or how much money parents make. Jamming through that resolution 
would weaken it, and it would be a major step toward turning our 
bipartisan law into another partisan fight.
  Rolling back the Every Student Succeeds Act rule less than a month 
before States have to submit their plans to the Department of Education 
will cause chaos and confusion in the States, and it will hurt our 
students, our teachers, and our schools. It will also give Secretary 
DeVos greater control over that bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act 
and give her the tools to implement her anti-public education agenda.
  Secretary DeVos's lack of experience and expertise, as well as her 
damaging track record on school privatization, leaves her unqualified 
to implement this bipartisan law that governs public education and 
public schools without the important guardrails that rule ensures. 
Given her record and her comments, she would almost certainly push for 
measures that disregard key civil rights protections in the Every 
Student Succeeds Act and could allow unequal, unfair, and unreliable 
accountability for schools across the country.
  The Every Student Succeeds Act rule is supported by Democrats and 
Republicans, by teachers and businesses, and by parents and 
communities. We should not go backward.
  I urge my colleagues to reconsider moving forward with that 
resolution, which I understand they want to bring up later this week, 
and work with us to continue building on that bipartisan progress that 
we all worked toward for our students.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S1628]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Republican Healthcare Bill

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a few comments about 
the House Republican bill that was just unveiled yesterday. Those who 
have been promoting it or those who have been working on this issue for 
a couple of weeks are claiming it is a new healthcare plan or a new 
comprehensive healthcare proposal--in essence, by their argument, a 
replacement if the Affordable Care Act were repealed. I disagree. I 
don't believe in any way it is a plan. It might be a bill, but I think 
a better description of it in terms of its impact would be that it is a 
scheme, not a plan. It is a scheme that will roll back coverage gains 
from the Affordable Care Act, which is better known by a longer name: 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
  Kaiser--one of the great institutions that track healthcare data and 
healthcare policy--told us that there are 156 million Americans with 
employer-sponsored coverage. Those Americans didn't have much 
protection before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with 
regard to preexisting conditions or annual lifetime limits--a whole 
series of protections for people that were not there before that.
  This scheme, as I am calling it, will not only roll back coverage 
gains in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, in the process 
it will also devastate the Medicaid Program, leaving many of the most 
vulnerable Americans behind.
  Another impact of this scheme will be to increase costs for middle-
class families while cutting taxes for millionaires or 
multimillionaires as well as big corporations. It will raise the cost 
of care for older Americans and substantially cut funding for hospitals 
in rural communities.
  How did we get there, and where are we going based upon the House 
Republican proposal? Last night the Republicans released their bill to 
``replace'' the Affordable Care Act, and the House Energy and Commerce 
Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee will be marking up the 
bill tomorrow. I guess it doesn't require much reading to get to a 
markup tomorrow.
  Usually when you introduce a bill, the bill is reviewed by Members of 
Congress. There is some public debate on it. There is some back-and-
forth. And then a period of time later, maybe weeks, there is a markup. 
The committee engages in a thorough review of the bill, and the markup 
means they make changes. They add amendments or try to alter the bill 
in one way or another. That is a serious approach when you do this work 
of legislating on a serious issue.
  Healthcare is about as serious and difficult an issue as there is. I 
think it should be accorded the serious review that the complexity and 
the consequence of this issue demand. This is not a serious proposal. 
It is a scheme, but it is also not a serious process that the House 
seems to be focused on right now. This process means the House will 
mark up this bill within I guess about 48 hours of it being unveiled, 
maybe less than 48 hours. That means there will not be a single hearing 
on the bill or getting the bill scored, which is a fancy Washington 
word for having someone tell us what it costs. There will be no 
thorough review, no serious review on such a monumental issue called 
healthcare and what happens to hundreds of millions of Americans.
  At the same time, the markup will proceed with lightning speed, and 
there will not be any information on the record about an analysis of 
the bill that is thorough and serious, and of course we will not know 
how to pay for it and we will not have the score that will tell us how 
it will be paid for and what the cost will be.
  It is hard to come up with the words, but the impact of this bill 
would be a disaster. If you are a millionaire and up, you are doing 
quite well under this bill. You are going to get a bonanza from this 
bill. You are going to have a great payday. If you are a child or you 
happen to be a senior or if you are a woman or if you are an individual 
with a disability or a chronic disease, you are out of luck. You are in 
big trouble. I would hope that those Americans would have the benefit 
of a serious review of a serious issue. If the bill is not serious, I 
guess they are going to ram it through. We will see what happens in the 
next couple of days.
  There is one analysis that should be on the record. There are some 
that are hot off the presses. This is a report released today that I am 
looking at. It is about 2\1/2\ pages. They know the vote will take 
place soon in the committee--two committees, maybe in the House. This 
report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is moving quickly 
to keep up with the fast pace at which the bill is proceeding. I won't 
read the whole report, and I won't enter the whole report into the 
Record; I am sure people can go online and look at it. Here is the 
title of the report: ``House GOP Medicaid Provisions Would Shift $370 
billion in costs to states over a decade.'' It is written by Edwin 
Park, who has been writing about Medicaid for a long time. Few 
Americans know more about Medicaid than Edwin Park and people like him 
who study it. I will read the first sentence, which gives you the 
basics of it: ``The new House Republican health plan would shift an 
estimated $370 billion in Medicaid costs to states over the next ten 
years, effectively ending the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) Medicaid 
expansion for 11 million people while also harming tens of millions of 
additional seniors, people with disabilities, and children and parents 
who rely upon Medicaid today.''
  That is the opening line of this proposal, which I believe is a 
scheme. What does that mean for Medicaid?
  One of the basic debates we will have here is what happens to 
Medicaid itself, and we will have a lot of debates about other aspects 
of the implications for the Affordable Care Act.
  Here is what it means. It means that 70 million Americans who rely 
upon Medicaid--again, they are children in urban areas, children in 
rural areas, children in small towns who get their healthcare from 
Medicaid. It is a lot of individuals with disabilities, a lot of 
children with disabilities who benefit from Medicaid. It is also, of 
course, pregnant women, as well as seniors trying to get into nursing 
homes, because we know that a lot of seniors can't get into a nursing 
home unless they have the benefits of Medicaid. The idea in the bill on 
Medicaid that is objectionable, among other objections I have, is a so-
called per capita cap. This idea limits Federal contributions to a 
fixed amount. If the caps are not tied to overall increases in 
healthcare spending, the net effect is fewer healthcare dollars over 
time so they can afford the tax cuts they want to have as part of this 
scheme.

  We have heard a lot around here about flexibility, that States want 
more flexibility when it comes to Medicaid. I will tell you what they 
don't want. They don't want a flexibility argument to be a scheme that 
results in cuts to those States, where the Federal Government says: 
Here is a block grant that may increase or may not, but good luck, 
States, as you balance your budgets.
  Of course, Governors and State legislators balance their budgets, and 
they have very difficult choices to make--sometimes choices the Federal 
Government never makes. That is why some Republican Governors took 
advantage of the Medicaid expansion and expanded healthcare to a lot of 
people in their States. That is one of the reasons they are worried 
about--and some will oppose this idea of so-called per capita caps or 
block-granting of Medicaid or the like.
  If we have a proposal to cut $370 billion from the House, what does 
that mean for some of those groups that I just mentioned earlier? Well, 
we know that more than 45 percent of all the births in the United 
States of America are paid for by Medicaid, so that is a consequence 
for pregnant women and their children. One in five seniors receives 
Medicaid assistance by way of the benefit to someone trying to get into 
a nursing home. Medicaid also pays for home-based care for seniors and, 
of course, long-term care as well. What if you have a disability? Over 
one-third of the Nation's adults with disabilities who require 
extensive services and support are covered by Medicaid.
  We know that in a State like mine--because we had a Republican 
Governor

[[Page S1629]]

embrace the Medicaid expansion, and then we had a Democratic Governor 
embrace it and really develop it and bring it to where it is today--we 
have expansion of Medicaid that resulted in some 700,000--that is not 
an exact number, but it is approaching 700,000 Pennsylvanians gaining 
coverage through the Medicaid expansion. And 62 percent of Americans 
who gained coverage through the Medicaid expansion are working. So we 
are talking about a lot of families and a lot of individuals who are 
working and getting their healthcare through Medicaid. That opportunity 
presented itself because, in the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid was 
expanded.
  There are lots of numbers we could talk about. I will give maybe two 
more. Medicaid is the primary payer for mental health and substance 
abuse treatment. Medicaid expansion enabled 180,000 Pennsylvanians to 
receive these lifesaving services. If you are a Member of Congress and 
you have been going home and talking about the opioid crisis--and to 
say it is a crisis is a terrible understatement. It has devastated 
small towns and rural areas. It has devastated cities. It has destroyed 
families. We know how bad it is. Some of the numbers indicate it is 
getting worse, not leveling off. If you say you care about that and you 
supported the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act as a Member of 
Congress and you supported the funding that was in the 21st Century 
Cures Act at the end of the year, and you say you are working toward 
help for communities devastated by the opioid crisis, it is OK to say 
that, but you can't then say: But I want to support the House 
Republican proposal on Medicaid, when Medicaid is the primary payer for 
these substance abuse treatment programs.
  I mentioned before adults and children with disabilities. Medicaid 
covers 60 percent of children with disabilities. We know the range of 
that--ranging from autism to Down syndrome, to traumatic brain injury, 
and many other disabilities or circumstances that I have not mentioned. 
For a lot of people, this is real life. It is not some theory that gets 
kicked around Washington, often by people who have good healthcare 
coverage as they are talking about cutting healthcare for others. We 
have a lot of testimony from what we might want to call the real world.
  One of the most compelling pieces of correspondence I received in my 
time in the Senate was from a mom about her son. Her name is Pam. She 
is from Coatesville, PA. That is in Southeastern Pennsylvania, within 
the range of suburban Philadelphia. She wrote to tell me how important 
Medicaid is to her family and to tell me about her 5-year-old son 
Rowan. She sent me a picture of Rowan with a firefighter's hat on. Of 
course, he is fascinated, as we all are, by the heroic work of 
firefighters. Her story--I will not go through her whole letter, but 
she got news a couple of years ago that many parents get in the course 
of the lives of their children. She got news in March of 2015 that her 
son Rowan was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The diagnosis 
was made by a psychologist who worked for the Intermediate Unit--
meaning the institution that works for the school districts and helps 
to provide special education. Rowan continued in the preschool program 
and daycare program before and after school, but then Pam goes on to 
say:

       I was never able to find a daycare suitable for all of 
     Rowan's needs. In late January of 2016, I applied for 
     [Medical Assistance].

  I will stop there for a moment to explain. Medical Assistance is the 
State share of the State end of the Medicare Program. We call it 
Medical Assistance. Other States have a different name for it.
  Pam said she applied for Medical Assistance:

       After Rowan was awarded this assistance we were able to 
     obtain wrap-around services, which included a Behavioral 
     Specialist Consultant . . . and a Therapeutic Staff Support 
     worker.

  Pam goes on to say, and I am quoting her again:

       Without Medical Assistance, I am confident that I could not 
     work full time to support our family. . . . [We] would be 
     bankrupt and my son would go without the therapies he needs.

  These are the therapies I just mentioned. Then Pam goes on to say, 
urging me as one of her two Senators to focus on her son, focus on her 
family when we are casting votes and having debates about policies that 
relate to healthcare and Medicaid. Here is what Pam asked me to do as 
her Senator:

       Please think of Rowan. . . . My 9-month-old Luna, who 
     smiles and laughs at her brother, she will have to care for 
     Rowan late in her life after we are gone. We are desperately 
     in need of Rowan's Medical Assistance and would be devastated 
     if we lost these benefits.

  So said Pam about her son and about the importance of the Medical 
Assistance Program, which is known on the national level as Medicaid. I 
would hope that those in the House, as they are quickly marking up 
legislation that would have a huge impact on families like Pam's and 
many more--I would hope they would think of Rowan, think of his little 
sister Luna and what her challenges might be years from now when she 
would likely have to care for Rowan and answer some of Pam's questions.
  There are a lot of questions that we have about policy and numbers 
and budget impacts, and they are all appropriate. But some of the most 
important questions we have to answer for those who are asking them are 
questions that our constituents are asking. And one of those is Pam. We 
have to be responsive to her concerns about her son and the challenges 
her son faces.
  I hope, in the midst of debate, in the midst of very rapid 
consideration of a complicated subject on a bill that has been slapped 
together--in my judgment, too quickly--that Pam's concerns would be an 
uppermost priority in the minds of those who are working on this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Without objection, it is so 
ordered
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this is my ``Time to Wake Up'' speech 
No. 159. In giving these speeches, I have come to realize that some of 
my colleagues seem to have a hard time wrapping their heads around the 
basic understanding of climate change. Some of President Trump's 
Cabinet nominees seem to have the same problem.
  They say the scientific community is split on the issue. It is not.
  They say the climate has always been changing. Not like this, it 
hasn't.
  They say we can't trust projections and complex computer models. But 
overall, they have actually been right.
  And, of course, they have the notorious ``I'm not a scientist'' 
dodge. Well, if a colleague doesn't understand this, then perhaps he 
ought to trust the scientists at NOAA and at NASA, at our National 
Labs, and at universities in Rhode Island and across the country--the 
scientists whose job it is to understand this.
  I must say, in addition to trusting the scientists, I also trust 
Rhode Island fishermen who see the changes in their traps and nets and 
our shoreline homeowners watching the sea steadily rising toward their 
homes. You don't need fancy computer models to see the ocean changes 
already taking place; you just need a thermometer to measure rising 
temperatures, basically a yardstick to measure sea level rise or a 
simple pH kit to measure the acidification of our oceans.
  Let's look at ocean acidification. The oceans have absorbed about 
one-third of all the excess carbon dioxide produced by humans since the 
industrial revolution, around 600 gigatons' worth. When that carbon 
dioxide dissolves into the ocean, chemistry happens, and it makes the 
oceans more acidic.
  Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. Carbonic acid 
isn't stable in ocean water, so it breaks down into bicarbonate ions, a 
base, and hydrogen ions, an acid. The increase in acidic hydrogen ions 
is the crux of the chemistry of ocean acidification. More hydrogen ions 
lower the water's pH,

[[Page S1630]]

and the lower the pH, the higher the acidity.
  Regular viewers of my ``Time to Wake Up'' speeches or people who 
spent the night up with us while we objected to Administrator Pruitt's 
nomination may remember that I demonstrated this in a simple experiment 
on the Senate floor just a few weeks ago. I took the glass of water on 
my desk, and I used the carbon dioxide in my own breath. Blowing 
through an aquarium stone, I was able to show, with the help of a 
little pH dye, how easy it is to actually measure the effect of 
CO2 on the acidity of water. With just a few breaths into 
the water, I was able to visibly make this glass of drinking water more 
acidic.
  That little experiment is a microcosm of what is happening in our 
oceans right now, except, instead of bubbles blown through a straw, it 
is a transfer of excess CO2 from the atmosphere into the 
surface waters of the ocean all around the globe.
  Scientific observations confirm that what the laws of chemistry tell 
us should happen is actually happening. Massive carbon pollution 
resulting from burning fossil fuels is changing ocean acidity faster 
than ever in the past 50 million years.
  Now, you start talking in big numbers, and it all goes into a blur--
50 million years, compared to how long the human species has been on 
the planet, which is about 200,000 years. So 50 million years is, what, 
250 times the length of time that our species has inhabited the Earth.
  This chart shows measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 
taken at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. That is the redline of 
climbing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And it shows carbon dioxide 
in the ocean, which is the green measure, which is also climbing in 
tandem with the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Finally, it 
shows the pH of ocean water in the sea. Of course, as the chemistry 
would tell us, as the carbon dioxide goes up, the pH comes down, and 
the acidity rises; the water becomes more acidic.
  We measure that surface seawater on the Earth's oceans has, since the 
industrial revolution, become roughly 30 percent more acidic. NOAA 
predicts that oceans will be 150 percent more acidic than now by the 
end of the century. Coastal States, like Rhode Island and Florida, will 
feel the hit.
  Ocean acidification disrupts life in the sea when those loose 
hydrogen ions we talked about latch onto free carbonate ions. Usually 
that carbonate is plentiful in ocean water. Shell-forming marine 
creatures, like oysters and clams, use this loose carbonate to help 
form their shells. But if the carbonate they need is bound up by 
hydrogen ions, they can't get enough carbonate to build their shells.
  We have even seen acidification scenarios in which shells start to 
dissolve in the water. Shellfish hatcheries on the west coast have 
already seen devastating losses of larval oysters due to acidic waters. 
When ocean pH fell too low, baby oysters couldn't form their shells, 
and they quickly died off. Dr. Julia Ekstrom, the lead researcher for 
Nature Climate Change's 2015 study on ocean acidification, told PBS 
that it has cost the Pacific Northwest oyster industry more than $100 
million and jeopardized thousands of jobs. Her research flagged 15 
States where the shellfish industry would be hardest hit, from Alaska 
to Florida, to my home State of Rhode Island.
  Toward the bottom of the oceanic food web is the humble pteropod. 
Pteropods are sometimes called sea butterflies because their tiny snail 
foot has evolved into an oceanic wing. In 2014 NOAA found that 
more than half of pteropods sampled off the west coast were suffering 
from severely dissolved shells due to ocean acidification, and it is 
worsening.

  This is a pteropod shell degrading over time in acidified water.
  Of course, we are here in ``Mammon Hall,'' where it feels laughable 
to care about anything that can't be monetized. We talk a good game 
here in the Senate about God's Earth and God's creation and God's 
creatures, but what we really care about is the money. So let's 
monetize this.
  Who cares about this humble species? Salmon do. As the west coast 
loses its pteropods, that collapse reverberates up the food chain, and 
the salmon care because many of them feed on the pteropods. The west 
coast salmon fishery is a big deal, so salmon fishermen care about 
this.
  Another foundational marine species, krill, is also affected by ocean 
acidification. In the Southern Ocean, nearly all marine animals can 
thank krill for their survival. From penguin diets to whale diets, 
krill is king.
  A 2013 study in Nature Climate Change found ocean acidification 
inhibiting the hatching of krill eggs and the normal development of 
larvae. The researchers note that unless we cut emissions, collapse of 
the krill population in the Southern Ocean portends ``dire consequences 
for the entire ecosystem.''
  Closer to home, the University of Alaska's Ocean Acidification 
Research Center--yes, ocean acidification is serious enough that the 
University of Alaska has an Ocean Acidification Research Center, and it 
warns that ocean acidification ``has the potential to disrupt [Alaska's 
fishing] industry from top to bottom.''
  Turning to warmer waters, coral reefs are also highly susceptible to 
ocean acidification. A healthy coral reef is one of the most productive 
and diverse ecosystems on Earth, home to 25 percent of the world's fish 
biodiversity. Those reef-building corals rely on calcium carbonate to 
build their skeletons.
  Since the Presiding Officer is from Florida, I know how important 
coral reefs are to the tourism industry in his State.
  Coral depends on a symbiotic relationship with tiny photosynthetic 
algae, called zooxanthellae, that live in the surface tissue of the 
coral. There is a range of pH, as well as temperature, salinity, and 
water clarity, within which this symbiosis between the coral and the 
zooxanthellae thrives. Outside that comfort range, the corals get 
stressed, and they begin to evict the algae. This is called coral 
bleaching because corals shed their colorful algae. Without these 
algae, corals soon die.
  The effects of acidification on sea life are far-reaching. Studies 
have found ocean acidification disrupts everything from the sensory 
systems of clownfish--those are little Nemos, for those who have seen 
the movie--to phytoplankton populations, to sea urchin reproduction, to 
the Dungeness crab, another valuable west coast specialty.
  I asked Scott Pruitt, our ethically challenged Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, about ocean acidification. He gave 
these answers: ``The oceans are alkaline and are projected to remain 
so,'' and two, ``The degree of alkalinity in the ocean is highly 
variable and therefore it is difficult to attribute that variability to 
any single cause.''

  Let's look at those answers.
  The first answer is plain and simple nonsense because the harm to 
ocean creatures from acidification comes from the dramatic shift in 
ocean acidity, not from where along the acid-based spectrum the shift 
takes place. The observation he made is irrelevant to the question.
  His second answer is no better. It exhibits purposeful ignorance of 
the role humans' carbon pollution plays in damaging the ocean, because 
the chemical principles at issue here are indisputable. You can 
replicate them in a middle school laboratory in any Florida school. As 
I showed in my little demonstration, you can replicate them even here 
on the Senate floor. Like its carbon cousin, climate change, ocean 
acidification doesn't care whether you believe in chemistry. It doesn't 
matter to chemistry if you swallow the propaganda pumped out by the 
fossil fuel lobby. The principles of science operate notwithstanding. 
The chemical interactions take place by law of nature whether you 
believe them or not. If you believe in God, then you have to 
acknowledge that these laws of nature are God's laws, the basic 
operating principles He established in His creation. But, of course, 
here at Mammon Hall, it is always about the money.
  Any decent EPA Administrator is obliged to trust in real science and 
to take action to protect human health and the environment. I am deeply 
unconvinced that Administrator Pruitt will live up in any respect to 
those obligations, but I would welcome being proven wrong. Likewise, I 
similarly challenge my colleagues here in the Senate.

[[Page S1631]]

  This Chamber and our Nation will be judged harshly by our 
descendants, both for our pigheaded disregard for the basic truths, the 
basic operating systems of the world we live in, and for the shameful 
reason why we disregard them. Mammon Hall indeed.
  Mr. President, it is time for the Senate to wake up before it is too 
late.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                       Republican Healthcare Bill

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the House's plan to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act is dangerous and irresponsible. Just listen to Governor John 
Kasich, Republican Governor of my State, who says we should not be 
throwing 500, 600, 700,000 Medicaid beneficiaries--mostly people who 
have jobs and work in low-income jobs--we shouldn't throw them off 
their insurance. In fact, in Ohio there are 900,000 people--700,000 on 
Medicaid, 100,000 on their parents' healthcare plan, and another 
100,000 on the exchanges--who would lose their insurance if the House 
succeeds and the Senate goes along in changing dramatically or 
repealing the Affordable Care Act.
  My office is flooded with letters and calls from Ohioans begging us 
not to take away their care. Let me share some of those letters.
  A woman from Beachwood, OH, in Northeast Ohio wrote to me on January 
11 terrified of possible changes to the Medicaid system that helps fund 
nursing homes like the one where she lives. She writes:

       I strongly believe changes would drastically diminish my 
     quality of life and many other residents' in the nursing home 
     setting. My care needs are currently well managed by 
     qualified and caring staff members. I am a 2-person assist 
     with dressing, bathing, and getting to the bathroom. I also 
     require two people with getting dressed every morning.
       Medicaid cuts would decrease the number of staff members. . 
     . . Without adequate staff, I am afraid of extensive wait 
     periods and frequent bathing accidents. . . . It would be 
     very difficult to endure, cause embarrassment, while 
     destroying my dignity in the process.
       I am not as strong as I used to be. I have children who 
     love and care for me and placed me in a safe environment. 
     Living in the nursing home has allowed me to live a little 
     better, smile a little longer, and enjoy my days with family 
     members.

  ``Please consider,'' she writes, ``the people who will be affected 
the most.''
  Understand that most Medicaid dollars--dollars that unfortunately 
Republicans want to block-grant or capitate in some way, whatever terms 
they want to use here, send to the States, shrink those dollars, and 
people like this lady from Beachwood will be the losers as a result. 
Understand again that most Medicaid dollars--two-thirds of them--go to 
nursing home care. ``Please consider the people who will be affected 
the most,'' she writes.
  Another woman from Mount Vernon, OH, a part of the State where I grew 
up in Mansfield, wrote to urge us not to rip coverage away from 
individuals who are currently receiving mental health and addiction 
services. She writes:

       As a constituent concerned about preserving access to 
     lifesaving mental health and addiction services, I am writing 
     today to urge and request your support in protecting the 
     Affordable Care Act and preserving Medicaid expansion.
       I work as a substance abuse counselor in Knox County and 
     work with adolescents and women with co-occurring disorders. 
     Without the Medicaid expansion, many of our clients would not 
     be able to get the help they need.

  Without ObamaCare, without the Affordable Care Act.

       Without the Medicaid expansion, many of our clients would 
     not be able to get the help they need.

  Today in Ohio, 200,000 people are in the midst of opioid addiction 
treatment, and 200,000 of them have insurance so they could get that 
treatment delivered in the right way and have insurance because of the 
Affordable Care Act. This House proposal would just rip it away from 
them.
  She goes on to write:

       Knowing that they can receive help and healthcare often is 
     one of the motivating factors for our clients to begin to 
     make change. Their ability to access medications such as 
     Vivitrol through Medicaid has been a strengthening point in 
     the recovery process of many. With our teens, I have seen 
     them be able to change substance use with the resources that 
     Medicaid provides.

  In other words, some of them are breaking their addiction and some of 
them are being cured because of the Affordable Care Act, because they 
have Medicaid.

       Medicaid allows our rural and low-income teens--

  And of the 88 counties in Ohio, 70 or so are classified as small town 
or rural, like the county I grew up in, Richland County--

     many of whom otherwise would not be able to attend treatment 
     due to transportation barriers--to attend treatment through 
     public transportation. Working with these clients, you learn 
     their stories. So many have been through unimaginable trauma, 
     losses, and emotional/physical pain. Many have never had the 
     support to help them begin to work through these issues 
     underlying the substance use.

  She is worried. The lady in Mount Vernon, OH, is worried, with very 
good reason, that these repeal plans would ``leave millions of 
Americans without access to needed mental health and addictions 
treatment in our state and communities.''
  Most recently, a woman in Butler County--the congressional district 
of former Speaker John Boehner and some members of my staff, past and 
present--writes:

       I am extremely concerned about the cuts President Trump and 
     the Republican-led Congress propose to make in the Medicaid 
     program and services for the developmentally disabled.

  Her son is 14 years old. He was diagnosed with a specific type of 
autism. He is nonverbal, with severe cognitive and physical challenges. 
She wrote to my office how Medicaid has been ``a godsend'' for her and 
her family. Before her son received a waiver under the Medicaid 
Program, her family was spending $100 a month in copays for psychiatric 
medications alone. That is in addition to all the extra medical costs 
in caring for a severely challenged child. They couldn't afford the 
physical therapy he needs, despite having insurance coverage through 
her husband's employer. She wrote that Medicaid ``more than anything 
else, improved the quality of my son's life, and by extension, the life 
of our whole family.''
  Understand that health challenges--especially mental health 
challenges but health challenges overall--in one member of a family 
afflict the whole family. That is something we should remember as this 
Congress seems to rush pell-mell into trying to repeal Medicare, trying 
to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  These three letters are three of hundreds of thousands that we 
received--hundreds of thousands of letters and calls that Members of 
the Senate are receiving. I don't understand how, when 20 million 
people will lose their insurance, so many Members of Congress, who 
themselves have government-financed health insurance--we have health 
insurance in this body paid for by taxpayers, most of us. Yet we think 
it is appropriate to pass legislation in part giving tax cuts to the 
richest Americans and at the same time stripping away Medicare 
benefits, taking 22 million people who now have insurance off of that 
insurance and proposing minor insurance for some of them but not nearly 
all of them. If we are people of God, if we are people who care about 
our constituents, how we can do that is just beyond me.
  I go back to the quote from one of the people I read about today from 
Beachwood. She writes: ``Please consider the people who will be 
affected the most.''


                  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

  Mr. President, President Trump declared this week Consumer Protection 
Week, but his proclamation has gaping holes. It ignores the many ways 
large corporations cheat consumers and the biggest tool Americans have 
to fight back.
  Not once did the proclamation mention the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, which has returned $12 billion to 29 million 
consumers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created under 
Dodd-Frank 8 or 9 years ago. Not once does it talk about the 
unscrupulous lenders who targeted Americans with predatory mortgages 
before blowing up the economy in 2007 and 2008. Not once does the 
President's Consumer Protection Week proclamation mention the millions 
of fake accounts opened by Wells Fargo. Not once does it mention the 
shady outfits that set up shop outside the gates of our military bases 
and the payday

[[Page S1632]]

lenders and other unscrupulous lenders who set up shop outside the 
gates of the military bases because they aren't allowed on the military 
bases as they try to exploit our service men and women and their 
families.
  Not only did the President ignore some of the most pressing consumer 
protection issues, his administration is attacking the most important 
consumer advocate indeed--the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Last week, President Trump's Department of Justice filed papers in 
Federal court signaling that it will argue that the CFPB shouldn't be 
independent. The President and White House want the CFPB under their 
control so they can weaken it, so they can help Wall Street, so they 
can take away some of its power. They think the President should have 
the power to fire the head of the agency for any reason.
  The whole reason we wrote it to be independent was to protect it from 
a President who chose Wall Street over Main Street. It was Presidential 
Candidate Trump who sounded pretty good standing up to Wall Street and 
helping Main Street. If you look at the nominees, his appointments, and 
his actions so far, it has been exactly the opposite. He has been the 
president of Wall Street and at the same time exploiting Main Street. 
It means that what the President has proposed is that the President can 
fire his director for doing his job: stepping on the toes of special 
interests.
  The CFPB works in part because it has an independent Director. The 
current Director of the CFPB, Richard Cordray from Ohio, has protected 
consumers, has returned billions to Americans who were cheated and who 
were taken advantage of by big companies.
  The CFPB has an independent budget. Banks can't kill it by lobbying 
it and cutting off its budget. That is the point. People whom he has in 
many cases recovered money from because he represents consumers--those 
banks, those large Wall Street banks and other financial institutions, 
because of the way it is set up, can't lobby Congress to take money 
away from it and put it out of business. Special interests have 
relentlessly attacked the CFPB since the day we created it.
  President Trump ran on the promise of protecting the little guy, but 
he hasn't followed through on the promise of protecting ordinary 
Americans from some of the wealthiest, most privileged special 
interests in this town.
  If you are one of the 29 million Americans who received help from 
CFPB, you might know how important saving it is, but you might not know 
how important it is to especially protecting one group of people, and 
that is protecting our veterans and our servicemembers. The CFPB has an 
entire office that is dedicated to helping men and women who have 
served in uniform--the Office of Servicemember Affairs.

  A couple of weeks ago, my Rhode Island Senator friend, Jack Reed, was 
in the Armed Services Committee with the senior enlisted advisers of 
military services--the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines. Their job is to 
make sure our servicemembers and their families are getting the support 
they need. Every one of them had great things to say about the CFPB's 
Office of Servicemember Affairs--of the value it provides and the 
support it provides to the men and women who sacrifice so much for our 
country.
  Senator Reed brought up an alarming figure. A recent report estimated 
that thousands of servicemembers are forced out of service every year 
because of financial hardships--problems with their mortgages, with 
payday loans, with credit card debt. One will remember earlier in the 
presentation that I talked about how many of these financial groups set 
up right outside military bases. That causes a tragedy for these men 
and women who want to serve their country, and it causes tragedy for 
their families. It costs taxpayers $57,000 every time someone is forced 
out of service. Many other servicemembers lose their security 
clearances because of financial trouble, which directly affects the 
mission readiness that is brought on by shady business practices.
  The CFPB is stepping in to protect these heroes who are often taken 
advantage of. The CFPB's Office of Servicemember Affairs is led by men 
and women who have served in the military and know what kind of help 
servicemembers need. They visit 145 military facilities across the 
country in order to help servicemembers get their finances straightened 
out and to hear about their concerns. They have handled 70,000 
complaints from servicemembers and veterans about abusive practices by 
financial institutions. They have returned $130 million back to 
servicemembers and their families simply by enforcing the law and 
protecting those consumers.
  The CFPB protects the men and women who protect our country. It 
protects all of us. The best way to celebrate Consumer Protection Week 
is not through words and proclamations, it is through actions.
  We need to combat cyber crimes and identity theft, as the President 
mentioned, but we also need to combat all kinds of tricks and traps--
loans with outrageous interest rates, for-profit colleges that promise 
far more than they deliver, lenders who discriminate based on race. The 
list goes on and on.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in working to ensure that the CFPB 
remains a strong, active ally in the cause of consumer protection this 
week, next week, every week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                     Silencing of Political Debate

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am truly saddened that I must address what 
I fear is a growing threat to our Republic--the silencing of political 
debate by totalitarian mob violence on college campuses.
  I was not in Burlington, VT, last Thursday to witness what happened 
at Middlebury College, but I would like to read from accounts that have 
been provided by two people who were, in fact, there and who saw these 
things unfold. They were the targets of the mob's violence. Their names 
are Allison Stanger, professor of political science at Middlebury 
College, and Charles Murray, the author of several groundbreaking 
books, including the work ``The Bell Curve'' and a scholar at the 
American Enterprise Institute. America deserves and needs to hear their 
stories.
  On Saturday, 2 days after the incident, Professor Stanger wrote on 
her Facebook page as follows:

       I agreed to participate in the event with Charles Murray 
     because several of my students asked me to do so. They are 
     smart and good people--all of them--and this was their big 
     event of the year.
       I, actually, welcomed the opportunity to be involved 
     because, while my students may know I am a Democrat, all of 
     my courses are nonpartisan, and this was a chance to 
     demonstrate publicly my commitment to a free and fair 
     exchange of views in my classroom.
       As the campus uproar about his visit built, I was genuinely 
     surprised and troubled to learn that some of my faculty 
     colleagues had rendered judgment on Dr. Murray's work and 
     character while openly admitting that they had not read 
     anything he had written. With the best of intentions, they 
     offered their leadership to enraged students, and we all know 
     what the results were.
       I want you to know what it feels like to look out at a sea 
     of students yelling obscenities at other members of my 
     beloved community. . . . I saw some of my faculty colleagues, 
     who had publicly acknowledged that they had not read anything 
     Dr. Murray had written, join the effort to shut down the 
     lecture. All of this was deeply unsettling to me.
       What alarmed me most, however, was what I saw in student 
     eyes from up on that stage. Those who wanted the event to 
     take place made eye contact with me. Those intent on 
     disrupting it steadfastly refused to do so. It was clear to 
     me that they had effectively dehumanized me. They couldn't 
     look me in the eye because, if they had, they would have seen 
     another human being. There is a lot to be angry about in 
     America today, but nothing good ever comes from demonizing 
     our brothers and sisters.
       When the event ended and it was time to leave the building, 
     I breathed a sigh of relief. We had made it. I was ready for 
     dinner and conversation with faculty and students in a 
     tranquil setting. What transpired instead felt like a scene 
     from [the TV show] ``Homeland'' rather than an evening at an 
     institution of higher learning. We confronted an angry mob as 
     we tried to exit the building.
       Most of the hatred was focused on Dr. Murray, but when I 
     took his right arm both to shield him from the attack and to 
     make sure we stayed together so I could reach the car, too, 
     that's when the hatred turned on me.
       One thug grabbed me by the hair, and another shoved me in a 
     different direction. I noticed signs with expletives and my 
     name on them. . . . For those of you who marched in 
     Washington the day after the inauguration, imagine being in a 
     crowd like that, only being surrounded by hatred rather than 
     love. I feared for my life.


[[Page S1633]]


  The next day, on Sunday, the American Enterprise Institute's website 
published this account from Dr. Charles Murray.
  Dr. Murray wrote:

       If it hadn't been for Allison and Bill Burger [Middlebury's 
     Vice President for Communications] keeping hold of me and the 
     security guards pulling people off me, I would have been 
     pushed to the ground. That much is sure. What would have 
     happened after that I don't know, but I do recall thinking 
     that being on the ground was a really bad idea, and I should 
     try really hard to avoid that. Unlike Allison, I wasn't 
     actually hurt at
     all. . . .
       In the 23 years since ``The Bell Curve'' was published, I 
     have had considerable experience with campus protests. Until 
     last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as 
     carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration 
     meets with the organizers of the protest, and ground rules 
     are agreed upon. The protesters have so many minutes to do 
     such and such. It is agreed that, after the allotted time, 
     they will leave or desist. These negotiated agreements have 
     always worked. At least a couple of dozen times, I have been 
     able to give my lecture to an attentive or, at least, quiet 
     audience despite an organized protest.
       Middlebury tried to negotiate such an agreement with the 
     protesters, but for the first time in my experience, the 
     protesters would not accept any time limits. If this becomes 
     the new normal, the number of colleges willing to let 
     themselves in for an experience like Middlebury's will plunge 
     to near zero. Academia is already largely sequestered in an 
     ideological bubble, but at least it's translucent. That 
     bubble will become opaque.
       Worse yet, the intellectual thugs will take over many 
     campuses. In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had 
     wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a 
     certain point, ``Sit down and shut up. We want to hear what 
     he has to say.'' That kind of pushback had an effect. It 
     reminded the protesters that they were a minority.
       I am assured [he continues] by people at Middlebury that 
     their protesters are a minority as well, but they are a 
     minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the 
     audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed. 
     That cannot be allowed to stand. A campus where a majority of 
     students are fearful to speak openly because they know a 
     minority will jump on them is no longer an intellectually 
     free campus in any meaningful sense.

  I suspect that most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
may not necessarily be fans of Dr. Charles Murray. There is nothing 
wrong with that, but I am confident they at least would be honest 
enough and self-respecting enough not to condemn any scholar's work 
without ever having read it, like many of Middlebury's faculty members 
apparently did. More importantly, I am confident my Democratic 
colleagues would join me in denouncing the violence of the Middlebury 
campus protesters who sought to silence Dr. Murray. On countless 
occasions, I have heard my Democratic colleagues come to the Senate 
floor to condemn violence in all of its forms. Why would this time be 
any different?
  We do not agree on everything, but I am confident that if Dr. Murray 
were invited to testify here on Capitol Hill--perhaps at a committee of 
the United States Senate--my Democratic colleagues would eagerly join 
in an open and respectful debate that would ensue as a result of that 
visit. I am confident they would reject any effort to silence or to do 
harm to those with whom they might disagree. In fact, I am confident 
that if any outburst like that happened, whoever was chairing that 
committee and the ranking personnel associated with that committee 
would immediately bring the disruption to a close so an open, honest, 
respectful discussion could occur within that meeting.
  I know tensions are high in America today, and I know what it is like 
to be on the losing side of a bitterly fought Presidential election as 
we, as Republicans, found ourselves in just a few years ago in the wake 
of the 2012 election cycle and in the wake of the previous Presidential 
election cycle before that in 2008, but that does not and cannot give 
anyone the license to shout down a fellow American, let alone to 
physically assault him just because he holds a different opinion.
  Democracy and freedom--the republican form of government--depend on 
open, tolerant, and civil political discourse, and sustaining our 
democratic freedoms is, perhaps, the sole reason the government 
subsidizes institutions of higher education in this country.
  It is embarrassing that teachers and students at an elite college 
like Middlebury should need reminding, but speech is not violence, and 
violence is not speech. Totalitarians who fail to recognize this core 
fact of decency and tolerance are goose-stepping into some of the 
darkest corners of the human heart.
  If there is anything that should unite us in these polarized times, 
it is that the kind of violence we saw on Middlebury's campus last week 
must not be tolerated. That is why I commend the 44 Middlebury College 
professors who have signed a ``Statement of Principles'' on ``Free 
Inquiry on Campus.'' I hope more Middlebury professors will join them. 
In any event, I hope all Americans will join them in standing up for 
free, open, honest, respectful debate.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________