[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 8, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1666-S1686]
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 senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
     Education relating to accountability and State plans under 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I wish to address the resolution the 
Senate is now considering.
  In 2015, 85 U.S. Senators voted for the law fixing No Child Left 
Behind, which reversed the trend to a national school board and 
restored decisions to classroom teachers, local school boards, and 
States. The Wall Street Journal said it was the ``largest devolution of 
federal control to the states in a quarter of a century.''
  The Department of Education regulation this resolution seeks to 
overturn does exactly the reverse. It begins to restore the national 
school board, and it takes away responsibilities from classroom 
teachers, local school boards, and States. It does this in direct 
violation of the law that 85 Senators voted for just 15 months ago. So 
the question before us, today, is not only whether we believe in a 
national school board or local school boards. More important, perhaps, 
the question is: who writes the law? Does the U.S. Congress write the 
law, or does the U.S. Department of Education write the law? Article I 
of the U.S. Constitution says that the Congress, elected by the people, 
writes the law.
  The purpose of this resolution is to overturn a regulation of the 
Department of Education that in 7 cases directly violates the Every 
Student Succeeds Act, passed just 15 months ago, and in 16 other cases 
exceeds the authority allowed by that law.
  This regulation would say to States: Ignore the law 85 Senators 
passed 15 months ago. Ignore the law that President Obama called a 
Christmas miracle. Ignore the law that Governors, teachers, school 
boards, and superintendents all supported, and even ignore why they 
supported it. Instead, listen to the unelected bureaucrats at the U.S. 
Department of Education.
  This regulation issued by the Department of Education specifically 
does things or requires States to do things that Congress said, in our 
law fixing No Child Left Behind, that the Department of Education 
cannot do. Therefore, it violates the law.
  In this law, Congress said to the Department: You cannot tell States 
exactly what to do about fixing low-performing schools; that is a State 
decision. But this regulation does that anyway.

[[Page S1667]]

  Congress said to the Department: You cannot tell States exactly how 
to rate the public schools in your State. But this regulation does that 
anyway.
  This is not a minor matter.
  The remarkable consensus that developed in the 2015 bill in support 
of fixing No Child Left Behind was to reverse the trend toward a 
national school board and restore to States, classroom teachers, and 
school boards decisions about what to do about their children in 
100,000 public schools. Teachers, Governors, and school board members 
were fed up with Washington telling them so much about what to do about 
the children in their schools. So this regulation, which contravenes 
the law specifically, goes to the heart of the bill fixing No Child 
Left Behind.
  It is very unusual in Federal law to specifically prohibit a 
department from regulating on an issue, but that is exactly what 
Congress did in 2015. Here are seven specific examples of how the 
regulation which we seek to overturn violates prohibitions that 
Congress explicitly wrote into the law:
  No. 1, the regulation prescribes the long-term goals and measurements 
of progress that States establish for student subgroups.
  The law says, for example, that the Secretary may not tell a State 
that goals set for students of one race must improve their progress 20 
percent better than the progress of a group of students of another 
race. Yet the regulation says that States must establish goals and 
measurements for lower performing subgroups who ``require greater rates 
of improvement,'' which would necessarily mean that students of one 
race would have to do better than students of another race.
  No. 2, the regulation requires federally prescribed actions to be 
taken in schools that do not annually test at least 95 percent of 
students.
  The law says that States must annually test not less than 95 percent 
of all students and each subgroup of students, but States determine how 
to hold schools accountable for ensuring that 95 percent of students 
participate on annual tests. The law says that the Secretary of 
Education may not prescribe ``the way in which the State factors'' the 
95 percent testing requirement into their accountability system. Yet 
the regulation we seek to overturn prescribes four different specific 
ways that States must take action in schools that miss the 95 percent 
requirement.
  No. 3, the regulation prescribes that schools with consistently 
underperforming subgroups of students be identified with a lower 
summative determination.
  The law says that States are required to identify schools for 
targeted support when a subgroup of students is ``consistently 
underperforming'' in a manner ``as determined by the state.'' So under 
the law, the Secretary can't tell States how to identify the lowest 
performing schools or what a school's rating should be. Yet the 
regulation we are seeking to overturn says that States are required to 
``demonstrate that a school with a consistently underperforming 
subgroup . . . receive a lower summative determination. . . . than it 
would have otherwise received.'' The Department of Education is 
meddling into the methodology of school ratings again, despite the fact 
that Congress said it could not.
  No. 4, the regulation prescribes the timeline for identifying schools 
with consistently underperforming subgroups.
  The law says that States are required to identify schools for 
targeted support when a subgroup of students is ``consistently 
underperforming'' in a manner ``as determined by the state.''
  We had lengthy discussions about this. These issues in education are 
filled with conflict and filled with different opinions. I said many 
times during the debate that working on an education bill in the Senate 
is kind of like being in a football stadium on game day at Penn State 
or the University of Tennessee: Everybody in the stands has played 
football, and they know what play to call, and they usually do. So 
everybody had a point. We had to work these things out and we wrote 
down carefully the agreement we had. We wrote down that the Secretary 
of Education may not impose new requirements or criteria on State 
accountability systems, such as a timeline for the identification of 
lowest performing schools. Yet the regulation prescribes an exact 
timeline of 2 years.
  No. 5, the regulation requires States to resubmit their plans to the 
Secretary every 4 years.
  The law says that each State plan ``shall . . . be periodically 
reviewed and revised as necessary by the State educational agency.'' 
Yet the regulation says States must review and revise their State plans 
``at least once every four years'' and ``submit its revisions to the 
Secretary for review and approval.''
  No. 6, the regulation dictates exactly how school districts with 
significant numbers of low-performing schools must measure resources 
for students.
  The law says States must ``periodically review resource allocation to 
support school improvement'' in districts that are serving a 
significant number of low-performing schools. The law says the 
Secretary cannot tell States what to review. Yet the regulation says 
that in addressing resource inequities, States must review differences 
in the following: rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced 
teachers; access to advanced coursework; access to full-day 
kindergarten and preschool programs; access to specialized 
instructional support personnel; and per-pupil expenditures of Federal, 
State, and local funds.
  But the law said the Secretary could not tell States what to review.
  No. 7, the regulation tells States how to count students in 
subgroups.
  The law says each State decides the minimum number of students who 
should be included in the State's count of subgroups. So, a State might 
decide that for students to be included in the State's subgroup data, 
there needs to be at least 35 students, for example, of a subgroup in a 
school. The law says the Secretary may not impose new requirements or 
criteria on State accountability systems. Yet the regulation we are 
seeking to overturn says States must pick a number below 30 or States 
will have to explain themselves to the Secretary. That is in violation 
of a specific prohibition passed by this body with 85 votes and signed 
by the President of the United States.
  Those are seven ways the regulation specifically violates 
prohibitions in the law that were intended to keep the Secretary from 
doing what the Secretary then turned around and did.
  Here are 16 more ways the regulation exceeds the authority of the 
U.S. Department of Education. To some, this may seem minor. To some, it 
may seem dull. It is not dull to me. I don't think it is dull to most 
Senators. Article I of the Constitution isn't dull. We are elected to 
write the laws, and anytime we turn over to somebody else--whether it 
is the court, whether it is the executive branch--that constitutional 
prerogative, we violate our oath, in my opinion.
  No. 1, the regulation limits how States measure school quality or 
student success. The law says States must include at least one measure 
of school quality or student success that has to be ``valid, reliable, 
comparable, and statewide.''
  The Secretary cannot tell States what measures to use in their State 
accountability system. Yet the regulation tells States they can only 
choose indicators that meet the criteria the Department came up with.
  No. 2, the regulation limits how States measure school quality or 
student success for indicators used specifically in high school.
  The law says States must include at least one measure of school 
quality or student success, specific to high schools, and it has to be 
``valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide.'' The Secretary cannot 
tell States what measures to use in their State accountability system. 
Yet the regulation tells States they can only choose indicators that 
meet criteria the Department came up with.
  No. 3, the regulation tells schools marked as low-performing that 
they will always be low-performing unless they improve on indicators 
the U.S. Department of Education has identified.
  The law says something different. The law says that tests and 
graduation rates have to count more in the State accountability systems 
than indicators of school quality or student success. The Secretary of 
Education may not prescribe ``the weight of any measure or indicator 
used to identify or meaningfully differentiate schools.''

[[Page S1668]]

  The regulation says that a low-performing school must continue to be 
identified as low-performing unless it improves on tests and graduation 
rates, even if the school is making significant progress on other 
measures of school quality or student success, such as, for example, 
absenteeism or family engagement, something chosen by the State.
  No. 4, the regulation requires school districts where schools aren't 
testing 95 percent of students to develop and implement a Federal 
improvement plan.
  The law says States must annually test not less than 95 percent of 
all students and each subgroup of students. The law leaves it to States 
to determine what to do in school districts with schools that are 
failing to meet the participation requirement. Yet the regulation tells 
States how to address school districts where schools aren't testing 95 
percent of students. It invents out of whole cloth the idea of a 
Federal improvement plan, and then it mandates it.
  No. 5, similarly, the regulation requires schools that aren't testing 
95 percent of students to develop and implement a Federal improvement 
plan.
  The law says that States must annually test not less than 95 percent 
of all students and each subgroup of students. The law leaves it to 
States to determine what to do in schools that are failing to meet the 
participation requirement. Yet the regulation tells States how to 
address schools that aren't testing 95 percent of students.
  Again, it invents out of whole cloth the idea of a Federal 
improvement plan with four federally prescribed elements, and then it 
mandates it.
  No. 6, the regulation tells States how to measure high school 
graduation rates.
  The law says each State will establish long-term goals for ``all 
students and each subgroup of students in the State,'' including the 
goal of high school graduation rates using either the ``four-year 
adjusted cohort graduation rate'' or ``at the State's discretion, the 
extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.'' Yet the regulation 
says States can only use the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 
to identify low-performing schools in their accountability systems.
  You can see that throughout these examples there appears to be a 
deliberate attempt by the Department of Education not to interpret the 
law but to ignore the law or, specifically, to contravene the law, to 
thumb the nose of regulation writers at the Congress and the President 
who passed and signed the law.
  No. 7, the regulation requires each State to come up with a 
definition for an ``ineffective teacher.'' The law says each State will 
describe how low-income and minority children enrolled in schools are 
not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective teachers. Yet the 
regulations says States have to define ``ineffective teachers.'' It is 
going to make it nearly impossible for States not to implement an 
entire teacher evaluation system.
  No. 8, in the same way, the regulation requires each State to come up 
with a definition of an ``out-of-field teacher.''
  That is what the regulation does, but the law just says States will 
describe how low-income and minority children enrolled in schools are 
not served at disproportionate rates by ``out-of-field teachers.'' The 
regulation says you have to define that.
  No. 9, the regulation requires each State to come up with a 
definition for an ``inexperienced teacher.''

  The law simply says a State will describe how low-income and minority 
children are not served at disproportionate rates by ``inexperienced 
teachers.'' Yet the regulation goes on to require a definition.
  No. 10, the regulation tells States to report on the number and 
percentage of all students and subgroups of students who are not 
included in the State's accountability system.
  The law says each State will report a clear and concise description 
of the State's accountability system, including the minimum number of 
students that the State determines are necessary to be included in each 
of the subgroups of students. Yet the regulation requires States to 
provide new information outside of the scope of what is required by the 
law.
  No. 11, the regulation tells States how to rate schools and that the 
State accountability system has to produce a single rating for each 
school.
  That was not envisioned by the law. The law says that States must 
create a system of evaluating all public schools in the State. It says, 
further, that the Secretary of Education may not prescribe the specific 
methodology used by States to evaluate schools. Yet the regulation 
tells States that the results must lead to a ``single summative 
determination'' for each school.
  A State might choose to do that or a State might choose not to do 
that. That was the decision of the Congress, but the Department decided 
differently.
  No. 12, the regulation adds a requirement that the State's 
accountability system has to include at least three levels of 
performance.
  The law says that States have the flexibility to establish a system 
of meaningful differentiation of schools without any parameters or 
federally prescribed methodology. That couldn't be clearer--without any 
parameters or federally described methodology. Yet the regulation 
prescribes a requirement that States use at least three distinct levels 
of performance for schools.
  No. 13, the regulation prescribes when schools may exit from 
identification as the lowest-performing.
  The law says States must establish statewide criteria for schools to 
exit from being identified as in need of improvement. The law says that 
the Secretary of Education may not prescribe what the exit criteria 
are. That is a decision left up to States, but the regulation narrows 
the States' ability to develop their own criteria for schools to no 
longer be identified as the lowest performing.
  No. 14, the regulation prescribes how States intervene in school 
districts with schools that are labeled as the lowest-performing. The 
law says that if a low-performing school does not meet a State's 
criteria for no longer being identified as lowest-performing, then the 
State must take a ``more rigorous State-determined action.'' The 
Secretary of Education cannot prescribe, under the law, any specific 
strategies to improve schools. Yet the regulation requires the State to 
tell school districts to take interventions the Department has 
prescribed.
  No. 15, the regulation prescribes how school districts intervene in 
schools that are labeled as low-performing.
  The law says if a low-performing school does not meet statewide 
criteria for no longer being identified as lowest-performing, the State 
must take a ``more rigorous State-determined action.'' The Secretary 
cannot prescribe any specific strategies to improve schools. Yet the 
regulation requires a school to take federally prescribed actions.
  We have already tried Federal one-size-fits-all actions under the 
School Improvement Grant program in No Child Left Behind. We rejected 
that. We don't think Washington should be in the business of telling 
schools how to fix themselves.
  Finally, No. 16, the regulation limits how States award school 
improvement funding to school districts and schools.
  The law says States must establish the method they will use to award 
school improvement funding to school districts. The regulation dictates 
to States how much they have to award to low-performing schools 
receiving school improvement funds.
  Here is what this resolution overturning the regulation would do. The 
resolution would ensure that the law fixing No Child Left Behind is 
implemented as Congress wrote it. The regulation violates the law and 
its clear prohibitions on the Secretary by prescribing new requirements 
through regulation or as a condition of a State plan approval.
  In the law we passed, Congress reached an agreement about requiring 
States to identify a certain number and types of schools that need to 
be improved, but we left it to the States to determine how to go about 
fixing those schools and how long they had to fix the schools. The 
regulation prescribes how States and school districts intervene in and 
improve schools that do not improve.
  Secondly, this resolution restores State flexibility. The regulation 
is in direct conflict with the intent of the law to allow States and 
school districts

[[Page S1669]]

to have greater flexibility to implement the law, as Congress intended.
  Congress reached an agreement that there are some essential elements 
of a State accountability plan that need to be included in a State 
plan. The other half of the agreement was that we left to the States 
the decisions about how to include these factors into their 
accountability systems. This is about article I of the Constitution.
  Congress wrote the law with specific rules in mind. The Secretary of 
Education and his or her bureaucracy do not get to treat Congress as a 
minor impediment to the education system of their choosing. If they 
want to write the laws of the land, they should run for Congress and 
get themselves elected, draft a bill or an amendment--not wait for 
Congress to finish our work and try to undo it through a simple 
regulation.
  This resolution, overturning the regulation, would preserve local 
decision-making. As I mentioned, the Wall Street Journal editorialized, 
when we passed the law, that it was ``the largest devolution of Federal 
control to States in a quarter-century.''
  The regulation tried to restore Washington, DC, decision-making with 
mandates that States comply with specific requirements instead of 
letting States determine how to best proceed.
  This resolution scuttles new and burdensome reporting requirements. 
The regulation created new reporting requirements on States and school 
districts that will drive up compliance costs and divert resources away 
from students and classrooms.
  Let me conclude by dealing with some of the arguments and 
misinformation that I have been hearing about the resolution. No. 1, I 
want to make clear that this resolution overturning the regulation 
strengthens accountability in our public schools the way Congress 
determined to do it in the law fixing No Child Left Behind.
  We transferred most of that responsibility for accountability from 
Washington, DC, to States and local school boards. We did not want a 
national school board.
  The law also includes Federal guardrails to ensure a quality, public 
education for all students, including, for example, requiring States to 
identify and provide support to low-performing schools--at least the 
lowest performing bottom 5 percent of each State's schools--and 
requiring academic and English language proficiency indicators to be 
included in each State's accountability system. The law's Federal 
guardrails will shape how States design their accountability systems 
because a State plan would not be following the law if the State fails 
to include accountability provisions in their plan.

  The repeal of this regulation does not let States--the ones who are 
supposed to be addressing accountability--off the hook by any means. 
Repealing this regulation simply ensures that individual States and 
their Governors, legislators, chief State school officers, local school 
boards, superintendents, principals, parents, and classroom teachers 
are responsible for these decisions.
  This resolution, overturning the regulation, will allow States to 
implement the new law on the existing timeline to submit their plans 
and have the Department review and approve State plans.
  U.S. Education Secretary DeVos has said that she favors the current 
timeline, the one established by former Secretary King. She said this 
at her confirmation hearing before our committee. She confirmed that 
again after taking office.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary DeVos's letter 
of February 10 to the Chief State School Officers outlining the 
timeline be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                February 10, 2017.
       Dear Chief State School Officer: Thank you for the 
     important work you and stakeholders in your State are engaged 
     in to develop new State plans and transition to the Every 
     Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which reauthorized the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). I am 
     writing today to assure you that I fully intend to implement 
     and enforce the statutory requirements of the ESSA. 
     Additionally, I want to provide you with an update on the 
     timeline, procedures, and criteria under which a State 
     Educational Agency (SEA) may submit a State plan, including a 
     consolidated State plan, to the Department. States should 
     continue to follow the timeline for developing and submitting 
     their State plans to the Department for review and approval.
       On November 29, 2016, the Department issued final 
     regulations regarding statewide accountability systems and 
     data reporting under Title I of the ESEA, as amended by the 
     ESSA, and the preparation of State plans, including 
     consolidated State plans. However, in accordance with the 
     memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the 
     President and Chief of Staff, titled ``Regulatory Freeze 
     Pending Review,'' published in the Federal Register on 
     January 24, 2017, the Department has delayed the effective 
     date of regulations concerning accountability and State plans 
     under the ESSA until March 21, 2017, to permit further review 
     for questions of law and policy that the regulations might 
     raise. Additionally, Congress is currently considering a 
     joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional 
     Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801808) to overturn these 
     regulations. If a resolution of disapproval is enacted, these 
     regulations ``shall have no force or effect.''
       In a Dear Colleague Letter dated November 29, 2016, the 
     Department notified SEAs that it would accept consolidated 
     State plans on two dates: April 3 or September 18, 2017. The 
     Department also released a Consolidated State Plan Template 
     that States were required to use if they submit a 
     consolidated State plan. Due to the regulatory delay and 
     review, and the potential repeal of recent regulations by 
     Congress, the Department is currently reviewing the 
     regulatory requirements of consolidated State plans, as 
     reflected in the current template, to ensure that they 
     require only descriptions, information, assurances, and other 
     materials that are ``absolutely necessary'' for consideration 
     of a consolidated State plan, consistent with section 
     8302(b)(3) of the ESEA. In doing so, the Department, in 
     consultation with SEAs as well as other State and local 
     stakeholders, will develop a revised template for 
     consolidated State plans that meets the ``absolutely 
     necessary'' requirement by March 13, 2017. The Department may 
     also consider allowing a State or group of States to work 
     together to develop a consolidated State plan template that 
     meets the Department's identified requirements through the 
     Council of Chief State School Officers.
       The regulatory delay and review, and the potential repeal 
     of recent regulations by Congress, should not adversely 
     affect or delay the progress that States have already made in 
     developing their State plans and transitioning to the ESSA. 
     The Department will be notifying States and the public of the 
     revised template once it becomes available. In the meantime, 
     States should continue their work in engaging with 
     stakeholders and developing their plans based on the 
     requirements under section 8302(b)(3) of the ESEA. In doing 
     so, States may consider using the existing template as a 
     guide, as any revised template will not result in 
     descriptions, information, assurances, or other materials 
     that States will be required to provide other than those 
     already required under the ESEA. The Department will still 
     accept consolidated State plans on April 3 or September 18, 
     2017.
       For your reference, the following programs may be included 
     in a consolidated State plan:
       Title I, part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 
     Educational Agencies;
       Title I, part C: Education of Migratory Children;
       Title I, part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for 
     Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk;
       Title II, part A: Supporting Effective Instruction;
       Title III, part A: English Language Acquisition, Language 
     Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act;
       Title IV, part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment 
     Grants;
       Title IV, part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers; 
     and
       Title V, part B, subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School 
     Program.
       In addition, pursuant to ESEA section 8302(a)(1)(B), I am 
     designating the Education for Homeless Children and Youths 
     program under subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act as a program that may be included in 
     an SEA's consolidated State plan.
       I appreciate the hard work and thoughtful attention you are 
     giving to implementing the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. I 
     understand that a great deal of work has already gone into 
     the planning and preparation of your State plans, whether 
     that is a consolidated State plan or individual program 
     plans. One of my main priorities as Secretary is to ensure 
     that States and local school districts have clarity during 
     the early implementation of the law. Additionally, I want to 
     ensure that regulations comply with the requirements of the 
     law, provide the State and local flexibility that Congress 
     intended, and do not impose unnecessary burdens. In the near 
     future, the Department will provide more information on its 
     review of existing regulations, as well as additional 
     guidance and technical assistance.
       We have a unique opportunity as we implement the ESSA. I 
     look forward to working with you, districts, and parents to 
     ensure every child has the opportunity to pursue excellence 
     and achieve their hopes and dreams.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Betsy DeVos.


[[Page S1670]]


  

  Mr. ALEXANDER. So there is no confusion, let me clearly state what 
that timeline is. No. 1, States should continue to submit State 
accountability plans by the April or September 2017 deadlines. No. 2, 
States should continue to implement a State accountability system in 
the 2017-2018 school year. No. 3, States should continue to identify 
the lowest performing schools in need of comprehensive support and 
improvement by the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year.
  To write these plans, States need simply to consult the law. The 
Every Student Succeeds Act requires States to submit a plan for peer 
review and approval by Secretary DeVos and the Education Department. 
The Department is committed to working with States by providing 
technical assistance, issuing non-regulatory guidance and other support 
materials.
  If questions arise, there are a variety of ways to answer the 
questions. The Department will continue to provide States with 
clarification on how to comply with the law through the use of non-
regulatory guidance, ``Dear Colleague'' letters, frequently asked 
questions documents, webinars, phone calls, and in-person conferences. 
In other words, if there are any questions about how to comply with the 
new law, there are plenty of ways for Chief State School Officers and 
others to ask the U.S. Department of Education to provide the answers.
  It is important to emphasize that this resolution does not in any way 
give the Education Secretary a path to creating a new Federal voucher 
program. Some of my friends on the other side of this debate have been 
resorting to scare tactics and alleging Secretary DeVos will use this 
opportunity to regulate into existence a mandate that State and local 
school districts adopt a school voucher program. The Secretary of 
Education does not have that power, and this Secretary of Education has 
said she does not want it. Secretary DeVos has repeatedly affirmed her 
opposition to federally mandating school choice, saying that she does 
``not and will not advocate for any Federal mandates requiring 
vouchers. States should determine the mechanism of choice, if any.''
  A school choice program cannot be unilaterally created by the U.S. 
Department of Education. Only Congress could create a voucher program. 
I tried to do that on the floor of this Senate during the debate about 
fixing No Child Left Behind. I offered an amendment called Scholarships 
for Kids that would have allowed States to use existing Federal dollars 
to follow the children of low-income families to schools of their 
parents' choice. Senator Scott of South Carolina offered a similar 
amendment, but only 45 Senators voted for our proposals. If you pay 
attention around here, you know that the most important things usually 
take 60 votes to gain approval.
  Also, the 2015 law that we passed actually includes provisions that 
would prohibit the Secretary from mandating, directing, or controlling 
a State, school district or school's allocation of State or local 
resources, and it bars the Department of Education from requiring 
States and districts to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for 
under the law--for example, vouchers. Now I agree that previous 
Secretaries of Education have imposed their own personal, policy 
preferences on States and school districts. I opposed such mandates and 
worked against them. Congress writes the law, not the Secretary and not 
the bureaucracy.
  Instead of using this scare tactic to rile up teachers and parents 
around the country, misleading them and confusing them about what the 
Secretary of Education might do, I would take that argument and turn it 
around. If Congress takes a stand here and now and says that this 
regulation exceeds the authority granted by Congress--the authority 
delegated to the Secretary of Education--because the Secretary imposed 
conditions on States not allowed by the law, then that means any 
current or future Secretary of Education would be similarly prevented 
from imposing their own conditions on States.
  So there could be no legal method of forcing States to adopt a 
voucher program, unless Congress passes a new law. There could be no 
legal method of reinterpreting the Every Student Succeeds Act to impose 
the next good education idea--however well-intended--unless Congress 
acts first.
  The suggestion has been made that this new law requires regulations. 
This regulation is not required by the law. The law does not 
specifically call for accountability regulations. The law allows for 
accountability regulations, but ``only to the extent that such 
regulations are necessary to ensure that there is compliance.'' So 
there is no requirement for this regulation. It is allowed, but it is 
not required.
  Congress wrote prohibitions on the Secretary so that States would not 
be faced with a bunch of new mandates that ``add new requirements that 
are inconsistent with or outside the scope'' or ``add new criteria that 
are inconsistent with or outside the scope'' or are ``in excess of 
statutory authority granted to the Secretary.'' That is what Congress 
did. In the law, we laid out requirements for State plans. States can 
simply follow the law. A regulation isn't necessary.
  Future Secretaries will still be able to write regulations on this 
subject. Under the Congressional Review Act, which is the procedure 
under which we are operating, if Congress overturns a regulation--as I 
hope it will in this case--the Department of Education is prevented 
from making final a new regulation that is ``substantially the same'' 
as the overturned regulation, unless Congress passes a new law to 
create an opportunity for that new regulation. But no court has defined 
what ``substantially the same'' means. But the commonsense 
interpretation of that is very simple: The Department simply can't turn 
right around and do the same thing Congress has just overturned. It 
could do something else by regulation, but it could not do precisely 
that.
  So this is a question of whether we are going to restore the national 
school board that 85 Senators voted to reverse 15 months ago. And this 
is also a question of whether you believe that the U.S. Congress writes 
the law or the U.S. Department of Education writes the law. I believe 
that under article I of our Constitution, the U.S. Congress writes the 
law, and when signed by the President, then that is the law. The 
regulations must stay within it, and that is especially true when 
Congress has written explicit prohibitions about what a Secretary may 
do and may not do.
  The remarkable consensus around the bill fixing No Child Left Behind 
was to reverse the trend to a national school board and restore to 
States, to classroom teachers, and to parents the decisions about what 
to do about their children in public schools. Teachers, Governors, 
school boards, and parents were all are fed up with Washington telling 
them so much about what to do with their children in 100,000 public 
schools.
  So this regulation, which contravenes the law specifically, goes to 
the heart of the bill fixing No Child Left Behind, which received 85 
votes here in the Senate. And this resolution to overturn that 
regulation upholds the law that received ``aye'' votes from those 85 
Senators. I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and to 
vote aye one more time.
  I believe that overturning the regulation preserves the consensus and 
the compromise that we achieved when we enacted the law fixing No Child 
Left Behind.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today on behalf of 
students, parents, teachers, and communities around the country to urge 
my colleagues to support our bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act and 
to oppose this resolution today.
  This resolution will roll back a rule issued by the Department of 
Education that is critical to the effective and intended implementation 
of the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA.
  I am urging my fellow Senators to vote against this resolution for 
the following reasons, and I will go through each one of them: First of 
all, this legislation will throw our States and

[[Page S1671]]

school districts into chaos just as they are beginning to implement our 
new law. Secondly, it will give Secretary DeVos a blank check to 
promote her anti-public school agenda. Third, passing this resolution 
would be a retreat from the bipartisan law President Obama called a 
Christmas miracle, one that takes us down a strong partisan path 
instead, which could undermine ESSA's civil rights protections and 
guardrails.
  But before I go into that, I want to remind my colleagues of what we 
are working on here and what this resolution would unwind. As many of 
my colleagues remember well, in 2015, the senior Senator from Tennessee 
and I came together, with so many others in this body, to fix No Child 
Left Behind. We both agreed--in fact, nearly everyone in the country 
agreed--the law was badly broken. No Child Left Behind relied too much 
on high stakes standardized testing. It gave schools unrealistic goals 
but failed to give them the resources to meet those goals. And it 
included a one-size-fits-all punishment if those goals weren't met.
  We knew overhauling our public education law was not going to be 
easy, but we took the time to listen to teachers, to parents, and to 
students around the country, to make sure their voices were heard. And 
I am proud that we were then able to break through the partisan 
gridlock in Congress, find common ground, and pass the Every Student 
Succeeds Act with strong bipartisan support.
  After a major law like the Every Student Succeeds Act passes, Federal 
agencies usually issue rules to implement and clarify that law. The 
Every Student Succeeds Act maintains the Secretary's authority to issue 
rules and clarifications that are consistent with the law. This rule 
before us today is consistent with ESSA, and it provides important 
clarity to States, school districts, and schools.

  Using such a blunt instrument like this resolution to overturn the 
entire rule will be a retreat from bipartisanship. Here is how: This 
resolution would roll back a critical Department of Education rule that 
gives States more flexibility in key areas while at the same time 
maintaining strong Federal guardrails to ensure our most vulnerable 
children don't fall through the cracks. This rule provides clarity on 
accountability, on reporting requirements, and State plan requirements. 
It helps ensure that no student, no matter where they live, can fall 
through those cracks. In other words, this is a rule that gets at the 
heart and soul of what we are trying to accomplish with our bipartisan 
law.
  The Department of Education did not simply come up with this rule on 
its own. It incorporated over 20,000 comments from education 
stakeholders, State chiefs, and district superintendents, many of 
whom--including the State chiefs and superintendents--applauded the 
Department of Education for listening to their concerns and 
incorporating those comments into the final rule that was then released 
last fall.
  During the debate around the Every Student Succeeds Act, there was 
some division about what accountability should mean in the law, but the 
final law showed that we can balance flexibility with strong Federal 
guardrails, until this point, when Republicans now want to tear down 
the rule that ensures those guardrails go into effect.
  Now I want to get into some of the challenges that would be created 
if this resolution passes and this rule was eliminated. One important 
thing this rule did was clarify State submission plan requirements and 
set deadlines for the submission of those plans. Based on this, States 
have been working now with the Department of Education for months on 
their State plans. Approximately 18 States and the District of Columbia 
intend to submit their plans in the beginning of April, but if this 
rule goes away now, if the rug gets pulled out from under these States, 
there could be chaos and confusion and the undermining of confidence in 
this new law.
  By the way, we are already seeing this start. In February, Secretary 
DeVos sent a letter to our State chiefs suggesting a new template for 
their State submission plans would be ``coming,'' even before the 
Senate voted on this resolution, and that the new template would be 
available less than a month before State plans are due. This could 
force those impacted States to abandon their plans and start from 
scratch, and it does not allow enough time for the stakeholder review 
process that is required in the law.
  So that is the first reason we should oppose this legislation because 
there is simply no reason to insert more chaos into a system that is 
finally settling into our new law. The second reason is, passing this 
legislation would then give Secretary DeVos a blank check over 
implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act to promote her anti-
public school agenda.
  As we saw in her confirmation hearing, Secretary DeVos, we know, has 
dedicated her career to privatizing public education. She has a long 
record of fighting to cut investments in public schools and shift 
taxpayer dollars toward private school vouchers. In her hearing, she 
showed a lack of even basic understanding of key concepts in public 
education policy, and she has openly questioned the role of the Federal 
Government in protecting our most vulnerable students.
  After her hearing, millions of people across the country stood up, 
made their voices heard, and called on the Senate to reject her 
confirmation. Although she squeaked through with a historic tie-
breaking vote from Vice President Pence, it was clear people across the 
country rejected her anti-public school agenda. Instead, they want the 
Department of Education to stand with students and with our schools.
  One month into her tenure as Secretary of Education, Secretary DeVos 
has not done a lot to reassure parents who had serious concerns. She 
has made mistake after mistake, from grossly misrepresenting the 
origins of the HBCUs to failing to protect transgender students in 
schools, proving what the American people saw at her confirmation 
hearing; that her lack of understanding of public education is hurting 
our students. We cannot, in good conscience, provide Secretary DeVos 
another potential tool to implement ESSA, our bipartisan bill, with her 
anti-public education slant, and that is exactly what passing this 
resolution would do.
  If this resolution passes, make no mistake, I will do everything I 
can to ensure that Secretary DeVos implements ESSA, as Congress 
intended.
  Let me be clear. Congress did not intend that DeVos or any future 
Secretary of Education could use this law to encourage, prioritize, or 
even require States to incentivize private school choice. We will work 
to ensure that she does not take advantage of the chaos that will 
follow, if this rule is overturned.
  Providing Secretary DeVos a blank check would absolutely be the wrong 
way to go in the early stages of this law's implementation. So that is 
the second reason.
  The third reason is, at its heart, the Every Student Succeeds Act is 
a civil rights law, and the rule that this resolution would eliminate 
reflects that reality. We know from experience that without strong 
accountability, kids from low-income neighborhoods, students of color, 
kids with disabilities, and students learning English too often fall 
through the cracks. Now it is up to all of us to uphold the civil 
rights legacy of this law and its promise for all of our students.
  I was proud to work with my colleague, the senior Senator from 
Tennessee, on this law. I know he is proud of what we accomplished, but 
I am disheartened to see my Republican colleagues jamming this partisan 
play through in the same fashion they did with Secretary DeVos's 
nomination.
  Voting for this resolution will ruin the bipartisan nature of our 
Every Student Succeeds Act, and it will hurt our students, but by 
voting against this resolution, we can make sure ESSA works for all of 
our students, regardless of where they live, how they learn, or how 
much money their parents make.
  Finally, I want to make one more point. Even people who had concerns 
with the final rule do not--do not--want to see it overturned. In fact, 
the American Federation of Teachers, civil rights groups, and the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce--groups that aren't always actually on the same 
side of education issues--are all speaking out against rolling back 
this rule, and parents,

[[Page S1672]]

teachers, and community leaders are all on the same page.
  In a letter to the Senate, Randi Weingarten, president of the 
American Federation of Teachers union said: ``Repealing these 
regulations now would not just be counterproductive and disruptive but 
would demonstrate a disregard by Congress of school districts' 
operation and timelines.''
  In a letter to my colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and various education groups, including 
the National Center for Learning Disabilities, wrote that rolling back 
this rule ``will cause unnecessary confusion, disrupting the work in 
states and wasting time that we cannot afford to waste.''
  So if unions, business, and civil rights groups, disability advocate 
organizations, and the States are not asking for this, we must ask the 
questions, Why are my colleagues jamming this resolution through? What 
perceived problem are we trying to solve?
  Millions of students, parents, and teachers have made their voices 
heard about the importance of public education. They want us to work 
together to uphold and build on our bipartisan law, not for it to 
become just the latest partisan exercise that only hurts our students.
  A vote against this resolution is a vote for our students, it is a 
vote for our schools, it is a vote not to give Secretary DeVos power 
she can abuse, and it is a vote to keep working together to build on 
this bipartisan law, not tear it apart.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Budget Cuts

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express serious concern 
about reports in the press that the administration is considering deep 
cuts in funding to crucial aspects of our Nation's national security 
and our homeland security to pay for the construction of a border wall 
and also for a crackdown on illegal immigration.
  The first target that alarmed me was America's maritime guardian, the 
U.S. Coast Guard.
  Even as the administration says it plans to secure the borders and 
increase funding for our military by $54 billion, which, in fact, may 
be a good thing, it is reportedly considering cuts on the nondefense 
side--and that includes the Department of Homeland Security--with a cut 
of $1.3 billion, or 12 percent, to the very military service that 
secures our vast maritime borders, and that is the Coast Guard. That 
plan just doesn't make any sense, especially when it comes to securing 
our borders. You would be putting a bunch of money in a wall, but you 
are losing the security of the border over here on the oceans.
  The 42,000 member-strong Coast Guard plays a vital role in protecting 
our Nation from narcoterrorism, combating human smuggling, preventing 
and responding to maritime environmental disasters, and protecting 
lives and property at sea.
  By the way, in other foreign parts of the globe, the U.S. Coast Guard 
is assisting the U.S. military in our military operations.
  If securing our borders and supporting our military is a true 
priority for the administration, then it ought not be slashing the 
Coast Guard's budget. Instead, we should be supporting the Coast 
Guard's ongoing and much needed fleet recapitalization program, 
including the design and construction of the new offshore patrol cutter 
and the continued production of the new fast response cutter. These are 
desperately needed assets for the Coast Guard.
  This Senator has personally visited dozens of Coast Guard units all 
around, not just in my State of Florida but in Alaska, the Great Lakes. 
The job the Coast Guard does is amazing. What I have witnessed 
firsthand is what they do in service to our country.
  The constant theme I have heard from my visits is the need to 
modernize and become increasingly more nimble, given the host of 
threats that could be delivered from our maritime borders. Let me give 
just one example.
  In the Caribbean, it is a Coast Guard admiral who heads up the task 
force that has all agencies of government participating as we look to 
protect the southern borders in the Caribbean, as well as the southern 
Pacific, from anything that is coming to our borders--drugs, migrants, 
terrorists, whatever. It is all agencies involved, but if, for example, 
there are U.S. Navy ships in the area or Air Force assets in the air 
that might pick up one of these threats coming toward America, they 
work hand-in-glove with the Coast Guard because it is the Coast Guard 
that has the legal authority as a law enforcement agency to stop, 
apprehend, and board that vessel.
  We are doing all of this border protection with cutters that have an 
average age of 45 years old. The average age of a Coast Guard 210-foot 
medium endurance cutter is 48 years old. The Coast Guard's high 
endurance cutter average age is 45 years. These are just two classes of 
ships that the Coast Guard uses for interdiction and rescue missions, 
and they do it worldwide.
  As you may expect, with assets this old, the Coast Guard struggles 
with major, mission-debilitating casualties, which result in severe 
losses of operational days at sea and drastically increases maintenance 
costs. To correct that, the new offshore patrol cutters and the fast 
response cutters will give the Coast Guard an effective coastal and 
offshore interdiction capability in order to meet objectives. What are 
they? Combating transnational organized crime networks, securing our 
national maritime borders, safeguarding waterborne commerce, and 
safeguarding life and property at sea.
  Looking at the administration's second target to pay for the wall, 
what is the second target? Believe it or not, FEMA, the Federal 
Emergency Management Administration. That agency comes to the aid of 
millions of Americans during any kind of natural disaster, and they are 
singling that out for cuts? That doesn't make common sense, and it 
certainly is not going to be a popular thing to do in the eyes of those 
who have to turn to FEMA after a natural disaster to try to get their 
lives back on track.
  Last year, just taking 1 year as an example, two major hurricanes hit 
Florida, in addition to many other devastating natural disasters that 
struck nationwide and resulted in many deaths and billions of dollars 
of damage. FEMA was critical to people's survival and recovery in each 
of those events. Just think of what we hear on the news all the time. 
There are storms, tornadoes, earthquakes. Remember the mountain that 
erupted out in the State of Washington decades ago, not to mention 
hurricanes.
  For the sake of people's safety and that of our country, we simply 
cannot use FEMA as a piggy bank to pay for the administration's 
trillion-dollar spending programs.
  The administration's third target--this has just been reported. What 
is the third target? You are not going to believe this. It is TSA, the 
Transportation Security Administration. If we target TSA for budget 
cuts--is that really what we want to do in a threat environment? Every 
time we go through an airport, TSA is on the frontlines of protecting 
our country from terrorist attacks. That is its security mission at 
airports across the country--and, by the way, with the air marshals who 
fly on our flights. Need I remind the administration why TSA was 
created? It was after the September 11 attacks in 2001.
  Funding is vital to ensure the success of TSA's mission. In fact, 
just last year Congress responded to concerns over insider threats and 
security at airports, such as the bombings in Brussels and Istanbul, 
with the most extensive security-related measures in years. 
Specifically, what we did, particularly in the Commerce Committee when 
we formulated the FAA bill, is we included bipartisan provisions 
enhancing the background and vetting requirements for airport employees 
and expanded the random and physical inspection of airport employees in 
secure areas.
  Remember the case at the Atlanta Airport? For several months, people 
had a gun-running scheme going from Atlanta to New York. They didn't 
drive up Interstate 95 to take the guns; they had an airport employee 
in Atlanta

[[Page S1673]]

who could get into the airport, without being checked, carrying a sack 
of guns. That airport employee would go up into the sterile area where 
passengers are, go into the men's room, and would exchange knapsacks 
with a passenger who had come through TSA clean, and that passenger 
took the sack of guns on the airplane flight from Atlanta to New York. 
The New York City Police Department couldn't figure out how they were 
getting all those guns on the streets of New York. That was a gun-
running scheme over several months. Thank goodness they were criminals 
and not terrorists. And you want to cut that kind of security?
  Do you want to cut the strongest security we have at an airport when 
screening passengers who are going through? It is the nose of a dog, 
the VIPR teams. The trained dog teams and their handlers are the most 
efficient way to screen passengers. It is amazing what those dogs can 
sense. When we did the FAA bill last year, we doubled the number of 
VIPR teams, the dog teams, and you want to cut this? That was all done 
in a bipartisan manner. We doubled the number for the protection of the 
American public.
  In that bill, we also expanded the grant funding to assist law 
enforcement in responding to mass casualty and active-shooter 
incidents, which is very important. Another tragic example of that is 
the recent shooting in Fort Lauderdale at the airport.
  To counter the issue of long lines, which I know we all had to go 
through last spring, the legislation included provisions to expand TSA 
Precheck and require the TSA to evaluate staffing and checkpoint 
configurations in order to expedite passenger security screening.
  Does that sound like a bunch of administrative mumbo jumbo? Perhaps. 
Let me tell you that it works and that all of it is designed to protect 
Americans going to airports and getting on airplanes.
  None of this is possible without continued funding and, in fact, even 
more funding. Any cuts are certainly going to impair the TSA's ability 
to keep our country safe.
  The bottom line here is that we must do whatever is necessary to keep 
our country safe and our citizens secure. Slashing the budgets of the 
U.S. Coast Guard or FEMA or the TSA is only going to make us less 
secure.
  Need I say more about these proposals to pay for some of these other 
things, like a wall, by slashing these kinds of budgets?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The Senator from Maryland.


                                 Russia

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, along with the Presiding Officer, I have 
the distinct honor of serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
and am the ranking Democrat on that committee. There are many areas of 
challenge for our national security. We could talk about what we think 
is the greatest threat to the national security of the United States. 
Unfortunately, there are a lot of candidates.
  One could certainly be China. China has been very provocative in the 
China Sea, raising concern about maintaining maritime security, which 
is so critically important to world commerce. Clearly China could be a 
candidate.
  North Korea could be a candidate. We know that in North Korea, they 
have a nuclear capacity. We know their government will gas and poison 
people who disagree with them, including family. It is a repressive 
regime, and they are developing the capacity not only to have a nuclear 
weapon but the capacity to be able to deliver that nuclear weapon 
beyond just the region in which they are located. So we could pick 
North Korea.
  We certainly could mention the threat of ISIS, which is a growing 
threat of terrorism that challenges not only the Middle East but our 
own country.
  We could mention the security threat of Iran. Iran was one of the 
greatest sponsors of terrorism of any country in the world, which is 
causing major problems for the Sunni Gulf States, in Syria, and in the 
Middle East. Clearly Iran is a candidate for major interest in our 
national security.
  But the country I would pick as the greatest threat to America's 
national security would be Russia. Russia has been very aggressive in 
trying to dominate beyond its own geographical borders. It has incurred 
into other countries and has attacked the United States of America.
  I want to take us back to 1975 when the Helsinki Final Act was 
passed, through the leadership of the United States and the USSR.
  I have had the opportunity through several Congresses to be either 
the chair or the cochair or the ranking member of the U.S. Helsinki 
Commission. I have spent a lot of time on the Helsinki work.
  What was remarkable about that document that was entered into in 1975 
was that it recognized that security is beyond just military in that 
for a country to be secure, it must pay attention to its borders, yes, 
and its military, but it also must have economic security and must 
respect human rights.
  What was also very unique in the Helsinki Final Act was the 
commitment that these standards we agreed to would not only be of 
internal interest to the member country but that any country to the 
Helsinki Final Act could challenge the actions of any other country. We 
have not only the right but the responsibility to call out countries 
that fail to adhere to the basic principles that were agreed to in 
1975. The Helsinki Final Act now applies to about 56 countries--all of 
the countries of Europe, Canada, the United States, and all of the 
republics of the former Soviet Union.
  Let me review with my colleagues the guiding principles that were 
agreed to in 1975 under the Helsinki Final Act, signed by Russia, so 
that they are bound by these principles. As I read through these 10 
principles, let me talk about how Russia has violated every single one 
of the basic 10 principles they agreed to in Helsinki.
  No. 1, sovereign equality and respect for the rights inherent in 
sovereignty.
  No. 2, refraining from the threat or use of force.
  No. 3, the inviolability of borders.
  No. 4, the territorial integrity of states.
  In each of these cases, Russia has violated these basic principles. 
They invaded Ukraine and took over Crimea, annexing it against the will 
of a sovereign country. They are interfering in the eastern part of 
Ukraine as we speak, violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. 
Russia's troops are in Georgia, violating the sovereignty of that 
country. Russia's presence in Moldova is not respecting the territorial 
integrity of a member state. Russia has violated the basic principles 
of sovereignty that were brought out in the Helsinki Final Act.
  Let me read some of the other principles.
  No. 5, the peaceful settlement of disputes.
  Russia shoots first. They took their troops into Ukraine. They took 
their troops into Georgia. They have not used peaceful methods.
  The sixth principle is the non-intervention in internal affairs.
  Russia attacked the United States of America in our free election 
system. That is not subject to any dispute today. They attacked 
America. They interfered with our internal affairs. They tried to 
influence our election. That is an attack against America and a 
violation of their basic commitments.
  Let me read through the remaining.
  No. 7, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
  Ask the people who have disagreed with the Russian Government and who 
have tried to form a party whether there is respect for human rights 
and fundamental freedom in Russia today. Ask independent journalists 
who are arrested and killed for trying to carry out their profession. 
Russia today is intimidating civil societies and NGOs, and anyone who 
disagrees with Mr. Putin is subject to arrest, torture, and perhaps 
death. We know that in the case of Mr. Magnitsky, which is a cause that 
has been taken up by this body with the passage of Magnitsky laws.
  Another principle is equal rights and the self-determination of 
people. That is not present in Russia today.
  No. 9, cooperation among states.
  Let me conclude with the 10th principle: fulfillment in good faith of 
international legal obligations.
  Russia entered into an agreement with regard to Ukraine's 
sovereignty, only to invade Ukraine a few years later. Ukraine gave up 
its nuclear stockpile, believing that Russia would

[[Page S1674]]

live up to its commitments. Russia has violated the Minsk agreements 
that were entered into to resolve the problems between Ukraine and 
Russia. Russia has not lived up to its international agreements.
  Let me sort of summarize why I think Russia is the No. 1 candidate 
for concern with regard to our national security. They have violated 
the sovereignty of many countries of the world. They have violated the 
sovereignty of Ukraine and continue to do so. They have violated the 
sovereignty of Georgia and Moldova. They have attacked the United 
States of America through cyber. It may not have been a MiG, but it was 
a mouse, and its intended purpose was to bring down our democratic 
election system and to favor one candidate. That cannot go unanswered.
  Today, Russia is engaged in Syria and supports the Assad regime, 
which attacks humanitarian convoys, uses the civilian population as an 
instrument of war, gases its own people--violating basic international 
human rights and committing war crimes. That is what President Putin is 
doing in Russia today.
  Russia's human rights records are deplorable. Kara-Murza has been 
poisoned not once but twice. He is an opposition leader. He is now in 
the United States and is recovering from the second poisoning episode. 
The Russian authorities tried to kill him. Why? Because he dared to 
oppose the Putin regime.
  We need to speak out. We need to know more about that. It does not 
end there. Russia is violating the INF, the International Nuclear Force 
agreement, which is a major concern to all of us.
  Russia's bottom line is that they are trying to dismantle the 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which has been the 
bulwark of security since the end of World War II, the relationship 
between Europe and the United States, providing a blanket of protection 
not just for our physical security, but providing international 
leadership in dealing with the development of democratic countries 
around the world. That is what Russia is trying to do today, is to 
dismantle that protection.
  What should we do? We have identified Russia as our No. 1 concern, 
and I think most Members of the Senate would agree with that 
assessment. I have talked to many, particularly on the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. What should we do? What is the role of Congress?
  We know we are waiting for President Trump to give us his foreign 
policy as it relates to Russia, and that is an important thing for us 
to know--how the President intends to deal with a country that has done 
so many things against our national security interests.
  We have a role. We are the first branch of government that is 
mentioned in the Constitution, article I. We have responsibilities to 
act. We need to take steps, and I have encouraged my colleagues.
  There have been a lot of accusations made around here about Russia's 
contacts with Americans and that Russia is stealing information through 
cyber and planting that information through WikiLeaks in order to 
influence elections. There is the potential contact with General Flynn, 
what happened with the Russian Ambassador, and what happened as far as 
domestic wiretaps. There have been a lot of comments made around here, 
but we do not have the facts.
  First and foremost, we need an independent commission that is similar 
to what the Congress constituted after the attack on 9/11 so that we 
get independent, nonpartisan experts, without restriction to 
jurisdiction or turf, who can determine exactly what Russia's game plan 
is and what steps we can take to protect ourselves in moving forward 
and what action we should take against Russia. That is the first thing 
we should do. Congress should also pass a resolution. I have introduced 
one that would set up that type of an independent commission to look at 
what Russia has done.
  There is a second issue, though, that I want to bring to our 
attention, and I know the Presiding Officer is very familiar with it. 
It is the Countering Russian Hostilities Act, which is a bill I filed. 
I am very proud that this bill was not created by one Member, it was 
created by a group of us working together and recognizing that Congress 
needed to speak with a strong voice.
  I am proud that, in addition to my sponsorship, Senator McCain helped 
draft this bill. Senator Menendez is a key leader on this bill. Senator 
Graham is one of the architects of the bill. We have Senator Shaheen, 
Senator Rubio, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Sasse, Senator Durbin, 
Senator Portman, Senator Murphy, Senator Gardner, Senator Blumenthal, 
Senator Sullivan, Senator Daines, Senator Donnelly, Senator Young, 
Senator Whitehouse, Senator Coons, and Senator Cornyn.
  You might notice that I alternated between Democrats and Republicans 
because this is not a partisan effort. We all recognize the seriousness 
of what Russia has done to the United States. We all recognize that 
Congress needs to respond. When you are attacked, you don't stand by; 
if you do, you will get attacked again and the next time could be even 
more devastating. So we have to take action to protect ourselves.
  So what the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act does, first and 
foremost, is it codifies the sanctions currently imposed against Russia 
for its cyber attack on the U.S. election. Secondly, it extends those 
sanctions for what we call secondary sanctions--businesses doing 
business with those that are sanctioned--so we can enforce the 
sanctions.
  The Presiding Officer recognized that when we were working on the 
North Korea sanctions law, we needed to strengthen that, and I 
congratulate the Presiding Officer on the work he did regarding North 
Korea, and I was pleased to join him. I am pleased he is joining with 
this group to see how we can strengthen our sanctions and pressure on 
Russia to know that they can't get away with this type of an attack 
against America, but then we go even further.
  We recognize that Ukraine today--we have sanctions against Russia, 
but we can strengthen those sanctions. We can apply those sanctions to 
the energy sector. We can apply those sanctions to prevent American 
companies from financing the Russian economy through the moneys they 
need for sovereign debt or privatization. So we extend the program of 
sanctions to include those types of activities.
  We take up two other major issues that I just want to share with my 
colleagues because these are contributions made by the Members who 
joined together to file this bill. We recognize that the rules of 
engagement have changed. Russia is using tactics today that we never 
thought would be used. They attack our country, get private 
information, give it to WikiLeaks, use it as part of a strategy to get 
news out there that could influence our elections. Then they develop 
fake news, use that fake news through social media to make it look like 
real news in an effort to try to affect our free election system in the 
United States. This is pretty frightening. We have to meet them. We 
have to protect ourselves.
  So this legislation provides for a democracy initiative similar to 
what we have done on our security initiative with Europe. We have 
stationed NATO troops on the border countries of NATO with Russia to 
let them know we will not tolerate the invasion of a NATO country. We 
have done that. That is our security initiative. We have to have a 
democracy initiative to protect the democratic institutions of Western 
Europe because Russia will use the democratic institutions to try to 
undermine the democratic institutions--the free press, the 
opportunities of free speech, the opportunities to try to influence 
through their money the election process. They have done that. They 
tried to do it in Montenegro during the parliamentary elections to 
affect Montenegro's accession into NATO.
  We have to protect the democratic institutions. This legislation 
would authorize that protection.
  Then it sets up a resource so we can fight this propaganda, so we can 
find ways to counter Russia's use of propaganda in order to carry out 
their nefarious activities.
  This is a comprehensive bill. I urge all of our colleagues to take a 
look at it. We are looking for input. We are looking to make sure this 
does exactly what we need it to do--to speak as one

[[Page S1675]]

voice in Congress to make it clear to Russia that it is not business as 
usual; that we intend to take action and be strong and let them know 
they cannot do this type of activity; that America will protect its 
national security.
  There is another bill, let me just mention, that Senator Graham is 
the principal sponsor of that I have cosponsored and others have 
sponsored also. It is the Russia Sanctions Review Act. I mention that 
one because we had a great debate here in the last Congress on the Iran 
nuclear agreement, and part of the reasons we had a great debate is 
because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was able to pass a 
review act and get broad consensus on it, get it signed by the 
President, which gave us a role. More importantly, it gave the American 
people a role in getting transparency on a very important agreement--
the Iran nuclear agreement. So we had time for public hearings. We had 
time for national debate. We had time for questions.
  Because that law passed, I am convinced the agreement was stronger. 
The administration knew there were millions of eyes looking at what 
they were doing; they just couldn't do it in the dark of night. It 
helped us, I think, carry out our responsibility as the legislative 
branch of government.
  So Senator Graham and I and others believe we should have a similar 
process, if there is going to be a fundamental change in the 
relationship between the United States and Russia; that the President 
should consult and work with Congress and give us an opportunity for 
transparency and for the American people to be heard. That is exactly 
what this bill does. It is a bill that I think is for good legislating, 
for good governance, and I would encourage my colleagues to take a look 
at this, and hopefully we will be able to get this done.
  I will just say in conclusion that we have no issue with the Russian 
people. They are good people. We want to have a good relationship with 
the Russian people. It is Mr. Putin and his government that are 
directing this country to do things in interference with the 
sovereignty of other countries--in violating human rights, in 
supporting violations of human rights, in war crimes, and they should 
be held accountable for that and for what they are doing in Syria, and, 
of course, very personally, attacking our own country. That is what we 
are aimed at.
  Mr. Khodorkovsky was in my office yesterday. I think my colleagues 
might recall that he was a leader in Russia--a great business leader. 
He made a lot of money. He decided Russia needed reforms to protect the 
rights of all people, that human rights were not strong enough, the 
right of expression was not strong enough, so he took up that cause as 
a successful businessperson. As a result, he was arrested, served 10 
years in prison, and they tried to keep him out of politics because he 
did not represent Mr. Putin's politics.
  Well, he has been very active. He no longer lives in Russia for fear 
of his own life. He has been here championing the cause for good 
governance within Russia and the importance for the international 
community to be engaged in that. As he left my office yesterday, he 
said: Please continue to speak out. He said: Please continue to speak 
out.
  The United States must lead when a country driven by Mr. Putin does 
what it does. It is our responsibility to speak out about this 
outrageous conduct--threatening the integrity of so many countries and 
violating the human rights of so many people.
  We can make a difference. The Congress can make a difference. It is 
for all of those reasons that we need to act.
  I urge my colleagues to take a look at the legislation I have talked 
about on the floor and which so many of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle have joined. Let's get together and let's speak with a united 
voice and let Russia know we are going to protect the national security 
of the United States of America, and we are going to protect the rights 
of our friends.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from 
the great State of Maryland and to commend him for his leadership on 
the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor today, as well as his 
great work with the Helsinki Commission, his tireless bipartisan work 
with our committee chairman, and with many others.
  We have just heard detailed, in terms of the legislation he has put 
forward, the effort, the time, and the engagement he has put forward in 
terms of standing up. I think it is important for all of our colleagues 
and the American people to hear us working together to push back on 
Russian aggression and on Vladimir Putin's regime for its interference 
in our most recent election and its long and sad record of appalling 
human rights violations.
  In 1950, the CIA delivered a report to then-President Harry Truman 
that outlined two key goals of the Soviet Government. The first goal 
was ``destruction of the unity among the Western countries, thereby 
isolating the United States.'' The second goal was ``alienating the 
Western people from their governments so that the efforts of the 
Western countries to strengthen themselves would be undermined.''
  Nearly 70 years later, the regime of Vladimir Putin in Russia remains 
fundamentally committed to these same two goals, but today his 
government has a whole new arsenal of cyber tools and information tools 
which it uses to interfere in democratic elections here in the United 
States and across Europe--among the nations that are our vital allies--
to launch propaganda and misinformation campaigns that spread 
falsehoods and create a climate of doubt and uncertainty among citizens 
and democracies around the world.
  Last week, on this floor, I rose to speak with my friend and 
colleague, Senator Marco Rubio, to highlight the threat that we know 
Russia poses to the American-led, rules-based international order that 
has been sustained by both Republican and Democratic Presidents and 
leaders in this body since the Second World War.
  Just yesterday, several of us participated in a hearing of the State 
and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, chaired by Senator 
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. We heard directly from 
representatives of the Governments of Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Estonia. All of these nations know better than any 
others just how serious the Russian Government is today about 
fulfilling the goals the CIA quoted and outlined in that report from 
the 1950s. Russian troops today are massing on the borders of many of 
these countries. In the case of Ukraine, Russia has recently invaded 
and continues to illegally occupy Crimea while arming and supporting 
separatists in the eastern 20 percent of the country.
  Russia previously invaded Georgia in 2008 and continues to occupy 
about one-fifth of its territory, backing rebels in the breakaway 
regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russian Government has tried 
and, in several cases, succeeded in executing cyber attacks against 
these countries' governments, most famously against Estonia in 2007. 
Its ongoing disinformation campaigns have created widespread doubt 
about Western institutions like NATO, the European Union, the OSCE--
institutions that have helped to maintain a stable and peaceful world 
for seven decades.
  These Ambassadors and the Foreign Ministers who testified yesterday 
before our appropriations subcommittee made clear their countries 
depend on the United States not just for leadership, not just for 
military strength but for leadership and our commitment to effective 
foreign assistance. These are the same requests I heard last August 
from Eastern European leaders, when I led a bipartisan congressional 
delegation--two Republican House Members, two Democratic Senate 
Members, and I. The five of us went to Ukraine, Estonia, and the Czech 
Republic, and we heard exactly the same message--that they are 
threatened by a constant wave of attacks of disinformation, both overt 
and covert efforts to subvert their democracies and to change the 
direction of their nations.
  Maintaining our forms of American leadership, our support for the 
democracies, the civil societies, and the military, and the strength of 
these nations in Eastern Europe is not charity. A world committed to 
democracy and the rule of law is a more stable world. A stable world 
means Americans are safer and more economically secure. It

[[Page S1676]]

is that simple. That is why we must push back against Russian 
aggression in a bipartisan way and stand up for our allies and our 
values.
  Conversations like this one on the floor today are important to 
educate our American people about the true nature of the Russian threat 
we face. The Russian Government's current strategy relies on 
disinformation and propaganda in an effort to divide the American 
people, both from their government and from each other.
  Our discussion this afternoon makes clear that both Republicans and 
Democrats in Congress haven't lost our will to highlight, to condemn, 
and to fight Russian actions. Unassailable facts must serve as the 
basis for a bipartisan foreign policy. A clear-eyed understanding of 
Russian intentions and actions will protect us from their anti-Western 
propaganda and avoid the internal divisions that Russia seeks to 
leverage in an attempt to project its influence worldwide.
  To that end, I am determined to support the efforts of Senator 
Cardin. I am also determined to support the efforts of Senator Graham 
to provide sufficient funding that specifically targets the Russian 
Government's subversive actions. I will also continue to work with my 
colleagues, such as Senator Cardin, to see that his bill, S. 94, the 
Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act, is marked up this work period so 
the full Senate can consider this important legislation. As Senator 
Cardin commented, there are 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans who have 
already cosponsored this important bill.
  Why is this bill, the Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act, so 
important? It will make sure the Russian Government pays a price for 
breaking the rules by supporting sanctions for its occupation and 
illegal annexation of Crimea, for its egregious human rights violations 
in Syria and elsewhere, and, most importantly, for directly interfering 
in our election. This bill would prevent the lifting of sanctions on 
Russia until its government ceases these activities that caused those 
sanctions to be put in place in the first place. The bill would also 
support civil society, pro-democracy, and anti-corruption activists in 
Russia and across Europe.
  Today Vladimir Putin has a whole array of powerful modern tools that 
he intends to use to undermine democracy and promote his brand of 
authoritarianism, but as that 1950 memo to President Harry Truman made 
clear, Russia's goals haven't changed. Russia's goals are to oppose us, 
our vision, our values, and our democracy. We must make it clear that 
America's vision of a freer, safer, and more democratic world hasn't 
changed either.
  I thank Senator Cardin for organizing this discussion, thank Senator 
Menendez for everything he has done to support these important efforts, 
and thank Senator Graham for hosting yesterday's important hearing. I 
look forward to working with all of my colleagues to continue with this 
fight.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in this 
important conversation on the Senate floor and, once again, to demand 
answers to the many questions raised about Russia's interference in our 
elections.
  Not so long ago, I came to the floor to speak out against a 
belligerent act from an adversarial nation, an attempt to undermine 
American democracy and foment chaos and uncertainty on the world stage, 
an effort that we now know from our own intelligence community's 
assessment was ordered by President Putin himself, a campaign that 
senior intelligence officials have concluded ``blend[ed] covert 
intelligence operations--such as cyber activity--with overt efforts by 
Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party 
intermediaries, and paid social media users, or `trolls,' '' to 
undermine our 2016 Presidential elections.
  In recent weeks, the American people have been confronted by a daily 
drumbeat of headlines regarding Russian interference with our elections 
and possible ties to President Trump's campaign. They have learned that 
the President's former National Security Advisor, LTG Michael Flynn, 
was not truthful about the nature of the conversations he had with the 
Russian Ambassador shortly after President Obama sanctioned Russia for 
meddling in our elections.
  They learned that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the highest law 
enforcement officer in the land, did not fully disclose at least two 
meetings he had with the Russian Ambassador during his nomination 
hearings.
  They have learned, through reporting in the news media, that U.S. law 
enforcement continues to investigation Russian agents' contacts with 
President Trump's inner circle.
  Yet despite these revelations, the American people now face more 
questions than answers. Has anyone else on the President's team been in 
contact with the Russian Government? What were the nature of these 
conversations? How credible are reports of business dealings between 
Russian oligarchs and the Trump organization?
  But here is the reason I came to the floor today, as serious as those 
questions are. Getting answers to these questions, whether it be 
through a special prosecutor, or an independent commission--on which 
Senator Cardin has legislation and which I strongly, strongly support 
and believe it is the ultimate vehicle--or the Senate Intelligence 
Committee's own investigation--those efforts are not about President 
Trump. It is about the American people. It is about protecting our free 
and democratic way of life and our time-tested system of self-
governance. It is about showing our constituents that, when the stakes 
are high, when the allegations are this startling, when the 
implications are this alarming, we are capable of setting politics 
aside and getting to the truth.
  Time and again, the President has dismissed the significance of 
Russia's interference in our elections, and he derides reports about 
his financial interests and campaign contacts with Russia as ``fake 
news.'' Well, this isn't fake news. On the contrary, these are real 
threats--real threats from a real foreign adversary; real threats that 
undermine the integrity of our elections and, therefore, the security 
of our country; real threats from a brutal leader who sees the erosion 
of Western democracy as a strategic imperative for Russia's future.
  So let's be clear about why these threats matter. Vladimir Putin's 
rise to power in Russia has been marked by the suppression of the 
freedom of the press, the oppression of the Russian people, the murder 
of political opponents, and the transfer of wealth and assets from the 
Russian people to a handful of powerful oligarchs.
  President Putin sees the spread of Western democratic values that we 
enjoy here in our country and others in the Western world--like freedom 
of speech, the rule of law, and human rights--as a threat to his power. 
So Russia has embarked on a systematic campaign to undermine the 
democracies that uphold the international order established after World 
War II and that has been the bedrock of peace and tranquility, 
generally speaking, since then. These threats must be taken seriously.
  Russia's aggressive behavior reaches back years and extends to this 
day. We saw it in 2008, when Russia backed illegal separatist forces in 
Georgia, declaring South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent states. We 
saw it in March of 2014--when I was in Ukraine--when Russia authorized 
the use of military force to annex Crimea, blatantly violating the 
sovereignty of the Ukrainian people and the Budapest Memorandum, a 
memorandum that we--the United States, Russia, and others--signed, 
saying that we would observe the territorial and sovereignty rights of 
Ukraine if they gave up the nuclear weapons that had been left to them 
after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  They did just that. They did just that, and what happened to them 
afterwards? Their territory has been annexed and invaded. Today, Putin 
continues to break ceasefires, sow discord, and incite violence 
throughout eastern Ukraine--an effort that to date has claimed 10,000 
lives and displaced 2 million people.
  Unfortunately, Russia's interference in our 2016 Presidential 
election is not an isolated instance. According to U.S. intelligence 
reports, these efforts are only the most recent manifestation of

[[Page S1677]]

the Kremlin's ongoing campaign to undermine Western democracy.
  In recent years, we have seen Russian oligarchs funnel money to 
fringe political movements across Europe, and Russian operatives 
conduct sophisticated disinformation campaigns. After the revelations 
that Russia interfered with our own elections, Putin has shown no signs 
of slowing down. On the contrary, just weeks ago, Russian's Defense 
Minister announced that the Kremlin will begin using troops to enhance 
their information operations, emphasizing that ``propaganda must be 
smart, competent, and efficient.''

  Again, Russia's end goal here is no mystery. Putin aims to undermine 
European unity and fracture the transatlantic alliance--an alliance 
that has served as a bedrock for international security, peace and 
stability, and economic cooperation between the United States and 
Europe for the past half century.
  In the Middle East, President Putin continues to disregard 
international norms. He aligns Russia with Iran, the world's leading 
state sponsor of terror. He aids Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in his 
atrocities against innocent civilians. In Aleppo, Russian bombs fall on 
homes; Russian bombs fall on schools and hospitals; Russian bombs fall 
on aid convoys that only seek to feed starving, trapped families, and 
rescue children from the rubble.
  Just last month, Russia violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear 
Forces Treaty when they illegally launched a cruise missile, showing no 
regard for an agreement that has been a hallmark for nuclear security 
cooperation for nearly four decades. That is not an insignificant act.
  The United States cannot ignore such destabilizing behavior. That is 
exactly why Senator Graham and I introduced S. Res. 78 just 2 weeks 
ago, recognizing 3 years of Russian military aggression and calling on 
Russia to respect its obligations to the international community. Our 
resolution should serve as a reminder to this administration that the 
U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia for violating the international order 
should remain in place until Russia starts respecting and returning to 
that international norm.
  Nor can we let Russian efforts to undermine Western democracies 
continue unabated. That is why I joined my colleagues in the Countering 
Russian Hostilities Act of 2017. This bipartisan bill codifies the 
sanctions imposed by President Obama for Russia's annexation of Crimea 
and interference in the U.S. elections into law.
  It is the same type of proposition we had with the Iran agreement. We 
want a congressional opportunity to voice ourselves and make sure that 
those sanctions aren't lifted arbitrarily, capriciously, without Russia 
paying the consequences and coming back into the international order. 
At the same time, the legislation authorizes $100 million for the State 
Department and other agencies to counter Putin's propaganda.
  The time for action--and for answers--is now. We can get to work 
immediately by holding hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee to ensure that the United States has a strategy in place to 
protect the security of our democracy and promote stability abroad. 
From the spread of extremist propaganda across Europe and the denial of 
Ukrainian sovereignty, to the bombing of civilians in Aleppo and the 
cyber attacks against the Democratic National Committee, Putin's 
intentions are not up for debate.
  Russia's destabilizing behavior should make it absolutely clear to 
the President of the United States that the Russian Federation is not 
our friend. But when the President hesitates to acknowledge this 
reality or fails to address such aggressive behavior, it is up to 
Congress to act. There can be no hesitation when it comes to protecting 
the security and sanctity of our elections.
  But to take action we need answers. That is why we need an 
independent investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 
elections. What President Trump fails to realize time and again is that 
this investigation is not about whether or not Russia successfully 
swayed the American elections. This investigation is not about him. 
This investigation is about the American people. It is about ensuring 
that our elections are free, fair, and secure so that our government 
that we elect is responsive and accountable to the people. It is about 
understanding Russia's tactics in cyber space and preparing for future 
attacks. It is about standing with our allies, preserving peace and 
avoiding war, and preventing the need to send our sons and daughters 
into harm's way. It is about ensuring that, when the President of the 
United States faces tough decisions, the American people can trust that 
he puts their interests--their interests--ahead of any other interests 
he has abroad.
  It is time to protect the integrity of our elections and to secure 
our democracy against the cyber threats of the 21st century--whether 
they come in the form of election machine tampering, or paid propaganda 
on social media, or targeted hacks on political and public officials.
  Russia poses a real strategic threat to the United States, to our 
core values, and to the international order. I call on the President to 
treat these threats with the seriousness they deserve.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to protect the integrity of our elections here at home, to defend 
democracy abroad, and to ensure that the transatlantic alliance, so 
vital to international security and stability, remains strong for 
generations to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for 
his excellent statement summarizing the challenge we face. I thank my 
colleagues from Maryland and from Delaware as well.
  Yesterday, we had a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. There is an 
individual seeking the Deputy Attorney General spot. Of course, he is 
seeking this position--a key position--at a critical moment in American 
history.
  The Attorney General of the United States of America, Jeff Sessions 
of Alabama, announced publicly last week, on Thursday, that he was 
going to recuse himself from any prosecution involving the Russians and 
the last Presidential campaign. That is historic, and it was the right 
thing to do. Many of us on the Democratic side have called on him for 
weeks to do just that.
  Senator Sessions had been an active participant in the Trump 
campaign, and when he became Attorney General, we felt that, in the 
best interests of preserving the integrity of the Department of 
Justice, he had to step aside when it came to the investigation of 
Russian involvement in that campaign.
  Of course, in the meantime, during the course of this national 
debate, the National Security Advisor to the President of the United 
States, General Flynn, resigned after he misrepresented to the American 
people and to the Vice President of the United States conversations he 
had with the Russian Ambassador. It came to light last week that then-
Senator Sessions, during the course of his confirmation hearing, gave 
misleading comments and answers to a question by Senator Franken, 
saying that he had had no contact with the Russians, either. In fact, 
he had.
  He sent a clarification letter, but yesterday's hearing was about his 
successor, the Deputy Attorney General, who would have the power to 
oversee this investigation. The gentleman who was nominated is well 
known to the Senator from Maryland because he served as U.S. Attorney 
there for a number of years--since 2005. He served under President 
Obama. He was initially appointed under President Bush, a rare 
bipartisan selection, who, by every indication, is a professional 
prosecutor.
  The disappointing moment at the hearing is when we asked Mr. 
Rosenstein if he had read the intelligence report that was publicly 
announced in January about the Russian involvement in our election 
campaign. It is an unclassified report. It is on the internet. It is 
about 15 pages long. It is as precise and conclusive as you can expect. 
It said quite clearly that the Russians did attempt to change the 
outcome of the election, that they were, in fact, working to benefit 
Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton.
  I quickly added that this was not published by the Democratic 
National Committee. This was by the intelligence agencies of the U.S. 
Government. I was disappointed when Mr.

[[Page S1678]]

Rosenstein said no, he had not read it. He was asked over and over 
again why he would not read a piece of information, a document so 
critical to his service as Deputy Attorney General.
  I will set that aside for a moment and just observe the obvious. If 
you believe our intelligence agencies, there is no question that Russia 
was trying to change the outcome of the Presidential election. They 
were engaged, we believe, with up to a thousand trolls in some office 
buildings in Moscow, invading the internet, invading emails in the 
United States in an attempt to glean information that they could feed 
back to the public through Wikileaks and other sources.
  Although there is no evidence to date that they had any impact on the 
actual casting or counting of ballots, their intent is clear. They 
wanted to pick Donald Trump as President. They believed he was a better 
choice for Russian interests than Hillary Clinton.
  Is that worthy of an investigation? I certainly hope so. To our 
knowledge, it is the first time in the history of the United States 
that a foreign power--and one that has been an adversary time and again 
to our interests around the world--tried to invade our election. It 
was, in fact, a day that will live in cyber infamy in terms of this 
Russian effort.
  If we ignore it, we can expect several things. Get ready for the next 
election. Do you think they learned anything during the course of the 
last one? Do you think the Russians will be involved again? It would be 
naive to believe otherwise.
  Secondly, there is a critical element here that we cannot ignore. 
Three weeks ago I visited Warsaw, Poland; Vilnius, Lithuania; and Kiev, 
Ukraine. I talked to those leaders--in a couple of instances, the 
Presidents of those countries, as well as opinion leaders, 
parliamentarians--and they continued to raise the same question to me. 
It came down to this: If the United States does not take seriously the 
invasion of Russia in your own Presidential campaign, will you take it 
seriously when Putin invades our country? You have told us under the 
NATO alliance, article 5, that you will stand by our side and protect 
us. If you don't take Putin seriously when he invades your own 
Presidential election, there is a lot of doubt.
  Questions are being asked. Several Republican Senators have stepped 
up. I want to salute them. I will start with Lindsey Graham, who 
yesterday, again before the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, made it clear that he believes we have to thoroughly 
investigate this Russian involvement in our Presidential election.
  A few others have said the same. Unfortunately, the reaction by many 
Republican Senators has been lukewarm to cold. They don't want to spend 
the time to look into this. They would rather start talking about 
investigating leaks in the Trump administration or even the President's 
far-fetched tweets suggesting that somehow President Obama was engaged 
in a wiretap. It is something that has been denied not only by the 
former President but also by the former Director of National 
Intelligence and the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  To date, there is not one shred of evidence for the claim made by 
President Trump in his tweets in the early morning hours of Saturday. 
At the same time, the need for this investigation continues. You have 
heard cataloged in detail--and I will not repeat it--Russian aggression 
over the last several years.
  I have seen it. I have seen it throughout history, at least during my 
lifetime, and I have seen it more recently in Ukraine, in Georgia, and 
threats that go on every single day in countries in the Baltics and 
Poland. It is clear to them that they are fighting a hybrid war, not 
just the military threat, which is very real, but also cyber threats 
that at one point closed down the Estonian economy--a Russian cyber 
invasion closed it down--and propaganda threats, which are nonstop 
through cable television known as RT, Russia Today. They continue to 
broadcast false information into countries like the Baltics and try to 
do it with impunity. That is the reality of what we are facing.
  The question we face, though, as the U.S. Senate sworn to uphold this 
Constitution, is whether we are prepared to defend it against foreign 
powers that will undermine it, in this case the Russian Federation.
  There has been a suggestion that the intelligence committees can have 
an investigation of this matter. I would say that in and of itself is 
not objectionable, but it is certainly not complete and satisfactory. 
The Intelligence Committee is going meet behind closed doors. We will 
not see the witnesses. We will not hear their testimony. The American 
people may not ever hear who testified and what they had to say.
  Some parts of this must continue to be classified, and I understand 
that. But by and large, the American people have a right to know what 
the Russians did and how they did it so that we can make sure we defend 
ourselves against this in the future. The Intelligence Committees have 
a role, but not in its entirety.
  I think there should be a special prosecutor from the Department of 
Justice to see if any crimes have been committed. I don't know where 
the evidence will lead, but we should have someone we trust, a person 
of integrity, who will step up and assume that role and make that 
investigation for the Department of Justice.
  One other thing: I think this is of sufficient gravity that we should 
have an independent, transparent, bipartisan commission. My colleague, 
Senator Cardin of Maryland, is the sponsor of that legislation, which I 
am happy to cosponsor. That is the ultimate answer.
  Let's get to the bottom of this once and for all to make certain we 
know what the Russians tried to do to us and to make doubly certain 
that it never happens again. That is the reality of this challenge.
  I hope we can get bipartisan support for it. When it comes to 
sanctions against Russia, we have had good bipartisan support, and that 
is encouraging--equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans saying they 
should pay a price for what they did. Let's get the investigation to 
its conclusion.
  Leon Panetta is a friend of mine and served in our government at many 
different levels. In the Sunday talk shows, he talked about what he 
would recommend to the Trump administration. He said to them very 
simply: Get in front of this. Don't keep reacting to this. Say that if 
you have done nothing wrong you are going to cooperate fully with any 
investigation to get to the bottom of it. That is the way to deal with 
it.
  I hope we will have an end to the tweets and a beginning of the 
cooperation that is necessary so that we can get to the bottom of this 
situation and know the facts, wherever they may lead us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin, Senator Menendez, 
and Senator Coons for joining on the floor today to talk about the 
threat that Russia poses.
  Senator Durbin is absolutely correct, and I thank him for his 
leadership on this. The only way the American people will have a full 
accounting of what Russia's intentions were and what they did in 
attacking our country is to have an independent commission.
  We had such a commission after the attack on 9/11. Democrats and 
Republicans came together. There was no controversy about that. We 
wanted to find out what and how we were attacked, how they got through 
our intelligence network, how they put together the horrific attack on 
our country, and then we wanted to know how we could get 
recommendations to protect us moving forward.
  I am going to tell you, that commission served a very important 
national security function because we learned a lot. We learned that we 
were stovepiping too much information. We weren't sharing it. The way 
the agencies were set up, it was more over turf than it was over 
mission. Congress acted on the recommendations, and we are safer today 
as a result of it.
  We don't know what Russia's intentions are all about. We suspect that 
they are trying to undermine our democratic system of government. We 
suspect that Russia is interested in regaining its reputation of the 
former Soviet Union. They are looking for a greater geographical 
footprint. We see

[[Page S1679]]

that in their military operations, not just on their border countries 
such as Ukraine or what they are doing in Georgia or Moldova, but we 
see that also in the Middle East where they have a military presence 
today, and they want to have a footprint there.
  We believe they want to become a greater Russia. We know they don't 
like democratic systems of government. Their government stays in power 
through making sure that there is no effective opposition. They have 
quelled any opportunity for a Democratic opposition and for the free 
press.
  We know those--but what are their ultimate aspirations? What do they 
intend to do with the transatlantic partnership? We talked about that. 
We are safer today because of the transatlantic relations. NATO has 
made our Nation safer. The strength of the EU has made our Nation 
stronger.
  We know Russia is trying to interfere with that. They interfered with 
the Montenegro election in an effort to prevent Montenegro from 
agreeing to join NATO. We know they are trying to pull other nations 
out of Europe. We know that.
  What we need to have, though, is a full accounting as to what 
happened in the attack on our country and how we can prepare ourselves 
to defend ourselves. By the way, it might also give us a blueprint for 
what we need to do to show Russia we will not tolerate that type of 
activity.
  Senator Durbin is absolutely right. We have responsibilities in 
Congress. The committee I serve on, the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee--our relationship with Russia, we have to have hearings. 
Senator Menendez was right in calling upon our committee to have 
additional hearings. What is Russia doing? How does it affect not only 
our relationship with Russia, but how do we deal with Europe? How do we 
deal with the authorization for use of military force? If we were 
attacked, can you use cyber as an attack vehicle? Does that require 
congressional authorization?
  We have to be prepared in our committees. The Intelligence Committee 
has a responsibility to find out exactly what happened and whether we 
need to change our intelligence network because Russia was able to 
invade our country. They were able to get private information and then 
send it to WikiLeaks to use politically against us. They may compromise 
some of our classified information. We don't know. We need to find that 
out.
  The Intelligence Committee has a function to play. The Judiciary 
Committee has a function to play. I know the subcommittee is doing some 
work under Senators Whitehouse and Graham. The Armed Services Committee 
certainly has a role to play.
  There is only one way the American people will get a clear view of 
how serious this matter is and that we are taking every conceivable 
possible step to make sure we protect the national security of the 
United States and our Democratic institutions, which are part of our 
national security, and that is to have an independent commission.
  There are no turf problems there. They can look at everything. They 
can have a transparent process, and the American people can get an eye 
as to what is happening. They can make the recommendations we need.
  I thank Senator Durbin for underscoring that point. It is something I 
think we will ultimately get to. I was hoping we could get to it sooner 
rather than later because I think the American people would have a 
great deal more confidence.
  I thank Senator Coons for putting this in historic perspective. He is 
absolutely right; we go back a long time as to what Russia's intentions 
are all about. I thought that was extremely helpful to fill in all of 
the aspects of what we are trying to do.
  Senator Menendez's point was very critical; our reasons for being 
here and our reasons for wanting to take action are to protect our 
country, the American people. We are not talking about any one person 
or any one election. This is not challenging the results of this past 
election. This is all about making sure that we protect the integrity 
of our free election system and, particularly moving forward, knowing 
that Russia may very well be engaged, as we speak, in trying to 
interfere with the elections in the Netherlands and Germany and France. 
We need to have a better game plan on how to deal with this.
  As Senator Menendez said--I think it is a very important point; I 
want to underscore this: You can't trust Russia. Let's be clear about 
that. Ask the Ukrainians. They signed the Budapest Declaration. The 
United States was part of that. They very clearly gave up their nuclear 
capacity, and in exchange they got the security from Russia on their 
jurisdiction, on their territory, on their sovereignty. Look how long 
that lasted before Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed part of Ukraine, and 
they continue to supply resources to disrupt the eastern part of 
Ukraine so Ukraine will have a very difficult time in its integration 
into Europe. That is what Russia is doing today in contravention to 
their written commitments with Ukraine.

  Then I might tell my colleagues: Look at the Minsk agreement set up 
to try to end this hot war, and Russia has violated all the aspects of 
the Minsk agreement. You can't trust Russia's agreements.
  As Senator Menendez pointed out--he is right--look at the INF. Look 
at the treaty obligations. Russia is violating their treaty 
obligations, which directly affect the security of Europe. These are 
pretty serious things. We counter this by unity.
  That is why I am so proud that we have Democrats and Republicans 
working together. This is not one party. Both parties recognize the 
danger of Russia. Both parties recognize that we have to protect 
ourselves. I would just urge my colleagues to follow this vigorous 
strategy, where we can show the American people that unity and that 
resolve and that we will not allow Russia to attack our country, that 
we are going to prepare to make sure that we defend our democratic 
system of government and that we will be united in standing up to those 
types of activities that are against our national security interests.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The Senator from Maryland.


                               TrumpCare

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, we have now had a little more than 24 
hours to get a peek at the Republican plan to get rid of the Affordable 
Care Act. Now we know why they kept it in hiding for as long as they 
did--because it is a total mess and it will wreak havoc on the 
healthcare system in the United States of America and severely harm 
millions of Americans. After 7 years in waiting, is this really the 
best they can do? The first thing people need to know about the 
Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act--let's be clear. 
This is no replacement. This is a fake replacement. The first thing 
they need to know about it is, it will strip away affordable healthcare 
for millions of Americans in order to give the wealthiest households a 
huge tax cut.
  How big is that tax cut? First of all, it goes to households who make 
over $250,000 a year. Here is the thing. The richer you are, the more 
money you make over $250,000 a year, the bigger the tax cut you are 
going to get under the Republican healthcare plan, under TrumpCare. In 
fact, if you are a millionaire, you are going to get a tax cut, on 
average, of about $50,000--to be precise, a $49,370 average tax cut for 
millionaires. If you are in the top one-tenth percent of American 
households, you are going to get, on average, a $200,000 tax cut under 
the Republican plan to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.
  That is great news if your name is Donald Trump or you are one of the 
billionaires or millionaires in his Cabinet. It is great news if you 
have loads of money. I want to be clear. I have nothing against 
millionaires. The more millionaires, the better in terms of growth in 
the economy, but certainly at this point in time, they don't need a tax 
cut, and they certainly shouldn't have a tax cut when the impact of 
that is to harm tens of millions of Americans and hurt their 
healthcare.
  I guess we are beginning to learn exactly what President Trump meant 
when he said that his healthcare was going to be ``much better.'' Yes, 
if you are one of those folks in the top one-tenth percent of American 
income earners, if you are in the wealthiest strata of this country, 
you are going to get a big tax break. So I guess it is much better for 
you from that perspective.

[[Page S1680]]

  You know whom else this is going to be better for? It is going to be 
better for insurance companies and their CEOs. It is really hard to 
believe, but if you look at the House bill--and now I know why it was 
under lock and key for so long. If you look at it, you are going to 
find that their plan gives insurance companies a new tax break when 
they pay their CEOs multimillion-dollar bonuses. In fact, the bigger 
the bonus the healthcare company pays to the CEO, the bigger tax break 
the corporation gets, the more American taxpayers will be subsidizing 
those bonuses for those insurance CEOs.
  So you know what, you are a CEO of an insurance company, you raise 
the premiums, the company makes more money, and you get a bigger bonus. 
Taxpayers foot the bill in terms of larger taxpayer subsidies to those 
CEOs. All in all, when you add up all the tax breaks for these CEOs and 
the insurance companies and the wealthiest Americans, it is a tax break 
windfall of $600 billion. That is the number by the experts in the 
Joint Committee on Taxation here in the Congress. These are the 
nonpartisan experts who look at legislation and determine what the 
fiscal impact will be. What they say is that the TrumpCare bill will 
provide tax breaks in the amount of $600 billion over the next 10 
years. I guess that is what President Trump must have been referring to 
the other day when he tweeted about his ``wonderful new healthcare 
bill.'' It will be wonderful for those who are getting those big tax 
breaks.
  We know who the winners are. Who are the losers? Well, just about 
everybody else ends up on the short end of the stick--just about 
everybody else in America. That is why you are seeing such strong 
opposition coming from all over the country. First, there are the 
millions of Americans who are going to lose their healthcare coverage 
altogether because they can't possibly afford to pay the huge 
additional premiums and copays and deductions they would be faced with 
under these plans that would be offered. Then there are tens of 
millions of more who will pay much more for much less coverage.
  Older Americans are going to be especially hard hit, which is why we 
are all hearing from AARP. You know AARP--they sometimes give their 
opinion, they weigh in a little bit here and there, but they are out 
full force against this TrumpCare bill because it is going to have a 
very negative impact on seniors in America. They call it a sweetheart 
deal to big drug companies and other special interests. They argue--and 
we will talk about how it will weaken Medicare. They say it is going to 
impose an age tax on older Americans, and that is what it does. In 
fact, they calculate the following:

       The change in structure will dramatically increase premiums 
     for older consumers. We estimate that the bill's changes to 
     current law's tax credits could increase premium costs for a 
     55-year-old earning $25,000 by more than $2,300 a year. For a 
     64-year-old earning $25,000 that increase rises to more than 
     $4,400 a year.

  A year extra--$4,400 more a year for that 64-year-old earning $25,000 
to pay for their health insurance, the health insurance they have 
today. Then they calculate that it will be $5,800 more for a 64-year-
old earning $15,000. In other words, compared to the Affordable Care 
Act, the less income you have, the more you are going to be paying 
under TrumpCare than you are paying today under ObamaCare, under the 
Affordable Care Act.
  We are also hearing from groups that fight for the rights of people 
with disabilities from all over the country, that are against this 
legislation because of its impact on Medicaid and the impact those cuts 
to Medicaid will have on people with disabilities throughout the 
country.
  We are also hearing about the impact on Medicare. One of the promises 
Candidate Trump made was that he wasn't going to do anything that would 
harm Medicare. That is what he said then, but, in fact, in January, 
Congress received a letter from the Medicare actuaries. These are the 
professionals who look at the impact of various proposals on the 
Medicare system. What they concluded was, this proposal to provide tax 
cuts to wealthy Americans would actually reduce the life of the 
Medicare program by 3 years.
  Here is what they are proposing. We are going to give a tax cut--and 
one of the tax cuts means that wealthy Americans will not have to pay a 
portion of their Medicare taxes. That portion of their Medicare taxes 
today goes into the Medicare trust fund. You say to those wealthy 
Americans: We are going to give you a tax break that is going back in 
your pockets. That means it is no longer going into the Medicare trust 
fund. That shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund. That is the 
view, that is the opinion, those are the facts stated by the actuaries 
for Medicare.
  As you begin to reduce the life of the Medicare Program, there will 
be more and more pressure to go to the plan that has been much 
discussed, especially by House Republicans, to turn Medicare into a 
voucher program. The AARP raises this issue, as well, in their letter. 
If you are going to start cutting down on the Medicare trust fund, if 
you are reducing the revenues going into that trust fund because you 
are giving wealthier Americans this tax cut, obviously, there is less 
money in that program to pay for the bills of Medicare.
  One of the ideas that has been pushed is: All right, let's save money 
for Medicare by transferring the risks Medicare currently takes onto 
the backs of seniors. So we are going to start giving them a voucher, a 
voucher that does not keep pace with the rising costs of Medicare. That 
means that over time, seniors have to pay a lot more, get a lot less in 
healthcare, and that is how they save the Medicare plan money. Make no 
mistake, by providing a tax cut, and particularly the tax cut to the 
wealthy paying into the Medicare Program right now, you are hurting 
Medicare.
  I know that the President says he is a terrific negotiator, just a 
terrific negotiator, and I have here a book by Trump, ``The Art of the 
Deal.'' I don't know whether Donald Trump is a good negotiator or a bad 
negotiator, but what I know is this: When you look at this TrumpCare 
plan, whoever did the negotiating was negotiating on behalf of very 
wealthy special interests at the expense of people in the rest of the 
country.
  So all the talk we heard throughout the campaign and since about 
looking after the little guy, all the talk we heard about the middle 
class being squeezed, which is very real out there in America, all the 
talk we heard about struggling Americans, when you look at TrumpCare, 
it hurts exactly those people.
  If President Trump was negotiating this deal, he got a great deal for 
the billionaires and millionaires who are in his Cabinet. They are 
going to see a great tax break windfall. I mean, I would like to get a 
calculator and take a look at what the size of the tax break will be to 
the members of the Trump Cabinet because it is going to be huge. But 
ordinary Americans are going to take it on the chin. They are going to 
be very badly hurt, which is why apparently people are trying to rush 
this through the Congress so quickly.
  First, it was in some remote room, and you needed bloodhounds to go 
out to try to find out where it was, and now we know why it was kept so 
secret--because it is such a bad deal for the American people.
  Now that it is in the light of day and the details are coming out and 
we are getting more and more letters from groups from around the 
country--AARP, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical 
Association, hundreds of other groups. The letters are pouring in. What 
is the response? Let's try to get this through the Congress as fast as 
possible before the word gets out even farther around the country.
  It is ironic because I remember that during the debate over the 
Affordable Care Act, which took months and months--I mean, it took over 
7 or 8 months--our Republican colleagues accused us of moving too 
quickly, of not having sufficient debate and input. Yet what we are 
seeing right now, now that the bill has come out of hiding, is an 
effort to try to move that bill through the House in a matter of weeks 
without any hearings. And then we are hearing over here in the Senate 
that the plan will be--and maybe the Republican leader can clarify this 
at some point, but the plan will be to not send it to any of the 
committees in the Senate for a review but to try to bring it up 
immediately here on the floor of the Senate without any committee 
consideration, totally outside the regular

[[Page S1681]]

order, flying directly in the face of the complaints that were made 
many years ago, when the process took well over 7 months, went through 
all the committees, and was thoroughly deliberated throughout the 
country.
  Today I am looking at some of the publications, and I see Republican 
colleagues preemptively criticizing the Congressional Budget Office for 
what it might say about what TrumpCare is going to cost the American 
people.
  Mr. President, I know you and our colleagues know that CBO is the 
referee on which we all rely. I know some people like to make up their 
own alternative facts, but you need to have some referee here in 
Congress when it comes to budget issues because otherwise people just 
make up whatever numbers they want.
  It is also important to know that the current head of the 
Congressional Budget Office is somebody who was jointly selected by the 
Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee and the Republican 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. In other words, the current 
head of the CBO was picked by the Republican chairmen of the House and 
Senate Budget Committees. It is very important that we have that 
nonpartisan referee in these discussions. Yet, in the House of 
Representatives, they are acting on TrumpCare right now in committees 
without even the benefit of the analysis from the Congressional Budget 
Office. Apparently, they are afraid of what it might be and what it 
might say.
  If people want to defend this TrumpCare proposal, they are obviously 
free to do it, but we should do it in the regular order, and we should 
do it based on information from sources like the Congressional Budget 
Office so people can have all the facts when they make these decisions 
which will impact the American people.
  One fact we know right now is the fact that I mentioned at the 
outset, which is from the Joint Tax Committee, the nonpartisan experts, 
saying that TrumpCare will provide a $600 billion tax cut windfall. We 
also know it is a fact from the Medicare Actuary that by providing very 
wealthy Americans with this tax break, you are going to take some years 
off of the life of the Medicare Program. Those are real facts.
  So when I look at this deal, whoever negotiated this deal was clearly 
looking out for the very wealthiest in this country. That is where the 
facts lead.
  Again, I don't know if President Trump is a good negotiator or a bad 
negotiator. What I do know is that if he negotiated this TrumpCare 
deal, he was negotiating on behalf of the millionaires and billionaires 
in his Cabinet. He was negotiating on behalf of the insurance companies 
that are now going to get a tax break for the multimillion-dollar 
bonuses they pay to the CEOs. The larger the bonus, the bigger the tax 
break under this bill. I know he wasn't negotiating for everyday 
working Americans and certainly not for older Americans or Americans 
with disabilities. That is why the AARP and others are weighing in so 
strongly against this.
  We are going to have a little more time to debate here in the Senate, 
apparently, than in the House, but I would hope we would send this 
through the regular order because it requires a thorough vetting of the 
facts, and the American people deserve that kind of transparency and 
accountability in this process. I am absolutely confident that when the 
American people get a good look at this deal, they will know it is a 
very bad deal for the country and for millions of Americans.
  I hope we will get on with that process. I hope the bill will never 
arrive in the Senate. I hope the folks in the House will recognize that 
it is a bad deal for the country and go back to the drawing board 
because when I heard the mantra ``repeal and replace'' and when I heard 
President Trump say that replacement was going to be much better and 
cover more people for less cost, I think people took that seriously. 
Now when they actually take a look at TrumpCare, as it is emerging from 
the House, they see something very different. They see something that 
is, quote, wonderful for the 1 percent of Americans who are going to 
get a tax cut, but it is really lousy for everybody else in the 
country.
  We need to defeat this charade. This is not a replacement. This is a 
fake. The American people are catching on quickly. That is why it is 
very important that we not try to rush this through, that we have an 
opportunity to discuss it in the light of day. I am absolutely 
confident that if we do the right thing in terms of a full democratic 
debate, TrumpCare will go down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
reject this resolution to roll back accountability for the billions of 
dollars that are sent to States to help educate children.
  When Congress updated the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 
2015, it was a bipartisan achievement. Republicans and Democrats came 
together on the 50th anniversary of that landmark civil rights law to 
rewrite it into what became the Every Student Succeeds Act.
  When President Obama signed this K-12 legislation into law in 
December of that year, he called it a ``Christmas miracle.'' It 
received 85 votes in the Senate. It was one of the most important 
pieces of bipartisan legislation passed in the last Congress.
  It wasn't the bill I would have written, but it was a bipartisan 
compromise. It gave States and districts far more flexibility when it 
comes to improving their struggling public schools. At the same time, 
it also maintained critical civil rights and accountability protections 
to ensure that when the Federal Government gives States billions of 
dollars to improve the education of their students, that money goes to 
the schools and students that need those Federal resources the most. It 
was a critical step toward making sure we are building a future not 
just for some of our kids but for all of our kids.
  When Congress passes big, complex laws like the Every Student 
Succeeds Act, it always leaves some of the implementation details to 
the agency that has to enforce the law. That is why I fought hard to 
make sure the Department of Education had the tools it needs to write 
clarifying rules and guidelines to enforce the Every Student Succeeds 
Act. That was a condition of my vote and the votes of lots of other 
people. We won that fight. The authority to enforce the rules is right 
there in the law. It was debated in public, and it was part of the 
bipartisan agreement between Republicans and Democrats.
  Last November, the Department of Education--after careful 
consultation with teachers, school leaders, State education leaders, 
and parents--issued new rules to enforce this law. Today, congressional 
Republicans are trying to take a sledgehammer to these new rules.
  When these new rules were issued, everyone who works in education 
agreed that they were critical and necessary. Teachers were fine with 
the new rules. State education leaders were fine with the new rules. 
Civil rights leaders were fine with the new rules. Everyone was ready 
to get to work. Apparently, congressional Republicans do not care. 
Instead, they want to blow up these critically important accountability 
rules even though the people who work in or around public education did 
not ask them to do so. This makes no sense.
  Groups that often disagree with each other over public education 
policies are united in their belief that this resolution is a dumb 
idea. It is opposed by teachers; civil rights organizations, such as 
the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza; and organizations 
representing students with disabilities, such as the National Center 
for Learning Disabilities. It is even opposed by the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce because they know this resolution will only make it more 
difficult for States as they try to implement the new education law. 
And this resolution will undermine the work States are currently doing 
right now to improve their public schools with the new law.
  Last week, many of these groups signed on to a letter that states: 
``This action will cause unnecessary confusion, disrupting the work in 
states and wasting time that we cannot afford to waste.''
  In fact, even conservative education policy experts at the Fordham 
Institute--a right-leaning educational policy think tank--argue that 
congressional Republicans should not swing a wrecking ball to these 
guidelines.

[[Page S1682]]

  They identified over 20 provisions in these rules that actually 
provide more flexibility to States by clarifying ambiguous sections in 
the law, and they concluded: ``Senate Republicans, then, should scrap 
their plan to use the Congressional Review Act to kill all of the 
accountability regulations outright.''
  Killing these new rules now would lead to chaos and confusion just 
when States, districts, and school leaders are beginning to implement 
this new K-12 education law. States have already spent months drafting 
their plans for complying. Eighteen States, including Massachusetts, 
intended to submit their implementation plans to the Department of 
Education next month. If this resolution passes, all of that work will 
be thrown into limbo.
  These clarifying rules include important provisions that allow States 
to send additional Federal resources to struggling schools, whether or 
not those schools already receive Federal dollars; provisions that give 
States more flexibility in educating their English learners in the 
manner that best meets the needs of each individual student; provisions 
that ensure that parents have more information about how their child's 
public school is doing and sets clear guidelines with what States and 
districts must disclose to parents and when they must disclose it; and 
provisions that promote transparency by preventing States from 
manipulating their graduation rates or data on how much money they are 
investing in each student. These regulations were carefully crafted 
over the course of 1 year of input from teachers, school system 
leaders, and student advocates. Both Republicans and Democrats should 
support these provisions.
  I think we all know what is going on here. Betsy DeVos is the new 
Secretary of Education. Congressional Republicans have decided they 
want to hand over the keys to her with no restrictions whatsoever. The 
resolutions we are debating today would give Secretary DeVos more 
freedom to push States in whatever direction she felt like. If you are 
a teacher in Tennessee or a principal in Massachusetts, you should be 
furious about that. Congress is about to scrap a year of hard work and 
a year of careful compromise in order to give Secretary DeVos a blank 
check.
  It is a blank check for Betsy DeVos. This is the same Secretary of 
Education who has never attended a public school, never taught in a 
public school, and never led a public school. This is the same 
Secretary of Education who proved to the world, during her confirmation 
hearing, that she doesn't have a clue about public schools. This is the 
same Secretary of Education who still holds shady investments that 
could be hiding conflicts of interest. This is the same Secretary of 
Education who has used her vast fortune to advance her extreme 
privatization agenda. This is the same Secretary of Education whom Jeff 
Sessions and the Vice President of the United States had to drag across 
the finish line in an unprecedented tie-breaking confirmation vote. She 
is the one to whom Senate Republicans want to give a blank check to 
figure out where she wants to drive public education--a blank check to 
push her radical privatization agenda.
  States and school districts are planning for the next school year 
right now. They are figuring out how to implement this law and improve 
the education of kids as I speak. They are doing hero's work every day 
while Congress wastes time and creates more confusion.
  Handing this law over to an Education Secretary with no experience in 
public education without any accountability rules to guide its 
implementation is an insult. It is an insult to teachers, an insult to 
school leaders, and an insult to families everywhere.
  This is not a game. Congress should not be playing politics with the 
education of our children. Instead of disrupting the important work 
that States and districts are doing to educate our kids, Congress 
should get out of the way and let States finish what they have already 
started. Let them get to work. That is why I urge my colleagues to 
reject this resolution.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Russia

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon 
following my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Cardin, to speak to 
the legislation that I am cosponsoring and that they have introduced to 
ramp up sanctions on Russia. I think it is important to emphasize that 
this is a strongly bipartisan legislative effort.
  Indeed, for more than seven decades, Congress has stood strong on a 
bipartisan basis, first against the Soviet Union and now against 
Russian threats against the United States and our European allies. 
Working across the aisle in Congress, we have supported the NATO 
alliance. Beginning after World War II with the Marshall Plan and 
continuing to this day with the European Reassurance Initiative, we 
have helped to build the richest economies and the most robust 
democracies the world has ever seen, protected in large part in Western 
Europe by NATO.
  Today we face new and unprecedented threats from an increasingly 
aggressive Russia. Russia continues to illegally occupy territory in 
Georgia and Ukraine. It is on the march in Syria, and it is building up 
its military presence and making threatening moves toward the Baltic 
States and in the Balkans.
  There is growing evidence that it is actively interfering to spread 
disinformation and manipulate the outcome of elections this year in 
France, Germany, and across Europe. In fact there is evidence to 
suggest that they were involved in the Brexit vote and in the Dutch 
referendum last year.
  Right here in our own country, Russia has used brazen cyber attacks 
and other measures to aggressively interfere in our Presidential 
election last fall. This was an attack on our sovereignty, on our 
democracy, and on the American people, and it was unprecedented. It 
requires the strongest possible response, short of armed force, to 
demonstrate to Vladimir Putin that this behavior will not be tolerated 
and it must not happen again. That is exactly the purpose of these 
comprehensive sanctions.
  I agree with Senator Cardin, the ranking member on the Foreign 
Relations Committee, that the Foreign Relations Committee should play a 
pivotal leadership role in both our legislative and oversight 
capacities in pushing back against Russia's aggression in all its 
forms. By all means, this includes making the case that the skills and 
experience of our State Department and USAID professionals are more 
important than ever.
  In Eastern Europe, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, and all across 
the world, they are working to increase the resilience of our allies by 
strengthening democratic institutions, fostering the rule of law, and 
fighting corruption. These initiatives have played an indispensable 
role in helping the United States prevail in the Cold War, and they are 
every bit as important today as we oppose Russian aggression.
  We had the opportunity in the Armed Services Committee to hear from 
an expert talking about Russia and about Russia's strategy. One of the 
things he pointed out is that, just as Russia is building up its 
military might, just as it is expanding its propaganda initiatives 
through television broadcasts like ``Russia Today'' and ``Sputnik,'' it 
is also looking at how it can undermine Western democracies as a way to 
interrupt the transatlantic alliance--the alliance between the United 
States and Europe that has been so important to stability in the world 
for the last 70 years.
  That is Russia's real goal. They want to undermine Europe. They want 
to undermine the West and the United States. One of the ways they are 
trying to do that is by disrupting our elections. We can't allow this 
kind of aggression to go unpunished. If we do, we will surely face 
further attacks from an emboldened Russia looking to disrupt our 
democracy. Indeed, I think this attack should be answered with the most 
punishing economic and financial sanctions that we can muster, and we 
need to work even harder to

[[Page S1683]]

shore up our European allies who are facing Russian aggression and 
interference.
  As we look at the upcoming French and German elections, there is no 
doubt that Russia is trying to interfere with those elections, as well, 
with the goal of undermining our democracy. When one begins to mess 
around with our elections, they strike at the heart of a democracy that 
is the foundation of this country.
  I commend Senator McCain and Senator Cardin for introducing this 
bipartisan sanctions legislation, and I hope that Senators on both 
sides of the aisle will join us in passing these comprehensive 
sanctions against Russia.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remembering Jack Robinson

  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the life and 
legacy of Jack Robinson, who passed away on March 1, 2017, in Pierre, 
SD, at the age of 92.
  Jack dedicated his life to public service--first to his Nation in the 
U.S. military and later to thousands of students as a teacher in 
Pierre.
  When Jack graduated from high school in 1942, he was awarded a 
scholarship to Yangton College, but instead of furthering his 
education, he answered the call of duty amidst World War II and 
enlisted in the U.S. Army.
  After transferring from the infantry to the Army Air Corps, he 
completed navigation school and became a crew member on a B-17 bomber. 
He and his team were eventually sent overseas to England and completed 
27 combat missions over Germany before being shot down on March 2, 
1945. Shortly afterward, Jack returned home to South Dakota.
  Throughout the rest of his life, he was a strong advocate for the 
military and a true patriot. With the stories he told and the love of 
country he shared, he showed what it meant to be a true American hero. 
For that, he affectionately adopted the nickname ``Captain Jack.''
  There are not enough words in a dictionary to describe what we owe to 
the men and women who fought in World War II to save our Nation and to 
save democracy for the world. Jack Robinson put his own dreams aside 
and put his own life in great danger for our country and for all of the 
future generations of Americans.
  After World War II, Jack graduated from Yankton College and taught 
high school science at Highmore, SD, for 2 years. Then he earned his 
master's degree in biology from the University of South Dakota. For the 
next 35 years, Jack was a teacher at Riggs High School in my hometown 
of Pierre. There, he created advanced biology and aeronautics programs 
for his students and inspired several young South Dakotans to become 
doctors. Dr. Brent Lindbloom of Pierre said his father and Jack 
Robinson were the reasons he became a doctor. ``Mr. Robinson was a 
great teacher,'' he said. ``He taught us how to study and inspired us 
to pursue our dreams.''
  I couldn't agree more.
  As a teenager, Jack taught me navigational skills needed to properly 
fly an airplane, fueling a lifelong passion that continues today. As 
Jack would say, ``you have to know the difference between compass 
course and compass heading.''
  Over the years he taught many others navigational skills as well. But 
he didn't just teach young people how to fly in the skies. He was a 
tremendous role model for all of us and for all the students he taught.
  As a bomber crew member, Jack defended our gift of democracy. As a 
teacher, he gave us what we needed to become responsible adults and 
pursue our own dreams. In 1994, Jack was inducted into the South Dakota 
Aviation Hall of Fame as a combat crew member. I can state that he was 
very proud of that moment. But more important than his many 
achievements as a war hero and as a teacher was his life as a husband, 
father, grandfather, and great-grandfather.
  We are a better people because Jack touched so many lives with his 
knowledge, kindness, and passion for living. His loss is felt by 
countless South Dakotans.
  With this, I welcome the opportunity to recognize and commemorate the 
life of this great public servant and personal role model of mine, Mr. 
Jack Robinson.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Civil Rights and Education

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I want to talk about an upcoming CRA that 
will be on the floor potentially this week that would cancel out an 
important regulation that is designed to build upon this country's 
history of making sure there is a marriage between civil rights and 
education to make sure that children in this country, regardless of 
their race, regardless of their learning ability, regardless of their 
religion, regardless of their income, get an equal chance at education.
  Frankly, the whole reason the Federal Government is involved in the 
question of education is due to civil rights. This used to be a purely 
local concern, and the Federal Government stepped into the question of 
local education because Black kids throughout the South were not 
getting an equal education. They were living in segregated schools and 
getting an education that was of far lesser quality. So the Federal 
Government has always been involved in education because it is a matter 
of civil rights.
  I want to talk about this issue through the prism of one individual. 
I am going to call him James, but this is a true story--a story, 
frankly, that could be told millions of times over across the country.
  James went to school in an urban district in Connecticut. He was a 
10th grader. At the beginning of James's 10th grade year, he had a 
habit of walking out of class. In the middle of class, he would just 
get up and walk out after 10 or 15 or 20 minutes, and he would wander 
the halls of this big, urban high school until inevitably he was met by 
a security officer or a teacher or an administrator. They would bring 
him down to the office, and they would call his grandmother, as he 
lived with her. He would get suspended for a couple of days, and then 
he would come back.
  It played out so often--this cycle of James walking out of class, 
being brought down to the principal's office, being suspended--that 
somewhere around the end of October, during his sophomore year, he had 
been out of school more days than he had been in school.
  One day, though, James goes through this cycle again. He is in the 
hallway, and he runs into an assistant principal. He is sort of sick 
and tired of this story playing out over and over again. He raises his 
voice. He has some words. James has never hurt anybody in his life, no 
history of violence, but the assistant principal decides to call the 
police. The police come and they arrest James for disorderly conduct, 
essentially for having words with an assistant principal. Now James, at 
16 years old, has a criminal record. At the time, he was treated as an 
adult in Connecticut, so he has an adult criminal record.
  It turns out that James was walking out of class every day because he 
couldn't read, and he was mortified. He was embarrassed because he had 
been socially promoted through the years. He had a learning disability 
that was going untreated, and he was in the 10th grade with the ability 
to only read at an elementary school level. No wonder he was walking 
out of class every day. He literally couldn't follow along. It was 
embarrassing. He didn't want to be called on by the teacher so he left. 
Nobody ever figured that out until he got arrested and finally got a 
legal aid lawyer, who happened to be my wife, who identified his 
disability and the fact that it was being unaddressed.

[[Page S1684]]

  The fact is, a big part of this story is tied up in the fact that 
James was Black, and he was a big kid. So the police got calls maybe 
because he appeared to be threatening in a way that he simply was not. 
I can say that because the data backs up the fact that Black kids and 
disabled kids are treated very differently in schools today. Wherever 
you are, whether in Connecticut, in North Carolina, or in California, 
Black kids--especially Black boys--are suspended and expelled at a rate 
that is twice that of their White peers for the exact same behavior. 
Take mouthing off to a teacher. When that happens, Black kids, Black 
students, are twice as likely to be suspended for mouthing off to a 
teacher than a White student.
  James's story is not unique. It is not unique because it happens in 
every State across the country, and it is not just in suspension and 
expulsion rates, it is also in achievement rates as well. We know the 
statistics. The graduation rate for African-American students is 16 
percent lower than their White peers. I can go down the line and tell 
you about the different story when it comes to achievement and 
treatment of African-American students as compared to White students.
  Racism isn't gone in this country. It might not be overt. Sometimes 
it might not even be conscious, but it is still there. Discrimination 
against kids who are different, whether they be poor or disabled, 
didn't vanish. It is still all over.
  John Lewis is a civil rights icon. We celebrate him every day, 
Republicans and Democrats, in the U.S. Congress. He got mercilessly 
beaten over the head simply because he wanted to vote. John Lewis is 
still alive, but you know what, so are the people who beat him. We are 
only a generation removed from an era of open, unapologetic racism in 
this country. To think that we don't need civil rights protections for 
kids any longer is to deny reality. Racism doesn't look the same as it 
used to. Discrimination against kids who are different isn't as overt 
as it used to be, but the data is the data. It is still there.
  No Child Left Behind got a lot wrong, but one of the things it got 
right was that it shed a light on this disparate treatment, these 
disparate outcomes between Black students, Hispanic students, disabled 
students, and their peers, because it forced States--and this was a 
Republican and Democratic accomplishment at the time--it forced States 
to disaggregate results. So you had to look at how were disabled 
students doing, how were Black students doing, and if they weren't 
measuring up and if they weren't getting closer to the performance of 
their nondisabled or White peers, then you had to do something to turn 
those students around, turn their performance around.
  Now, the part that No Child Left Behind got wrong is big and 
significant. Part of it is that it required every single one of those 
kids to hit the 100-percent proficiency mark, when progress is 
important to measure as well. It also told States exactly what to do to 
turn around the experiences of those kids. It is not the same in 
Connecticut as it is in North Carolina, and it is not the same in an 
urban district as it is in a suburban district. So when we got together 
on this floor and passed, in a bipartisan way, the new Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, we did something really important. We 
preserved those requirements to disaggregate results for Black kids and 
for Hispanic kids and for kids with disabilities, but then we left it 
up to States to decide what proficiency is, and we left it up to States 
as to how they would turn around the experience for these kids if they 
weren't meeting those State-set goals. We gave an enormous amount of 
discretion and flexibility to States, but we preserved the basic 
expectation that our education policy was still going to be civil 
rights policy: Pay attention to how those vulnerable populations with a 
history of discrimination levied against them performed and require 
States to pay attention to the interventions.
  That was a bipartisan achievement, and when we did it, we knew the 
regulation was going to be needed because, as with many education 
statutes, they are very vague. Republicans and Democrats understood 
that there was going to have to be a regulation to provide some clarity 
to States on how you build these locally driven accountability systems.
  So the regulation we are talking about here today was not one of 
these that came out of left field. It was not one of these regulations 
that was political in nature; no, it flows from a bipartisan act that 
preserved accountability requirements for kids.
  It is important for a variety of reasons. One, it is important 
because there are some really vague terms in the statute that do need 
clarification. For instance, one of the things we voted for, 
Republicans and Democrats, is we voted to say you have to show that you 
are providing improvement for African-American students, let's say, and 
if they are not showing continuous improvement, then you have to have a 
turnaround plan. By the way, that turnaround plan is totally yours to 
decide; no sanctions from the Federal Government if it is not X 
turnaround plan or Y turnaround plan. That is the old law. The new law 
says it is yours to decide.
  ``Continuous improvement'' is a super vague term. It is one of those 
obvious terms that has to have some regulatory guardrails put around it 
because what if the State said ``continuous improvement'' is 
improvement over 20 years. Well, kids come in and out of schools in 2 
or 3 or 4 years and a 20-year period of looking at a particular 
subgroup's performance is meaningless to kids.

  So the regulation says continuous improvement means 2 years; look at 
how a kid does over 2 years. And then it says, if 2 years doesn't work 
for you, you can make it longer but just tell us why. That is an 
important protection, and it still preserves enormous flexibility for 
States.
  States want this regulation because it also gives them other types of 
flexibilities. An example is, when you are looking at performance, the 
statute suggests that you can have students who are meeting goal or 
students who are not meeting goal. The regulation recognizes that is, 
frankly, a really arbitrary way to look at performance. So the statute 
says: Yes, that is what the regulation says. The statute says: Meeting 
goal and not meeting goal, but you can get extra credit for students 
who are close to meeting goal, who have shown growth. You can get 
credit for students who are way above goal, your high-achieving 
students. You don't have to measure your schools just based on how many 
students meet goal. That is flexibility States want, that they likely 
don't have without the regulation.
  Another example, for English language learners, proficiency goals 
should vary based on where you started. If you start here with no 
English skills, then your proficiency target should be different than 
if you started with a pretty advanced understanding of the language. 
The statute just says you have to have a proficiency goal. It is 
unclear whether you can have different ones for different levels of 
learners. The regulation makes it clear: Give States that flexibility.
  So that is why States didn't ask for this CRA. This is different than 
these other CRAs. States didn't ask for this CRA. All of the 
educational groups we listened to--teachers, superintendents, 
principals--they weighed in on this regulation. They didn't love every 
piece of it, but they were ready to implement it. None of these groups 
were coming up to the Congress asking for this regulation to be 
withdrawn. Would they have liked it to be fixed or tailored? Sure. But 
here is what they understood, and here is why I am really concerned.
  Secretary DeVos could fix the things she doesn't like or Senator 
Alexander doesn't like through the regular notice and comment period. I 
think there is 80 percent of this regulation that everybody agrees on, 
that just dots the i's and crosses the t's on a bipartisan commitment 
to accountability, and maybe there is 20 percent or 10 percent that 
Senator Alexander and some other Members think goes a little bit too 
far, but when you pass a CRA, you don't allow for a regulation to be 
passed in the future that is substantially similar to the entirety of 
the regulation. The courts aren't going to look, or, frankly, even 
know, what parts of the regulation you didn't like and the 80 percent 
of the regulation you wanted to preserve.
  The Department of Education can't pass anything that is similar to 
this

[[Page S1685]]

ever again. So one of the things the regulation says is that you get a 
1-year delay because it is just too quick to come up with 
accountability systems for this coming school year. That is gone. When 
this CRA passes, every school district in the Nation has to develop an 
accountability system for this calendar year because without the 
regulation, you don't have that flexibility.
  So what makes me, frankly, so disturbed about this CRA is that it 
could happen another way, which would preserve the pieces of the civil 
rights protections that all of us agree on, which is the majority of 
the regulation. To my mind, it violated the spirit of our agreement 
when we passed this law. Here was a really amazing achievement; that we 
were able to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law--essentially repeal 
it and replace it with something better--that Democrats and Republicans 
could agree upon. In my mind, that agreement was predicated upon the 
Department being able to enforce maybe the most important part of the 
law for big constituency groups in this country--the accountability 
section, the civil rights protections.
  By passing this CRA, we are essentially making it impossible for any 
regulation ever again to be passed to implement the accountability 
sections and the civil rights protections in this law. Why? Because you 
can't pass anything that is substantially similar--substantially 
similar to the parts you like, substantially similar to the parts you 
don't like. This isn't like these other CRAs where Republicans didn't 
like any part of it, where Republicans didn't see any need for the 
regulation to go forward. This is different. We agree on 80 percent of 
this one, but the 80 percent is likely gone by passing this.
  I guess part of what disturbs me here is that we worked, locked arm 
in arm, in passing this law. I really do believe that by passing this 
CRA, Republican leadership--HELP leadership--is violating the agreement 
we had to make sure this law went into force and effect in the way we 
all intended.
  It happened in the context of the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee that isn't working this year like it used to work. I 
have such great respect for the chairman and the ranking member of that 
committee. They pulled off some big bipartisan wins during the time of 
their tenure, including the Workforce Investment Act, the rewrite of 
the No Child Left Behind Act, and some other smaller wins that people 
didn't necessarily think as much about, and leading up to the end of 
last year, the passage of a major new commitment to reforming mental 
illness and mental health in this country.
  That spirit of bipartisanship, which was present in the HELP 
Committee in a way that it wasn't present in other committees, is 
disappearing before our eyes. We were mad that we only got 5 minutes to 
question Betsy DeVos because it felt like the committee was hiding her 
from public view. Democrats were asking for more time to ask more 
questions, and we didn't get it. That rarely happens in that committee, 
where the minority party is just asking to be heard and is shut down.
  We begged for the CRA not to come before this body because there was 
another way to get it done that didn't violate the spirit of our 
agreement around the rewrite of the No Child Left Behind law, but we 
were denied in that request. Now we are voting on a CRA that is 
potentially going to be devastating not just for kids out there who 
need protection but also for States that want this flexibility.
  Finally, we are on a schedule, according to the majority leader, that 
is going to bring a healthcare bill that will rewrite the rules for 
one-sixth of the American economy to the floor of the Senate without 
any debate in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
without a single hearing on the bill, without a markup, and without any 
ability for amendment.
  I listened for 6 years to my Republican friends tell me that the 
healthcare bill, or the Affordable Care Act, was rammed through 
Congress and that the biggest problem was the fact that it was done 
outside of the public view for expediency's sake. Now, I was there in 
the House of Representatives, and let me express the unbelievable irony 
of those complaints now that there will be no process for the 
committees to consider the replacement to the Affordable Care Act.
  The House and the Senate had hundreds--hundreds--of meetings and 
hearings. The HELP Committee alone--I don't have the numbers in front 
of me--considered hundreds of amendments and adopted over 100 
Republican amendments in the markup process. The Senate's session was 
the second longest in the history of the Senate, in for more than 20 
days debating that bill. The reason there was so much tempest out in 
the American public over the Affordable Care Act was because it was 
open for debate for so long.
  The Finance Committee had a full process. The HELP Committee had a 
full process. The Ways and Means Committee had a full process. The 
Energy and Commerce Committee had a full process.
  None of that is happening here. This bill is being jammed through, as 
we speak, the Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committees. 
This bill is going to be jammed onto the floor, perhaps without any 
committee process, in the Senate. The target is from introduction 
Monday to passage in the House in 3 weeks and perhaps just a few more 
weeks before it passes the Senate. So spare me the complaints about the 
Affordable Care Act being rushed into place when this process is going 
to make that look laborious in comparison.
  What pains me is not just this CRA, which is unnecessary, but it 
doesn't have to happen this way. What pains me is a committee process 
that when I got here had a reputation for being truly bipartisan, for 
being one of the more functional, if not the most functional, committee 
processes. That is being blown up most significantly by the rush job--
the rush job on the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, 
which nobody in the American public is going to have enough time to 
look at it and see it.
  I ask my colleagues one more time to reconsider their votes on this 
CRA. We are at our best when we come together around the idea that 
every kid in this country should have a chance at a quality education, 
no matter what color their skin is, no matter what their learning 
ability is. I know my colleagues have a couple problems with this 
regulation. I get it. But by passing this CRA, the regulation is gone 
and never coming back, and the States that want the flexibility, that 
are begging for the flexibility, won't get it. It will just be an 
unworkable section of the bill. A section that was supposed to be 
bipartisan now fundamentally won't work because we can't get a 
regulation passed that is at all substantially similar to the good 
parts or to the bad parts.
  This body is at its best when we stand together--Republicans and 
Democrats--and say that no matter what you look like, no matter how 
well you learn, no matter how much money you have, you get a quality 
education. We did that when we voted together on ESSA, and we are going 
back on that bipartisan commitment by passing a CRA that is 
unnecessary. As to the bad stuff you don't like, it can be gone in a 
matter of months by a regular process of notice and comment in the 
Department of Education.
  This is part of a disturbing new trend line in this committee toward 
partisanship and away from a history of commitment to our kids--
Republican and Democrat.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
leader remarks on Thursday, March 9, the Senate resume consideration of 
H.J. Res. 57, with the time equally divided in the usual form until 12 
noon, and that at noon, the Senate vote on passage of the resolution 
with no intervening action or debate. I further ask that, 
notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the Senate then resume 
executive session for the consideration of

[[Page S1686]]

Executive Calendar No. 18, and that the cloture vote on the nomination 
occur at 1:45 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________