[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.
____________________