[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 177 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6942-S6944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, I also rise today to encourage Granite Staters--as my 
colleague from Washington did--and people across the country to take 
advantage of the health insurance open enrollment period, which begins 
today and runs through December 15.
  Every citizen deserves quality, affordable health insurance coverage 
to help them live healthy and productive lives. Access to healthcare is 
critical to the freedom, dignity, and well-being of our citizens, and 
it also contributes to a productive workforce and a thriving economy.
  I still remember meeting with a constituent named Jo, about a year or 
two ago, who has a chronic health condition. When she lost her job in 
2009 and lost her health insurance with it, her condition deteriorated 
to the point where she couldn't work, and a downward spiral ensued. She 
lost her home. She couldn't get healthcare because she had no 
resources. Because of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, she 
was eventually able to get healthcare, to get the surgery and therapy 
she needed, and now she is working again. So healthcare is not only for 
the benefit of the individual who receives it; it helps that individual 
become a productive member of our workforce.
  Affordable, quality care is also critically important to those who 
are working but may not otherwise be able to afford health insurance 
even if employed. It is something I have heard often this year from 
citizens of my State, as my Republican colleagues attempted to pass 
TrumpCare legislation that would have led to higher healthcare costs 
for less care.
  At an emergency field hearing in June that I held with Senator 
Shaheen, we heard from a woman named Enna from Exeter, NH. Enna, who is 
self-employed, said that prior to the Affordable Care Act, her family 
was unable to maintain insurance consistently. Even when she did have 
it, her previous policy didn't cover critical preventive care that she 
needed. As a result of the ACA, Enna has been able to purchase 
affordable health insurance through the marketplace in New Hampshire 
for herself and her family of four, giving them the peace of mind that 
comes with having health insurance, while continuing to grow her own 
business.
  Enna's story is the story of so many people in New Hampshire, and it 
represents why it is essential for people across the country to take 
advantage of this open enrollment period.
  From today through December 15, Granite Staters and all Americans 
have an opportunity to sign up for a healthcare plan at 
www.coveringnewhampshire.org or www.healthcare.gov. It is also 
important for people to take this opportunity to see what other plans 
are available, to shop around and see whether other plans offer more 
savings than their current one does, and it is critical to educate our 
friends and neighbors about these options, given the Trump 
administration's attempts to sabotage our Nation's healthcare

[[Page S6943]]

system. These sabotage attempts include the Department of Health and 
Human Services slashing the Affordable Care Act's outreach and 
advertising budgets ahead of open enrollment, which provide key 
information and resources for those who need to sign up for care. It is 
clear that the Trump administration doesn't want people to know they 
can enroll, but that doesn't change the fact that the Affordable Care 
Act is the law of the land, people can still get covered, and financial 
assistance is available for many on the healthcare exchange.
  We must end this sabotage and continue to work together on efforts to 
lower costs and build on and improve the Affordable Care Act, and that 
is exactly what I am focused on.
  I was proud to join HELP Committee leaders, Senators Alexander and 
Murray, to cosponsor bipartisan legislation that would stabilize health 
insurance markets and lower costs for hard-working Americans. This bill 
includes a provision that the New Hampshire Insurance Department could 
use to support its proposal to create a reinsurance pool to help reduce 
premiums in our State's individual health insurance market. This 
legislation proves it is possible to work across party lines to make 
progress in our healthcare system. It is clear that it has the votes to 
pass. We need Republican leadership to bring it up for a vote.
  It is up to all of us to come together and make sure that healthcare 
is truly available and affordable to all of our people and to encourage 
our fellow citizens to sign up for the care they need to help their 
families thrive.
  The enrollment period is a critical time for the health and well-
being of our citizens and for our productivity, as well, as a country. 
I encourage Granite Staters to take advantage of this opportunity and 
receive the benefits that come with affordable healthcare.
  Mr. President, I also want to take a moment to address the continued 
efforts this week from President Trump and my Republican colleagues to 
push through nominees who will truly reshape our Federal judiciary.
  An independent and impartial judiciary is critical to democracy and 
to our march toward progress. Our Founders established our court system 
to serve as an independent arbiter that would protect the rights of all 
Americans and ensure equal justice under our laws. Unfortunately, the 
nominees who have been selected by the President and who have been 
voted on throughout this year have been handpicked by far-right groups 
to serve a conservative agenda. We have seen judicial nominees who have 
not committed to upholding the precedent of Roe v. Wade and protecting 
a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions and control her 
own destiny in doing so, nominees who have stood against basic rights 
and freedoms for LGBTQ Americans and who have opposed protections for 
workers' rights. This is unacceptable.
  We are voting on lifetime appointments that require a commitment to 
equal justice, objectivity, and sound judgment. I will continue to 
oppose judicial nominees who do not live up to those standards, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 30 
minutes of postcloture time remaining, equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees, prior to a vote on confirmation of the 
Larsen nomination.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 25 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to address the issue we are 
voting on in a few minutes. The Senate will vote on the nomination of 
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen to serve on the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Though she currently lives in Michigan, Justice Larsen was born in 
and hails from my State of Iowa. In fact, she and I share the same alma 
mater, the University of Northern Iowa, for our bachelor's degrees. I 
have also learned, since meeting Justice Larsen, that her father was 
the longtime CEO of the Lutheran Services in Iowa. He is now retired, 
but during the time he was the CEO, he was the very same person with 
whom I often met for breakfast when he would come to Washington to tell 
us about the concerns of the Lutheran Services in Iowa. At that time, I 
never knew I might be speaking in favor of his daughter. I didn't even 
know of his daughter at that time. So I am proud to see a fellow Iowan 
and such an eminently qualified nominee be nominated to the Sixth 
Circuit Court of Appeals.
  For those who may not be familiar with her career and 
accomplishments, a few minutes will give me an opportunity to share 
them with you. I think you will find, as I have, that Justice Larsen is 
particularly well suited to serve as a Federal appellate judge.
  Justice Larsen has an outstanding academic record, having received 
numerous awards during her undergraduate and law school careers. 
Justice Larsen was a Presidential Scholar at the University of Northern 
Iowa and graduated with the highest honors. She graduated first in her 
class at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, where she 
won the Justice John Paul Stevens Award for Academic Excellence and 
served as editor of the Northwestern University Law Review.
  She began her legal career as a clerk for Judge Sentelle on the DC 
Circuit Court of Appeals and then clerked for Justice Scalia on the 
U.S. Supreme Court. Following her clerkships, Justice Larsen joined the 
DC firm of Sidley Austin, one of the largest law firms in the United 
States. Justice Larsen spent 2 years as Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General for the Office of Legal Counsel, where she provided legal 
advice to the President and executive agencies on difficult issues of 
constitutional and statutory interpretation.
  Justice Larsen has taught constitutional law and criminal law at the 
University of Michigan Law School since 1998, where she has earned the 
respect of faculty members and students alike. She won the L. Hart 
Wright Award for Excellence in Teaching early in her teaching career. 
In addition to her teaching responsibilities, Justice Larsen ran 
Michigan's clerkship program, helping hundreds of students and alumni 
pursue clerkships at the Federal and State levels. As an adjunct 
professor, she continues to run the law school's Moot Court Program.
  Her colleagues at the University of Michigan praised Justice Larsen 
and wrote:

       Even among the talented and ambitious lawyers at an elite 
     law school, Joan stands out for her ability to make the 
     penetrating insight that untangles some knotty problem of 
     statutory interpretation or judiciary doctrine. Especially 
     distinctive, moreover, is the rigor and even-handedness she 
     brings to her analysis.

  I will share one more example from that letter because I think it 
addresses some of my colleagues' concerns, who are on the other side of 
the aisle, as to her approach to the law.
  Her colleagues wrote:

       For those of us who have found ourselves on the opposite 
     side of a debate with Joan about a case, a statute, or some 
     broader issue of constitutional history, she has demonstrated 
     time and again that she is both a gracious and intellectually 
     honest partner in the collaborative project of figuring 
     things out. What matters for Joan is not winning but working 
     out the right answer.

  Now I bring emphasis to this last sentence.

       Even when you disagree with her, it is impossible not to 
     respect her and to take pleasure in the process of refining 
     the issues actually in dispute.

  In other words, as I see it, Justice Larsen is and will be a jurist 
who seeks to find the right answer, never simply one she prefers as a 
matter of policy.
  We can already see from her time on the Michigan Supreme Court that 
Justice Larsen is a principled jurist with an impressive legal acumen. 
She has served with distinction on that court since she was appointed 
in 2015. It happens that she was elected to the position in 2016, in 
her own right, by a resounding majority, winning every county in 
Michigan. Colleagues on the court have praised her sharp legal 
analysis, her clear and crisp writing, and, most importantly, her work 
ethic.
  Outside the courtroom, Justice Larsen is actively involved in 
volunteer efforts to serve disadvantaged children, and she works with 
Michigan's veterans, drugs, sobriety, and mental health court programs.
  Some of my colleagues have said they will not support the nomination

[[Page S6944]]

because Justice Larsen was included on President Trump's short list for 
the Supreme Court. Is there anything wrong with the President 
suggesting whom he is going to put on the Supreme Court if he is 
elected President? If you look at her background, it should be no 
surprise that she was included on that list. She is an accomplished 
legal academic, a mainstream jurist, and is well respected on a 
bipartisan basis throughout the legal community.
  Because my colleagues have been concerned about everyone on that 
list, at her hearing, I asked Justice Larsen when she learned that her 
name was on that list. She replied: ``The date it was announced . . . 
it was a complete surprise to me.''
  I also asked her about judicial independence and whether she could 
rule against the President who nominated her.
  She replied:

       I would have no trouble ruling against the President who 
     appointed me or any successor President as well. Judicial 
     independence means one thing, one very simple thing--

  At this point I want to emphasize--

     and that is putting the law above everything else, the 
     statutes passed by this body, and the Constitution of the 
     United States. So I would have absolutely no trouble, and, 
     indeed, that would be my duty.

  Here is the most outrageous reason I have heard for voting against 
Justice Larsen. This should surprise a lot of people. Some in the 
minority have suggested that she is somehow responsible for outside 
groups running ads that support her nomination in Michigan. The claim 
that she is responsible for the action of an outside group is 
ridiculous, and the allegation that these ads are in some way a 
guarantee of how she will rule in the future is the most absurd thing I 
have heard based upon her answers to my questions.
  I find it interesting that my colleagues who are complaining about 
conservative groups do not seem to have the same concern for groups on 
the left that are spending money in opposition to these nominees. One 
such group, Alliance for Justice, routinely issues reports and press 
releases on judicial nominees. Oftentimes, these so-called reports put 
forward incendiary and false criticisms of these nominees. My 
colleagues even make the same incendiary attacks against the nominees 
as these outside groups do. In other words, they use the same talking 
points. I do not hear that my colleagues on the other side are up in 
arms about their spending millions of dollars to oppose nominees.
  Of course, some may remember that last year groups on the left 
coordinated attacks on this Senator. I was followed all over Iowa by 
these groups and their members. They ran ads against me and put up 
billboards that opposed my election, and that had something to do with 
the Supreme Court, as one might recall. I don't remember hearing any of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about all of the 
money those groups were spending at that time.
  As I have said before, I expect that outside groups on the left and 
on the right want to have their voices heard in the nomination process. 
Isn't that something to do with what we call democracy, representative 
government, freedom of speech, freedom of association? There is nothing 
wrong with that, whether it is done by the right or the left, but I 
take issue with complaints from the other side that do not acknowledge 
that all sides have interest groups that are spending and engaging in 
the judicial nomination process. It was completely appropriate for 
Justice Larsen not to wade in on the political debate regarding those 
political ads. Her answers to those questions were exactly what I would 
expect an independent nominee to say, particularly if she wants to be 
independent of any President who appoints her when she is appointed to 
the bench.
  Justice Larsen's nomination is supported by a broad and diverse 
coalition of lawyers, judges, and academic colleagues. It is easy to 
see why, for she is an accomplished and well-respected academic. She is 
a brilliant and independent jurist. Her careful and well-reasoned legal 
analysis puts her squarely within the mainstream of legal thought. I 
urge my colleagues, in a few minutes, to vote for her nomination.
  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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Larsen 
nomination?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 257 Ex.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--38

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     McCaskill
     Menendez
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________