[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.
____________________