[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 59 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2250-S2258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Mark Anthony Calabria, of Virginia, to be Director of the 
     Federal Housing Finance Agency for a term of five years.
         Mitch McConnell, Shelley Moore Capito, Mike Crapo, Johnny 
           Isakson, John Cornyn, Mike Rounds, Marco Rubio, John 
           Barrasso, Pat Roberts, John Thune, John Boozman, James 
           E. Risch, Richard C. Shelby, Roger F. Wicker, Richard 
           Burr, Thom Tillis, John Hoeven.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The mandatory quorum call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Mark Anthony Calabria, of Virginia, to be Director of the 
Federal Housing Finance Agency for a term of five years, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 63 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harris
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 53, and the nays are 46.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Tennessee.


                                 China

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam President.
  Today I received a letter from the U.S. Ambassador to China, Terry 
Branstad. Governor Branstad's letter said the following:

       I am delighted to inform you that China's Ministry of 
     Public Security announced China will make all forms of 
     fentanyl a controlled substance effective May 1, 2019. If 
     implemented effectively, this will fulfill the commitment 
     President Xi made to the President at the G-20 last December 
     in Buenos Aires. That commitment and this key development are 
     direct results of your visit to Beijing during which you 
     highlighted China's role in the global opioid crisis. 
     Separately, I have asked my staff to share diplomatic 
     reporting with you that addresses China's action in greater 
     detail.

  That is from Ambassador Terry Branstad, our Ambassador to China.
  This is important news. It will save thousands of American lives. 
President Trump deserves great credit for persuading President Xi at 
their meeting in Argentina in December to do this, the one thing that 
our drug enforcement agents have said will reduce the flow of fentanyl 
into the United States more than any other single thing.
  President Xi, the President of China, deserves the thanks of the 
American people for making this decision because our Drug Enforcement 
Agency is convinced that this decision by China and its senior 
officials will save thousands of American lives.
  The reason for this, we were told by our Drug Enforcement Agency 
personnel in China, is that, one way or the other, almost every bit of 
fentanyl that makes its way into the United States starts in China. 
These chemicals are made and mixed there. Then they come through the 
mail. They come through Mexico, through China, many different ways, but 
the chemicals start in China.
  Every time China has made some form of fentanyl illegal, the 
availability of that form of fentanyl in the United States has begun to 
go straight down.
  What President Trump and President Xi agreed to do on May 1 is to 
make all forms of fentanyl illegal. This means that if some clever 
scientist in China says: Well, this form of fentanyl is illegal, so I 
will make a different form that isn't, that clever scientist will now 
be out of business.
  One thing the Chinese know very well how to do is to police their 
country. I would not want to be the Chinese person, after May 1, who is 
in violation of Chinese law that says all forms of fentanyl are 
controlled substances and illegal in China.
  In October, I led a delegation of senior Members of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate to meet with the Chinese senior 
delegation. One would have thought that all we talked about was trade 
because trade was important to all of our States, but at Governor 
Branstad's insistence, in every meeting we had with senior Chinese 
officials, we said: Fentanyl is our biggest problem, and you can solve 
our biggest problem more than anybody else in the world. Instead of 
being our problem, why don't you be our solution? Why don't you let the 
United States point to China and say that you helped us solve a problem 
that is killing thousands of Americans on a regular basis?
  China agreed to do that in December with President Trump. It has now 
been announced that on May 1, all forms of fentanyl will be controlled 
and therefore illegal.
  We should watch and make sure it is effectively done, but what we 
should say today is: President Trump, we thank you for putting fentanyl 
on top of a busy agenda in December, and, President Xi, we are grateful 
to you for a decision we believe will save thousands of American lives. 
I might add, it is very helpful to have such an effective Ambassador as 
Terry Branstad in China because he knew how to focus the attention of 
many visiting delegations.
  Our delegation wasn't the only one who carried this message; Senator 
Portman and others have been there. But this is an example of China 
responding to an urgent American problem, and we ought to give both 
Presidents much more than a pat on the back for this important step.

[[Page S2251]]

  



                               Healthcare

  Madam President, I often suggest to Tennesseans that we should look 
at Washington as if it were a split-screen television. For example, 
last October, on one screen, you would have seen Senators throwing food 
at each other all month long over the Kavanaugh debate, but in another 
part of the Capitol, you had 72 Senators working together--Democrats, 
Republicans, three different committees from the Senate, five from the 
House--working together to enact what the President called the single 
most important law to deal with a public health epidemic ever passed, 
and that was the opioids bill.
  While we are arguing--which we know how to do--on such issues as the 
border or the special counsel's report, on the other screen, you will 
see a lot of work getting done if you take time to look. That means 
there are bipartisan efforts. That means Republicans and Democrats are 
working together. It takes 60 votes to get most things done here. We 
are 53 to 47. So, as I learned to count in the public schools of 
Tennessee, I know I need to work with some Democrats to get up to 60. 
Usually, we find that when we do that, we get up to 70 or 80 or 85 
because we can take even the most difficult issues and find our way 
through them.
  Today, I want to talk about one of those efforts--a bipartisan effort 
to try to reduce healthcare costs. Healthcare and health insurance are 
often conflated. We often mix them up, both in Congress and in media 
stories. The President sometimes does that too. I want to be very clear 
that what I am talking about is a bipartisan working effort, that 
healthcare itself, not just health insurance, is too expensive.
  Health insurance has gotten a lot of attention lately. The President 
tweeted earlier this week that ``deductibles, in many cases [are] way 
over $7,000, mak[ing] it almost worthless or unusable.'' I agree. High 
deductibles tied to high premiums make healthcare inaccessible for too 
many Americans. I know the President is looking at ways to give 
Americans more affordable health insurance and to protect patients with 
preexisting conditions, and I look forward to hearing his plan. But the 
truth is, the cost of health insurance will not come down or even grow 
more slowly unless we lower the cost of healthcare. You can't have low-
cost health insurance when you have high-cost healthcare.
  My top healthcare priority this Congress is to enact legislation that 
will give all Americans an opportunity for better health outcomes and 
better health experiences at a lower cost. Democrats and Republicans 
are working together on that to get a result.
  That is why Senator Murray, the lead Democrat on the Senate's Health 
Committee, and I are working with Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden, 
the senior leaders on the Senate Finance Committee, which shares 
jurisdiction over healthcare. We are working together on developing 
specific, bipartisan steps to help deal with the startling fact--which 
has come by way of experts who come before our Health Committee--that 
up to half of what Americans spend on healthcare is unnecessary. That 
is according to Dr. Brent James of the National Academies in testimony 
before our committee.
  Last December, in order to help focus on reducing healthcare costs, 
after the Senate Health Committee held five hearings on reducing the 
cost of healthcare, I wrote a letter to the American Enterprise 
Institute, the Brookings Institution, governors, State insurance 
commissioners, doctors, patient groups, academic experts, and the 
public asking them to submit specific recommendations to Congress to 
lower healthcare costs. As of the March 1 deadline for response, we 
have received over 400 recommendations, some as many as 50 pages long.
  I want to talk about some of those today. Before I do, it is 
important to know that the cost of healthcare, in effect, has become a 
tax on the budgets of families, employers, the Federal Government, and 
State governments. Warren Buffett has called the ballooning cost of 
healthcare ``a hungry tapeworm on the American economy.''
  Almost every day, I hear from Tennesseans who are concerned that 
healthcare is too expensive. For example, Sherry from Hermitage, TN, 
wrote me about her daughter's family and said:

       They are new parents now and spend almost as much on 
     healthcare premiums as they do on their mortgage payment. 
     That doesn't include the out-of-pocket expenses, such as 
     copays and deductibles.

  Many people worry about a surprise billing, which is when a patient 
receives care at an in-network hospital, but an out-of-network 
specialist--like an anesthesiologist, for instance--also treats the 
patient.
  Todd is a father from Knoxville, TN, who recently took his son to an 
emergency room after a bicycle accident. The son was treated. Todd paid 
a $150 copay because the emergency room was in-network for his health 
insurance, and they headed home. Todd was pretty surprised when he 
received a bill later for $1,800 because even though the emergency room 
was in-network, the doctor who treated his son was not.
  I hear a lot about the high cost of prescription drugs. Shirley 
recently wrote me from Franklin saying:

       As a 71-year-old senior with arthritis, I rely on Enbrel to 
     keep my systems in check. My copay has just been increased 
     from $95 to $170 every 90 days. At this rate, I will have to 
     begin limiting my usage in order to balance the monthly 
     budget.

  I hear from doctors about administrative burden. Dr. Lee Gross, a 
Florida direct primary care doctor, testified at one of our hearings 
that insurance and government regulations were making primary care too 
expensive. Dr. Gross founded one of the first direct primary care 
practices. This is where a patient might pay $60 a month for an adult, 
$25 for the first child, $10 for each child after, and receive all 
their primary care--strep tests, vaccines, minor surgical procedures, 
and more. He calls it ``NetFlix for healthcare. After you pay your 
membership, you don't have to pay for each episode of care.''

  Dr. Atul Gawande, who is leading the Amazon-Berkshire Hathaway-
JPMorgan healthcare venture, told me recently in a conversation that 
direct primary care doctors are a powerful group for driving improved 
outcomes in healthcare because the doctors take responsibility for the 
outcomes, the risks, and the cost to the patient.
  I also hear that the place where medical procedures are performed can 
make healthcare more expensive. For example, Michael from Johnson City 
shared that he recently had an endoscopy of his esophagus--a fairly 
common, routine procedure. He had the procedure at an outpatient 
facility, which typically is less expensive than a hospital; however, 
the procedure was billed as being done at a hospital. Michael is on 
Medicare, and he wrote to me saying: ``Not only am I charged a higher 
``hospital'' rate, but taxpayers are charged a higher rate, as well.''
  I imagine that every Senator has heard similar stories from people in 
their States and wants to do something about reducing the cost of 
healthcare.
  In addition to the more than 400 comments we received, the American 
Enterprise Institute and Brookings sent us a detailed list of 18 
specific policy recommendations. The Senate Health Committee can work 
on some of these. Some of these fall into the jurisdiction of other 
committees, and some are steps the administration itself can take 
without congressional action.
  My staff and I are still reviewing all of these recommendations, but 
I want to mention some of them today.
  One reason healthcare is so expensive is that the cost is in a black 
box. Patients just don't know how much a particular test and procedure 
will cost. That makes it nearly impossible to adequately plan for 
future healthcare expenses, and because of that, the healthcare system 
does not operate with the discipline and the cost-saving benefits of a 
real market.
  Congress has already taken some steps to increase transparency. For 
example, last Congress, we passed and the President signed legislation 
by Senator Collins of Maine to ban the so-called gag clauses in 
pharmacy contracts that prevented pharmacists from telling a patient 
that a drug was cheaper if they paid with cash instead of their 
insurance.
  Now we have received recommendations on how to build on that first 
step. For example, patients shouldn't be prohibited from knowing the 
cost of a surgery or a doctor's visit in advance of scheduling the 
procedure or appointment. Insurers and employers should

[[Page S2252]]

not be prohibited from providing patients with information recommending 
lower cost options or higher quality providers.
  Another recommendation--this one from AEI and Brookings--is that 
employers contribute claims data--which is information on how much a 
test or service costs and how much insurance paid for it--to what is 
known as an all payer claims database. Eighteen States currently have 
these databases so employers and insurers can see trends in healthcare 
spending. This would help break open the black box around the claims 
data for the 181 million Americans who get their healthcare on the job.
  One of our new Health Committee Members, Senator Braun of Indiana, 
owns a manufacturing and distribution company. He employed over 1,000 
people before he became a Senator. He was aggressive about helping his 
employees reduce healthcare costs.
  Healthcare Bluebook, a Tennessee company that testified at one of our 
five hearings on how to reduce healthcare costs, recommended that we 
look at the clauses in contracts employers sign with insurers that 
block the employer from accessing de-identified claims data that they 
could use ``for purpose of price and quality transparency.''
  The Trump administration is also focused on transparency. For 
example, Secretary Azar has proposed a regulation to start requiring 
that advertisements for prescription drugs include the list price, and 
he has asked for feedback on the idea of requiring that the prices 
patients pay for medical services also be disclosed.
  Another strategy for achieving better outcomes and better experiences 
at lower costs is to focus on the 300,000 primary care doctors in our 
country. Dr. Sapna Kripalani of Vanderbilt testified at one of our 
healthcare cost hearings that primary care providers are the 
``quarterbacks'' of healthcare. By coordinating patients' care, 
managing their chronic diseases, and providing other preventive care, 
primary care doctors are able to help patients stay healthy and out of 
the emergency room.
  Adam Boehler, who leads the Center for Medicare and Medicaid 
Innovation, told me that while primary care accounts for only 3 to 7 
percent of healthcare spending, it can affect as much as half of all 
healthcare spending.
  One recommendation we received came from Dr. Gilliam, a primary care 
doctor in West Tennessee who runs a direct primary care practice--the 
same type of practice I mentioned earlier that Dr. Gross runs. Dr. 
Gilliam said: ``[Direct primary care] is the only model that is able to 
offer affordable healthcare with complete price transparency.''
  One suggestion we have heard is to change Internal Revenue Service 
rules that block Americans from using their health savings accounts to 
pay for the monthly direct primary care fee.
  Then there is drug pricing. Many recommendations are focused on 
reducing what we spend on prescription drugs, which is about 17 percent 
of all healthcare spending.
  One way is reforming prescription drug rebates, the discounts that 
pharmacy benefit managers negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. The 
Trump administration has proposed a new rule for the $29 billion 
rebates on prescription drugs that the government pays for through 
Medicare Part D. One recommendation is to expand that to the estimated 
$40 billion of rebates negotiated in the private market.
  Another way to lower drug prices is to increase competition through 
generic drugs, which can be up to 85 percent less expensive than brand 
drugs when there are multiple approved generics. I have heard concerns 
about brand drug companies not providing generic companies the samples 
needed to make generic drugs and other ways that brands delay drug 
competition.
  It was recommended that we increase competition for the generic 
versions of biologic drugs, which are called biosimilars. One way to do 
that may be with a bill Senator Collins introduced to ensure that 
biosimilar manufacturers have access to the information they need to 
develop and bring to market more biosimilars.
  Then there is surprise billing.
  AEI and Brookings also recommended we focus on helping to eliminate 
surprise medical billing, which is what happened when Todd, of 
Knoxville, took his son to the emergency room. AEI and Brookings said 
the issue is not that insurance companies have limited doctors and 
hospitals in their networks but that emergency departments and 
ancillary physicians, as well as hospitalists and ambulance companies, 
have a lucrative out-of-network billing arrangement that is unavailable 
to other providers, which encourages doctors to go out of network and 
send patients high bills. Senator Cassidy and Senator Hassan are 
leading the way to help eliminate surprise billing.
  We received comments about the importance of the seamless exchange of 
information between electronic health records, which includes stopping 
information blocking.
  A goal of the 21st Century Cures Act, which is a bipartisan bill that 
Senator McConnell said was the most important bill that Congress, was 
to make it easier for patients to access their health records and for 
doctors and hospitals to get the information they need to treat 
patients. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services 
released two proposed rules required by the Cures Act to lead to better 
coordinated care and to less unnecessary health care. We held a hearing 
on those last week. We heard a story of the better experiences and 
outcomes that can happen when health records are interoperable. 
Finally, there is the consolidation of healthcare.
  We received comments on the decreasing choices and competition in the 
healthcare system, which is when hospitals merge with doctors' offices 
or other hospitals, when insurers merge with other insurers, or when 
hospitals and insurers merge so that these hospitals or insurers have 
even more control over the market.
  Some argue that the consolidation in healthcare can benefit patients 
and lower costs. Others say that it gives patients fewer options and 
that healthcare prices increase.
  AEI and Brookings suggested that one way to address the potential 
negative consequences of consolidation would be to improve oversight of 
the 340B drug discount program, which has been found to incentivize 
hospitals to purchase physician practices or to employ physicians 
directly in order to bring in additional revenue from the 340B 
discounts. This echoes what we heard at our committee's three hearings.
  I am also asking for other Senators to continue to come forward to 
Senator Murray, to Senator Wyden, to Senator Grassley, and to me with 
their specific proposals as to how we can reduce healthcare costs. What 
I hope to do is to compile the proposals that fall under the 
jurisdiction of our Senate HELP Committee into a package of legislation 
that the committee will vote on early in the summer. We could then 
combine that with whatever the Senate Finance Committee passes and ask 
the leader to put it on the Senate floor and work with the House to 
send legislation to the President's desk.
  This morning, in a hearing before the Appropriations Committee, 
Secretary Azar reiterated his support and the President's support for 
this bipartisan process to reduce health care costs.
  My staff and I will continue to review recommendations and work with 
other Members to incorporate ways so that Americans like Sherry, Todd, 
Shirley, and Michael will have better outcomes and better experiences 
at lower costs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Mueller Report

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, after almost 2 years, Special 
Counsel Mueller filed his report with the Attorney General. The 
Attorney General sent us a short letter that summarized the major 
findings of the report.
  A summary is not going to cut it. The Attorney General's own letter 
discusses the vast extent of the special counsel's investigation. It 
mentions over 500 witness interviews, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search 
warrants, 230 orders for communications records, almost 50 orders for 
pen registers, and actually 13

[[Page S2253]]

requests to foreign governments. This was an extraordinarily extensive 
investigation that yielded a rich collection of facts about Russia's 
attack on our democracy. The American people deserve to see the results 
so that they can judge the facts for themselves.
  We know from court filings, news reports, and the Senate Intelligence 
Committee's own investigations that the Russians attempted to influence 
the Trump campaign in many ways. At least 17 individuals in the Trump 
orbit had over 100 publicly released contacts with Russian officials or 
intermediaries. Yet, with all of those 100 contacts during the midst of 
a campaign, somehow not one of those individuals--even those contacted 
with explicit offers of assistance from a hostile government--called 
the FBI to report those offers.
  The Attorney General's four-page summary of this sprawling 
investigation--a summary that according to press reports may not even 
accurately reflect the Mueller report--focuses almost exclusively on 
the criminal portion of the Mueller probe and barely mentions the 
special counsel's counterintelligence investigation into these 
contacts.
  The Senate Intelligence Committee--with the only bipartisan 
counterintelligence investigation still standing--has documented 
extensive efforts by the Russians to reach out to those around then-
Candidate Trump. Here are a few examples:
  We have documented in the public domain Candidate Trump's efforts to 
negotiate a business deal to build what was going to be called the 
largest building in all of Russia. He negotiated that deal throughout 
the whole primary process. According to his attorney Mr. Giuliani, it 
may have been negotiated all the way through the election. The deal 
itself may not have violated any laws. Yet, frankly, I think, if I were 
a Republican primary voter, I would have liked to have known that my 
potential Presidential candidate was still trying to do a deal with 
Vladimir Putin's government.
  In our investigation, we also had exposed ongoing communications 
between the President's campaign chairman, Mr. Manafort, and Konstantin 
Kilimnik, who has ties with both Russian intelligence and oligarch Oleg 
Deripaska.
  Our committee has made multiple criminal referrals to the special 
prosecutor based on what we have learned and witnesses' efforts to lie 
to us and to obstruct our investigation.
  This is what a counterintelligence investigation is all about. We 
need to fully understand what the Russians were trying to do, and we 
need to be able to warn future campaigns and candidates about the 
lengths to which hostile governments will go and the new tools they 
will use to undermine our democracy. I believe we cannot make that full 
guidance to future campaigns without there being a full release of this 
report.
  Some observers have said that the report cannot be released without 
its jeopardizing sources and methods. Let me be clear. As vice chair of 
the Senate Intelligence Committee, no one is more sensitive to those 
concerns than am I, but the resolution that we have specifically states 
that the report should be released to the public in accordance with the 
law. Clearly, sources and methods would not be released under this 
standard, nor would grand jury information.
  What we are talking about here is basic transparency. Let's make sure 
the full Mueller report is released to Congress, including the 
underlying documents and intelligence. Then let's make sure the 
American people see as much of this report as possible and as soon as 
possible. Let's do it in a bipartisan way to protect sources and 
methods.


               Unanimous Consent Request--H. Con. Res. 24

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as in legislative 
session, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. 
Res. 24, expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special 
Counsel Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress, 
and which is at the desk; further, that the concurrent resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I am all 
for transparency. I think we should know as much about this 
investigation into the President as we possibly can. We do know that we 
only know part of the story and that the Mueller report is only part of 
the story. What we also need to know is how this originated because I 
think it is very important that we not turn our country into this back-
and-forth where each successive party tries to use the apparatus of 
government to investigate the previous President.
  We do know now that the investigation of the Trump campaign reached 
to the highest levels of the White House, all the way up to President 
Obama. What we don't know is, was President Obama told that the 
evidence to get this investigation started was paid for by the Hillary 
Clinton campaign? We need to know that. That is not part of the Mueller 
report, but that is something that I am asking that we should attach to 
this resolution. We need to know, was President Obama told that this 
information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign?
  We do not yet know whether John Brennan was involved and to what 
degree. We do not know whether John Brennan colluded with British spy 
agencies to spy on Americans. It is illegal for our CIA to spy on 
Americans. We don't yet know whether John Brennan was colluding with 
British spy agencies and other spy agencies to get them to do his dirty 
work.
  We do know now that John Brennan, who had the power to listen to 
every American's phone call and who had the power to listen to every 
person's phone call in the entire world, is a rank partisan. We now 
know that John Brennan has called the President a traitor, essentially 
saying the President should be put to death. This is the guy who was in 
charge of this investigation. This isn't an objective person. We need 
to know about all of the communications.
  So I ask unanimous consent that we modify this resolution and that we 
find out about and gain access to all of the communications between 
Comey, Brennan, Clapper, the White House, and President Obama, because 
I don't want to ruin this great country with politically motivated 
investigations year in and year out.
  This had to do with placing spies and infiltrating the Trump 
campaign. Do you really think that our intelligence Agencies should be 
infiltrating each other's campaigns?
  I don't want this to happen to a Democrat. When President Trump came 
to the Hill a week ago, he said that this shouldn't happen to the next 
Democratic President. We should not misuse the power of our 
intelligence Agencies to have one party go after another. How can we 
get on with the people's business if we are allowing the government to 
be consumed with this kind of stuff?
  I ask unanimous consent that we amend the resolution and look at the 
entire story--not just at the investigation but at how we got here. The 
media wouldn't even print this fake dossier because it was so 
scandalous and so unverified and has turned out to be untrue. Yet this 
was the basis for beginning the investigation. This was the basis for 
doing something extraordinary--implanting spies and informants into the 
Trump campaign.


        Unanimous Consent Request Modification--H. Con. Res. 24

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we amend the resolution 
and that as the Mueller report comes forward, we also come forward with 
all of the communications between the people who got this started and 
we discover once and for all whether or not these people have misused 
their offices in starting this investigation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia wish to modify 
his request?
  Mr. WARNER. In reserving the right to object, I would simply point 
out to my colleague from Kentucky that the intelligence community, in 
its January 2017 report, reached a unanimous conclusion. That 
conclusion was that Russia massively interfered in our elections. 
Russia did it in the form of hacking into personal information and 
releasing it subjectively, and Russia did it in terms of at least 
touching the electoral systems in 21 of our States in

[[Page S2254]]

ways that, frankly, found a great deal of vulnerabilities. Russia also 
did it in ways that manipulated social media that, quite honestly, 
caught our Intelligence Committee and the social media companies off 
guard.
  Our Intelligence Committee spent a year in its review of the 
conclusions of the intelligence community, and in January of 2018, it 
unanimously agreed that the intelligence community's findings were 
correct--that the Russians interfered and that they did it on behalf of 
one candidate, Mr. Trump, against another candidate, Mrs. Clinton.
  For those reasons, I respectfully object to the request of my 
colleague from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in closing, I hope we can move past this. 
The President himself has called for the release of the report. In a 
rare stroke of unanimity, the House voted 420 to 0. I think many in 
this body would like to move beyond this issue. The only way we are 
going to be able to move beyond this is to get this report released, to 
get it out to the American public, and to let those of us who are 
charged with the intelligence community's responsibilities see all of 
the report, including the underlying documents. I hope we can get to 
that point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                                  NATO

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, yesterday NATO Secretary General Jens 
Stoltenberg addressed a joint session of Congress--the first Secretary 
General ever to do so.
  The Secretary General is in Washington this week marking NATO's 70th 
anniversary. Created after World War II, NATO is a political and 
military alliance of European and North American democracies.
  Since its founding in 1949, NATO has been a bulwark for freedom, for 
peace, and for security around the world. For 70 years--70 years--NATO 
has been a bedrock of U.S. security.
  The United States stands firmly behind NATO's collective defense 
outlined in article 5 of its founding treaty.
  As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate 
NATO Observer Group, I recently traveled to Brussels, Belgium, for 
meetings at NATO headquarters.
  I met with Ambassador Hutchison and NATO officials to discuss ways to 
strengthen the alliance.
  These briefings reaffirmed for me that now, more than ever, America 
needs a strong NATO alliance. For our safety, for the safety of our 
allies, we must support and we must strengthen NATO.
  The alliance has expanded from an original 12 to now 29 member 
nations. These allies are our friends in times of peace, they are our 
partners in times of turmoil, and they are our defenders in times of 
war.
  In armed conflicts around the world, NATO serves as a force 
multiplier for all of its members. After the September 11, 2001, 
attacks, NATO allies sent tens of thousands of troops to fight 
alongside our U.S. forces in Afghanistan. NATO is helping the United 
States defeat ISIS in Iraq and in Syria, and its role in the global war 
on terrorism continues to expand.
  At the same time, NATO members are working together in Eastern Europe 
to deter Russian aggression. NATO isn't just protecting Europe from 
Russian interference; it is serving U.S. security interests in the 
region.
  Given the emerging threats around the globe, NATO must have the tools 
and the resources it needs to deter our enemies. This means that all 
members need to recommit themselves to NATO's mission and fully meet 
their pledges.
  Secretary Stoltenberg has focused on meeting alliance targets through 
``cash, capabilities, and contributions.'' That is what we discussed in 
Belgium, it is what he discussed yesterday, and that has been his 
focus--cash, capabilities and contributions.
  At the Wales summit in 2014, every NATO country agreed to spend a 
minimum of 2 percent of their GDP on defense. The United States 
continues to pay more than its fair share--about 22 percent of NATO's 
entire budget and more than 3 percent of our Nation's GDP.
  President Trump, to his credit, has pressed NATO and our allies to 
bear the full share of their burden, both financially and militarily. 
NATO's Secretary General projects that the alliance will spend $100 
billion more on defense by the year 2020.
  Now, 22 NATO nations have already increased their defense spending 
since the 2014 summit in Wales. In 2014, only three allies met the 
Wales summit spending target; seven met that target in 2018. Still, 22 
allies are falling short of the 2 percent target. They must contribute 
more if the alliance is to meet its financial goals and provide a 
capable and credible deterrent.
  This is especially important as NATO faces more formidable foes. It 
is critical for their contributions to fund military readiness, to 
develop new capabilities, and to improve alliance cohesion.
  NATO allies and partners are increasingly involved in terms of doing 
more with their troop contributions as well. Allies and partners now 
contribute more than half the troops in NATO missions.
  We have made real progress on burden sharing, and today we celebrate 
70 years of NATO achievements. NATO has helped bring about the 
democratic and economic transformation of Central and Eastern Europe. 
NATO has enabled European and Canadian soldiers to fight alongside U.S. 
forces on the frontlines of the war on terror. NATO supported U.S. 
sanctions against Russia and insisted on Russia's compliance with 
international law. Without a doubt, NATO is the most successful 
security alliance in our Nation's history.
  The United States remains as committed to NATO's mission today as 
when it was founded 70 years ago. We want a strong NATO serving as a 
cornerstone of international freedom, peace, and security for another 
70 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                  Nomination of Mark Anthony Calabria

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate invoked cloture 
on the nomination for the next Director of the Federal Housing Finance 
Agency. The nominee is named Mark Calabria, and I just want to say he 
is an extraordinarily qualified and capable man. I hope this body will 
overwhelmingly confirm him.
  He is a Ph.D. economist. He has tremendous work experience in the 
field of housing finance, which of course is the domain of the Federal 
Housing Agency. He has worked at HUD, the Banking Committee, and now he 
is the chief economist to Vice President Pence.
  I am certainly looking forward to working with Dr. Calabria on 
housing finance reform, the great unfinished work of the financial 
crisis, and I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm him later today.


                        Unrealized Gain Proposal

  Mr. President, I also wanted to say a few words about an idea that 
has been floated by one of our colleagues. The idea has been floated by 
my friend--he is my friend, and he is a good man--Senator Wyden from 
Oregon. He is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and 
he is a very good man with a very bad idea, and I want to explain why I 
believe the idea that he has floated is so mistaken.
  Fundamentally, his proposal is that we change our Tax Code so that we 
would impose taxes on unrealized investment gains every year.
  Currently, we impose taxes on investments only when the asset is 
sold. If an asset is purchased, it is later sold at a higher price. The 
difference is the gain, and we impose what we call a capital gains tax 
on that gain--but only when the gain is actually realized.
  Under Senator Wyden's proposal, if an asset goes up in value, even 
though it hasn't been sold, the fact that it has gone up in value would 
require that increase in value to be taxed. The investor would have to 
pay a tax.
  There is another element of his proposal, which is that these taxes 
that he wants to impose on these phantom gains would not be at the 
capital gains tax rate that is currently enforced but rather at 
personal income tax rates instead.
  The current capital gains rate is 23.8 percent. That is the top. That 
is the

[[Page S2255]]

highest capital gains rate that is paid. The highest personal income 
tax rate in our Tax Code is 37 percent. So in some circumstances, this 
would be a huge tax increase.
  Let me explain why I think both of these are very bad ideas--taxing 
unrealized gains and taxing all gains at ordinary income rates.
  First of all, let's take the idea of taxes on unrealized gains. These 
are the paper gains. This is a market-to-market appreciation that is 
unrealized if the investor doesn't actually sell the asset. Well, there 
is a good reason that our system has never imposed taxes on unrealized 
gains; there are several, but one is the value of the asset could go 
back down.
  One very widely held asset in America is stocks--stocks that you can 
buy on an exchange, a share of a company--and stocks famously go up and 
down. So I think it strikes most people as unreasonable to force people 
to pay a tax on this notional gain on a stock without having sold it 
when that stock could go back down. The gain could be completely lost, 
but you would still pay the tax.
  There is another problem with this; that is, the tax would be imposed 
without a liquidity event for the investor. In other words, the 
investor hasn't sold the asset, doesn't have the cash. What if the 
investor doesn't have enough cash to pay the tax bill on it? This risk 
alone would have a chilling effect on investment. It would discourage 
people from making the investment in the first place because they would 
have to wonder and worry about what kind of tax bill they will incur 
even if they don't sell the asset.
  Yet another problem with this is the complexity and difficulty of 
actually implementing this. It is pretty easy to determine the value of 
a stock, but there are other categories of investment that are much 
more difficult to value, like real estate or a small business.
  So imagine an entrepreneur buys a small building and builds it out 
and creates a restaurant, and that is his business. He is operating a 
restaurant. It may be profitable; it may not be. But what if real 
estate values in that neighborhood happen to go up? Well, here you 
might have a struggling entrepreneur trying to make ends meet in his 
restaurant, and the IRS is going to come along and say: Oh, you owe us 
a whole lot of money because we think the land on which you are 
operating has gone up in value.
  What good does that do for the restaurant operator or the people 
working for him, the jobs being created? It is not a good idea at all.
  There is another aspect to Senator Wyden's proposal, and that is that 
he would use a higher rate. He would like the top rate of 37 percent to 
be imposed, at least in some cases, on these capital gains, whether or 
not realized.
  So the question is, Why do we have a lower tax rate on capital gains 
than we have on ordinary income, other sources of incomes? Well, there 
are several reasons for that, as well--good reasons. One is we don't 
exclude from our calculation of an investor's gain the component of 
that gain that is attributable only to inflation. Think about it. If 
you make an investment in something and the inflation rate is just 2 
percent a year, well, 10 years later, that is going to nominally be 
worth like 25 percent more than it was when you bought it, but you 
don't have any real gain; that is just a reflection of the fact that 
dollars are worth less.
  So as a sort of rough justice for the fact that you nevertheless get 
taxed on the full gain, even the nominal gain, the gain that is not 
real, the gain that is just inflation, at least it is taxed at a lower 
rate to make up for that.
  There is another factor, and that is most investments are in an asset 
that itself generates income, and that income is taxed. So, for 
instance, a stock--a stock is a share of a company; a company has to 
pay tax. So imagine an investor who invests in a company and that 
company makes $100 of income. That is the profit for the business. 
Well, the first thing that business has to do is pay 21 percent of that 
to Uncle Sam. That is the tax on corporate income. Well, that leaves 
$79 left over for the investors, and the investor has to pay 23.8 
percent on that. That works out to about $19. So at the end of the day, 
on a $100 hundred gain, the investor is able to go home with only $60. 
That is a 40-percent effective tax rate to the investor, despite the 
fact that the nominal rate applied on the investor's gain is only 23.8 
percent. The combination--and that is what you really have to look at--
is more like 40 percent. That is higher than any individual income tax 
rate that we have in our entire code.
  Of course, a gain on such an asset occurs only when investors 
generally believe that the after-tax value has gone up.
  So I think it would be a big mistake to go down this road. I think it 
would be a big mistake to tax unrealized gains. As it is now, gains are 
taxed. They are taxed at the time in which they are actually earned--
they are actually realized--and it would be a mistake to raise the tax 
on this. Both of these ideas, and certainly in combination, would 
absolutely, certainly have a chilling effect on investment. They would 
diminish the willingness of people to invest in new businesses, in 
growing business, in startup business, and a chilling effect on 
investment means a chilling effect on economic growth.
  So this proposal, I think, is misguided. It comes at a time when the 
tax reform that we have recently passed, which actually encourages 
investment, is clearly working. Our tax reform has generated a 
tremendous surge in investment in equipment, in technology, in new 
business. We have seen tremendous growth in our overall economy as a 
result.
  In 2018, our economy grew at 3 percent--the best since 2005. With a 
strong, growing economy, we have seen terrific results for the people 
we all represent. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in 50 years. 
African-American unemployment is the lowest that has ever been 
recorded; Hispanic unemployment, the lowest ever recorded; youth 
unemployment, the lowest rate in many decades. Wages are now growing 
more rapidly than they have in over 10 years, and they are 
accelerating, and the wage growth is strongest among lower income 
workers.
  Clearly, the reforms we implemented have been an incentive for more 
investment, and that has led to more growth. I sure wouldn't want to 
see us do anything that would disrupt the fact that we have created an 
environment where there is now so much opportunity and where work is 
paying so much more than it has before.
  As I said, Senator Wyden is a good man, but this is a bad idea. I 
certainly hope we don't move in this direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                                  NATO

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a historic 
day, April 4. It was the day the agreement in Washington was signed to 
create the NATO alliance after the Second World War.
  I want to start by repeating what President Truman said on that day. 
He said:

       We hope to create a shield against aggression and the fear 
     of aggression--all bulwark which will permit us to get on 
     with the real business of government and society, the 
     business of achieving a fuller and happier life for all of 
     our citizens.

  That agreement was signed on April 4, 1949. Since the 70 years that 
have followed, the alliance has gotten stronger. The alliance has 
grown. In fact, there are a number of countries that hope someday to 
also be a member of the NATO alliance. It has been important and what I 
believe is the most important alliance in the history of mankind.
  This week is NATO Week. Yesterday we had the Secretary General speak 
to us before a joint session of Congress. The Secretary General was 
actually very optimistic about the future of NATO, and I am as well.
  I was with a group a couple of weeks ago who were wondering about 
NATO and some of the discussions or disagreements we have among our 
NATO allies. I liken it to the kind of disagreements I have with 
family. I grew up in a family of six kids. It is a big family. All of 
us have very different views, are of very different ages and life 
experiences. I really believe the disagreements we have among our 
allies are like the disagreements you have among your family members, 
but at the end of the day, make no mistake about it, an attack on any 
one of us is viewed as an attack on every one of us, and every country 
takes that seriously.

[[Page S2256]]

  In fact, in the 70 years since NATO was created--there is an 
obligation within article 5 of the agreement that if there is an attack 
on any one of us, then we consider it an attack on every one of us. It 
happened on 9/11. The only time in the history of the alliance that the 
article 5 obligation under the treaty has been exercised is when NATO 
countries joined with the United States in the War on Terror.
  Many people may not realize it, but there was a huge human toll for 
living up to their commitment. Many nations sent their men and women 
into harm's way, and over 1,000 of them have died since 9/11. Many 
others have been gravely wounded, but they lived up to their 
commitment. It was the first test of the treaty. That happened only 
less than 20 years ago.
  Senator Shaheen and I are now cochairs of the Senate NATO Observer 
Group. I want to compliment Senator Shaheen for actually coming up with 
the idea to reconstitute the group because we need to make sure our 
partners, our allies, understand that Congress believes NATO is a very 
important alliance to ensure our mutual safety and security.
  There was another interesting point that the Secretary General made 
in his speech yesterday before Congress. Some people have criticized 
President Trump for telling our partners that they need to pay their 
agreed-to fair share. The Secretary General said the President's call 
has actually been answered and that it was a positive step that he took 
to make these other nations recognize we must invest in our mutual 
defense and our mutual security. That can only come through innovating 
technologies that will defend the regions within the NATO alliance, 
making sure our troops are working together and working very well on a 
military-to-military basis, and we are doing that, but without that 
sustained commitment from our NATO allies, we could lose ground, and it 
is in their best interest to do it.
  As I said earlier, NATO is growing. We have a long list of countries 
that hope they can meet the requirements to someday come into NATO. 
Many of them were within the sphere of influence for the Soviet Union 
before the end of the Cold War.
  We all know Russia is the greatest threat to Europe. We all know 
Russia has done things that are illegal, according to international 
law. They have annexed the Crimean region of the Ukraine. Every week, 
Ukrainians are dying in a war that very few people know about. We have 
to make sure that we actually confront Russian aggression, and the best 
way to do that is to have a strong NATO alliance.
  On this historic day, April 4, 70 years later, I believe the alliance 
is strong. I believe that is what the Secretary General talked about 
yesterday, and I believe every Member of Congress shares the view that 
the NATO treaty, the NATO alliance, is the most important bulwark 
against aggression and threats to freedom.
  I look forward to continuing to serve with Co-Chair Shaheen to make 
sure our partners know this Congress is prepared to support them and to 
make sure the alliance grows and remains strong.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                  Nomination of Mark Anthony Calabria

  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise in opposition to the nomination of Mark Calabria. He is the 
wrong man for this job.
  Sometimes I kind of can't believe this place. I see these people. I 
see the President of the United States, who never really experienced 
any of these challenges that homeowners in Cleveland, OH, or in Muncie, 
IN, face. He can't even get a loan from a local bank; he has to go to 
Germany to go to Deutsche Bank. That is really beside the point.
  I just don't understand, when we have these academicians or people 
who work in government for a while, and then they go out and they do 
these writings, and over time--I look at someone like Mark Calabria. He 
seems like a genuinely nice fellow and an honorable guy, but some of 
the things he said and has written in his career--let me start with 
this. He questions the need for the 30-year mortgage. A lot of Members 
of Congress, a lot of people voting on this nomination, and a lot of 
people in the White House--the White House looks like a retreat for 
Wall Street executives. The majority leader's office down the hall has 
a stream of lobbyists going in and out from the banks and the oil 
companies and the gun lobbyists and all that.
  Mr. Calabria has said he questions the need for a 30-year mortgage. 
Many of my colleagues here and in the White House don't really have to 
worry about paying their mortgage. They don't have to think about 
saving for retirement and planning for retirement and thinking: I have 
7 years until I want to retire; I have 14 years to save money for my 
children to go on to college, to go to Lorain Community College, or to 
go to Dennis Center, or to Ohio State, or to go to Bloomington, or to 
go the University of Indiana.
  Mr. Calabria's questioning of 30-year mortgages--most people can't 
afford to buy a house if they don't have a long-term 25- or 30-year 
mortgage. They can't put 50 percent down, like it was before Franklin 
Roosevelt, and then pay it off in 5 years. That is how we did 
homeownership in this country 70, 80, or 90 years ago. That is why 
there wasn't much homeownership then, and then we figured out how to do 
it.
  Mark Calabria just wants to blow all that up and say: I don't really 
like the idea of a 30-year mortgage.
  He is not being nominated for the Secretary of the Interior. He is 
not being nominated for the EPA. He is being nominated for the Federal 
Housing Finance Agency. It is a critical job.
  We know we have a housing affordability crisis in this country. Think 
about this. One-fourth of all renters pay at least half of their income 
in housing costs. That is one-fourth of people who rent. I assume it 
may be higher in Indiana, as it is in Appalachia, OH, or it may be 
higher in East Cleveland or in Gary than it is in some other places, 
but whatever the number, overall, one-quarter of renters in this 
country pay 50 percent of their income in housing. Do you know what 
that means? It means that if your car breaks down, you have to borrow 
money from a payday lender so you can go to work so you can keep making 
$12 or $14 an hour. It eventually means you may get evicted because you 
can't meet your monthly rent.
  The homeownership rate among African Americans is at the same dismal 
level it was before Congress put those open housing, anti-
discrimination laws in place, and now this administration is not even 
enforcing those laws.
  Mr. Calabria doesn't think we need the current affordable housing 
goals. He thinks we should eliminate the GSEs, and--my favorite--he 
called homeowners who are underwater in their mortgages deadbeats.
  I don't know if he has ever actually been to Ohio. He might have. He 
might have ties there, for all I know. I don't know that he does, but 8 
years ago in Ohio, one out of five homeowners was underwater. You know 
what that means. It means they owed more for their house than their 
home was worth. It wasn't their fault. It is not their fault that in 
their community the worth of their home was dropping. It is not because 
they didn't keep it up, but it is because people were foreclosed on or 
homes were abandoned or they were evicted from those homes, and the 
value kept dropping so they actually owed more than their home was 
worth. He calls those people deadbeats.
  Somebody who loses their job and can't pay their mortgage, does that 
make them a deadbeat? Somebody who gets hurt on a construction project, 
he or she is a carpenter or a boilermaker, and they can't work--he 
calls them deadbeats? This is the person we want in charge of housing?
  He questioned the need for the Hardest Hit Fund. I know, in the 
Presiding Officer's State and in my State, that the Hardest Hit Fund 
really has mattered in helping clean up some neighborhoods and trying 
to get a floor under prices so they start going up again.
  He said: Just let prices fall. It is easy for him to say to just let 
prices fall. How about the people who are affected by this?
  My colleagues who support his nomination today shouldn't act 
surprised when he raises costs for borrowers, when he makes it more 
difficult to develop affordable housing, and when he cuts off access to 
homeownership for

[[Page S2257]]

American families, especially people of color.
  That is what he has advocated his entire career. We should reject Dr. 
Calabria's nomination. We should tell the President of the United 
States to send us a new nominee who will take this job seriously and a 
nominee who will make it easier, not harder, for Americans to afford 
housing.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote for the nomination of Mark Calabria to head 
the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           ``Move Over'' Law

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday in Warren, IL, a small town on 
the Illinois-Wisconsin border, mourners from near and far lined the 
streets and packed the town's high school to say good-bye to a local 
hero. They came to honor and bid farewell to an Illinois State trooper, 
Brooke Jones-Story, who was killed in the line of duty last Thursday.
  Trooper Jones-Story had pulled over a truck a little after noon and 
was inspecting it on the shoulder of U.S. Highway 20 in Freeport, just 
west of Rockford, IL, when a semitrailer crashed into her squad car and 
the truck she had stopped. The squad car and truck she had pulled over 
burst into flames. Trooper Jones-Story, a devoted public servant, 11-
year veteran of the Illinois State police, wife, stepmother, daughter, 
sister, lifelong fan of the Chicago Cubs, fan of Disney movies, animal 
rescuer, and a CrossFit workout enthusiast, died instantly. She was 34 
years old. No one else was injured.
  Sadly and unbelievably, Trooper Jones-Story was the second of three 
Illinois State troopers who have died this year after being struck by 
vehicles on the sides of roads and highways.
  Three State troopers in Illinois were killed in less than 3 months. 
All told, 16 Illinois State Troopers have been struck by vehicles so 
far this year, several suffering serious injuries.
  Let me tell you about the other two heroes we lost.
  Just 2 days after Trooper Jones-Story died, Trooper Jerry Ellis was 
killed by a wrong-way driver near Libertyville, IL.
  It happened at 3:25 in the morning. The driver was headed in the 
wrong direction on Interstate 94 in Green Oaks when he hit Trooper 
Ellis's squad car head-on. The driver who caused the crash was also 
killed.
  Jerry Ellis was 36 years old. He had been an Illinois State Trooper 
for 11 years. Before that he had served his country in the U.S. Army in 
Iraq.
  He and his wife Stacy are the parents of two little girls, Kaylee, 
age 7, and Zoe, age 5.
  Chris Lambert, in fact, was the first Illinois State trooper killed 
this year. It was January 12. He had just finished his shift and was on 
his way home when he stopped during a snowstorm to help at the scene of 
a three-car accident on Interstate 294 in Northbrook.
  Another driver, apparently trying to avoid the pileup, swerved onto 
the left shoulder of the highway, where Trooper Lambert was standing, 
and hit him and killed him.
  Trooper Lambert was 34 years old. He, too, was an Army veteran. He 
served in Iraq and Haiti. He had been with the Illinois State Police 
since 2013.
  He and his wife Halley were parents of a 14-month-old daughter, 
Delaney. The driver who hit him has been charged with felony reckless 
homicide.
  What makes the deaths of these three public servants--these three 
heroes--even harder to bear is that our State of Illinois passed a law 
nearly 20 years ago that was supposed to make roads safer for police 
and other emergency responders.
  It is called the ``Move Over'' Law or Scott's Law. It was named after 
the Chicago Fire Department lieutenant, Scott Gillen, who was killed in 
2000 by a drunken driver while working on a crash scene on the Chicago 
freeway.
  Scott's Law requires motorists to slow down, and, if possible, move 
over when they see a parked squad car, fire engine, or ambulance with 
flashing lights. If you can't change lanes, slow down and proceed 
cautiously. That is what Scott's Law says.
  It was expanded in 2017 to include all vehicles stopped with hazard 
lights on, including tow trucks. Violators can lose their license and 
face stiff fines--up to $10,000.
  Every State has some form of Scott's Law. Police and other first 
responders in many States are working to draw attention to these laws 
and to enforce them.
  I believe the Federal Government needs to do more. In the upcoming 
surface transportation reauthorization bill, I will be working not only 
to increase funding for highway safety grants to provide States with 
the resources they need to better enforce these laws but also to 
encourage people all across America to be sensitive to the men and 
women who are serving us in public capacities in law enforcement and 
other responsibilities. They deserve our respect and our caution.
  Despite these measures, Illinois State Police have seen a troubling 
increase in incidents in which a squad car with its lights flashing has 
been hit by a passing car. In 2016, there were 5 such incidents; in 
2017, 12; and last year, 8. Just a little over 3 months into this year, 
already there have been 16 such incidents, with 3 young troopers dead.
  Two days ago, April 1, was Illinois State Trooper Day--a day set 
aside each year to honor the dedicated men and women of the Illinois 
State Police.
  As Brendan Kelly, now the acting director of the Illinois State 
Police said: ``In 97 years, 69 men and women of the Illinois State 
Police bravely put on their uniforms to serve the citizens of this 
State and never returned home.''
  But this is the first time in 66 years that the Illinois State Police 
have lost three state troopers in 1 year, and the year is only a few 
months over.
  State police are uncertain what is driving this deadly trend, but 
Lucy Kuelper--and I would like to show you her photograph here.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will hold it up.
  Mr. DURBIN. Lucy Kuelper, a sixth grader from rural Rio, IL, hopes 
that she may have a way to stop the terrible losses.
  I thank the Senator from New York.
  Lucy is just 12 years old, but she knows the fear of watching someone 
you love go to work and the worry that you might never see them again. 
Lucy's dad, her hero, John Kuelper, is also a State trooper.
  When Lucy learned about the number of State troopers who had been hit 
and killed recently, she asked her dad: What can I do?
  Together, they came up with an idea. With help from her mom, Jessica, 
Lucy created a Facebook page to raise awareness about Scott's Law. She 
calls her page the Move Over Project.
  She posted the photo, shown here, of herself standing next to her 
dad, holding up a sign that says hashtag ``move over . . . for my 
DAD.''
  She asked other loved ones in the police force and other emergency 
services to post similar photos with hashtag ``move over for . . .'' 
and fill in the blank.
  In 5 days, Lucy's Facebook page received more than 14,000 ``likes.'' 
People have sent in photos from all over the country. They want people 
to move over for their dads, moms, sisters, brothers, uncles, and 
friends. There are photos of firefighters, police officers, EMTs, and 
tow truck drivers standing next to spouses, children, infants, parents, 
friends, and pets.
  This week, the State of Illinois Commission on Volunteerism and 
Community Service honored Lucy with its Volunteer of the Week Award. 
She deserved it, but Lucy says the only reward she wants is for people 
to follow the law and move over, so her dad and others like him who do 
dangerous jobs will be able to come home to their families at the end 
of the day.
  I want to thank Lucy for her efforts in starting the Move Over 
Project. Look at the faces and the families involved. Remember them the 
next time you see an emergency vehicle on a highway with its lights 
flashing parked along a roadway. Move over and save lives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank my good friend the 
Senator from Illinois for those great

[[Page S2258]]

words. We have had police officers in New York hit the same way. There 
is a bridge in New York on Southern State Parkway that we named after 
an officer who died a few years ago in the same situation, and I thank 
Lucy for caring and pushing hard.


                  Nomination of Mark Anthony Calabria

  Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Mark 
Calabria to become the Director of FHFA. I hope every Senator who has 
homeowners in their districts will pay attention here.
  For decades we have had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac providing 
mortgages at lower rates for people because there is a Federal 
guarantee. Because housing is such an important part of our economy, it 
stimulates jobs and the growth in the economy.
  It is utterly amazing that, once again, we are in a sort of ``Alice 
in Wonderland.'' The nominations from this administration go directly 
in the face of what I bet almost every Member on the other side 
believes--that interest rates should be low for mortgages and that 
there should be some kind of Federal guarantee.
  Well, here is what Dr. Calabria believes. First, he believes that the 
30-year mortgage is not necessarily part of our Federal housing finance 
system. He believes that Fannie and Freddie guarantees should be no 
higher than $200,000.
  I would ask Dr. Calabria to visit some of the middle-class 
neighborhoods of New York--policemen, firemen, teachers, construction 
workers. Their homes would be put in jeopardy by this, and a home is 
the middle class's piece of the rock.
  What the heck are we doing around here?
  President Trump doesn't pay attention to who the nominees are. They 
are put forward by Mick Mulvaney, who believes in no government 
involvement in anything, and people get hurt.
  What about the young couple with a new job, a new baby? They want to 
buy their first home. What about the person of color? Finally, when 
zoning laws and other things have changed, they can get a home. What 
about parents who are about to retire and want to sell their home so 
that they can move to smaller quarters and have a little bit of extra 
money? What about grandparents? To put in somebody who wants to undo 
the FHFA and undo our rock solid housing system would be ridiculous.
  I hope my colleagues will listen. If you believe in homeownership, if 
you believe the middle class ought to have homeownership, you can't 
support somebody who wants to eliminate Federal guarantees, who wants 
to lower the amount, and who wants to say that the 30-year mortgage, 
which has had such a success in America, should no longer be the 
bedrock of our system.
  I hope people will look at who this nominee is and vote no. I 
certainly will.
  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. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that all time expires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All postcloture time is expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Calabria 
nomination?
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 44, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 64 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Booker
     Harris
     Lee
     Sanders
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action on the Calabria and Altman nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________