[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3584-3601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.J. Res. 58, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
     Education relating to teacher preparation issues.


           Calling for an Independent, Bipartisan Commission

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in recent weeks, we have seen an 
astonishing series of revelations about Russia's efforts to influence 
the 2016 election in support of the Donald Trump

[[Page 3585]]

campaign. Last week, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General 
Jeff Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador in July and September 
during the campaign. Yet, during his confirmation hearing, the Attorney 
General said under oath: ``I did not have communications with the 
Russians.''
  Last Thursday, the Attorney General announced he would partially 
recuse himself from any investigation into the Presidential campaign. I 
note that this was a partial recusal when it comes to investigations 
into Russia's influence on President Trump and his circle of advisers 
and associates. The scope of the recusal is still unclear. For example, 
Attorney General Sessions does not even appear to believe that his own 
meeting with the Russian Ambassador on September 8, 2016, was related 
to the campaign. The scope of his recusal will need to be clarified.
  We also continue to learn of previously undisclosed communications 
between the Russians and President Trump's inner circle. For example, 
we learned last week that Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law 
and senior adviser, had met in December with the Russian Ambassador in 
Trump Tower, along with the President's National Security Advisor, 
Michael Flynn, who resigned on February 13. People across America are 
wondering when the next shoe will drop.
  It is becoming clear that the President is desperate to change the 
headlines from these Russian revelations--so desperate, in fact, that 
in a series of tweets on Saturday morning, President Trump claimed that 
President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower in an act President Trump 
described as ``McCarthyism'' and ``Nixon/Watergate.'' Well, President 
Trump's tweets again made news but not in the way he had hoped. It 
quickly became clear that President Trump has no evidence to back up 
his claims. In fact, it appeared he got his information not from 
America's law enforcement or intelligence agencies but from rightwing 
talk radio.
  On Sunday, the former Director of National Intelligence, James 
Clapper, denied the President's claims, and the Director of the FBI, 
James Comey, took an extraordinary step of calling on the Justice 
Department to publicly deny the President's claims. Even Republicans 
like House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy, 
chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said they had not seen 
any evidence that would support what President Trump tweeted. 
Nonetheless, the President's spokespeople doubled down, saying that the 
President does not accept the contention of the FBI Director and he 
stands by his tweets.
  Let's be clear. President Trump is playing games with the credibility 
of his Presidency. Donald Trump is destroying the credibility of the 
Office of the President 140 characters at a time. If President Trump 
had consulted with his adviser--any credible adviser--prior to his 
tweets, he would have learned something that is crucial, and it is as 
follows: The President of the United States does not have the authority 
to order a wiretap. Instead, such a wiretap can be granted upon a 
finding by a court that there is probable cause to believe the target 
has committed a crime or is an agent of a foreign power.
  Clearly, there are more revelations to come. The only question: How 
long is it going to take? How much damage will be done to the 
credibility of the Office of the President and America in the process?
  These recent events confirm yet again the need for an independent, 
transparent, bipartisan commission led by Americans of unimpeachable 
integrity to get to the bottom of this Russian attack on the United 
States. Russia attacked our democracy. We need to fully understand what 
happened. We certainly need to prevent it from happening in the next 
election or ever again.
  This week, a USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll found that Americans, 
by a margin of 58 percent to 35 percent, believe an outside independent 
investigation is needed into Russian involvement in our election. It is 
worthy of note that just a few weeks ago, only 30-something percent of 
the American people were aware of this controversy with Russia. Now 
over 55 percent of people want an independent investigation. America is 
listening.
  We also need the Justice Department and the FBI to proceed with a 
credible, impartial investigation to determine if there may have been 
any criminal conduct involved.
  Yesterday, the President's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Rod 
Rosenstein, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If 
confirmed, Mr. Rosenstein would oversee any Justice Department 
investigation into the Trump administration's Russian connections after 
Attorney General Sessions has partially recused himself. So I pressed 
Mr. Rosenstein to clarify the scope of Attorney General Sessions' 
recusal commitment. I also asked, as did Senator Feinstein, whether Mr. 
Rosenstein had read the January 6 Intelligence Community assessment 
into Russian election interference. I cannot explain it, but in 2 
months Mr. Rosenstein had not read this 15-page, unclassified report 
that is available on the internet. It focuses on the major issue he 
will face initially as Deputy Attorney General, and he told us he had 
not read it.
  Let me add that I respect Rod Rosenstein. He served as U.S. attorney 
in Maryland, appointed first under a Republican President and held over 
under a Democratic President, and that says a lot about his 
professionalism as a prosecutor, his reputation, and his integrity. It 
is hard for me to believe that he could come before a hearing, which he 
knew would focus on the need for a special prosecutor to look into this 
Russian interference, and not have been briefed to read the 15-page 
public report that summarizes the conclusions of all of America's 
intelligence agencies when it comes to this Russian interference.
  I am sure he is an excellent lawyer who wouldn't enter a courtroom or 
stand before a judge or jury without complete preparation to the best 
of his ability, but yesterday, time and again, he told us he didn't 
take the time to read this report. I urge him to do so as quickly as 
possible, and when he reads it, he will see that our intelligence 
agencies are unequivocal in their statement that Vladimir Putin was 
setting out to elect Donald Trump and to defeat Hillary Clinton. This 
is not a report from the Democratic National Committee; it is a report 
from our intelligence agencies. And whomever Putin was trying to help, 
that is secondary to the fact that he was hacking into the internet, 
disclosing materials, and trying to become a material player in our 
Presidential election.
  Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, I went to visit Poland, Lithuania, and 
Ukraine. They are watching this carefully because they have been the 
victims of Vladimir Putin and Russia's attempts to interfere in their 
elections, and now they hear the United States has been victimized by 
Putin, as well.
  One of the scholars in Poland asked me what I thought was a very 
clear question, and I can't answer. He said: If the United States will 
not take the interference of Putin in your election seriously, how can 
the people of Poland believe you will take your NATO commitment to 
protect us from Putin seriously? Important question. Valid question.
  There are exceptions on the Republican side of the aisle, and I would 
like to point out one of them. My friend, my colleague, and the 
chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations, 
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, made an extraordinarily forthright 
statement yesterday about the need for an investigation into this 
Russian interference. Thank goodness he is stepping away from party 
loyalty and stepping up when it comes to defending this Nation. I 
salute my Republican colleague for his leadership on this issue.
  It is important to step back from the daily dysfunction we have when 
it comes to the Russian investigation and the White House and lack of 
governing and remember what is really at stake.
  Five months ago, our intelligence services disclosed evidence that a 
foreign adversary--one ruled by a dictatorial former Communist KGB 
agent--

[[Page 3586]]

was trying to help its preferred candidate in the U.S. Presidential 
election. Think about that for a moment. An adversary of the United 
States--a country which has imprisoned millions of Europeans in the 
Communist system for almost half a century and which today rigs 
elections and silences or murders members of the media and opposition--
committed what I believe is akin to a cyber act of war against America 
in trying to elect someone they saw as more sympathetic to their 
interests.
  Since those early reports, we have been provided with damning 
evidence by our intelligence agencies on the depth and sophistication 
of this operation--so favorable to its nefarious goal that it had 
Russian intelligence operatives boastfully celebrating after the 
outcome of the election.
  We also know that members of President Trump's campaign met with 
those thought to be Russian intelligence; had suspiciously timed 
communications with the Russian Government just after the Obama 
administration placed sanctions on Russia; and in the case of top Trump 
advisers Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions, refused to disclose those 
meetings, both in public and in one case to the Vice President and in 
another case to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  No candidate would or at least should want help from a foreign 
dictator to help win political office in the United States. So in a 
situation like this, the response is obvious: Help in any way possible 
to clear suspicions and concerns. Go forward and serve the American 
people with an investigation. It seems so obvious.
  Leon Panetta was on one of the Sunday morning talk shows. Leon 
Panetta is a friend. I served with him in the House of Representatives. 
He was the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, 
President Clinton. He served as Secretary of Defense. He headed up the 
Central Intelligence Agency. He is an extraordinarily gifted and well-
thought-of person who has a record of public service that is enviable. 
He was asked about what the Trump White House should do about this 
allegation of Russian interference in the election and the suggestion 
that they might have been complicit.
  He said: Get out in front.
  The President of the United States should say: I have nothing to 
hide, and we will fully cooperate with an independent commission to get 
to the bottom of what happened in that election. But instead, what do 
we have? Fanciful--in fact, patently false--tweets by the President, 
alleging a wiretap by the former President. President Trump, if he has 
nothing to hide, should help us clear this up once and for all.
  To my Republican colleagues, so many patriots and champions of 
American national security, it is time for more to join Senator Graham 
and others to step up and speak out even on the floor of the Senate 
about this situation.
  Each one of us in the Senate swore to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. 
Clearly, the Russian attack is a call for all of us--of both political 
parties--to step up. This issue is not going to go away. We are going 
to continue to pursue the truth.


      Nomination of Seema Verma and the Republican Healthcare Bill

  Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the recently 
released Republican healthcare repeal bill and to speak on the 
nomination of Seema Verma to serve as Administrator of the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  CMS is an agency touching the lives of 125 million people, and 34 
percent of Americans receive their health insurance under one of the 
three Federal programs run by that agency--Medicare, Medicaid, and the 
Children's Health Insurance Program. These programs are vital to the 
health and well-being of seniors, children, persons with disabilities, 
and low-income families. Yet, with those vows to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act, President Trump, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom 
Price, and congressional Republicans are sadly attempting to gut the 
Medicaid program and to jeopardize the future of Medicare.
  The head of CMS should be someone who believes in these core programs 
and is willing to fight to preserve them. Instead, Ms. Seema Verma's 
record--as well as comments she made during her confirmation hearing--
indicates she is more than willing to take dramatic steps to force 
people to lose their health insurance or dramatically increase out-of-
pocket costs.
  From her refusal to disavow efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
to her willingness to cut the Medicaid Program, I do not believe Ms. 
Verma is the right person for this job.
  When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, our constituents--
Republicans, Democrats, Independents--are angry and frightened about 
what the Trump administration and congressional Republicans might do to 
healthcare. Based on what has finally been released, they have good 
reason.
  In over 2 months, Republican leaders in Washington have taken 
numerous steps to change and even sabotage our healthcare system, 
jeopardizing patient access to care and throwing the system into chaos.
  Before President Trump took office, congressional Republicans rammed 
through a budget bill, laying the groundwork for a quick, silent repeal 
of the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that they had no 
replacement. Then, on his first day in office, the President signed an 
Executive order to weaken the Affordable Care Act, instructing Federal 
agencies to stop doing their job under the law. The President then 
acted hastily to stop Federal outreach efforts--TV ads, radio spots, 
and emails intended to encourage more Americans to sign up for health 
insurance.
  I watched yesterday as the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, said that 
the Affordable Care Act is collapsing. Well, I can tell you, it needs 
help and it should be bipartisan. Instead, the Republicans are doing 
everything they can to jeopardize it.
  Last week, the President met with big insurance companies to discuss 
what they want for healthcare. But where were the patients, the 
hospitals, the doctors, the nurses, the community health centers in 
these conversations?
  It is clear that congressional Republicans want to move full steam 
ahead on repealing our healthcare law. The problem has always been and 
still is that they can't agree on how to move forward. They don't have 
a plan to protect people. Some Republicans just want to repeal. Others 
want to repair. Others want to rebuild. They can throw out all the 
``R'' words they can find in the dictionary, but at the end of the day, 
they don't know what they want to do. These disagreements are becoming 
even more obvious in the last week.
  For the past few months, House Republican leaders have been meeting 
secretly to craft a repeal bill. Well, they finally unveiled it. No 
wonder they wanted to keep it secret.
  Incidentally, this bill, which has been authored by the Republicans--
a party that claims a commitment to fiscal soundness--has not been 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office. We don't know, even as it is 
being considered by committees in the House of Representatives, whether 
it is going to add to the deficit or not. You would think that the 
party of fiscal integrity--the Republican Party--would ask that 
question early on. As yet, they have no answer, and they are proceeding 
full steam ahead.
  The bill, first, would end Medicaid as we know it, cutting $370 
billion from the program and limiting care. Who are the beneficiaries 
of Medicaid? The largest group of beneficiaries are kids and mothers. 
The second most expensive group are seniors, many of them in nursing 
homes who, without Medicaid and Medicare, could not even continue in a 
good nursing home environment.
  Keep in mind that one in five Americans currently depend on Medicaid 
for their health insurance--65 million people nationwide. That includes 
35 million children, 7 million seniors, 11 million people with 
disabilities.
  We used to say: Well, Medicaid is for poor people. Well, it certainly 
is for lower income Americans, but many of them are working low-income 
Americans who still qualify for Medicaid.

[[Page 3587]]

  My friend, who has worked in the motel-hospitality industry all of 
her life, in her sixties, sadly, is a part-time employee, despite her 
hard work. She can't afford health insurance, but she qualifies for 
Medicaid. She is part of the working poor, and she is one who needs 
this benefit. If the Republicans have their way and reduce Medicaid 
coverage, she could certainly lose it.
  In my home State of Illinois, 650,000 people have gained healthcare 
coverage under Medicaid, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. For her and 
others I have met, it is the first time in their life that these men 
and women--often in their sixties--for the first time in their life 
have health insurance.
  Of Illinois' 18 congressional districts, not a single one has less 
than 71,000 Medicaid enrollees. Nearly half of all the kids in 
Illinois, 1.5 million children, get their healthcare through Medicaid, 
and the Republican repeal bill is going to endanger that.
  That is so obvious that yesterday the Republican Governor of 
Illinois, who was careful in his words and seldom reacts, came out 
publicly and said that the Republican repeal bill would significantly 
hurt our State of Illinois. That is from a Republican Governor.
  Medicaid is the largest payer of long-term care for seniors in the 
Nation and in Illinois. It is one of our best tools, incidentally, for 
addressing the opioid epidemic, ensuring that those facing addiction 
have access to treatment. And the Republicans want to cut that.
  Medicaid has been a lifesaver to Illinois hospitals, especially in my 
part of the State, downstate Illinois.
  Repeal of the Medicaid expansion, as the House bill proposes, could 
result in the loss of up to 90,000 jobs in Illinois.
  The Republican repeal bill on healthcare is a jobs killer in Illinois 
and across this Nation. We will see hospitals cutting back on personnel 
in an attempt to adjust to the cutbacks in coverage and the increases 
in cost brought on by the Republican repeal bill.
  But the bill goes even further. It dramatically restructures the 
entire Medicaid Program. When talking about the plan for Medicaid, 
congressional Republicans throw around innocuous terms: per capita 
caps, block grants, more flexibility, modernizing. Don't be lulled in a 
false sense of security by these words. This Republican healthcare 
repeal bill would significantly cut back on Federal spending on 
Medicaid, shifting the cost to States, families, and individuals who 
are currently struggling to get by today.
  With less funding, States would be forced to throw people off of 
Medicaid, limit the types of healthcare services offered, create 
waiting lists, and much more. In the name of State flexibility and 
modernizing, it would mean that more and more people would be showing 
up in emergency rooms in Illinois and across the Nation with no health 
insurance coverage under the Republican approach.
  Oh, they will get care, and it will cost. They can't pay for it, and 
that cost will be shifted to others with health insurance.
  Unfortunately, Ms. Verma has significant experience in this exact 
type of healthcare rationing. In her role as a private healthcare 
consultant, she championed radical Medicaid overhauls. She supports 
making low-income Medicaid beneficiaries pay more money. She believes 
that Medicaid beneficiaries need ``more skin in the game.'' I wonder 
how many Medicaid recipients Ms. Verma has actually sat down and met 
with.
  The Illinois folks whom I know are the mom working two jobs, 
struggling to take time off from work to take her kid to the doctor, or 
the senior who has literally spent down all of her life savings on 
nursing home care and has no place else to turn.
  Devising plans that restrict access to care for the most vulnerable 
among us are not the qualifications I am looking for in the person who 
wants to run the agency responsible for Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP.
  Finally, on the House Republican repeal bill, in addition to gutting 
Medicaid, the bill eliminates the Prevention and Public Health Fund, 
which currently provides the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
$900 million, or 12 percent of their annual budget. The bill defunds 
Planned Parenthood. The bill allows insurers to charge older people 
significantly more in premiums than allowed under current law. The 
bill, incidentally, dramatically cuts taxes for the wealthiest people 
in America and increases costs for middle-income families. What is most 
telling, as I mentioned earlier, is that the House Republicans won't 
even send this bill or wait for a report from the Congressional Budget 
Office before proceeding.
  How many people will lose their health insurance under the Republican 
repeal plan? How will out-of-pocket expenses go up for families under 
the Republican repeal plan? How much responsibility and burden will be 
shifted to the States under the Republican repeal plan?
  For now, Republicans can claim ignorance because they have decided to 
move forward before there was a report from the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Thank goodness some Republicans are speaking out against this 
terrible plan--maybe not for the same reasons I oppose it. But 
conservatives say it doesn't rip health insurance away from more people 
more quickly, and moderates worry about Medicaid--demonstrating, again, 
the lack of a consensus on the Republican side when it comes to the 
future of healthcare.
  We have big challenges ahead--challenges that will determine whether 
we have as many people in America with health insurance tomorrow as we 
have today and how much it will cost.
  I don't believe the Republican repeal bill is the right path forward, 
and I don't believe Seema Verma is the right person to stand up and 
fight for our Nation's seniors, children, and low-income families. For 
that reason, I will be voting against her nomination to serve as 
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        American Health Care Act

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the American Health 
Care Act. This bill will destroy the Affordable Care Act, even though 
the Affordable Care Act has given more Americans access to quality, 
affordable healthcare than ever before in our history. It would force 
middle-class families to pay more money for less care. It would leave 
more people uninsured by a lot. It would allow insurance companies to 
charge older Americans with what is essentially an age tax, as if our 
parents and grandparents don't already pay insurance companies enough 
for their care.
  It would cause many working families to lose coverage from their 
employers because, under this new bill, companies would no longer have 
to provide their workers with healthcare, and without a mandate to do 
so, we know many of them will not.
  It would drastically cut Medicaid funding, which would cripple our 
State budgets and would leave many seniors in nursing homes and lower 
income New Yorkers stuck without a way to pay for the medical care they 
actually need to survive. This bill would also take away healthcare for 
millions of women, including lifesaving healthcare services like breast 
exams and pap smears.
  On top of all of this, as if to add insult to injury, this so-called 
healthcare plan would give tax breaks to health insurance CEOs who make 
more than $500,000 a year. How is any of this going to make people in 
my State or in my colleagues' States healthier?
  I am struggling to understand, amid all of the problems we seem to 
have and all of the problems we need to solve in this Chamber, why this 
Congress seems to have a singular fixation on taking away access to 
healthcare from some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. 
I continue to be amazed by how little empathy there seems to be in this 
Chamber for the

[[Page 3588]]

millions of women, older Americans, and lower income Americans who do 
not have the incredible resources that we have here in Congress and who 
desperately need the Federal programs this bill will cut.
  The legislation is completely out of touch with the actual needs of 
the people in my State. It is driven by ideology, as if it is somehow 
the wrong thing to do to help people in our States live healthy and 
fulfilling lives.
  If someone is diagnosed with cancer and the only way he can afford to 
see an oncologist and have surgery is through an Affordable Care Act 
health plan, do you think he cares whether his insurance coverage was 
made possible by ObamaCare? If your parents or grandparents suffer from 
dementia and the only way they can afford the constant care and medical 
attention is if they sign up for Medicaid, do you think they care that 
Medicaid is a program that is actually run by the Federal Government?
  I don't think families care about that. I think they are much more 
concerned about whether they have access to the insurance plans that 
actually cover their needs, that actually treat their illnesses, that 
actually give them the medicines they need, and that allow them to heal 
and get back to full strength.
  That is why the Affordable Care Act has done so many good things for 
people in our States--because access to healthcare is a human right. 
Now that millions more Americans finally have it, it is wrong to take 
it away from them.
  I urge my colleagues in this Chamber to think much more about the 
women in their lives who need access to these preventive healthcare 
services, to think about all of the hard-working Americans who do not 
earn a lot, though they work full-time jobs and cannot afford it, and 
to think about all of the older Americans who are really being 
disadvantaged through this bill so they will not be able to afford that 
24/7 or nursing care they need. This bill harms all of them, and it 
makes their lives much harder, not easier.
  I implore all of my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in quorum 
calls on H.J. Res. 58 be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. 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. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Republican Healthcare Bill

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the replacement plan 
for the Affordable Care Act that is being considered by the House.
  In December, I was informed that I was going to get one of my dreams 
to come true in the Senate. I had asked to be on the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee when I came in, in January of 2013, and I 
was not on the committee. I had no complaints because I had other good 
committees, but I was told in December that, for this Congress, I would 
be added to the committee, and I am thrilled to serve on it.
  When I found that I was going to be added to the committee, I knew 
one of the first issues we would be tackling is what to do about the 
Affordable Care Act. So I have started to pay visits around the State 
to as many stakeholders as I can, including patients, doctors, medical 
students, hospitals, behavioral health facilities, allied health 
training programs in regions all across the State, military families in 
Hampton Roads just last Friday, as well as patients and their families 
in Chesterfield County last Friday. In all of these visits, my question 
has been: We are going to be tackling the Affordable Care Act; tell me 
what works, what doesn't work, and what we can do better. That has been 
the goal.
  Today's committees in the House, two committees, are considering a 
plan that House Republicans have put on the table and are touting as a 
replacement of the Affordable Care Act. I just want to talk about what 
it would mean, if passed, to Virginians and Americans.
  This plan will reduce the number of Americans with insurance. We 
dropped the uninsurance rate to a historic low, but the gains that we 
made would be reversed and the numbers of Americans with insurance 
would go down.
  It would raise healthcare costs, particularly on seniors, which I 
will discuss in a minute.
  It would dismantle the Medicaid Program at the service of tax cuts 
for the wealthiest.
  It is not an adequate replacement; in fact, it would be a dramatic 
retreat, and it would be a retreat that would violate promises that had 
been made by the President and other leaders.
  Republicans--and I will get into this--have made a number of promises 
about what a replacement would look like, but this plan falls far short 
of that. That is why, within 36 hours of it being put on the table, 
stakeholders across the spectrum, including the American Hospital 
Association, AARP, the American Medical Association, nurses, nursing 
homes, and Republican Governors have come out to either dramatically 
and flatly oppose this plan or suggest significant concerns with it.
  The bill has yet to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, but 
the House is trying to push it through committee, and even through the 
floor, if they can, before the CBO tells the American public what this 
plan would cost and, every bit as importantly, what it would cost 
Americans in terms of the number of people who would lose their health 
insurance.
  A very poignant comment about the plan that was in the paper this 
morning was from the Republican Governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, who 
said: We Republican Governors have talked to Congress and said please 
pay attention to what we have to say. States bear a huge burden on 
these programs, especially Medicaid. He said: We gave ideas to the 
leadership, to the majority about the replacement, but none of our 
ideas are in this plan.
  Without a CBO score, the American public and this body are completely 
in the dark about how many people will lose coverage and about how this 
will affect the American economy. Why would we move forward? Why would 
we try to push a vote even in a committee, much less on the House 
floor, before the CBO has given us this score? We don't serve the 
American public well by doing that.
  What does the replacement bill do? One, it ends the expansion of 
Medicaid that was a core component of the Affordable Care Act--the 
expansion that has been embraced by more than 30 States. Then, it takes 
the traditional Medicaid Program and really dismantles it, instituting 
a per capita fee for enrollees, and moving it more towards a block 
grant program. That is the first thing it does.
  Second, with respect to seniors, this plan would repeal a provision 
in the Affordable Care Act that says seniors cannot be charged more 
than three times the premium of a young person; it would repeal that, 
and it will allow insurers to charge older customers five times as much 
as younger customers. It would also give States the ability to set even 
more unfavorable ratios for seniors. This will have a significant 
impact on the premium of older Americans.
  Third, the plan repeals the income-based subsidies, premium 
assistance, and cost-sharing reductions in the current Affordable Care 
Act and substitutes less generous tax credits that will not be adjusted 
to average costs of plans in particular markets. So if you are a 
middle-income individual in a high-cost market, you are really out of 
luck with this plan.
  Let me give an example of how insurance would be affected in 
particular communities all over Virginia if the House plan were 
adopted. If you are 60 years old and you make $30,000 per year, under 
the House plan, here is what happens. First, the cost of your insurance 
can be dramatically raised because you are not, at age 60 now, limited 
to three-to-one over a young

[[Page 3589]]

person's premium; they can charge you five-to-one over a young person's 
premium. So the premium cost, if you are a 60-year-old making 30,000 
bucks, goes up significantly.
  Now, you get a tax credit, just as right now you get a subsidy, but 
the tax credit is much less generous. So the cost of your policy goes 
up, but here is what happens in communities all over Virginia--tax 
credit compared to the subsidy they currently get.
  In 2020, in Augusta County, VA, in the Shenandoah Valley, the tax 
credit you get is worth only about half of the subsidy you would get if 
we continued the Affordable Care Act. So the price is up, but your tax 
credit is less generous by half of the current subsidy.
  In Fairfax, your tax credit is 41 percent less than the subsidy; in 
Bedford, 51 percent less than the subsidy; in the city of Norfolk, 51 
percent less; in Rockingham, 50 percent less; Pittsylvania, 49 percent 
less, and Pulaski County in far Southwest Virginia, 54 percent less.
  So if you are a senior, your costs go up, but the assistance you get 
in the tax credit is dramatically less generous than the assistance you 
currently get with the premium subsidy.
  The bill establishes a penalty if you don't have continuous 
insurance. An insurer can charge you 30 percent more in premiums if you 
go 2 months or more without insurance. So if you are unemployed, you 
lose your insurance. If you forget to pay a premium for two months, you 
lose your insurance. If you have any gap of 2 months, that is an 
opportunity for insurers to come in and sock you with a massive 
penalty.
  The bill repeals funding to a healthcare provider of choice for 
millions of American women: Planned Parenthood. It is really important 
to be specific about this. There is not in the Federal budget a line 
item that says Planned Parenthood gets axed. What Federal funds go to 
Planned Parenthood? Well, first, the Hyde amendment says no Federal 
funds can go to any organization for the provision of abortions--
Planned Parenthood or anybody else. Planned Parenthood receives Federal 
funds because it provides healthcare to women who are eligible for 
Medicaid. So when Planned Parenthood treats a woman who is Medicaid-
eligible for a medical service that is eligible for a Medicaid 
reimbursement, then Planned Parenthood is able to bill Medicaid just 
like a doctor's office is. And Planned Parenthood is the healthcare 
provider of choice for millions of American women to do annual 
checkups, pap smears, cervical cancer tests, and all kinds of basic 
healthcare provisions. But under this bill, Planned Parenthood will be 
disbarred from the Medicaid Program, even when they are providing 
services to Medicaid-eligible women--services that are covered by 
Medicaid.
  The one thing about this bill that I would say--if you were going to 
say: Well, who is a guaranteed winner in this bill because there are a 
lot of losers, and I have tried to summarize them--the guaranteed 
winner is that this bill overwhelmingly repeals the provisions that 
raise revenue. This bill is a big tax cut bill.
  The biggest revenue raisers in the Affordable Care Act were tax cuts 
on the wealthiest citizens. There is a tax increase for nonwage income 
by the top earners in the United States and an additional hospital 
insurance tax that also affected individuals of high income.
  What this bill does is cut taxes that almost exclusively benefit the 
wealthy, while the bill is taking away these coverages and provisions 
that protect middle and lower income Americans. The tax cuts in this 
bill would save the top 0.1 percent of earners in the United States 
about an average of $195,000 a year. So if you are in the top 0.1 
percent and this bill passes, you are going to get an average of a 
$195,000 tax break.
  Millionaires get 80 percent of the value of the high income tax cuts 
in the House bill, with the elimination of the hospital insurance tax 
on high earners and the Medicare tax on investment income. In fact, a 
family who is going to do incredibly well under this bill is the family 
of our President, Donald Trump. As high earners, they are going to get 
a huge tax cut with this bill.
  I have to ask: Is this bill a healthcare bill or is it basically a 
tax cut bill? You could look at this bill as basically being that the 
driver of it is who benefits from it. It is a tax cut on the wealthy, 
paid for by slashing Medicaid, slashing healthcare coverage, slashing 
Medicare's trust fund, slashing Planned Parenthood, taking protections 
like preexisting conditions that really matter to people and reducing 
them. So I have a real question about whether this bill is a healthcare 
bill at all or whether, under the guise of a repeal and replace of ACA, 
it is a tax cut for the wealthiest, financed by slashing the healthcare 
safety net.
  Let me read to my colleagues what certain Republican leaders have 
said about this bill in the past. The deputy leader here in the 
Senate--a friend--from Texas, Senator Cornyn, said to Republican 
Governors--Governors have a lot at stake in this. I was a Governor. I 
know how much Governors depend on Medicaid and healthcare programs. 
Here is what he said on January 19, 2017: ``Nobody is going to lose 
coverage.''
  No exception, no qualification. ``Nobody is going to lose coverage.'' 
That is what he said to the Republican Governors.
  We were awaiting the CBO score suggesting potentially how many 
millions will lose coverage. Many people will lose coverage. That is 
not what was promised.
  But, more importantly, probably, what did the President say? When the 
President was campaigning as a candidate, this is what he promised the 
American people: ``I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care 
if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much 
better than they're taken care of now.''
  That was the test that he set for himself about an ObamaCare 
replacement--that no one would be worse off and that many would be 
better off. This does not meet that promise. It fails that promise.
  At a December press conference the majority leader, Senator McConnell 
said: ``Surely, we can do better for the American people,'' and ``we 
will work expeditiously to come up with a better proposal than current 
law.''
  Again, the promise was, we will take where we are right now and we 
will make it better. Nobody will lose coverage; everybody will be taken 
care of better. We will come up with a better proposal than the current 
law.
  This is not that proposal. Turning Medicaid from a Federal guarantee 
to a per capita cap on spending doesn't mean everyone is covered; it 
means cuts to the States that would force States to cut eligibility, 
reduce benefits or provider payments. That is why providers, like the 
hospital associations and nursing homes, and the Republican Governors, 
like Governor Sandoval, are deeply opposed to this particular version. 
It is not better for the American people.
  Protecting people with preexisting conditions, which the current bill 
does, but only if they have continuous coverage--that is not better for 
the American people because what if you lose your job or you can't 
afford benefits or you have a break in coverage for two months, and 
then you suddenly find that you are not protected, and your preexisting 
condition can be used against you to bar you from insurance for the 
rest of your life.
  If you are unemployed and have a break in coverage, how do you afford 
a 30-percent surcharge on health insurance premiums like this plan 
proposes that insurance companies can sock you with? That is not better 
for the American people.
  In closing, I will repeat something that 13 Democrats put into a 
letter to the Republican leadership in January: We want to work 
together to try to make healthcare better. We are willing to sit down 
at a table. We have ideas for how to improve not just the Affordable 
Care Act but prescription drug prices under Medicare Part D, something 
our citizens are deeply concerned about. We need to work together on 
affordability. We need to work together to make sure small businesses 
are able

[[Page 3590]]

to afford coverage. We have to bring prescription drug pricing down. I 
know Republicans have ideas about how to do that and Democrats do too. 
The time is now to sit down and try to figure that out.
  Passing a precipitous repeal, trying to rush it through before the 
CBO scores it--a precipitous repeal that would take health insurance 
away from many, that would jack costs up on seniors, that would punish 
so many Virginians by reducing the subsidies they get now and replacing 
them with a less-generous subsidy--that will break a promise the 
President made. That will break a promise other leaders have made.
  We had a HELP Committee hearing recently where we had witnesses who 
had been called by Democrats and Republicans before us, talking about 
things we need to do to fix and improve the Affordable Care Act. They 
all agreed we needed to find improvements and fix it--all of them. 
Democrats, Republicans, Independents, they all agreed we need to find 
improvements. They all agreed a repeal of the Affordable Care Act would 
be a catastrophe.
  There were four witnesses. I asked them this question: If we need to 
make improvements, what is the best way to do it? Should we do it fast, 
carelessly, and secretly or should we do it slowly, deliberately, and 
publicly transparently?
  They all said: Of course, there is only one answer to that question. 
We are talking about people's health. We should do it deliberately, 
carefully, and transparently, rather than fast, carelessly, and 
secretly.
  We are proceeding right now in the fast, careless, and secret mode. 
This particular plan comically was locked in a room and nobody was able 
to see it last week. One of our Senate colleagues went over and tried 
to get in to see what was in the plan--a Republican colleague, the 
Senator from Kentucky. Now that the plan is out in the light of day, I 
think we can see why they were hiding it--because it has so many 
elements that are frightening so many people.
  We can get this right. We can get this right by sitting down and 
having a discussion about what I have been talking to my constituents 
about: in the healthcare system right now, what works, what doesn't 
work, and what we should change. If we bring constituents around the 
table--individuals, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical 
companies, businesses that are trying to buy insurance, doctors and 
nurses--if we get people around the table, they will break us out of 
the ``them versus our'' thing. We listen to them. We ask them those 
questions--what works, what doesn't, what can be fixed. We will find a 
path to meet the promise the President made, to meet the promise 
Senator Cornyn made, which is not make anything worse but taking the 
system as it is right now and making it better. We will only do that if 
we engage in a dialogue rather than trying to rush. That is what I 
encourage my colleagues to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Earmarks

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, within a matter of days, our national debt 
will top $20 trillion, notching another ominous milestone in our 
Nation's long-running addiction to spending. How did we get here?
  A decade ago, taxpayers learned that many of their elected 
representatives were complicit in an insidious practice that rotted the 
legislative branch to its core, and that is congressional earmarking. 
Called a ``gateway drug'' by our distinguished former colleague from 
Oklahoma, Senator Tom Coburn, earmarks have long exacerbated the 
Federal Government's spending addiction.
  As old as the Republic, earmarks have always been used by generations 
of politicians as currency to curry favor with well-connected special 
interests. After public outrage reached a critical mass, both the House 
and the Senate instituted bans on earmarking, ending what had been a 
corrupt pay-to-play culture in Congress.
  In order to preserve this important check against the corrupting 
influence of earmarks, I recently sent a letter to President Donald 
Trump respectfully urging him to veto any legislation containing 
earmarks that reaches his desk. I thank my colleagues, Senators John 
McCain, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Ben Sasse, for cosigning 
this letter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the following letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2017.
     President Donald J. Trump,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Trump: With our national debt set to top $20 
     trillion within days and growing at a rate of over half-a-
     trillion dollars a year, bringing fiscal sanity to the 
     federal budget requires immediate attention and action. We 
     write today to urge opposition to any efforts by Congress to 
     return to earmarking.
       While cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending may be 
     commonsense to most taxpayers, behind every dollar spent is a 
     boisterous special interest group with the loudest being 
     Congress itself. Even with a full agenda that includes 
     repealing Obamacare, reforming the tax code, easing the 
     regulatory burden, and strengthening our nation's security, 
     some lawmakers are focused on reviving the corrupt practice 
     of earmarking that was ended in 2011 after what seemed like 
     an endless series of corruption scandals.
       Fondly described as a ``favor factory'' by a lobbyist 
     convicted of exchanging gifts for government grants, earmarks 
     represent the pay-to-play culture you have pledged to end. It 
     is unfathomable to those of us who fought to end earmarks and 
     witnessed our colleagues go to jail for corruption that pork 
     barrel politics would return, especially at this time when 
     Americans are clearly fed up with business-as-usual. However, 
     despite the success of the current moratorium enacted in both 
     chamber of Congress, there are efforts underway seeking to 
     revive the disdainful practice.
       President Reagan vetoed a highway bill in 1987 because it 
     was larded up with 152 earmarks. Escalating exponentially, 
     the over-budget transportation bill signed into law in 2005 
     contained more than 6,300 earmarks. Earmark proponents are 
     trying to reassure that this time will be different, 
     promising fewer projects and even rebranding them as 
     ``congressionally-directed spending.'' With the serious 
     fiscal problems facing our nation, processing thousands or 
     even hundreds of pork requests will only distract and delay 
     addressing pressing national needs and push spending 
     decisions once again into the murky shadows.
       We respectfully urge you to make it clear that you will 
     veto any bill Congress sends to you containing earmarks 
     within the legislative text or the accompanying report. We 
     look forward to working with you to make Washington more 
     accountable and stop wasteful spending where it starts, which 
     is often right here in Congress.
           Sincerely,
       Jeff Flake.
       Mike Lee.
       John McCain.
       Rand Paul.
       Ted Cruz.
       Ben Sasse.

  Mr. FLAKE. To explain the urgency behind my letter to the President, 
I wish to remind my colleagues in this body, many of whom were not in 
the Congress before enactment of the moratorium, just how bad the 
earmarking epidemic became.
  For the uninitiated, the term ``earmark'' is a euphemism for when 
lawmakers work to circumvent the regular, normal appropriations process 
in order to secure special funding for projects in their home districts 
or their States. This resulted in Federal tax dollars being doled out 
to Members of Congress on a whim, bypassing normal rigorous Federal and 
public vetting.
  Instead of focusing on oversight responsibilities or devising 
legislative solutions for the Nation's most pressing challenges, 
lawmakers and staffers devoted thousands of man-hours toward filling 
earmark requests. Congressional appropriators and appropriations 
committees transformed into what were termed ``favor factories,'' 
abandoning oversight responsibilities to focus on

[[Page 3591]]

rationing out pork. To me, that was one of the most insidious parts of 
the whole earmarking era.
  We have oversight responsibilities in Congress. There is a huge 
Federal budget on which we should be providing oversight, but instead 
of poring over agency spending and searching for waste in our trillion-
dollar discretionary budget, Members and staff devoted countless hours 
to roughly 2 or 3 percent of the Federal budget. There was so much 
focus on just doling out what represented 1 or 2 or 3 percent of the 
Federal budget that we basically neglected the rest of the Federal 
budget in terms of oversight.
  In less than 20 years, the number of earmarks in the Transportation 
bill alone grew from 152 to 6,300. President Reagan, I believe, in 1988 
famously said that he vetoed the highway bill because he hadn't seen 
that much pork since he handed out ribbons at the county fair. There 
were 152 earmarks in the Transportation bill that year, and by 2005 it 
was 6,300. That is an increase of more than 4,000 percent.
  Examples of earmarks range from a quarter billion dollars for a 
bridge to nowhere in Alaska--everybody became familiar with that one; 
$50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa, paid for by taxpayers 
across the country; and half a million dollars for a teapot museum in 
North Carolina. All of these earmarks added up, eventually totaling 
about $29 billion a year.
  It was in this environment that, along with a small group of like-
minded colleagues, I set out to put an end to this form of 
transactional politics that had infected the Halls of Congress. Our 
mission was to place a permanent moratorium on congressional earmarks.
  It took unprecedented revelations of widespread corruption and 
illegality and ultimately the jailing of lawmakers, staffers, and 
lobbyists before the public's outrage forced Congress to clean up its 
act. But even brazen instances of public corruption didn't stop 
Congress from dragging its feet on reforms, and the majority party, my 
party, paid the price at the polls in 2006.
  The dominant mood of the electorate at that time--that of mistrust in 
government institutions--is strikingly reminiscent of the drain-the-
swamp mentality that permeated last November's election. But despite 
this surging anti-insider sentiment across the ideological spectrum, 
there is now a chorus of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle working 
behind the scenes to lift the congressional earmark moratorium. These 
earmark defenders will trot out arguments ranging from constitutional 
prerogative to the insignificance of earmarks relative to the entire 
Federal budget. They will say: It is OK to earmark. We are only 
earmarking 1 percent of the Federal budget.
  But all of these defenses ring hollow. The constitutional power of 
the purse is not a blanket mandate for Congress to spend freely; 
rather, it is a fundamental duty to prevent the executive branch from 
wasting taxpayer dollars. By using earmarks to funnel billions of 
dollars to special interests, Congress ceases to be a check on the 
executive branch. We have become no better than the free-spending 
bureaucrats whom we rail against.
  While we were ultimately successful in securing earmark bans in both 
the House and the Senate, today we are seeing far too many cracks in 
those foundations. With so many in Congress now willing to sacrifice 
fiscal discipline, we have to remain vigilant against the return to 
business as usual. We can't afford to forfeit the hard-fought progress 
we have made.
  The Senate Republican conference's vote earlier this year to preserve 
the earmark ban was an important step in the right direction, but we 
need to do more. That is why I sent the letter to President Trump, and 
it is why, should earmarks return, I intend to challenge each one of 
them on the Senate floor. Just as I did in my time in the House, I will 
file amendments to force debate and force votes on these earmarks. That 
way, Members can publicly defend their earmarks to the hard-working 
taxpayers they represent.
  As we look forward to the future, I have been encouraged by the 
President's recognition of Washington's addiction to spending and his 
administration's commitment to finally doing something about it. I look 
forward to working with the administration to make the Federal 
Government leaner, more transparent, and more accountable to the 
taxpayers it serves.


                         Border Adjustment Tax

  Mr. President, I take the floor today to express my concern with the 
border adjustment tax. The border adjustment tax is quickly becoming 
the centerpiece of a planned overhaul of our tax and trade policies. I 
am certain that I am not the only one hearing that this approach could 
make everyday consumer products more expensive at the very places 
middle-class families shop the most. From the aisles at big-box stores 
to the checkout lines in grocery stores, household staples could be 
pushed out of reach for those who can least afford it.
  In addition, there are concerns that this new policy could disrupt 
global supply chains and make it harder for our country's largest 
private sector employers to grow and to do business.
  There are those who suggest that the known downsides to the new tax 
will be a wash because the U.S. dollar will be stronger; however, 
others are not so comfortable gambling the purchasing power of the 
average consumer on the unpredictability of international currency 
markets.
  At first glance, the plan seems simple enough: Tax companies in the 
United States less and tax goods made overseas more. That seems simple. 
According to supporters, this would boost our exports, incentivize 
companies to locate operations here in the United States, and it would 
reduce our trade deficit. Unfortunately, it turns out that is not so 
easy. Looking inward, we simply do not produce everything we need here 
in the United States. That is why we trade with other countries in the 
first place. And for the things we do make here, those products often 
require inputs from all over the world. In fact, whether it is raw 
material or specialty parts, roughly 50 percent of our Nation's imports 
consist of inputs for U.S. production and manufacturing. Let me say 
that again. Roughly 50 percent of our Nation's imports consist of 
inputs for U.S. production and manufacturing, many times for products 
that are then shipped overseas.
  Because of our trade deals with other nations, these inputs are 
cheaper than they would be otherwise. Cheaper inputs mean lower 
production costs for U.S.-based businesses, which in turn allows these 
companies to expand production and to reduce prices.
  What will happen if we place a 20-percent tax on all imports? Looking 
beyond our borders, we should also consider the reaction such a tax is 
sure to trigger amongst our trading partners. If the protectionist 
trade policies of the past have taught us anything, it is that 
countries tend to retaliate when they believe trade obligations have 
been violated. When we increase barriers to trade, nobody wins.
  Do I agree that we should work to make U.S. businesses more 
competitive? Absolutely. Do I agree that we need to reform our Tax 
Code? You bet. Tax reform and pro-growth trade policies have been at 
the top of my list of priorities throughout my tenure in Congress.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to lower corporate and 
individual tax rates, eliminate costly tax earmarks, and make our Tax 
Code flatter, simpler, and more conducive to growth. There will always 
be winners and losers in a robust debate on reforming the Tax Code. We 
ought to make sure the middle class isn't in the losing column.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 3592]]




                        American Health Care Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week our colleagues in the House 
released a plan to clean up the mess left in the wake of the 
ObamaCare's failed promises. The bill known as the American Health Care 
Act represents the next step forward in keeping our promise to repeal 
and replace ObamaCare, which continues to fail Texans and folks all 
across the country.
  Instead of helping more Americans and more Texans by providing more 
healthcare choices, ObamaCare has actually led to dwindling insurance 
options in a lot of counties across the country. In fact, it is 
estimated that almost 40 percent of counties in Texas have just one 
option on the exchange this year. It is hard to shop, it is hard to 
compare, and it is hard to get the benefits of competition when there 
is only one option because of ObamaCare.
  So that is actually the opposite of what the President and the 
advocates for the Affordable Care Act promised. That is what happens 
when government interferes with the market and takes a one-size-fits-
all approach to our Nation's healthcare. The fact of the matter is that 
the path that President Obama put us on is not sustainable. It is 
hurting families and burdening job creators and is taking a tremendous 
toll, and Americans are paying the price.
  I know some of our colleagues across the aisle are relishing the fact 
that Republicans, the majority, are now taking this step to keep our 
commitment to repeal and replace ObamaCare. They are sitting back and 
hoping that we fail. But the fact of the matter is that we would be 
having this debate no matter who won the Presidency last November 8, 
because ObamaCare is in a meltdown mode. It is unsustainable, and we 
would be dealing with our broken healthcare system no matter who won 
the White House on November 8 of last year.
  One of my constituents wrote me earlier this year about her daughter. 
She said that before ObamaCare, back when she could choose the policy 
that she wanted, she was paying about $190 a month for health 
insurance, and she had a $500 deductible. Well, that sounds pretty 
reasonable--not great, but not terrible either. Then came ObamaCare. 
Now her daughter, who unfortunately lost her job in the interim, must 
pay almost $400 a month with a deductible that is more than $6,000. I 
don't know many people who can write a check for $6,000 when they have 
an unexpected healthcare crisis. So in essence, she is being forced to 
self-insure and has been denied the benefit of even the insurance that 
she has, even though her premium has gone up more than double, and, of 
course, her deductible is now $6,000.
  So to our friends across the aisle who seem to be relishing this 
moment where we are actually undertaking the hard work of working 
through a repeal and replacement program, I would say to them that 
ObamaCare is certainly no gold standard. It is the opposite of what we 
need to help our Nation's healthcare woes. There is no doubt that it is 
a failed piece of legislation, full of empty promises, and one we have 
to scrap.
  So with the American Health Care Act, starting today in the House of 
Representatives, we will repeal ObamaCare and deliver better, more 
affordable healthcare choices to the American people.
  This bill actually also improves Medicaid. That is another big part 
of what ObamaCare did. It forced more people onto Medicaid, which is 
frankly not the best quality healthcare insurance or coverage that 
exists.
  I remember back during the ObamaCare debate, I actually introduced an 
amendment in the Finance Committee saying that if Congress passed 
ObamaCare, Members of Congress needed to be put on Medicaid--my theory 
being, not that it was such great coverage, but that if Members of 
Congress were on Medicaid, we sure would take every step necessary to 
actually improve it and make sure it works.
  But this legislation actually does improve Medicaid and puts it on a 
sustainable path for the future by working with the Governors, because 
Medicaid is a shared Federal-State responsibility. But right now, it is 
growing by leaps and bounds. It is at the consumer medical inflation 
rate plus two, which means it is growing much faster than the economy 
and, unfortunately, putting unprecedented burdens on our State 
governments. For example, I know, talking to some Texas legislators, 
they said it is easily the second--and, if they weren't careful, the 
largest--expense item in the Texas State budget--Medicaid, or the State 
share of Medicaid.
  Of course, Medicaid was designed to help the most vulnerable in our 
communities and enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Along the way, it 
became less about serving those who needed it and more about unchecked 
government spending, as I mentioned a moment ago. So what the American 
Health Care Act does is it actually puts Medicaid on a budget. It 
doesn't cut current spending in Medicaid; it just says that it will 
grow at a slower rate, and it sends much of the authority to work out 
the best healthcare delivery systems to our State Governors and 
legislators. It gives States more flexibility along the way so they can 
use resources to serve the specific needs of their citizens. I know in 
my State we frequently will come to Washington and ask the Health and 
Human Services Department and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, or CMS, for a waiver so we can actually use the Medicaid 
money and to spend it most effectively--to build either a medical home 
or to deal with chronic diseases, or some other flexibility we need in 
order to deliver quality healthcare to our constituents. But the gall 
of having to come to Washington, DC, and asking permission on how to 
spend your own money is just too much.
  I believe, actually, the American Health Care Act is the most 
significant entitlement reform in decades. That is something we should 
all applaud--putting Medicare and Medicaid on a more sustainable path, 
not continuing to spend money that we don't have, and racking up annual 
deficits and adding to our national debt, which now is in the $20 
trillion range, with no end in sight.
  Both Federal and State governments spend a significant amount of 
money on Medicaid every year. As I indicated, last year nearly one-
third of the Texas budget was dedicated to Medicaid. The fact of the 
matter is that when the States have to spend so much of the money they 
tax and collect on Medicaid, then, it is unavailable for other 
important purposes--law enforcement, education, and the like. There is 
a crowding-out effect. By responsibly reforming Medicaid, the States 
and the Federal Government will benefit, all while helping Medicaid 
work for the most vulnerable in our country and putting us on a path to 
fiscal sustainability.
  In addition to entitlement reform, this bill will also get rid of the 
ObamaCare taxes that have led to hikes in premium costs, fewer options 
for patients, and more redtape for job creators. I know, being in 
Tyler, TX, for example, back after ObamaCare passed, and meeting with a 
woman who said she was forced, actually, to work two jobs because her 
employer laid her off of her full-time job, so as to come under the cap 
necessary for the ObamaCare employer mandate. So, literally, this 
single mother had lost her full-time job because of ObamaCare and was 
forced to work two part-time jobs just to make up the difference in 
income.
  We will also, in this American Health Care Act, eliminate the 
individual mandate. President Obama said when he ran for office back in 
2008 that he was opposed to penalizing the American people if they did 
not buy government-approved insurance, but of course he changed his 
tune once he was sworn into office.
  We will eliminate the individual mandate so people who don't want to 
purchase a government-approved plan are not forced to buy a plan they 
don't want and that they can't afford or else suffer a penalty. This 
bill will also help families spend money on healthcare decisions that 
make the most sense to

[[Page 3593]]

them by giving them tools so they can manage their healthcare expenses 
like health savings accounts.
  The American Health Care Act is an answer to a promise we made and we 
have made repetitively in the last three elections since ObamaCare 
became the law of the land. I believe it is imperative we keep our 
promise.
  Some have said: Well, this is a difficult process. I agree. There are 
a lot of different ideas that people have. I agree. That is a good 
thing, but in the end, we have a binary choice. We can either keep the 
status quo, which is in meltdown--which is ObamaCare--or we can pass 
legislation which offers more choices at affordable prices to the 
American people.
  I believe the choice is very clear. It is a great opportunity to 
reform our healthcare system and Medicaid and move healthcare decisions 
away from Washington and back to the families, back in the States where 
we all live, and back in the hands of patients and their doctors. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues and the Trump administration 
to make this a reality.
  Again, the choice is between the status quo, which is unacceptable, 
which is not working, or a better way. I, for one, choose a better way: 
more choices at a price consumers can afford.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Maine.


                       Republican Healthcare Bill

  Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise to address the bill that has been 
recently--and I emphasize the word ``recently''--introduced in the 
House of Representatives. I believe it was introduced Monday. It is 
having not a hearing but a markup today, and may be on the House floor 
as soon as tomorrow or early next week.
  As the President said recently, healthcare is complicated. To me, to 
introduce a bill that was not available to any Members of Congress 
before Monday, mark it up in committee 2 days later, attempt to pass it 
on the floor of the House, and then I understand it may come directly 
to the floor of the Senate without any committee consideration, it just 
seems to me is a disservice to the process and a disservice to the 
traditions and practices of this institution.
  This is complicated. It is difficult. The ramifications and 
implications of this bill, just as any other major change in our 
healthcare system, are incredibly important. This is not about 
ideology. This is about people. This is about the impact on people. I 
want to talk about the impact of this bill, as we have thus far been 
able to assess it, on the people of Maine. When I look at a piece of 
legislation down here, I start with Maine. How will it affect the 
people who live along our coast or inland, in the small towns, and 
particularly people who are above the age of 50?
  Maine happens to be the oldest State in the country. Therefore, 
anything which negatively impacts seniors doubly negatively impacts the 
people of my State. I feel this bill is a disaster for seniors. I 
define seniors in this case as anybody over 50 because it does several 
things. One of the things it does, and there should be a great deal of 
discussion about this, under the Affordable Care Act, which recognizes 
the fact that seniors and people who are older tend to have more 
medical needs than those who are younger, it caps differential at three 
times. In other words, a senior can only pay three times what a younger 
person pays, and even that is burdensome in many cases.
  This bill changes three to five. It will be a very substantial 
increase in the payments and the costs of insurance and healthcare to 
senior citizens. Now, the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is, I find, 
the most nonpartisan and informative source of information on all of 
these issues, has created a handy tool on their website, where you can 
put in information, such as family income and age, and determine what 
you would have paid under the Affordable Care Act and what you would 
pay under this new bill.
  What they found was--I wanted to look and see what somebody in my 
State will pay. If you are a 60-year-old in Aroostook County Maine with 
an income of $30,000, the subsidy--the support for the premium for 
individual insurance--would fall by 70 percent. The support for your 
insurance policy under the Affordable Care Act would fall by 70 
percent.
  Throughout our State, the average decrease would be 48 percent--
almost half. So we are talking not about some theoretical, ideological, 
political thing here, we are talking about people's ability to afford 
health insurance. It is about as clear as it could be. That is why it 
is frustrating to me that we collectively--the Congress--are going to 
be asked to consider this bill with literally no hearings, no input 
from the public, no discussion of how all the pieces fit together or 
don't fit together. Yet we are going to be asked--I believe, my 
understanding is, we are going to be asked to vote on this bill 
sometime on the floor of the Senate, without any committee 
consideration, in the next week or so.
  This is too important to people's lives to give it such short shrift. 
It is just not right to make changes of this magnitude that are so 
vital to people's well-being and literally their health and their 
survival in some cases. It is unthinkable to me that we would do this 
without a round of hearings and discussions and the regular order that 
we supposedly honor around here as to how major legislation is to come 
to the floor.
  I received a letter just recently: ``Hi, Angus.''
  I like it when my correspondents say ``Hi, Angus'' instead of 
``Senator.''

       Hi, Angus [he says]. I have worked in the pulp and paper 
     industry for close to 30 years. It was a good industry up 
     here, supported middle-class families in northern Maine. But 
     we have had layoffs and closures of our mills. After every 
     closure, I had to obtain health insurance for my family on my 
     own. Before ObamaCare, this was a disaster. I could only 
     obtain catastrophic insurance from one of two providers. 
     There was no way I could pay $1,500 a month for a decent 
     plan. After ObamaCare, I could obtain decent insurance at a 
     decent price. While there may have been problems for some, it 
     was a godsend for my family. Please help ensure we don't go 
     back to the old days. We are self-employed by our small 
     business and would not be able to pay more for less.

  That is what the bill that is in the House would do, pay more for 
less. By the way, how does the money work in this bill? Well, one of 
the things the bill does is, my understanding, and, again, I am only 
operating on what we have seen in the last 24 hours because of no 
hearings, but one of the things it does is eliminate a tax on people 
who make over $250,000 a year in order to cut coverage for people who 
are not making that kind of money.
  It is a tax cut, and shifting the cost to our citizens, particularly 
our seniors. The pattern is, shift and shaft. Shift the cost, and shaft 
the people who need the coverage. This is supposed to be a substitute. 
It is supposed to be coverage for everyone. You have to be careful. 
When people talk about access, they are talking about: Yes, you can buy 
it, but if you can't afford it, that is not really access. This bill 
dramatically decreases the support for health insurance premiums 
through the Affordable Care Act.
  The reality is, and I hear a lot of talk about how ObamaCare is 
collapsing. It isn't. More people signed up this year than last year. 
Yes, it is true the rates went up, but that was because younger people 
were not signing up in significant numbers. We need to deal with that 
issue because that makes the risk pool older and sicker and therefore 
more expensive.
  I have been told by insurance officials that if something like this 
bill that is in the House passes and the subsidies disappear and the 
Affordable Care Act goes away, the private health insurance market for 
individuals, the so-called individual market, will essentially 
collapse. The reality is, the uninsured population of this country has 
fallen virtually in half since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. 
Twenty-two million people have coverage now who did not before and we 
can take it away.
  The other piece I don't like about this bill is it phases things out 
so the impact will not be felt until after the next election or 
sometime in the future. Well, the future comes. In this case, the 
future is going to be pretty desolate for people who have health 
insurance now and are not going to have

[[Page 3594]]

it 2, 4, or 6 years from now. It is just not right.
  I am one who has been saying, since I entered this body now 4-plus 
years ago, that there are problems with the Affordable Care Act. We 
should be working on those problems. We should be working on repairing 
it, not destroying it. We should not be talking about taking healthcare 
coverage away from people in this country.
  I am sure I and many others will be addressing more comprehensively 
the provisions of this bill as it becomes more clear, even though we 
are going to have to ferret those provisions out because we are not 
going to have the benefit of expert testimony and views from a variety 
of points of view of how this is actually going to work.
  The reality is, I don't think there is much question that this 
proposal will hammer Maine and my people. I can't stand for that. I 
hope the House will have a more vigorous process, they will understand 
what the implications are, and take a more judicious approach so we are 
not tearing insurance out from under people, we are not going to make 
the cost be driven up, we are not giving a tax break to people who make 
over $250,000 a year, and at the same time taking coverage away from 
people who make $30,000 a year.
  That is wrong. We should be repairing, not repealing. I think this 
bill is not the right place to start. I stand for the people of Maine. 
I stand for the people who are going to be harmed by this, whether they 
are seniors or working people or self-employed people or people who 
have been able to start businesses because they could get, for the 
first time, insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
  I believe that is our obligation. We have an opportunity to work 
together. I am willing to work with anyone who wants to work on 
improving and dealing with some of the issues that have been raised by 
the Affordable Care Act.
  Let's stop talking about repealing. Let's talk about fixing, 
strengthening, and meeting our commitment to our fellow citizens in 
Maine and across our country.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Shaheen are printed in today's Record during 
consideration of S. Res. 84.)
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, 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. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Republican Healthcare Bill

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I join literally millions of Ohioans and 
tens of millions of Americans in my concern about what the House of 
Representatives is trying to do to our healthcare laws and our 
healthcare system.
  I leave just one statistic with my colleagues in the Senate, and that 
is that in my State alone, there are 200,000 people who are now under 
treatment for opioid addiction, and they are able to get this 
comprehensive treatment because they have insurance under the 
Affordable Care Act.
  The legislation apparently coming out of the House of 
Representatives, even though we do not know how much it costs, is a big 
tax cut for the wealthy. We do not know how much it costs because they 
are moving so quickly. It was under wraps, and now they are moving it 
so quickly that the Congressional Budget Office has not even had time 
to look at it and understand what it costs, nor has it been able to 
tell us how many of the 22 million Americans who have insurance under 
the Affordable Care Act will lose their insurance. They want to move so 
fast that they are not even answering the basic questions of how much 
it costs--a lot; how much it is going to add to the deficit--a whole 
lot, but they will not be specific; and how many people will lose their 
insurance.
  As I said, today 200,000 Ohioans are getting treatment for opioid 
addiction under the Affordable Care Act. Most of them--we think at 
least half, but tens of thousands of them will lose their treatment 
just like that, right in the middle of their addiction treatment. What 
does society gain by that, other than some Republican talking points, 
when people chanted for 6 years ``repeal and replace ObamaCare,'' never 
having any idea how they were going to replace it--still don't--to do 
it right and continue that effort.
  Finally, there is the hypocrisy of this, where Members of Congress in 
the House and in the Senate enjoy taxpayer-financed health insurance. 
People in this body--most of the 100 Senators and most of the 435 
Congressmen and Congresswomen--have health insurance provided by 
taxpayers, yet they want to take insurance away from millions of 
Americans. These are people who have jobs. They are millions of 
Americans who have jobs, who are making relatively low wages. Some of 
them may be holding two or three part-time jobs. They make low wages. 
They have no health insurance provided at their job. People in Congress 
who have taxpayer-funded health insurance are taking their insurance 
away, stripping them of that insurance. How morally repugnant that is. 
How hypocritical that is. Yet they move along their merry way.
  We should defeat these efforts. We should continue to make 
improvements in the Affordable Care Act, but not wholesale destruction 
that will throw hundreds of thousands of Ohioans off of the insurance 
they have.
  I will close with this. My Republican Governor has admonished his 
Republican colleagues around the country and in Congress not to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act and throw 900,000 people in Ohio off of their 
insurance without a replacement to take care of it. This bill coming 
out of the House is far from an adequate replacement.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Calling for the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, even in its early days, this 
administration has embarked on a course of foreign private interest 
entanglements and conflicts of interest that are truly staggering.
  Just this morning, the Associated Press reported that China has 
granted preliminary approval for 38 new trademarks. They are Trump 
trademarks, paving the way for the President, Donald Trump, and his 
family to ``potentially develop a host of branded businesses from 
hotels to golf clubs to bodyguard and concierge services.''
  These reports are contained in public documents. All but three are in 
the President's own name. The AP report also quotes an official as 
saying that ``for all these marks to sail through so quickly and 
cleanly, with no similar marks . . . no issues with specification, boy, 
it's weird.''
  Now, the speculation is that these trademarks could not have been 
issued without approval by the ruling Communist Party, that hierarchy 
had to be involved, and that awareness had to involve their approval 
for these intellectual property interests. The benefit is to the 
President through his private interests. The fact is, the President of 
the United States should be beholden only to the American people, not 
to personal profit, but in fact these trademarks raise the specter that 
the President possibly is beholden to the approving officials in China 
even more than to the American people. That is an issue that merits 
investigation. Like so many issues arising in this young 
administration, the question is, Who will do that investigation?
  The lawyers in China representing Donald Trump applied for these 
trademarks in April of 2016, even as then-Candidate Donald Trump railed 
against China at his campaign rallies, criticizing Chinese currency 
manipulation, its intellectual property theft, its attraction of jobs 
from this country to theirs. The question arises, What has he done 
about those issues? In fact, China continues to manipulate its 
currency, continues to attract jobs from

[[Page 3595]]

this country, and continues its aggressive policies in the area around 
that country.
  The question is whether an inquiry is appropriate--which certainly it 
seems to be--and who will supervise it. It is the same question that 
arises with respect to Russian interference in our electoral system and 
the potential ties between Trump team officials and the Russians who 
committed those acts. Those ties have been established by evidence that 
is now incontrovertible because it is admitted by the officials 
themselves, now Attorney General Jeff Sessions and former National 
Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
  It is now a matter of factual record that Russia engaged in a series 
of deliberate cyber attacks in order to carry out an unprecedented plot 
to undermine the 2016 elections with the goal of assisting Donald 
Trump. The growing body of evidence clearly and unmistakably indicates 
that Trump campaign officials were in contact with Russia during the 
election. These deeply troubling claims of coordination with a foreign 
government to influence an American election certainly deserve exacting 
scrutiny and investigation, and the more we learn, the more troubled we 
become. In fact, we are rapidly careening toward a constitutional 
crisis. These recent revelations about Vladimir Putin's government and 
former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resulted in his 
resignation. There have also been details about contact between 
Attorney General Sessions, our former colleague, and the Russian 
Ambassador that have caused his recusal from all inquiries of that 
subject matter.
  I believe a special prosecutor must be appointed to investigate the 
Russian interference and meddling in our election, the massive cyber 
attack misinformation, and propaganda campaign conducted to subvert 
that election. The potential for cooperation, condoning, connecting 
between the Trump officials and Russia certainly merits investigation 
as well. Without reaching conclusions, the special prosecutor ought to 
investigate and then reach a conclusion. His conclusion should be based 
on fact, not surmise or speculation.
  For weeks, I have called for a special prosecutor to investigate 
possible ties between members of the Trump campaign, the Trump 
transition, and the Trump White House to Russian officials who sought 
to interfere with our election. I support the Intelligence Committee in 
conducting its investigation. I would favor the appointment of a 
special commission or a select committee of the Congress to do 
factfinding, make reports and recommendations in a fully transparent 
way, but only a special prosecutor can take action based on criminal 
intent. Only a special prosecutor can pursue violations of criminal 
law, to not only investigate but also bring charges and seek 
appropriate punishment and remedy. Only the Deputy Attorney General of 
the United States can appoint a special prosecutor because the Attorney 
General has recused himself--in other words, taken himself out of all 
of the areas of this subject matter. That is why I asked yesterday that 
the nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, commit to 
appoint a special prosecutor.
  His answer to me was that he wishes to wait until he is approved by 
the Senate--assuming his confirmation occurs--to decide whether to 
appoint a special prosecutor. He claims he needs to familiarize himself 
with the facts and circumstances of any ongoing investigation before he 
can make a decision. With all due respect, the facts he needs to know 
are already established. They are already a matter of public record. 
They are already known to the American public. There is an 
investigation ongoing by the FBI--and with good reason--into Russian 
meddling in our elections, this massive campaign of misinformation and 
cyber attack that they purposefully conducted to influence the outcome 
of our election.
  We know the Justice Department must investigate and pursue the 
ongoing investigation, wherever the evidence leads. Part of that 
evidence inevitably will be meetings that were conducted by his boss, 
the Attorney General of United States, Jeff Sessions, which is why the 
Attorney General has recused himself--because he could be involved in 
that investigation as a witness, as a subject, even possibly as a 
target, as could the President himself.
  To close that investigation, the Deputy Attorney General, or whoever 
is conducting it, needs to question the Attorney General of the United 
States. To conduct that investigation, that questioning must occur. So 
the Deputy Attorney General would be expected to be investigating his 
boss. If he decides to conduct that investigation himself, he must 
appoint a special prosecutor to establish the independence of that 
inquiry, to assure that in reality and in appearance the American 
public is assured that the investigation is independent, objective, 
impartial, vigorous, and fair.
  The facts that warrant a special prosecutor are already known and 
they are already a matter of public record. That is why I believe he 
must commit himself now, before his confirmation--in fact, as a 
condition of his confirmation--to take that action, which preserves the 
credibility and public confidence in the Department of Justice that he 
observed very eloquently in his confirmation hearing as one of his 
central objectives.
  There is a lot of precedent for this step. The most prominent one 
perhaps is Elliot Richardson, when he was the Attorney General 
designee. He was requested by the Judiciary Committee, at that time, to 
make the same kind of commitment--and he did. He kept his promise. He 
appointed Archibald Cox to be special prosecutor, and the Watergate 
scandal was appropriately investigated and pursued. That example--when 
Elliot Richardson had enough facts, just as Rod Rosenstein does now--
ought to be the lodestar here. It ought to be the model for his 
commitment to appointing a special prosecutor.
  The simple fact is, Rod Rosenstein, like Elliot Richardson, knows 
everything he needs to know to be sure a special prosecutor is 
necessary, and especially because he is a career prosecutor with a 
distinguished record, and because he has that intellect and integrity 
that would qualify him probably to be confirmed, he should know it is 
the right thing to do. Maybe he will do it if he is confirmed, but it 
would serve the interests of justice, and it would help to sustain and 
enhance the trust and public confidence in the Department of Justice if 
he were to do it now, as Elliot Richardson did many years ago.
  We live in an extraordinary time. The conflicts of interest and 
foreign entanglements that threaten our Nation, beginning at the very 
top of this administration, impose a unique mandate on the Department 
of Justice. The recusal of the Attorney General from this investigation 
indicates that leadership and integrity are necessary at every level as 
never before. That is why, in this extraordinary time, I urge the 
Deputy Attorney General nominee, Rod Rosenstein, to do the right thing 
and make sure there is an investigation that is independent and 
vigorous, as well as fair and full; that we know all of the facts 
eventually and that action is taken appropriately to deal with the 
Russian interference in our election, the potential ties between the 
Trump administration--before and after the election--in those improper 
interferences by the Russians in our election, and that the danger of 
coverup, indicated by the potential false statements made by Jeff 
Sessions before the Judiciary Committee and Michael Flynn elsewhere, be 
stopped before it starts. Only a special prosecutor can provide the 
unbiased and fair answers that are so urgently needed.
  The American people deserve an explanation. They deserve an 
explanation for the trademarks that have been issued to Donald Trump in 
China. They deserve an explanation by a special prosecutor on Russian 
meddling and Trump ties to that meddling. Whether the independent and 
special prosecutor broadens the scope of that investigation to include 
the entanglements or conflicts of interest involving China is a 
question that will have to be addressed by that official, but this much 
we know now. We are rapidly careening

[[Page 3596]]

toward a constitutional crisis, a crisis of credibility as well as 
legal challenges. The historic opportunity and obligation this nominee 
owes the country cannot be avoided.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Apparently there is another speaker. I withdraw that suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, looking at today's headlines and 
listening to the news, it may seem as if colleagues from across the 
country--Democrat, Republican--don't always agree on some things, let 
alone anything. I think we are starting to see a consensus emerge--a 
very good, genuine agreement emerge between liberals and conservatives, 
Democrats and Republicans on at least one matter in Washington, DC, in 
the Senate: Neil Gorsuch. That agreement is on Neil Gorsuch.
  Neil Gorsuch is an exceptional nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. In 
fact, Judge Gorsuch is, by many extents and by many commentators, 
arguably one of the most talented jurists we have nominated to the 
Court in a very long time, at least in modern history.
  As the Denver Post in Colorado said: ``Gorsuch is a brilliant legal 
mind'' who has a reputation for ``[applying] the law fairly and 
consistently.''
  You can't ask for much more than that--somebody who will apply the 
law fairly and consistently. However, this shouldn't surprise anyone 
who knows Judge Gorsuch. Judge Gorsuch has always enjoyed overwhelming 
bipartisan support. All we need to do to see that is to look back to 
2006 when we could see that most clearly in the U.S. Senate.
  In 2006, when Judge Gorsuch was unanimously confirmed to the Tenth 
Circuit Court, 12 current Democratic Senators, including the minority 
leader and Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and Durbin, all were in office. 
It was a nomination in 2006 that was unanimous, a nomination that went 
by voice vote.
  He was so universally appealing to the Tenth Circuit Court that he 
had an introduction at the Judiciary Committee by both a Democratic 
Senator from Colorado and a Republican Senator from Colorado, joined by 
every single person on the floor to vote yes unanimously.
  They approved his nomination. And to give you even greater context 
about this vote, the people who made this vote, the approval of Judge 
Gorsuch in 2006 to the Tenth Circuit Court came in addition to the 12 
people I just mentioned who are here today and who were here then. It 
also came with the support of then-Senator Obama, Senator Biden, 
Senator Clinton, and Senator Kerry.
  Approximately 11 years later, now that Judge Gorsuch has proved 
himself to be a mainstream jurist, a consensus builder, a profound 
legal mind with an even temperament and affable nature, we have a 
chance again to put this incredibly brilliant mind on the Nation's 
highest Court.
  Judge Gorsuch is a faithful adherent to the Constitution and the 
organizing principles of this great democracy. I have no doubt that 
Judge Gorsuch will--and should--enjoy similar levels of approval among 
my distinguished colleagues across the aisle.
  I also wish for people to learn more about Judge Gorsuch personally 
and to tell some stories about growing up in Colorado. It is a story 
about how a young man from Denver, CO, through his own hard work and 
academic excellence, rose to the highest echelons of the legal 
profession and to the nearly universal acclaim of Democrats and 
Republicans.
  A fourth-generation Coloradan, Neil Gorsuch learned the value of hard 
work at a young age from his grandfathers. His maternal grandfather, 
Dr. Joseph McGill, began his adult life by working in Union Station, 
the main railway terminal in Denver. From there, Dr. McGill put himself 
through medical school and became a prominent surgeon. With his wife, 
Dorothy Jean, Dr. McGill raised seven children, all of whom he gave a 
better life to and put through college.
  Neil's paternal grandfather, John Gorsuch, was his legal inspiration. 
After serving in World War I, John Gorsuch put himself through 
undergraduate and law school at the University of Denver by driving a 
trolley car. Upon graduation, John built a law practice focusing on 
real estate law. He also made time to help Denver's welfare department 
and participate in the Kiwanis Club and numerous other civic 
organizations. Later, John started what was at one time one of the 
largest law firms in Denver, Gorsuch Kirgis, where he practiced well 
into his eighties.
  It was this family work ethic that drove Neil to get his hands dirty 
and pursue blue collar jobs at a young age. In Colorado, he moved 
furniture, he shoveled snow, he mowed lawns, and he even shoveled some 
more snow in the great State of Colorado. It was this work ethic--and a 
lot of shoveling of snow--combined with his family's appreciation of 
higher education that helped Neil consistently realize academic 
excellence.
  By now, I think this Chamber is well familiar with Judge Gorsuch's 
sterling academic credentials, receiving his undergraduate degree at 
Columbia, law school at Harvard, Ph.D. at Oxford. I don't think any of 
us can forget, nor should we, the fact that he spent a summer at the 
University of Colorado.
  Intellect alone doesn't get you through the halls of these storied 
academic institutions. It requires hard work, independence--two values 
of the West; two values in addition to many other western values that 
Judge Gorsuch holds.
  It is these values, these western perspectives that the Supreme Court 
desperately needs to grow. Judge Gorsuch is a lifelong outdoorsman. He 
enjoys fly fishing and skiing. In fact, I have been told that he is a 
double black diamond skier. His wife, Louise, cares for animals in a 
small barn on his land.
  In addition to his love of the outdoors and his appreciation of 
nature's beauty, Judge Gorsuch understands the complex legal issues 
facing westerners and our Western States.
  Since 2006, Judge Gorsuch served on the Federal court that covers the 
Tenth Circuit Court based out of Denver that covers six other Western 
States--Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah. 
Those States represent nearly 20 percent of the land of the continental 
United States.
  His service on this court has provided him with a unique 
understanding of public lands, water, and Tribal issues that many of 
the other Western States in the region face. Some of the most complex 
legal challenges in water law and others come before his court as a 
result. That experience would serve all of our Western States well when 
utilized from the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Over the coming days, I plan, along with many of my other colleagues, 
to elaborate on why Gorsuch's western values and perspective make him 
an outstanding choice for the U.S. Supreme Court. I look forward to 
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure he gets 
a timely up-or-down vote. From the highest echelons of the legal field 
to the Tenth Circuit Court, to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch 
would make us proud, and he would serve this country well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  (The remarks of Mr. Manchin pertaining to the introduction of S. 581 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. MANCHIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


              Trumpcare and the Nomination of Seema Verma

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, it seems appropriate that we are debating 
the nomination of Seema Verma to head the Center for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services the same week Republicans in Congress introduce a 
plan to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
  Over the past 8 years, President Obama and the Democratic Party have 
been fighting to make sure that everyone in this country has access to 
affordable, quality health insurance.

[[Page 3597]]

President Trump and his allies in Congress do not share this 
commitment. Instead of debating how best to expand access, they are 
fighting with each other to see just how many people they can kick off 
insurance rolls--all in a crusade, apparently, to save some people 
money.
  This is not a crusade to improve the lives of as many Americans as 
possible. It is a crusade to serve their radical antigovernment 
ideology. In fact, ``ideology over people'' is a useful shorthand to 
describe the first 2 months of the Trump administration.
  The problem with their ideological debates is that people are left 
out of the debate. Do we really know what it is like to be without 
health insurance? Under the plan to repeal the ACA, 20 million people 
in our country will be without health insurance, without healthcare. 
What if you were one of those people?
  This question is not an academic one for me. I know what it is like 
to live without health insurance. When my mom brought my brothers and 
me to this country--I am an immigrant--her job did not provide health 
benefits. My greatest fear growing up as a little girl in this country 
was that my mom would not be able to go to work if she got sick. If she 
wasn't able to go to work, where would money for food and rent come 
from?
  That is not the kind of fear we want to impose on millions of 
children in our country, but we will be doing just that to the 20 
million people and their families who gained health insurance under the 
Affordable Care Act--many, for the first time in their lives. They did 
not have to be worried every single day that their child or their 
parents would be sick and would not be able to afford the care that 
they needed. This is not an academic exercise for any of them. They 
will be hurt by what we are being asked to do. It is not an academic 
exercise for the millions more who will lose their insurance coverage 
under TrumpCare.
  But no one should be surprised. This administration and their allies 
in Congress continue to demonstrate a commitment to alternative facts. 
If you believe their alternative facts, TrumpCare would improve 
healthcare access for working families, seniors and women, and 
Americans would have, as the President said, ``much better healthcare 
for much less money.''
  But in reality, TrumpCare will do the opposite. TrumpCare would end 
by 2020 the ACA's Medicaid expansion that millions of people in our 
country depend on every day. The expansion not only provided health 
coverage to millions of people for the first time, but it also helped 
to keep hospitals in rural and underserved communities from closing 
down. These rural hospitals exist all across the country. In its place, 
TrumpCare would change how States receive Medicaid funding, and it 
would do so in a way that ensures that these programs cannot keep pace 
with the rising cost of health insurance in their counties and in our 
country.
  Under this new system, States would have less money to spend on 
Medicaid recipients and face the prospect of tightening eligibility and 
slashing benefits. This would be particularly devastating in Hawaii, 
where we saw the number of people enrolled in Medicaid grow by nearly 
20 percent under the ACA. Medicaid has had a transformative impact on 
tens of thousands of lives in Hawaii and millions of others across the 
country.
  Anne from Oahu walked into the Kokua Kalihi Valley Clinic 3 years 
ago. She had no health insurance, and she was pregnant at the age of 
15. The doctors at the clinic helped Anne apply for Medicaid, which 
helped her afford prenatal care, gave her support to stay healthy and, 
very importantly, to stay in school.
  Medicaid helped Anne and her husband Dan, age 17, welcome a healthy 
baby boy named Joseph. Today, Anne is a graduate of Farrington High 
School, works part time, and has plans to become a pediatric nurse 
practitioner. Anne, Dan, and Joseph now have insurance through Dan's 
employer.
  Reducing access to this critical program is wrong. Trying to convince 
the American people they would be better off with the results of these 
kinds of drastic negative changes to Medicare and Medicaid is yet 
another alternative fact.
  I am encouraged that four of my Republican colleagues spoke out 
forcefully against any bill that would eliminate the ACA's Medicaid 
expansion. We need more Republicans of conscience to make their voices 
heard on this important issue.
  TrumpCare would also be devastating for seniors in Hawaii and across 
the country. Under TrumpCare, insurance companies would be able to 
charge older Americans up to five times more for an equivalent health 
plan than they would be able to charge a younger person. For a 
President and a party that professes to hate taxes so much, they don't 
seem to have a problem with what amounts to an age tax.
  TrumpCare's changes to Medicaid would also have devastating 
consequences for States like Hawaii, where our rapidly aging population 
depends on Medicaid to pay for nursing home and other care. The 
President made the American people a promise--that his healthcare plan 
would not touch Medicare. But the cumulative effect of TrumpCare's 
assault on our seniors--our kupuna--would force the Medicare trust fund 
to go broke 4 years sooner than expected. For reference, the ACA 
extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by 10 years.
  This would have a devastating impact for seniors like Anne and Lanny 
Bruder from Kauai. Lanny is 80 years old and working three jobs to make 
ends meet. He has had two knee replacements and a heart attack. Anne 
has glaucoma and pays a lot of money out of pocket for her prescription 
eye drops. They can't afford to pay more for their health insurance, 
which is exactly what is going to happen under TrumpCare.
  TrumpCare would also have a profoundly negative impact on women 
across the country. The President's plan would completely zero out 
funding for Planned Parenthood. This lifegiving, lifesaving 
organization would no longer be eligible for Medicaid reimbursements or 
Federal family planning, which would leave a $500 million hole in their 
budget.
  Republicans continue to claim falsely that community health centers 
would fill the gap in service left by the demise of support for Planned 
Parenthood--not true. Most of these community centers, whose resources 
are already stretched thin, do not provide women's healthcare or family 
planning services. In other words, they would not be able to replicate 
the services that Planned Parenthood provides all across the country to 
millions of women and families.
  Planned Parenthood operates two clinics in Hawaii, one on Oahu and 
one on Maui. They are the forefront of innovation in increasing access 
to family planning services across the State. They launched an 
innovative new mobile application that would allow doctors to provide 
digital consultations to women on neighbor islands for the purpose of 
prescribing birth control. Recently, Planned Parenthood made their 
first delivery to the island of Molokai, a largely rural island with 
little permanent medical infrastructure. This is the kind of innovation 
we should be encouraging, and it is precisely the type of program that 
could get cut if Planned Parenthood loses its Federal funding.
  I often say that there are people in this country getting screwed 
every second, minute, and hour of the day. Instead of reducing that 
number, which should be our goal, TrumpCare would increase the number 
of people who get hurt in our country. The wealthiest of the wealthy in 
our country would benefit because--not only would all these things 
happen under TrumpCare that would be devastating to families, to women, 
to our seniors--TrumpCare would also give a big tax break, a big tax 
cut to the wealthiest people in our country. They don't need that kind 
of tax cut. Do people making over $2 million a year really deserve 
another $150,000 a year in tax cuts? I don't think so.
  TrumpCare would be a disaster for the middle class, I am going to do 
everything in my power to stop it from

[[Page 3598]]

being the law of the land. We have come too far in the past 8 years to 
go backward. The first way we can fight back against this plan is by 
rejecting the nomination of Seema Verma, who would be in charge of 
implementing TrumpCare as the head of CMS.
  Ms. Verma is unqualified for the job she has been nominated to do. 
She has absolutely no experience running a major Federal department and 
has virtually no budgeting experience. This is deeply disconcerting 
because as the Administrator of CMS, she would oversee a $1 trillion 
budget, which is twice as large as that of the Pentagon.
  Ms. Verma would also continue the President's assault on women's 
healthcare. During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Verma said she opposed 
the ACA's requirement that all health plans cover pregnancy care. It is 
because of this attitude that millions of women across the country are 
participating in a Day Without Women today. In solidarity with them, I 
will fight tooth and nail against TrumpCare and encourage my colleagues 
to oppose Seema Verma's nomination to serve as the Administrator of the 
very agency that is supposed to be protecting healthcare for all 
Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose H.J. Res. 58, another 
Congressional Review Act resolution that would roll back an agency's 
efforts to implement a law and prevent it from doing its job in the 
future.
  In this case, we are considering eliminating Department of Education 
regulations on teacher preparation programs. In the 2008 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, Congress required States 
to assess and identify low-performing teacher preparation programs to 
ensure that every teacher graduates ready for the classroom. Following 
a process that began in 2011, the Department of Education released a 
draft rule in 2014. That draft wasn't perfect and needed more 
flexibility for States and institutions of higher education. After an 
extended comment period, the Department revised the rule 2 years later. 
Though it may not satisfy everyone, the final rule provides clarity in 
line with Congress's direction.
  Congress has the opportunity, with the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act, to improve upon these provisions. We can build on the 
State-driven assessment that this rule provides and further refine the 
system to make sure that data is being used to better prepare a more 
diverse class of teachers for our schools.
  If the Trump administration does not want to wait for further 
legislation, it can engage in a new rulemaking, but as with all 
Congressional Review Act resolutions, this resolution is a meat ax 
rather than a scalpel. It repeals the rule and prevents the Department 
from carrying out its responsibility to ensure high-quality teacher 
preparation programs. This is simply the wrong approach, and I urge a 
no vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to once again urge my 
fellow Senators to vote against the pending resolution and support 
strong and accountable teacher preparation programs in America today.
  There are so many great teacher prep programs across the country that 
are supplying our teaching students with the tools they need to succeed 
in the classroom, but there are also teacher prep programs that are 
struggling and need support to make sure they are producing great 
teachers for our schools.
  This rule ensures that students can make informed decisions about 
teacher preparation programs and that they have access to this 
information before they take out massive amounts of student debt. It 
gives States information about the schools that are struggling so 
States can provide those schools the tools and resources they need to 
improve their teaching preparation programs.
  Finally, eliminating this rule will give Secretary DeVos more power 
over our higher education programs--a risk we should not be willing to 
take without learning more about Secretary DeVos's vision for our 
higher education system.
  Every student deserves to have an amazing teacher in the classroom. 
This rule helps ensure that is possible. So I urge Senators to think of 
the future teachers and students who will be impacted if this 
resolution passes.
  Thank you.
  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. SASSE. 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. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 p.m. 
today, all remaining time on H.J. Res. 58 be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I rise to restate my support for H.J. Res. 
58, a resolution to overturn the Obama administration Department of 
Education's rule regulating future teacher preparation programs from 
Washington, DC.
  This teacher preparation mandate actually assumes that Washington 
bureaucrats are competent to micromanage teacher training programs 
across America. There are 27,000 such programs, by the way, and this 
micromanagement is absurd. We all agree that education matters, that 
teachers matter, that teacher training programs matter, and that kids 
are the future of our country, but I ask my colleagues to acknowledge 
the expertise and to respect the reforms already begun at the district 
and State levels and to reverse this misguided Federal regulation of 
teacher preparation programs.
  I would like to close by reading several quotations from those who 
would have been affected by this regulation had it gone into effect.
  This first quotation comes from the American Federation of Teachers. 
Their public statement on the final rule, on October 12, 2016, reads as 
follows:

       It is, quite simply, ludicrous to propose evaluating 
     teacher preparation programs based on the performance of the 
     students taught by those program's graduates. Frankly, the 
     only conceivable reason the department would release 
     regulations so out of sync with the Every Student Succeeds 
     Act and President Obama's own call to reduce high-stakes 
     testing is they are simply checking off their bucket list of 
     outstanding issues before the end of their term.
       The final regulations could harm students who benefit the 
     most from consistent, high-quality standards for teacher 
     preparation programs. The regulations will create enormous 
     difficulty for teacher prep programs and place an unnecessary 
     burden on institutions and states, which are also in the 
     process of implementing ESSA.

  My second quotation comes from the comments of the provost and the 
chair of the Department of Education at Creighton University in Omaha, 
NE, dated February 2, 2015, of the comment period:

       As stated earlier, the regulations represent a significant 
     financial burden to institutions, local school systems, and 
     states. In the state of Nebraska, there are over 500 
     individual teacher preparation ``programs'' subject to the 
     complexities of these regulations.

  Again, these regulations are 700 pages.

       Even as a system is developed, issues regarding privacy, 
     low numbers, and student demographics would impact results 
     unfairly and result in decisions unlikely to improve teacher 
     preparation programs and student learning at PK-12 schools 
     [in Nebraska].

  My third and final quotation comes from the Association of 
Independent Colleges and Universities of Nebraska, and they wrote the 
Department of Education about this rule as follows:

       [T]he budgetary impact of this regulation is significantly 
     understated, if not laughable. No financial support for 
     states, school systems, or institutions of higher education 
     to implement the requirements is proposed. The regulations 
     create new requirements for colleges, schools, and states to 
     track and report on candidates and teachers for many years. 
     Those systems are not in place. The cost estimates make 
     inaccurate assumptions that colleges and states already have 
     the systems in place for collecting, analyzing, reporting, 
     and utilizing data (federally-mandated data which may or may 
     not be valid or

[[Page 3599]]

     reliable for the purposes for which it is intended to be 
     used). It also provides a timeline that is unworkable for 
     most states and institutions.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following statements 
and letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From www.aft.org, Oct. 12, 2016]

      AFT's Weingarten on Teacher Preparation Programs Regulations

       Washington--Statement from American Federation of Teachers 
     President Randi Weingarten on the Department of Education's 
     final regulations for teacher preparation programs.
       ``It is, quite simply, ludicrous to propose evaluating 
     teacher preparation programs based on the performance of the 
     students taught by a program's graduates. Frankly, the only 
     conceivable reason the department would release regulations 
     so out of sync with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and 
     President Obama's own call to reduce high-stakes testing is 
     that they are simply checking off their bucket list of 
     outstanding issues before the end of their term.
       ``The final regulations could harm students who would 
     benefit the most from consistent, high-quality standards for 
     teacher preparation programs. The regulations will create 
     enormous difficulty for teacher prep programs and place an 
     unnecessary burden on institutions and states, which are also 
     in the process of implementing ESSA.
       ``Instead of designing a system to support and improve 
     teacher prep programs, the regulations build on the now-
     rejected high-stakes testing system established under NCLB 
     and greatly expanded under this administration's Race to the 
     Top and waiver programs. It's stunning that the department 
     would evaluate teaching colleges based on the academic 
     performance of the students of their graduates when ESSA--
     enacted by large bipartisan majorities in both the House and 
     Senate last December--prohibited the department from 
     requiring school districts to do that kind of teacher 
     evaluation.
       ``Teacher prep programs need to help ensure that teachers 
     are ready to engage their students in powerful learning and 
     creating an environment that is conducive to learning. These 
     regulations will not help achieve that goal. These 
     regulations do not address ways to help the current status of 
     the teaching profession: the shortages, the lack of diversity 
     or the high turnover.
       ``While the department has made minor tweaks, the flawed 
     framework remains the same. The regulations will punish 
     teacher prep programs whose graduates go on to teach in our 
     highest-needs schools, most often those with high 
     concentrations of students who live in poverty and English 
     language learners--the exact opposite strategy of what we 
     need. As we brought up in January 2015--in our comments to 
     the department's proposal--if programs are rated as the 
     department proposes, teacher prep schools will have incentive 
     to steer graduates away from assignments in our toughest 
     schools, and that will only make matters worse.
       ``If we want to get it right, we should look to countries 
     like Finland, where prospective teachers receive extensive 
     training in their subject matter and teaching strategies 
     combined with clinical training. Finland has no alternative 
     prep programs. Programs are highly selective and free of 
     cost; their graduates go on to work in supportive, 
     professional environments with strong unions, fair pay and 
     benefits, and without high-stakes testing.''
                                  ____

                                            Office of the Provost,


                                          Creighton University

                                      Omaha, NE, February 2, 2015.
     Re Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0057.

     Hon. Arne Duncan,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Education,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Duncan: We would like to introduce 
     ourselves. Our names are Edward O'Connor, Provost, and Debra 
     L. Ponec, Professor and Chair in the Education Department at 
     Creighton University, which is located in Omaha, Nebraska. We 
     are responding to the U.S. Department of Education's proposed 
     regulations for teacher preparation programs released in the 
     Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on December 3, 2014.
       Like other teacher preparation programs in institutions of 
     higher education throughout the nation, the Education 
     Department at Creighton University embraces accountability 
     for our work. The faculty are eager to learn more about the 
     effectiveness of our graduates and seek continual program 
     improvement to ensure their profession-readiness in the 
     classroom. Our preparation programs currently employ 
     accountability mechanisms such as these:
       National and state accreditation
       Praxis II testing
       Survey data from graduates and employers
       Feedback from PK-12 school partners and Advisory Boards
       Continuous Review of Programs
       The institution's teacher preparation programs also undergo 
     continual reform influenced by the effective practice, 
     feedback from our K-12 partners, local and national workforce 
     demands, new requirements from our legislature and state, new 
     professional standards for preparation, and funding to 
     support new initiatives. The Education Department at 
     Creighton University has developed partnerships with public 
     and private schools where instruction and clinical practice 
     are on-site; integrated ``best practices'' into evidence-
     based teacher preparation; placed students in high need, 
     diverse settings for clinical practice throughout the 
     program; and provided data on the impact of our programs on 
     our website. Our programs have a documented high placement 
     and retention rate for our graduates. Our teacher preparation 
     program actively supports accountability mechanisms that are 
     fair, transparent, valid, reliable, feasible, and useful for 
     program improvement. The proposed regulations initiated by 
     the U. S. Department of Education do not meet these criteria.
       Overall, if these proposed regulations were adopted, they 
     would draw energy, funding, and attention away from 
     innovative reforms, proven accountability initiatives, and 
     overall program improvement currently under way in teacher 
     preparation programs across the country. Some of the specific 
     areas of concern are as follows:
       The specific requirements outlined in the proposal usurp 
     the rights of the state and higher education institutions to 
     determine what indicators identify proficiency of teacher 
     education graduates and their preparation programs. This 
     unfunded mandate represents a significant financial burden to 
     institutions, local school systems, and states. The costs of 
     implementing these regulations have been woefully 
     underestimated with the understanding that no federal funding 
     would be available to move the proposed regulations forward. 
     The proposed regulations require data systems to track and 
     report on teacher education candidate effectiveness for 
     multiple years. Many states do not possess the technology 
     capacity to develop highly sophisticated data collection 
     systems which will collect, analyze, report, and utilize this 
     data in a meaningful manner.
       The proposed regulations have generally not been tested for 
     validity and reliability, and attaching high-stakes 
     consequences at this point is of significant concern. For 
     example, using PK-12 student academic achievement and growth 
     to evaluate teacher performance is questioned by leading 
     research organizations and education scholars as having 
     questionable validity and reliability for making teacher 
     effectiveness decisions. Utilizing this approach of 
     evaluating teacher performance to his/her teacher preparation 
     institution is an even weaker link given the largely unknown 
     impacts such as implications of time and place of employment 
     and teacher preparation influence. The lack of a 
     scientifically acceptable basis for using student achievement 
     as a rating for program performance, even if the cost and 
     burden were low, makes this indicator unreasonable. In 
     addition, evidence that ACT/SAT/GPA scores are a reliable 
     indicator of teacher effectiveness is equally questionable. 
     Capstone assessments, which are being implemented in very 
     limited ways are still inconclusive in their outcomes as 
     measuring teacher quality.
       As stated earlier, the regulations represent a significant 
     financial burden to institutions, local school systems, and 
     states. In the state of Nebraska, there are over 500 
     individual teacher preparation `programs' subject to the 
     complexities of these regulations. Even as a system is 
     developed issues regarding privacy, low numbers, and student 
     demographics would impact results unfairly and result in 
     decisions unlikely to improve teacher preparation programs 
     and student learning at PK-12 schools.
       The regulations focus on placement, retention, and 
     performance with PK-12 students has significant potential to 
     become a disincentive to encourage candidates to seek 
     placements in areas of high-need. This ideal conflicts with 
     our mission statement and preparation which seeks to lead 
     students to work with the underrepresented, disenfranchised, 
     and poor. Our teacher preparation candidates are well-
     prepared, however, the potential of a teacher preparation 
     program being rated on test scores of high-needs students 
     will cause any institution pause. With lack of control of the 
     experience of the teachers once employed and no assurance of 
     resources to provide the supports for candidates in high-need 
     schools, it is unreasonable to compare these candidates with 
     candidates in non high-need situations.
       The proposed timeline is unreasonable and unrealistic. 
     Those states piloting connecting teacher effectiveness to 
     student achievement are still under development and are 
     experiencing many ethical and legal challenges as they seek 
     to implement the requirements. Attaching outcomes to national 
     accreditation is also problematic in that the new CAEP 
     accreditation standards are not fully implemented and 
     accreditation processes using the new standards will not 
     officially be required until the Fall of 2016. The timeline 
     presented in the proposed regulations would include piloting 
     additional reporting requirements for the 2016-17 academic 
     year which is unrealistic to meet significantly increased

[[Page 3600]]

     reporting elements, creation of new data systems, delivery of 
     in-service and technical assistance systems for institutions 
     and schools, and lack of new resources with which to 
     accomplish the unfunded mandates.
       The proposed regulations do not consider or support the 
     philosophy that quality education requires a systemic 
     approach. Factors such as student demographics, preschool 
     learning opportunities, poverty and other social factors are 
     not controlled by PK-12 schools or teacher preparation 
     experiences. Other quality indicators such as equitable 
     funding, strong curriculum standards, focus on providing 
     opportunity--access--success for all students, and quality 
     assessment which all contribute to PK-12 student learning are 
     not controlled by teacher preparation programs. Therefore 
     equating PK-12 student performance to the quality of a 
     teacher preparation program is unfair and unreasonable. 
     However, dedication to strong commitments and collaborative 
     partnerships by educator preparation programs and school 
     systems impact the development of exemplary educators for the 
     future.
       Thank you for allowing us to address our concerns. If you 
     have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
           Sincerely,

                                           Edward R. O'Connor,

                                                       PhD, FACHE,
                                                          Provost.

                                               Debra L. Ponec,

                                    EdD, NCC, Professor and Chair,
     Education Department.
                                  ____

         Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of 
           Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, January 29, 2015.
     Re Comments Regarding Proposed Regulations, 34 CFR Parts 612 
         and 686; Teacher Preparation Issues.

     Sophia McArdle,
     U.S. Department of Education,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. McArdle: I am writing as the representative of the 
     private, non-profit, regionally accredited colleges and 
     universities in Nebraska with teacher education programs. 
     While we laud the US Department of Education in its efforts 
     to improve the quality of K-12 and higher education in the 
     United States, we believe there are portions of the proposed 
     regulation that are troubling to our institutions.
       First, Nebraska is a state that prides itself on local 
     control in education matters. Despite the rhetoric about 
     allowing states to use their own measures of student growth, 
     this proposed regulation mandates states that do not already 
     use value-added measures of student learning in their teacher 
     assessments to do so. It provides for federally-mandated 
     state indicators of quality for teacher preparation program 
     assessments. This is a significant expansion of the federal 
     role in its oversight of the states' responsibility for the 
     education of its young people, and is inappropriate.
       Second, the budgetary impact of this regulation is 
     significantly understated, if not laughable. No financial 
     support for states, school systems, or institutions of higher 
     education to implement the requirements is proposed. The 
     regulations create requirements for colleges, schools, and 
     states to track and report on candidates and teachers for 
     many years. Those systems are not in place. The cost 
     estimates make inaccurate assumptions that colleges and 
     states already have the systems in place for collecting, 
     analyzing, reporting, and utilizing data (federally-mandated 
     data which may or may not be valid or reliable for the 
     purposes for which it is intended to be used). It also 
     provides a timeline that is unworkable for most states and 
     institutions.
       The January 2, 2015 letter from the American Council of 
     Education and twenty-three other association signatories to 
     the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs points out 
     the significant understatement of OMB's estimate of the costs 
     of implementing the proposed regulation by states and IHE's. 
     Most of the teacher preparation programs that I represent are 
     very small, and the impact on them will be disproportionately 
     large from a cost standpoint. The Department cannot talk 
     about tuition containment from one side of its mouth and take 
     actions that will exacerbate tuition hikes out of the other 
     side.
       Third, while teacher preparation is one factor in secondary 
     student performance, it is not the only factor. Demographics, 
     family income, school facilities, parental support, and other 
     non-preparation issues have impacts on student performance. 
     This proposed regulation may have unintended consequences 
     that the USDOE should consider. Why would an IHE place a 
     first-year student in a ``troubled'' school district or 
     building, where he or she might be less likely to continue in 
     a teaching career, when a ``safer'' placement would make that 
     continuance more likely? Ergo, a higher rating for the IHE, 
     the students in the program would not be at risk to lose 
     Title IV funds or Teach Grants, and other positives for the 
     college. On the other hand, a school district or building 
     might lose the services of an outstanding first-year teacher 
     which it really needs.
       Finally, attributing financial aid-eligibility on 
     institutional ratings based on research that may or may not 
     be valid is irresponsible and bad public policy. It will 
     hinder enrollment to students who could become outstanding 
     teachers, but may have to overcome hurdles in order to do so. 
     This regulation will give IHE's less incentive to enroll 
     those types of students.
       For these reasons, we believe the proposed regulations 
     should be reconsidered and a new negotiated rulemaking 
     convened, with proposed regulations that take into account 
     the myriad of comments received by the USDOE from states, 
     institutions of higher education, and associations relating 
     to these proposed regulations. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                              Thomas O'Neill, Jr.,
                                                        President.
     Comments submitted by Nebraskans:
       --Malinda Eccarius, University of Nebraska, Lincoln on Apr. 
     27, 2016: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2014-OPE-
     0057-4855
       --Debra Ponec, Creighton University on Feb. 4, 2015: 
     https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2014-OPE-0057-4364
       --Lixin Ren, Doctoral Student, University of Nebraska-
     Lincoln on Feb. 4, 2015: https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=ED-2014-OPE-0057-4246
       --Don Jackson, President of Hasting College on Feb. 4, 
     2015: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2014-OPE-
     0057-4231
       --Thomas O'Neill, President of Association of Independent 
     Colleges and Universities of Nebraska on Feb. 4, 2015: 
     https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2014-OPE-0057-4541
       --Sharon Katt, Matthew L. Blomstedt, and Scott Swisher of 
     Nebraska Department of Education on Feb. 4, 2015: https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2014-OPE-0057-3887
       --Marjorie Kostelnik, University of Nebraska, Lincoln on 
     Feb. 4, 2015: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2014-
     OPE-0057-3511
       --Ronald Bork, Associate Dean, Head of Teacher Education at 
     Concordia University, Nebraska on Jan. 26, 2015: https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2014-OPE-0057-1997

  Mr. SASSE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time on the 
joint resolution has expired.
  The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. SASSE. 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. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

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

                                NAYS--40

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Isakson
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) was passed.

[[Page 3601]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________