[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3969-3979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 57, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
     Education relating to accountability and State plans under 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12 noon will be equally divided in the usual form, and 30 minutes 
of the majority time will be under the control of Senator Blunt or his 
designee.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I could speak for 5 minutes----
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I am glad to yield my friend 5 minutes to 
start the day.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just want to comment very briefly on the 
comments of the Republican leader.
  It was interesting when he said the courtesies that were extended to 
President Clinton and President Obama when it came to Supreme Court 
nominees; he left out 1 year--last year.
  Last year, when there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court when Antonin 
Scalia passed away and President Obama sent the nomination of Merrick 
Garland to the floor of the Senate, it was refused by the Republican 
leader to even give him a hearing, let alone a vote. So there was an 
omission in his call for courtesy when it comes to Nominee Gorsuch, a 
very grievous omission from the point of American history.
  For the first time in the history of the U.S. Senate--for the first 
time--Republican leaders in the Senate refused to give a hearing and a 
vote to a Supreme Court nominee sent by President Obama. Many of us 
came to this floor pleading that we follow tradition and the 
Constitution. I am going to stand by that. Even though I think Merrick 
Garland was treated poorly by the Republican majority, I believe that 
Neil Gorsuch is entitled to a hearing and a vote. I made that argument 
before; I will make it again.


                       Republican Healthcare Bill

  Mr. President, the second point I want to make, and very briefly, is 
that we now have seen the Affordable Care Act repeal that has been 
brought forward by the Republicans in the House. We still do not know 
its fiscal impact. The Congressional Budget Office, which traditionally 
scores legislation, tells us the impact it will have both on the 
deficit as well as on the American economy. In this case, we believe we 
will learn as early as next week what that impact will be. There are 
several things we know for certain. The Republican approach to changing 
the Affordable Care Act is going to reduce health insurance coverage in 
America, and it is going to raise the cost.
  The cost, incidentally, will be especially hurtful to those over the 
age of 55. If you are a senior citizen or over the age of 55, this 
Republican bill says that your health insurance premiums can be 
substantially increased. There is a limit in the current law that you 
can't have a disparity of more than 3 to 1 in premiums between people 
of different age groups. That is changed by the Republican bill to say 
that older people can be charged up to five times the premiums that are 
being paid by those in younger groups. That is substantial.
  Secondly, it is painful and hurtful to Medicare. Don't take my word 
for it; the American Association of Retired Persons has come out 
against the Republican healthcare plan, saying that it is going to 
reduce the number of years of solvency for the Medicare trust fund. 
That is not a positive thing; it is a negative thing for the tens of 
millions of Americans who count on Medicare.
  We also know that when it comes to this bill, there are provisions in 
here which are inconsistent with our goal to increase coverage across 
America. My Republican Governor in Illinois, who has been very careful 
to be critical of Republicans in Washington, came out this week and 
said that the elimination of Medicaid coverage and reduction in 
Medicaid coverage would create a budget hardship in our State.
  I might add that it will be a hardship on the thousands of people in 
Illinois who rely on Medicaid to provide for their medical expenses. 
That includes not only the children and mothers in lower income groups 
but, substantially, seniors who are in nursing homes who have no place 
to turn. They are living on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 
That is how they survive. Reducing the Medicaid coverage is a danger to 
them when it

[[Page 3970]]

comes to continuing on in a safe and healthy environment.
  In addition to that, we know that Medicaid for many low-income 
Illinoisans and low-income Americans is the only health insurance they 
have. Many who work hard every day don't make enough money to buy 
health insurance, and their employer doesn't provide it. Medicaid came 
to their rescue under the Affordable Care Act, and it is going to be 
severely restricted. That is why my Republican Governor has come out 
against this Republican healthcare bill, and many others feel the same.
  When we take a look at this bill when it comes over here--first, I 
plead with my colleagues, don't rush it through. Let's take the time to 
look at it carefully. It will affect the healthcare of millions of 
Americans. Second, let's hold to the standard that whatever changes we 
make will provide more healthcare protection in America and make a 
serious effort at reducing cost. We can only do that if we have the 
time to honestly debate it on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Missouri for giving me this 
opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.


                        American Health Care Act

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to talk about the Affordable Care 
Act and its failures, as well as the American Health Care Act and what 
differences I think it makes. I am going to be joined on the floor by 
at least one of my colleagues soon, and we may even, with permission, 
have a colloquy. I know Senator Barrasso is on a limited time schedule 
and has been one of our great leaders on this issue. I think I will 
turn to him first and then come back when he has had a chance to make 
his comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, thank you for allowing me to engage in 
this colloquy with my friend and colleague, Senator Blunt from 
Missouri, who has been a real leader not just in the Senate but when he 
was in the House, traveling to all of the hospitals in Missouri and 
talking about the issues that concern the people there, as I do in 
Wyoming every weekend, going home and talking to people at home.
  You may not know this, but I was the president of the Wyoming Medical 
Society and worked with something as the medical director called the 
Wyoming Health Fairs, where we brought low-cost health screening to 
people all around the Cowboy State. I had been going to these health 
fairs for years--when I was a doctor practicing medicine, when I was an 
orthopedic surgeon, and then when I was in the State senate and now as 
a U.S. Senator, to the point that I was at a health fair last Saturday 
in Buffalo, WY.
  People come to the fairs. They get their blood tested ahead of time 
so they can come and pick up the results and find out about their 
cholesterol and thyroid conditions and other issues. There are booths 
from the Heart Association and the Diabetes Society, depression 
screenings, all sorts of things. People there are very interested in 
their health.
  When they see me as a doctor and knowing I am also a Senator, they 
want to talk about how the healthcare laws affected their lives. What I 
hear, story after story, is, you have to repeal this ObamaCare. Many of 
them are people who had insurance that worked for them before the 
healthcare law was passed. When the healthcare law was passed, they 
were basically told that what they had, which worked for them and which 
they could afford, wasn't good enough for the government. The 
government said: No, you have to buy something else, something more 
expensive and not what you really need or want--which is getting into 
the fundamental problem here.
  ObamaCare is collapsing all around the country. In Wyoming, as in 
many places--and I know Senator Blunt is in a situation where he has 
people whom he works with--there is not really a marketplace out there. 
It is a monopoly. There is only one choice.
  We see our colleagues--Senator Alexander in his home State and 
Senator Corker--in some counties, there are no choices. Nobody is going 
to sell on the exchange. Even with the ObamaCare government subsidies, 
there is nothing to be bought.
  We have to act now. The House is in the process of doing that. I 
think they have made an incredible effort, a fundamental change, a big 
step away from ObamaCare. It is a monumental shift. What it does is it 
eliminates the things I hear about every weekend in Wyoming that people 
don't like about the healthcare law. It is the mandates. It is the 
taxes. It is the penalties they have to pay. People don't like that. 
They don't like the government saying: You have to buy a government-
approved product, pay for it, whether or not you want it, whether or 
not it works for you.
  We eliminate all of those things in what the House is debating now. 
What do we preserve? We preserve things that people know are important 
for them. People with preexisting conditions will still be protected. 
My wife Bobbi is a breast cancer survivor. She has been through 
operations. She has been through chemotherapy, radiation. As a doctor 
and as a husband, I know how important it is to protect people with 
preexisting conditions. There is also a limit on lifetime payments for 
people who get sick. Finally, we do want to keep and we do preserve for 
families--they can keep younger members of their family on their 
insurance, to the age of 26.
  We eliminate the things people don't like. We preserve the things 
that are still so important for families all around the country. We 
work to get to the point where people can afford health insurance 
again.
  It is interesting listening to the Democrats talking about how many 
people have been covered under ObamaCare. What you find out is that 
coverage is empty. They may have an insurance card, but if the copays 
are so high and the deductibles are so high--$5,000, $6,000, $7,000--it 
is unusable. They say: I have ObamaCare, but I don't have the ability 
to get the care.
  The issue of Medicaid, which was a failed system for a long time--it 
has been 50 years since Medicaid came into existence. There is a lot we 
need to do to modernize, update, streamline, strengthen, improve 
Medicaid in ways that actually help people.
  I was in the State senate. Mr. President, I know you have a long 
history of involvement in your home State. Senator Blunt does as well 
with the activities there. What we have seen with Medicaid--and I saw 
it in the State legislature--if we had the freedom and the flexibility 
in the State to make the decisions about how that money was spent 
rather than dealing with all of these rules and regulations and one-
size-fits-all that comes out of Washington, we always felt we could do 
a much better job of providing for the people of our State. Let the 
State make involved decisions for people on Medicaid, and we could help 
a lot more people for the same amount of money. It seemed there was so 
much waste and abuse in the whole Medicaid system.
  So much of what the House is doing is to try to get the power out of 
Washington. The question is, Whom do you want in control? Do you want 
the government in control or the people, and their care and the 
decisions being made at home?
  I come to the floor today to thank my colleague from Missouri for his 
leadership on this from the days before he was even in the U.S. Senate, 
from his days in the House, and for his involvement. He was really one 
of the leaders in the House before coming to the Senate on this whole 
topic. He knows it well. He visits with people at home in his home 
State, as I do at home in mine.
  I will be at home in Wyoming again this weekend, traveling around the 
State with different activities. I think one of the things we all do 
when we go home is visit with people and find out where they are going 
to be and what is on their minds, and that is the best way to do it.
  I will be at a pancake breakfast. I will be at a Boy Scout event. I 
will be at a dinner at the Rocky Mountain Elk

[[Page 3971]]

Foundation. I will visit with a number of high school students. You 
hear people. You want to be there and listen to what they have to say. 
So I am looking forward to being there again this weekend, as I was 
last weekend--in Buffalo last weekend for the health fair in Rawlins--
for an event to hear how what Washington does impacts their lives.
  What we have seen over the past 6 or 7 years since ObamaCare became 
law is that decisions being made in Washington hurt a lot of people in 
Wyoming, hurt people who were patients of mine when I was actively 
practicing as a surgeon. The regulations, the one-size-fits-all in 
terms of the impact on the hospitals, the healthcare providers, and the 
patients--we know these people need relief. They need to be rescued 
from this collapsing ObamaCare healthcare law. And we want to repair 
the damage. We can't get it all done overnight. It is not possible. It 
took us about 6\1/2\, 7 years to get to this point. President Trump has 
only been in office for about 7 weeks. You can't get it done overnight. 
We are making definite strides in the direction that is important for 
the country.
  I wish to ask my friend and colleague Senator Blunt if he is seeing 
the same things in Missouri and hearing the same sorts of stories as we 
work to repeal and replace this healthcare law.
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his efforts on this 
topic from the time we were both explaining why we thought President 
Obama's plan wouldn't work. What I see and I think what you mentioned 
you see is that people who have coverage often don't have access. It 
doesn't matter if you have coverage if there is nowhere to go or you 
feel like there is nowhere to go. I continually hear that from people 
who have the high-deductible policies. That means they are discouraged 
from spending the first $6,000 or $8,000 that is out-of-pocket 
spending.
  Many people I talk to say they have not only more expensive coverage 
than they had before but less coverage than they had before and are 
reluctant to spend the out-of-pocket dollars that used to be covered by 
the insurance that didn't meet the new standards but met their family 
needs. I am wondering if the Senator is seeing that same thing.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I am hearing the exact same thing at home. The premiums 
in our State for people having to buy on the exchange have gone up 
double digits. I think we had the same thing happen in your State year 
after year, to the point where if you only have one company selling on 
the exchange in rural communities--for us, it is our whole State. That 
is a big problem.
  The other thing we certainly are concerned about--and I know this is 
the case with both Senator Blunt and me--ours is a rural State, and 
huge areas of your State are rural.
  The architect of ObamaCare, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel from the University 
of Pennsylvania, said that we have too many hospitals in the United 
States. He said there are 5,000 hospitals, and he said there are about 
1,000 too many. He actually wrote a book about this after they wrote 
the healthcare law, and he said that there are about 1,000 too many and 
they need to close.
  Well, if you are in rural Wyoming or rural Missouri, those hospitals 
are a long way from other places. The first I think 80 hospitals have 
closed, and they were rural hospitals. Fortunately not in my State, but 
in a number of States, you have seen that--numbers of rural hospitals 
closing. When a rural hospital closes as a result of the Obama 
healthcare law, the impact on a community is dramatic in terms of it 
being able to recruit nurses, doctors, and businesses to the community, 
if there is not a hospital, and to recruit teachers to the schools. I 
don't know if that is an experience and concern the Senator is seeing 
around rural Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. It is.
  Mr. President, I think you are seeing that too. The critical needs 
hospitals, the critical access hospitals--the only hospitals 
available--are often also hospitals that disproportionately have people 
who are not insured or people who are of low income who aren't on any 
government program. What has happened in those hospitals and in the 
ones that have been able to stay open is that they have often had to go 
outside the traditional community support they had and associate with a 
bigger hospital.
  That may turn out to have been a good thing, but one of the basics of 
the President's healthcare plan was--which we now know is a highly 
unlikely result--that everybody will have coverage. In a world where 
everybody has coverage, you don't have the disproportionate share of 
problems that inner-city hospitals, like the Truman Hospital in Kansas 
City, MO, have, or rural hospitals, like the dozen-plus that we have in 
our State that are critical needs hospitals. Those things don't happen. 
If this had worked the way the President thought it would work--and 
Democrats, when they, all on their own, passed this bill 7 years ago--
we wouldn't be having the problems we see now: the havoc in our 
healthcare system--leaving Missourians, people from Alabama, people 
from Wyoming, people from all over the country with higher costs, with 
fewer options, and with more uncertainty.
  How many times did the President say, when he was supporting this 
just after the election and during his election 8 years ago--President 
Obama kept making the case--that Americans would be able to keep the 
plans they like. They would be able to keep the doctors they like. Now 
we act as if those pledges--well, everybody knows--couldn't happen.
  When the bill was passed, everybody said that was what would happen. 
Remember this: If you have a doctor you like, you will be able to keep 
the doctor you like, period. If you have an insurance plan you like, 
you will be able to keep the insurance plan you like, period. The 
period should have at least been a question mark.
  As it turned out, it was not true. People didn't get to do that. 
According to the advocates of the law we have now, there would be more 
choices, there would be more competition, and there would be lower 
costs, and none of those things happened. Those things just did not 
happen.
  In Missouri, several insurers have totally pulled out of the 
individual market. We have 115 counties. Last year, they all had at 
least two companies willing to offer insurance. This year, we have 97 
counties where only one company is willing to offer insurance. I have 
always thought we needed to expand that insurance marketplace, not 
reduce it--and buying across State lines and buying an insurance 
product you thought met the needs of you and your family, rather than 
the needs somebody at the Department of Health and Human Services 
thought they knew was better for your family, rather than what you 
would know was better for your family. But instead, we have done just 
the opposite. Instead of expanding the marketplace, expanding choices--
somehow ObamaCare was designed in a way that actually prevents this--
instead of being able to buy across State lines, now you can't buy 
across county lines. We have 97 of our 115 counties where only one 
insurance company is willing to be part of the process on the 
individual market. That one insurance company, rightly, was able to go 
and say: Here is what we are going to charge. If you don't want to 
accept that, State insurance regulator, we won't offer the product.
  Families one year to the next are often facing 40 percent increases. 
I think the average is a 25-percent increase year over year. Many 
people are paying more than 100 percent, double what they paid when 
this started. The rate hikes have gone up and the coverage has gone 
down.
  The average deductible in the bronze plan, the third plan down, is 
$6,000 for an individual and $12,000 for a family. That is before 
anybody helps you at all. So you have insurance that you are paying for 
every month, but if you get sick, you have to pay $6,000 for each 
individual and more than twice that if two people in your family have 
healthcare problems before anybody does anything. For most families in 
our country, and certainly most families in Missouri, that is like not 
having insurance at all.

[[Page 3972]]

  Even in the silver plan, the average deductible is $3,500. That is an 
increase of 15 percent of the deductible over last year. Every year, 
the price goes up and the deductible goes up. All of us hear from 
families, individuals, and businesses who say: We can't continue to do 
this. Mark from Blue Springs told me: ``There is nothing affordable'' 
about the Affordable Care Act. When it comes to what he and his family 
are facing, he said that before ObamaCare, they paid $246 a month to 
cover five people with coverage they thought met their needs. Now the 
premium is $800 a month. There are only three people. Only one child 
and he and his wife are still at home. For five people, they were 
paying $246 a month. Now they are paying $800 a month. He says:

       These days, when we go to the doctor, nothing is covered. 
     We still have to pay for that visit 100 percent out of 
     pocket. In other words, we pay $800 per month only to be told 
     that none of the office visit or procedure is covered until 
     the $8,000 deductible is met.

  He says: Really, what are we going to do? They have taken insurance 
away from us, and the promise that was made over and over was never 
kept.
  Dave, a small business owner in Columbia, says his premiums have more 
than doubled at the same time that his business has been forced to 
continually raise deductibles and seriously reduce benefits so that 
people could continue to have insurance at work. As he puts it, 
President Obama's healthcare plan ``is far from affordable.''
  Let's see. That is exactly what Mark said: There is nothing 
affordable about the Affordable Care Act. And Dave's increase this year 
over last year was 40 percent. At some point, Dave and lots of other 
employers are deciding that this isn't working.
  We have a group in our State that many other States have, the Older 
Adults Transportation Service. It is a nonprofit that provides 
transportation services for older adults. The title is actually pretty 
descriptive of what they do. The cost has gone up over half a million 
dollars. The paperwork is ``so complex and so cumbersome,'' the 
executive director told me, that they have to spend additional money to 
hire a consultant just to fill out the forms to have the insurance they 
used to have. Then the insurance doesn't keep up with what they need 
and what their drivers need. They have to begin to cut services back to 
have insurance that even begins to resemble what they had before the 
Affordable Care Act. Talk about people being left out. There are older 
adults in Missouri who don't have the same access to transportation 
they had before the Affordable Care Act.
  President Trump, in his address to the Congress just a few days ago, 
reiterated his commitment to step-by-step healthcare reforms ``that 
expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and, at the same time, 
provide better healthcare.''
  I was encouraged that he decided to back the expansion of health 
savings accounts. That allows everybody in the country to put more of 
their pretax dollars into portable health savings accounts that go with 
them wherever they go from job to job. You still have that health 
savings account. The plan that the House of Representatives is debating 
right now expands the way you can use that health savings account, as 
well as expands how much money you can put into that account.
  Most importantly, the President reaffirmed the need to ensure 
coverage for all preexisting conditions. I have always supported 
providing insurance options for people who have preexisting conditions. 
I sponsored the legislation that allowed young people to stay on their 
parents' healthcare until they were 25. The people drafting the 
Affordable Care Act put exactly that language in the bill and raised 
the age to 26. Three million people every year have access to insurance 
because of a simple choice like that. I think that bill was four pages, 
with lots of white space, and 3 million people get insurance every year 
who wouldn't have insurance otherwise, or at least traditionally hadn't 
had insurance otherwise at no cost to taxpayers. Frankly, there is not 
much cost to anybody because those young, healthy people are just 
establishing themselves, just leaving home, just going off mom and 
dad's insurance, and they thought they could get by without it for a 
while. In all likelihood, they were right. They are not a hard group to 
insure.
  That is the kind of thing we ought to think about, where we figure 
out how to increase access to coverage without taxpayers having to bear 
the load for somebody else's healthcare, if there is another way to do 
it. We want to be sure that, whether it is keeping them on your family 
insurance, staying on your family insurance longer, or having no 
lifetime cap--that was a legitimate problem that many people faced--
they would have their insurance. They would pay for it forever, and 
then when they faced a catastrophic situation, at some point the 
insurance companies in earlier times were able to say: You reached your 
lifetime cap; so we are now canceling your policy. That wouldn't happen 
under the plan we are discussing.
  The landscape for healthcare--and what families and individuals have 
to deal with--has dramatically changed. Because of that, it is going to 
be more challenging to go forward than it would have if we had done the 
same half-dozen commonsense things just a few years ago. This is no 
2,700-page response or substitute for the 2,700-page ObamaCare bill.
  This is an easily understood way to go forward that eliminates taxes 
that everybody is now paying on their healthcare. There is a medical 
device tax. There is an over-the-counter medication tax for things you 
don't have a prescription for. There is a special tax on those over-
the-counter medicines in the current law. Those will be repealed. The 
medical device tax would be gone, would be phased out. The over-the-
counter tax on medicines would be phased out and the tax on 
prescription drugs. If you buy over the counter, you pay a tax, but if 
you get a prescription, you also pay a tax. There may be a place in 
here where you pay a tax for just paying a tax. But the medical device 
tax is gone. The over-the-counter medication tax is gone. The tax on 
prescription drugs would be gone. The tax on health insurance policies 
would be gone. When you get health insurance, there is a tax to be paid 
under ObamaCare on that, as well. The Medicare tax increase would be 
gone. The tanning bed tax would be gone. The net investment tax would 
be gone. The health insurance tax would be gone. It is about a trillion 
dollars in taxes that were added back into the system. By the way, if 
you have some kind of coverage for a medical device, you are paying for 
the coverage. You are paying a tax on the coverage, if you are lucky 
enough that the medical device is covered, if your insurance company 
pays that. Of course, they pay the tax on that, and, then, you have 
paid it in the premium that you had to pay to cover the tax. We have to 
step back here and try to do the right thing.
  My friend from Illinois earlier mentioned that there traditionally 
were five different community ratings of people of different ages based 
on the healthcare costs that they might have, but the ObamaCare bill 
said: No, you can only have three ratings. The oldest, sickest, most 
likely to use health coverage can't pay more than three times what the 
youngest, healthiest people pay, which is another reason, if you are 
young and healthy, not to get insurance.
  Things that were put into this raised costs for so many people. Then 
what happens? Then people say: Well, why is it that we don't have 
enough people covered? They say: The real problem with ObamaCare is 
that there weren't enough young, healthy people who bought coverage on 
their own. It was designed into the plan to make it very unattractive, 
if you are young and healthy, to buy coverage because suddenly coverage 
for that population was in relationship to all other people being 
covered, higher than it had ever been before.
  With the bill the House is debating now, we would restore the 
disproportionate share payments to inner-city hospitals, to rural 
hospitals, where you have to treat more people who are either on a 
government program that doesn't pay very well or more people who don't 
have any coverage at all. That was eliminated in ObamaCare.

[[Page 3973]]

  We now realize that world is a world that doesn't exist, a world in 
which everybody who goes to the hospital, everybody who goes to see the 
doctor, everybody who seeks healthcare has insurance coverage.
  Who takes care of that?
  This bill, being debated right now in the House, looks at that again 
and says: Let's get back to where we are actually helping those 
institutions that are particularly focused on underserved populations, 
that are particularly focused on doing that.
  We have an opportunity here, basically in three different steps, to 
do what needs to be done. The first two steps are critical. One is to 
set an end date for the chaotic situation we are in now, to do as much 
as we can with budget tools to set a framework for how we move on and 
get out of these incredibly devastating budget situations for both the 
Federal Government and for families. The second is to let the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services, who was confirmed by the Senate just a 
few weeks ago, look at the over 1,400 times in ObamaCare where that 
Department can create regulations that either make it harder or make it 
easier for people to comply with the law. One of the most important 
decisions, if you are an insurance company and you are offering a 
healthcare product, is deciding what classifies as an acceptable 
product, what is the basic criteria you can offer people and still be 
offering healthcare insurance. So we are at an important moment.
  There is no doubt that the current situation is collapsing, that 
healthcare providers are providing healthcare to people who don't have 
coverage, who are not protected by programs they were previously 
protected by. The people who used to have a lot of choices in 
insurance, in many cases, now have only one choice, and it is not a 
choice they can afford, and when they do pay for it, they feel like 
they are living without insurance at all.
  So we are doing what needs to be done. We have to do what we can to 
get back to where people can buy the insurance they think meets their 
needs, insurance they can afford and enables them to see the doctor 
they want to see. A patient-centered system, instead of a government-
centered system, is the answer here. We have to get this job done, and 
I believe we will.
  Mr. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                               TrumpCare

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I just came from speaking with several 
Americans about how TrumpCare would affect them. Universally, these 
folks were scared. They are worried their costs will go up. They are 
worried their benefits will go down. One of the concerns that came up, 
an issue that is on the minds of many Americans, was the high cost of 
drug prices.
  During the campaign, the President talked the talk on drug prices. As 
President-elect, he said in December he would ``bring down drug 
prices.'' In January, he said pharmaceutical companies were ``getting 
away with murder.'' He repeated the refrain in his joint address to 
Congress last week. ``We should,'' he said, ``work to bring down the 
artificially high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.'' 
Immediately.
  Well, the immediate is here. TrumpCare, the repeal and replacement of 
the ACA, has been introduced. TrumpCare does absolutely nothing to 
address the high cost of drugs. In fact, drug prices might start going 
up faster. Once again, the President is talking the talk, talking like 
a populist, but not walking the walk, not helping average Americans. He 
is helping the wealthy, special interests but not the average folks he 
was talking to during the campaign.
  The President met with a couple of Congressmen yesterday and talked 
about drug prices. Why not put something in TrumpCare? Why not let them 
negotiate, bring down costs? Instead, TrumpCare does the opposite. 
TrumpCare eliminates a current requirement that insurers actually give 
patients the value of the health insurance they are paying for. Under 
the ACA, insurers had to pay at least 60 percent of the cost of care 
provided--for some plans, more. That requirement would be gone. So 
that, again, hurts average folks.
  That provision in TrumpCare is a blank check to insurers to cover 
less and charge more out-of-pocket for a whole host of services. Most 
experts agree that insurers could charge much more for its prescription 
drugs or even rationed care.
  TrumpCare takes the shackles off the insurance companies and lets 
them decide how or if they are going to cover your prescription drug 
costs. Letting the insurance companies decide what to charge and cover 
has never been, and never will be, a recipe to bring down prices. So on 
drugs as well as other issues, TrumpCare: higher costs, less care.
  What is particularly galling, of course, is the fact that the 
President talks about reducing the cost of drug prices and negotiating 
but does nothing.
  He said he would do it immediately. The immediate is here. TrumpCare 
is here. TrumpCare makes it very likely that the cost of drugs could go 
up for average Americans. It is just another example of this President 
doing one thing but saying another. He promises the Moon and the stars, 
but his policies make them even further out of reach.
  He says: ``I'll bring drug prices down.'' His bill does the opposite, 
and it is just another way in which this is a healthcare handout for 
the insurance companies and the wealthy but a raw deal for average 
Americans.
  TrumpCare is really just a tax break for the rich. It is not really a 
healthcare program. Its No. 1 motivation is to reduce taxes on the top 
0.01 percent. If you make above $250,000, your prices are going to come 
down. If you are in that 0.01 percent, your average reduction in taxes 
is $200,000--more than most Americans make. So this bill is not going 
to help average Americans; it is going to hurt them, unless you are in 
the top 0.01 percent.
  As more and more people read the bill, the louder the chorus of 
opposition grows. The AARP, a very cautious organization--usually they 
don't like to take political stands--a few weeks ago, they had ads on 
TV praising President Trump for saying he will not cut Social Security 
or Medicare. They came out strongly against the bill yesterday. Why? 
Because it would hurt seniors. They believe seniors--many average 
seniors whose income is $15,000--could pay up to $8,400 more. The 
people who might be hurt the most with this bill are average Americans 
between 50 years old and 65 whose costs inevitably will go up, whose 
healthcare will not be as good.
  The AMA, another cautious organization, not known to be a big 
Democratic organization, came out against the bill. Doctors know how 
bad this will be for their patients and for America.
  The Club for Growth, on the other side, has also opposed the bill. 
Hospitals, doctors, senior citizen groups have all come out against the 
bill. The hard right comes out against the bill, as do more moderate 
and liberal groups. That is because this bill is one big mess, done 
quickly in the dark of night. It is no wonder Speaker Ryan and Leader 
McConnell don't want a lot of debate. They are embarrassed. This bill 
is an embarrassment to those who put it in because it doesn't do what 
it is supposed to do. That has led even Republican Governors such as 
John Kasich of Ohio and Brian Sandoval of Nevada to express concern 
over the destruction of the Medicaid Program. As we know, it is 
shifting the costs to the States.
  Governor Kasich said that TrumpCare ``puts at risk our ability to 
treat the drug addicted, the mentally ill, and the working poor.'' It 
is almost certain that under this bill, treatment for opioids will be 
less available because Medicaid is going to be cut and

[[Page 3974]]

Medicaid helps pay for it. It is almost certain that if you are a young 
person, a young family--say you are 30 or 40 years old, but you have 
mom or dad in a nursing home; Medicaid has been paying for most of 
that, and it is going to be cut. What are you going to do? Maybe they 
will have to move in with you. That is not so easy in a growing family 
with kids. Maybe you will have to pay a lot of money out of your 
pocket. So this bill hurts Americans up and down the line.
  The ideological fervor of ``TrumpCare must cut back the role of 
government, whether it hurts people or not'' is motivating this bill. 
That in the abstract would be fine, but it hurts Americans. It hurts 
middle-class Americans who are young, it hurts middle-class Americans 
who are middle-aged, and it hurts maybe most of all middle-class 
Americans who are 50 to 65 years old. As people learn about this bill 
over the next few weeks, there will be rebellion in the land of Adam.
  So I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to the 
voices of the average Americans whom I met today, who care about 
bringing down the unreasonable cost of drugs. They should listen to the 
voices of experts who say just about the only winners in this bill are 
the very wealthy, and they should listen to the voices coming from 
their own party who say this bill will hurt their States and hurt the 
country.
  TrumpCare is a mess. If this Congress, if this House, if this Senate 
is smart, they will defeat TrumpCare, keep the ACA, and then we can 
work together on making it better--plain and simple.


                       China and Trump Trademarks

  Mr. President, on another matter, I am concerned about a recent 
report that the Trump business interests have been granted approval on 
a number of trademarks in China.
  The President spent most of his campaign talking tough on China. He 
said China was ``ripping us off . . . and killing our companies.'' He 
promised to label them a currency manipulator, a cause near and dear to 
my heart, on day one. The President promised many times over, saying: 
We are going to label China a currency manipulator. There is nothing 
stopping him from doing it. He could have done it with a stroke of a 
pen.
  My views on trade, particularly with respect to China, might be 
closer to the views President Trump expressed in his campaign than 
those of either President Obama or President Bush. But since the 
election, President Trump has been remarkably soft on China.
  As the Acting President pro tempore knows, I was the original 
person--Senator Graham and I--who came up with the idea that China was 
manipulating its currency. We discovered it. I did, when I went to 
Crucible Steel near Syracuse and they told me how their business was 
being hurt by China manipulating its currency. At first, when Lindsey 
and I talked about it, people said: Oh, no, it is not happening. I was 
sort of proud of the fact that in those days both the New York Times, 
liberal, and the Wall Street Journal, conservative--their editorial 
pages both stated that China doesn't manipulate its currency; Schumer 
is off base. Now, of course, everyone knows they do. President Trump in 
his campaign said over and over again he was going to label them a 
currency manipulator which would have consequences to them on day one, 
the first day he took office. Now he has backed off his threats. He has 
been in office more than a month. He has not labeled China a currency 
manipulator.
  Amazingly enough, in his first week he said he was no longer going to 
honor the One China policy. He was sending a shot over the bow to 
Beijing, that they can't keep getting away with what they have been 
getting away with in trade, in geodiplomacy, in cyber security, 
stealing our intellectual property, and everything else. When he did 
that, I was pretty pleased. Now he has backed off.
  On the two issues where the President could have been really tough 
with China, currency manipulation and backing off on One China, he 
reversed himself within the last few weeks. Now, all of a sudden, we 
learn that China has granted preliminary approval to 38 new trademarks, 
allowing the Trump brand to market several different business ventures 
there, including hotels and golf clubs. Before he assumed public 
office, Donald Trump had been working to get trademarks from China for 
a decade without success. These particular trademark applications, 
filed during the campaign, just sailed through earlier this week.
  It raises troubling specific questions: Did the Chinese Government 
and the Communist Party, who likely had a hand in granting these 
approvals, see some type of benefit from doing so now that Donald Trump 
is President? Did the President and his network of businesses 
personally gain from his office, and will that incline the President to 
make policy decisions that benefit China and hurt American workers?
  We don't know if there is a link between the two. We don't know what 
was in the minds of the Chinese Government or the Communist Party when 
they all of a sudden granted these 38 licenses. It surely raises 
troubling questions.
  It raises a bigger question. The wisdom of our Founding Fathers 
proves true day in and day out. Over 220 years after they wrote the 
Constitution, their wisdom is coming through now with President Trump 
because they wrote in the Constitution that anything of value--any 
emolument--to U.S. officials from foreign governments should be 
prohibited. U.S. officials should not be allowed to accept anything of 
value from any foreign government. In those days, one of the greatest 
worries of the Founding Fathers was that they wanted to prevent foreign 
governments from trying to curry favor with the United States by 
offering potential financial gain to our officials. This issue has been 
largely forgotten for a century or so, but the wisdom of the Founding 
Fathers is shining through now because President Trump, unlike just 
about any other President I can remember in recent history, has failed 
to completely separate himself from huge financial interests.
  Now the questions arise. Is there a relationship? Are foreign 
governments seeking to curry favor? Is it affecting Donald Trump's 
decisionmaking? No one knows the answers to these questions, but the 
fact that the questions can be asked is extremely troubling.
  The President has flouted all tradition and precedent, and I worry if 
the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution has been broken when 
President Trump retains a financial interest in his business empire. It 
leads to troubling questions like the ones raised by these trademarks.
  As my colleague from Connecticut, who is an expert on this issue, a 
brilliant lawyer, Senator Blumenthal, said yesterday: I think the 
circumstances surrounding the approval of these trademarks ought to be 
looked into by this Congress for a potential emoluments clause 
violation. He is right, and I am glad he is going forward.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time consumed during a 
quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Last week, in his address to Congress, President Trump called 
education ``the civil rights issue of our time.'' I completely agree 
with that.
  Millions of American kids are trapped in underperforming schools with 
little hope of gaining the skills needed for good-paying jobs in the 
21st century economy. In America, poor kids hear 30 million fewer words 
than their more affluent peers by the time

[[Page 3975]]

they get to kindergarten. If you don't think that makes a difference, 
you ought to talk to any kindergarten teacher in America.
  By the fourth grade, only one in four kids in the United States can 
do math at grade level, and even fewer than that can read at grade 
level in this country. About 9 in 100 are going to receive a college 
degree or its equivalent by the time they get to the age of 25.
  As a Nation, we are falling behind the rest of the world. American 
15-year-olds rank 15th in reading in the world, 19th in science in the 
world, and 37th in math in the world. These numbers are shameful. They 
are a national disgrace. Because these results fall mainly on 
communities of color in this country, this is a civil rights crisis in 
the United States--as the President said, the civil rights issue of our 
time.
  It is for those reasons and other reasons that Congress passed No 
Child Left Behind in 2001, so as to strengthen the accountability and 
transparency for public education all over this country. Despite its 
good intentions, the law came with onerous requirements that did not 
work for many communities, including my own.
  When I was the superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, there 
were few experiences more miserable than dealing with the Federal 
bureaucracy and their auditors, who would make judgments that were 
driven more by compliance than by the needs of our children. Somebody 
who understood that well was Margaret Spellings, who was, at that time, 
the Secretary of Education for this country. We owe her a debt of 
gratitude for the work that she did as Secretary. I, personally, owe 
her a debt of gratitude for the waivers she granted to the Denver 
Public Schools, when I was superintendent, to allow us to focus not on 
the compliance of rules that made no sense but to focus on the kids in 
this school district.
  I know that was the experience of educators all over America, which 
is why, in 2015, the Senate came together--and I am a member of the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--to replace No Child 
Left Behind. Finally, 8 years too late--8 years after it was supposed 
to be reauthorized--under the leadership of Chairman Alexander and 
Senator Murray, we were able to pass the Every Student Succeeds Act. 
The bill earned overwhelming support. The country was ready for a 
change.
  The law brought much needed reform to the Federal Government's role 
in education by giving States far more flexibility for innovation, 
while preserving important, core accountability protections, which are 
critical for those of us who are interested in the civil rights mission 
of the Federal Government. It was a rare example of bipartisan 
cooperation and smart policymaking in Washington, DC. In fact, I cannot 
think of another case in which we received that much bipartisan support 
on such a difficult issue in the time that I have been here.
  The way I see it--and I say this as a parent of three children in the 
public schools in Denver and as a former school superintendent--the 
only reason for Washington to be involved at all in public education is 
with regard to civil rights, and that is an important reason for us to 
be involved. All kids should have access to great schools regardless of 
where they live, what ZIP Codes they are born into, or who their 
parents are.
  With Every Student Succeeds, the new bill, States will design their 
own accountability systems and interventions when schools struggle. 
That is a big change from No Child Left Behind. It is a welcome change. 
The law shifts enormous responsibility from the Federal Government to 
States and transforms over 15 years of education policy. The law is not 
perfect, but it represents one of the most significant changes and, I 
would say, importantly, one of the most significant retrenchments of 
the Federal Government in domestic policy in modern American history. 
That should be acknowledged. It should be welcomed.
  As States shift to the new model, many are asking for clarification 
about how to implement the law and make the most of greater State 
control over education. That is why the Department of Education issued 
rules last year to provide much needed clarity, stability, and 
flexibility to States, making it easier for them to transition from the 
broken system that we had under No Child Left Behind to the newer and 
more State-driven approach that we now have.
  Now some in Congress have targeted this regulation. They have invoked 
the Congressional Review Act to repeal the rules wholesale. That would 
be so foolish after the progress we have made and the direction in 
which we have headed. It would tie the hands of the Department of 
Education from properly implementing the law and delay much needed 
flexibility and accountability for the States. It would be a disservice 
to students, to educators, to teachers, and to principals all across 
the country, and it would undermine the implementation of the entire 
law.
  As I have said many times--and I have learned this the hard way--when 
it comes to education policy in particular, bad implementation can be 
just as harmful--even more harmful--than bad policy.
  Repealing the rules would also sow confusion among States about when 
they must comply with this new law. The Every Student Succeeds Act 
includes a timeline for transition so that States have time to plan, 
but many specifics of that transition are unclear. The Department of 
Education's rules clarify that timeline and give States the flexibility 
with which to implement some parts of the law later than others.
  Why would we want to take that away? Repealing the regulation would 
throw all of that away. Will schools have to fully comply with all 
aspects of the law by 2018, or is there some flexibility to stagger its 
implementation?
  Beyond the timeline, striking the regulation wholesale would also 
throw States into limbo by creating uncertainty over other important 
parts of the law. For example, the act includes a major change in how 
the law applies to English learners, which is one of the fastest 
growing populations in our schools throughout the country and now 
represents nearly 1 out of 10 students nationwide. In the new law, many 
provisions concerning English learners moved from title III to title I.
  As States undertake this shift, they need clarity on how to design 
accountability systems that include English learners in order to ensure 
kids do not fall through the cracks. For example, the rules make it 
clear that States can create proficiency goals for different groups of 
English learners rather than creating a uniform goal for all students.
  Striking the rules would also undermine core elements of the law, 
like the requirement for States to report on school spending and 
resources. The regulation clarifies that States must create a uniform 
procedure for this reporting, which is vital for transparency around 
funding and investments and, I would say, is vital with respect to the 
civil rights mission of this law.
  It is easy to publish numbers. Believe me; I have seen it. It is a 
lot harder to publish numbers that are accurate and meaningful by which 
parents and kids can make informed decisions.
  Right now, as we sit here, States are developing accountability plans 
under the Every Student Succeeds Act, and they are drawing on the 
current rules to guide that process. A change now could delay the 
submission and approval process for these plans. States will not know 
whether to use different templates or the ones they already have. They 
do not know if they have to restart public comment periods, delaying 
submissions and throwing the entire timeline into uncertainty. There is 
no reason we should be doing this to our schools, our teachers, and our 
principals.
  Repealing the rules would also suppress innovation and limit 
flexibility. I know that is the clarion call on this floor a lot of the 
time. In this case, people are going to get the opposite of what they 
expect. Flexibility is central to the Every Student Succeeds Act. I 
fought for many aspects of the law in order to give States the ability 
to design their own accountability systems,

[[Page 3976]]

and I believe in that. Yet, in the absence of express, legally binding 
guidance from the Department of Education about where and how they can 
experiment, States will respond to that uncertainty by embracing the 
safest course. I saw that all the time when I was superintendent.
  States stand to lose a lot of money if they are not in compliance, 
particularly $15 billion in annual title I funds for students who live 
in poverty. They do not want to risk it. It may seem odd, but we need 
these rules in order to ensure flexibility and innovation for States. 
Nonbinding guidance is not enough.
  Finally, if we use the Congressional Review Act to repeal this rule--
a very, very blunt instrument--the Department of Education will not be 
able to publish any rule that is ``substantially the same'' unless the 
Congress passes a new law--the Congress that took 8 years longer than 
it was supposed to in order to reauthorize No Child Left Behind the 
last time. This could mean that the Department of Education--and this 
is something people here need to pay attention to if they care about 
civil rights--would not be able to issue any new regulation to provide 
clarity for States as they transition to the new law. They would be 
left completely in the lurch, potentially hamstringing education policy 
across the country for a decade.
  What is a shame about it is that there is absolutely no reason to do 
this. If the rules need to be changed, we should work together to 
improve them, but a CRA is not the correct policy tool. That is 
especially true when passing it would prevent all future regulation on 
core aspects of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
  There has to be a better way for us to come together than this. I 
agree with the President that education is the civil rights issue of 
our time, and we should defeat this vote on this CRA.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I come to the floor in opposition to 
the resolution to repeal regulations that help States and districts 
implement important provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act.
  In the last Congress, Members of Congress did what seems nearly 
unimaginable today. We passed a bipartisan bill, the Every Student 
Succeeds Act, or ESSA, to fix No Child Left Behind. After 14 years, 
Democrats and Republicans in both Chambers came together on compromise 
legislation to reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (ESEA). It gave States and districts flexibility to 
develop their own plans for holding schools accountable and encouraging 
improvements. At the same time, it included important Federal 
guardrails--including through regulatory authority--to fulfill the 
civil rights legacy of the original ESEA, ensuring that all students 
have equal access to high-quality public education.
  Today, we should be focusing on the implementation of ESSA and 
providing critical resources to students, teachers, and schools. But, 
instead, we are on the Senate floor debating a Congressional Review Act 
resolution of disapproval that would gut the regulations that help 
maintain the important balance that ESSA strikes between local control 
and making sure that States are held accountable for educating our 
students.
  After listening to teachers, parents, principals, and 
superintendents, the Obama Administration issued the final 
accountability regulation last November. Among other things, this 
regulation provides important information to help States draft their 
State plans and develop accountability systems to determine whether 
children are actually learning. It gives more flexibility to States to 
develop academic standards, to measure student achievement, and to 
determine intervention strategies when subgroups of students are 
consistently underperforming. It also lays out how States should comply 
with important provisions of the law, including identifying low-
performing schools for improvement.
  Eliminating this regulation would roll back the Federal role in 
education that has been in place for more than 50 years. In 1965, when 
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, it created an extraordinary opportunity for our Nation 
to make an even deeper commitment to civil rights. It ensured that all 
children, regardless of their ZIP Code, background, disability, or 
family wealth, would have a right to a quality education. Repealing 
this regulation would overturn 52 years of progress. We should be 
committing ourselves to advancing equity in education, but instead 
Republicans are using a political tool--the Congressional Review Act--
to remove important Federal protections for students. I believe it is a 
betrayal of the bipartisan framework that underpins ESSA.
  Striking this rule could also send States into chaos. Many States, 
including my home State of Illinois, have prepared their State plans to 
align with this regulation. Without the guidance and clarity that this 
regulation provides, states will not have the support they need to 
successfully implement ESSA. It could ultimately lead to greater 
liability for States and districts that are responsible for complying 
with the law but are left to interpret how to implement the law for 
themselves. If this partisan CRA effort is successful, the Education 
Department will not be able to promulgate new rules related to these 
issues. Instead of policy that is subject to the public scrutiny and 
review of the formal Federal rulemaking process, repealing this rule 
gives incredible latitude to an administration that wants to dismantle 
public education.
  When I voted for ESSA, it was with the understanding that the law 
allowed the Secretary of Education to promulgate rules to implement the 
bill's accountability provisions. Gutting these regulations swings the 
pendulum way too far in the direction of local control. Giving States 
more control with a blank check from the Federal Government is not 
responsible Federal policy. We should maintain critical Federal 
guardrails to hold States accountable for educating our children. We 
should uphold our vital role in protecting the civil rights of all 
children. Anything less says to our children that they don't matter. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this resolution.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, one of the most significant bipartisan 
accomplishments of the last Congress was the Every Student Succeeds 
Act, the long-overdue reauthorization of K-12 education law. The Every 
Student Succeeds Act returned more flexibility to States while ensuring 
accountability to ensure that every child gets a quality education.
  Today, however, the majority has brought before the Senate a measure 
that would take a step backward. This Congressional Review Act 
resolution would repeal Department of Education regulations that the 
Department put in place to give States and school districts clarity 
about their responsibilities under the law and guidance to ensure that 
students receive their guaranteed civil rights protections. The 
regulations resulted from of a year of stakeholder feedback. States are 
already using this guidance to write their State plans.
  If we pass this resolution today, we would pull the rug out from 
under the very local stakeholders that we promised to empower with the 
Every Student Succeeds Act. Passing this resolution would disrupt their 
planning process and interfere with their operations. This resolution 
would also hurt our most vulnerable students by weakening 
accountability and protections for students with disabilities and 
students of color.
  As the National Disability Rights Center has said, ``To rescind these 
regulations would not only be a disservice to the spirit of ESSA and 
diminish the efficacy of the law, but would also serve to undermine the 
equity of educational opportunity for all students, including students 
with disabilities.''
  The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights concurred, 
arguing: ``The underlying accountability and state plan regulation will 
help states, districts, and schools to faithfully implement the law and 
meet their legal obligations to historically marginalized groups of 
students. . . .''

[[Page 3977]]

  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also opposes repealing this regulation, 
saying: ``Just as we believe the Every Student Succeeds Act 
incorporates our principles, we believe the [accountability] 
regulations do as well. And they provide states with the clarity they 
need to move forward.''
  The Every Student Succeeds Act was the result of years of painstaking 
work and bipartisan compromise. The implementing regulation was the 
product of stakeholder input. We should not undermine that important 
progress and throw our education system into chaos with this 
resolution. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                   Repealing and Replacing ObamaCare

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the other body spent yesterday and well 
into the night to vote out bills that would repeal and reform 
ObamaCare. I do not know exactly what is going to happen in the other 
body on that issue, but I would like to add some thoughts on the issue 
of repeal and replace.
  ObamaCare has been a case of overpromise and underdelivery. People 
were told that their premiums would go down by $2,500. They have 
actually gone up by an average of $3,500. They were also promised that 
if they liked their doctors, they would be able to keep their doctors. 
Millions of people have had to change doctors. Then they were told that 
they could keep their healthcare plans, and millions of people have had 
to change their healthcare plans. In fact, ObamaCare has been a case of 
overpromise and underdelivery. The reality is much different.
  ObamaCare is hurting more people than it is helping. I have heard 
from many Iowans about the tremendous premium increases and, most 
importantly, all about high deductibles and high copays that make 
ObamaCare not worth its consideration.
  One farmer said his health insurance premium went from $20,000 to 
$30,000 in one year. Another family said their ObamaCare premium 
increased 144 percent over 3 years. The 2017 premium for three people 
was over $24,000, and families who did manage to purchase ObamaCare 
insurance found that they could no longer afford to use it because of 
sky-high deductibles and copays. Another Iowan said that his policy for 
his family of three increased from $15,000 a year to $23,000 in 1 year, 
with, more importantly, the policy's value being less because the 
deductible for that plan is nearly $6,000.
  It is quite obvious, as you think of these situations, that very few 
people can afford some of the prices or afford the deductibles that we 
hear about. So I think it is a very clear summation to say that 
ObamaCare is not working.
  According to Avalere, one-third of the country will have only one 
insurance carrier that offers ObamaCare plans next year. Since that 
analysis by Avalere, another insurance company has pulled out of 
ObamaCare and has left some parts of the country without any insurance 
companies whatsoever for the folks to choose from. So many insurance 
companies have dropped out of ObamaCare that there are places in the 
country where people have a subsidy, but no insurance plans to buy. 
That is like having a bus ticket and there is no bus to take you 
anywhere.
  Even those who were strong supporters of the healthcare law, like, as 
an example, the Democratic Governor of Minnesota, have said--or he 
said--the ACA ``is no longer affordable to many Americans.''
  The problem with ObamaCare is it did nothing to address the 
underlying causes of the high cost of healthcare; that is, what it 
costs for a hospital or doctor to purchase and maintain medical 
equipment, to purchase medicines, to carry malpractice insurance, and 
things like that. Rather than address the actual cost of care, 
President Obama chose to bypass real healthcare reform for an 
unsustainable entitlement and, of course, bureaucratic mandates, which 
have priced people out of the healthcare insurance market, rather than 
provide them with affordable and quality coverage.
  It is time, then, as the House was working throughout the night, to 
deliver more accessible, more affordable healthcare to even more 
Americans. ObamaCare has failed on both of these points, with, I 
believe, 29 million people still not having health insurance.
  It is time to reduce the role of the Federal Government in the 
healthcare system because I think that expanded role is one of the very 
basic problems we have with ObamaCare. It is time to spend less and get 
better quality care.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work across 
the aisle in a bipartisan way. They know the Affordable Care Act is not 
serving the purposes that it was intended to serve and is falling apart 
and, in a short period of time, it may collapse. I think the other side 
is trying to distract attention from the Affordable Care Act collapse, 
and they are doing it by using the usual scare tactics. It used to be 
those scare tactics were applied just to Medicare improvements, but now 
they are applied across the board of healthcare delivery in America.
  It is time for the other party to step up instead of doubling down 
because it was their plan passed in March of 2010 that put us in this 
spiral we are in. It is time for statesmanship, not gamesmanship. It is 
time for the people who are responsible for ObamaCare to stop defending 
the un-Affordable Care Act and deliver Americans what was promised.
  I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and, of course, 
our new President to deliver affordable healthcare to more Americans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander control 
10 minutes of the remaining debate time on H.J. Res. 57.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to once again urge my 
fellow Senators to vote against this resolution, which will weaken our 
bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act and will hurt students and 
schools across the country. I wish to quickly run through the reasons 
why passing this resolution will hurt our students.
  First, voting for this resolution will throw States and school 
districts into chaos just as they are beginning to implement this law. 
Secretary DeVos has already sent a letter to State chiefs suggesting 
that a new State template for plan submission would be coming, less 
than a month before approximately 18 States and the District of 
Columbia intend to submit their plans. This timeline will not allow 
enough time for the stakeholder review process that is required in the 
law and may force States to reopen their plans and delay implementation 
of the law.
  Secondly, the Every Student Succeeds Act is a civil rights law at its 
core. We know from experience that without strong accountability, kids 
from low-income neighborhoods, students of color, kids with 
disabilities, and students learning English too often fall through the 
cracks, and now it is up to all of us to uphold the civil rights legacy 
of the law and its promise for students by voting against this 
resolution.
  I wish to spend a little more time on the third reason. It should 
concern all of us that if this resolution passes, it will give 
Secretary DeVos a blank check to promote her anti-public school agenda. 
During her confirmation process, my colleagues and millions of 
Americans saw that Secretary DeVos lacks a basic understanding of key 
concepts in public education policy, and even more concerning, she has 
openly questioned the role of the Federal Government in protecting our 
most vulnerable students.

[[Page 3978]]

  After her hearings, millions of people across the country stood up, 
made their voices heard, and called on the Senate to reject her 
confirmation. Although she squeaked through with an unprecedented tie--
the breaking vote from Vice President Pence--it was clear that 
Democrats, Republicans, and people across the country rejected her 
anti-public school agenda. Instead, they want the Department of 
Education to stand with students and with schools. We cannot in good 
conscience, through this rule, give Secretary DeVos another tool to 
promote her anti-public school agenda in ESSA implementation, and that 
is exactly what passing this resolution will do.
  My colleagues across the aisle--the senior Senator from Tennessee 
made a number of claims in his remarks yesterday about this rule, and I 
want to go through a few of them because I believe they were off base 
on a number of levels.
  First, the way my friend talked about what the law allows, or doesn't 
allow, in terms of rulemaking is absolutely wrong. Major laws like the 
Every Student Succeeds Act allow for and depend on Federal agencies to 
issue rules that help implement and clarify said laws. The Every 
Student Succeeds Act maintains the Secretary's overall authority to 
issue rules and clarifications that are consistent with the law. This 
rule before us today is consistent with ESSA, and it provides important 
clarity to our States, our school districts, and our schools.
  Secondly, the senior Senator from Tennessee misrepresented how this 
rule requires States to rate schools. While the Department's initial 
rule did require States to provide schools with a ``summative rating,'' 
my colleague across the aisle, as well as a number of education 
stakeholder groups, requested that the Department provide States more 
flexibility. The Department listened and took this out of the final 
rule which we are talking about today. In fact, the Council of Chief 
State School Officers, one of the groups who was concerned with the 
summative rating, said in a statement in response to this rule: ``It is 
clear the U.S. Department of Education listened to the feedback from 
state education chiefs across the country and made several important 
changes to ensure the accountability provisions in the Every Student 
Succeeds Act can be implemented in all States.'' And now the final rule 
only requires States to comply with ESSA in this area.
  Finally, I want to say that my colleague was simply wrong in the way 
he talked about the impact of this rule on schools that are struggling. 
ESSA provides guardrails to make sure that grant sizes are sufficient 
to meet the needs of students, but it provides States with the 
flexibility to allot smaller grants to smaller sized districts and 
schools if that is what works best for them. But this rule in no way 
limits State decisionmaking in this area.
  Those are just a few of the ways this rule was mischaracterized over 
the course of the debate. There were many others. I just have to say 
that it is disappointing because Democrats and Republicans worked 
together on this law. I thought there was a clear understanding of what 
the law intended. I assumed my colleagues understood what the 
Department was doing to implement our law in an open and collaborative 
way, and it is very concerning to me to hear such partisanship and 
false representations of our bipartisan law.
  This rule does not dictate what States have to do in struggling 
schools. Instead, it balances the goals of ESSA--flexibility with 
Federal guardrails--and provides important clarity for our States.
  A vote for this resolution is a vote to run away from the bipartisan 
nature of the Every Student Succeeds Act. It is a blunt instrument and 
a significant step in the wrong direction, and it will have a serious 
impact on our students, our schools, and our districts across the 
country.
  I am disheartened to see that my Republican colleagues are jamming 
this partisan play through in the same fashion they did with Secretary 
DeVos's nomination.
  Over the past few months, millions of students, parents, and teachers 
have made their voices heard about the importance of public education 
to them. They want us to work together, and they want us to build on 
the bipartisan law. This resolution does exactly the opposite.
  I urge our colleagues to vote against this resolution and vote for 
our schools and our students and to vote for the bipartisan ESSA law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in 2015, 85 U.S. Senators voted to fix 
the No Child Left Behind Act. We reversed the trend to a national 
school board and began to restore decisions to classroom teachers, 
local school boards, and States. The Wall Street Journal said that it 
was ``the largest devolution of federal control to the States'' in 25 
years.
  The Department of Education regulation that we seek to overturn today 
does exactly the reverse. It begins to restore the national school 
board, and it begins to take away responsibility from classroom 
teachers, local school boards, and States. It does that in direct 
violation of the law we passed with 85 Senators voting for it 15 months 
ago.
  The question before us today is not only whether we believe in a 
national school board or local school board, the question is whether we 
believe Congress ought to write the law or the U.S. Department of 
Education ought to write the law. Article I of the U.S. Constitution 
says that the U.S. Congress--we--should write the law.
  The purpose of this resolution is to overturn a Department of 
Education regulation that in seven specific cases directly violates the 
Every Student Succeeds Act passed 15 months ago, and in 16 additional 
cases exceeds the authority allowed by the law. I spoke on this floor 
yesterday in detail of each of those 23 instances.
  It is very unusual for the Congress to actually prohibit a department 
from regulating on an issue, but that is exactly what Congress did. The 
regulation we are seeking to overturn says to States: Ignore the law 
that 85 Senators passed 15 months ago. Ignore the law President Obama 
called a ``Christmas miracle.'' Ignore the law Governors, teachers, 
school boards, and superintendents all supported, and even ignore why 
they supported it, and listen instead to unelected bureaucrats at the 
U.S. Department of Education.
  This regulation issued by the Department of Education specifically 
does things or requires States to do things Congress said in our law 
that the Department cannot do; therefore, it violates the law.
  For example, Congress said to the Department: You cannot tell States 
what to do about fixing low-performing schools in Alaska or Tennessee 
or your State; that is a State decision. But this regulation does that 
anyway.
  Congress said to the Department: You cannot tell States exactly how 
to rate the public schools. But this regulation does that anyway.
  This isn't a trivial matter. The remarkable consensus that developed 
in 2015 in support of the bill fixing No Child Left Behind was, as I 
said earlier, to reverse the trend toward a national school board and 
restore to States, classrooms, teachers, and communities decisions 
about what to do about schools. People are fed up with Washington 
telling teachers and schools and superintendents and States so much 
about what to do about their children in 100,000 public schools. So 
this regulation, which contravenes the law, goes to the heart of that 
consensus.
  This resolution ensures that the law is implemented the way Congress 
wrote it. This resolution restores flexibility. This resolution 
preserves local decision making. This resolution scuttles new and 
burdensome reporting requirements that are in the Department 
regulation. This resolution ensures strong accountability for our 
schools, but it is State accountability. That is what we decided in our 
law.
  Chaos? My distinguished friend from Washington said ``chaos.'' The 
Secretary of Education has announced

[[Page 3979]]

that States may continue to follow the exact same timeline that the 
former Secretary, Secretary King, announced for sending in their State 
plans. If they have questions about how to do that, they can read the 
law, they can read the guidance, they can read frequently asked 
questions, or they can make a telephone call.
  This resolution does not in any way give the Secretary new authority. 
In fact, it limits her authority and the authority of the next 
Secretary. If we stand up and say we are not going to allow any 
Secretary of Education, whether it is Secretary King or Secretary 
DeVos, to, in 23 different instances in a regulation, contravene the 
authority granted in a law, that means we won't have Secretaries 
imposing their own policies. We will have Congress writing the law. 
This regulation--the one we are overturning is not required by the law. 
It is allowed by the law, but it is not required by the law. School 
districts can read the law.
  Future Secretaries will be able to write regulations on this subject. 
Of course they will. When you overturn a regulation, it does mean the 
Secretary can't issue a new regulation that is substantially the same, 
but that simply means, in a commonsense way, the Secretary can't turn 
right around and do the same thing we just overturned.
  This is a question of whether we are going to restore the national 
school board that 85 Senators voted to reverse. This is a question of 
whether you believe Congress writes the law or the U.S. Department of 
Education writes the law. This resolution upholds the law that received 
85 votes from U.S. Senators.
  I urge my colleagues to vote aye. An ``aye'' vote preserves the 
bipartisan consensus. A ``nay'' vote undermines the bipartisan 
consensus.
  I yield the floor.
  I yield back any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). All time is yielded back.
  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. PERDUE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Isakson
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) was passed.

                          ____________________