[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8015-8023]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Brand 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Rachel L. Brand, of 
Iowa, to be Associate Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am on the floor to talk about the status 
of America's healthcare system. As we speak though, the country is 
obsessed with the question of the firing of FBI Director Comey and the 
appointment last night of a special counsel who is going to seek to get 
to the bottom of this question as to whether there was coordination 
between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government and their 
attempts to influence an American election.
  There have been secret meetings happening in the Senate among 
Republicans--reportedly 13 Republicans, to be specific--attempting to 
craft a new version of legislation that passed the House of 
Representatives, now, I guess, 2 weeks ago, that would rob healthcare 
from 24 million Americans. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, it would drive up costs for everyone immediately by about 15 
percent to 20 percent and jeopardize the protections that are built 
into the law for people with preexisting conditions.
  There is no CBO score on the latest House proposal because 
Republicans decided to ram the bill through without the ability of 
anyone to read the legislation. No one read that bill. Let's be honest. 
It was filed hours before it was voted on, and no one knows the cost of 
that bill because they didn't wait for a CBO score.
  It is simply unbelievable that the House of Representatives decided 
to reorder one-fifth of the American economy without reading the 
proposal or without understanding its cost, but Republicans in the 
Senate are attempting to pass their own version of a repeal-and-replace 
bill. We await the results of these secret partisan meetings.
  I think Democrats have been pretty clear that we would like to be in 
this conversation. We want to preserve what works in the Affordable 
Care Act, and there is a lot that works. A new report out just a couple 
of weeks ago shows an astonishing decrease in the number of people who 
face personal bankruptcy in this country. Why? Because half of personal 
bankruptcies in the United States of America, prior to the Affordable 
Care Act being passed, were due to medical debt. So the reason that 
less people than ever before are having to declare personal bankruptcy 
is because medical bills don't bankrupt them anymore because of the 
Affordable Care Act. Let me guarantee you, that number will spike back 
up if anything approximating the House bill passes.
  We think there are good things in the Affordable Care Act. Our 
constituents agree. Polling now routinely tells you the majority of 
Americans want to keep the Affordable Care Act, not replace it, but we 
want to be part of a conversation in which we talk about keeping the 
things that work and addressing the parts of the healthcare system that 
don't work. Costs are still way too high. We would like more 
competition on these exchanges. So let's have a conversation about 
that.
  As of today, Democrats are being shut out of the process. If you are 
represented by Democrats in the U.S. Senate, you have no voice in this 
process because Republicans have chosen to do it just amongst their own 
party. I think that is a shame. I understand in the end, Democrats 
passed a product in 2010 with Democratic votes, but anybody who was 
here remembers that there was a long process by which President Obama 
and Democrats in Congress tried to work with Republicans and brought 
the bill through the committee process. The HELP Committee and the 
Finance Committee had exhaustive meetings, hearings, and markups. In 
the end in the HELP Committee, upon which I sit today, there were over 
100 Republican amendments that were accepted and included in the piece 
of legislation that eventually passed on the floor of the Senate.
  As far as we know, this secret process happening behind closed doors 
will include no Democrats now and will not go through a committee 
process. If they ever come up with something that can come up with 50 
votes, it will be rushed to the Senate floor. That is outrageous. We 
want to be part of this process.
  I am on the floor not to talk about what will happen if a bill 
robbing healthcare from millions of Americans, jeopardizing protections 
for people with preexisting conditions, comes to the floor of the 
Senate, I want to talk about what is happening right now because 
President Trump made it very clear, just a few days after he was sworn 
in, that his desire was to kill the aspects of the American healthcare 
system that are affected by the Affordable Care Act. By the way, that 
is almost the entirety of the American healthcare system because that 
bill did--in addition to extending coverage to 20 million Americans--
grant protections from insurance abuse to hundreds of millions more.
  A January 20 Executive order issued by the President said that ``it 
is the

[[Page 8016]]

policy of my Administration to seek the prompt repeal'' of the law. It 
said:

       To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Secretary of 
     HHS and the heads of all other executive departments . . . 
     shall exercise all authority available to them to waive, 
     defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of 
     any provision or requirement in the Act that would impose a 
     fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or 
     regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare 
     providers.

  President Trump made it clear that his motive from the start was to 
destroy the Affordable Care Act. My colleagues, he has consistently 
kept up that attack. I am often bringing President Trump's tweets to 
the floor because, well, they continue to exist on social media. It is 
nice to be reminded of the fact that, over the course of the first 100 
days in office, President Trump has been routinely--routinely--
attacking the American health care system, saying: ObamaCare will fall 
of its own weight; be careful--i.e., if you are thinking of signing up, 
be careful--discouraging people from signing up for these exchanges.
  Once again, ObamaCare is dead, says the President of the United 
States, despite the fact that 19 million people rely on the exchanges 
for their healthcare coverage. Here is another one: ObamaCare will 
explode. Do not worry; he has it taken care of, he says. Finally, 
ObamaCare is in a death spiral.
  So these are the routine, almost daily attacks, rhetorically, that 
this administration has waged against the Affordable Care Act. He has 
commanded his agencies to pick it apart in any way that they can. So, 
to the extent there is any diminution in the health of these exchanges, 
to the extent that insurers are thinking about not participating or are 
pushing up their rates, there is only one reason for it. It is the 
active sabotage campaign that the Trump administration is engaged in to 
try to destroy the Affordable Care Act.
  This is purposeful. This is intentional. This is planned. That 
Executive order, unlike some other Executive orders, was not just an 
exercise in political and public relations, because the next month, in 
February, the IRS announced that it would not reject tax forms from 
people who failed to answer the question of whether they had health 
insurance. So the IRS took a definitive step to undermine the 
Affordable Care Act by telling consumers they were not going to enforce 
the individual mandate.
  Now, here is a news flash: Republicans think the individual mandate 
is a good idea. After attacking it for the last 6 years, the House bill 
they passed includes an individual mandate. It does. It is in a 
slightly different place. Instead of the penalty applying when you lose 
healthcare, in the House, all they did was just shift the penalty to 
when you sign up for healthcare again. All they did was move the 
mandate from when you lose healthcare to when you repurchase 
healthcare. But it is still there.
  The administration is seeking to undermine the existing mandate. 
Insurance companies have noticed. Senator McConnell came to the floor a 
week or so ago to take note of the pretty serious premium increases 
that were requested in Maryland, in part, by Blue Cross Blue Shield. 
But the head of Blue Cross Blue Shield in Maryland was very clear about 
why they were increasing rates.
  He said the uncertainty around the individual mandate plays a 
significant role in the company's rate filing because failure to 
enforce the mandate makes it far more likely that healthier, younger 
individuals will drop coverage and drive up the costs for everyone 
else.
  Insurance companies are noticing that the administration is picking 
apart the protections that can keep rates down in the exchanges and, 
thus, they are filing higher rates. But with less people in the 
exchanges than anticipated, insurance companies are also rethinking 
participation. This is intentional as well. Shortly after taking 
office, the HHS Secretary pulled the advertising for the Affordable 
Care Act in the last week of open enrollment. We know exactly what 
happened here because we have the data on who was signing up before 
Trump took office and after Trump took office.
  Before Trump took office, open enrollment was exceeding open 
enrollment for the prior year. After that decision was made to pull 
funding for advertising, open enrollment cratered. The former marketing 
chief for healthcare.gov estimates that 480,000 people did not sign up 
for coverage in the last week because the ads were pulled and because 
the President of the United States was out their actively telling 
people that they should ``be careful'' before signing up for the 
exchanges because he was going to kill it.
  So almost half a million Americans did not sign up for these 
exchanges. A half million Americans don't have health care today, 
potentially, because the Trump administration stopped advertising the 
exchanges and because the President of the United States told people, 
essentially, not to sign up.
  Finally, let me talk about what is happening right now with respect 
to something called cost-sharing reduction payments. A big part of the 
Affordable Care Act--and really the foundation of the Affordable Care 
Act--is subsidies that are given to individuals, often passed straight 
through to insurance companies, in order to help folks who are lower 
income buy insurance.
  Guess what. Republicans think this is a good idea too. I know that 
because we stole the idea from Republicans. This was initially a 
Heritage Foundation plan that was adopted by Mitt Romney in 
Massachusetts. It was the Republican alternative to the Clinton 
healthcare bill in 1993. So this idea of individuals getting subsidies 
is a Republican idea that Democrats stole.
  Republicans included it in the House bill. The subsidies are lower, 
but they are still there. The subsidies come in two forms. One, there 
is a tax credit to individuals based upon their income, and, two, for 
lower income individuals there is a payment that goes to the insurance 
companies that mitigates the amount of money that you have to pay out 
of pocket--just two different kinds of subsidies.
  These subsidies are relied upon by the insurance companies to 
continue to offer these products. The Trump administration is paying 
the subsidies but is trickling them out 1 month at a time, constantly 
making public pronouncements that question whether they will continue 
to make those payments.
  Here is what OMB Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters. He said the 
administration could pull the plug on subsidies at any time. He said: 
We haven't made any decisions. The payments are due, I believe, the 
20th or the 21st of every single month. We have not made any decisions 
at all on whether we will pay in May.
  Think about if you are an insurance company executive deciding, A, 
whether to put a plan on an exchange or, B, if you put a plan on an 
exchange, how much to charge, and the White House is telling you: You 
may not get the subsidies that are called for under the law, and we may 
give you no warning in pulling those subsidies. We are going to pay 
them for May. We might not pay them for June. Maybe we will pay them 
for July and August. Maybe we will pull them for September.
  How would you make a decision on how much to charge consumers? Why 
would you enter into a contract with a State or Federal-based exchange? 
So whether it is the attack on the individual mandate, whether it is 
the decision to pull advertising, or whether it is the games being 
played with cost-sharing reduction payments, there is a coordinated 
effort inside the White House today to destroy the American healthcare 
system to the extent that much of the system has the Affordable Care 
Act at its foundation.
  President Trump was pretty clear about this the day of the failure of 
the first healthcare bill in the House of Representatives. He 
essentially telegraphed that he was going to try to undermine the 
Affordable Care Act as punishment to Democrats, and that if he hurt 
enough people, eventually Democrats would come to the table and 
negotiate with him. Well, I have a message for the President of the 
United States: That is not how it is going to

[[Page 8017]]

work. You are not going to blackmail Democrats by hurting our 
constituents by undermining the Affordable Care Act.
  We want to be part of this discussion about improving the healthcare 
system. We do. We want to work with Republicans. It will be a much 
smaller and likely less revolutionary bill than Republicans are 
considering today, but it will have both party's fingerprints on it. We 
are not going to be part of a bill that strips healthcare away from 
tens of millions of Americans, and we cannot support this 
administration while it seeks to undermine the Affordable Care Act on a 
daily basis.
  If these exchanges fail--I don't think they will, but if the 
exchanges fail--or if rates go up, there is only one place to put the 
blame--on an administration that is actively, regularly, and on a daily 
basis trying to sabotage the Affordable Care Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not. We are on the Brand nomination.


                              The Internet

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise today to point out that the Federal 
Communications Commission is voting today, perhaps this morning, to 
begin the process to roll back a regulatory framework that should never 
have been imposed on broadband service providers in the first place. 
Like many of my colleagues, I am glad the FCC is working to restore the 
``light touch'' regulatory framework that has allowed the internet to 
thrive since its creation.
  This action sets the stage for Congress to then put a legislative 
solution in place that strikes the right balance between providing 
regulatory oversight on the one hand and giving the broadband industry 
the flexibility it needs to innovate and expand on the other hand.
  We should not rely on a classification that was devised during the 
depression era. There should be 21st-century rules for 21st-century 
technology. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee that oversees 
internet issues, I look forward to the task ahead. Keeping the internet 
free and open is a goal shared by most of us and by many of my friends 
on the other side of the aisle. A bipartisan solution can help provide 
long-term certainty for both consumers and broadband providers.
  This certainty will be essential to our efforts to close the digital 
divide and remove barriers to internet connectivity that exist in 
Mississippi and around the United States. The online experience we 
enjoy today and the revolutionary advances of the internet over the 
past quarter century did not happen because of the heavy hand of the 
Federal Government.
  These advances happened because the Federal Government stayed out of 
the way, supporting a ``light touch'' regulatory framework where 
innovation, competition, and investment could truly survive and thrive.
  This was the framework that existed under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations until 2015, when politics got in the way. 
With a party-line vote, the FCC that year decided to adopt a utility-
style framework, as I said, resulting from legislation devised during 
the depression. It classified broadband service as a common carrier 
under title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
  A utility-style framework for telephones may have worked during the 
Bell telephone monopoly of the depression era, but that does not mean 
it is a right fit now. Nor does it mean we should adopt a completely 
hands off regulatory approach, which I would also oppose. The goal of 
net neutrality, which is designed to prevent internet providers from 
prioritizing some legal content over others has not gone away. But we 
know that handing over broad control of the internet to Washington is 
also not the answer.
  FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has outlined some of the reasons for this, 
including the impact of title II regulations on big and small internet 
service providers. If we do not give providers the confidence to invest 
in better services and better infrastructure, it could limit consumers' 
options and services. This could also affect our efforts to close the 
digital divide, to bring the digital world to our rural communities in 
Alabama and Mississippi. Underserved communities could remain 
underserved.
  Without broadband access, these communities could lose out on 
critical jobs, economic development, and many other opportunities borne 
out of the thriving internet economy.
  At the end of the day, we need to be asking: What do Americans want 
and what do Americans need? They need broadband that is accessible, 
affordable, fast, and reliable. They want to be able to choose the 
services and content that best meets their needs.
  These are the priorities that need to be kept in mind as the FCC 
works today and as lawmakers work to strike a balance between 
regulatory oversight and free market productivity.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.


                       Tribute to Michael Carson

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, every week I have been coming to the 
Senate floor to talk about someone in my great State of Alaska who 
makes Alaska a better place for all of us--for the community, for 
everybody living there. I call this person our Alaskan of the Week. To 
be honest, it is one of the most fulfilling things I get to do as a 
Senator, recognizing back home and across the country special people in 
my State.
  There is no doubt that many here in the Chamber and the people who 
are watching from home have seen pictures and television shows about 
Alaska. We are a little biased--I know one of our pages is an Alaskan--
that we have the most beautiful State, not only in the country but in 
the world. So we want to encourage everybody watching to come visit 
Alaska. It will be the trip of a lifetime, absolutely guaranteed. It is 
truly the people of Alaska who make our State so special, people with 
big hearts who band together to solve challenges. Like all places, we 
have challenges.
  This week I would like to recognize Michael Carson for his work to 
help people in Alaska who are struggling with addiction. We know this 
is a problem that is impacting every single State in our great Nation. 
Michael lives in Palmer, AK, a picturesque town about 45 miles from 
Anchorage in Alaska's vast Matanuska-Susitna Valley--what we just call 
the Valley or the Mat-Su. It is about the size of West Virginia, so 
don't get me going on the size of Alaska. It will embarrass most of 
my--actually all of my colleagues here, unfortunately for them. Palmer 
is flanked by the rolling Talkeetna Mountains to the north and the saw-
toothed Chugach Mountains to the south. It is a close-knit community 
where most people know each other.
  Many people in Palmer and the Mat-Su across the State know Michael 
Carson's name. Like many Alaskans, Michael's story is one full of 
adventure. Originally from California, he received his undergraduate in 
early childhood development from the University of Texas. After 
hitchhiking through Africa and spending a summer in Mexico, he took a 
job teaching in Nome, AK, in 1974. A few years later, he moved to the 
Mat-Su to teach and taught our students for many years.
  He retired from teaching, but his yearning to help people, 
particularly our youth, did not leave him. He got a job at Covenant 
House in Anchorage, which is a homeless youth shelter. It is a 
wonderful place, by the way. I am a little biased on this one; my wife 
Julie happens to work at Covenant House. Michael's shift started at 8 
p.m. and ended at 8 a.m. That is what he was doing at Covenant House. 
He spent those hours walking through the city, reaching out to kids on 
the streets, sharing his own story, and inspiring our youth because his 
story also involves recovery. It is a privilege to say

[[Page 8018]]

here on the Senate floor that Mike has been sober for 29 years.
  Eventually realizing that kids in the Mat-Su Valley also needed a 
place to go when they were in trouble and needed help, Michael and 
another incredible constituent of mine, Michelle Overstreet, founded 
MYHouse in Palmer, a place that provides services like job assistance, 
access to healthcare, clothing, food, and showers for homeless youth. 
Michael still sits on the board, still remains a champion for all 
youth, particularly those in recovery and the homeless or 
disadvantaged. He leads recovery groups on-site weekly, as well as 
meetings with clients who are struggling. He has also volunteered to 
host recovery groups at the Mat-Su youth detention facility for the 
past 13 years. Michael has helped many young people get sober and stay 
sober.
  In Michelle Overstreet's words, it is not uncommon for youth to come 
into the drop-in center, homeless and just out of juvenile detention, 
and ask specifically for Michael, to come in and say that he helped 
them somewhere along their journey through life to sobriety, just to 
come in and say: Thank you, Michael.
  Most of us know that our country is in the midst of an opioid crisis, 
one that has become an epidemic in many places across the country. In 
2015, more people in America died from overdoses--over 52,000, and most 
were linked to opioids and heroin--than car crashes or gun violence.
  On Wednesday morning, Alaskans awoke to a disturbing headline in the 
Alaska Dispatch News: ``Anchorage is seeing a dramatic surge in heroin 
overdoses.'' Anchorage is the largest city in Alaska. It is my 
hometown. The article said that since May 1, there have been more than 
2 overdoses a day in Anchorage--34 overdoses in just a little more than 
2 weeks.
  Like almost every State in this great Nation of ours, Alaska is being 
hit hard by the opioid crisis, and we are trying to focus as much 
attention as we can in a bipartisan fashion on addressing this crisis, 
whether in Alaska, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Indiana, or Vermont.
  We need people like Michael. Every State does. He started the only 
grassroots opioid task force in the State of Alaska and continues to 
chair that effort to this day. He knows too well how the abuse of 
opioids, other drugs, and alcohol robs our citizens--but particularly 
our youth--of their lives, promise, and future. He also understands how 
very important it is to have resources for those who need the support 
and recovery. Those resources come in many forms. We have been trying 
in the Congress in the last year, year and a half, to bring significant 
resources to our State and local communities. We are doing that.
  State support is also important across the country. Perhaps most 
important is the community support and having people like Michael on 
the frontlines who understand that addiction is not a moral failure and 
that people who are suffering need help. They need help, not moral 
judgments from us.
  Because of Michael's involvement and the involvement of so many 
others in Alaska and particularly in the Mat-Su, there are places for 
people who are suffering to call and get help. There are places to go 
and heal and places where our youth can have leaders who listen to 
them, like Michael.
  Michael says it is vital for his own recovery to continue to help 
people who are suffering from addiction. He calls it ``survivor 
obligation.'' I call it the work of angels.
  Michael, thanks for all you do, and congratulations on being our 
Alaskan of the week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from South Dakota.


                              The Internet

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the internet worked great in 2014 when 
there were no Federal net neutrality rules. Truth be told, even after 
the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission applied depression-era 
phone monopoly regulations to broadband in 2015, most Americans saw 
little or no difference in their internet experience. The internet 
still creates jobs, expands educational opportunities, keeps us in 
touch with loved ones, and, as a bonus, it is often entertaining.
  This internet that we know and love isn't going to fall apart anytime 
soon, no matter what the FCC decides. But there are important policy 
questions that need to be answered about how the internet will grow and 
develop into the future. Let's put the apocalyptic rhetoric and 
fearmongering aside.
  The internet doesn't belong just to Republicans, Democrats, big 
Silicon Valley tech companies, internet service providers, small 
Silicon Prairie startups, or the Federal Government. It belongs to 
everyone. It is global. It is best when it is free and open.
  Today, as the FCC reconsiders the flawed broadband regulations it 
issued only 2 years ago, Congress should look back at the path that we 
could have taken but didn't. In November of 2014, I offered former FCC 
Chairman Tom Wheeler an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to 
come together to craft a permanent legislative solution banning 
controversial practices known as blocking, throttling, and paid 
prioritization of internet traffic. With colleagues in the House of 
Representatives, I even put forward a draft bill doing exactly that. It 
wasn't a final offer but, rather, an outreach to get the conversation 
started. I thought the time and opportunity to protect the open 
internet on a bipartisan basis had arrived. Through bipartisan 
legislation, I believed Congress should put into statute widely 
accepted principles of network management, commonly referred to as 
``net neutrality.''
  Our idea for legislation was straightforward: Combine protections 
ensuring that owners of broadband infrastructure can't use their role 
to manipulate the user experience with those guaranteeing a 
continuation of the light-touch regulatory policies that helped the 
internet thrive for two decades.
  But Chairman Wheeler rejected our idea for bipartisan legislation. 
Instead, he and his staff lobbied to block such discussions from even 
happening in Congress. He then, with only partisan support, issued an 
order that gave the FCC authority to regulate the internet under old 
laws designed for phone monopolies and eliminated all the authority the 
Federal Trade Commission had to police broadband providers.
  I represent South Dakota, a rural State that is home to small but 
still very innovative technology businesses. In other parts of the 
State, communities lack access to high-speed broadband. In the debate 
over the FCC regulating broadband with rules designed for phone 
monopolies, there were many concerns that Chairman Wheeler's approach 
would create uncertainty that chills investment.
  ``Chilling investment'' is a term that one often hears among the 
business community. To me, what it really means is that many Americans 
in rural communities will have to wait longer before they have an 
opportunity to select high-speed internet service. Today there are 34 
million Americans who lack access to broadband services at home.
  As innovation on the internet thrives, demand for data rises, and the 
stock market hits all-time highs, one would have suspected that 
broadband investment would continue growing as it had for two decades. 
But according to one analysis, annual investment actually went down 5.5 
percent in 2016 compared to 2014. This is a troubling sign that private 
investment may have second thoughts about the ability to turn capital 
expenditures into future profits under an excessive regulatory regime.
  Chairman Wheeler assured the public that his FCC would not use new 
authority over the internet to aggressively restrict many regular 
online practices, but he could not offer assurances that, as years pass 
and administrations change, such regulatory restraint would remain. His 
order gives wide legal latitude for any future FCC not bound by his 
commitments to touch any and every corner of the internet. After all, 
unless grounded in legislation, partisan policy changes through 
administrative action can be fleeting.
  Today's action at the FCC aptly underscores the concern that the 
FCC's

[[Page 8019]]

partisan approach to internet policy in 2015 did not put the internet 
on a solid foundation. I know there are many upset about what the FCC 
is doing. I felt much the same way 2 years ago when the FCC voted to 
proceed after my bipartisan outreach had been rejected.
  We should not, however, view the FCC's action today as a final 
outcome. While I commend Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael 
O'Rielly for taking this necessary step, I fully recognize that today's 
action alone does not create ideal certainty for the internet. There is 
more work yet to do.
  In politics, it is rare to get a second chance at bipartisan 
compromise, yet right now we have an opportunity to accomplish what 
eluded us 2 years ago--clear and certain rules in statute to protect 
the open internet. We have another chance to sit down, to discuss every 
stakeholder's concerns, and to work toward the common goal of 
protecting the internet.
  While the FCC's 2015 order may soon be consigned to the dustbin of 
history, the last few months have shown that political winds can and 
often do shift suddenly.
  To my colleagues in both the majority and minority: The only way to 
truly provide legal and political certainty for open internet 
protections is for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation. We need a 
statute offering clear and enduring rules that balance innovation and 
investment throughout the entire internet ecosystem.
  In crafting rules, we need to listen to the concerns of all Americans 
who support an open internet but who may have differing opinions about 
the greatest threats to online freedom. For some Americans, the 
greatest concern is meddling by internet service providers, and for 
others it is unelected bureaucrats attempting to overprotect Americans 
from products and services that they actually like.
  Online innovation is a virtuous circle. Online companies need robust 
and widely available broadband networks to reach their customers, and 
ISPs need the online experience to be compelling enough to drive 
subscriber demand.
  We need to work together collaboratively to find the right policies 
for the internet. I firmly believe we can find common ground to protect 
the internet, so long as we don't fixate on the misguided notion that 
monopoly regulation is the only way to preserve it. While some may wish 
to wait until the activities at the FCC and in the courts have 
completely run their course, my preference would be to begin bipartisan 
work on such legislation without any further delay. Innovation and job 
creation should no longer take a backseat to partisan point scoring.
  It is time for Congress to finally settle this matter. I am happy to 
meet at any time with any of my colleagues who are serious about 
discussing a path forward. I would also welcome discussing any new open 
internet proposals from my colleagues that balance the need for both 
innovation and investment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, after reviewing Rachel Brand's record 
and testimony during her confirmation hearing, I cannot support her 
nomination to become Associate Attorney General.
  Ms. Brand is a fierce supporter of the so-called Patriot Act and the 
bulk collection of millions of Americans' data. Americans deserve an 
Associate Attorney General who can properly balance their 
Constitutionally protected right to privacy against national security 
interests. Ms. Brand has demonstrated her willingness to abridge those 
rights.
  I am particularly disturbed by Ms. Brand's tenure as the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy 
from 2005 to 2007. Ms. Brand worked at the Department at the time when 
Bradley Schlozman, a high-ranking official within the Department of 
Civil Rights, was accused of inappropriately politicizing the 
Department. Ms. Brand's emails during her time at the Department 
indicate that she may have been aware of and, indeed, a willing 
participant in this inappropriate activity. Conservative groups are now 
urging Attorney General Sessions to ``wash out the progressive liberal 
activism that infects the agency from top to bottom.'' This Justice 
Department under Attorney General Sessions is already facing its own 
ethics crisis. When President Trump flouts protocols and procedures 
with impunity, I cannot in good conscience vote to allow Ms. Brand to 
return to the Department of Justice and continue where she left off.
  Mr. THUNE. 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. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we are still dealing with some of the 
same issues we have dealt with before. It is interesting to me the 
number of people who have asked: Is Congress obsessed right now with 
all of the press reports and all of the things that are happening 
around the Presidency and everything else? I have said to them that is 
one of the things on our list, but that is not what we are talking 
about the most. We are working on issues like tax reform and healthcare 
issues and regulatory issues.
  I just had three bills that went through the markup process just 
yesterday that deal with small business regulation and how we are going 
to be able to manage getting things back in order. We spent all day at 
lunch on Tuesday and we spent all day at lunch on Wednesday with our 
entire conference in a working lunch together and talked about 
healthcare policies. We are still working on trying to finish these 
issues that absolutely need to get done.
  Healthcare is one of those issues that has been one of the prime 
conversations now for years, and we are in the final stretch of 
actually working through an actual repeal and replace of multiple 
sections of the Affordable Care Act that have caused the greatest 
amount of damage, but I still have people who will catch me and ask: 
Well, there are beneficial parts. What are you going to keep, and what 
is going to go, and why do we need to replace it?
  I will typically smile at folks and say: Let me give you a quick 
recap as to why we need to replace this and what is really happening. 
It may be different in your State than it is in mine, but let me lay it 
out as to where we are and what has been said.
  Remember, back in the earliest days, the Affordable Care Act being 
passed, it was all about premiums decreasing. In my State, premiums 
went up just last year--in 1 year--76 percent in the individual market. 
It was a 1-year increase of 76 percent. The year before, under the 
Affordable Care Act, they went up 35 percent in 1 year. Premiums not 
only have not stabilized, but they have accelerated out of control.
  It was all about deductibles decreasing. Deductibles have also 
skyrocketed. It was about, if you like your doctor or if you like your 
healthcare, you can keep it. Doctors have moved to other hospitals. 
Doctors' offices have stopped being independent. They have to be able 
to work with other facilities so as to maintain the compliance 
requirements there. Most of the independent doctors in Oklahoma are no 
longer independent doctors. They now work under a corporate structure 
or they cannot survive.
  As to this whole thing about competition on the open market, we used 
to have multiple companies in Oklahoma that provided insurance. We now 
have one. Every other company has left. There is one company left. 
There is no competition driving down prices. It is a monopoly. It is 
the same thing that is happening all over the country. Just this year, 
there are one-third of the counties in America that now only have one 
insurance provider. In my State, all 77 counties only have one 
insurance provider.
  To tell you where things are really headed in this area of 
competition, United, which is one of the largest providers of 
healthcare, dropped out of all

[[Page 8020]]

of the exchanges nationwide--everything. It is doing none. In the past 
couple of days, Aetna announced it will no longer do competition in any 
State anywhere in the country. The number of companies even willing to 
try to live up to these regulations continues to drop off. That is what 
is really happening in our States.
  If you want to know what that actually means to real families, let me 
give you a taste as to what comes into my office regularly because I 
have many people who call my office and say: Protect this. Protect 
this. Protect whatever it may be in the healthcare coverage. You have 
to make sure you guard it.
  I will typically say to them: Let me introduce you to some other 
people who are also calling in and who are also writing in.
  I will leave their names out, but let me give you just some of the 
situations:
  A single mom, who has children and is from Norman, OK, contacted us 
and said her family has seen its premiums triple over the last 2 years. 
Currently, its premiums are $1,500 a month, with a deductible for the 
family of $24,000.
  Another family contacted me who has a disabled child. The federally 
mandated health insurance under ObamaCare for 2016 was $895. For 2017, 
it is $1,553 a month for this family with a disabled child.
  A husband and wife in Tulsa, OK, wrote me. Their current monthly 
expense for just insurance is $1,500--twice the amount of their house 
payment. They have a relative who is working three part-time jobs and 
cannot get a full-time job because, under ObamaCare, a full-time job 
also requires all of the benefits. No one is hiring in that full-time 
area because of the additional requirements for ObamaCare. He is 
working three part-time jobs, and because he is working three part-time 
jobs and has no health insurance, he is also paying the penalty--fine--
on his taxes for not having insurance. Not only can he not get a full-
time job because of the ObamaCare requirements, but he is paying a 
penalty because of it as well.
  A husband and wife from Newkirk, OK, wrote me. For their insurance 
alone, not including out-of-pocket medical expenses, the husband and 
wife will spend $21,965 this year on healthcare coverage.
  Another family wrote me from Stillwater, OK. Their healthcare 
coverage used to be 5 percent of their family income. Now their 
healthcare coverage is 22 percent of their family healthcare income.
  I have another family who wrote to me, and it is very interesting. 
They are from Oklahoma City, and they wrote me and just gave me a 
breakout--a chart--that they had created. In 2015, their monthly 
premium had skyrocketed to $1,400. In 2016, it was $1,500. Now, in 
2017, it is $2,042 a month. Let that soak in for a moment.
  Then they made the statement that there are financially strapped 
families who will not go to the doctor due to this out-of-pocket 
expense. That is the additional deductible that is on top of their 
$2,000 premium. Individuals buying private insurance have no recourse 
because we have no other option that we are allowed to go to. There is 
only one insurance provider available to us. We need competition in 
this State in order to take away the financial burden on our families.
  All they want are options. Yet right now what the Federal Government 
has told them is: No. We have a policy, and you have to buy that 
policy. If you do not buy the policy we pick for you, we will fine you 
on your taxes.
  They are stuck. Thousands of Oklahomans are stuck.
  Why is it such a big issue? Because of how it affects individuals. 
Why is it such a big issue? Because of what is still coming.
  There is this false belief that the Affordable Care Act is fully 
implemented. That is not true. Many of the aspects of the most onerous 
parts of the Affordable Care Act did not go into implementation until 
after President Obama left office. Let me give you some examples of 
some things they had back-loaded that would not start until after he 
had left office:
  There is the Cadillac tax. Every union family across the country will 
start to face much higher costs on their insurance because their 
insurance is considered too good under the Affordable Care Act. So all 
of those great union families who have great healthcare insurance 
across the country are about to start facing additional taxes and fees 
for their insurance being better than their next-door neighbors' 
insurance as the Affordable Care Act tried to push down healthcare 
insurance to be the same for everyone.
  There are increased penalties that are still coming because the full 
penalties have not been rolled out yet on all of the taxes. They have 
gone up a little bit each year, but they will accelerate now over the 
next several years.
  There are increased taxes. The medical device tax, which has been 
sitting out there, has been delayed, but it now will go into full 
implementation. There is also a tax, which is a health insurer tax, 
that adds an additional tax to every insurance company that of course 
they will then pass on to every single premium.
  There are still all of the costs that are associated with the 
expansion of Medicaid. Now, there has been a lot of conversation about 
the expansion of Medicaid. As many people know, this was an expansion 
of Medicaid for people from 100 percent of poverty to 138 percent of 
poverty. It is just in that small bracket that there had been an 
expansion of Medicaid. Initially, the Federal Government covered all of 
the costs of that expansion. Then, starting this year, the States pick 
up the additional cost. My State, like several others, chose not to do 
the expansion, and my State legislature and my Governor have taken a 
lot of heat for that. Yet what they said several years ago is, once the 
State has to pick up the additional bill, we will not be able to afford 
that expansion. We cannot do that.
  Let me tell you what that would mean to my State. Because we did not 
expand, we do not have an additional cost this year, but let me give 
you a parallel. The State of Oregon is almost exactly the same size as 
the population in the State of Oklahoma. It will now start taking on an 
additional $257 million a year in its State budget because of the 
expansion of Medicaid it took on.
  Now, that may not seem like a big deal to some people in this 
Chamber, but in my State right now, our State legislature and our 
Governor are struggling to balance a budget, and we are going through 
all kinds of issues because, right now, our State is about $800 million 
behind budget, and this is after being $800 million behind budget last 
year. If the people in my State will imagine what is going on right now 
in the State capitol, if we had an additional $257 million added to 
that hole, then that is what it would mean for our State.
  There are real effects that are out there, and I understand 
healthcare is extremely personal. That is why it has always been 
something that has been decided by individual families, not by the 
Federal Government and, in my State, by someone 1,000 miles away who is 
trying to make healthcare decisions for them.
  What we are really trying to do with this is to deal with the issues 
I just laid out. This is not about partisan politics. This is about 
people and families who have been hurt by what is happening in the 
Affordable Care Act--by someone 1,000 miles away who is trying to tell 
them what policies they can and cannot buy, by the skyrocketing costs, 
by the actual effect that has happened. While I have some people who 
say that is not real, I could line up the families in my State who used 
to have coverage but who no longer have coverage because they cannot 
afford it anymore.
  Then there are the simplistic answers to, Why don't we just cover 
everybody in the country? Why don't we just do a single-payer system? 
People do not understand. They know how bad it has become now and how 
hard it has become now. You would accelerate that multifold if you were 
to just slip into a single-payer system.
  What do we need to do? Let me give you a couple of quick thoughts. We 
are

[[Page 8021]]

going to need transition time. Whatever you hear about all of the 
conversation we have about the Affordable Care Act or replacing the 
Affordable Care Act, please know that all of the conversations for us 
begin with how do we do a good transition from where we are now to 
where we need to be.
  I have folks who say: Well, next week, this ends. Well, next year, 
this suddenly goes away.
  No, there will have to be a transition process, and it will be over 
several years.
  We are also still looking at some of the most basic elements. For 
instance, I have had folks say: I want to be able to keep my kids on my 
insurance until 26. That has been assumed, quite frankly, by the House 
and by the Senate, but the House bill that has been passed already 
keeps that. There has been a lot of conversation about preexisting 
conditions. Most of the conversation we have had as Senators, behind 
closed doors, is about taking care of people with preexisting 
conditions.
  Those are very real issues.
  We understand the dynamic of what happens back and forth with 
insurance companies and families and the struggles families have, 
whether they are cancer patients, diabetic, have rare blood diseases or 
Alzheimer's. There are so many struggles that are out there. We 
understand that. That is in our conversation as well. Yet we have to be 
able to find practical ways to start leveling out the cost of 
insurance. We cannot survive with rates skyrocketing like they are, and 
people need to know the safety net is going to actually be there.
  We have to resolve these issues. We have to work for the benefit of 
our States, which cannot afford these overwhelming cost increases. We 
have to work for the benefit of families who are facing the issue and, 
quite frankly, for the Federal taxpayer as well.
  While my State struggles with an $800 million hole that it is facing 
right in the budget, by the end of our session, it will have had that 
resolved. It is constitutionally required to have that resolved. The 
Federal Government is facing a $20 trillion budget hole right now--$20 
trillion. For all the folks who say: Just add more to it, it will be 
fine, may I remind you, there is a day all of that has to be paid. We 
have to be able to be responsible with our Federal budget at the same 
time we are helping our States to be able to manage theirs and at the 
same time we are helping our families to do the same.
  No, this is not simple, but it has to be done. We have to be able to 
find a way to restore it. This is not about returning healthcare back 
to where we were years ago. That, quite frankly, is gone. As I 
mentioned before, all of those private doctors that used to function in 
my State, they don't function in my State anymore. They are all under 
corporate structures. The insurance companies have left or have merged. 
Hospitals in my State have merged because they couldn't survive the 
last few years of ObamaCare. Even if we wanted to go back to how 
healthcare was--and we don't--but even if we wanted to, we can't 
because there has been so much change in the last few years. We have to 
be able to actually fix where we are.
  So I would encourage continued communication. Lots of folks have 
contacted my office on every side of this issue. Keep doing that. Lots 
of folks in this Chamber have had dialogue, and though it looks like a 
partisan exercise, it is actually a pretty open conversation among our 
conference to try to figure out how we are going to actually help 
families, help our States, help our Federal budget, and help us to be 
sustainable on these critical issues.
  I have gotten lots of other letters I can bring. There are lots of 
other stories out there. I think we know enough now to be able to know 
this is something that needs to be done. So while the Nation is 
distracted, we cannot be distracted. Let's finish the healthcare 
conversation. Lots of families are counting on us.
  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. 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.


                          Russia Investigation

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, last night, Deputy Attorney General Rod 
Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the 
investigation into Russia's alleged meddling in the election last fall 
and any related misconduct. Robert Mueller is perhaps the single-most 
qualified individual to lead such an investigation, in my view, and he 
is certainly independent.
  As a former FBI Director--the longest serving FBI Director since J. 
Edgar Hoover--he, by any measure, has the experience and the 
credibility and the credentials to conduct a nonpartisan investigation 
and come to a conclusion based on the facts alone. We could use some 
conclusions based on facts here in Washington, with the relentless 
torrent of rumor, gossip, and suspicion but very few facts. It is clear 
to me that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein felt this was in the best 
interests of the Department of Justice and the country, and I trust his 
judgment on the matter.
  I do think there is a related concern now that a special counsel has 
been chosen; that is, the proliferation of hearings and contact with 
witnesses and the principals over this Russia matter that while 
certainly legitimate in terms of doing oversight, which is our 
responsibility as the legislative branch, we can't--and shouldn't--
intrude or perhaps undermine inadvertently the investigation being 
conducted by the executive branch and the special counsel. I think this 
is something we should talk about as a Senate because I know each 
committee that has some jurisdictional hook on this issue wants, of 
course, to do its job, but I think, if we don't deconflict between 
committees, as well as between the role of the Justice Department and 
the special counsel, we could risk inadvertently harming the 
investigation. I trust no one would want to do that intentionally.
  Sometimes, having served myself--as has the distinguished Presiding 
Officer as the former attorney general of Alaska--it is interesting, 
this is my first legislative role in government. I have been here for a 
while now, and I am starting to get the hang of things, but the fact 
is, sometimes I think legislators are confused about their role when it 
comes to investigations. They are not the FBI. Legislators are not the 
Department of Justice. They can't investigate a counterintelligence 
matter or a criminal matter. That is simply within the exclusive 
purview of the executive branch.
  What we can do and what we must do, in my view, is to continue to 
conduct a bipartisan oversight investigation into these matters for our 
own purposes, which are legislative purposes, not executive branch or 
prosecutorial purposes. Now that Director Mueller has been appointed as 
special counsel and will be doing that on behalf of the Department of 
Justice and the executive branch, I think it is really important for us 
to again consider whether this proliferation of hearings and running 
down every rabbit trail that happens to pop up is really in the best 
interests of getting to the bottom of this matter.
  I believe it is our duty--and this would be the case no matter who 
was in the White House--to get the facts and to conduct our legitimate 
oversight investigation here but in a way that cooperates with or 
certainly at least coordinates and deconflicts with the Department of 
Justice's investigation under the auspices of Director Mueller. In the 
meantime, I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Senate 
Intelligence Committee on a broad bipartisan basis to conduct the kind 
of investigation that is entirely appropriate so we can get to the 
bottom of this matter. The American people, of course, deserve nothing 
less.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. President, on another matter, the Senate continues to work toward 
repealing and replacing ObamaCare, unfortunately, without any help 
whatsoever from our Democratic colleagues,

[[Page 8022]]

even though they know ObamaCare is failing the millions of people who 
buy their insurance in the individual market. Premiums are skyrocketing 
because of adverse selection and deductibles are so high they are 
effectively denied the benefit of having insurance in the first place. 
One would think an elected Senator representing those constituents 
would care enough about it to try to do something about it, but our 
Democratic colleagues, because they are so tied to ObamaCare and they 
feel like they have to defend it at all costs, I think it has blinded 
them to the failings of ObamaCare, certainly in the individual market. 
There ought to be some basis for us to work together in the best 
interests of all our constituents and the entire country.
  Some of our colleagues have said: Well, we would be revisiting 
ObamaCare even if Hillary Clinton had been elected, and that is 
absolutely true because ObamaCare is failing millions of Americans, and 
it is our responsibility, on a bipartisan basis, to do something about 
it. So far, the politics of the day seem to be carrying our Democratic 
colleagues along with it. I hope at some time the fever breaks and they 
will see fit to do their duty, as we are attempting to do our duty, 
which is to replace ObamaCare with affordable healthcare that preserves 
individual choices and doesn't continue to exacerbate and aggravate the 
national debt and our financial status in the country.
  ObamaCare, we now know, was oversold. At the time, the President 
said: If you like your policy, you can keep your policy; if you like 
your doctor, you can keep your doctor; and, oh, by the way, a family of 
four will see a reduction in their premiums of $2,500 a year. None of 
those claims proved to be true.
  Again, the Presiding Officer was a former attorney general, as I was 
in my State, and we had a Consumer Protection Division. When people 
misrepresented the services or product they sold, we sued them. We went 
after them for consumer fraud. ObamaCare, to me, is one of the largest 
cases of consumer fraud I have ever seen, and people deserve better.
  It is time to do away with this government-mandated, top-down 
approach that doesn't work. It is time to provide the American people 
with more affordable options. That is what we are trying to do. One 
would think that would be something all of us would want to do.
  ObamaCare has taken a heavy toll on folks in my State. It is 
estimated that more than one-third of our counties are down to just one 
health insurance provider this year, and the ones that are there are 
saying that unless something changes, they are going to see double-
digit increases in premiums for 2018. They are down to one provider 
because everybody else has decided they have lost enough money and they 
want to get out while they can. To have one provider is not about more 
options and choices and better coverage, it is an unworkable path 
forward for our Nation's healthcare needs.
  Fortunately, every member of the Republican conference is now working 
together to do away with this unworkable healthcare plan and replace it 
with healthcare that helps American families get the coverage they need 
at a price they can afford. Why wouldn't we all be interested in 
providing the healthcare they need at a price they can afford?
  The House has taken the first critical step, and I know my colleagues 
and I are eager to do our part. Since the Democrats refuse to lift a 
finger, we are going to have to do this with 52 Republicans, and it is 
not easy, but just because it is hard is no excuse for not succeeding. 
We must succeed in the best interests of our constituents.
  This isn't just a matter of taking something that is OK and making it 
better; this is taking something that is failing and, if we fail to 
act, will continue to drag Americans by the millions down with it.
  It is important to understand the trials that Americans have faced 
under ObamaCare so we can move forward in a direction that supports 
families across the country. One of my constituents wrote me recently 
and told me that his premiums were going up by about 50 percent. To 
make matters worse, his doctors wouldn't accept patients on ObamaCare 
plans. That is a theme we have seen across the country: healthcare 
options dwindling while prices keep getting higher. The cost of his 
healthcare keeps going up, and his salary isn't going up at the same 
rate. He is losing disposable income, even though he has a job. So he 
is literally poorer as a result of ObamaCare. This isn't helping him, 
this is hurting him, and all because his monthly payment for health 
insurance is climbing. So he is living from paycheck to paycheck, and 
of course he is worried about the future, which is the reason he 
contacted me.
  Unfortunately, this gentleman is representative of the unintended 
consequences brought about by ObamaCare. All of our offices get a lot 
of calls, a lot of emails and letters just like his. He is not on the 
exchanges because he wants to keep his doctors, and he is employed with 
employer-provided health insurance. To many in America, this would be a 
huge blessing, but unfortunately ObamaCare did nothing to help people 
like him. His premiums are going up so high, he is concerned about 
being able to put food on the table for his family. What a tragedy. 
What a disaster. This is truly a manmade disaster, and it is a crystal 
clear example of just how flawed ObamaCare really is.
  This constituent of mine ended his letter to me by calling on 
Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare, and that is exactly what we will 
do. He is not alone in calling for change. Many Texans have been 
writing and calling in, and have been for some time, to tell me their 
ObamaCare story. It is making their lives harder, as I mentioned, with 
skyrocketing premiums, higher deductibles, and fewer choices of doctors 
and healthcare providers. These are the folks I was sent here to 
represent and whom I am fighting for, and each of us, I know, is doing 
their part--at least on this side of the aisle--to fight for our 
constituents who are being hurt by the status quo.
  The status quo is not acceptable. I know it is not acceptable to our 
colleagues across the aisle, but they are so frozen in place by their 
own politics that they can't even step across the aisle and work with 
us in areas where we might agree. I hope this happens at some point, 
but it is not happening right now.
  So we are going to repeal and replace ObamaCare and come up with the 
very best healthcare plan that we can--again, one that preserves 
choices, brings premiums down, and makes it more affordable.
  Here is the final reason why we need to do this: We promised. We 
promised. In the last elections, we promised. There is a reason why, 
when ObamaCare passed, there were 60 Democrats and today there are 48. 
It is because in every intervening election we have made the perils of 
ObamaCare an issue, and in every election our friends across the aisle 
have lost Senators because they simply can't defend the status quo.
  But beyond elections, I believe there is a time to engage in 
electioneering and there is a time to govern, and now is the time for 
us to govern responsibly. But it does have political benefits, too, 
because if people think you are doing a good job and if people think 
you care about them, then, they are likely to reward you politically. 
But that is not the main reason we should do it. We should do it 
because it is the right thing to do and because people are hurting and 
people are anxious and concerned about their future, living paycheck to 
paycheck, with ObamaCare taking a bigger and bigger bite out of their 
ability to provide for their family.
  So we are going to get this done. Just because it is not easy isn't 
an excuse for not doing it. We can't complain that it is too hard 
because that is what we asked our constituents to send us here to do--
to do the hard stuff, not the easy stuff--to do the hard stuff. This is 
hard, but it is not impossible. It is imminently doable. But it takes 
political will and commitment not just to keep our promise but, then, 
to do the dead-level best of our abilities to come up with a plan that 
actually believes not in more government control but in

[[Page 8023]]

more individual control over your healthcare choices and to bring 
competition back into the marketplace, to let the market set rates and 
quality rather than the government determining this from Washington, 
DC.
  One thing I truly believe is that competition makes things better for 
consumers. It brings down prices and it improves service because in a 
competitive environment where people have choices, they are going to go 
to the choice which serves their interests the best. They are going to 
reward the people who are doing the best job of delivering what they 
need and what they want at the price they can afford. It has a way of 
regulating the insurance market better than anything Washington, DC, 
could do--particularly by command and control of programs like 
ObamaCare.
  So we are going to get it done, and we are all working together. We 
would continue to invite our colleagues across the aisle not to sit on 
their hands, not to do nothing but to do what they can, working with us 
in a nonpartisan or bipartisan way to help save the people who are 
currently being damaged and hurt by the failures of ObamaCare but then 
to help us build something better, something more durable than what we 
have seen with ObamaCare.
  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.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Brand 
nomination?
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) and 
the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     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
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

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

                          ____________________