Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, before coming here, I used to teach a course at the college level on leadership. At the time, what we tried to do was establish, over the term of a semester, the qualities of good leadership. One of them was that in any complex job, any difficult job, any challenging job, nobody can do it alone. Nobody can do it alone.

That description certainly applies to our job here in the U.S. Senate--complex, challenging, and difficult--and we don't do it alone. In fact, all of us have staff. We might let the public think we are doing all of these good works on their behalf, but the truth is, we are supported by wonderful people who work long hours, are creative and able, and really enable us to do the people's work to the extent that we are successful. That is what I want to talk a little bit about today.

We don't talk about staff very much, but they are really essential to the operation of this institution, whether it is the people here on this floor who allow us to do our daily work on the floor, whether it is committee staff or, particularly, the personal staff of each Senator, both in our home State and here in Washington.

I rise today in sadness because this week--or actually the first week in January--marks the end of a 25-year association for my chief of staff, Kay Rand, and me. Kay is a young woman from Northern Maine-- Aroostook County--in the most northern part of our State. She grew up on a potato farm, learned the value of hard work, went to a public college in the southern part of the State, and she and I have worked together off and on for 25 years. She was my chief of staff when I

was Governor, and she has been my chief here in Washington.

Anything I have achieved in my public life has been in many ways attributable to the work of Kay Rand. She meets all those criteria, and I was just sitting down and going through the list that we used to come up with at the end of each semester about the qualities of leadership: vision, teamwork, empathy, management, communication, optimism, decisiveness, doing homework, integrity, and character.

Staff members are so important to our functioning here. They are in many ways our ambassadors. They do research. They give us background. I call them the ball bearings of the legislative process. They allow it to function.

Kay is certainly one of those people. She is a superb manager. She manages not only the office here in Washington but the staff back in the State--manages personnel matters, encourages, supports, provides empathy and listening, and she does it like no one I have ever met.

She also has a vision. She is not just a functionary or somebody who says ``Well, we are just going to do this, this, and this'' or ``We are going to hire that person.'' She has a vision of public service. She has a vision of what we can be and what we can do as public servants. And she never lets me forget that is my job to be a public servant, not simply an officeholder.

She is a sounding board. She is the person I go to for advice, and she always has good advice.

By the way, one of the things we used to talk about in my classes was if you have staff or people who work with you who only tell you what you want to hear, that is a disaster for your leadership. You have to cultivate and value and enable people who are willing to tell you when you are wrong. Indeed, Kay has never had any trouble doing that with me.

In fact, when I was first elected Governor of Maine, we had the whole staff and cabinet, including me, do a personality test; you know, what are your strengths and weaknesses? I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that Kay scored 0 on the respect for authority scale. I know it was a good scale because the chief of police and the adjutant general both scored 100. That is so important. You have to have somebody who will tell you when you are on the wrong track, when you are not following what you said you were going to do, when you are not really thinking about what the proper issues are or what the proportion is for those issues. That is why Kay has been so valuable to me over these 25 years. I could always count on her to tell me the truth. That is an essential function for someone in a position of that kind of responsibility with a public official.

She also is a perennial optimist. She always--it is amazing, of all the years we have been together and the discussions we have had and all the issues we have talked about, I always felt better at the end of a conversation with Kay Rand than I did at the beginning, with one exception. The one exception was when I was in the car, driving from Bangor to Augusta when I was Governor, and she called me to tell me that there was a $75 million shortfall in the State budget because of the recession of 2001. That was not a happy conversation; there was no way to feel better. Other than that, Kay always had a way of making me feel better leaving a conversation than I did entering into it.

She also listens, which is an essential part of leadership. By the way, when you talk about a chief of staff, you are talking about a leadership position. She listens, and listens empathetically, and everyone feels that they are valued. That is one of the major things she has brought to my office and to my life over the past 25 years.

She listens, she shares, and she is empathetic. She has no respect for authority. She is honest, and she has made an enormous difference in my life and, I believe, in the life of the people of Maine. She has never lost her passion for public service, her deep affection for and understanding of the people of Maine, and the responsibility that those of us who have been entrusted with the public charge, the public trust--with the responsibility we have to remember who sent us here, to remember what the values are, what the issues are, what we can do to represent the people of Maine. Kay Rand has always reminded me of that because that is who she is.

Facetiously, I have often said that my standard for leadership can be summarized in one sentence: Hire good people and take credit for what they do. I have been doing that for 25 years.

Kay Rand is an extraordinarily able, devoted, and serious public servant. She is leaving--well-deserved--going back to Bar Harbor, ME. That is not a bad place to be going back to. I understand it fully.

I just want this Senate to know and the people of Maine to know that an important public servant is leaving us but has left us and left me with an everlasting legacy of leadership, integrity, and character. She, in many ways, has taught me how to lead.

I will miss her. I will miss her as a friend. I will miss her as a leader in my office. I will miss her as a person who has made such a difference in my life, in my family's lives, and in the lives of the people of Maine.

Kay Rand is an extraordinary person. She has done an amazing job for the people of Maine, for the Senate, and for me. Personally, I will make it, but it is going to be difficult. It is going to be difficult. Kay Rand is a very special person, as all of us who know her can attest.

I yield the floor.

First, Mr. President, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing forth this proposal that makes so much sense and that, as he points out, has bipartisan support. In fact, I don't know if I have ever heard the Senator make so much sense twice in the same time of being on the floor--about this bill and about Senator Alexander. He is right on both counts. We are certainly going to miss the Senator from Tennessee, but like the characters in ``The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,'' when Tom and Huck were in the attic of the church during their own funerals, he is still here. He is going to be here for another 2 years, and we are going to get a lot done.

I had a very formative experience as the Governor of Maine. Every year, we used to go to New York to talk to the rating agencies about our bond issues and the bond rating. Of course, the desire of any Governor of any State is to have a good bond rating so that you will pay less interest.

At one point, I was making a presentation to the bond council and the rating agencies in New York, and I said: We have low debt, and we don't take on much in bonds, and we pay them off in 10 years. We are really keeping the bond indebtedness down.

Then one of these green eyeshade guys stopped me. He said: Governor,

when you are not fixing things, it is debt just as if it is on your balance sheet.

That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about a debt that is going to have to be fixed sooner or later, and we will have to come up with a method of funding it that will be very creative and that won't take funds for another purpose. It will be symmetrical because it will take funds from the utilization of Federal lands to provide the maintenance and support of other Federal lands for the National Park System.

The Senator from Ohio mentioned that 330 million people visited our national parks last year. That happens to be the entire population of the United States.

We have a wonderful park in Maine--Acadia. We had 3.5 million people last year at that park. The problem is, I have seen leaky roofs and roads that need repair, and if we don't do that, we will not be serving the public, and we will not be serving the next generation of Americans that wants to enjoy the parks. Now we will have an opportunity to do so.

It is supported on a bipartisan basis in this body, in the other body, and by the administration. This is something we ought to be able to do, and it is a responsibility we have. I would say maintaining what we have is one of our most fundamental responsibilities, and this is a bill that will enable us to do that in a way that is responsible fiscally.

I emphasize that if we don't do this, we will be adding to the national debt. We are adding to the national debt, and that is going to have to be paid. Construction costs always go up. So, in effect, it is going to have to be paid with interest.

Now is the time to take this step in order to maintain the national parks in the condition that our American public deserves. They expect us to meet this responsibility. So I want to compliment and thank the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Tennessee, as well as our colleague Mark Warner from Virginia, for bringing this bill forward. We have now added cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, and we are ready to make this happen. There is no reason that we can't move forward, hopefully in this Congress, if not very early in the next Congress.

This is one of those things that is not all that glamorous, repairing roofs and doing trail maintenance at national parks, but it will mean something to the people who come. Someday, years from now, a family will walk through Acadia National Park or Yosemite or the Great Smokies or the great parks in Ohio, and they won't know who fixed that trail. They won't know who repaired that visitors' center. They will just know that they have had one of the most memorable experiences of their life, and somebody helped that to take place. I just hope that that somebody is us because we are able to do it. We have the means. We have the vehicle. Now is the time to move this bill, to do something to pay a debt that we all have to the American people.

I yield to my esteemed colleague from Tennessee.

My only final comment is to suggest a friendly amendment as to how to allocate these funds. I suggest alphabetically, and the fact that Acadia is in Maine is a mere coincidence.

Seriously, I think my two colleagues have made the case. Hopefully, we are going to be able to move this again through the committee. As Senator Alexander reported, it has already been considered and reported favorably by the committee and, hopefully, it will be one of the first items of business in the new year.

As Senator Portman has said, this is a win. It is a win for the American people, and I think it will be reassuring that we can, in fact, find ways to work together on important national problems. Senator Alexander listed the things that have been done. The only one he didn't mention was the farm bill that passed last week, I think 87 to 13--heavily negotiated, entirely bipartisan, makes a real difference for rural America. Here is a chance to make a difference for all of those who love and treasure our national parks. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make it happen.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Harry Hafford of Masardis, ME, as he retires his gavel as chair at the Northern Maine Veterans Cemetery. Harry is an extraordinary man, a passionate community leader, an honorable veteran, and a friend to me and my staff. Harry is special in so many ways and has quietly led countless efforts to improve the lives of others. Aroostook County and the entire State of Maine is a better place because of folks like Harry Hafford.

Harry returned to his home town of Masardis, ME, to spend his retirement years quietly after a long career at General Motors, where he also served as a strong and steadfast union steward. This next chapter of Harry's life seemed ideal for some much deserved rest and relaxation, but that isn't who Harry is; instead he became an active member of his community, continuing to serve our State and its people. Harry went back to work serving others. Harry shared his lifelong love of the beautiful natural resources in Maine by advocating for more access to waterways and working with State and local officials to provide additional boat landings in Ashland, Masardis, and Oxbow in northern Aroostook County, including one that is named for him, so that the public would have more access to the beautiful Aroostook River and its native brook trout fisheries. He was a loyal member of the Ashland Rotary Club and earned a Paul Harris Fellow for his service above self. He is an active member of the Caribou American Legion, a moderator for town meetings, a lifetime member of AMVets, Ashland and Presque Isle Fish and Game Clubs, and Sportsman's Alliance of Maine.

Harry's honorable service in the U.S. Army is something I am very appreciative of, but in addition, what is truly inspirational is the dedication Harry has shown to veterans for all of his adult life, especially in retirement. He was instrumental in creating and sustaining a veteran's surplus clothing organization to ensure that the needs of his fellow veterans were met. Perhaps his most notable and impressive work was as a founding member of the Northern Maine Veterans Cemetery Corporation, which developed the Maine Veterans Cemetery- Caribou. I was proud to be Governor of Maine when this effort began and was pleased to sign the document creating the committee to determine the cemetery's viability. Had I known Harry then as well as I do now, I could have just looked for his name on the roster of volunteers and been immediately assured of 100 percent success. Harry has chaired that committee since its inception in 2003 and has decided to retire his gavel at the end of 2018.

People like Harry are a rare breed. They give for the right reasons and ask nothing in return. The entire State of Maine has benefited from Harry's hard work for many years, and while we will miss him, we hope that he can finally enjoy retirement the way it should be.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Abbe Museum in Bar Harbor, ME, which is celebrating its 90th year of serving the public. The Abbe Museum was founded by Dr. Robert Abbe, a prominent New York physician, known for pioneering the use of radiation therapy, who spent his summers in Bar Harbor. Dr. Abbe assembled a collection of early Native American artifacts from the Frenchman Bay area and persuaded others with similar collections to join with him to establish a museum to protect and display these important objects for public education and enjoyment.

The Abbe Museum was founded in 1926 and opened to the public on August 14, 1928. It was first opened as a private museum at Sieur de Monts Spring in Lafayette National Park, later renamed Acadia National Park. That same year, the Abbe became the first institution in Maine to also sponsor archaeological research. Today, the museum continues to conduct excavations throughout the State and is now the main repository for archaeological collections from the midcoast region.

While the initial focus was archaeology, the Abbe soon expanded to include ethnographic materials from the 17th to the 20th centuries. Three years after opening, Mary Cabot Wheelwright donated an important collection of Native American baskets and other objects. Since then, other major basket collections have been given to the museum, and it is now home to the largest and best documented collection of Maine Indian basketry. The Abbe also houses collections that document 12,000 years of Native American culture and history in the State, and its conservation program has been nationally recognized as a model for other museums to follow.

Education and local involvement is also an important part of the work at the Abbe. The Abbe has developed a number of publications to share its knowledge with a larger audience. They offer many resources for local students and educators, including a summer camp for children ages 7-12, opportunities for local school groups to visit the museum, and an educator hub to help teachers bring Wabanaki history and culture into their classrooms. Recently, Native Americans have become increasingly involved in all aspects of the museum, including as members of the board of trustees.

In 2013, the Abbe was honored as the first Smithsonian Affiliate in the State of Maine. Being a part of this prestigious network, the Abbe Museum now works closely with the Smithsonian Institution to serve the public through custom developed education programs, traveling exhibitions, and collaborative research. This partnership has allowed the Abbe to take advantage of the resources of the Smithsonian Institution and bring collections that have special significance to Maine where they can be accessed by the Wabanaki communities.

I am proud to recognize the Abbe Museum for their work over the last 90 years. They have played an important role in educating the people of Maine about the Wabanaki history of our land and expanding our knowledge through research and exploration. I want to thank all those who have been involved with the Abbe Museum over the last 90 years, and I look forward to their continued success for many years to come.

Mr. President, first I want to congratulate and thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his moving and eloquent remarks--so moving and eloquent, in fact, that I contemplated foregoing my own.

The Senator expressed the feelings of many of us, particularly in his closing, which was very powerful, and, I think, very well encapsulated the one possible positive result from this sorry process.

I stated my opposition to Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court before Dr. Ford's allegations became public--before I had ever heard about them, before anyone had ever heard about them, as far as I know, except some members of the Judiciary Committee.

Therefore, I don't believe you have to believe Dr. Ford to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court-- first, because of his judicial philosophy.

If you will pardon me, I want to digress for a moment into constitutional history--preconstitutional history, if you will. There is a basic paradox of government. We give power to something called the government in order to protect our security, to protect us as individuals, to protect our liberty. The paradox is that we then have to worry about the government to which we have given the power abusing us.

James Madison captured this in the 51st Federalist:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If

angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal

controls on government would be necessary. In framing a

government which is to be administered by men over men--

And, of course, today Madison would say men and women over men and women--

the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable

the government to control the governed, and in the next place

oblige it to control itself.

The Romans put it this way: ``Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.'' Who will guard the guardians?

The other philosopher who talked about this was the English philosopher Lord Acton: ``All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.''

The American Constitution, in my view, is the most sublime answer to this ancient question of any instrument of government ever formed by people on this Earth. It is based upon a profound understanding of human nature: If you give people power, there is the potential for it to be abused--not the potential, the likelihood that it will be abused.

So the Constitution is an elaborate scheme for preventing that abuse. The first line of defense is the structure of the government itself. What Madison was talking about was obliging the government to control itself--this herky-jerky, complicated, Rube Goldberg device involving two Houses, checks and balances, the President, the veto, submitting treaties, two-thirds votes, advise and consent, and then the whole level of the State government and local government, the division of responsibilities between the governments, and enumerated powers. The Framers wanted it to be difficult for majorities to ride roughshod over minorities. They wanted it to be difficult to legislate, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

It is a very difficult piece of machinery to bring into action, but even after the Framers had designed this elaborate structure specifically in the name of protecting the rights of the people, they weren't satisfied. They wanted to take another step, because going back to our other fundamental document, the Declaration of Independence talks about certain inalienable rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--and that word ``inalienable'' isn't defined much. Not much attention is paid

to it. ``Inalienable'' means neither can you give it away nor can it be taken from you. To alienate is to give away or have it taken from you. That is what ``inalienable rights'' mean.

Going back to when they said we have this elaborate structure that will be very complicated to operate, what if the majority makes this structure work in such a way that is amicable to the fundamental rights of people? The first thing Congress did was to adopt the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is the second shield for us as individuals. I always thought of it as a force field around individuals that protects the basic rights, even if the government follows all of the procedures.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, establishing religion, or controlling the free exercise thereof. Search and seizure must be reasonable. You don't have to give testimony against yourself. All of these rights in the Bill of Rights are designed to protect us as individuals from the government.

The framers then had an interesting problem when they got to the Bill of Rights, and they listed the rights. Somebody--and I can't remember who it was right now--came up with the problem that if you list the rights, then people will later say: Well those rights are listed. Therefore, there aren't any other rights that can be protected. So they added the Ninth Amendment, which is one of the most unappreciated and undiscussed amendments to the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment says: ``The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'' In other words, there are rights that exist--they recognize that--that aren't the ones listed that we all think of in the First through the Fifth Amendment--rights such as freedom of speech, the press, freedom from unreasonable searches, the right to bear arms. They were afraid they would appear too exclusive. So they passed as part of the Bill the Rights the Ninth Amendment.

What does this have to do with Judge Kavanaugh? To understand Judge Kavanaugh's jurisprudence, what kind of judge he will be--by the way, that is what we are all doing here. This is an exercise in forecasting the future. What will this person decide? What kind of judge will they be? That involves things like demeanor and temperament, but it also involves judicial philosophy.

To understand the judicial philosophy of Judge Kavanaugh, you have to understand the judicial philosophy of Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Kavanaugh has characterized Justice Rehnquist as his judicial hero. He gave a speech about him in 2017. He says that the article in the Texas Law Review in 1976 written by Justice Rehnquist is one of the most important legal documents ever written.

What do Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kavanaugh have in common? They have a very expansive view of what States can do to limit your rights and a narrow view of what the Federal Government can do to protect your health, welfare, the environment--you name it.

Justice Rehnquist voted against Roe v. Wade. Justice Rehnquist criticized Griswold v. Connecticut. He voted against Roe v. Wade because he said the right of a woman to control her own reproductive health is not enumerated in the Constitution. Obviously, it is not listed in the first two or three Amendments, but the Court found that it was a basic human right of women, and that is the basis of Roe v. Wade.

The problem with Justice Rehnquist's approach and Judge Kavanaugh's approach to unenumerated rights is that they say unenumerated rights could be recognized by the courts only if the asserted right was rooted in the Nation's history and tradition. That is called originalism, or it is a piece of originalism. In other words, you can't assert a right unless you can show that the Framers thought about it when they passed the amendments, or that it was somehow rooted in the tradition. If abortion was legal across the country in 1897 or 1867 or 1787, then you couldn't do it. The Court would be making law.

The problem is that this approach freezes rights in history, and it allows no room for the evolution of ethics and morality. A good example is Loving v. Virginia, which is the case that overturned misogynation laws that made it illegal in many States in the country, including Virginia, at the time--and this was in the 1960s--for people of different races to marry one another.

It is hard to argue using the Kavanaugh philosophy that that is a legitimate exercise of judicial authority because certainly, at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights and the passage of the 14th Amendment, anti-misogynation laws were all over the place. So Rehnquist and Kavanaugh would say you can't do that. This isn't judicial lawmaking. This is judicial protection of individuals' rights from State incursion.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, in many ways, Griswold was the case that said the State of Connecticut could not constitutionally prohibit the sale of contraception to married couples. It has been widely criticized in many ways. The Griswold case, I believe, was the founding document of the Federalist Society. It was in reaction to Griswold and the following cases that the Federalist Society arose in the 1980s.

So this philosophy is that the States have wide latitude to restrict these rights--enumerated or not. That is why I believe there is--I don't know--a 50-50 chance, 60-40, or 70-30 that a Justice Kavanaugh would repeal Roe v. Wade. I give it 99 percent that he will gut Roe v. Wade. There are something like 15 cases headed for the Supreme Court right now from various States around the country where the right of a woman to control her reproductive future is under assault. The decisions may not be an outright repeal, but by piecemeal, chipping away at that right, making it harder and harder to exercise Roe v. Wade, it will be a hollow shell.

Judge Kavanaugh said in his hearing: I am not going to make these value judgments, ideological judgments. I am going to call balls and strikes like an umpire.

I have a new principle for judging Supreme Court nominees: Anybody who says all they are going to do is call balls and strikes is an automatic no because they are conning us. Deciding whether a particular rule in a State that restricts the ability of a woman to control her reproductive future is unduly burdensome is not a mechanical ball and strike. It is a value-laden judgment call. Don't tell me there is some easy ball-and-strike thing here. You are making judgment calls based upon values.

I don't have any doubt that a Justice Kavanaugh is going to vote to restrict, to control, to limit, and ultimately, to gut Roe v. Wade. Indeed, that is what the President said he was going to do--to appoint a judge who was going to take that step. That is why he is so widely supported in some parts of the country.

By the way, he said Roe v. Wade is a precedent. That is like saying this is a chair. That is a statement of fact. That is not a value. That is not a philosophy. That is just a statement of fact. Then he says: Well, we have Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So we have a precedent on a precedent. That is like saying this is a chair and this is a desk. That is a statement of fact. That is not anything that gives you any indication of what he says he is going to do.

By the way, Justice Gorsuch sat in my office and talked to me about precedent and how committed he was to precedent. He had written a whole book about precedent. I don't think he was on the Court even a year, and he voted in the Janus case to absolutely trample 40 years of precedent in a very important area of American law. So when somebody tells me it is a precedent or it is settled law, that doesn't convince me of very much. That is not a predictor of what they will do.

He has an expansive view of the State power to restrict individual rights. He has a narrow view of the national legislature's ability to protect individuals, whether it is healthcare, and I will give you 75 percent that he is going to start voting to undercut and destroy the Affordable Care Act.

In 16 out of 18 cases on the environment that came before his court, the DC Court of Appeals, he voted with the polluters. He narrowed the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. In one case particularly relevant to my State, he decided against the right of the EPA to tell upwind States they had to control their pollution in order to benefit downwind States. Maine is in

the tailpipe of the Northeast. All the air moves from west to east and ends up in Maine. We could shut off every automobile and every factory in Maine and still have air pollution problems. Telling the EPA they can't regulate air that moves across State lines is a direct shot at the State of Maine.

As for campaign finance reform, I predict he will join with the 5-to- 4 majority to continue the deregulation of campaign finance, one of the most serious issues facing this country.

He even said that net neutrality was unconstitutional because of the right of large internet service providers to have free speech. That is a case that would deny free speech and freedom of activity to millions of internet users across the country. You don't have to believe Dr. Ford to oppose and believe that Brett Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court.

You also don't have to believe Dr. Ford to believe that Brett Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court because of his views on Presidential power, but first let's establish what he said. In the Minnesota Law Review, he said we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. He has an elaborate argument about that involving impeachment and that the Congress should pass a statute and a whole lot of other things. We can argue about that. They are legitimate disputes about the meaning of article III and how it relates to impeachment and how it relates to the subject of the President being subject to criminal prosecutions. I understand that. I understand we can have those arguments, but once he stated that position, he should have announced that he would recuse himself from any case involving the President who appointed him--the first rule of the judicial canons.

Canon No. 2 is that a judge shall avoid not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety, and 2a, from the Code of Judicial Responsibility says that a ``judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary. Let me read that again: ``A judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.'' The reason for that is obvious. The Judiciary doesn't have the power of the purse. It doesn't have an army. It has to rest on public confidence.

He already violated that principle in his testimony to the Judiciary Committee last week. He violated that principle. Imagine the reaction of the public if a newly minted Justice Kavanaugh, within the next couple of years, votes in favor and, indeed, can provide the deciding vote, the swing vote, on a case involving the President who appointed him. I am not saying he can't take this position ever in his judicial career, but to have not recused himself when he had an opportunity to do so, to announce he would do so, to me, is disqualifying. It is obvious and mandatory that he should not take a position on a case coming before the Court involving the President who appointed him.

No. 3, we don't have to believe Dr. Ford to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed to a lifetime job because we have been denied the ability to learn about his record.

Imagine, Mr. President, you are doing a job interview for a very important job in your company, and a guy comes in and says: I would like this job, and I am going to show you 10 percent of my work product. The 10 percent that I am going to give you is going to be picked out by an old buddy of mine whom I used to work for. In fact, he used to work for me. Oh, and by the way, once you hire me, you can never fire me; I am there for life.

Nobody would take that deal. Any employer in America would laugh at that job applicant. Yet that is exactly what we are doing here this week. We have seen 10 percent of his record in the White House and have been given no reason whatsoever why we can't see it all. People talk about, oh, we have seen 100,000 pages or 200,000 pages. That is not the point. He has a huge record, so the number of pages isn't the issue; it is how much of it we have seen as a percentage, and we have seen 10 percent of it.

If I were on the side of this case preparing to vote for this gentleman, I would be terrified about what is going to come out because it is all going to come out. The records of the Bush administration are going to be available in 2020 under the Presidential Records Act--12 years from the end of the administration. In 2020, all of these records will come out. In fact, I think they are going to start coming out in the next couple of weeks from the National Archives. I don't know what is in those records. There may be nothing. The fact that they are being withheld raises my main suspicions. Are they worried that something is in there that will derail this nomination, or do they know it?

Asking us to vote on this lifetime appointment, with no do-overs, no amendments, no chances, no repeals, when we haven't seen the entire record, is beyond me. There is no justification for it.

Even if I were inclined to vote yes, I would say: Wait a minute. You can't ask me to vote for this until I see all his records.

We haven't done it. It is ridiculous. There is no other word for it.

No. 4, we don't have to believe Dr. Ford to conclude Judge Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court because he has demonstrated he lacks the temperament and demeanor to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.

First, I think it is only fair to state the standard. What should be the standard for temperament and demeanor for a judge? Here is the standard, as I have seen it:

To be a good judge and a good umpire, it's important to

have the proper demeanor. Really important, I think. To walk

in the others' shoes, whether it be the other litigants, the

litigants in the case, the other judges. To understand them.

To keep our emotions in check. To be calm amidst the storm.

On the bench, to put it in the vernacular, don't be a jerk.

This isn't me; this is the standard published to show and help display that you are trying to make the decision impartially and dispassionately, based on the law and not based on your emotions. Who established that standard? Who wrote it? Brett Kavanaugh. Those are his words from a speech several years ago at Catholic University. Proper demeanor. Calm amidst the storm. On the bench, don't be a jerk. Help display that you are trying to make the decision impartially and dispassionately based on the law and not based on your emotions. I don't see how anybody, with a straight face, can argue that Brett Kavanaugh met that standard last Thursday afternoon.

I had an interesting experience that day. I was in a hearing in the afternoon while he was speaking, and there was a television screen in the hearing room, but the sound was off because we were doing other committee work. Every now and then, I could look at the screen, and I could see him. I turned to the person sitting behind me and said: He is coming unhinged. What is going on? What is he saying? He is shouting.

You could see it. You could see his face contorted. Then, of course, I saw what he was saying. No one could argue that he demonstrated judicial demeanor in that hearing. In fact, something like 3,000 law professors, including 40 from Yale, have come out and said that based on that performance, he should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens, a retired Justice, in an extraordinary moment, said: This man should not be confirmed for the Supreme Court.

If you were from Mars, Mr. President, or from South Dakota and you knew nothing about the history of this matter, you knew nothing about the documents, the opinions, the philosophy, none of those things, and all you saw was that hearing that afternoon, you would say: This guy has no business anywhere near a courtroom.

His defense is, I was angry. I was being charged with something. My family is being threatened, and I am being threatened.

I understand that. All of us have thought about how we would feel if some unjust or untrue charge were made against us, whatever the nature, and a particularly heinous charge was made against him. I understand that he was passionate. But here is what really bothers me: What he said--the conspiracy, the direct insults to the Democratic Senators, the idea that he was a victim of a smear campaign--he had written down. That wasn't a spontaneous outburst--that he was so mad

and caught up in the moment and said something he regretted--it was in written testimony. He had written it down, his answers to the questions.

Back to canon No. 2, avoid anything that would undermine confidence in the judiciary. He actually said, looking at the Democrats, ``What goes around comes around.'' Everybody knows that is a threat. He was looking at Richard Blumenthal, who is the plaintiff in a case called Blumenthal v. Trump, which is in the Federal district court in Washington and will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court based on the emoluments clause. How can Richard Blumenthal possibly believe he would get a fair and impartial hearing from somebody who said: ``What goes around comes around''? That phrase itself should be disqualifying. Anybody who talks about a political party or a group of people or millions of people or anybody else and says ``What goes around comes around''--that is disqualifying.

I think that based upon judicial philosophy, his failure to recuse himself from issues involving the President who appointed him--his refusal to say he will recuse himself in issues involving the President who appointed him, the incredible lack of documentation based upon his record, and his demeanor last week disqualify him.

No, you don't have to believe Dr. Ford to conclude, as I have, that Judge Kavanaugh should not be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Before I close, I should add one note: I do believe Dr. Ford.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Biddeford Regional Center of Technology, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary. BRCOT offers unique hands-on programs and follows rigid national standards to help prepare its students for academic success and future careers. BRCOT offers a variety of programs to local high school students and integrates academic study with firsthand career and technical education. Students work closely with instructors who stress ``learning by doing.''

BRCOT began in 1967 when the Biddeford School Board and the Biddeford City Council voted to build an addition on to the high school specifically dedicated to technical training. This addition opened for the 1968 school year, and though, over the past 50 years focus on career and technical training ebbed and flowed, today there is a resurgence of interest and support for students to develop the skills and practical knowledge gained through career and technical education. BRCOT is one of 27 career and technical schools in Maine and serves students from Biddeford, Dayton, Saco, Old Orchard Beach, and surrounding communities. Students can focus on 16 different career pathways, including auto technology, legal studies, early childhood education, machine tool technology, and welding and metal fabrication.

BRCOT ensures that students are fully prepared to work in their chosen field by collaborating with the local business community to develop updated and current programs based on industry standards. All coursework is approved by the State of Maine and includes a heavy emphasis on safety and ``habits of work,'' with BRCOT providing job shadow and internship opportunities that give students real world experience. BRCOT also boasts an active student leadership council, representing students from each program. The leadership council is involved in community projects, fundraising, advising fellow students on BRCOT policies, and special events, such as the annual awards banquet.

The 2018 school year has a full complement of 345 students in 16 programs. BRCOT boasts a 90 percent graduating rate, with 40 percents of those students earning technical credentials, making them ready to transition to full-time careers. Nearly two-thirds of graduates choose to attend postsecondary schools, including Maine Maritime Academy, Maine College of Art, the University of Maine, as well as choosing to serve in the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps.

I am proud to recognize the work of the Biddeford Regional Center of Technology. For 50 years, they have served thousands of students in the Biddeford area, increasing their skills and preparing them to continue their education or enter the workforce. I want to thank all of those involved in the work of BRCOT, from the students to the teachers and faculty, and I look forward to seeing their continued success for many more years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Maine Development Foundation, which is celebrating its 40th anniversary. MDF is a nonpartisan membership organization that advances sustainable, long-term economic growth for the State of Maine. MDF works to empower leaders, strengthen communities, and shape public policy through trusted economic research.

MDF was created by State statute in 1978 and now operates statewide across all economic sectors. MDF's 250 members represent private companies, educational institutions, municipalities, government agencies, and nonprofit organizations. The MDF board of directors is made up of no less than 15 members who are elected each year. MDF operates a number of programs, aimed at increasing economic opportunities in Maine, including Leadership Maine, FOR/MAINE, Maine Downtown Center, the Maine Economic Growth Council, the Policy Leaders Academy, and more.

Leadership Maine, a cornerstone program of MDF, is a yearlong experience that prepares leaders across the State to help shape Maine's changing economy. This program has been operating for 25 years and now boasts over 1,000 alumni. These leaders are each creating an economy driven by educated, innovative, and engaged individuals. Participants learn firsthand about important issues facing the State through an intensive program that gives exclusive access to key community and business leaders. Each class is comprised of 35-45 leaders from across the State, from a cross section of the economy. All participants share a commitment to make Maine a better place to live and to engage in public service in new ways.

MDF also provides support and staffing for the Maine Economic Growth Council, a legislatively chartered group that annually prepares the Measures of Growth report. This snapshot of the Maine economy over a range of sectors is instructive to policymakers finding the intersection of economy, community, and environment in securing a high quality of life for Mainers.

MDF played a critical role in the work and success to date of the Economic Development Assessment Team, EDAT, a Federal effort funded by the Economic Development Administration to support job growth and economic development in Maine's rural communities. Under MDF's guidance, the EDAT helped fund and establish the Forest Opportunity Roadmap Maine Initiative, a unique collaboration between industry, communities, government, education, and nonprofit organizations, working together to strengthen Maine's forest economy. With MDF's leadership, FOR/Maine developed a comprehensive action plan and strategy to support a thriving, innovative, and diverse industry that provides good jobs in vibrant rural communities for generations to come.

I am proud to recognize the great work of Maine Development Foundation over the last 40 years, and I look forward to what the future holds. I want to thank them for all their work to improve their community and the State of Maine--your work makes Maine such a special place to call home.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Sunrise County Economic Council of Washington County as they celebrate their 25th anniversary. Founded using funds left over from the Quoddy Job Opportunity Zone, an initiative from then-Governor John McKernan, SCEC has used a grassroots approach to economic development in Washington County. They have worked tirelessly across political, economic, and municipal boundaries to promote development in one of the least populated counties in the State.

SCEC was founded in 1993 by a group of businesses and community leaders to promote economic and community development. SCEC brings together community-focused businesses, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities, and citizens to all work together to create jobs and promote prosperity in Washington County. During my time as Governor, we created the Investing in Washington County initiative, which was a partnership between SCEC and State agencies working through the cabinet subcommittee on economic development. Since then, SCEC has been dedicated to job creation and development and continues to play a vital role in Maine's economic prosperity.

Today SCEC has several programs and initiatives to achieve their goals to improve their community and promote development. One of these programs is Family Futures Downeast. This program aims to break the cycle of poverty by providing children with a safe, secure environment, high-quality education, and supporting parents through postsecondary education and career development. Parents enroll at the University of Maine Machias or Washington County Community College and their children are enrolled in early-education programs right on campus. Families receive support from a variety of partners, including college preparatory and tutoring services, workforce training, career counseling, and financial support. This program is life-changing for parents and children. Thanks to the program, children are thriving in high-quality childcare, parents can pursue opportunities without worrying about their children's care, and parents are on path to long- term, higher-paying jobs right in Washington County.

Another SCEC program is the Washington County Leadership Institute. Founded in 1997, the institute provides Washington County citizens with the skills, insight, and professional network to be more effective leaders in their communities. Participants come from all sectors, including small business, finance, education, tourism, healthcare, nonprofit, and municipal government. Institute graduates have gone on to serve on planning boards, school boards, filled a variety of volunteer positions, and served in the legislature.

I am honored to join all of the communities of Washington County and the entire State of Maine in congratulating Sunrise County Economic Council for 25 years of incredible work. I look forward to their continued growth and service to the State, and I thank them for their dedication to making Maine such a special place to call home.

Mr. President, the discussion today is about the opioid crisis, one of the most serious public health crises I have seen in my adult life, certainly in the State of Maine. It is an enormous problem across the country, particularly in rural areas. In my State, we are losing more than one person a day to an overdose death. That is an epidemic by anybody's definition.

There are few rays of hope in this rather bleak picture. The numbers continue to get worse. More and more families are being devastated by this crisis, and there aren't many answers being provided. There is, however, one ray of hope this bill we are going to be discussing and voting on this afternoon does provide, and that is, treatment works; recovery is possible.

I was at a rally in Portland, ME, just a week ago, with people of all ages from all over the State who were there to publicly say: I am in recovery. It works. Treatment saved my life. I think that is what is so important about continuing the work we have done in this body.

The problem is, treatment, particularly in rural areas, is short on infrastructure. It is short on people who can deliver the treatment. We can fund programs and talk about them here, but if you are talking about a rural county--about Milo, ME, in Piscataquis County, you are not talking about a tremendous amount of available infrastructure, but there is available an army of people who can contribute to the solution of this problem.

The people I am talking about are nurse practitioners. Nurse practitioners are, in many ways, among the unsung heroes in the healthcare discussion--particularly, again, in rural areas where there aren't a lot of physicians. Nurse practitioners were enabled in the CARA bill to provide medicine-assisted treatment, but the problem is, that authority expires in 2021. Therefore, we need to fix that. It is working. It is an important part of our ability to deliver these lifesaving services. In Maine, we have nurse practitioners who are ready, willing, and more than able, and they have proven that, to deliver these lifesaving services--1,700 of them in the State of Maine.

Unfortunately, the bill we are going to be voting on this afternoon does not have this extension in it. I am here this afternoon to urge those who are going to be supporting the bill, and then working on it in conference with the other body, to see that this small change-- giving the authority for nurse practitioners to deliver medically assisted treatment to those people suffering and trapped in the throes of addiction--allowing those nurse practitioners to have that authority, to not have it expire in 2021 and create the anxiety, both in the patient community and in the medical community, that termination will create.

Let's, for once, do something before it is a deadline. Let's do it now. I believe we can do it as part of this discussion, as part of the final resolution of the bill that is going to be before us this afternoon, which I entirely support. I think this is an important addition that will strengthen it, and it will particularly strengthen the ability to deliver this care, this treatment that is so important to so many people and families and communities, particularly in the smaller towns of rural areas of America and in my State of Maine.

So I rise to support the bill but also to suggest this small change that I think will dramatically increase the effectiveness of the treatment the bill enables and will allow it to be delivered in an equitable and direct and important way to people all across the country--no matter where they live, no matter what the status of their health infrastructure is--because, as I say, nurse practitioners are an army of people who are ready, willing, and able to deliver this service.

I hope we can make this one modification to this bill that will allow that service to be provided not only between now and 2021 but on into the indefinite future when, hopefully, we can rid the country of the scourge of this terrible opioid and drug addiction.

I believe this is something we can and should do. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make this happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Portland Housing Authority, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary this year. Portland Housing Authority and its affiliates provide critical long- term affordable rental housing and rental assistance to more than 3,000 low-income families, seniors, and disabled individuals in the Portland area. They house over 6,500 residents, nearly 10 percent of the city's population.

Portland Housing Authority was established in 1943 through State legislation and is authorized by resolution of the Portland City Council. They receive most of their funding through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Their mission is to provide and expand affordable housing opportunities and services that ``improve quality of life, build community, enhance safety, and promote personal success for the people [they] serve and the neighborhoods in which they reside.'' Certainly, over the last 75 years, Portland Housing Authority has made great strides in helping those in the greater Portland area find affordable housing and strengthening the community for everyone.

One example of the strengthened community can be seen in the community groups created within the housing units. The Portland Housing Authority received one of the first grants from Women's United, to help fund community dinners where single mothers could learn about relevant topics and get to know each other. Many of these single mothers used these dinners to make friends, discuss their goals, and encourage and motivate each other. They have created their own network, helping each other out when needed.

Another of these community groups is the Pihcintu chorus. This all- girls chorus is made up almost entirely of refugee immigrants who live in Portland Housing Authority units and who have represented Maine on some of the biggest stages, including NBC's Today Show and the Kennedy Center here in Washington DC. This group, whose name in Passamaquoddy means ``when she sings, her voice carries far,'' is a unique way for girls who are new to Maine to gather from their diverse background to join as one voice. This group was started in 2005, and since then, more than 200 girls have lent their voices to the chorus. For many, the group offers a bit of serenity, companionship with other girls who have gone through similar journeys, and a reminder of the home they left behind. The chorus is also a symbol of their new home in the State of Maine.

Over the last 75 years, Portland Housing Authority has not only helped Portland residents find affordable housing, but also has helped them thrive in their community. I want to recognize all the work they have done for the greater Portland area and the State of Maine over the last 75 years, and I look forward to seeing their continued success for many years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 150th anniversary of Franklin Savings Bank, one of the oldest and most successful business in Franklin County and the only locally owned bank in Franklin County. Today the bank has eight locations across western and central Maine, including a commercial lending center in Ellsworth.

Founded on February 24, 1868, when Governor Joshua Chamberlain signed a bill into law incorporating the bank, the bank's early mission was ``to help the people of Franklin County lay by something each year and deposit in some good bank where it will be safe and earn a little something.'' At the beginning, President Joseph Fairbanks said that they preferred the small accounts of children, which would be added to little by little over time, over the large account of a rich man. Times have changed since then, with the bank now serving four Maine counties with eight locations, but their dedication to customer service has not waivered. Over the past 150 years, Franklin Savings Bank has shifted from focusing on individual savings accounts to now also offering home mortgage lending and commercial lending. Online banking services were added to Franklin Savings Bank in 2001 and have only increased, today offering customers the ability to deposit, complete transactions, and pay bills all from the convenience of their cellphone.

Franklin Savings Bank is not only committed to its customers, but also to its neighbors in the communities it serves. In 2000, the board of directors established the Franklin Savings Bank Community Development Foundation. This is a not-for-profit foundation that supports the community, economic, and educational needs within areas served by the bank. Over the first 15 years, the foundation has contributed $2 million to local economic development, education, and various charities.

Amidst the mortgage crisis of 2008, Franklin Savings Bank continued to be a safe and trusted place for the people of Maine to keep their money. Franklin Savings Bank was named the Strongest Bank in Maine for 19 years and, during the mortgage crisis, the strongest bank in New England. Today Franklin Savings Bank is consistently ranked as one of the safest banks in the country. Their mission is to continue to be a financially strong and independent community bank, and I look forward to seeing their continued growth and impact on the State of Maine. I join with their customers in congratulating Franklin Savings Bank on 150 years of leadership in western Maine.

Mr. President, my colleagues have spoken eloquently about the weaknesses of the supposed new Clean Power Plan, which is anything but. I wish to speak a minute about why this is such a detrimental idea for the country but also for my State.

Let's put it in very stark terms. Even by the terms of the new plan that has been announced, the original Clean Power Plan would have reduced carbon emissions by 30 percent, CO2 by 30 percent, and the new plan by about 1 percent. That may be being generous.

We have clean air and water in Maine, but pollution knows no boundaries. That is one of the problems with this plan. It essentially leaves up to each State how to regulate the plants within its borders. That is a good idea, except the pollution from these plants does not stay within those borders.

This is a representation of the way air moves in the Northeast part of the United States. What you can see is, the arrows are coming up over Massachusetts, the Gulf of Maine, and then into Maine, west through Vermont, New Hampshire into Maine, through Quebec, and back into Maine. We are literally the end of the country's tailpipe. Therefore, anything that weakens pollution controls to our west or south or, indeed, north is a direct harm to my people. That is why I think this plan is so ill-conceived and will not achieve meaningful results. By its own terms, we will see more deaths as a result of this plan. In the data that has been submitted with the plan, they admit deaths will increase.

In my State of Maine, we already have higher than average asthma rates. This will only exacerbate that. What this plan is doing, essentially, is extending the life of dirty polluting plants and shortening the life of real people. I don't think that is the direction we should be moving in. I think this body should correct that, and I believe this is important to the country, to the region, and particularly to the State I represent.

The word ``clean'' should not be in this plan because that is not what it does. A Clean Power Plan should do what it says it is. It should improve the environment. It should improve the air for the people of this country, not make them worse, which is what this plan would do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. President, today we remember the life of Christopher ``Chris'' Cousins, who passed away suddenly last week at the age of 42. Chris was a political reporter for the Bangor Daily News and recently named by the Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting as one of the most respected journalists in Maine. Chris was well-liked by all who met him, and he leaves behind his wife, Jen; two sons, Caleb and Lucas; his mother; sister Jen Cousins; and many other family members and friends. He will be greatly missed by his colleagues, his readers, his friends, and all who knew him and his work.

Chris was a consummate professional who embodied the best ideals of journalism. He was devoted to the truth, tenaciously pursued the stories most important to the people of Maine, and had a passion for the communities he served. Chris's death leaves a hole in Maine journalism that will not be easily filled.

Chris began his journalism career at the Advertiser Democrat in Norway, ME, then joined the Times Record in the early 2000s as a reporter and city editor. He left the Times Record to join the State House News Service before moving to the Bangor Daily News in 2009, where he began covering southern Penobscot and Somerset Counties. Chris quickly moved on to politics, covering the 2010 Maine Governor race, and by 2013, he was appointed State house bureau chief.

Those who worked with Chris remember him for his storytelling abilities, his laugh, and exceptional abilities as a journalist. Chris had a huge heart and also fought for the truth from government leaders at the State house, holding them accountable without being caustic. Maine is a better place because of Chris and his relentless pursuit of the truth on behalf of Maine people.

For me, Chris's political coverage shined when he covered people. Chris was an incredible storyteller, and he was such a great journalist because he got to know the people involved. No assignment was ever too much for him, and his standard response was, ``I am not afraid.'' That fearlessness resulted in clear stories that his editors loved, heartfelt narratives that his readers could relate to, and more passionate articles from his coworkers.

Chris exemplified what so many aspire to be: respected by their peers, a loving husband and father, and a great friend. We have much to be thankful for in Maine because of Chris's dedication and service to the State and our Nation, and he will be deeply missed by so many.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Farnsworth Museum in Rockland, ME, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. The Farnsworth Museum highlights Maine and American art, proudly holding one of the largest collections of works by sculptor Louise Nevelson, a Rockland, ME, native and features works by Andrew, N.C., and Jamie Wyeth in its Wyeth Center. Their nationally recognized collection fills over 20,000 square feet of gallery space and contains more than 15,000 works of art. The Farnsworth has been a longtime supporter of the arts and a positive presence in the Rockland community.

Officially opening in August 1948, Lucy Farnsworth turned the estate left to her by her parents, William Alden Farnsworth and Mary Catherine Sprague, into a $1.3 million legacy that would later become the William A. Farnsworth Library and Art Museum in memory of her father. Over the course of next several years, the Farnsworth amassed an impressive collection of American art, opening the Andrew Wyeth Gallery in 1968, presenting a major exhibition of works by Louis Nevelson in 1976, and, in 2000, opening both the Jamien Morehouse Wing, to display larger and more in-depth exhibitions, and the Wyeth Research Center, dedicated to scholarly research and the development of a groundbreaking computer database program.

In addition to the beautiful art on display, the Farnsworth has been a long contributor to Maine communities and is a tourist destination for many visitors. In 1999, the Farnsworth celebrated the permanent collection, ``Maine in America,'' as well as the naming of director Chris Crossman as the recipient of the Kathryn M. Weare Award for Achievement in honor of his contributions and service to the Maine community. Additionally, the Farnsworth established the Art Initiative for Maine Schools, AIMS, to encourage Maine children to participate in tours and workshop programs and created Julia's Gallery for Young Artists to educate people on the operations aspect of museums. In 2004, Julia's Gallery for Young Artists received the Maine College of Art Award for Leadership in Arts Education.

The Farnsworth is also the steward of the Farnsworth Homestead and the Olson House. The homestead is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and was the home built for William A. Farnsworth and his family. The Olson House, a National Historic Landmark, located in Cushing, ME, is the late 19th century farm that was home to Alvaro and Christina Olson and the inspiration for hundreds of works by Andrew Wyeth.

These examples and many more highlight the importance of the Farnsworth Museum to the Maine community and all those who visit our great State. I applaud the Farnsworth Art Museum on their achievements over the past 70 years and look forward to their continued success as a positive driving force in the State of Maine for many more years to come.

I thank the Senator from Oregon for bringing us here today.

Mr. President, 53 years ago this week, President Johnson signed the Medicare bill. I believe it to be one of the most important pieces of legislation signed in the last 100 years. It finally removed from the shoulders of the senior citizens of this country the burden, stress, cost, and anxiety of not knowing whether they were going to be able to pay for healthcare, for hospitalization, for doctors' visits, and, later, for prescription drugs.

I will talk for a moment about two things. No. 1 is what it has done to our economy and, particularly, to the economy involving seniors.

Here is a pretty graphic representation.

In 1965, when Medicare was passed, a third of the senior citizens in the country lived in poverty. One-third lived in poverty and in fear of losing everything if they were stricken by health catastrophes or even minor health problems that they could not deal with. Over the next 53 years, this line has come down to 9.3 percent of seniors living in poverty. It has declined by two-thirds, largely because of Medicare, largely because the financial burden of healthcare costs has been eliminated from their shoulders.

Now, Medicare isn't perfect. There are things we can do to strengthen it, to improve it. I think one of the things we need to do is to talk about high drug prices and the effect on seniors under Medicare. We also have to talk about prevention. One of the faults, I believe, with Medicare is that it only pays for medical procedures and it doesn't pay to prevent medical procedures. The cheapest operation is the one that you don't have to have. I believe that is one of the areas in which we can improve Medicare--to provide more preventive services that will lower the costs for seniors, for the taxpayers, and for the whole economy.

Medicare, I would argue, is one of the most successful programs this body, this government, and this country have ever adopted. Yet, as I stand here today, there are people in this Congress who are, essentially, talking about scrapping it. They use all kinds of fancy language about ``premium support'' and those kinds of things and that they don't want to really do away with Medicare. Make no mistake. Premium support equals vouchers, and vouchers equal the end of Medicare as we know it.

This is a horrible, no-good, rotten, lousy idea, and we shouldn't do it. It will decline. It will diminish the support for the program and, ultimately, put the burden back on seniors of paying the cost of their healthcare.

As to this whole idea of vouchers, who at 85 or 90 years old wants to sort through 10 different insurance policies, compare deductibles and copays, and try to figure it all out? I don't think that is practical. I think it is a cruel joke on our seniors. As long as I am here, I am going to do everything I can to call out this idea for what it is--a

cruel swipe at the protection for seniors that Medicare has provided.

I had a roundtable with seniors in Maine just this week, and we talked about prescription drug prices but also about Medicare. One of the things I learned is about one of the most important programs under Medicare. It is called the SHIP program, or the State Health Insurance Assistance Program, whereby people help seniors to sort through what is still the fairly complex process of signing up and determining Medicare coverage. That has been cut 20 percent in the last 2 years.

One of the things that came out of our roundtable was that what we need, as much or more than anything else, is information and guidance and care and concern. The SHIP program provides that. To be cutting it at this moment, again, is just inexplicable and, ultimately, I feel, is cruel. Now is not the time to be making cuts in Medicare. Now is the time to be strengthening it, to be providing for the future, and to be providing for those citizens who are coming up.

I know people in Maine who can't wait to be 65 because they will be covered by Medicare. I suppose they would just as soon not be 65, but they are genuinely waiting for the time when the burden of healthcare expenses is lifted from them, at least insofar as Medicare can do so. Yes, it needs improvement; yes, we should do more about prevention; yes, we should do more about the cost of prescription drugs, but, fundamentally, this is an important program that is so essential to the lives of seniors across the country and the 200,000 Medicare patients in the State of Maine.

This is an important anniversary. It is one that has really shown an incredible change. If anything has shown a successful track record, it is Medicare, and I am certainly going to do everything I can in my time here to make sure it maintains itself as a bulwark against the risk of medical catastrophe for our seniors. We can do that, and we shall do it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to commend the Senator from Indiana for bringing our attention to this important subject. It is important in all of our States. Career technical education is an incredibly important part of helping to grow our economy, so I wish to express my appreciation to the Senator from Indiana for his leadership on this issue.

Healthcare

Madam President, I rise to speak about a different issue; that is, healthcare and what is happening to the Affordable Care Act and to the availability of healthcare and health insurance in our society.

I rise genuinely puzzled about what appears to be an obsession or a mania with removing health insurance from

people, with keeping people from having health insurance. I just don't get it.

The data is very clear over the years that having health insurance saves lives. There can be debate about exactly how many, but the reality is--and it is perfectly logical--if you have health insurance, you are more likely to be treated, you are more likely to be treated earlier, and you are more likely to survive, particularly with regard to diseases like cancer, where early detection and treatment is the best defense against this dread disease.

I just don't understand why we cannot face the reality that health insurance or health coverage or access to healthcare is a fundamental right. It is a fundamental part of being a human. The idea of rationing healthcare by wealth just doesn't make sense, particularly in a country committed, as we are, to equality and equal justice under law.

The other reason I am surprised at this continuing effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act is that its eventual sabotage will only lead to greater demands for some kind of more intrusive change to our healthcare system--a single-payer system or healthcare for all. There are already millions of people in this country building a political movement to support Medicare for all, which is essentially a single-payer system. So those who are trying to cripple the Affordable Care Act, which really was a conservative proposal from the 1980s and 1990s, are only paving the way for a much more radical transformation of our healthcare system than they would ever desire.

The ACA simply builds upon the current system we have of private health insurance and provides health insurance to those who aren't fortunate enough to work for a company that provides a subsidy for health insurance or provides health insurance to its employees. That is all it is. It is really an effort to fill the gap in this country between those who have insurance through their employer or through Medicare or through Medicaid and those who have no insurance.

The ACA was a remarkable success for a period of years because it vastly cut the number of uninsured people in this country. So why we are trying to kill it, to strangle it, to mug it, to sabotage it just doesn't make sense from any point of view--either from the point of view of providing healthcare and health insurance to people, which saves lives, or the point of view of trying to maintain the semblance of the current system.

So here we are in the midst of an ongoing attempt to basically sabotage this system. Back in October of 2017, the administration said they are no longer going to make cost-sharing reduction payments to help insurance companies provide lower copays and deductibles to low- income individuals. Premium increases. I sat on this floor and listened to Members decry premium increases because of the Affordable Care Act. This is an action which is sure to provide premium increases, and it was a voluntary action of the administration taken last fall.

Back in January of 2017, within weeks of taking office, one of the first things the new administration did was cut advertising to notify people of the availability of reasonably priced insurance under the Affordable Care Act--an initial step to cut access.

Of course, leading up to the tax filing deadline in 2016, for 2016 returns back last year, the administration said the IRS was no longer going to enforce the individual mandate.

Then, of course, this body, in a provision which I can only deem as cruel because of the effect on insurance premiums and the effect on the insurance market, generally, eliminated the individual mandate as part of the tax bill last December.

In 2018, the open enrollment period was reduced from 12 weeks to 6-- cut in half. No reason was given. Let's cut it in half so fewer people can sign up. Interestingly, almost the same number of people signed up because they realized how important this is.

Then, last winter, during the open enrollment season, HHS, on Sundays, shut down the website where people can sign up, ostensibly for maintenance. It happened to be the 12 hours on a Sunday when most people would have an opportunity to navigate the website.

Speaking of navigation, in, I think, what is one of the most blatant attempts to sabotage and undermine people's ability to gain this most basic and important health insurance--to provide them with healthy lives--CMS recently announced they are cutting grant funding for navigators, the people who help people get the coverage. They cut it dramatically. It has gone from $62.5 million to $36 million, to $10 million.

This is complicated stuff. I have gone on the website myself in order to get my coverage. As the Presiding Officer knows, we are in the Affordable Care Act. We have to go on the website. We have to get our care through it. If you have done it, you know it is hard. It is complicated. You are comparing policies. You are comparing deductibles. You are comparing premiums. It is a difficult, complicated process. The navigators I know in Maine have been enormously helpful in just guiding people through the process so they don't give up, and they end up getting healthcare and health insurance for the first time in their lives. The amount of funding available in Maine has been reduced from $550,000 to $100,000. It was cut by 80 percent. This is just arbitrary and cruel because the result is--which is, I guess, what they want-- that fewer people will be able to access coverage.

It also said the navigators no longer need to be based in the State where they are working. That means you can't go to on-the-ground efforts or face-to-face efforts, and that is what often makes the difference.

The Department of Justice last month said they are not going to defend the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act--particularly preexisting conditions. This has enormous ramifications for the people of this country. About half the people in the country have preexisting conditions. Under the old law--not in Maine, I might add; Maine dealt with this issue years ago. Under the old law, in most of the country, an insurance company could either deny you outright for a preexisting condition--which is basically any time you had been sick previously in your life--they could either deny you coverage or charge you an outrageous rate, which is, in effect, a denial of coverage for so many people.

Finally, the administration is now pressing what they are calling short-term association plans, which are really largely junk insurance-- insurance that is hardly useful, doesn't cover everything, has very high deductibles, and really gives people a feeling that they have insurance, but when it comes time to use it, it will not really provide coverage.

I would like to conclude with this picture of these wonderful people from Maine whom I was with last week. I don't know who this guy in the middle is, but these are the people who staff something called the Leavitt's Mill Free Health Plan. Every single person in this picture, with the exception of one part-time administrator, are volunteers. These are people coming in and volunteering. They are nurse practitioners, physicians who come in and volunteer for a couple of hours a week to provide healthcare to people who don't have insurance.

I just talked to the director, Patsy Levin. She repeated what she said to me when I was there last week: They want to go out of business. We can't provide healthcare to the millions of uninsured people of this country by volunteers. It is wonderful, what they are doing, but it is impossible. This is like having bake sales to support the Air Force.

We have to provide health insurance to people. We will have a healthier country. We will have a more productive country. We will have a more economically successful country. We will have a more humane country.

These people are fantastic. I spent time there. I visited with one of their clients. He has to go to town assistance to buy his insulin. That is wrong. He needs it. He is a diabetic. It is part of what he has to have to survive, and he is having to go for general assistance to the town to provide the lifesaving insulin that he needs.

These are wonderful people. They are doing great work, but we shouldn't have to rely on people taking their own time, their own energy voluntarily, to come in. It is wonderful for this region where it exists. There are several of these around Maine and they are terrific, but they can't fill the need. They can't fill the need for the millions of

people who are uninsured in this country.

We have a responsibility. We have a responsibility when we see a problem to fix it. I know the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. I know it has problems. I know it has limitations. We should be fixing it, not sabotaging it.

As I said at the beginning, if the sabotage is ultimately successful, the result will be heightened demand for more radical restructuring of our healthcare system in this country because, ultimately, people are going to rightfully demand that they have a right to health insurance and to healthcare coverage and access to healthcare that is not dependent upon their income.

So I call on the administration to stop these petty efforts to undermine this law that has done so much good, and let's come together and talk about what the problems are. I know Members on this side are absolutely ready to do so.

Let's talk about fixing it, not continue to undermine it--to what purpose? To a purpose of diminishing healthcare access to millions and millions of Americans, not only those at the low end of the income spectrum but particularly those in the middle income who aren't fortunate enough to have coverage through where they work.

We can do better. I believe we will. I hope the administration will join us in this effort instead of continuing its efforts to systematically undermine the law that is working for the American people.

I yield the floor.