Floor Statements

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tonight the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, and I and a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators, have submitted a resolution reaffirming the strong alliance between the United States and Australia. I wish to speak about that for a few minutes.

I don't know what happened during last week's telephone call between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Australia, but I do know this: The people of the United States do not have better friends than the people of Australia.

We are more than friends. As one Australian told me when our family lived there thirty years ago, ``Well, we're mates all right. The English may be our ancestors but you Americans are our cousins. First cousins. We started out the same kind of people. Underprivileged, a long way from home, doing the same kind of thing, looking for a new life. Found a hard life. Hoped it would be a better one for our children. Each wave of new ones lifted up the last ones. A pioneering spirit in the countryside here. In America, too.''

Even though they live down under on the other side of the world, for a century Australians have stood with us every time we are at war, and we have stood with them. During World War II, when Australian troops were fighting in North Africa and Europe, and the Japanese were bombing Darwin four times a day, the United States came to the rescue. In 1992, Dick Cheney and I, as members of President George H.W. Bush's Cabinet, traveled to Australia to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea, when the U.S. Navy stopped Japan's advance. Today, no two countries trust one another and cooperate in security arrangements more than Australia and America. We trade, we visit one another, and our

students study in each other's universities.

Thirty years ago, our family lived an American dream and we moved to Australia. We arrived on Australia Day, January 26, 1987, 199 years after the first fleet of English settlers sailed into Sydney Harbor. After 8 years of swiveling in the Governor's chair, on the very day I was sworn out of office, my wife Honey and I and our four children flew to Sydney for Six Months Off in the ``Land Down Under.'' It was my wife's idea: an opportunity for a retreat from the merry-go-round of power and to discover what really was important.

We rented a home in view of the most beautiful harbor in the world, bought an Australian car, and I learned to drive on the wrong side of the road. Our four children walked to Australian schools, and we all sank deeply into the culture of America's favorite cousins. I attended Chester A. Arthur Society meetings, where Australian Parliament members competed to show that they know more about American history than United States Senators do. We spent the night in the South Wales bush. We saw 9-foot crocodiles in the Northwest Territory. We traveled by train to see the Melbourne Zoo and took a horseback trip across the Snowy Mountains. It didn't take long for us to understand what Mark Twain meant when he wrote: ``When a stranger from America steps ashore in Sydney . . . the thing that strikes him is that it is an English City with American trimmings.''

We made friends then that exist to this day. Last year, four of those friends, the Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr and the Australian Ambassador to the United States Kim Beazley and their wives, spent the weekend with us at our home outside the Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee. We cherish those friendships and our country's relationship with Australia. It is always appropriate for the U.S. Senate to reaffirm the importance of that relationship, and I am glad to join Senator Cardin and a long list of bipartisan U.S. Senators to do that again today.

To offer a more complete understanding of what makes the Australians our favorite cousins, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record chapter 30 from my book ``Six Months Off,'' written after our time in Australia.

Reserving the right to object.

That would mean the chairman of the committee would speak last.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, will you please let me know when 4 minutes has expired and then when 5 minutes has expired, and then I will allocate to the Senator from South Carolina the last 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, I am voting for Betsy DeVos because she will implement our law fixing No Child Left Behind the way we wrote it--to reverse the trend to a national school board and restore control to classroom teachers, to local school boards, to Governors, and legislators--because she has been at the forefront of the most important public school reform in the last 30 years--public charter schools--and because she has worked tirelessly to give low-income children more of the same kind of choices that wealthy families have.

Twenty-two Governors in this country support Betsy DeVos.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record their names, including former Governor Jeb Bush, former Governor Mitt Romney, former Governor John Engler, and 462 organizations and elected officials who support Betsy DeVos for Education Secretary.

Mr. President, was there not enough time to question her? I wonder. We treated her just like we did President Obama's Education Secretaries. She offered to meet with the Democrats in December. They refused. She finally met with them in their offices.

Then she testified for 90 minutes longer than either of President Obama's Education Secretaries before our committees.

Then there were followup questions. We asked President Obama's Education Secretaries 53 and 56 questions; they asked her 1,400 questions. Then they met, and one of their Members announced that they all agreed to vote against her before she had a chance to answer the questions. What does that say about those questions?

She has conflicts of interest? We have a procedure for that, an independent conflicts of interest office, the Office of Government Ethics. The head was appointed by President Obama, confirmed by the Senate. He has an agreement with every Cabinet member about conflicts of interest. He wrote a letter to us 8 days before we voted on her and said she would have no conflict of interest if she followed this agreement.

So plenty of time for questions, no conflict of interest. What is the problem?

One, her support for public charter schools. Some people don't like that. But 2.7 million children attend them. They were founded by the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota. They have now grown to 6,800 schools. They are the most effective public school reform in 30 years.

School choice. What is wrong with giving low-income Americans more choice and better schools? We have done it since the GI bill from 1944--taxpayer money following veteran students to Notre Dame, Yeshiva, Harvard, the National Auto Diesel College. Has it hurt the public universities, of which I used to be President of one? It has helped them. Then, more people went to private schools, and now more people go to public colleges.

Betsy DeVos has committed to no more Washington mandates. No more national school board, no Washington mandates for vouchers, no Washington mandates for common core, no Washington mandates for specific kinds of teacher evaluations with Betsy DeVos in charge of the Department of Education.

One year ago, we had no Education Secretary. I asked President Obama to appoint one, even though I knew he would appoint John King, with whom I disagreed. I promised that if he did, we would promptly confirm him, and we did. We asked him 53 questions, not 1,397. We didn't say he had conflicts of interest when the Office of Government Ethics said he did not.

I know my friends are surprised about the election, but wouldn't they be really surprised if he appointed someone from within the education establishment to be the Secretary of Education? Wouldn't you be surprised that a Republican President would be for charter schools? Are you really surprised that a Republican President has appointed an Education Secretary who wants to give low-income children more choices of schools? Are you surprised that a Republican President has nominated an Education Secretary who wants to reverse the trend to a national school board and restore local control?

I am supporting her because she wants to do that, because she has led the most effective--

Thank you, Mr. President.

She has led the most effective public school reform movement over the last 30 years and she has a commitment to help low-income children.

I would say to my Democratic colleagues, we confirmed President Obama's first Education Secretary in 7 days--on the day he was inaugurated; his second one in 3 weeks, just as we will Betsy DeVos today. You may disagree with the new President, but the people elected him, and I urge you to give the new Republican President the opportunity to choose his own Education Secretary, just like we did with the Democratic President 8 years ago and a year ago, even though we disagreed just as much with their view on Federal policy on local schools as you do with her policy and President Trump's policy on school choice.

Mr. President, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam President, with this vote, the Senate will move early next week to confirm the nomination of Betsy DeVos to be the U.S. Education Secretary. In my judgment, she will be an excellent and important Education Secretary for this country.

The No. 1 job of the U.S. Education Secretary is to help create an environment in which our 100,000 public schools succeed, because that is where 9 out of 10 of our children go.

When I was Education Secretary for President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s, I had the privilege of working with a man named David Kerns, who had been the chief executive officer of the Xerox Corporation. He came in as the Deputy Education Secretary at a time when he was not only one of the country's leading businessmen, but he was also the leading businessman who tried to help change public education. David Kern's belief was that it was very difficult to help children by changing public education if you try to do it from within. As all of us do, he respected the teachers, the parents, and the students who work within the public education system, but over the last 30 years, as this country has worked to try to improve our public schools, much of that energy has come from outside the public school establishment. Among those were the Governors of the country.

In the mid-1980s, all of the Governors met together--in 1985 and 1986--on one subject for a whole year. The purpose was, how can we help improve our public schools? I was chairman of the National Governors Association that year, Bill Clinton was the vice chairman, and we did that in a bipartisan way. We did that from outside the schools. Since that time, many Governors and many business leaders have worked hard in support of our public schools, trying to help them have even better opportunities for our children. Among those has been Betsy DeVos. The Governors I spoke of are Governors who are familiar names in this country. I think of Gov. Jeb Bush, Gov. John Engler of Michigan, Gov. Mitt Romney, and the work they did in their respective States to make their public schools better and to create other opportunities for children. All of the three Governors I mentioned--Bush, Romney, and Engler--support Betsy DeVos.

As chairman of the Senate's Education Committee, there are 22 Governors who have written letters to me supporting Betsy DeVos. They see her as someone from outside the system of public education who, as they worked for 30 years, can help change and improve it.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks the names of the 22 Governors who support her. They come from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.

The Governors of all those States support Betsy DeVos. Four of the last Education Secretaries support Betsy DeVos. Bill Bennett, Rod Paige, Margaret Spellings, and I support her. Joe Lieberman, who served in this body and worked on the DC voucher program for many years, endorsed her. She has strong support from the Governors who for 30 years have been working hard to successfully improve our public schools.

Some have said: Well, she has spent her time working on giving children choices of schools other than public schools.

She has done that, and it has always puzzled me as to why anybody would criticize that. The idea that a low-income child should have the same opportunity or more of the same opportunities as a wealthy family has would seem to me to be a very all-American idea. Not only does it seem to be, it is an idea that underlies the most successful piece of social policy our country has ever enacted, arguably--the GI

bill for veterans in 1944. Think about that. The veterans came home from World War II. We gave them a scholarship. It followed them to the college of their choice. Ms. DeVos has argued for the same thing for children. Why is an idea that has helped to create the greatest generation and the greatest colleges of the world so dangerous for schools?

I would argue that she has been among the forefront of the leaders-- like the Governors--for the most successful reform of the last 30 years to change and improve public education, and that would be the public charter schools. Those began with 12 schools in Minnesota created by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in the early 1900s. Since then, charter schools have been supported by every President--President Obama, President Clinton, Presidents Bush. President Obama's most recent Education Secretary was a founder of charter schools. Four times, this Congress, by big bipartisan majorities, has supported charter schools. The last six U.S. Education Secretaries have supported charter schools. Charter schools have grown from 12 Democratic-Farmer- Labor schools to 6,800 today, and 2.7 million children attend them. Teachers have more freedom and parents have more choices. They are public schools, and Betsy DeVos was in the forefront of helping to create that opportunity for public education.

Finally, she believes what 85 of us voted for in the law that President Obama called a ``Christmas miracle'' in December of 2015, and that is to reverse the trend from a national school board and restore control of our children and our schools to those closest to the children. There will be no mandates for common core, no mandates for teacher evaluation, no mandates for vouchers, and no mandates for anything else from a U.S. Department of Education headed by Betsy DeVos. We will be swapping a national school board for what she believes in, which is a local school board, which is what 85 of us voted for.

I am pleased to support her.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks an article published by Max Eden on January 29, 2017, which shows Detroit charter schools--by three major studies-- are better and children perform better than the traditional schools of Detroit.

I look forward to casting my vote for Betsy DeVos for U.S. Education Secretary early next week.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Maine for this reason: They are following a long and venerable tradition in the United States Senate that too many Senators do not follow. They are allowing--despite their final view on the substance of an issue--the full Senate to make a decision on an important issue.

It used to be that a motion to proceed to an issue was routine. It used to be that after a certain period of time, we would cut off the vote so we could have an up-or-down vote, 51, on an important issue.

We have gotten away from that, but Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski have been among the most consistent Senators who would say, absent extraordinary circumstances, ``I am going to vote to allow the vote to come to the floor so the full Senate can make its decision,'' and I thank them for that.

Madam President, as to Mrs. DeVos, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, following my remarks, an article about why the Senate should promptly confirm Betsy DeVos as U.S. Education Secretary, which I believe it will do so.

Mrs. DeVos will be an excellent Education Secretary. She has commitment to public education. She has said that. There is no better example of that than her work on the most important reform of public schools in the last 30 years, which is charter schools.

Charter public schools are the fastest growing form of public education to give teachers more freedom and parents more choices, and she has been at the forefront of that public school activity. Second, she has spent her time truly helping to give low-income parents more choices and better schools for their children, but is that a reason not to support her? I would be surprised if any President supported an Education Secretary who didn't support charter schools. I would be surprised if a Republican President nominated an Education Secretary who didn't believe in school choice.

What I especially like about Mrs. DeVos is that she believes in the local school board, instead of the national school board. She has made it clear that there will be no mandates from Washington to adopt Common Core in Arkansas or Tennessee if she is the Education Secretary, there will be no mandate in Washington to evaluate teachers in Washington State this way or that way if she is the Secretary, and there will be no mandate from Washington to have vouchers in Maine or Alaska if she is the Secretary.

She believes in the bill we passed in December of 2015, with 85 votes, that restores to States and classroom teachers and local school boards the responsibility for making decisions about standards, about tests, about how to help improve schools, about how to evaluate teachers. That passed because people were so sick and tired of Washington telling local schools so much about what to do.

She will be that kind of Education Secretary. She will be an excellent Education Secretary. The two Senators have followed a venerable and honorable tradition in the Senate by saying they will vote to allow the full Senate to consider her nomination, and when we do, I am confident she will be confirmed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the committee rules for the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the subcommittee assignments for the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, Democratic Senators are searching for a valid reason to oppose the President's nomination of Betsy DeVos to be U.S. Education Secretary because they really don't want Americans to know what their real reason is. Here is the real reason: Betsy DeVos has spent the last 30 years--actually more than 30 years--being dedicated to helping low-income children in America have more of the same choices of schools that wealthy Americans already have.

Specifically, the Democrats object to the fact that Betsy DeVos supports the idea of tax dollars following low-income children to the school that their parents may choose--public, private, or religious. This is not a new or subversive idea. Let us go back to 1944, the GI bill for veterans. The Congress enacted probably the most successful piece of social legislation ever enacted when it passed the GI bill for veterans. As a result, veterans came home from World War II and Federal tax dollars followed them to the accredited college or university of their choice.

They could go to Notre Dame. They could go the University of Arizona. They could go to Nashville Auto Diesel College, the University of Tennessee. It did not matter. It was their choice. That is when Americans experience with education vouchers began. I have always wondered, why would an idea that helped to create the ``greatest generation''--which is what we call the World War II generation--that helped to create the best colleges and universities in the world, why would that be such a dangerous idea to use for our schools?

The idea of education vouchers following students to the college of their choice has been continued in higher education. Pell grants--we spend about $30 billion in Pell grants every year, up to $6,000, that follow lower income students to the community college or college of their choice. Those are education vouchers.

We have almost $100 billion of new student loans every year. How do we spend that money? We allow that money to follow the college students to the college of their choice. Those are education vouchers. Starting with the GI bill for veterans, all the way through Pell grants, all the way through student loans, we all endorse those ideas, saying it creates great opportunity for children. It has been so successful. I have not heard any Senator in this body stand up and say: Well, let's cancel the Pell grants because it is tax money following students to a college. Let's cancel $100 billion in student loans this year because it means tax dollars following someone to Harvard or to Notre Dame or to Yeshiva.

No one is going to say that. Then why do they get so exercised about that when it has to do with our schools? In addition to that, Mrs. DeVos has testified before our committee that she does not favor--as much as she supports the idea of giving parents choices with schools-- she does not favor Washington, DC, telling Arizona or Tennessee or any other State that they must do that, even though her critics, those who are opposing her

now, delight in the idea of a national school board and in imposing their pet ideas on States, such as the common core academic standards.

Fortunately, we agreed in December of 2015 to prohibit that, but here we have a lady who has spent her time helping low-income children have more choices of schools. It was said, I respect your right to make that decision for yourself. I don't believe Washington should tell you to do that. Yes, they are really upset with her.

So I would ask: Who is in the mainstream--the GI bill for veterans; Pell grants, $30 billion worth; $100 billion of student loans this year; President George H.W. Bush; President George W. Bush; the 25 States that have State choice programs; Congress, with its passage of the Washington, DC, voucher program, which has 1,000 students standing in line hoping to get a chance to go to a better school; 45 Senators who voted on this floor in 2015 for the Scholarships for Kids legislation I proposed that would allow States to take $24 billion in Federal dollars, turn them into $2,100 scholarships and let them follow the children, the low-income children, to the school the State believes they should go to; or Betsy DeVos--that is all on one side--or her critics? I think Betsy DeVos is in the mainstream.

The second reason the Democrats on the committee are opposing Betsy DeVos is because she supports charter schools. Now, I know a little bit about charter schools. My last month as U.S. Education Secretary, in January 1993, I wrote a letter to every school superintendent in America and said: Why don't you try this new idea that the Minnesota Democratic Farmer-Labor Party has invented called charter schools.

There were only 12 charter schools then. The first President Bush, with my help, had been working for 2 years to create what we called New American Schools, start-from-scratch schools, the idea of giving teachers more freedom, parents more choices.

That seemed to us like a good idea in a country that values opportunity and competition. Well, not only did we think so, over the last 30 years or so, a lot of people have thought so. Today, there are 6,800 public charter schools in America. These are public schools. These are schools that have fewer union rules and fewer government rules so teachers have more freedom to teach and parents have more freedom to choose the school that is appropriate for their child.

Boy, that is really a subversive idea. Oh, no, it is not subversive because the last six Presidents of the United States have supported charter schools, not just the Presidents Bush but also the last four Presidents of the United States--Presidents Bush and President Obama and President Clinton and now President Trump. That is five.

The last six U.S. Secretaries of Education have supported charter schools, including both of President Obama's Education Secretaries, Arne Duncan and John King. John King was founder of a charter school system in Massachusetts. Forty-three States have authorized charter schools. That is where the 6,800 charter schools are; 2.9 million people go to those charter schools. That is more than 6 percent of all the children in public schools in America. I would ask the question again: Who is in the mainstream? the last five Presidents, the last six Education Secretaries, 43 States, the Senate, Betsy DeVos or her critics--or her critics?

Now, the third reason her critics don't like her is because she is wealthy. No question about that. All of her information is public for everybody to see. She has agreed to divest herself of 102 investments that the Office of Government Ethics has identified as possibly causing a conflict of interest. When those are gone, she has no conflicts of interest. Her investments are public.

They don't like the fact that she has money. Would they have been happier if she had spent the last 30 years trying to deny low-income children an opportunity to go to a better school? No. She has spent her money and her time trying to help children from low-income families go to a better school. Her opponents are really grasping for straws, and I am very disappointed in them.

``We did not have time to question her,'' they said at our committee hearings. Well, let's go over the facts. No. 1, she visited everyone in their offices individually, so they had a chance to ask her questions then. Then she appeared at a hearing for questions for about 3\1/2\ hours or nearly 90 minutes more than either of President Obama's Education Secretaries.

Now we have followup questions coming from the Democratic Senators. Let me tell you what they are doing. They have asked her 1,397 followup questions after the hearing. Remember, this is a hearing where she spent more time than either of President Obama's Secretaries answering questions, after she had been to be their offices answering questions.

By comparison, Republicans asked President Obama's first Secretary 53 followup questions, his second Secretary 56 followup questions. The Democrats have asked 1,397 followup questions. I think what they are doing says more about them then it does about her. In other words, they have asked 25 times as many followup questions of Ms. DeVos as Republicans asked of either of President Obama's Education Secretaries.

Finally, they are throwing around conflict-of-interest accusations. As I just mentioned--let me mention it again. Last week, Mrs. DeVos signed an agreement with the Independent Office of Government Ethics. The job of that office is to review the financial holdings of any Cabinet nominee and identify any conflicts of interest. They identified 102 because the DeVos's have a lot of money. Mrs. DeVos agreed to sell all 102 of those assets. According to the letter of agreement between the Office of Government Ethics and the independent ethics officer in the Education Department, who is already in the Department, Mrs. DeVos is not, after she divests herself of those items, which she has 90 days to do--she has no conflicts of interest.

She has also filled out the same financial disclosure forms that are fundamentally like the ones we Senators fill out. People know where we get our money. They know what we own. They know what we owe. We know that about her.

We also know that the independent Office of Government Ethics has said she will have no conflicts and that she has agreed to that.

We also know that she supports giving low-income children more choice of schools, which more Americans support; 73 percent of the American people told a Luntz public opinion survey that they supported more choices of schools.

And then tax returns--some have mentioned tax returns. Well, Federal law doesn't require Cabinet nominees to produce tax returns. Our Education Committee does not require nominees to produce tax returns. U.S. Senators aren't required to produce tax returns, and why? Because we fill out extensive financial disclosure forms so that the public knows what we own, what we owe, and they can make an evaluation about that. They also know whether we have a conflict of interest, in the case of the Cabinet members, because the independent Office of Government Ethics decides that, and they know that we have paid our taxes because we have to declare that under oath, and there is an FBI investigation on top of that, which Mrs. DeVos, like every other Cabinet nominee, has gone through.

One year ago, the Office of Education Secretary was vacant. I talked to President Obama about it, and I said: I don't think it is appropriate for that office to be vacant. We need the institutional responsibility of having a confirmed U.S. Education Secretary responsive to the Senate.

And I said: Mr. President, if you appoint someone--and I knew very well that he intended to appoint John King, with whom I greatly disagree on the scope of Federal education policy--I said: I will make sure that he has a prompt hearing in our committee, and I will make sure that he is confirmed on the floor of the Senate.

President Obama appointed John King. He had a prompt hearing, and he was confirmed within 3 weeks. As I said, Republicans asked him 56 questions, compared with the nearly 1,400 questions the Democrats are asking Mrs. DeVos.

So I ask the American people to compare this just for a minute. Look at the reasons they really don't want to confirm Betsy DeVos. No. 1, she spent 30 years trying to help low-income children attend a better school. No. 2, she

supports public charter schools. No. 3, she spent her money helping low-income children have a better school, instead of denying them a better school. And No. 4, she has disclosed everything there is to disclose, and she has divested herself of every conflict that the independent Office of Government Ethics has said there is. In addition, I rescheduled a mark-up this week until next Tuesday so that members of the committee would have a chance to review all of this information.

Next Tuesday, we will vote on whether to approve Betsy DeVos's nomination to the Office of the Secretary of Education, and we will send that to the floor of the full Senate. I am confident we will do that, and I am confident the Senate will approve her.

Even though they may disagree with her, Democrats should give the new President a chance to have his own Education Secretary, just as we did--just as we Republicans did for President Obama.

Few Americans have done as much as Betsy DeVos has to help low-income children have a choice of a better school. The Democrats' opposition to her says more about them than it does about her.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter which I have written to my distinguished ranking member, Senator Murray, declining to have a second hearing on Mrs. DeVos.

I will point out again that I see no reason I should treat a Republican President's nominee so differently than a Democratic President's nominee would be treated.

Betsy DeVos has visited every office of the Democratic Senators. She has testified for up to 90 minutes longer than either of President Obama's Secretaries. She is answering nearly 1,400 follow-up questions when each of those Secretaries under President Obama answered 53 and 56.

The reasons for opposing her are reasons that are not valid. I mean, how can you turn down a woman for U.S. Secretary when she spent 30 years of her life trying to help low-income children find a better school?

We have had our hearing. She will answer the questions. Next Tuesday we will have a vote. She will be sent to the Senate, and hopefully the Senate will confirm her. I look forward to working with her as U.S. Secretary.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this amendment is an amendment I believe almost every Senator will want to vote for because this is an amendment that guarantees that when you walk into the local drugstore, your medicine is safe because you know that it has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

This amendment clarifies the current law, which says that if you sell a prescription drug in the United States, it has to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It may be made overseas--and many are, and they are sold here--but they are approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

I have the privilege of being the chairman of the HELP Committee, and I can't tell you the number of impassioned speeches I have heard from my Democratic friends about the importance of drug safety and the gold standard for the Food and Drug Administration. So if you are for the gold standard of the Food and Drug Administration, if you are for making prescription drugs approved by the FDA, vote yes. If you are against it, vote no.

Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 174 and ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.

Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for the purposes of the pending Alexander amendment No. 174, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we are engaged in the first step to debate what is important to virtually every American. What we want to do is to find good ways to reform and replace ObamaCare and then repeal the provisions of it that have damaged so many Americans.

Before we start talking about a big subject, sometimes it helps to ask the question: Exactly what are we talking about? So, very quickly, where do Americans get our health care insurance? It might be interesting to note that 91 percent of us have some sort of health insurance--290 million. We get it from four places, basically. One is Medicare--18 percent of us with insurance. This is not a bill to change Medicare. That is a discussion for another day. So we are talking about these three areas.

One is employers, on the job. Sixty-one percent of us with insurance get it on the job--178 million people.

Medicaid, managed by States, paid for by the Federal and State governments--22 percent of covered Americans there get their insurance through Medicaid.

Then there is the individual market, people who buy it on their own. That includes the exchanges we hear so much about. Here is where all the news is; here is where the turmoil is. That is just 6 percent of everyone who is insured, although that is 18 million Americans. This is information from the U.S. Census.

Who is not insured? That is interesting too. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, there are 27 million people who aren't insured, but 17 million of those are eligible for some help to get insurance and just haven't taken it. Of the 11 million who are not eligible for any help, nearly half of them--5 million--are illegally here. Of the rest, some make too much money to be eligible for assistance, and some dropped through the Medicaid coverage gap. So it is fair to say that 91 percent of us are insured one way or the other. Then, of the 27 million--the 9 percent who are not insured--17 million of those are eligible for some sort of assistance.

How should we approach this? Following the Presidential election, President-Elect Donald Trump said on ``60 Minutes'' that replacement and repeal of ObamaCare would be done ``simultaneously.'' To me, that means at the same time.

Just today, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said that repeal and replacement of ObamaCare would be done concurrently. To me, simultaneously and concurrently mean ObamaCare should finally be repealed only when there are concrete practical reforms in place--that give Americans access to truly affordable health care. Let me say that again: ObamaCare should be repealed, finally, only when there are concrete, practical reforms in place that give Americans access to truly affordable health care.

The American people deserve health care reform that is done in the right way for the right reasons and in the right amount of time. It is not about developing a quick fix. It is about working toward a long- term recovery that works for everyone.

Here is one way to think about what simultaneously or concurrently might mean. I would ask you to think about ObamaCare as if it were a local bridge in, say, South Dakota that is collapsing--because that is just what is happening with ObamaCare. According to the Tennessee Insurance Commission, the ObamaCare insurance market in our State is ``very near collapse.'' Across the country, premiums and copays are up. Employers have cut jobs to afford ObamaCare costs. Medicaid mandates are consuming State budgets. In one-third of America's counties, citizens with Federal subsidies have only a single choice of a company to buy insurance from on an ObamaCare exchange. Without quick action this year, next year, these Americans may have zero choices. Their subsidies may be worth about as much as a bus ticket in a town where no buses run.

If your local bridge in South Dakota or Wyoming or Tennessee were very near collapse, what would you do? I think the first thing you do is to send in a rescue crew to repair it temporarily so no one else is hurt. Then you start building a better bridge--or more accurately, many bridges--as States develop their own plans for providing truly affordable health care to replace the old bridge.

Finally, when the new bridges are finished, you close the old bridge. That is how we propose to proceed: to rescue those trapped in a failing system that is ObamaCare, to replace that system with a functional market or markets, and then repeal ObamaCare for good.

First, we will offer a rescue plan so that the 11 million Americans who buy insurance now on the exchanges can continue to do so while we build a better set of concrete, practical alternatives.

Second, we will build the better systems. Note that I say systems, not one system. If anyone is expecting Senator McConnell to roll a wheelbarrow onto the Senate floor with a great big comprehensive Republican health care plan, they are going to be waiting a long time because we don't believe in that. We don't want to replace a failed ObamaCare Federal system with another failed Federal system.

We want to create many systems across this country, step-by-step, to give Americans more choices of insurance that cost less. We will do this by moving more health care decisions out of Washington and into the hands of State and patients and by reducing harmful taxes. We will do it carefully, step-by-step, so that it is effective.

Finally, we will repeal what remains of the law that did all of this damage and created all of this risk. That is what we will do.

Here is what we will not do. This is not a bill for Medicare reform. That will be handled separately.

Second, you won't be disqualified from getting insurance if you have a preexisting health condition. If you are under the age of 26, you will still be able to be covered under your parents' plan.

That is what, in my opinion, we mean by repeal and replace ``simultaneously,'' as the President-elect said, or ``concurrently,'' as Speaker Ryan said.

Here are three steps we will take beginning immediately. No. 1 is the rescue plan. Six percent of Americans with insurance buy their insurance in this individual market, about two-thirds of those on the ObamaCare exchanges. This is where today's turmoil is. This is where the copays are up, the premiums are up, where insurance companies are pulling out of the markets.

While we build replacements, we want the 11 million Americans who now buy insurance on the exchanges to be able to continue to buy private insurance. This will require Congress and the President to take action before March 1, which is when the insurance companies begin to decide whether they will offer insurance in these markets during 2018.

In general, the goal is to get as close as possible to allowing any State-approved plan to count as health insurance under ObamaCare rules while we are transitioning to new systems. Among the actions that will help are to allow individuals to use their ObamaCare subsidies to purchase State-approved insurance outside the ObamaCare exchanges; to adjust ObamaCare's special enrollment periods; to approve the temporary continuation of cost-sharing subsidies for deductibles and copays; to allow States more flexibility to determine so-called essential health benefits, age rating rules, and small group restrictions; to expand health savings accounts; eventually, to provide tax credits to help lower-income Americans buy insurance; and to repeal the individual mandate when new insurance market rules are in place.

When the new administration rewrites the guidance on ObamaCare section 1332 State innovation waivers to allow for more State flexibility, States will have the authority to further innovate to build more modern health systems.

Now, second is employer insurance. Remember, that is where 61 percent of us get our insurance--on the job. We will repair the damage ObamaCare has done so that employers can offer employees more personalized patient-centered care. We will do that by repealing ObamaCare's employer mandate penalty. We will allow States to determine the so-called essential health benefits and thereby lower costs for small businesses. We will repeal ObamaCare's restrictions on grandfathered health plans, on wellness benefits, on small group plans, and provide more flexibility for small businesses so they can work together to buy insurance--a proposal for which the Senator from Wyoming has championed for years.

This will mean more State authority, more choices, and lower costs for the 178 million Americans who obtain insurance on the job.

Third is Medicaid. Twenty-two percent of all insured Americans are covered by Medicaid. We will give States more flexibility to offer those 62 million citizens more options by making Federal Medicaid waivers more flexible.

So in summary, we will first send in a rescue crew to repair temporarily a collapsing health care market so no one else is hurt. Second, step-by-step, we will build better systems--that give Americans access to truly affordable health care. We will do this by moving health care decisions out of Washington, DC, and back to States and patients.

Finally, when our reforms become concrete practical alternatives, we will repeal the remaining parts of ObamaCare in order to repair the damage it has caused Americans. This is what I believe we mean when we say ObamaCare should be repealed and replaced simultaneously and concurrently.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, who has spent a great deal of time on this. I like the way he put that because I think what we want to assure people of--at least, I think that is what almost all of us feel--is that this is step 1. It involves reforms, replacing, and repealing--as the President-elect has said, ``simultaneously,'' and as the Speaker has said, ``concurrently.'' It involves not just one big system replaced by another big system. In our view, the one big system needs to be replaced step-by-step by many different systems as we move more decisions to the States.

For example, on employer insurance, or people who get their insurance on the job, we know right now steps that we can take to repeal ObamaCare, which damaged the employer system and which increased costs for employers. I remember sitting around with a group of restaurant company chief executive officers 6 years ago when ObamaCare passed. They pointed out that they were going have to hire fewer people to afford the cost of ObamaCare.

We don't want that to happen. We would like for them to be able to hire more people and to offer more people insurance. How would we do that? Well, if we repeal the Washington rules in an orderly way and transfer back to the States responsibility for regulating most insurance, the insurance commissioners have told us they believe they can do that very well--do it one way in South Dakota, another way in Tennessee, another way in Wyoming, and fit the needs of that community, reduce costs, increase choices, and have truly affordable health care.

So we can repeal those provisions that interfere with employer insurance and make sure that that repeal does not go into effect until South Dakota, Wyoming, Tennessee, and other parts of the market have in place concrete practical alternatives so they go together. But we have to get started. This is step 1.

Now, we can do the same with Medicaid. We have a former Governor of South Dakota in the Chair. Governors spend most of their time trying to figure out how to afford Medicaid. They almost feel that, if Washington would just allow the States to have more

flexibility in terms of how the available money is spent, we could cover more people better, offer more options.

Well, we can do that. But we are not going to do that tomorrow. We will have to sit down with the Governors and say: How do you suggest we do this? Then, as we do that, we can repeal the extensive Federal regulation that creates a jungle of redtape for Medicaid. But it only would take effect as the States tell us that there are concrete practical alternatives in effect. So this is the step-by-step way to go about making those kind of changes.

Finally, as the Senator said, we have to have a rescue team here. I mean, the ObamaCare market is in turmoil. It is only 6 percent of all of those who have insurance, but that is millions of people. If we don't act before March 1 to make sure insurance companies are selling into those markets, we will have many millions of people who will not be able to buy insurance. This will be, as I said, like having a bus ticket in a hometown with no buses running.

So that is really one of the first things we have to do--get that rescue team going. I like the analogy of the collapsing bridge. ObamaCare is collapsing in Tennessee, and I would say it is around the country, if you have one-third of the counties where you can only choose insurance from one company.

So, if a bridge is collapsing, you send in a crew to deal with that emergency so no one else is hurt. Then you start building these new bridges. After a while, in a prudent way, as you build each of those systems, as States build their systems, then you close that old broken- down bridge that was damaging so many people.

So that is an orderly way to go about things. I hope that, over time, we will have bipartisan support for these. We need a consensus. We don't, in the end, want to have just a partisan bill. But we have been acting like the Hatfields and McCoys in West Virginia for 6 years, arguing with each other about ObamaCare--Republicans and Democrats.

So it may take a little while to get there. But we can start, and we are starting under the leadership of Senator Enzi. Then, we will move concurrently and simultaneously to reform, replace, and repeal ObamaCare so that Americans have access to truly affordable insurance. By the time we get to that, I am hopeful that we will begin to have a consensus within this body that involves Democrats and Republicans both.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elizabeth Joseph, a health policy fellow in Senator Cochran's office be granted floor privileges through July 31, 2017.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my remarks at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing earlier this week be printed in the Record.

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

I yield back all time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my remarks at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing last week be printed in the Record.