Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the resolution that I am joining Senator Udall in introducing. It would reverse the President's ill-advised decision to declare a national emergency and commandeer funding provided for other purposes by Congress and instead redirect it to construct a wall on our southern border.

I thank Senator Udall for his leadership and also recognize the support we have received from our cosponsors, Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen.

Let me be clear. The question before us is not whether to support or oppose the wall. It is not whether to support or oppose President Trump. Rather, it is this: Do we want the executive branch now or in the future to hold a power that the Founders deliberately entrusted to Congress?

It has been said that Congress's most precious power is the power of the purse set out in plain language in article I, section 9 of our Constitution. It reads as follows: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law.''

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 72, made clear the Founders' view that only the legislative branch commands this power, not the judiciary and not the executive. James Madison, in Federalist 58, called the power of the purse ``the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the [ . . . ] representatives of the people.''

Congress's power was jealously guarded in the early days of our Republic. No less an authority on our constitutional framework than Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his famous ``Commentaries,'' explained that ``[i]f it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation, and might apply all its monied resources at his pleasure.''

Throughout our history, the courts have consistently held that ``only Congress is empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing monies to be spent from the U.S. treasury.''

I strongly support protecting the institutional prerogatives of the U.S. Senate and the system of checks and balances that is central to the structure of our government.

I support funding for better border security, including physical barriers where they make sense. I understand the President is disappointed that the funding he requested did not pass, but the failure of Congress to pass funding in the amount the President prefers cannot become an excuse for the President to usurp the powers of the legislative branch.

This is not the first time I have made this argument against Executive overreach. In 2015, I authored the Immigration Rule of Law Act, legislation that would have provided a statutory basis for the Dreamer population, while rolling back President Obama's 2014 Executive orders expanding that program.

As I explained at the time, even though I supported comprehensive immigration reform and was disappointed that it had not passed, I rejected the notion that its failure could serve as the justification for President Obama to implement by Executive fiat that which Congress had refused to pass, regardless of the wisdom of Congress's decision.

I would now like to turn to a discussion of the National Emergencies Act. This act was passed in 1976 to standardize the process by which the President can invoke national emergency powers and Congress can terminate the declaration through a joint resolution such as the one we are introducing today.

The act is procedural in nature. It lays out the process the President must follow to declare a national emergency but does not provide the President with any additional powers. Instead, it requires the President to specify where, in existing law, he has been granted the authority for the powers he intends to exercise.

By itself, the National Emergencies Act does not give the President the power to repurpose billions of dollars to build a wall. The President must look elsewhere for that authority.

In his declaration, the President cites the authority provided by title 10, section 2808 of the U.S. Code, which relates to ``Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency.'' But that authorization applies only to ``military construction projects'' that are ``necessary to support [the] use of the armed forces.'' I do not believe this provision can be fairly read to bootstrap the presence of troops along the southern border into the authority to build a wall as a military construction project.

The question isn't whether the President can act in an emergency but whether he can do so in a manner that would undermine the congressional power of the purse.

Here, I think we need a better understanding of what should qualify as an emergency. One place we could turn is to a five-part test originally developed by the Office of Management and Budget in 1991, under former President George Herbert Walker Bush, to determine whether requested funding merited an ``emergency spending'' designation under our budget rules.

Under that test, a spending request was designated as an ``emergency'' only if all five of the following conditions were met:

First, expenditures had to be necessary; second, the need had to be sudden, coming into being quickly, not building up over time; third, the need had to be urgent; fourth, the need had to be unforeseen; and fifth, the need could not be permanent.

I raise this test only by way of analogy, but it is fair to say that whether or not you agree with the President that more should be done to secure the southern border--and I do agree with the President's goal-- his decision to fund a border wall through a national emergency declaration would not pass this five-part test.

The President's declaration also has practical implications for the military construction appropriations process, as my colleague has pointed out.

Last year, in testimony before the Appropriations Committee, the Department of Defense said that the President's budget request for military construction funding was crucial to support our national defense, including construction projects to improve military readiness and increase the lethality of the force. This includes missile defense, improved facilities in Europe to deter Russian aggression, and infrastructure to operationalize the F-35 stealth fighter.

This also included several important efforts at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine that are vital to the Navy conducting timely maintenance and refueling of our Nation's submarines. Shifting funding away from these vital projects is shortsighted and could have very real national security implications.

We must defend Congress's institutional powers, as the Founders hoped we would, even when doing so is inconvenient or goes against the outcome we might prefer.

The gridlock we have experienced on difficult issues like border security and immigration reform is not simply a failure to get our work done but a reflection of the fact that we have yet to reach a consensus.

The President's emergency declaration is ill-advised precisely because it attempts to shortcut the process of checks and balances by usurping Congress's authority. This resolution blocks that overreach, and I hope, regardless of our colleague's position on the construction of the border wall, that we will join together to assert Congress's constitutional authority in the appropriations process.

I urge our colleagues to support this important resolution.

I would be happy to.

Mr. President, I would thank the Senator for his gracious comments. As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with him, and I know he cares deeply about the constitutional principle that brings us to the floor today. Let us defend the Constitution.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the resolution that I am joining Senator Udall in introducing. It would reverse the President's ill-advised decision to declare a national emergency and commandeer funding provided for other purposes by Congress and instead redirect it to construct a wall on our southern border.

I thank Senator Udall for his leadership and also recognize the support we have received from our cosponsors, Senator Murkowski and Senator Shaheen.

Let me be clear. The question before us is not whether to support or oppose the wall. It is not whether to support or oppose President Trump. Rather, it is this: Do we want the executive branch now or in the future to hold a power that the Founders deliberately entrusted to Congress?

It has been said that Congress's most precious power is the power of the purse set out in plain language in article I, section 9 of our Constitution. It reads as follows: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law.''

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 72, made clear the Founders' view that only the legislative branch commands this power, not the judiciary and not the executive. James Madison, in Federalist 58, called the power of the purse ``the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the [ . . . ] representatives of the people.''

Congress's power was jealously guarded in the early days of our Republic. No less an authority on our constitutional framework than Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his famous ``Commentaries,'' explained that ``[i]f it were otherwise, the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation, and might apply all its monied resources at his pleasure.''

Throughout our history, the courts have consistently held that ``only Congress is empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing monies to be spent from the U.S. treasury.''

I strongly support protecting the institutional prerogatives of the U.S. Senate and the system of checks and balances that is central to the structure of our government.

I support funding for better border security, including physical barriers where they make sense. I understand the President is disappointed that the funding he requested did not pass, but the failure of Congress to pass funding in the amount the President prefers cannot become an excuse for the President to usurp the powers of the legislative branch.

This is not the first time I have made this argument against Executive overreach. In 2015, I authored the Immigration Rule of Law Act, legislation that would have provided a statutory basis for the Dreamer population, while rolling back President Obama's 2014 Executive orders expanding that program.

As I explained at the time, even though I supported comprehensive immigration reform and was disappointed that it had not passed, I rejected the notion that its failure could serve as the justification for President Obama to implement by Executive fiat that which Congress had refused to pass, regardless of the wisdom of Congress's decision.

I would now like to turn to a discussion of the National Emergencies Act. This act was passed in 1976 to standardize the process by which the President can invoke national emergency powers and Congress can terminate the declaration through a joint resolution such as the one we are introducing today.

The act is procedural in nature. It lays out the process the President must follow to declare a national emergency but does not provide the President with any additional powers. Instead, it requires the President to specify where, in existing law, he has been granted the authority for the powers he intends to exercise.

By itself, the National Emergencies Act does not give the President the power to repurpose billions of dollars to build a wall. The President must look elsewhere for that authority.

In his declaration, the President cites the authority provided by title 10, section 2808 of the U.S. Code, which relates to ``Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency.'' But that authorization applies only to ``military construction projects'' that are ``necessary to support [the] use of the armed forces.'' I do not believe this provision can be fairly read to bootstrap the presence of troops along the southern border into the authority to build a wall as a military construction project.

The question isn't whether the President can act in an emergency but whether he can do so in a manner that would undermine the congressional power of the purse.

Here, I think we need a better understanding of what should qualify as an emergency. One place we could turn is to a five-part test originally developed by the Office of Management and Budget in 1991, under former President George Herbert Walker Bush, to determine whether requested funding merited an ``emergency spending'' designation under our budget rules.

Under that test, a spending request was designated as an ``emergency'' only if all five of the following conditions were met:

First, expenditures had to be necessary; second, the need had to be sudden, coming into being quickly, not building up over time; third, the need had to be urgent; fourth, the need had to be unforeseen; and fifth, the need could not be permanent.

I raise this test only by way of analogy, but it is fair to say that whether or not you agree with the President that more should be done to secure the southern border--and I do agree with the President's goal-- his decision to fund a border wall through a national emergency declaration would not pass this five-part test.

The President's declaration also has practical implications for the military construction appropriations process, as my colleague has pointed out.

Last year, in testimony before the Appropriations Committee, the Department of Defense said that the President's budget request for military construction funding was crucial to support our national defense, including construction projects to improve military readiness and increase the lethality of the force. This includes missile defense, improved facilities in Europe to deter Russian aggression, and infrastructure to operationalize the F-35 stealth fighter.

This also included several important efforts at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine that are vital to the Navy conducting timely maintenance and refueling of our Nation's submarines. Shifting funding away from these vital projects is shortsighted and could have very real national security implications.

We must defend Congress's institutional powers, as the Founders hoped we would, even when doing so is inconvenient or goes against the outcome we might prefer.

The gridlock we have experienced on difficult issues like border security and immigration reform is not simply a failure to get our work done but a reflection of the fact that we have yet to reach a consensus.

The President's emergency declaration is ill-advised precisely because it attempts to shortcut the process of checks and balances by usurping Congress's authority. This resolution blocks that overreach, and I hope, regardless of our colleague's position on the construction of the border wall, that we will join together to assert Congress's constitutional authority in the appropriations process.

I urge our colleagues to support this important resolution.

I would be happy to.

Mr. President, I would thank the Senator for his gracious comments. As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with him, and I know he cares deeply about the constitutional principle that brings us to the floor today. Let us defend the Constitution.

Mr. President, after careful consideration, I have decided to oppose the confirmation of Andrew Wheeler, the nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA.

While Mr. Wheeler is certainly qualified for this position, I have too many concerns with the actions he has taken during his tenure as Acting Administrator to be able to support his promotion. I believe that Mr. Wheeler, unlike Scott Pruitt, understands the mission of the EPA and acts in accordance with ethical standards; however, the policies he has supported as Acting Administrator are not in the best interest of our environment and public health, particularly given the threat of climate change to our Nation.

I met at length with Mr. Wheeler, and we discussed many important environmental issues about which I care

deeply, from EPA's enforcement of landmark environmental laws to greenhouse gas emissions and mercury pollution. Since last August, the EPA has proposed to roll back environmental protections, including determining it is no longer ``appropriate and necessary'' to regulate mercury emissions from power plants, halting efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, and replacing the Clean Power Plan.

These efforts are of great importance to the State of Maine, which is located at the end of our Nation's ``air pollution tailpipe'' and is on the receiving end of pollution generated by coal-fired power plants in other States. Moreover, there is no doubt that the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change pose a significant threat to our State's economy and our natural resources, from our working forests, fishing, and agricultural industries, to tourism, and recreation.

Reducing harmful air pollutants is critical for public health, particularly for Maine, which has among the highest rates of asthma in the country. In Maine, cars, trucks, and other vehicles produce more than 50 percent of our State's greenhouse gas emissions. Controls for mercury, one of the most persistent and dangerous pollutants, are especially important for children and pregnant women. The Agency's recent efforts to halt progress in these critical areas takes us in the wrong direction.

In keeping with my past practice, I will vote to allow the full Senate to consider Mr. Wheeler's nomination so that every Senator can have a clear up or down vote on this important nomination of a member of the President's Cabinet.

However, due to the actions Mr. Wheeler has taken during his tenure at the EPA, I will vote against his confirmation.

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, I rise today to introduce, with the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Bob Casey, the ``Guardianship Accountability Act of 2019,'' a bill that would assist States in improving guardianship oversight and data collection.

Protecting older Americans from financial fraud and exploitation has long been one of my top priorities as Chairman of the Aging Committee. According to the National Center for State

Courts, an estimated 1.3 million adults are under the care of guardians--family members or professionals--who control approximately $50 billion of their assets. Guardianship is a legal relationship created by a court that is designed to protect those with diminished or lost capacity. We found, however, that in some cases, the system lacks basic protections against inappropriate use of guardianship and abuse by those in power, leaving the most vulnerable Americans at risk of exploitation.

In November 2018, the Aging Committee released a bipartisan report following a year-long investigation into State guardianship programs. Titled, ``Ensuring Trust: Strengthening State Efforts to Overhaul the Guardianship Process and Protect Older Americans,'' the report included a number of recommendations intended to help stem the wave of guardianship abuse, encourage reforms to State systems and restore trust in guardianship arrangements.

Throughout the course of our investigation, we heard harrowing tales from families around the Nation who have struggled with abusive guardians, unscrupulous individuals exploiting vulnerable Americans for their personal profit. Yet we also spoke with families who had heartening stories to share--of dedicated and faithful guardians stepping up to protect the assets of seniors with dementia and other conditions affecting their capacity. A good guardian can provide years of support for a protected individual, ensuring a full life directed, wherever possible, by the person's own choices and preferences. Once a guardianship is imposed, however, the individual's rights are removed, and oversight to protect the individual from abuse, neglect and exploitation becomes critical.

Our Committee gathered information, analysis and recommendations from States, courts, and organizations representing older Americans and those with disabilities around the country. We found signs of progress in a number of jurisdictions. For example, in 2017, Maine was the first state to enact the Uniform Law Commission's Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act. Among the reforms made to Maine's guardianship system, this legislation highlighted the importance of exploring all options to limit or preclude the need for guardianship when appropriate, including the use of supported decision making. Maine's law also mandates the regular review of reports filed by guardians to determine, among other things, whether the guardianship should continue and whether the guardian has complied with his or her duties.

Yet stories in the news continue to call our attention to this important issue. Appalling stories, such as that of a guardian from Nevada who allegedly used the guardianship process to financially exploit more than 150 individuals, and that of another guardian from North Carolina who, along with an attorney, an advocate, and a professor, took advantage of two men under guardianship and allegedly stole hundreds of thousands of dollars, remind us of the vulnerabilities created by these relationships and the need for diligent oversight.

In the course of the Committee's investigation, we received more than 100 comments identifying gaps in the system and, most important, offering solutions. The Committee found a pattern of barriers to proper oversight and a need for greater use of alternatives to guardianship. We found persistent and widespread challenges that require a nationwide focus in order to ensure the guardianship system works on behalf of the individuals it is intended to protect. The Committee's report outlines policy recommendations at local, state and federal levels that would improve outcomes for Americans subject to guardianship.

The Guardianship Accountability Act, which we are introducing today, addresses many of the report's recommendations. The bill would direct the Elder Justice Coordinating Council to establish a National Online Resource Center on Guardianship to collect and publish information relevant to guardianship for use by guardians, individuals subject to guardianship, as well as courts, states, local governments, and community organizations. The resource center would also publish model legislation and best practices developed pursuant to the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, compile and publish training materials for guardians, share research related to guardianship, and maintain a database on state laws regarding guardianship and the use of less restrictive alternatives. In addition, our legislation would also expand the availability of federal demonstration grants established by the Elder Justice Act, so funds can be used for developing state guardianship databases, for training for court visitors, and for sharing information on guardian background checks.

Combating financial abuse and exploitation of seniors requires law enforcement and social service agencies at all levels of government to work together, and the bipartisan Guardianship Accountability Act promotes this kind of collaboration. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, I rise today to introduce, with the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Bob Casey, the ``Guardianship Accountability Act of 2019,'' a bill that would assist States in improving guardianship oversight and data collection.

Protecting older Americans from financial fraud and exploitation has long been one of my top priorities as Chairman of the Aging Committee. According to the National Center for State

Courts, an estimated 1.3 million adults are under the care of guardians--family members or professionals--who control approximately $50 billion of their assets. Guardianship is a legal relationship created by a court that is designed to protect those with diminished or lost capacity. We found, however, that in some cases, the system lacks basic protections against inappropriate use of guardianship and abuse by those in power, leaving the most vulnerable Americans at risk of exploitation.

In November 2018, the Aging Committee released a bipartisan report following a year-long investigation into State guardianship programs. Titled, ``Ensuring Trust: Strengthening State Efforts to Overhaul the Guardianship Process and Protect Older Americans,'' the report included a number of recommendations intended to help stem the wave of guardianship abuse, encourage reforms to State systems and restore trust in guardianship arrangements.

Throughout the course of our investigation, we heard harrowing tales from families around the Nation who have struggled with abusive guardians, unscrupulous individuals exploiting vulnerable Americans for their personal profit. Yet we also spoke with families who had heartening stories to share--of dedicated and faithful guardians stepping up to protect the assets of seniors with dementia and other conditions affecting their capacity. A good guardian can provide years of support for a protected individual, ensuring a full life directed, wherever possible, by the person's own choices and preferences. Once a guardianship is imposed, however, the individual's rights are removed, and oversight to protect the individual from abuse, neglect and exploitation becomes critical.

Our Committee gathered information, analysis and recommendations from States, courts, and organizations representing older Americans and those with disabilities around the country. We found signs of progress in a number of jurisdictions. For example, in 2017, Maine was the first state to enact the Uniform Law Commission's Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act. Among the reforms made to Maine's guardianship system, this legislation highlighted the importance of exploring all options to limit or preclude the need for guardianship when appropriate, including the use of supported decision making. Maine's law also mandates the regular review of reports filed by guardians to determine, among other things, whether the guardianship should continue and whether the guardian has complied with his or her duties.

Yet stories in the news continue to call our attention to this important issue. Appalling stories, such as that of a guardian from Nevada who allegedly used the guardianship process to financially exploit more than 150 individuals, and that of another guardian from North Carolina who, along with an attorney, an advocate, and a professor, took advantage of two men under guardianship and allegedly stole hundreds of thousands of dollars, remind us of the vulnerabilities created by these relationships and the need for diligent oversight.

In the course of the Committee's investigation, we received more than 100 comments identifying gaps in the system and, most important, offering solutions. The Committee found a pattern of barriers to proper oversight and a need for greater use of alternatives to guardianship. We found persistent and widespread challenges that require a nationwide focus in order to ensure the guardianship system works on behalf of the individuals it is intended to protect. The Committee's report outlines policy recommendations at local, state and federal levels that would improve outcomes for Americans subject to guardianship.

The Guardianship Accountability Act, which we are introducing today, addresses many of the report's recommendations. The bill would direct the Elder Justice Coordinating Council to establish a National Online Resource Center on Guardianship to collect and publish information relevant to guardianship for use by guardians, individuals subject to guardianship, as well as courts, states, local governments, and community organizations. The resource center would also publish model legislation and best practices developed pursuant to the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, compile and publish training materials for guardians, share research related to guardianship, and maintain a database on state laws regarding guardianship and the use of less restrictive alternatives. In addition, our legislation would also expand the availability of federal demonstration grants established by the Elder Justice Act, so funds can be used for developing state guardianship databases, for training for court visitors, and for sharing information on guardian background checks.

Combating financial abuse and exploitation of seniors requires law enforcement and social service agencies at all levels of government to work together, and the bipartisan Guardianship Accountability Act promotes this kind of collaboration. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. President, William Barr is unquestionably qualified to serve as Attorney General, a position to which he was confirmed unanimously in 1991, in President George H.W. Bush's administration. Mr. Barr's record of public service and long career in the law are exemplary. I have carefully reviewed his record, listened to his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, and questioned him for an hour in my office. Given the significant issues before the Department of Justice and the fact that it is currently led by an unconfirmed, Acting Attorney General, I will vote to confirm Mr. Barr.

It is imperative that the Senate confirm an Attorney General who is committed to allowing the Special Counsel to complete his investigation unimpeded. Mr. Barr gave this commitment under oath to the Judiciary Committee and again to me in our private meeting. He testified clearly that he will not permit any interference in Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election. In fact, Mr. Barr told the committee that he believes ``the overarching public interest is to allow [Special Counsel Mueller] to finish.'' He also said he would resign if he were ordered by the President to fire the Special Counsel without good cause. Mr. Barr testified, ``The country needs a credible resolution to these issues, and if confirmed, I will not permit partisan politics, personal interests, or any other improper consideration to interfere with this or any other investigation. I will follow the Special Counsel regulations scrupulously and in good faith, and on my watch, Bob [Mueller] will be allowed to finish his work.''

Not only must the Special Counsel be allowed to finish his work, but also his conclusions must be as open and transparent to the public as possible. The

Special Counsel regulations, put in place during the Clinton administration, have guided administrations from both parties for two decades. Those regulations instruct the Special Counsel to submit a confidential report to the Attorney General, and Mr. Barr testified that he will be as transparent as possible about the report, consistent with the law. He told me he will always err on the side of disclosure and believes transparency is critical to the public's confidence in the investigation. When asked whether he would allow the President or his attorneys to edit any report, Mr. Barr told the committee, ``That will not happen.''

Mr. Barr and I also discussed the memo he wrote in 2018 about obstruction of justice and his views on executive power. I asked him whether suborning perjury would be obstruction. He said yes. I asked him what he would do if the President asked him to stop an otherwise lawful investigation. He said he would resign. We discussed the political checks that exist to limit Executive power, and he described the Special Counsel as a ``super charged political check.''

Some have suggested, however, that Mr. Barr's memo means he believes the President cannot obstruct justice at all. In a letter to Chairman Graham, Mr. Barr responded: ``Quite the contrary, [the memo] expressed my belief that a President, just like anyone else, can obstruct justice if he or she engages in wrongful actions that impair the availability of evidence. Nor did the memorandum claim, as some have incorrectly suggested, that a President can never obstruct justice whenever he or she is exercising a constitutional function. If a President, acting with the requisite intent, engages in the kind of evidence impairment the statute prohibits--regardless whether it involves the exercise of his or her constitutional powers or not--then a President commits obstruction of justice under the statute. It is as simple as that.''

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has said publicly that Mr. Barr's memo had no impact on the investigation. Mr. Rosenstein also noted, ``Lots of people offer opinions to the Department of Justice, but they don't influence our own decision making.''

Mr. Barr's views on executive power, while legitimate, differ from my own and do concern me as a member of the legislative branch. His opinions highlight the tension that sometimes emerges among the branches of government and which is rooted in the separation of powers. On any given matter, I would likely argue for a more limited approach to Executive power. Regardless of his philosophy, Mr. Barr has noted correctly that the President is not above the law.

Mr. Barr brings considerable experience to bear on important legal policy matters at the DOJ. He testified that he supports efforts to protect the civil rights of LGBT individuals and that he is against discrimination against anyone on account of their gender identity or sexual orientation. He further stated that he is willing to support ``red flag laws'' as a step toward preventing gun violence.

Mr. Barr offered his commitment to implementing the newly enacted FIRST STEP Act, a bill I supported and that he described as one that ``recognizes the progress we have made over the past three decades in fighting violent crime.'' Mr. Barr is also committed to combating scams and fraudulent schemes that target seniors, which, as chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, I have investigated and urged the Department to prioritize.

Finally, Mr. Barr has served our country previously with distinction. One hundred and twenty former officials and employees from various administrations have praised Mr. Barr's ``character of unwavering commitment to the rule of law without regard to favor or politics.'' His nomination is supported by many leaders from the law enforcement community, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Barr pledged to run the Department of Justice with professionalism and integrity. He noted that the President did not seek any promises from him and that he made none to the President.

Mr. Barr has pledged his allegiance to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people. He has served our country honorably in the past, and I believe he will do so once again.

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

Madam President, I first want to commend the Senator from Iowa for suggesting that we take the occasion of Valentine's week to come to the Senate floor and talk a bit about our home States. Of course, each of us is convinced that we represent the best State in the Union, but in my case it happens to be true.

Valentine's Day is celebrated around the world with flowers, candy, and romance. It is also a time to reflect upon the places and the people we love. To me, this is an occasion to celebrate the State in which I was born, raised, and live--the great State of Maine.

People who know Maine share my love for its spectacular scenery--the rolling hills of Aroostook County, the rocky coast and the many harbors, the beautiful western mountains, the quiet forests, the beautiful rivers, and the pristine lakes. The boundless recreational opportunities our outdoors offer lifts our hearts, and the abundant wildlife inspires us.

I love Maine's food. From our clean ocean comes the best lobster in the world, and from our fertile soil grows the potatoes and wild blueberries that are unmatched. From gourmet mustard from Eastport to craft beer throughout the State, Maine artisans are finding new ways to delight our taste buds. There simply is no better place to enjoy a wonderful meal than the great restaurants in the State of Maine. Add to that our wonderful museums, Acadia National Park, State parks, and art galleries, and it is easy to see why more than 1 million tourists come to our State each year.

Most of all, I love the people of the State of Maine. They are hard- working, self-reliant, and compassionate. They revere tradition and yet are so innovative. In good times, they are grateful. In difficult times, they are resilient. They serve their communities and their country, caring for their neighbors and their neighborhoods. They are always ready to lend a helping hand.

I love Maine's sense of community. Our annual town meetings each spring are evidence of the willingness of Mainers to come together to chart their own course.

This community spirit will be on display next week with our high school basketball tournaments, where athletes from cities and towns all over the State gather in Bangor, Augusta, and Portland for spirited competition and sportsmanship.

How well I remember the excitement of traveling from Caribou to Bangor 50 years ago, when I was a sophomore in high school, to watch our high school team win the coveted gold ball on a half-court buzzer shot--the shot that was heard around the State. It was the most exciting sports event I have ever attended. These tournaments are among the great traditions of our State, as are the many festivals and fairs that occur throughout the summer months and the fall.

It is such an honor to represent the people of Maine in the U.S. Senate. Maine is a State of entrepreneurs, and I enjoy working for policies that enable our small businesses to start up, grow, and prosper. Most importantly, they create the majority of jobs in our State.

Maine is a State of wise senior citizens--the oldest State in the Nation by average age. Developing the policies that will allow our seniors to age in their own communities and to live in security and health is among my top priorities.

Maine is a State with one of the highest percentages of veterans per capita in the entire country. Mainers have always answered the call to serve our Nation. We must ensure that the brave men and women who defend our freedom receive the services and the respect they deserve. At Bath Iron Works, home to the world's best shipbuilders, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Saco Defense, Pratt & Whitney, and other companies that contribute to our national defense, it is the skilled Maine workers who help to keep America strong, and I am so proud of their vital contributions.

The poet Robert Frost wrote, ``We love the things we love for what they are.'' I love the State of Maine for what it is and its people for who they are, and I wish them all a very happy Valentine's Day.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Thank you.

(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 433 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Madam President, the second bill that I have introduced is the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act. I have introduced this bill with my friend and colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin. Our legislation will improve the access that Medicare beneficiaries have to home healthcare by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. All of these healthcare professionals are playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of healthcare, particularly in rural and underserved areas of our Nation, like those represented by the Presiding Officer and the State of Maine.

I have learned of far too many cases of seniors experiencing unnecessary delays in accessing home healthcare because a physician was not available to order the care promptly. To avoid these needless delays, it is common sense that other medical professionals who are familiar with a patient's case should be able to order these services. Under current law, however, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home healthcare for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the nonphysician provider. In some cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely on the recommendation of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist, or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home healthcare. That makes no sense whatsoever. In too many cases, these requirements create obstacles, delays, and unnecessary paperwork before home healthcare can be provided. The result can be an unnecessary hospital readmission or other setback for the patient that would not have occurred had the home healthcare been provided promptly.

The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act removes the needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home healthcare they need simply because a physician is not available to sign the form required by law. Again, I would make the point that this physician may not even have a relationship with the senior or other patient who needs the home healthcare. That primary care relationship may be between the patient and a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant, and yet that qualified healthcare professional is unable to order the home care that the patient needs.

These two bills will help to ensure the viability and accessibility of home health services now and in the future. By helping patients to avoid much more costly hospital stays and nursing homes, we know that home healthcare saves Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers' programs millions of dollars each year. At a time when healthcare costs are among our most pressing policy challenges, we should embrace cost- effective solutions like home healthcare.

Thank you, Madam President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support two bills that I have introduced that will help to preserve and to expand access to home healthcare.

I have been a strong supporter of home care since my very first home visit early in my Senate service. This experience gave me the opportunity to meet and to visit with home healthcare patients, where I saw firsthand what a difference highly skilled, caring visiting nurses and other healthcare professionals make in the lives of patients and their families. I have been a passionate advocate of home healthcare ever since.

The highly skilled and compassionate care that home health agencies provide in the State of Maine and across the country have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable individuals to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and to stay just where they want to be--in the comfort, privacy, and security of their own homes.

As we look to the future, home health services will continue to be in high demand. The Census projects that by the year 2030, the proportion of U.S. residents older than age 65 will have nearly doubled from 2010.

The Home Health Payment Innovation Act, which I have introduced with Senator Stabenow, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jones, Senator Cassidy, and Senator Paul, preserves access to existing home health services under the Medicare Program, while also providing a pathway for innovative approaches to using these vital services. This bipartisan legislation is endorsed by the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, as well as by the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare.

Our bill would make two key adjustments in home health payment reform provisions that were passed last year. First, it would prevent unwarranted payment rate cuts by basing any behavioral adjustments on actual evidence. Second, it would limit the risk of disruption in care by providing a phase-in for any necessary rate increases or decreases. This phase-in is critical for home health providers, as CMS has already proposed cutting Medicare payment rates in 2020 by more than $1 billion in the first year alone, based purely on assumptions of changes in behavior.

Our bill also provides the pathway to expanded use of home healthcare in the Medicare Program without increasing program spending

It provides flexibility on waiving what is called the ``homebound requirement'' for home health services when a plan or innovative care delivery model, such as an accountable care organization, determines that providing care to the patient in the home would improve outcomes and reduce spending on patient care.

As plans and providers continue to experiment with innovative ways to deliver care and improve value in Medicare spending, allowing them the flexibility to waive this limitation--the homebound limitation--will help to advance the goals of ensuring that care is delivered at the right time, in the right place, and at the right cost.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support two bills that I have introduced that will help to preserve and to expand access to home healthcare.

I have been a strong supporter of home care since my very first home visit early in my Senate service. This experience gave me the opportunity to meet and to visit with home healthcare patients, where I saw firsthand what a difference highly skilled, caring visiting nurses and other healthcare professionals make in the lives of patients and their families. I have been a passionate advocate of home healthcare ever since.

The highly skilled and compassionate care that home health agencies provide in the State of Maine and across the country have enabled millions of our most frail and vulnerable individuals to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and to stay just where they want to be--in the comfort, privacy, and security of their own homes.

As we look to the future, home health services will continue to be in high demand. The Census projects that by the year 2030, the proportion of U.S. residents older than age 65 will have nearly doubled from 2010.

The Home Health Payment Innovation Act, which I have introduced with Senator Stabenow, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jones, Senator Cassidy, and Senator Paul, preserves access to existing home health services under the Medicare Program, while also providing a pathway for innovative approaches to using these vital services. This bipartisan legislation is endorsed by the National Association of Home Care and Hospice, as well as by the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare.

Our bill would make two key adjustments in home health payment reform provisions that were passed last year. First, it would prevent unwarranted payment rate cuts by basing any behavioral adjustments on actual evidence. Second, it would limit the risk of disruption in care by providing a phase-in for any necessary rate increases or decreases. This phase-in is critical for home health providers, as CMS has already proposed cutting Medicare payment rates in 2020 by more than $1 billion in the first year alone, based purely on assumptions of changes in behavior.

Our bill also provides the pathway to expanded use of home healthcare in the Medicare Program without increasing program spending

It provides flexibility on waiving what is called the ``homebound requirement'' for home health services when a plan or innovative care delivery model, such as an accountable care organization, determines that providing care to the patient in the home would improve outcomes and reduce spending on patient care.

As plans and providers continue to experiment with innovative ways to deliver care and improve value in Medicare spending, allowing them the flexibility to waive this limitation--the homebound limitation--will help to advance the goals of ensuring that care is delivered at the right time, in the right place, and at the right cost.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging, having adopted rules governing its procedures for the 116th Congress, have a copy of their rules printed in the Record. Pursuant to XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Mr. President, on February 26, the town of Limestone, ME, will mark the 150th anniversary of its incorporation. As one who was born and raised in the neighboring city of Caribou, it is a great pleasure to celebrate the generations of industrious and caring people who have made Limestone such a wonderful place to live, work, and raise families.

The story of Limestone begins long before its incorporation in 1869. For thousands of years, Aroostook County has been the home of the Micmac and Maliseet; the name Aroostook comes from the Native American word for ``beautiful river.'' French explorers, led by Samuel de Champlain, first visited the area in 1604.

For decades after the American Revolution, Maine's northernmost region was the site of a protracted and tense border dispute between our new Nation and British Canada. As negotiations to end what is now called the Bloodless Aroostook War neared completion in the early 1840s, families and entrepreneurs settled in the area.

Among them was General Mark Trafton, a veteran of the War of 1812, who was drawn to the region by the great deposits of limestone, vast stands of timber, and fertile soil. Soon a thriving settlement developed, and the prosperity derived from quarries, sawmills, and farms was invested in schools and churches to make a true community.

Later in the 19th century, the people of Limestone joined their neighboring towns in connecting their remote region to the world with their own hands. Town by town, they built roads and railroads with pick, shovel, and wheelbarrow. These transportation networks, combined with the region's rich soil, made Aroostook County an agricultural powerhouse, and the potato industry remains an essential part of the Maine economy.

People were drawn to Limestone in search of liberty and opportunity, and they have always worked and sacrificed to extend those blessings to others. Veterans' monuments throughout the area stand in honor of the many heroes who gave their lives so that all could be free.

During the Cold War, Loring Air Force Base was established in Limestone, due to its proximity to northern Europe, and it became a crucial forward post in America's defense. The closure of the base in 1994 was a difficult challenge for the people of Limestone, who responded with the qualities that wrote their history: strength, determination, and a strong work ethic. With the transformation of the former base into the Loring Commerce Centre, Maine's largest industrial park, they are building new jobs and opportunities.

Limestone's support for our Armed Forces continues at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service facility at the Loring Commerce Centre, where hundreds of hard-working and dedicated employees have established a reputation for excellence. The Loring Job Corps Center, also at the former air base, has helped thousands of young people gain the skills to succeed in the workplace and to further their educations. In addition, part of the air base was converted into the Aroostook National Wildlife Refuge, a protected area of forests and wetlands, and home to moose, lynx, waterfowl, and rare plant species.

The Maine School of Science and Mathematics, MSSM, a public residential magnet high school, was established in 1995 and is ranked as the best high school in Maine and among the best in the country. The MSSM Key Club, a joint effort between the school and the local Kiwanis, carries out many community service and charitable projects throughout the year.

The spirit of Limestone is evident in the energy that so many will devote to this exciting yearlong sesquicentennial celebration. The celebration of Limestone's 150th anniversary is not merely about the passing of time. It is about the people who for generations have pulled together, cared for one another, and built a great community. Thanks to those who came before, Limestone, ME, has a wonderful history. Thanks to those there today, it has a bright future.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Reviving America's Scenic Byways Act, a bill I have introduced with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin. Our bill seeks to revive the long- dormant process within the U.S. Department of Transportation through which some of our Nation's most remarkable roadways can earn the prestigious designation of ``National Scenic Byway.''

The National Scenic Byways Program began as a grassroots effort to help recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout the United States based on one or more cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. Today, there are more than 150 distinct roads nationwide that have been recognized as National Scenic Byways--including several which have gained the honor of being named an ``All-American Road.''

I am proud that my home State of Maine boasts not only three National Scenic Byways, but also the Acadia All-American Road. These roadways provide Mainers and tourists alike with spectacular views and memorable experiences, while at the same time spurring much-needed economic activity in the surrounding areas. The National Scenic Byways program represents a true win-win scenario by protecting precious corridors and providing tangible benefits for local communities.

Despite this program's proven value, its nomination process has been inactive since the passage of the 2012 surface transportation funding bill (also known as MAP-21). As a result, numerous roadways across the country have been prevented from pursuing National Scenic Byway designation.

In fact, a recent survey found that at least 44 State scenic byways across the country are prepared to seek national designation as soon as the program is reopened to nominations. It is critical that we provide these local byways the opportunity to seek the Federal designation and reap its demonstrated benefits.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which in turn supports the preservation of America's

most unique roadways and the facilitation of increased economic activity in the regions that they serve.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Reviving America's Scenic Byways Act, a bill I have introduced with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin. Our bill seeks to revive the long- dormant process within the U.S. Department of Transportation through which some of our Nation's most remarkable roadways can earn the prestigious designation of ``National Scenic Byway.''

The National Scenic Byways Program began as a grassroots effort to help recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout the United States based on one or more cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. Today, there are more than 150 distinct roads nationwide that have been recognized as National Scenic Byways--including several which have gained the honor of being named an ``All-American Road.''

I am proud that my home State of Maine boasts not only three National Scenic Byways, but also the Acadia All-American Road. These roadways provide Mainers and tourists alike with spectacular views and memorable experiences, while at the same time spurring much-needed economic activity in the surrounding areas. The National Scenic Byways program represents a true win-win scenario by protecting precious corridors and providing tangible benefits for local communities.

Despite this program's proven value, its nomination process has been inactive since the passage of the 2012 surface transportation funding bill (also known as MAP-21). As a result, numerous roadways across the country have been prevented from pursuing National Scenic Byway designation.

In fact, a recent survey found that at least 44 State scenic byways across the country are prepared to seek national designation as soon as the program is reopened to nominations. It is critical that we provide these local byways the opportunity to seek the Federal designation and reap its demonstrated benefits.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which in turn supports the preservation of America's

most unique roadways and the facilitation of increased economic activity in the regions that they serve.

Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business in order to introduce two bills.

I yield the floor.