[Pages S6694-S6707]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session 
for the consideration of Calendar No. 503.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Dan R. 
Brouillette, of Texas, to be Secretary of Energy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Background Checks

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, last week, my colleague Senator Blumenthal 
stood on the floor of this Chamber to talk about the epidemic of gun 
violence in our country. Gun violence is an issue that hits close to 
home for my friend from Connecticut.
  Seven years ago, his home State was the site of one of the most 
horrific acts of gun violence anyone can imagine. A young man armed 
with an assault rifle opened fire in Sandy Hook Elementary School, 
murdering 20 first graders and 6 adults.
  While he spoke on the floor of this Senate, Senator Blumenthal was 
handed a note informing him that, at that very moment, an active 
shooter was on the loose at another school--this one in Santa Clarita, 
CA. This marked the 243rd instance of gun violence at a school in this 
country since the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999. Sadly, 
today, school shootings have become almost routine and commonplace. It 
has gotten to the point that students are fearful but, sadly, not 
surprised when a shooting occurs at their school.
  Following an attack last year at Santa Fe High School in Texas that 
killed eight students and two teachers, 17-year-old student Paige Curry 
was asked whether there was a part of her that couldn't believe this 
happened at her school. Her response was heartbreaking. She said:

       There wasn't.

  She said:

       It's been happening everywhere. I've always felt it would 
     eventually happen here too.

  This is the country we now live in: a country where we have more guns 
than we have people; a country where a mass shooting--that is a 
shooting involving the death or injury of four or more victims--occurs, 
on average, more than once every day; a country where school shootings 
occur frequently enough that students feel it will eventually happen at 
their own school.
  This is not the country any of us should want to live in. Yet the 
U.S. Senate--one of the few institutions

[[Page S6695]]

that can actually do something to help prevent gun violence--does 
nothing. Gun violence kills 100 people in our country every day--every 
day. That is 3,000 people a month and 36,000 people a year.
  This is a crisis, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are not treating it like one. Perhaps looking at the numbers--100 
people dying every day--is just way too abstract.
  How would the majority leader react if the entire population of 
Sparta, KY--all 231 residents--disappeared in less than 3 days?
  How would the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee react if all 
128 residents of Livingston, SC, disappeared in a little over a day?
  How would my colleagues from Texas react if Bartlett's 2,600 
residents were killed in just under a month?
  This is the scale of what is happening in our country every single 
day, week, and year. This is a crisis, and it is past time Senate 
Republicans start treating it like one.
  Here is what we can do right now. We can join the House in passing 
H.R. 8, a bill that would close loopholes in the background check 
system. More than 90 percent of the American public supports this bill. 
Although it passed the House 266 days ago--almost a year ago--the 
majority leader refuses to even bring the bill to the Senate floor for 
a vote.
  We can also pass S. 66, which would reinstitute the Federal assault 
weapons ban that expired in 2004. I have joined Senator Feinstein and 
34 of my colleagues in cosponsoring this commonsense measure, but the 
Republican majority refuses to hold a hearing or otherwise consider it.
  We can finally pass an extreme risk protection order bill that would 
allow police or family members to petition a court to remove firearms 
from people who may be a danger to themselves or to others, and despite 
repeated promises after each mass shooting that we will get a vote, the 
vote never comes.

  We all know none of these bills alone will end gun violence in our 
country, but they will help keep guns out of the hands of those who are 
a danger to themselves and others. They will make those guns that 
remain available for sale far less lethal. In other words, the bills 
will make us safer.
  Republicans refuse to take any of these commonsense steps. Instead, 
they cower before the NRA, an organization that curries favor with gun 
manufacturers and gun rights extremists by opposing seemingly every 
piece of gun safety legislation that is introduced; this, in spite of 
the fact that a strong majority of the NRA's claimed 5 million members 
actually support stronger gun safety protections.
  We all remember the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, where it 
seemed for a brief moment Congress might pass a gun safety bill for the 
first time in a generation. Senators Manchin and Toomey introduced a 
modest background check proposal that actually came to the Senate floor 
for a vote, but what happened? The NRA came out against the bill, and 
nearly every Republican Member of the Senate fell in line to defeat it.
  The vote came in the aftermath of a shooting that took the lives of 
20 innocent elementary school children, and my Republican colleagues 
chose to side with the NRA and its $50-plus million in campaign 
donations.
  Today those first graders who were killed would be in the eighth 
grade, and yet we still haven't passed a background check law. We have 
seen the NRA block commonsense gun safety bills time and again. Most 
recently, President Trump voiced support for strengthening background 
checks in the wake of mass shootings in El Paso, Dayton, and Gilroy. He 
tweeted that ``Republicans and Democrats must come together and get 
strong background checks.''
  Days later, he spoke on the phone with the NRA executive vice 
president and CEO Wayne LaPierre and quickly changed his tune. 
Suddenly, our loophole-ridden background system became ``very, very 
strong,'' to quote the President. He no longer saw a need for 
additional legislation.
  The President of the United States is often called the most powerful 
man in the world. Yet, in the face of opposition from the NRA, Donald 
Trump proved himself anything but.
  Like so many people across the country, I am angry and frustrated 
that Republicans in Congress seem to care more about satisfying the NRA 
than taking commonsense steps to keep our communities safe.
  Every day that Republicans in Congress refuse to act costs lives. In 
the 6 days following the November 14 shooting in which two people were 
killed and three others wounded at Saugus High School, there have been 
at least four more mass shootings.
  On November 16, five were killed and one wounded in a murder-suicide 
in Paradise Hills, CA. On November 17, four were killed and an 
additional six were wounded when gunmen opened fire at a backyard party 
at Fresno, CA. That same day, four were injured when a gunman fired 
shots into a home outside Cleveland, OH. On November 18, one was killed 
and four injured in a shooting in Newark, NJ.
  These shootings happen quickly--16 seconds in the case of the Saugus 
High School shooting in Santa Clarita. This is hardly enough time to 
expect the proverbial ``good guy with a gun'' to protect innocent men, 
women, and children caught in the line of fire.
  Failing to take decisive action to confront the crisis of gun 
violence in our country makes the Senate complicit in its continuation. 
Instead of making more excuses for the Senate's inaction, my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle should stop hiding behind the NRA and 
join us in passing commonsense gun safety legislation that will save 
lives.
  As our country endures mass shooting after mass shooting, I have to 
ask, at what point do we say, ``Enough''? When will my Republican 
colleagues turn their backs on the NRA's leadership, listen to the 90 
percent of the American people and the rank-and-file NRA members who 
join them, and pass gun safety laws? The cost of continued inaction is 
far too high.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Wake up. What 
is it going to take? What is it going to take?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the 2020 
Democratic Presidential candidates prepare to debate this evening. We 
are sure to hear once again about their proposals for massive taxing 
and spending. At the top of the list is their $34 trillion Medicare for 
All, which is really a one-size-fits-all healthcare scheme for the 
people of our country. Here is the key point. Democrats will 
dramatically raise taxes on all Americans. One candidate plans to 
increase taxes on working families by $26 trillion over the next year--
that is new taxes--new taxes--of $26 trillion. This candidate also 
proposes an additional $2 trillion on top of the $26 trillion by hiring 
an army of IRS agents to crack down on hard-working Americans who this 
one candidate, as a Member of this body, says can actually pay more and 
are not paying their full share. So Americans will pay $28 trillion 
more in taxes over a decade. Do not be deceived. These taxes will hit 
all Americans.

  Democrats know they can't win this election on policy. Specifically, 
they are dangerous Democratic socialist policies that they are going to 
be promoting in the debate tonight. So what are they doing? Well, they 
are counting on their totally partisan impeachment process. We have 
been hearing all about it now for months--actually, for years.
  Democrats have been obsessed with impeaching--impeaching--President 
Trump since day one, the day he was elected. Then fast forward to his 
inauguration in 2017. The campaign to impeach President Trump, starting 
from the day he was elected, really took force the day he was sworn 
into office.
  Democrats want to overturn the last election, and they want to 
interfere with the upcoming election. Election day 2020 is now less 
than a year away. Still, Democrats' impeachment obsession continues to 
burn on.
  This is an unfair, bitterly partisan process. I will tell you, the 
Americans I talk to at home in Wyoming see right through it. When I 
talk to my colleagues around the country, their constituents at home 
see right through it as well.
  Recent polling shows that the public wants the voters--not House 
Democrats and not Speaker Pelosi--to make

[[Page S6696]]

their own call on election day. The Democrats, meanwhile, seem to 
prefer impeachment to doing the work of the American people--the work 
all of us were elected to do.
  Republicans prefer to work on the issues we were elected to address: 
jobs, the economy, and our Nation's security. We are going to continue 
to work for the people who elected us.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, on another matter, I come to the floor as we approach 
another government funding deadline. The fact is, it is already past 
time to fund the government, especially our military.
  Republicans have worked all year to complete the annual 
appropriations process and to get it done on time. Here is the problem: 
Republicans can't pass the annual funding bills alone. We need 
cooperation from the Democrats. We need the House Democrats' 
cooperation, and here in the Senate, we need to clear the 60-vote 
hurdle. So we need Senate Democrats to be involved in the process as 
well. But Democrats prefer impeachment grandstanding rather than 
governing. That is what we are facing here today.
  We are nearly 2 months into fiscal year 2020, and we have yet to pass 
any of the 2020 funding bills. The government has been running under 
what is called a short-term continuing resolution. This current 
continuing resolution is set to expire Thursday--tomorrow. We will, 
undoubtedly, pass another stopgap continuing resolution this week, but 
these are only a temporary fix. They are needed to keep the 
government's lights on but at last year's funding levels. Meanwhile, 
there is no end in sight to Democrats' 3-year-long impeachment 
obsession. Their impeachment fever rages on.
  They are so consumed by this bitterly partisan process that they 
cannot focus on the priorities of the American people. They are too 
consumed to fix our aging roads and bridges, too obsessed to pass 
``America First'' trade deals, and too fixated to fund the government 
on time. Above all, people expect us to fully fund defense--the defense 
of our Nation. Yet the Democrats continue to stonewall.
  Republicans are fighting to fully fund the military; Democrats are 
waging war on the Commander in Chief. Remember, both parties came to 
the table and completed a bipartisan budget deal this past summer. The 
deal meant that we could fund the government on time. The deal 
supported critical defense funding to keep our Nation safe, and it 
included a major pay raise for our troops.
  So what happened? It is pretty clear. The Democrats went back on 
their word. And in so doing, they broke faith with the American people 
and broke faith with our troops--those in harm's way today.
  Back at home in Wyoming, a deal is a deal. Your word means something. 
A handshake means something. You never go back on your word, certainly 
not when you make promises to our men and women in uniform. 
Nevertheless, the Democrats have since poisoned the well with 
unreasonable partisan demands. They are tying our Americans' hands, 
repeatedly blocking key defense votes. Democrats filibuster and 
Democrats impeach while neglecting the troops.
  U.S. forces, meanwhile, are facing heightened threats with last 
year's funding levels. The fact is, while necessary, these continuing 
resolutions take a real toll on our military. The current CR means a 
$22 billion cut from this summer's bipartisan budget deal when it comes 
to our troops. It is harming military readiness and harming military 
training.
  The CR has also delayed new weapons programs, and it has suspended 
existing weapons programs. These include hypersonic strike weapons, 
missile defense systems, and new fighters and ships.
  Our adversaries--most notably Iran, China, and Russia--pose a grave, 
growing threat to our Nation. That hasn't stopped House and Senate 
Democrats from blocking both the Defense authorization and funding 
bills. Right now they are blocking both.
  The National Defense Authorization Act, which is the authorizing 
bill, has passed and been signed every year since 1961. That is when 
John Kennedy was President of the United States--1961.
  The NDAA has a long history of strong bipartisan support. Yet, right 
now, House Democrats are delaying final passage of our National Defense 
Authorization Act. Again, they are blocking the House's spending bill 
for our military, even though it gives our troops a well-earned pay 
raise.

  Like the Presiding Officer, I frequently visit our troops overseas. I 
did so last month. We have a number of Wyoming National Guard members 
deployed around the world, and it is always an honor to spend time with 
them.
  Most recently, I visited Wyoming troops deployed in the Middle East 
and in Kosovo. The Wyoming guard is about 400 members overseas. It is 
our State's largest deployment in a decade. As I noted at this year's 
American Legion Post 6 Veterans Day celebration in Cheyenne, WY, these 
troops will be away from home for Thanksgiving; they will be away from 
home for Christmas; and they will be away from home for New Year's as 
well.
  Both my dad and my father-in-law served overseas. My dad fought in 
Europe in World War II in the pivotal Battle of the Bulge, the 75th 
anniversary of which is coming up next month. My father-in-law fought 
in both theaters during World War II and also served in the Korean war.
  The U.S. Armed Forces are on the frontlines. They are defending our 
freedoms, and they are doing it every single day. They make this 
sacrifice 365 days a year, and they do it to protect us, to protect our 
freedom, and to protect our Nation. U.S. servicemembers never quit. 
They don't complain, and we don't quit on them when they need us the 
most.
  Our troops deserve our full support right now, and, clearly, that 
support must be bipartisan. Yet Democrats remain too obsessed to do the 
work of the Nation. People elected them to do a job, and those people 
are nowhere to be found.
  Think about it. Democrats are fast-tracking impeachment and 
filibustering the defense funding bill. How can they do that in good 
conscience? Instead of funding certainty, we have an impeachment 
circus.
  Republicans are committed to work on policy priorities for the people 
who elected us. It is time for Democrats to stop the stonewalling. 
Let's give our troops the state-of-the-art tools they need and the 
raise they deserve and have earned.
  Democrats need to get their priorities in order. Defense should be 
top of the list. It is past time to keep our promises to the military. 
It is past time to give the troops a well-earned and well-deserved pay 
raise, and it is past time to fund the defense of our Nation and to 
fund our government.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                                Pensions

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the financial crisis facing the private 
sector multiemployer pension system calls for comprehensive reform and 
getting it done soon.
  The crisis is severe and growing worse every day. Would you believe 
about 125 multiemployer plans are in so-called critical and declining 
financial status? These plans report that they will become insolvent 
over the next two decades. There will be a lot of people without a 
retirement plan if we don't act.
  Several large plans, including the United Mine Workers Pension Fund 
and the large Central States Pension Fund, predict these plans will 
become insolvent in the next few years. That is not a very comfortable 
environment for those retirees.
  This will leave more than 1.3 million participants without the 
pension benefits they have been promised and, of course, worked for 
probably throughout their whole lives.
  In just my State of Iowa, the benefits of close to 10,000 
participants of multiemployer plans are at risk if the system fails. 
Ten thousand Iowans being affected by what we do or don't do, 
obviously, gets my attention. That figure of 10,000 will represent over 
$70 million in benefits paid out annually that these individuals rely 
on in retirement.
  More broadly, another large group of multiemployer plans are in 
critical status. They report that no realistic combination of 
contribution increases or allowable benefit reductions--options 
available under the current law

[[Page S6697]]

to address their financial condition--will enable these plans to emerge 
from their current, poorly funded financial condition. So it is very 
important that Congress act to save these retirement plans. These plans 
cover millions more workers and retirees across the Nation, and those 
workers and retirees face significant benefit cuts under existing law.
  We should also be concerned about the financial health of the Federal 
insurance system that backs up these retirement benefits. The Federal 
insurance system goes by the name of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation. The PBGC's multiemployer pension program may itself become 
insolvent if only one or possibly two larger multiemployer plans fail.
  One of these plans, the United Mine Workers, just lost its last large 
contributing employer to bankruptcy. Without reforms, the Federal 
guaranty system, the PBGC, reports it will be insolvent no later than 
2026. When that happens, the PBGC will not be able to pay either 
current or future retirees more than a very small fraction of the 
benefits they have been promised.
  Consequently, substantial reductions in retirement income are a very 
real possibility for the millions of workers and retirees who depend on 
benefits from these plans. We need to act very soon to protect the 
hard-earned pension benefits of the workers who participate in these 
plans.
  As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am on the floor today 
to join with Chairman Alexander from the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee to release a responsible reform plan to address the 
immediate financial challenges of a number of plans in critical 
financial condition and also at the same time to secure the 
multiemployer pension system over the long term, not just a quick fix 
that is going to last a short period of time.
  As we looked at options for reforming the current system, we relied 
on several important reform principles. I will go through these 
principles.
  First, a reform plan should provide balanced assistance to the most 
poorly funded plans.
  The second principle is that Federal assistance to the failing plans 
should rely on as little taxpayer dollars as possible.
  The third principle is that reforms must promote long-term stability 
of the multiemployer pension system and the long-term solvency of the 
PBGC.
  To help the sickest plans recover their financial footing, our 
proposal creates a special partition option for multiemployer plans.
  I want everybody to know that this is not a new concept. In fact, 
quite simply, it expands on the PBGC's existing authority. It is based 
on banking industry reforms that Congress enacted after the Great 
Depression and at other times.
  The partition option permits employers to maintain a financially 
healthy multiemployer plan by carving out pension benefit liabilities 
owed to participants who have been ``orphaned'' by employers who have 
exited the plan without paying their full share of those liabilities. 
By removing these liabilities, we allow the original plan to continue 
to provide benefits in a self-sustaining manner by funding benefits 
with contributions from current participating employers. In effect, 
partitioning creates a healthy pension that continues to meet all of 
its obligations to retirees and a separate ``sick pension'' that 
requires attention and assistance from the PBGC.
  For this partition program to operate effectively and address the 
plans that are in immediate danger, a limited amount of Federal 
taxpayer funds will be needed to support the PBGC. We expect the 
necessary Federal resources to comprise only a small--I should say very 
small--portion of the financial assistance provided to the faltering 
multiemployer plans, and it is our intent, as we should be fiscally 
responsible, to offset those costs.
  We should also acknowledge the reality that action right now means 
lower taxpayer involvement than if we wait for the PBGC to become 
insolvent, which would lead to a far larger commitment of taxpayer 
funds in the not too distant future. Congress needs to be ahead of the 
real catastrophe we know is coming.
  Over the long run, the reforms we are proposing will be sustained 
primarily by shared-sacrifice funding reforms and a new premium 
structure for all stakeholders of the multiemployer plans.
  Because taxpayer dollars would be at risk if the sickest plans fail 
to move to fully funded status, the proposal also includes a number of 
plan-governance reforms to strengthen multiemployer plans, to protect 
the taxpayers' contributions to the overall reforms, and to shield 
taxpayers from future risks.
  While partitioning addresses one element needed for reform, Senator 
Alexander and I propose to go a step further to make significant 
changes to the management and operation of all multiemployer pension 
plans. This is something that should have been done years ago so that 
plan trustees would have had to act in a responsible way, and maybe we 
wouldn't be where we are today, but we want to make sure this doesn't 
happen in the future. If we go that way--and we must go that way--
moving forward, the entire multiemployer pension system will be better 
funded and more transparent to participants, to sponsoring employers, 
and to government regulators.
  Providing relief to critical and declining plans is contingent on 
making changes to the legal framework of the multiemployer pension 
system to ensure that all plans operate, as people would expect, in a 
financially sound way in the future.
  To help finance the partition relief and to provide a stronger PBGC 
insurance guarantee to participants in the system, our reform proposal 
creates a new premium structure. That structure includes raising the 
flat-rate premium to $80 per participant in a multiemployer plan, 
putting the multiemployer program on par with a single-employer 
guarantee program. The new premium structure also broadens the base on 
which premiums are assessed to more equitably spread the cost of 
insuring benefits and to ensure PBGC solvency. The new structure 
applies a copayment to active workers and retirees. However, because of 
the broader contribution base, the copayments are significantly less 
than the amount of the typical benefit cuts retirees face under current 
law if their plan should fail. Older retirees and disabled participants 
will also be protected.

  In addition, our reform package establishes a variable-rate premium. 
This variable-rate premium, which parallels the variable-rate premium 
that has long applied to single-employer plans, is tied to a plan's 
funding status to manage risks stemming from more poorly funded plans. 
This also creates an incentive for plans to improve their funding over 
time.
  The new premium structure not only helps to secure the finances of 
the PBGC but also funds an increase in the guaranteed benefit level for 
the vast majority of participants in the system. Raising the guaranteed 
benefit will greatly reduce the risk to retirees of significant 
reductions in retirement income, which would otherwise occur if their 
multiemployer plan becomes insolvent.
  While the changes to the premium structure will fundamentally 
strengthen the financial status of the multiemployer pension system and 
the PBGC, the reforms we are proposing make other important structural 
changes to the multiemployer system to help ensure that the entire 
system moves to a well-funded status over the long haul.
  We achieve this goal by addressing key flaws in the current legal 
framework governing multiemployer plans. Current multiemployer plan 
rules do not serve the best interests of workers and retirees. You can 
tell that by the bad condition, financially, some of these plans are in 
today, threatening the retirement of our workers who have paid into 
them over a lifetime. These rules have not been sufficient to keep 
plans in good financial health, and they tend to underestimate 
liabilities and result in insufficient contributions to the plans.
  To ensure that benefit promises offered in a multiemployer plan are 
ultimately met, our proposal strengthens the rules for measuring the 
value of promised pension benefits and the amount of employer 
contributions necessary to pay them when the worker retires. These 
changes will require plan trustees and actuaries to measure and project 
plan assets and liabilities in a more prudent and accurate way than has 
been required under present law.
  These changes also are designed to help move plans toward full 
funding

[[Page S6698]]

and at the same time protect the interests of plan participants and the 
taxpayers who would otherwise be required to bail out these 
multiemployer plans.
  Our reform proposal also improves the so-called zone rules. Plans 
will be required to look further into the future when estimating their 
financial status, and will have to institute a form of stress testing 
to check whether a plan can remain financially sustainable through 
potential economic and demographic stresses. Depending on its health, 
plans will have to bolster the steps they take when signs of financial 
hardship arise. That is a pretty commonsense approach.
  We will also replace current withdrawal-liability rules with a 
simpler, more transparent, and consistent method for determining an 
employer's liability if it withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan.
  We have to look to the future. In doing so, the proposal includes a 
new option for sponsors of multiemployer plans to establish a new 
hybrid pension plan that we are going to call a composite plan. We have 
heard a great deal of interest from smaller businesses and their 
workers about the benefits of a composite plan approach, including less 
costly operations and more certainty in the financing of these plans.
  In closing, let me say that there are no perfect solutions to the 
multiemployer pension crisis. But it is very true that the longer we 
wait, the harder and more expensive this problem gets. But it is clear, 
our solution is far better than allowing the system to continue on its 
current path--to collapse--and far better than merely throwing Federal 
money into plans without changing how they operate. The problem is 
never going to be solved by waiting or by using taxpayers' money.
  The House has essentially advanced a pure, no-strings-attached 
bailout plan that throws taxpayer money to the plans in the hope that 
they can somehow earn returns sufficient to keep them going. We rely a 
great deal on the Congressional Budget Office around here for estimates 
of the future, and the nonpartisan CBO has told us that the House's 
proposal will not generate sustainability of pension plans or the 
sustainability of the PBGC. So we had better not spend our time on 
something the Congressional Budget Office says just isn't going to 
bring a solution and definitely not a long-term solution to these 
issues.

  In contrast, the proposal that Senator Alexander and I are releasing 
today addresses the immediate needs of the few multiemployer plans 
facing immediate crisis in a manner that protects participant benefits 
and also ensures a sustainable multiemployer pension system for the 
long haul, and it does this all in a fiscally responsible way.
  Our proposal is not a giveaway to corporations or to unions, and it 
is a better deal for the taxpayers than a future that would be an even 
larger problem and PBGC funding needs that will almost surely be met 
with a taxpayer bailout.
  All participants in the system would make a sacrifice. Let me make 
that clear. All participants in the system are going to sacrifice--
employers, unions, workers, and retirees. I am sure each one of those 
groups isn't going to consider this fair and responsible, but with a 
problem like this, if everybody doesn't give a little bit, it is never 
going to be fair and responsible anyway. But with some shared pain will 
come significant shared gain that will be to the benefit of over 1.5 
million participants in about 125 multiemployer plans that are in 
serious financial jeopardy.
  Without changes to the current system, we can't say for sure that 
people are going to get the benefits that they sacrificed for over a 
lifetime of work. But our plan, we are confident, will benefit all 
multiemployer plans and their participants by providing a stronger 
system for the long haul and by promoting long-term solvency of the 
PBGC.
  Senator Alexander and I offer this proposal as a path forward for a 
multiemployer pension system that we all know is in crisis.
  Now, as we turn to getting this job done, I look forward to working 
with my colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to 
advance this proposal. We all know that just because you lay something 
on the table, that it is not necessarily going to be passed that way. 
So maybe there is some compromise needed. But whether it is this 
proposal or a little bit of compromise, we have to get this piece of 
legislation to the President's desk before more pension holders face 
losses of the benefits they have earned and benefits that they were 
promised.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2486

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to talk about what 
some observers have called one of the best historically black colleges 
and universities in our country--Delaware State University in Dover, 
DE, home of the Hornets.
  For a number of years, I was a naval flight officer in the Vietnam 
war and then came back to the United States and moved to Delaware and 
got an MBA at the University of Delaware. Right away after that, I went 
to work at what became the Delaware Economic Office. We were 
headquartered at the campus of Delaware State College.
  Delaware State College was an HBCU and was not a well-funded college, 
not one that was in the favor, frankly, of the Governor and 
legislature, for the most part, and was a bit of a stepchild.
  I used to think: Boy, wouldn't it be great to be able to help 
transform Delaware State College into something historic, memorable, 
and outstanding.
  Later on, I would be elected Governor--about 15 years later--and have 
the chance to work with the fellow who was the president of Delaware 
State University at the time and to transform, with the help of the 
Delaware General Assembly, Delaware State College into Delaware State 
University.
  Today, of all the HBCUs in the country, I think its latest rating is 
No. 5, and I think there are 70 or 75 of them in all. They just 
reported that their enrollment for the coming year will reach 5,000 
students, all in undergraduate, graduate, master's and Ph.D. programs, 
which is a record. We are proud of the Hornets and the great job they 
are doing educating people.
  Last month, in one of my frequent visits to Delaware State, I took a 
campus tour unlike any other, from the cockpit of a brand-new Vulcanair 
V1.0 single-engine aircraft. We flew all over Kent County, north of 
Dover. We had a chance to do some approaches. It was a lot of fun, and 
it was basically a reminder that Delaware State provides undergraduate 
and graduate programs for all kinds of training and educational needs. 
One of the key ones right now and one of the most interesting, at least 
for a naval flight officer, is that Delaware State is the largest 
producer of pilots and aviation professionals of color in the country. 
I believe they have over 100 students and every one of them, when they 
graduate, has a job waiting for them. Some are pilots and others do a 
variety of work for aviation.
  Today, we have about 157 million people who go to work in this 
country, and we have about 5 million jobs where nobody will show up. 
One of those areas where we need people is in the aviation world, and 
Delaware State is providing that. When the plane landed earlier this 
year at the airport just north of Dover, I held a roundtable with the 
Delaware State University executive vice president and provost, Dr. 
Tony Allen. We talked with administrators and students about a 
bipartisan bill called the FUTURE Act, which was discussed on the floor 
today and in previous days.
  The FUTURE Act, as you will recall, was introduced by Senator Jones 
along with Senator Scott from South Carolina, and would provide a 
little over $255 million annually to minority-serving institutions of 
higher education including about $85 million to HBCUs for an additional 
2 years through fiscal year 2021.
  Almost $900,000 of that money will go directly to Delaware State 
University.

[[Page S6699]]

You might ask: What would Delaware State do with that money? They use 
this Federal funding to help support STEM and teacher education 
programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels and to ensure that 
students at Delaware State have access to the best research tools. 
Specifically, this funding is used to help modernize classrooms at DSU, 
to improve math instruction, and to help recruit young men of color to 
teach in K-through-12 classrooms so that all students have mentors they 
can look up to.
  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 2 
percent of teachers in the American public school system are African-
American men, but 20 percent or more of the students are African-
American males.
  Think about that. A lot of these African-American males, frankly, 
haven't had some of the best mentors and role models in their lives 
growing up, and we have so few teachers of color that are minority 
male. The FUTURE Act funding, I think, is a good step for Congress to 
take to bridge that gap. I think it is a good example of how the 
Federal Government supports this critical mission at Delaware State and 
at HBCUs across the country.
  Back in early September, the House of Representatives did its job and 
voted to reauthorize this funding through the bipartisan FUTURE Act. 
Unfortunately, the Senate has not followed the lead of the House in 
this critical funding for HBCUs which lapsed on September 30.
  Before I yield to Senator Coons, I just wanted to say that my 
recollection is--and I might have this wrong, but I am looking for my 
staff, who would be sitting right here in front of me telling me if I 
had the right numbers--that 2 percent of teachers who are in public 
schools in America and I think in Delaware are men of color. They are 
African American. Almost 20 percent, maybe 25 percent, of the students 
in the public school system are people of color and about half of those 
are male. We need to do a better job.
  As Governor, I started a mentoring program. We recruited, when I was 
Governor, 10,000 mentors--a lot of them to work with children of color. 
A lot of them have grown up in homes where they didn't have a positive 
male role model in their life. That is why the mentoring program is so 
important. That is why we especially need minority male teachers who 
are African American. That is not all we need, but it is a big part of 
what we need. Over half of the minority male teachers that we have in 
Delaware in our schools were educated at Delaware State University--
over half--and we need more of them.
  Senator Coons has joined me on the floor. I am enormously proud of 
Delaware State University and the leadership they have today and in the 
past, and proud to have been an honorary Hornet, and proud to yield to 
my colleague, Senator Coons, who has been right there fighting for 
Delaware State University.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague from 
our home State of Delaware. I come to the floor to join a number of my 
colleagues who are speaking on a pressing issue, the critical lapse in 
funding for hundreds of colleges and universities across our Nation.
  On September 30, $255 million in annual Federal funding for 
historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving 
institutions expired.
  Since this fund was first created, it has supported 400 HBCUs and 
MSIs, historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving 
institutions, across our country, including 97 HBCUs last year. This 
lapse has created real uncertainty and harm to these organizations and 
these universities, their students, their employees, and the public.
  I just wanted to join my colleagues in highlighting the importance of 
this funding. I want to speak specifically to the HBCU of which 
Delaware is so proud--Delaware State University.
  Delaware State is an engine for educational equity and access, for 
innovation and for leadership in our State, our region, and our Nation.
  Delaware State University is one of the country's top public HBCUs. 
Its graduates go on to successful careers in all sorts of industries. 
Graduates from Delaware State have become some of our State's best 
nurses, teachers, business leaders, social workers, and Senate staff.
  DSU's research programs are important drivers for innovation in a 
State with a proud history of invention and innovation. It is home to 
the Delaware Center for Neuroscience Research, a partnership of 
institutions across our State working to advance our understanding of 
how our brains form thoughts and memories and feelings, and how they 
change over time as we age.
  It is also home to OSCAR, the Optical Science Center for Applied 
Research, where research that is in part federally funded is helping to 
speed early detection of disease, supporting our soldiers in better 
deterring and detecting threats, and equipping NASA missions, including 
the Mars Rover, with improved sensors.
  To put it simply, we are very proud of Delaware State, and there is a 
lot of which to be proud. DSU grads are so impressive that I have asked 
several of them to join my staff here in Washington. Their commitment 
to equity and excellence is why we can't allow HBCUs around the 
country, such as Delaware State, to lose out on vitally needed Federal 
funding.
  Last year, this program provided nearly $1 million--$887,000--to 
Delaware State, which is about 20 percent of their title III funding. 
These funds have a direct impact on students and funds critical 
science, math, and educator preparation programs.
  There is no good reason for the Senate to ignore our HBCUs and MSIs 
and deny them the funding they deserve. In September, the House passed 
a bipartisan, budget-neutral, 2-year extension of this critical 
funding, which is known as the FUTURE Act. While I share Senator 
Alexander's commitment to permanently extending this funding, we must 
not ask institutions to put their budgeting and planning on hold while 
we here in the Senate negotiate over many other pressing issues in 
higher education.
  I urge my colleagues to pass the FUTURE Act immediately, and with 
that, I would like to make a motion.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 
212, H.R. 2486. I ask unanimous consent that the Murray amendment at 
the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a 
third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I 
will object--I am disappointed that my colleagues are offering such a 
short-term, piecemeal approach toward resolving the problems of our 
historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions, when I 
have repeatedly offered a much better idea, and they have blocked it. I 
will offer it again in just a moment. I know the Senator from North 
Carolina is here to speak on the same subject.
  Compared to what I have offered, they are offering a short-term, 2-
year, budget gimmick-supported idea that will have a difficult time 
passing the Senate. What I have offered and they have blocked is 
permanent funding of historically Black colleges and minority-serving 
institutions--permanent funding--at the level of $255 million a year, 
properly funded. That is No. 1. There is assurance from the U.S. 
Department of Education that every single historically Black 
institution--there are 97 of them--have enough funding to go until next 
October. Even the Senate ought to be able to do its job in that period 
of time.
  At the same time, I have offered the Alexander-Jones bill offered by 
the distinguished Senator from Alabama, which would simplify the 
Federal aid application form called the FAFSA for 8 million minority 
students, among 20 million families in this country.
  Why would anybody want to take a short-term, piecemeal approach that 
is based on a budget gimmick that couldn't pass the Senate compared 
with permanent funding for historically Black colleges and a bipartisan 
proposal to change the hated, dreaded FAFSA by reducing the number of 
questions you have to answer from 108 questions to between 18 and 30? 
This

[[Page S6700]]

document is the single biggest impediment to minority students going to 
college in America today, and the Democrats are blocking the passage of 
a bipartisan bill.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I want to thank the chairman of the 
committee for objecting. I want to tell my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle that I appreciate their being here giving the passionate 
speeches they have because they made the case for Senator Alexander's 
bipartisan bill.
  You see, incorporated in this legislation is an initiative by Senator 
Jones and Senator Baldwin. Anybody who makes this out to be a partisan 
piece of legislation is just flat wrong. I have more historical Black 
colleges in North Carolina than any State can claim. When those 
chancellors and presidents have been presented with the question: Do 
you want 2 years or permanent, they all said permanent. They didn't 
know there was a permanent option.
  I say this to my three colleagues because none of them are on the 
committee: There is a permanent option for funding historically Black 
colleges. It is in the chairman's bill. We have been told that the 
FUTURE Act needs to be passed. The FUTURE Act is 2 years long. There is 
not much of a future there. We ought to match its title with the 
chairman's bill because this really does address the future.
  The No. 1 concern of historically Black institutions is 
predictability of funding. The chairman's bill is permanent. We are not 
going to come in here in 2 years and seek another reauthorization, but 
the benefit is that we are passing good legislation.
  Let me point out to my colleagues that it is important to read 
legislation. The FUTURE Act is funded by whacking the funding for the 
State guaranty agencies. By taking away the account maintenance fees 
that these State-based organizations receive to administer loans, we 
are robbing Peter to pay Paul. These same students who are probably 
going to go to historically Black universities are also seeking State-
based loans to do it, and we are providing the institutions 2 years of 
predictability on one side, and we are taking away the fees that are 
needed to administer the loans to allow them to be able to afford it. 
This is when it is important to look at the details.
  The way the FUTURE Act is funded, it actually hurts all institutions 
in North Carolina. Just today, I heard from the North Carolina State 
Education Assistance Authority about how important this funding is for 
their daily functions in administering student loans. So I believe 
there is a better way to extend HBC funding but also not to hurt 
students.
  At the end of the day, our focus--the human face we see is the 
student who benefits from the educational opportunity they have been 
given. I would tell you that the FUTURE Act flunks on all counts. It is 
not permanent. It takes away from some because of how it is funded. We 
have an opportunity with Chairman Alexander's bill, the Student Aid 
Improvement Act, which would extend this title III funding permanently, 
but it would also include other bipartisan support changes in higher 
education, like expanding Pell grants. Every Member of the Senate has 
sat on this floor and said we have to do something on Pell grants. Here 
is your opportunity.
  It doesn't fit in the timeframe of passing a bill that passed the 
House that provides 2 years of funding, but we have a bipartisan piece 
of legislation. It simplifies the financial student financial aid 
process. You saw the chairman hold up the form. There is nobody who can 
defend the continuation of that form. It should be one page. The 
chairman of the Education Committee has tried for now 5 years to 
transition that to one page. You might look at us and say: Well, we can 
do this very quickly, but we need time to talk about this. We have 
taken 5 years to do this, and the people on the committee know this.
  This is the sixth time you have come to the floor and asked unanimous 
consent to do the exact same thing: Pass this; don't look at anything 
else.
  No, that is wrong, but it is not wrong because we are in the 
majority. It is wrong because it is not serving the students for whom 
we are supposed to be here setting policy. It simplifies aid award 
letters to students. It is actually easy to tell them they got their 
student aid. It is cumbersome. If you are on the committee, you 
understand the agony they go through. We are wiping all of that away.
  I believe Chairman Alexander has a better path. I also would like to 
remind my colleagues that while this funding should be extended, there 
has been no lapse. Let me state that again. It should be extended, and 
there has been no lapse.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter I received 
from Secretary DeVos, stating that the title III funding in question is 
available through September 2021, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   The Secretary of Education,

                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 2019.
       Dear [Redacted] I write to clarify the status of grants 
     under Title III, Part F of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     in light of the enactment of the Continuing Appropriations 
     Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019 (Pub. L. No. 116-
     59), signed on September 27, 2019.
       Initially, I want to note that the new law has no effect on 
     funds that we recently awarded in the Title III, Part F 
     programs. Funds obligated in fiscal year (FY) 2019 have 
     already been made available to grantees under all Part F 
     programs in the Department of Education's (Department) G5 
     System for the project period beginning on October 1, 2019, 
     and ending on September 30, 2020. Those funds will remain 
     available to grantees for allowable uses during this period. 
     In addition, in the Part F programs that award grants 
     competitively, the Department has carried over FY 2019 funds 
     into FY 2020 to support noncompeting continuation awards and 
     supplements for project periods from October 1, 2020, through 
     September 30, 2021.
       The Department's ability to make additional formula grants 
     in FY 2020 under Part F for Historically Black Colleges and 
     Universities (HBCUs) and Tribally Controlled Colleges and 
     Universities, and to conduct new competitions for FY 2021, 
     depends on the availability of congressionally appropriated 
     funds. However, this will have no bearing on the grant funds 
     that have already been made available to grantees for the 
     next 12 months.
       This Administration is committed to each and every HBCU and 
     other minority-serving institutions and the important work 
     they do in educating historically underrepresented student 
     populations. If you have any questions about these programs, 
     please reach out to your program officer in the Department's 
     Office of Postsecondary Education.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Betsy DeVos.

  Mr. BURR. On that basis alone, there is not the sense of urgency that 
some have come to the floor six times and suggested. I don't disagree 
with any of my colleagues that this is something we need to do now, but 
a 2-year temporary bill that doesn't accomplish any of the other 
reforms when we have had 5 years of bipartisan work--why would we not 
take this option? Why would we not sit down and find a way for Chairman 
Alexander's bill--which has many Democratic initiatives in it--to pass 
and provide historically Black colleges and universities with permanent 
funding, provide students with a one-page form to fill out for student 
aid, provide an expedited way for the notification when their loans 
have been approved? We are there, but for some reason, some want us to 
do a 2-year temporary fix. It is wrong. I thank the chairman for 
objecting.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I see the Senator from Ohio. I intend 
to offer my alternative to which, I gather, someone plans to object. I 
will go ahead and do that unless he wants to speak at this point.
  Mr. BROWN. Go ahead, Senator Alexander.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2557

  Mr. ALEXANDER. What I will do is make my offer quickly, and then I 
will make my speech following the objection.
  Let me summarize, to begin with, that what has just happened is I 
have objected to a short-term, piecemeal extension of funding for 
historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions because 
it is a bill that, I think, will have great difficulty passing the 
Senate because of the way it is not properly funded. What I am about to 
offer, and which I will speak on after the objection is made, is 
permanent funding for historically Black colleges at the level of $255 
million a year--permanent funding--as opposed to short-term, piecemeal 
funding as part of a

[[Page S6701]]

package of higher education legislation that has been prepared and 
cosponsored by 29 Senators--more Democrats than Republicans--with the 
principal other provision being reducing the questions in the FAFSA, 
the Federal aid application form, from 108 to between 18 and 30. This 
is a bill introduced by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Jones, and I, 
which our Senate committee has been working on for 5 years. It is the 
single most important impediment to keeping minority students from 
going to college in our State--and I think most States, according to 
our former Governor--and it would help 8 million minority students who 
fill out this complicated form every year.
  I will speak more to that in just a minute, but that is what I am 
about to ask my friends on the other side to permit me to pass.
  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 2557--the bill I just 
described, the permanent funding of historically Black colleges and the 
simplification of the FAFSA and other measures--and the Senate proceed 
to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.
  I and my colleagues here--Senator Carper, Senator Coons, and 
prominent Democrats in the education debate--have deep concerns about 
Senator Alexander's proposed micropackage. To be sure, it is a 
micropackage of higher education bills. It is not a complete 
reauthorization.
  Our caucus has been clear about what a comprehensive bill should look 
like. It addresses access, affordability, accountability, and campus 
safety. This Alexander proposal falls well short.
  The Senator from Tennessee says this package is bipartisan. That is 
sort of true but not entirely. He has made a number of changes to the 
underlying bipartisan bills that do not have the support of lead 
Democrats on this and, in some cases, the lead Republicans of the 
original bills. For example, this package includes a limited repeal of 
the ban on Pell grants for incarcerated adults instead of the full 
repeal of the ban included in the bipartisan bill. Our bill adds to 
Pell grants.
  His version of the short-term Pell Grant Program makes significant 
changes to the bipartisan JOBS Act of 2019, a bill of which I am an 
original cosponsor. The JOBS Act excludes for-profit colleges from 
eligibility for the program. We know the Trump administration is all 
about for-profit institutions, with the Secretary of Education leading 
the charge. This version allows for-profit colleges--the sorts of 
schools we know mislead and scam students in too many cases--to sneak 
their way into eligibility.
  One of the things I admire about the chairman of the HELP Committee--
and have admired since I met him 20-some years ago--was his work not 
just as Secretary of Education but his work as president of the 
University of Tennessee. He knows what for-profit colleges do for and 
to far too many students. His legislation removes a number of the 
protections meant to ensure programs eligible for this funding are 
actually high-quality ones that educate students. These are just a 
couple of the ways this micropackage is different from the original 
bipartisan bills. We know the micropackage cannot pass the House. 
Chairman Scott and Speaker Pelosi have been clear that they want 
comprehensive reform. A comprehensive HEA reauthorization can pass. 
That is not what this is.
  I hope we can come to a bipartisan agreement, but as we work 
together, we can't hold hostage historically Black colleges and 
universities. Most of them are in the South. Most of them are in the 
States of my colleagues who are from the South. Most of them are in 
Republican States with Republican Senators. As mentioned by Senator 
Carper and Senator Coons, of Delaware, my State, which is similar to 
Delaware, has historically Black colleges. In Ohio, Wilberforce and 
Central State are prominent institutions that matter so much to our 
State. For the nearly 2 years now since the Trump administration has 
been in office, these schools have been in fiscal limbo.
  I know Senator Alexander cares about these schools, but there is no 
evidence that the President of the United States does. They need their 
funding extended now. The mandatory funding, which is vital to these 
schools, ran out on September 30 because the Senate refused to act and 
because the President didn't seem to care. The House did its job in 
passing the FUTURE Act. Now HBCUs are facing impossible decisions in 
the face of dwindling funding. The Senate needs to immediately take up 
and vote on the bill the House already passed to provide full, 
mandatory funding for MSIs and HBCUs.
  We all agree--Senator Burr, Senator Alexander, the two Senators from 
Delaware, and Senator Cardin, who has just joined us--that HBCUs have 
fostered generations of Black leaders. They are a critical part of our 
Nation's higher ed system. These schools have rich legacies and proven 
track records of educating students of color and other underrepresented 
students.
  Wilberforce was founded in 1856 in Wilberforce, OH, as the Nation's 
first private institution of higher ed for Black students. Central 
State, which is in the same town across the road in Wilberforce, has a 
rich legacy of educating students as an 1890 land grant institution. We 
have helped it this year through the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry. It is further tasked with strengthening 
research, extension, and teaching in food and ag science.
  We know that without our HBCUs, millions of Black students would have 
been denied the opportunity to pursue higher ed. HBCUs account for 
approximately a quarter of all of Black students who earn bachelor's 
degrees and nearly a third of all of the African-American students who 
earn STEM bachelor's degrees. Our country owes an enormous debt to 
these schools that we don't seem to be paying back. That is why it is 
unconscionable that the Senate has abandoned these schools and these 
students.
  I have heard from schools about how their budgets have been thrown 
into chaos. They tell me that academia is about planning, and many of 
them already operate close to the margins. HBCUs have already received 
letters from the Department of Education telling them that they are not 
getting future funding and that they can't use any Federal funding for 
long-term projects. It could mean program cuts and layoffs. It means no 
long-term construction projects. It means not hiring permanent faculty 
and not purchasing major equipment. Imagine operating a school like 
that.
  It is shameful that in 2019 we still ignore schools that serve 
students of color by treating this as anything other than a must-pass 
bill. I know that very few African Americans voted for President Trump, 
and I know he seems to care for only those people who voted for him. 
Yet this is an obligation. Senator Alexander wants to fulfill it, but 
he is operating in a straitjacket with this President.
  It is so important that we do this. The FUTURE Act is budget neutral, 
and it is fully paid for. We use the same offset the administration has 
used. It is a bipartisan pay-for, not a gimmick.
  I should add that less than 2 years ago, this Senate and President 
Trump had no problem passing a $1 trillion tax cut for corporations and 
the wealthy that wasn't paid for. We have seen that under Republican 
leadership in the White House. We have seen what has happened to our 
budget debt, and we know corporations have had huge tax cuts. We know 
70 percent of the tax cuts went to the wealthiest 1 percent. Yet this 
body can't take care of historically Black colleges. They hold schools 
that serve students of color to a different standard.
  I am hopeful that Senator Alexander, whom I trust, and Senator 
Murray, whom I trust, will continue to negotiate a truly bipartisan and 
truly comprehensive higher ed reauthorization that supports HBCUs. I 
support those efforts. That is the way forward for the priorities that 
Senator Alexander has outlined in his micropackage and for the updates 
and reauthorizations all of our students and families need. HBCUs and 
MSIs can't wait

[[Page S6702]]

until that process is over. They need action now. They have all had to 
overcome enough hurdles every day in order to educate their students. 
The U.S. Senate should not be one of those hurdles. We need to pass the 
FUTURE Act now.
  Accordingly, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I see the Senator from Maryland, but 
I would like to take a few minutes to describe the proposal to which 
Senator Brown just objected.
  I appreciate the Senator from Ohio in his saying that he hopes that 
Senator Murray and I can do what we usually do, which is to take issues 
within our Education Committee and work them out and present them to 
the Senate as a whole, but that is not the way this came up. This came 
up suddenly, and no one talked to me about it. Here we are when, for 5 
years, we have been in the midst of reauthorizing higher education. 
Permanently funding historically Black colleges has always been an 
important part of that discussion when suddenly here comes this bill as 
if there were an emergency.
  What I heard my friend from Ohio say is that he objects to my 
proposal as a microproposal, as a small proposal, but he is suggesting 
an even smaller proposal. He is suggesting a 2-year fix that, in my 
opinion, can't pass the Senate because of the way it is funded.
  Plus, why would you want a 2-year fix when you have the chairman of 
the Education Committee working for the permanent funding of 
historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions? This is 
what I have offered on the floor, and that is what has just now been 
objected to by the Democrats.
  At the same time, he mentioned a number of bills that he thought 
needed some changes. The request I made that was objected to also 
included simplifying FAFSA, which is the Federal aid application form 
that 20 million students fill out every year. Let's put a human face on 
that.
  The President of Southwest Tennessee Community College in Memphis, 
which is a largely minority institution in terms of its students--I see 
my colleague from Tennessee is presiding today, and she knows this 
institution well--told me they lose 1,500 students every semester 
because of the complexity of this form. There are 108 questions. A 
bipartisan working group, including Senator Bennet, of Colorado, a 
Democrat; Senator Jones, of Alabama, a Democrat; Senator King, of 
Maine, an Independent; and many others on our side, we have reduced 
these 108 questions to between 18 and 30. It has the support of the 
student aid administrators from across the country. It has the support 
of college presidents who see their students turned away because their 
parents and their grandparents see this as too complex.
  Former Governor of Tennessee Bill Haslam led our legislature to 
create 2 free years of college tuition in Tennessee, but first you have 
to fill this out. Governor Haslam has told me the single biggest 
impediment to low-income Tennesseans getting those 2 years of free 
education is the complexity of that form.
  Why would the Senator object to doing it when we have been working on 
it for 5 years and have a bipartisan bill to get it done? Why don't we 
pass it? Why don't we make it the law? What do we say to those 1,500 
students who don't get to go to college because of this?
  At the same time, at the other end of our State, the president of 
East Tennessee State University tells me that 70 percent of his student 
body is subjected to verification. The way this system works is you 
have to give some information to the IRS and some information to the 
Department of Education, and if you make one little mistake, they jerk 
your Pell grant while they figure out what the problem is. Seventy 
percent of the students were subjected to that verification, and some 
of them lost their scholarships while that happened. That is totally 
unnecessary.
  People in Tennessee ask me: If that is true, why don't you pass it?
  That is the question I am asking my friends because I just asked the 
Senate to pass it, and the Senator objected. Why don't we pass it? Why 
don't we make it the law? It is not as if I just showed up one day with 
this. We have been all the way through our process of hearings. It has 
been through working groups of Democratic and Republican Senators. It 
ought to be done.
  There is no need for us to come to the floor and say we need to pass 
a short-term, 2-year fix for historically Black colleges when, at the 
same time, you could have permanent funding for historically Black 
colleges and could fix the Federal aid application form that 8 million 
minority students fill out every year--8 million students. What are the 
Senators going to say to them about why they are not going to make it 
easier for them to go to college when we are here, arguing about a 
short-term, piecemeal fix for historically Black colleges?
  In a way, I am glad we are having this discussion because I have been 
trying to bring this to the attention of my colleagues and if you go 
home and talk to the families, they will tell you that 20 million fill 
this out every year. In Tennessee, it is 400,000. And college aid 
administrators will tell you that.

  I will give another example. I was in West Tennessee a couple of 
weeks ago at an event that was sponsored by the Ayers family. For 20 
years, they have given money to help rural kids succeed in college. 
What the Ayers have discovered is that instead of spending their money 
on scholarships, they are spending it on counselors because counselors 
help students more than the money does. They have found there are lots 
of scholarships, but it is the counselors who make the difference. Yet 
what do the counselors spend their time doing? They help students 
answer these unnecessary questions.
  So we are blocking and impeding the very students the Senator is 
claiming he wants to help when he objects to this bill I offered today.
  I want to make it clear that I will come to the floor every day, if I 
need to, and offer legislation for the permanent funding of 
historically Black colleges and minority-serving institutions, which 
will be fully paid for, and a bipartisan proposal to simplify the FAFSA 
from 108 questions to 18 to 30 questions, which is estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office to allow for 250,000 new American students 
to receive Pell grants as a result of the simplicity of what we have 
done.
  I am disappointed that we haven't come to a bipartisan result on 
that. My friends who are here today know very well that this is the way 
I like to work. I believe it is hard to get to the U.S. Senate, that it 
is hard to stay here, and that while you are here, you might as well 
try to accomplish something. That is what I want to do. I hope we can 
do it on higher education.
  When we accomplish it, I hope we can say we have agreed on the 
permanent funding for historically Black colleges and that we have 
elevated the importance of this complicated FAFSA to the attention of 
Senators on both sides of the aisle so that we say: Let's get this 
done. I don't want to go home any longer and have people ask me: Why 
don't you pass that? Why do I have to give the same information to two 
different parts of the Federal Government? Why are you discouraging the 
very low-income students who ought to be going to college?
  I am disappointed in this result today, and I intend to continue to 
work for the permanent funding of historically Black colleges.
  My last sentence will be this: I want all of the presidents of the 97 
institutions to know that the U.S. Department of Education has said 
there is full Federal funding for historically Black colleges and 
minority-serving institutions for another year. Another year ought to 
be plenty of time for us to reject this short-term fix and to adopt a 
permanent solution as well as to simplify the FAFSA, have short-term 
Pell grants, and take up a variety of other proposals that ought to be 
a part of the Higher Education Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                      Remembering Sergei Magnitsky

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, November 16 was the 10th anniversary of 
the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky.

[[Page S6703]]

  Sergei Magnitsky was a Moscow-based lawyer who represented an 
investment company, known as Hermitage Capital, whose American-born 
founder was Bill Browder. In the course of Mr. Magnitsky's 
representation of his client, he discovered a major tax fraud issue--
$230 million of taxpayer moneys being funneled through shell companies 
with business ties to President Putin. Mr. Magnitsky did what any good 
lawyer would do in discovering corruption and reported it to the local 
authorities. As a result, he was arrested and tortured. Ultimately, he 
died in prison. He was in prison for nearly a year without having a 
trial.
  Unfortunately, this is not a unique circumstance in Russia, but we in 
the global community decided that we could not let this injustice go 
without taking action. Those responsible needed to be held accountable. 
Yet, in Russia, those responsible for this tragedy were promoted and 
received awards.
  So there needs to be accountability for those who violate basic human 
rights and their government will not take action.
  I first learned of the Magnitsky tragedy in my role as a member of 
the Helsinki Commission. I was the chair and ranking Democrat on the 
Helsinki Commission. The Helsinki Commission is the way we enforced the 
Helsinki Final Act that was passed in 1975, and it adheres to basic 
principles of human rights. It gives every member-signator of the 
Helsinki Final Accords the right to challenge what is happening in 
other states. Russia is a signator to the Helsinki Final Act. The 
United States is a signator, and we raised the Magnitsky issue.
  Then, working with the late Senator John McCain, I authored 
legislation known as the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability 
Act. It was enacted into law in 2012, and what it does is it says that 
those who were participating in gross human rights violations in 
Russia--related to what happened to Sergei Magnitsky--that those who 
were responsible would not be allowed to visit the United States by 
being granted visas or to use our banking system. Why was that so 
important? Because these corrupt officials like to have their assets in 
dollars, not rubles, and they like to visit the United States, and they 
like their families to visit the United States.
  What is unique about the Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act is 
that Congress can initiate the executive branch taking up particular 
names.
  It is interesting--I have heard from many Russians who fully support 
what we are doing. We are giving them an opportunity for their voices 
to be heard.
  Mr. Putin lobbied against its passage, but it passed Congress by an 
overwhelming vote. To date, 54 individuals have been sanctioned under 
the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, and it has 
been very effective. We have been told through press accounts that in 
the summit meeting between Mr. Putin and President Trump, it was one of 
the first subjects that Mr. Putin raised in regard to the Magnitsky 
sanctions. And I must tell you, it provided U.S. leadership a way to 
stand up and hold human rights abusers and corrupt individuals 
accountable for their crimes. As a result of our action, other 
countries acted--Canada acted; European countries acted--and we were 
able to get much more effective use of this sanction against human 
rights violators.
  The Magnitsky legacy is not limited to Russia. Unfortunately, there 
are powerful, corrupt, and dangerous human rights violators globally, 
where countries do not hold these violators accountable for their 
actions. So once again partnering with the late Senator John McCain, I 
authored the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which 
was enacted in 2016, and we have used that act. We used it in Saudi 
Arabia to deal with the tragic death of Jamal Khashoggi. Over 100 
individuals have been sanctioned under Global Magnitsky, including 
those in the DRC, Nicaragua, and Burma as result a result of the 
Rohingya tragedies. Once again, U.S. leadership was there. As a result 
of our action, we saw action in Canada, and we saw action in the 
European Union.
  As we commemorate the 10th anniversary of Sergei Magnitsky's tragic 
death, let us recognize that Sergei's life and legacy have led to two 
of the most significant human rights accountability laws that exist 
today. Because of Sergei Magnitsky, the United States and many of our 
allies now have the tools available to hold human rights abusers 
accountable and to deter would-be perpetrators from committing such 
crimes in the first place.
  I urge my colleagues to continue to honor Sergei Magnitsky through 
our actions. Let us stand by our values and continue to ensure the 
protection and defense of human rights around the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I know people are waiting to see what 
might happen around here. We will have before us a continuing 
resolution to fully fund the Federal Government through December 20. I 
wish this was not necessary, and that we would have just passed all of 
our appropriations bills. But while I wish the step was not necessary, 
I would urge all Members to vote aye.
  I wish we were further along in our work, but it is not for lack of 
trying. It is no secret what is holding up negotiations--the 
President's demand for $8.6 billion more for his vanity wall along the 
southern border. This is a wall the President gave his word to the 
American people that Mexico would pay for it, and now he is telling the 
American people: No, I want the American taxpayers to pay for it.
  I should point out that he already has $10 billion on hand. He could 
not possibly build that much of his wall, anyway, over the next fiscal 
year with the eminent domain that would have to be done in Texas and 
elsewhere. And, of course, the wall they have built, at a cost of 
millions of taxpayer dollars a mile, can be defeated by a $100 saw at 
the local hardware store. The President was talking about how they will 
make it so high that it will be hard to get over it, but you can just 
kneel down and cut a hole to go through it. But he has $10 billion on 
hand for his wall. It could not be spent in the next year no matter how 
much the government is overcharged for the wall.
  He stole $6.3 billion of that from our troops and their families, and 
despite the fact that the vast majority of that money has yet to be 
spent, he wants more.
  If we hadn't had this issue, we would have had our work done by now. 
To quote one of the most famous baseball players, ``It's deja vu all 
over again.'' The President is once again putting his own personal 
interests ahead of the interests of our country.
  I would like to remind the Chamber what is at stake in the annual 
appropriations bills. These are the things that are being held up 
because the President wants us to forget his promise that Mexico would 
pay for this wall.
  What is being held up? Well, education for our children. Cutting-edge 
medical research. Anybody who has a family member with cancer or 
diabetes or any other disease wants their tax dollars being spent on 
medical research. Support for our Nation's farmers, medical care for 
our veterans, addressing the opioid crisis, environmental programs to 
keep our air safe to breathe and our water safe to drink--all of these 
things are being held up, all are being put on autopilot because the 
President cares about his wall--his symbolic wall--far more than he 
does about medical research or medical care for our veterans.
  So we find ourselves at a critical juncture. We could pass another 
continuing resolution to allow us to continue to negotiate in good 
faith, which I am committed to do, or shut down the government. Well, 
that is really not a choice.
  The continuing resolution before us is a good bill that will allow us 
to continue our bipartisan, bicameral negotiating on the fiscal year 
2020 appropriations process. I hope all Senators will support it.

[[Page S6704]]

  I would note for Senators how the Republican chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby, and I, as vice chairman, have 
kept the process in a bipartisan fashion. Almost all of our 
appropriations bills have come out of committee unanimously or 
virtually unanimously. They have come to the floor, and then they have 
gotten an overwhelming vote. Let's rely on those Senators in both 
parties who are willing to set aside political posturing and who are 
willing to set aside symbolism and instead have substance.
  In addition to continuing to fund our government for 4 more weeks, 
our bill tackles some issues that have to be addressed right away. It 
provides the Commerce Department with the necessary funds to carry out 
the decennial census, which is required by our Constitution. It 
provides funds for mobile centers to ensure that the census reaches 
those in the hardest to reach areas. It fulfills our constitutional 
obligation to make sure every American is counted.
  The bill includes a provision that would block a looming $7.6 billion 
rescission of highway funding set to hit the States July 1--the States 
of virtually everybody in this Chamber, Republican and Democratic 
alike. Without this provision, each of our States would see significant 
cuts to its highway funding. That is the last thing we need given the 
dire state of infrastructure in America today.
  The bill includes a pay raise for the military, which is set to go 
into effect in January. It also includes legislation to ensure that 
victims of state-sponsored terrorism get the compensation they are 
entitled to. More importantly, it ensures that the government remains 
funded and open while we continue to work on full-year appropriations 
bills.
  Now, even if we passed this bill today or tomorrow, we have only 4 
short weeks to complete our work. It can be done. I am committed to 
staying here, as we have in the past. We all worked nights, weekends, 
and I must say the tremendous Appropriations Committee staff worked 
even more hours.
  But it cannot be a one-sided negotiation. And we cannot be expected 
to divert billions more in taxpayer dollars to fulfill President 
Trump's cynical campaign promise as part of the final deal. It does not 
have the support in this Chamber or among the American people to carry 
the day.
  If we had an up-or-down vote in this body--will you take this money 
away from housing for our troops, for medical research, and all these 
other things, to pay for an ineffective wall so the President will not 
be embarrassed by not keeping his word that Mexico was going to pay for 
it? Of course, that would fail. Of course, that would fail. Nobody 
wants to go back home and say they did that.
  We have billions of dollars in here to keep our borders secure. We 
want to keep our borders secure. Everybody wants to, Republican and 
Democrats alike, but let's not waste the money on symbolism, especially 
if it means we do not do our medical research or take care of housing 
for our troops among all the other things I have listed. Do not do a 
bill with the hopes of, someday, Mexico will pay us back, just because 
the President promised they would. We all know they are not going to.
  So, with that being said, we have made some progress. I do not go and 
call press conferences like some of my colleague do each moment along 
the way, but I have been working closely with a bipartisan group. We 
all look forward to continue to work with Chairman Shelby and 
Chairwoman Lowey and with Ranking Member Granger to get these bills 
across the finish line.
  We owe it to the American people, and we have demonstrated--I think 
Senator Shelby as chair, myself as vice chair, we have demonstrated 
that we can get the bills through with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. 
Just let us do it. Let's go forward and pass them. Let's do substance 
over symbolism.
  With that, Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague on the 
floor, so I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Tennessee.


                         Internet Exchange Act

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is so interesting to be here on the 
floor and to hear such a variety of ideas and to know that, across the 
country, people are logging on and they are tuning in and they are 
watching how we go about our business. And one of the things that is so 
interesting as we pull the Internet and online activity into our lives 
and stay connected, we sometimes enjoy the idea of just ``unplugging'' 
for a weekend, going to somewhere in the country that holds a really 
special appeal. Certainly at this time of year, people will talk about 
going away for Thanksgiving, or maybe they went away during the fall to 
look at pretty leaves.
  They see it as an escape and maybe even an opportunity to get just a 
little bit of smugness in their tone when they talk about how they have 
chosen a destination that has politely informed them to not expect WiFi 
and not to expect that Internet connection.
  But here is a question for you: How many would make that trip, but 
still knowing there is not that connection, they take the smartphone, 
the iPad, or the laptop anyway? Of course, we know we all do that.
  After all, we have been trained to respond to the buzzing, beeping, 
and the ringing of our device, and so eventually, what happens is we 
give up and we start wandering around, searching for a signal, and then 
declaring to all of the very unimpressed locals: Well, I don't see how 
y'all do it without being able to have access to high-speed Internet. 
How can you survive without broadband?
  Well, to my colleagues, let me say this: They do it because they do 
not have a choice. You know, these days, encountering so much as a 
spotty cell signal causes concern for those of us who are accustomed to 
high-speed Internet and broadband connectivity, but I will tell you 
there are millions of Americans out there for whom a broadband 
connection or even the pop and hiss of a dialup connection is 
completely out of reach.
  In a world where even simple online interactions require lightning 
fast connections, economies in rural America are falling behind. We 
read every day about entire industries setting up shop in budding 
metropolises like Nashville, TN, but to many, corporate America's 
glowing new hubs sound like remote outposts compared to the familiar 
crush that is here on the eastern seaboard.
  Our perspective is skewed. Even so, businesses move inward because 
they see potential for growth with minimal risk, but there is only so 
far that they can push it. Rural communities do not have much to offer 
in terms of operational support or a reliable customer base, and most 
of them lack a crucial resource: the funding and infrastructure to back 
reliable broadband services.
  It is true, ``the cloud'' needs a physical connection to Planet 
Earth, and broadband networks rely on physical ``Internet Exchange'' 
points. Without these hubs, subscribers of different Internet providers 
cannot communicate with one another.
  While many businesses are certainly capable of fronting the costs 
associated with building the actual exchange points and running 
connections to other hubs, there is no incentive for them to gamble on 
a stagnant economy, so they go elsewhere, and local businesses go 
nowhere, unable to expand into the global online marketplace.
  And just to think, a decade ago, we wasted an opportunity to bridge 
the digital divide, to even close the digital divide. Back in 2009, 
during the stimulus days, President Obama signed an economic recovery 
package that included 7.2 billion, $7.2 billion to expand broadband 
services in underserved areas.
  Well, predictably, those dollars began to flow into urban and 
suburban areas, leaving rural communities stranded on the far side of a 
gulf that Washington had ended up widening. Mistakes were made, but it 
would be an even bigger mistake to make rural residents suffer through 
it.
  This year, I introduced the bipartisan Internet Exchange Act in an 
effort to get the Senate talking about broadband accessibility. When 
passed, the bill will offset the start-up cost of establishing 
broadband connections via a series of grants reserved exclusively for 
unserved rural areas. That is unserved rural areas, those that have 
been left out, those that did not benefit

[[Page S6705]]

from the $7.2 billion that President Obama put in the stimulus for 
broadband expansion.
  They did not get any of that money. They got left further behind and 
pushed further out of the economic mainstream for the 21st century. As 
with any program, infrastructure alone is no guarantee of success, but 
the presence of new and expanded Internet exchange facilities will 
create a stronger and more competitive web. More hubs will enable 
faster data transmissions, allowing local businesses to expand and, in 
rural communities, e-commerce to flourish
  Farmers, manufacturers, miners, will gain access to state-of-the-art 
technologies that support safer and more productive operations. Medical 
practitioners will be able to care for neglected populations via 
telemedicine. Schools and libraries will have advanced tools at their 
fingertips and open the world to their students. The local law 
enforcement will add an important tool in their ``public safety 
toolbox.'' Businesses looking to lay down roots will notice that rural 
communities are investing in themselves and, hopefully, make the 
decision to bring jobs and business opportunities to local workers and 
to rural America.
  But perhaps, most importantly, rural residents and their guests will 
be able to decide for themselves whether they want to connect or 
unplug, and they will be able to do it on their own terms.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 455

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to raise 
awareness about the open enrollment period for health insurance 
marketplace coverage.
  Between now and December 15, Granite Staters and Americans across the 
country can enroll in healthcare plans for 2020 through the Affordable 
Care Act's health insurance marketplaces. Tens of thousands of Granite 
Staters and millions of Americans will be eligible for Federal premium 
tax credits to help pay the cost of monthly premiums as well as 
financial assistance to reduce the cost of annual deductibles. I am sad 
to say the Trump administration refuses to be a reliable partner in 
helping to spread the word about open enrollment.
  For the third year in a row, we have an administration that has 
focused on sabotaging the Affordable Care Act instead of raising 
awareness for open enrollment. This administration is even focusing 
resources on promoting enrollment and junk health plans that don't 
provide coverage for preexisting conditions and that don't meet the 
Affordable Care Act's comprehensive coverage requirements.
  After failing to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the Senate, the 
Trump administration is making an end-run around Congress, trying to 
dismantle the ACA through regulations, administrative actions, and 
lawsuits in the Federal court.
  As we can see in this chart, 2 years ago, the administration cut 
funding for advertising and outreach efforts to promote open enrollment 
by 90 percent. The administration went from $100 million--we can see on 
that bar--down to $10 million in 2017 and $10 million in 2018 and $10 
million in 2019.
  These advertising cuts are pennywise and pound foolish. They are part 
of the administration's concerted attempt to keep Americans in the dark 
about what their insurance options are.
  Federal advertising on television and through digital platforms and 
other media is critical to drawing a healthy and balanced mix of 
consumers into the marketplace. In fact, research shows that 
California's State-level investments in marketing and advertising for 
open enrollment generated a 3-to-1 return on investment through lower 
premiums from a more balanced risk pool.
  By refusing to adequately promote open enrollment, the administration 
is forcing our insurance markets to miss out on an opportunity to 
improve the markets, to lower premiums for consumers, and to ensure a 
healthy health insurance market--no pun intended--throughout this 
country.
  That is why I introduced the MORE Health Education Act--to restore 
those health insurance marketplace advertising dollars and to increase 
outreach funding back to the $100 million a year. My bill would also 
prohibit the administration from using any of these funds to promote 
short-term plans or junk plans--plans that don't comply with the 
Affordable Care Act's requirements for preexisting condition 
protections among many other provisions that provide real insurance 
coverage for people who need it.
  The Congressional Budget Office projects that approximately 500,000 
more people would enroll in the health insurance marketplace or 
Medicaid coverage each year as a result of my legislation. That is half 
a million people who would be insured and be able to better take care 
of themselves and their families, and they would have access to primary 
care, to preventive services, and to a wide variety of other services 
they need and that they would be afforded under the essential health 
benefits of the Affordable Care Act.
  My bill would also result in a reduction in marketplace premiums 
thanks to the increased enrollment from a more balanced risk pool. It 
would be a win-win all around.
  Mr. President, at this time, as in legislative session, I ask 
unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 455 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read 
a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Indiana.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 913

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, ObamaCare 
has failed because it is the classic example of Big Government getting 
in cahoots with a healthcare industry that is broken. It was doomed to 
fail because when has Big Government and Big Business ever resulted in 
something that is going to cost less and be more effective?
  Under ObamaCare, decisions are made by the healthcare industry 
executives and the Federal Government bureaucrats--not patients, not 
consumers. This program is authorizing millions of dollars we don't 
have to prop up a system that is not working. If ObamaCare was working, 
it would sell itself, but it doesn't work. Costs continue to rise, and 
Americans continue to be stuck with the bill.
  I believe there are things that ObamaCare does that we should keep. I 
actually incorporated it into my own business's plan back before the 
law required you to do it. I covered preexisting conditions and no cap 
on coverage. The pillars of ObamaCare--we should all accept that.
  When they added keeping kids on there until they are 26, that is fine 
too. Those ships have sailed. But the Affordable Care Act is not 
remotely affordable, and it is only going to get worse.
  I applaud the Trump administration for doing their due diligence on 
how healthcare policy changes are going to affect average Americans. 
They are taking the approach to not go deeper in the hole with 
something like ObamaCare but to reform the industry by making it 
competitive, transparent, eliminate the barriers to entry and, yes, 
encourage the healthcare consumer to get involved in his or her own 
well-being.
  I do believe President Trump is right. The Republicans can be the 
party of healthcare without involving more government, but we need to 
do that by putting more power back into the hands of the American 
people, not ceding total power to government bureaucrats and big 
healthcare executives.
  I have a better idea. The truth in pricing act--my bill I am 
countering with--encapsulates some of the ideas behind the proposed and 
final rules announced by the White House last week, which I fully 
support. The complex, opaque nature of healthcare pricing makes it 
difficult for consumers to anticipate, measure, and compare healthcare 
costs and coverage options.

[[Page S6706]]

Hospitals have a chargemaster that nobody can understand, which 
actually inflates retail prices billable to a patient or an insurance 
provider, but insurers usually negotiate steep discounts to these 
inflated prices that consumers and the employers who pay all the bills 
never see. It is done behind closed doors.
  More pricing transparency would address this market failure. 
Increased competition gives more decision making to the people who are 
supposed to use it.
  This is why I introduced the truth in pricing act, which requires 
health insurers to disclose negotiated rates, including any cost-
sharing obligations for consumers for healthcare services covered under 
their health plans. It is difficult for insured consumers to shop for 
healthcare services in our current, opaque, and broken market within 
which ObamaCare works, especially if they don't know actual prices. 
Insurers have the unique ability to provide this information to 
consumers.
  Why subsidize insurance companies to pay for navigators and insurance 
agents when we can instead make the market work better and be more 
consumer-driven and transparent? This is the way we break the 
stranglehold that government in big healthcare has on healthcare 
delivery.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request and 
instead, as in legislative session, the Committee on HELP be discharged 
from further consideration of S. 913, the True Price Act, and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify her request?
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Reserving the right to object, let me say that I agree 
with my colleague that we need more transparency in healthcare pricing. 
I would argue that one of the places we most need that transparency is 
when it comes to the price of prescription drugs.
  As I am sure my colleague knows, the cost of prescription drugs is 
probably the biggest cost driver right now in increases in 
healthcare. Yet we in Congress and the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid are stymied because they can't negotiate with the big drug 
companies to lower the prices of prescription drugs and to make that 
more transparent to consumers.

  The Veterans' Administration can negotiate for the cost of 
prescription drugs. If you talk to any veteran about the cost of their 
prescription drugs and compare them to what people are paying in the 
marketplace, there is a huge difference because they have that ability 
to negotiate.
  I am sure that at some point we could probably find some agreement on 
transparency that would make sense. I think what my colleague is 
proposing is not something that has had a chance to go through the HELP 
Committee and, therefore, would need a further look. I would want to 
know what hospitals in New Hampshire, the doctors, consumers, and the 
insurance department in my State would have to say about that. Until I 
find that out, I would have to object to what my colleague is 
proposing, but I hope we could work together to address the challenges 
that my constituents--and I am sure his constituents--are facing 
because of the cost of healthcare.
  He talked about the failure of the Affordable Care Act. Actually, in 
New Hampshire, we have over 90,000 people who have now gotten coverage 
for health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. Through the 
expansion of Medicaid, we have reduced the number of uninsured in New 
Hampshire to half the number we had before we passed the Affordable 
Care Act.
  What my legislation would do is help people understand what the 
filing period is and how to sign up for the Affordable Care Act and 
health insurance.
  In fact, under the Affordable Care Act as it exists now, according to 
estimates from the administration, approximately 54 percent of Granite 
Staters who are shopping for coverage on healthcare.gov are eligible 
for a plan with net monthly premiums of less than $75, after accounting 
for tax credits, and nearly 40 percent of Granite Staters shopping on 
healthcare.gov can find a plan with net monthly premiums under $10.
  Now, the cautionary note is that when constituents of mine or in 
Indiana or anywhere else in the country are shopping for plans, they 
need to watch out for those short-term, limited-duration insurance 
plans--what are commonly called junk plans--because they are not 
required to cover preexisting conditions. I was pleased to hear my 
colleague from Indiana say that for existing conditions, coverage is 
important.
  Those junk plans are not required to provide coverage for essential 
health benefits, like maternity care, prescription drugs, and mental 
health services. If you don't pay very careful attention when you go on 
the healthcare.gov website, you can be redirected to third-party 
insurance broker sites that sell both junk plans and ACA-compliant 
marketplace plans. That creates further confusion for customers. What 
we heard is that those insurance brokers are able to charge multiple 
times the price for those plans for their fee than they are for plans 
under the Affordable Care Act.
  The administration has been allowing these links to redirect 
consumers to sites that sell junk plans, even though the ACA expressly 
prohibits any health insurance exchange from making available any plans 
that are not qualified health plans under the Affordable Care Act.
  A number of my colleagues and I have been pressing the administration 
to conduct better oversight of brokers to ensure that healthcare.gov 
customers are not being sold junk plans.
  I urge consumers, when they go on the website, to make sure they stay 
on the healthcare.gov website or their State's official health 
insurance exchange website when they are shopping for coverage. Be 
careful when you click on links that provide assistance from third-
party insurance brokers.
  I encourage Granite Staters and people across this country who need 
health insurance coverage to take a look at their options between now 
and December 15, during this year's open enrollment period. There is 
still time to enroll. It is important to tell your friends and 
neighbors and your family members who may not know about open 
enrollment because the amount of money available for outreach has been 
reduced so dramatically.
  When the administration was trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
and this Senate voted, Americans across the country made their voices 
heard. Now we need that same level of engagement to raise awareness of 
this year's open enrollment and overcome this administration's sabotage 
of the ACA.
  Thank you. And if it was not clear earlier, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard to the modification.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have made 
progress here this evening in the sense that my colleague has brought 
up another topic--transparency for prescriptions.
  Across the board, when it comes to hospitals and exposing their 
charge practices, drug companies becoming transparent and competing, 
health insurance companies getting rid of the secret agreements behind 
the scenes, and even practitioners, publish your prices in print or on 
the web so we as employers and consumers of healthcare can try to make 
the right decisions and bring costs down.
  I do object to the original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on 
the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Dan R. Brouillette, of Texas, to be Secretary of Energy.
         Mitch McConnell, John Boozman, Richard Burr, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, John

[[Page S6707]]

           Cornyn, Mike Crapo, John Barrasso, Roy Blunt, John 
           Thune, Steve Daines, Thom Tillis, Kevin Cramer, Chuck 
           Grassley, Tom Cotton, Rick Scott, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Cindy Hyde-Smith.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call 
be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________