Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, President Trump is expected to issue an Executive order directing the Department of the Interior to review all of the national monuments issued over the past 20 years, to see whether those monuments should be reduced in size or repealed. It is clear to me that many of us know the value of our public lands. But I am questioning whether our President understands that trying to illegally roll back those national monuments--some of the most treasured lands in our country--is something we should not do. This shortsighted move is a pretext to attacking the designation of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, which is sacred to the five tribes that form the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, and is a breathtaking site for all Americans who come to experience what is the unbelievable, unique beauty of the West. Whether they are there hiking or climbing or vacationing, it is a special place. But President Trump's Executive order is expected to go even further than just Bears Ears, reviewing any designation in the last 20 years, threatening the question of the San Juan Islands or Hanford Reach National Monuments and the creation of other sites around the United States and threatening our economy. Time and again, the Trump administration is pushing for policies that are harmful to our recreation economy and a disaster for our pristine places, and it sets a terrible precedent for future conservation efforts. The Antiquities Act is one of our Nation's most successful conservation laws. It was signed into law in 1906 by President Theodore Roosevelt to designate Devils Tower in Wyoming as our Nation's first national monument. In the 110 years since its enactment, the Antiquities Act has been a very useful tool by 16 different Presidents--eight Republicans, eight Democrats--to designate more than 140 national monuments, including, as I mentioned, the San Juan Islands and Hanford Reach in the State of Washington. Nearly half of all of our national parks, including national icons such as the Grand Canyon or Olympic National Park, were first designated as national monuments under the Antiquities Act. So it is a very helpful tool to making sure we preserve those special places. I will note, too, that only 4 percent of all land in the United States is set aside this way, designated as part of the national park system or as a national monument. So, of all the lands in the United States, we are asking to protect 4 percent of the lands, that are these unique special places, to be persevered for the American public and not turned over to special interests for oil and gas mining. I also think it is important to note that the Antiquities Act gives the President the authority to make sure that these monuments are designated because from time to time there are those who do not believe in these special places. I note that when the Grand Canyon was being considered, an editorial in that time period editorialized: ``The idea of protecting the Grand Canyon represents a fiendish and diabolical scheme.'' Now, I don't think that is what Americans think today about the Grand Canyon, nor do they think that it is something that hasn't enriched the lives of millions of Americans over the years or added to our economy and tourism. So I find it ironic that the same people think that the designation of Bears Ears is somehow a ``fiendish and diabolical scheme.'' Well, what I know is that the President is wrong to think he can use the Antiquities Act in reverse. In 1938, an Attorney General's opinion was issued stating that the President did not have the authority to use it in reverse. So I think any attempt by the Trump administration to modify or revoke earlier national monument proposals is without the legal authority to do so. But I also want to make sure that we are talking about how important and how special Bears Ears is. It is a monument of true significance. It encompasses 1.3 million acres of beautiful desert hills, mesas, and sandstone canyons in southeastern Utah and is home to some of the most spiritually significant lands of the local Tribes and some of the best rock climbing in the world. Bears Ears encompasses Native American archaeological sites dating back at least 13,000 years. The area is covered in rock art, petroglyphs and pictographs, cliff dwellings, and artifacts. So if nothing else, those special places should be preserved. It is also special to many of the early inhabitants of that area: the Ute Tribe, the Navajo Tribe, the Uintah Ouray Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, and the Zuni Tribe. Bears Ears is important to these Tribal members for sacred ceremonies, and hunting, and fishing. Bears Ears also continues to be one of the richest paleontological resources in our Nation, with fossil records dating back millions of years. So it is easy to see why it is so important that this special place was designated. In addition to its historical and cultural significance, Bears Ears is also a world-class recreation resource visited by rock climbers from all over the world. It is also visited by hunters, hikers, canyoneers, white water rafters, mountain bikers, and the entire conservation community. That is why the Outdoor Retailer show, which had previously located its biannual event in Utah, decided after two decades that they were pulling out. That is right. They are pulling out their $40 million contribution to the Utah economy because they are against the efforts by many in Utah to oppose the Bears Ears monument and try to get the President to reverse the Antiquities Act and then use that Federal land for oil and gas exploration. I was so proud to see the outdoor industry take such a bold step. Companies like REI, Patagonia, Black Diamond, and Outdoor Research really made a big and bold statement. They decided that if a State was going to attack the very economy that was so important to their jobs in recreation, they were going to do something about it. I agree with the Salt Lake Tribune editorial on the Outdoor Retailer's decision, which said that the debate over public lands is about ``who we are and where we are headed. To get there, we need leaders with a better appreciation of the magnificent gifts God has given everyone, not just Utahans.'' So what is ironic and, frankly, a bit sad is that at the same time the Trump administration is waging war on our public lands and fighting imaginary ones, like the War on Coal, we have new data on just what an economic engine the recreation industry has become. Just today, the Outdoor Industry Association released a new report on the economic contributions of the recreation economy. Today, the recreation industry generates $887 billion in consumer spending every year. That is up more than $200 billion--from $646 billion--since the last time the study was done a few years ago. What does this tell us? Not only do more Americans enjoy recreation on our public lands, but an economy has been built around it, and it continues to grow and thrive, with new products, new services, and more comfortable and innovative ways to enjoy the outdoors. The outdoor recreation economy is responsible for 7.6 million jobs in this country. That is a growth of 1.5 million jobs since the last time the report was done. Meanwhile, the Trump administration seems perfectly content to do the bidding of these natural resources industries instead of focusing on these jobs and these recreational opportunities that are booming. In fact, the clean energy economy is now supporting more jobs than fossil fuels in 26 States and the District of Columbia. So it is an economy that exists in many parts of our country. On top of this effort to try and weaken these national monument designations and use the Antiquities Act in reverse, the President is also expected to gut some of our key investments in science and innovation that are also helping us grow in new ways. I will tell you that pollution is not an economic strategy. We cannot turn the economy of the past into hope for the future. What we need to do is make sure we are paying attention to the unique resources that these special places represent and the great heritage of both Democratic and Republican administrations, which have done great work by protecting places like the Grand Canyon and Bears Ears. I hope all of my colleagues will realize that this is a futile effort and that these special places do not belong only to us. They do not belong to the people who are here on the Senate floor. They belong to generations and generations of Americans. To those great Presidents--Republican and Democratic--who made those decisions and created those special places for all of us, thank you. I hope that some future generation will be standing here thanking us for protecting Bears Ears and all of the national monument designations that have taken place over the last two decades. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Neil Gorsuch and to oppose cloture on this nomination. I take seriously the responsibility to give advice and consent, and I take seriously the President's remarks that he planned on nominating someone to the Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. A U.S. Supreme Court nominee requires 60 votes, and if a nominee can't clear 60 votes, then I agree with my colleague, the Senator from New York, that it is the nominee who should be changed and not the Senate rules. If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch will have a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court and have an impact on many, many Americans' lives. When people say lifetime, I think that doesn't quite accurately reflect this issue and nomination. Lifetime, in this case, may mean 30 to 35 years. It is hard for me in an information age to think of all the issues that are going to occur in the next 30 to 35 years and what issues this nominee might rule on. But I know this: Right now, privacy rights and how they affect the lives of many Americans are critical, not just to my constituents but to people all over the country. Judge Gorsuch is commonly referred to as a proponent of originalism and textualism. He believes the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted by the original intentions of those who drafted it as closely as possible. As someone who knows well the record of the former Supreme Court Justice who wrote the Griswold v. Connecticut decision, I doubt that one would say that he was an originalist. Some legal scholars have even called Judge Gorsuch a selective originalist, favoring some textual provisions while overlooking others. And while no one expects Judge Gorsuch to reveal how he would vote on a particular case. During his Senate confirmation hearing, he did not give Senators enough background about his judicial philosophy. In our private meeting, he did not give me enough of an assurance of his philosophy as it relates to these issues on privacy for my constituents in Washington. Whether we are talking about access to healthcare or we are protecting individuals' privacy rights from unwanted corporation or government intervention, these issues are critically important. Judge Gorsuch told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he does recognize privacy rights. However, his earlier writings on unenumerated constitutional rights contradict this statement. This contradiction raised questions with me, and I worked to try to further clarify his judicial philosophy on this issue. I told him that my State had actually codified the rights of women to have access to reproductive healthcare. He said: Oh, you mean your State legislature did that. And I said: No, Judge Gorsuch, I mean the people of Washington voted on these issues and voted to protect a woman's right to access to reproductive healthcare. When it comes to the right to privacy, I work hard to understand where our judiciary is coming from, and if it is for the next 30 to 35 years, I guarantee you these privacy rights are going to be of critical importance. In the longstanding precedent known as the Chevron doctrine, judges should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. It allows agencies to get expert input on their decisions and regulations. By overturning this doctrine, it could make it easier for courts to challenge important agency decisions protecting health and the environment. This issue is also important to my State. We fought the Enron case to make sure that the Federal energy regulators did their job in protecting the ratepayers of Washington from, at the time, what was, in my opinion, a violation of the Federal Power Act on just and reasonable rates. We had to go to a great extent to make sure that the agencies' decisions were carefully considered to make sure we didn't become the deep pockets. Making sure that this doctrine is continued and not overturned is important. I find it troubling that Judge Gorsuch concluded that this precedent from Chevron v. the Natural Resources Defense Council should be overturned. Also, yesterday was Equal Pay Day, and there was a lot of discussion about how women still face unequal wages. What would Judge Gorsuch do about equal pay? As a professor, he told his students that women manipulate family leave policies for their own benefits. As a judge, he frequently ruled against women and their rights. In Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, a privately held company, which was a store chain, challenged the Affordable Care Act's birth control benefit. The Affordable Care Act required health insurance plans to provide women with birth control coverage with no cost sharing. Judge Gorsuch joined the Tenth Circuit majority, holding that an employer's religious beliefs could override an employee's right to birth control coverage. Judge Gorsuch also supported an effort to defund Planned Parenthood, an important provider of women's health services. In Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, the Tenth Circuit upheld an injunction to prevent the Governor of Utah from defunding Planned Parenthood. However, Judge Gorsuch dissented and pushed for a rehearing of this case by the full court. Judge Gorsuch has had a narrow interpretation of the laws meant to protect workers against discrimination. In another case, a worker alleged that she had been unlawfully discriminated against based on gender because she took 2 weeks of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. She claimed that her employer had a higher performance standard for women than for her male coworkers. The Tenth Circuit ruled in her favor and found that the employer had discriminated against her. However, Judge Gorsuch dissented, arguing evidence of discrimination was entirely absent. These issues and rulings make me concerned about Judge Gorsuch's judicial philosophy as it relates to what I now believe is an accepted standard. Judge Gorsuch has also ruled against LGBTQ individuals seeking fair and nondiscriminatory treatment. Lambda Legal and other groups have called his record openly hostile toward the LGBTQ community. Judge Gorsuch has held that a transwoman's constitutional rights were not violated, citing the absence of any medical evidence. Also, as many of my colleagues have talked about, Judge Gorsuch has had a pattern of ruling against the little guy. My colleague from Hawaii noted that he seems to favor corporate interests over workers' rights and private interests over public interests. Look at the outcome in many of these cases, which have been cited frequently since his nomination--none more than the case involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I think it is so important that it needs to continue to be talked about. This case, which was recently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, limited the opportunities for children with disabilities. Judge Gorsuch had concluded that to comply with the law, the school's responsibility to the student was to make progress that was ``merely more than de minimis.'' That is to say that those children in our education system who have a special need, whether it be autism or something else, through our education system need to make progress, and it could be no more than de minimis. This ruling impacts hundreds of thousands of students all across America, including in the State of Washington. He wrote the majority opinion and used the word ``merely.'' I asked Judge Gorsuch about this because of the cases I mentioned earlier on Federal energy regulators and the fact that we needed strong anti-manipulation laws, and we needed people to interpret the standards to make sure that they were upholding the interests of the public. We had quite a long discussion about this issue. Judge Gorsuch suggested that he was bound by a previous decision. I know some of my colleagues have also noted this, but when Justice Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion rejecting these ``merely more than de minimis'' standards that Judge Gorsuch used, Justice Roberts said: ``When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing merely more than de minimis progress from year to year can hardly said to have been offered an education at all.'' On this point, I agree with the Chief Justice. Not having a deeper understanding about his judicial philosophy and given my great concerns for the right to privacy issues that will remain constant in our society for the next 30 years and given these issues around regulatory standards that are so important, I cannot support this nomination nor support cloture to move ahead. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues here on the Senate floor, and I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership on this issue. I rise to join my colleagues in voicing strong opposition and deep concern on H.J. Res. 43, a resolution of disapproval we are considering today in the U.S. Senate. This resolution will threaten access to healthcare for thousands of women and families in the State of Washington and millions of people across the Nation. H.J. Res. 43 would make it easier for States to discriminate against healthcare providers who serve low-income and vulnerable patients under title X of the Public Health Services Act. Title X is the only Federal funding program dedicated to supporting the family planning safety net, and it was widely supported by the public when it was enacted with strong bipartisan support. So despite what my colleagues say on the other side of the aisle, this issue is something where all my colleagues should make sure we are not taking away access to healthcare. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the House--and I know my colleague, the senior Senator from Washington, can testify to this, have on many occasions tried to de-fund Planned Parenthood. They have used Planned Parenthood as a bargaining chip in a litany of high-stakes legislative negotiations. They even tried to shut down the Federal Government because they didn't want to fund Planned Parenthood. Moreover, during the 114th Congress, Republicans voted 22 times to undermine women's health. Today, they are continuing the same thing. These health centers are an essential part of communities' delivery systems. They provide preventive services. They help prevent deadly disease. They save taxpayers money. They help families with their healthcare. Time and again, constituents in our States tell us how access to these high quality care centers translates into economic empowerment, independence, and the ability to thrive in their lives and careers. In short, these health centers don't just provide good healthcare for America. They provide a good economic strategy for America. In our State, 34 Planned Parenthood centers provide contraceptive care, breast cancer screening, and STD and HIV screening and treatment, and they have prevented thousands of unintended pregnancies thanks to their efforts and outreach. In the very isolated communities of Pullman, Moses Lake, and Shelton, and many more, they are oftentimes the only family provider that will furnish care to low-income individuals. Major medical organizations--representing obstetricians, gynecologists, family physicians, and pediatricians--have also made it clear that this resolution is divorced from medical science and will hurt patients. I urge my colleagues to resist continuing their senseless political crusade. I hope they will be smart enough to understand that a healthcare strategy is an economic strategy. I hope they will defeat this resolution. Gonzaga Bulldogs Mr. President, what a great moment--my colleague from Washington is here, and my colleague from Nevada is here as well. I just want to clarify something. We definitely want to cheer on the Gonzaga Bulldogs in Saturday's game. But so many people say: Where is Gonzaga? It is in Spokane, WA, and we are very proud of Spokane. It is a city that hosts Hoopfest, a three-on-three basketball game that many people attend, and an enormous Bloomsday race that so many people come to from across the country right on the first of May. I think somewhere around 60,000 people are in that race. But we are also so proud that we also have a Gonzaga School of Law graduate here on the Senate floor--the Senator from Nevada. Gonzaga also produces great academic minds. So for everybody from Spokane, congratulations and good luck on Saturday's big game. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a dear friend, honorable servicemember, and dedicated public servant. On March 3, Gary Petersen retired from over a half-century career of private and public service supporting scientific achievement and advocacy for the people of my home State of Washington. Gary has worked tirelessly to support the Hanford cleanup and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, and has undoubtedly bolstered our Nation's security during the 52 years that he has lived and worked in the Tri- Cities. Gary and I have collaborated closely many times over the years on many projects. Most recently, he played a key role in organizing the energy workforce roundtable held at PNNL with Department of Energy Secretary Moniz in August of last year. Gary has been a steadfast advocate for cleaning up the Hanford site, funding for the world-class research and development at PNNL, and for the continued growth of the Volpentest HAMMER Training Center at the Hanford site. I am confident that Washington State, and especially the Tri-Cities, would not be as well positioned to tackle our Nation's future energy challenges if not for over 50 years of Gary Petersen's tireless work. Originally from Omak, a small city located in Okanogan County, Gary joined the Army and was stationed in the Tri-Cities in January 1960. After a duty station transfer to Korea, Gary returned and graduated with a communications degree from Washington State University. Shortly after graduation, Gary started with Battelle, a company that had a contract for a research and development lab located at Hanford. That lab provided crucial services during the Cold War and is now known as PNNL. Gary went on to work for Westinghouse on the Fast Flux Test Facility, the Washington Public Power Supply System, and spent time with the International Nuclear Safety Program, a cooperative nuclear energy safety effort between the U.S. and Soviet Union. After retiring from Battelle in 2002, Gary served on the Tri-City Development Council, TRIDEC, an organization dedicated to improving the economic health of the Tri-Cities area. During his 14 years at TRIDEC, Gary has been a relentless supporter for DOE's missions at Hanford and PNNL and a champion for the larger Tri-City community and our State by ensuring important projects received needed Federal resources. Gary is the type of constituent every member hopes to have in their communities back home--a very involved citizen. He has been a strong advocate for the issues that matter to the people of Washington while also understanding the importance of communicating with his political representatives. My relationship with Gary has been invaluable, and he has been instrumental in many of my proudest career accomplishments. Gary shares my vision for why establishing the Manhattan Project National Historical Park was so important. We worked together for many years to champion and ultimately see the creation of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. The legislation I authored preserved the central landmark of the Hanford site and the park, the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production nuclear reactor ever built and a tremendous technological achievement for its time. The park also includes the Bruggemann Agricultural Warehouse, the White Bluffs Bank, the historic Hanford High School, and the Hanford Irrigation District's Allard Pump House. Visitors from 70 countries have already visited the B Reactor, demonstrating the uniqueness of the park and the curiosity people have about this chapter of American and world history. We all owe Gary a debt of gratitude for the establishment of this park. Today the Tri-Cities is home to a vibrant agricultural industry, some of the best healthcare available, two colleges that are training workers to meet the varied needs of the region's businesses, increasing wine tourism, and a newly expanded airport. Gary has touched all of these projects and many more. I am incredibly proud to have worked with Gary and to call him a friend. Gary, thank you for all of your years of advocacy for the Tri- Cities. I join Washingtonians in thanking him for his longstanding service and wish him and his wife, Margaret, all the best in the future.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the resolution which uses the Congressional Review Act process to overturn a Fish and Wildlife Service resolution prohibiting certain inhumane methods of killing bears and wolves within the 16 national wildlife refuges in Alaska, which cover about 20 percent of the State of Alaska. I understand the opponents of the Fish and Wildlife Service rule argue that States' rights issues are at hand, and they are responsible for the management of fish and wildlife in the State. That is certainly true within the State, but on Federal national wildlife refuge land, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in charge--just like at Mount Rainier or Olympic National Park, where the National Park Service is in charge. I am sure there are times when Pierce County or even Seattle would like to make rules related to Mount Rainier, but they are not allowed because it is part of our National Park System. Similarly, the Fish and Wildlife Service manages our national wildlife refuge system. The rules in this proposal only apply to those national wildlife refuge lands in Alaska. They don't cover any other lands in the State. So this isn't about States' rights. It is about how we can manage these wildlife refuges to the degree that agencies believe are necessary for the preservation of the wildlife. Managing these national wildlife refuges--the 16 Federal refuges in Alaska--is about ensuring the management policies are consistent with the purpose of the wildlife refuge. It is not about prohibiting hunting. In fact, hunting has been allowed, and will continue to be allowed within these refuges in Alaska, as is the case with most national wildlife refuges throughout the United States. As the Senator from New Mexico pointed out earlier, this is about what people want to see when they go to a national wildlife refuge. Do they want to see the inhumane killing of bear cubs in their den or would they like to see the bears and the other fish and wildlife activity that exists in so many of these beautiful areas? Another argument that has been raised is that this rule will stop Alaskans from hunting for subsistence purposes--Native Alaskans who depend on subsistence hunting. The rule says nothing about this. It does not affect subsistence hunting. This rule is only about prohibiting certain methods of predator control in our wildlife refuges. Some people think this is contrary to responsible wildlife management practices in other States. But this rule only applies to national wildlife refuges in the State of Alaska. The actions that Alaska has authorized on their State lands are so aggressive, that permitting them on Federal wildlife refuge land would be counter to the purposes of these national wildlife refuges. I know one of my colleagues was here citing what they think is already prohibited under state law, but the Alaska Administrative Code does allow for carbon monoxide cartridges to be used in humane euthanizing in these wolf dens and the killing of young animals. Mr. President, let me read from the relevant provision of the Alaska Code, which is 5 AAC 92.110, Control of Predation by wolves. Subsection (h) states that ``carbon monoxide cartridges may be used to humanely euthanize wolf young in the den in areas under a predation control implementation plan.'' The next subsection, subsection (i) states that ``the killing of wolf young in the den, commonly known as `denning,' is prohibited unless the commission authorizes the killing of wolf young in the den in areas under a predation control implementation plan.'' That is in the Alaska Administrative Code today, and it is something that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not want to see happen in national wildlife refuges. The killing methods authorized by the State of Alaska include killing bear cubs or mothers with cubs, killing brown bears, including grizzly bears, using bait, killing brown bears using traps or snares, killing wolves or coyotes and their pups during the denning season, and shooting bears or wolves from aircraft or helicopters, using the aircraft to track down the bears or wolves, then landing and shooting them. When you see the list of prohibited actions, you have to wonder why anybody would oppose this rule. Who is advocating for the slaughtering of wolf pups or bear cubs in their dens, shooting them from aircraft or using snares to catch them by their necks and kill them? I think my colleague from New Mexico had a picture of such an event. Who is advocating for this kind of method? This is why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy makes sure that if predator controls used, that they are based on science and not these inhumane actions. The wildlife rule is not a case of regulating sportsmen for traditional hunting practices, but it is making sure that they are doing so in a humane way. The law requires that the Alaska wildlife refuges be managed to conserve fish and wildlife populations in their natural diversity, but Alaska's predator control practices are not consistent with that management requirement. They are directly opposite to conserving the natural diversity and are instead promoting the wholesale killing of predator species. So that is why we oppose this override of the regulation. I hope my colleagues will turn it down. If we want to make improvements to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule, we can do so by legislation, or by working to change the rule. But by overturning this rule, you are also prohibiting the agency from fulfilling their job of protecting the wildlife refuge. I want to make sure that all our colleagues understand that this is about protecting wildlife refuges in a humane way, allowing hunting practices, but doing so in a way that preserves the species. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask the Senator from Oregon this through the Presiding Officer. The innovation that was already in the Affordable Care Act really did address the Medicaid population, in which so much of that cost is for long-term care and nursing home care. So Medicaid equals long-term care for so many Americans. In the Affordable Care Act we accelerated the process of shifting the cost to community-based care because it is more convenient for patients and up to one-third of the cost of a nursing home. So if we keep more people in their homes, that is better innovation. In the Affordable Care Act, we incentivized States. In fact, we had 21 States take us up on that--including Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Texas, Ohio, Nevada, Nebraska. There are many States that are doing this innovation and basically trying to move the Medicaid population to community-based care so we can save money. Savings from rebalancing could make up for a large portion of the money the House is trying to cut in this bill. Basically, they are not saving the money. They are shifting the burden to the States, instead of giving innovative solutions to people to have community-based care; that is, long-term care services and staying in their home longer. Who doesn't want to stay in their home longer? Then we support them through community-based delivery of long-term healthcare services, and we save the Nation billions of dollars. In fact, our State did this over a 15-year period of time, and we saved $2.7 billion. That is the kind of innovation we would like to see. But instead of implementing the innovation we started in the Affordable Care Act, they are trying to cap the Medicaid funding, which basically is changing the relationship from a mutually supported State and Federal partnership to a capped federal block grant. They are just saying: We are going to cost-shift this burden to you the States. I saw that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed the current House proposal and found it would result in a $387 billion cost shift to the States. Does the Senator from Oregon think that Oregon has the kind of money to take its percentage of that $370 billion? To my colleague from Michigan: Does the Senator think the State of Michigan has the dollars to take care of that Medicaid population with that level of a cut?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I could, I will ask the Senator from Oregon one more question, and maybe my other colleagues will join in. When you do not realize the savings and you cost-shift to the States, some of the key populations that you hurt are pregnant women and children. We do not want to have less money. If you think about Medicaid, pregnant women and children are a big part of the population. I know our colleague from Pennsylvania has joined us, and he has been a champion for the Children's Health Insurance Program--CHIP--and everything that we do for women and children. I don't know if he has seen this in his State. I don't know if the Senator from Oregon or the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to comment on this--on the notion that we are not realizing the savings from delivery innovations like rebalancing, and then figuring out how to best utilize those for the delivery of the services that so many people are counting on. With a per capita cap, you are really going to be starting in a very bad place with the people who need these resources the most, and when it comes to Medicaid, women and children are front and center in this debate. I hate the fact that somebody is going to cost-shift to the States, that the States are not going to have enough money, and then the very people who would end up paying the price are the women and children. I don't know if the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Michigan, or the Senator from Pennsylvania wants to comment on that.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask this of my colleague, the Senator from Oregon, because Washington, Oregon, and so many other States spend so much time innovating. The proposal we are seeing coming out of the House of Representatives really isn't innovation. I like to say that if you are looking at this, just at the specifics, the per capita cap is really just a budget mechanism. It doesn't have anything to do with innovation. It just has to do with basically triggering a cut to Medicaid and shifting that cost to the States. My concern is that we already do a lot with a lot less, and we know how to innovate. We would prefer that the rest of the country follow that same model. I would ask the Senator from Oregon: Do you see any innovation in this model, in capping and cutting the amount of Medicaid and shifting that to the States?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Seema Verma for Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. We have before us a nominee that would run an agency responsible for the healthcare of more than 100 million Americans, with an annual budget of about $1 trillion. This is the agency that administers Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and health insurance exchanges. In short, CMS is the single most consequential agency in health care. Yes, I am deeply concerned about this administration's ideas on Medicare and on the individual insurance market, over both of which CMS has profound influence, but I am most concerned about their plans for Medicaid. Based on Ms. Verma's history, her actions, her statements, and her testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, it is clear to me that Mrs. Verma is not only complicit but is leading the charge to wage a war on Medicaid. Why do I say that? Let us look at Ms. Verma's record, actions, and testimony on Medicaid. In Indiana, Ms. Verma made millions of dollars in consulting fees by kicking poor working people off of Medicaid for failure to pay monthly contributions similar to premiums. This plan forced people making $10,000 a year, $5,000 a year, or even homeless people with virtually no income to pay a monthly contribution or be penalized. As a result of Ms. Verma's work, about 2,500 Hoosiers have been cut from care. Evaluations of this plan by independent experts show it is confusing to beneficiaries and has not demonstrated better results than traditional Medicaid expansion. Meanwhile, enrollment is far lower than projected. During my meeting with her and in her testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, Ms. Verma stated that Medicaid should not be an option for able-bodied people. Ms. Verma seems to think the private sector can serve this population on its own. Based on what we know about the historical affordability challenges in the individual health insurance market, I find this notion hard to believe. My State is innovating in Medicaid through ``rebalancing'' from nursing homes to home and community care, integrating behavioral health and primary care, and adopting of innovative new waivers through collaboration with the Federal Government. In fact, Washington State realized more than $2.5 billion in savings over 15 years through rebalancing efforts; yet Ms. Verma will not commit to a single delivery system reform idea. Ms. Verma claims Medicaid is a top-down Federal power grab. On the contrary, Medicaid is an optional State program, with all States participating. Every State participates because they know Medicaid is a good strategy for covering a low-income and vulnerable population and supporting their healthcare delivery system. Medicaid is highly flexible right now, and States have wide latitude over eligibility, benefits, provider reimbursements, and overall administration of their Medicaid programs. Ms. Verma claims Medicaid produces poor outcomes, but she cannot offer a single credible clinical outcome or quality measure that the program is not achieving. Meanwhile, data show that patient satisfaction in Medicaid is high and the program achieves improved public health and clinical outcomes for its patients. Most concerning, Ms. Verma has repeatedly endorsed the administration and Republicans' plan to permanently cap Medicaid, which would hurt patients, States, health providers, and local economies. I am voting no on Seema Verma's nomination for CMS Administrator because I cannot endorse a full-scale assault on the Medicaid Program.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we had a chance earlier today to talk about this Congressional Review Act resolution before us that I urge my colleagues to turn down. This resolution basically would negate a very important aspect of a rule that was put in place to help the public have more input on public lands. The rule was pretty straightforward--common sense--to make sure that there was a lot of increased public input to bolster the decisionmaking process and to ensure that there are 21st century management policies in place. There is nothing in this rule that was implemented in the last administration that erodes or takes away from the States' and local governments' planning processes and the decisionmaking they do. So it is very important to me that we continue to have the transparency and openness and sunshine in our public planning. I think one editorial from the Post-Register from Idaho said it best. So I will read from it. Resource management planning. Sound boring? Maybe. But if you are a Westerner, it definitely shouldn't be. Resource management planning (RMP) affects how you can or can't use the vast swaths of public lands outside your back door for things like hunting, camping, four-wheeling, hiking, fishing, and rock climbing--a lot of the things you probably love about being a Westerner. With a new Republican presidential administration in power and the GOP-controlled Congress rubbing its hands together in delight, ready to implement part one of its grand scheme for public lands--cashing in on those resources--RMPs should get a whole lot more interesting to Westerners. Since 2014, BLM officials have been toiling away, rebuilding the current rules for land use planning in a significant way for the first time since 1983. . . . One important change is that Planning 2.0 would let the BLM take into account local impacts from the beginning. Going on to read from the editorial: The Republican-controlled House has already passed a resolution to strike Planning 2.0 from the books once and for all. The Senate will vote within days on whether or not they'll use the same sledgehammer--the Congressional Review Act (CRA). It's an especially diabolical weapon. Once the CRA is used on Planning 2.0, it will be gone forever. It prevents future BLM rules for planning land use from being introduced if they are ``substantially the same.'' The utterly confounding part is why this rule is being picked on in the first place. . . . Planning 2.0 actually mandates more local control, gives it more often and is a smarter, more elegant solution to sharing use of our public lands. I couldn't say it better than that editorial. Local communities are watching. They want more sunshine. They want more input. They want a smoother process. They don't want lawsuits that take forever. They want us to work in a collaborative fashion, guaranteeing the public input of local governments, States, and our citizens in how we manage our Federal lands. I urge my colleagues to turn down this resolution. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following individuals with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: Frances Brie Van Cleve, a Democratic fellow, through December 31, 2017; Stephanie Teich-McGoldrick, a Democratic fellow, through December 31, 2017; Patricio Portillo, a Democratic fellow, through December 31, 2017; and Devinn Lambert, a Democratic detailee, through December 31, 2017.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in opposition to this resolution. Many of my colleagues know that we have had discussions in the Senate on several Congressional Review Act resolutions. In principle, Congressional Review Act resolutions-- besides repealing these existing Executive regulations--also have the unfortunate aspect to them that they negate an agency's ability to make new rules anytime soon in the same area. For example, if you like some of this rule but not all of it, by using the CRA, you are literally preventing the agency from moving forward on any improvements to the rule. I always believe in the legislative process. Working with my colleague from Alaska or working with my colleagues from other areas, I think we have proved that we can resolve key issues. But passing this Congressional Review Act resolution on an issue so important as our public lands and negating the hard work that the executive branch did over a long period of time is something that my colleagues and I just have to say no to. When it comes to public lands, we want transparency; we want sunshine. We want a bottom-up approach when it comes to land management, and we certainly want collaboration. As was said earlier, the Bureau of Land Management manages about 245 million acres of public land. That is about 10 percent of the Nation and 30 percent of our Nation's minerals. So when it comes to this management, it is very important that they continue to follow a very good bottom-up process for land management. I will read now from the actual requirements from the law that oversees them, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. They have to use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; consider present and potential uses of the public lands; weigh long- term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; consider the relative scarcity of the values; give priority to areas of critical environmental concern; provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and coordinate with Federal Departments and Agencies, State and local governments, and Indian Tribes. So all of these things are part of what is already in existing law. The concept here is to make sure that we continue to have a transparent and open process that is bottom-up. And I certainly believe in a bottom-up process because our public lands must not be territories owned and operated, for example, for the sole benefit of the oil, gas, and mining industries, and we can't have polluters polluting in these areas and not have input from the various communities about their concerns on those issues. For example, in 2001, the Bush administration proposed revisions to six land use plans in eastern Utah, and these plans were finalized in 2008 at the end of the Bush administration, with only limited opportunity for public involvement. All six plans were challenged in Federal court by several motorized recreation and conservation organizations. It is now 2017, and these plans still remain tied up in litigation. That is why those in the off-road vehicle industry did not feel as though they had input at the very beginning stages of the process. In January the Obama administration negotiated a settlement, which is still pending in court, but this shows how, if there isn't meaningful public involvement, we are just going to hit a logjam. This is why I think it is so important for us to update this rule. It has been a long time since the agency updated this rule; I think since 1983. That was the last time--over 30 years ago. I guarantee you, in those 30 years, we can come up with a better process for input from our constituents on important land use issues. I know the new Interior Secretary likes to talk about Teddy Roosevelt, who once said: ``The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value.'' Ensuring we are preserving and increasing the value of our public lands is exactly what is meant by this planning rule that the Bureau of Land Management put out. This rule wants to make sure that we have input from the local community. I think it is important to note that this is not a rule that regulates any specific use on public lands. It does not restrict any particular activity. It simply updates the current law in saying that it is better to have input from local officials and to use that input from local officials to update the process in an earlier way. I said to my staff: It is like us huddling and saying that we should write legislation and then me not coming back for 7 years and then letting them know I am on my way to the Senate floor to drop a bill. We would never do that, and the land plans in these communities shouldn't be done that way either. Once a local Bureau of Land Management official starts to discuss a plan, there should be transparency. The local community should know exactly what that plan looks like before it is going to be finalized. It needs to encourage collaboration of the stakeholders or else--as the example I just gave in Utah--you are going to end up in litigation or an elongated process before such management plans can take place. It seems to me that these are pretty reasonable goals: Have a bottom- up process that encourages discussion throughout the plan so that local communities are not caught off guard, and continue to emphasize the roles of State, local, and Tribal governments and cooperating agencies so that they can have input in the process as well. Finally, I know that there are some who would like to claim that the BLM State director oversees the planning process in their specific State and that somehow that might change, but that is not the case. Many organizations understand that there will continue to be a bottom-up process under the new rule. That is why so many sportsmen and outdoors groups--like the Outdoor Industry Association, the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the Nature Conservancy, the Wilderness Society, and the National Parks Conservation Association--all say: Do not overturn the rule that was implemented. These groups know that 30 years is too long of a period of time to have to wait to encourage public involvement and collaboration, that these issues are too important to try to turn back the clock and to try to exclude sportsmen and various interests of public access from the planning and use of our public lands. I hope my colleagues will turn down this override of a very important project that has guaranteed public access, transparency, and sunshine in planning for our public lands. Medicaid Madam President, I would like to come to the floor to discuss the proposed Medicaid changes that are part of what the House is proposing to the Affordable Care Act. This is so important because, as many people know, Medicaid has been a bedrock of how individuals get access to healthcare in our country. And in many parts of our States--at least the State of Washington--Medicaid has been a lifeline in both rural communities and in urban areas and we have heard much from various people that it is actually helping to stabilize healthcare costs, so costs are not rising as fast and giving people access to care in the most serious situations where we are trying to fight opioids or are trying to find more efficiency in our healthcare system. First of all, I think the House bill is literally a war on Medicaid. I say that because it is a capitation of healthcare costs. The federal government, according to one budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, would shift the cost to the States by more than $500 billion over the next 10 years. That would mean that millions of people would lose coverage and be affected by this kind of repeal. Now, many people have talked about how they might block-grant Medicaid. I also thought that was a horrible idea because, really, it just becomes nothing but a budget mechanism to reduce the Federal partnership that exists between the Federal Government and the States on Medicaid. But the House chose not to do exactly block-granting. They said, instead, that we are just going to have a budget cap at the Federal level on how much money they are going to spend on Medicaid and then work toward the repeal of Medicaid expansion. This is a very bad idea. The actual per capita cut--I know my colleagues like to come out here and talk about a patient-centered relationship, which is exactly what getting off fee-for-service and going to managed care does. But a per capita cost is nothing but a budget mechanism to cap the Federal responsibility to Medicaid and cut costs and basically shift the pain onto the States. I have been on various meeting tours in the State of Washington, talking to my constituents about this. In Seattle, Spokane, and Olympia. I met with hospitals, community clinics, women's health groups, local and State government officials, civic leaders, civil rights organizations, and I heard many things. I basically heard hospitals say there is evidence that Medicaid is actually lowering the commercial insurance premiums because of less uncompensated care. And I heard a safety net hospital in Spokane tell me that the population is already 70 percent Medicaid and Medicare and that there is no way they can absorb this kind of a cut to the Medicaid program and it would just mean healthcare costs would rise in the future. I heard a hospital in Seattle tell me that this kind of attempt is nothing but a budget trigger. It is not a reform of the system. It is simply a way to cut the budget. What we believe is that Medicaid is a key part of our healthcare delivery system. The expansion has worked well and we should continue to move to ways to innovate Medicaid as a way to save costs. Unfortunately, right now, many people misunderstand how important Medicaid is in the mental health and addiction area. Basically, when you take what we have tried to do to address the opioid epidemic, those individuals who are working through the bills that we just recently passed to try to help patients in the emergency room or who are in psychiatric care or who are trying to deal with this grave problem we have in the United States, getting rid of Medicaid for those individuals, you might as well roll back all the assistance we just provided as part of the CURES and other legislation. Why? Because these individuals will not be able to access the type of care they need without the support. I do believe that what we need to do is innovate instead. There are many examples of innovation in our healthcare delivery system. One example, as I have mentioned on the floor several times, is going from nursing home care to community-based care. Medicaid is going to equal long-term care. So many Americans are not going to be ready to deal with their long-term healthcare issues, and when they are not, they are going to use Medicaid for their long-term care. We showed in the State of Washington over more than a decade's period of time that we could save $2.7 billion by shifting our Medicaid population to community-based care instead of nursing home care. If we would do that same kind of innovation at the Federal level, we could achieve substantial savings instead of saving money by cutting. The issue here is that innovation in our delivery system--innovation, not a budget cap--is what is going to help us with our healthcare needs for the future when it comes to the Medicaid population. So I urge my colleagues to speak loudly against this proposal to try to cap Medicaid, to try to shift the burden to States and local providers, to county governments, to jails, to all of those individuals who are going to see that population when and if they don't have Medicaid coverage and instead work together on expanding the innovation in Medicaid and coming up with savings we need to take care of and to provide health insurance coverage to so many Americans. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the affordable housing crisis in the United States of America and to talk about the reintroduction of legislation from last Congress that is going to be reintroduced by me, Senator Hatch, Senator Wyden, Senator Heller, Senator Schumer, Senator Murkowski, and the Acting President pro tempore--Senator Young--and several other of our colleagues. The reason we are introducing this important legislation is to say that we need to increase the tax credit for affordable housing in the United States. We are saying this because we know from reports and statistics that we have a housing crisis in the United States of America, and unless we increase the affordable housing tax credit, we are not going to see much more new supply. That is because 90 percent of the affordable housing that is built in the United States of America is built with a tax credit. Today, we are also releasing a report that is showing that the demand for affordable housing is exploding and construction is definitely not keeping pace. We are showing that seniors and veterans are at a greater risk for homelessness and that about a 60-percent increase in the need for affordable housing is being driven by Americans who are paying more than 50 percent of their income in rent, making it an unaffordable situation. We are introducing this important legislation that, we hope, will build 400,000 additional affordable housing units across the United States and that will also help create additional jobs. This is an issue that we are sending to the Finance Committee before, and I would hope my colleagues on the Finance Committee would take swift action. I say that because the report found three key factors. One is an increase of 9 million renters since 2005. That is a huge increase since 2005. How did we get there? Over 7 million Americans lost their homes due to foreclosure in the economic crisis. As a result, home ownership rates have been at their lowest levels since the mid-1960s. Over the last 10 years, we have seen the largest gain in the number of renters in any 10-year period of time on record. That is right. We increased the number of renters in this last 10-year period of time more than at any other time on the books. It kind of makes sense if you think about it. If the economic crisis caused you to downsize, and you were in a home and you could no longer afford it, you would put pressure on the rental market. For those already in the rental market, it pushed many of them out of market-based rates and into solutions that were less affordable. As we all know, in major cities and urban areas across our country, it caused an actual homelessness crisis, as well, as many people could no longer even afford basic rent. The affordable housing crisis is exploding all over the country, and we face pressures from all sides. Demand for rental housing has increased by 21 percent, but we are building units at the lowest rate since 1970. It does not take more than basic economics to see that, with demand so high and supply so low, we need to do something if we are going to make a dent in this problem. If we do not increase the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, then, by the year 2025, we are going to have 15 million Americans who are spending more than half of their income on rent, and this is truly unacceptable. Our report shows that in the last decade the total number of Americans who have faced this extreme housing problem--that is, paying more than half of their incomes in rent--ballooned by 60-percent, and that has put a lot of pressure on many of our States. For my home State, the affordability crisis is actually getting worse than the national average. Since 2000, median rents have risen by 7.6 percent, which is 2.5 percent higher than in the rest of the country. As I said, it is all of those people coming from the foreclosure market into the rental market. On average, there is about a 3.5-percent increase in rents across the United States. In addition, there are 16 percent fewer affordable rental homes available in Washington State compared to the U.S. average. Overall, 400,000 Washingtonians are paying more than half of their monthly incomes in rent. We saw these numbers, and we saw specifically how seniors and veterans and homelessness are also driving the increase in demand. Senior unaffordability, which is the term given to people who are paying more than half of their incomes in rent, rose by 30 percent. With the veteran unaffordability, which is the number of the veterans who are returning and being part of the housing market, we will see an increase of over 500,000 veterans who need affordable housing. I think the Acting President pro tempore knows well that in his home State there are people who are trying to provide solutions in small towns and urban areas for our veterans so that they can have affordable places to live. The report also shows that doing nothing is going to continue to exacerbate the problem. We will see another 25-percent increase in unaffordability. That is just unacceptable. To help solve the problem of affordable housing, my colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and I are reintroducing the bipartisan Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act to strengthen and expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Under this provision, the expanded tax credit would help create and preserve 1.3 million affordable homes over a 10-year period of time, which would be an increase of 400,000 new units nationwide. According to the National Association of Home Builders, annual LIHTC development--this is the overall appropriation--supports approximately 95,700 jobs and $9.1 billion in wages. Investing in the low-income housing tax credit, which gives our citizens more affordable housing, is good for them, but it is also good for our economy. Enacting the proposal would create an additional 450,000 jobs over the next 10 years and would support the construction of these important units. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Association of Home Builders that talks about the economic benefit of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and this particular proposal, with their estimates of increased Federal revenue of $11.4 billion, State and local revenue of $5.6 billion, and a total of 452,000 jobs being created in that 10-year period of time.

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