In May 2018, three Democratic senators wrote to the Ukrainian prosecutor general, asking about a news report that he had frozen four Ukrainian investigations involving Paul Manafort to avoid angering President Donald Trump. Republicans have called the letter a “threat” to withhold support for aid to Ukraine, saying it’s similar to what critics have charged Trump did.

There’s no explicit “threat” to take any actions in the letter. Whether there’s an implied threat involving U.S. support of Ukraine is a matter of opinion, but politicians have gone too far in claiming the Democratic letter is “the same kind of stuff they’re accusing Trump of,” in the words of Sen. Rand Paul.

Republicans have adopted this talking point to counter Democratic accusations that Trump withheld military assistance to Ukraine to pressure the country into investigating Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, and allegations that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. There are key differences between the Democratic letter and Trump’s actions:

• The Democratic letter did not mention U.S. aid to Ukraine but described support for Ukraine building “democratic institutions.” Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July call that “we do a lot for Ukraine,” but it’s not necessarily “reciprocal,” according to a White House memo of the call. Trump then asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens and Ukraine’s role in the 2016 election.
• The Democrats took no action to withhold U.S. aid to Ukraine; Trump admitted that he placed a hold on security assistance to Ukraine the month of the phone call. The situation alarmed the charge d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine who expressed concern that security assistance was contingent on Trump’s requests for investigations.
• The Democratic senators wrote to ask about reports of Ukraine not cooperating with an existing U.S. investigation; Trump was asking Ukraine to open investigations involving a political rival and the 2016 election.

Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky, used the GOP talking point during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Oct. 13. “Well, here’s the thing is if you’re going to condemn Trump you need to condemn the Democrat senators. It shouldn’t be just one-sided,” Paul said. “Everybody’s going after President Trump. Someone needs to actually, in an objective way, evaluate a letter from four Democrats that said to Ukraine, ‘If you don’t keep investigating Trump we will reconsider our bipartisan support for aid.’ That’s a threat. And that’s the same kind of stuff they’re accusing Trump of.”

Trump himself referred to the letter in a Sept. 25 press conference. “And it got almost no attention, but in May, CNN reported that Senators Robert Menendez, Richard Durbin and Patrick Leahy wrote a letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were ‘critical,'” Trump said. “In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake and that if they didn’t do the right thing, they wouldn’t get any assistance. Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar?”

And Sen. Lindsey Graham mentioned the letter the same day in an interview on Fox News: “There was a letter sent by Democratic senators in May 2018 threatening the Ukraine to cut off aid if they did not investigate Trump.”

Trump gets it right when he says the Democratic senators were “expressing concern at the closing of four investigations they said were ‘critical,'” — wording that comes from a Washington Post opinion column — but the senators didn’t ask Ukraine to “investigate Trump” or threaten to “cut off aid,” as Graham said. The senators — Menendez, Durbin and Leahy — were asking about a New York Times report on May 2, 2018, that Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s prosecutor general, had “effectively frozen” four cases involving work done by Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The May 4, 2018, letter says the Times reported that Lutsenko had frozen the investigations out of a concern of losing U.S. aid.

The Times reported that a special prosecutor, Serhiy Horbatyuk, was barred from issuing subpoenas in the cases and talking to witnesses. Volodymyr Ariev, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament and an ally of then-President Petro Poroshenko, “readily acknowledged that the intention in Kiev was to put investigations into Mr. Manafort’s activities ‘in the long-term box,'” the Times said. 

“In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials,” Ariev told the newspaper. “We shouldn’t spoil relations with the administration.”

At the time, Manafort, who had worked for pro-Russia political figures in Ukraine, was facing money-laundering and tax fraud charges as part of special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election to aid Trump and whether there was coordination with the Trump campaign. 

The Times reported: “The decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruption prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins.”

Two days after the Times report, the Democratic senators wrote to Lutsenko, asking if the report was correct and whether “any individual from the Trump Administration, or anyone acting on its behalf” encouraged the Ukrainian government “not to cooperate” with the Mueller investigation.

Paul’s office told us the senator was referring to “the entire first paragraph and beyond” in the letter, so we’ll include the full first paragraph here:

Letter from Sens. Menendez, Durbin and Leahy to Lutsenko, May 4, 2018: We are writing to express great concern about reports that your office has taken steps to impede cooperation with the investigation of United States Special counsel Robert Mueller. As strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine, we believe that our cooperation should extend to such legal matters, regardless of politics. Ours is a relationship built on a foundation of respect for the rule of law and accountable democratic institutions. In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building these institutions despite ongoing military, economic and political pressure from Moscow. We have supported that capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these principles in order to avoid the ire of President Trump. If these reports are true, we strongly encourage you to reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.

Marc Thiessen, a conservative columnist for the Washington Post, wrote on Sept. 24 that the letter carried the suggestion that the senators’ support for assistance to Ukraine was on the line. “In the letter, they implied that their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake,” he said.

On Aug. 22, 2018, the Times reported that Lutsenko “has denied any relation between the [Manafort] investigation’s suspension and potential concerns about antagonizing President Trump.” Lutsenko had announced on Aug. 21, the day Manafort was convicted on several charges in the U.S., an investigation into former Ukrainian officials who had paid Manafort.

A joint statement issued by Menendez, Durbin and Leahy on Sept. 25 said the “letter in no way calls for the conditioning of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.”

Whether the senators were making an implied threat that aid to Ukraine was at stake if Lutsenko didn’t reopen the investigations is matter of opinion. But the Republican politicians go too far when they claim a threat was made, and they don’t tell the whole story about the letter. The Democratic senators’ concern was about Ukraine halting investigations due to a fear that Trump would be the one cutting off aid.

Correction, Oct. 24: We originally misspelled columnist Marc Thiessen’s name. We regret the error. 

The post The Democratic Letter to Ukraine appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Several Democrats have claimed that the president’s emergency declaration could “raid” or “take money away” from military pay and pensions to fund construction of the border wall. But the basis for their claims — a news story — says the Pentagon may use “leftover” funds in those accounts due to lower-than-expected recruits and fewer early retirements.

An Associated Press story said the Army missed a recruiting goal by 6,500 enlistees, and there were fewer take-ups of an early retirement incentive. The Pentagon wants to move $1 billion from those funds to provide some of the money for the wall under President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.

Congress has voted to block that emergency declaration, but Trump is expected to veto the joint resolution.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer brought up the military accounts at a media availability on March 12, saying the president’s declaration “would take money away from the military, the brave men and women in uniform, to pay for this wall including military construction and maybe even military pay and pensions. Outrageous.”

His office pointed us to the March 7 AP story, which other congressional Democrats have tweeted, adding their own twists on the news.

Sen. Patty Murray said, “The idea of the president cutting our country’s military pay and pensions to pay for his wall is wrong,” while Sen. Brian Schatz referred to the potential diversion of funds as a “raid.” Sen. Kamala Harris echoed that theme, saying: “Raiding money from their pensions to fund the President’s wasteful vanity project is outrageous.”

The idea that President Trump not being able to pass his wall spending through Congress constitutes an ‘emergency’ is absurd. The idea of the president cutting our country's military pay and pensions to pay for his wall is wrong. #FakeTrumpEmergency https://t.co/LFKHwpJ2yk

— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) March 10, 2019

Members of our military have already given so much. Raiding money from their pensions to fund the President’s wasteful vanity project is outrageous. Our servicemembers deserve better. https://t.co/xIzR0MyCii

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) March 8, 2019

If one didn’t read past the headline of the AP story — which said, “Pentagon may tap military pay, pensions for border wall” — it could appear that these claims were well-founded. But we’d expect members of Congress to at least read the lead paragraph of the story before tweeting claims about “cutting” and “raiding” pay and pensions.

The AP’s lead paragraph makes clear this is about “leftover funds.”

AP, March 7 story: The Pentagon is planning to tap $1 billion in leftover funds from military pay and pension accounts to help President Donald Trump pay for his long-sought border wall, a top Senate Democrat said Thursday.

That top Democrat is Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Defense. He referred to moving the funds as a “cut” — “Imagine the Democrats making that proposal — that for whatever our project is, we’re going to cut military pay and pensions.” But he also said the leftover funds were, in effect, “savings.”

“This is pay that would have gone to Army recruits that we can’t recruit,” Durbin said, according to the AP. “So there’s a ‘savings’ because we can’t recruit. The other part was they offered a voluntary change in military pensions, and they overestimated how many people would sign up for it.”

Todd Harrison, director for defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told us it was not true that what the Pentagon had proposed would cut military pay or pensions. “It’s leftover money,” Harrison said. “The Army is going to have leftover money in its personnel account because it didn’t meet its recruiting goals.”

As for the pension money, Harrison said the Defense Department sets aside money every year to contribute to pension accounts. But when there are fewer service members than expected, because the Army didn’t meet its goal, the department doesn’t need to contribute as much to pension funds. “It absolutely would not affect anyone’s current pension,” he said in a phone interview. “When money gets paid out of the pension fund, it’s set by a formula in law.” That money has to be paid.

Reprogramming Defense Funding

Schumer said “maybe even” pay and pension money would be taken, but the money appropriated to those accounts has to be spent on obligations for this year. The leftover money can’t be rolled over to be used for pay and pension expenses incurred next year.

We asked Patrick Newton, press secretary for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, about the rules regarding this appropriation. He explained that funds Congress appropriated for a Department of Defense personnel or operations and maintenance account are only available for one year. Once the fiscal year is up, the unused funds are “expired.” At that point, they could still be used to “cover obligations created during the initial timeframe,” he said. “They cannot be used for new contracts or obligations.”

“Basically – it can only be spent on expenses incurred during the one-year initial timeframe,” he said. After five years, the expired funds become “canceled” and can’t be used at all.

We asked Durbin’s office whether any service members wouldn’t get pay or pension money if the Pentagon moved this money. A spokesperson didn’t directly answer the question, saying: “Senator Durbin believes that when the Department of Defense has excess funds that it should be prioritized for real Department of Defense needs, such as making repairs to Camp Lejeune, Tyndall Air Force Base, or desperately needed Navy ship repairs.”

Durbin’s spokesperson also said that Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told several lawmakers he intended to transfer this money and “that he will not stand by the standard process of letting the defense oversight committees review his reprogramming proposal.” Otherwise, “the Defense Department has not provided Congress with specific information on its plan.”

Harrison, at CSIS, said what normally happens is Congress would identify this leftover money when it’s debating the fiscal 2020 budget, and Congress would rescind it and use it for other spending. The Defense Department can reprogram the money now — move it to another account for another purpose — but that would require congressional approval, he said.

The armed services and defense appropriation subcommittees in both chambers of Congress have to approve it, and Harrison said there’s no way that’s going to happen on the House side.

But a March 8 article in Military Times quoted a Republican and Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee saying they were concerned not with the accounts from which the money would be moved, but rather the Defense Department not seeking congressional approval for that reprogramming. “Not following the practice that has been followed by decades will affect the relationship between the legislative branch and executive branch,” Military Times quoted Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry, ranking member of the committee, as saying. 

The White House has said the emergency declaration would enable the use of $8 billion for the border wall, including $3.6 billion from military construction and $2.5 billion from defense counter-drug activities and other reprogramming. Lawmakers questioned Shanahan about which construction projects could be delayed or canceled to provide funding for the wall at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 14. Shanahan didn’t offer specifics, other than to say “no projects scheduled to be obligated in this fiscal year” would be canceled. Funds could have been appropriated, however, but not awarded in a contract this year.

As for the leftover funds in the pay and pension accounts, the acting Pentagon press secretary told Military Times that “no decision has been made” on using that money for the wall, but the publication reported he “did not dispute reports that the idea was discussed.” We contacted the Defense Department press office but did not receive responses to our questions.

The post Democrats Mislead on Military Pay, Pensions appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Sen. Dick Durbin wrongly claimed that “30 percent of the people who voted for Donald Trump had voted for President Obama.” Two reports place the figure at about 9 percent.

Durbin made his remarks on “Fox News Sunday” when host Chris Wallace brought up Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks about Trump voters. On a book tour in India, Clinton said she won “places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward,” while Trump’s campaign “was looking backwards.”

Wallace, March 18: Senator, is that helpful to Democrats in 2018 to have Hillary Clinton dismissing the 60 million-plus voters who supported and elected Donald Trump dismissed, some could even say condemned as racists and misogynists?

Durbin: No, it’s not helpful at all. In fact, my friend Hillary Clinton is wrong. Thirty percent of the people who voted for Donald Trump had voted for President Obama.

Why? The same people who look for change with President Obama thought there wasn’t enough as far as their personal lives were concerned, and they supported Donald Trump. That is a reality the Democrats acknowledge. That’s why we are focusing on issues to address this concern they have about the economic insecurity that many working families face.

That 30 percent figure struck us as high, especially since Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes but lost the Electoral College.

Durbin’s Senate office did not respond when we repeatedly asked where the senator got his 30 percent figure (even though it did get back to us with information that showed the senator was right about another, unrelated claim).

The available research in this area, however, shows that Durbin is wrong.

In a report last year, George Washington University Associate Professor of Political Science John Sides found that 9.2 percent of voters who said they voted for Barack Obama in 2012 voted instead for Trump in 2016. His analysis was based on a survey of 7,156 respondents who said they had voted for a presidential candidate in 2012 and 2016. The survey was conducted by YouGov in December 2016.

We asked Sides if he is familiar with any others who have done work in this area, and he referred us to UMass Amherst Political Science Professor Brian Schaffner, who is also the founding director of the UMass Poll.

“Yes, that figure does indeed sound way too high,” Schaffner told us in an email, referring to Durbin’s 30 percent figure.

Schaffner recently co-authored an op-ed in the New York Times in which he also said that about 9 percent of Obama voters in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016.

In the Times op-ed, Schaffner and his colleagues urged the Democratic Party not to ignore the Obama voters who did not vote in 2016.

“The Missing Obama Millions,” Schaffner et al, March 10: Our analysis shows that while 9 percent of Obama 2012 voters went for Mr. Trump in 2016, 7 percent — that’s more than four million missing voters — stayed home. Three percent voted for a third-party candidate.

We would hardly urge Democratic strategists to abandon Obama-to-Trump voters. However, Obama-to-nonvoters are a relatively liberal segment of the country who have largely been ignored.

Schaffner and his colleagues arrived at 9 percent based on an analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which interviewed more than 64,000 respondents before and after the election.

“We asked people how they voted in 2016, but we also asked them who they had voted for in 2012,” he said. “Importantly, we also matched respondents to the voter file so that we could determine who actually voted and who just claimed to have done so. That allows us to compare the percentage of Trump voters in 2016 who said they voted for Obama in 2012 (and who we could confirm did, in fact, vote in that election).”

We don’t know what Durbin had in mind when he cited a much higher figure of crossover voters. But we couldn’t find any evidence for it, and his office provided us with none.

The post Durbin Wrong on ‘Trump Democrats’ appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The minority party in the Senate — in this case, the Democrats — can block, or filibuster, legislation by taking advantage of a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to end debate on legislation before a final vote can be taken on the bill. That’s what caused the recent partial government shutdown.

On ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin defended the parliamentary practice, claiming getting rid of the filibuster “would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers.” But the filibuster wasn’t part of the Senate rules when it was created.

The House and Senate in the first Congress in 1789 both had a rule that allowed a simple majority to end debate and call for a final vote, according to Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University who wrote a book on the history of the filibuster. The rule was rarely invoked, and it was dropped by the Senate in 1806, allowing for unlimited debates. But filibusters didn’t become an issue until the mid-1800s, when the Senate “grew larger and more polarized along party lines,” Binder said in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration in 2010.

“The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the Founding Fathers’ constitutional vision for the Senate,” Binder told the Senate rules committee.

The filibuster issue arose this past weekend after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell failed on Jan. 19 to get the 60 votes he needed on his motion to end debate on a temporary spending bill, resulting in a partial government shutdown at midnight. A day after the shutdown began, President Donald Trump urged the Republicans to change the rules and require a simple majority to move legislation — the so-called nuclear option.

Great to see how hard Republicans are fighting for our Military and Safety at the Border. The Dems just want illegal immigrants to pour into our nation unchecked. If stalemate continues, Republicans should go to 51% (Nuclear Option) and vote on real, long term budget, no C.R.’s!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 21, 2018

This wasn’t the first time Trump called on Republicans to change the rules. He did so during the health care debate — so this issue may come up again, even though the shutdown ended on Jan. 22.

George Stephanopoulos, the host of ABC’s “This Week,” asked Durbin about the president’s call to end the filibuster.

Stephanopoulos, Jan. 21: What about that nuclear option, doing away with the filibuster?

Durbin: Well, I can tell you that would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers. We have to acknowledge our respect for the minority, and that is what the Senate tries to do in its composition and in its procedure.

Binder and her coauthor, Steven S. Smith, debunk that notion in their 1997 book “Politics or Principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate.” It’s true, as they write in their book, that the framers of the Constitution intended the Senate to be a more deliberative body and to serve as a check on the more populist House of Representatives.

Binder and Smith, “Politics or Principle?”: “The use of the Senate,” noted James Madison during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “is to consist in its proceedings with more coolness, with more system, & with more wisdom, than the popular branch.”

But the Founding Fathers hoped to accomplish that by writing into the Constitution distinct differences between the two chambers. The Constitution requires senators to be older than House members (30 instead of 25) and subject to a longer citizenship requirement (nine years, instead of seven); establishes six-year, staggered terms for senators, instead of two-year terms for House members; and allows each state to have two senators, rather than having representation based on population.

The Founding Fathers did not, however, tell the Senate how it should conduct business. The Constitution gave each chamber the power to set its own rules in Article I, Section 5.

“The records of the convention and the arguments in the Federalist Papers give no indication that the framers either anticipated or desired procedural protection for Senate minorities,” Binder and Smith write in their book. “The vision of the Senate as a body of unrestrained debate and amendment simply cannot be attributed to the framers of the Constitution.”

In the Federalist Papers, which explain the Constitution in detail, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton both warned about the dangers of protecting legislative minorities. In Federalist No. 58, Madison wrote that requiring “more than a majority of a quorum for a decision” would reverse “the fundamental principle of free government” and transfer the power to the minority party. In Federalist No. 22, Hamilton wrote that giving “a pertinacious minority” the power to negate majority rule — “which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision” — would result in “tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; [and] contemptible compromises of the public good.”

When the first Congress convened, the House and Senate had similar rules when it came to limiting debate.

In her 2010 Senate testimony, Binder said, “The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the ‘previous question’ motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.”

What is the “previous question” motion, and why did the Senate drop it?

In a report on the history of limiting debate in the Senate, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said the “previous question” motion is a parliamentary procedure first introduced in the British Parliament in 1604 as a means of “limiting debate.”

The rules adopted by the first U.S. Senate stated: “The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from the Chair shall be: ‘Shall the main question be now put?’ And if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put.” Translation: A final vote on the main bill, resolution or question before the Senate could not occur without a simple majority.

But, as Binder and Smith write in their book, the Senate got rid of the “previous question” motion in 1806 at the suggestion of then-Vice President Aaron Burr – who, under the Constitution, also served as president of the Senate.

In his farewell speech to the Senate, Burr advised the Senate to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative rules, citing the “previous question” motion as one example. Binder told us that the “previous question” motion was rarely used at the time and — contrary to its original intent — it was used to postpone votes on bills and amendments, since no vote could be taken unless a majority approved the motion. There was also a rule that allowed the postponement of a vote, so the “previous question” motion was unnecessary, Burr said.

In his memoirs, John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States, writes that Burr “recommended the abolition of that respecting the previous question, which he said had in the four years been only once taken. … This was a proof that it could not be necessary, and all its purposes were certainly much better answered by the question of indefinite postponement.”

The rule change made filibusters possible, but it wasn’t until after the Civil War that filibusters became more common. “By the 1880s, almost every Congress began to experience at least one bout of obstructionism,” Binder told the Senate committee in her 2010 testimony.

Because of the growing use of filibusters, the Senate adopted a rule in 1917 to limit debate using a procedure known as the cloture motion. At that time, a cloture motion required the approval of two-thirds of the senators present in order to cut off debate on legislation and move to a final vote. The rule was expanded in 1949 to include presidential nominees, and it was changed again in 1975 to require three-fifths, or 60 votes, to pass, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

A cloture motion was filed by McConnell, the Senate majority leader, in an attempt to cut off debate on the spending bill. But it received only 50 votes, and the government partially shut down for three days.

It is certainly accurate to say that there is a long history in the Senate of allowing filibusters. But Durbin went too far when he said getting rid of the filibuster “would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers.”

The post Durbin and the Filibuster ‘Myth’ appeared first on FactCheck.org.

What exactly did President Donald Trump say at a Jan. 11 White House meeting on immigration?

At the meeting, Lindsey Graham, a Republican, presented a bipartisan plan to remove the threat of deportation for the 689,800 people who were illegally brought to the United States as children and afforded protection under an Obama-era program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which Trump is phasing out. A day after the meeting, Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat and co-author of the plan with Graham, claimed Trump used an obscenity to describe African nations and made disparaging remarks about Haitian immigrants.

Durbin quoted the president as saying of African nations, “‘Those shitholes send us the people that they don’t want.'” Durbin continued, “He repeated that. He didn’t say that just one time.” Durbin also quoted Trump as saying, “‘We don’t need more Haitians.'”

After the meeting, Graham reportedly told his fellow Republican senator from South Carolina, Tim Scott, that the media reports about Trump’s language at the meeting were “basically accurate,” according to Charleston’s Post and Courier.

Trump issued a vague denial. In a Jan. 12 tweet, he said: “The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used,” without explaining which remarks he denied making or what exactly he said at the meeting. Talking to reporters in Florida two days later, Trump said of the remarks attributed to him: “They weren’t made.” On Jan. 15, the president tweeted that Durbin “totally misrepresented what was said at the DACA meeting.”

There were at least seven members of Congress at the meeting and one administration official, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. Five members of Congress and Nielsen have made public statements about the meeting. Here’s what each of them has said so far.

Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat

The Illinois Democrat told reporters in Chicago on Jan. 12 that the president described African countries as “shitholes.” Durbin confirmed what the Washington Post had reported earlier that day.

Durbin, Jan. 12: As Sen. Graham started to read the plan, the president started making comments and asking questions, and that’s when things deteriorated rapidly. When we talked about those in the United States on temporary protected status, there was comment that they were from El Salvador and Honduras and Haiti. “Haitians,” he said, “we don’t need more Haitians.” Then we went on and the president started commenting on immigration from Africa. And that’s when he used those sickening, heartbreaking remarks, saying, “Those shitholes send us the people that they don’t want.” He repeated that. He didn’t just say it one time…. It was clear that the president had rejected our bipartisan plan and told us to go back to work and find something else…. I cannot imagine that in the history of that room, that hallowed room, where the president of the United States goes to work every day there has ever been a conversation quite like that. It was vile. It was hateful. It was racist.

Told that the president denied saying the words attributed to him, Durbin said, “It speaks for itself. There were witnesses. There were 12 of us in the room. I was the only Democrat who was in that room, but I’m hopeful that Republican senators will step up and confirm what I just told you. It happened. I’m saying it because it’s true.”

Later that day on MSNBC, Durbin also said that Graham confronted the president over his remarks at the meeting. Durbin said Graham exhibited “extraordinary political courage.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican

The South Carolina Republican senator put out a statement on Jan. 12 in response to Durbin’s remarks, saying, “I appreciate Senator Durbin’s statements.” Graham did not contradict Durbin’s account, but he didn’t explicitly confirm it, either.

Graham, Jan. 12: Yesterday Senator Durbin and I met with President Trump at the White House to discuss our bipartisan proposal on border security and immigration.

Following comments by the President, I said my piece directly to him yesterday. The President and all those attending the meeting know what I said and how I feel. I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals.

The American ideal is embraced by people all over the globe. It was best said a long time ago, E Pluribus Unum – Out of Many, One. Diversity has always been our strength, not our weakness. In reforming immigration we cannot lose these American Ideals.

The American people will ultimately judge us on the outcome we achieve, not the process which led to it.

I know the bipartisan proposal discussed at the White House can get a lot of support from both sides. As always, I look forward to considering additional ideas that could make the proposal even better.

I appreciate Senator Durbin’s statements and have enjoyed working with him and many others on this important issue. I believe it is vitally important to come to a bipartisan solution to the immigration and border challenges we face today. I am committed to working with Republicans and Democrats to find common ground so we can move forward.

South Carolina’s junior senator, Republican Tim Scott, was not at the meeting, but he told the Post and Courier that he spoke to Graham about media reports of Trump’s use of the term “shitholes.” Scott said that Graham told him the media reports were “basically accurate,” according to the Post and Courier, without elaborating on what Graham specifically told him.

Post and Courier, Jan. 12: Reached Friday at a Samsung appliance plant opening in Newberry, Scott said that Graham told him the comments, as reported in the media, were “basically accurate.”

“If that comment is accurate, the comment is incredibly disappointing,” Scott told The Post and Courier.

“We ought not to disparage any other nation, frankly,” he added. “Thinking about the success of America. It is the melting pot. It’s the ability to weave together multiple communities together for one nation.”

Sens. Tom Cotton and David Perdue, Republicans

The two Republican senators initially put out a joint statement on Jan. 12 that said they “do not recall the President saying these comments specifically.”

Cotton and Perdue statement, Jan. 12: President Trump brought everyone to the table this week and listened to both sides. But regrettably, it seems that not everyone is committed to negotiating in good faith. In regards to Senator Durbin’s accusation, we do not recall the President saying these comments specifically but what he did call out was the imbalance in our current immigration system, which does not protect American workers and our national interest. We, along with the President, are committed to solving an issue many in Congress have failed to deliver on for decades.

Two days later, both senators elaborated on their statement during appearances on Sunday talk shows.

Cotton reiterated on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that he did not hear Trump use the language attributed to him. However, Perdue, appearing on ABC News’ “This Week,” told host George Stephanopoulos that Durbin had grossly misrepresented Trump’s remarks, saying “that language … was not used.”

Perdue, Jan. 14: Then in Thursday we had a meeting, and coming out of that meeting, we heard a gross misrepresentation of what happened in that meeting.

But it’s not the first time we’ve had a gross misrepresentation by that individual.

Stephanopoulos: Well, let’s get into – let’s get into that.

Perdue: No, let me finish, George.

Stephanopoulos: Well, I want to know what the gross misrepresentation was.

Perdue: … the gross misrepresentation was that language was used in there that was not used, and also that the tone of that meeting was not contributory and not constructive….

Stephanopoulos: … you’re saying flat out, definitively, the president did not say those words?

Perdue: I’m saying that this is a gross misrepresentation, it’s not the first time Senator Durbin has done it, and it is not productive to solving the problem that we have at hand.

Stephanopoulos: Senator Durbin has been very clear. Senator Graham has told others that the reports were basically accurate. Are you saying the president did not use the word that has been so widely reported?

Perdue: I’m telling you he did not use that word, George. And I’m telling you it’s a gross misrepresentation. How many times you want me to say that?

On the same program, Republican Sen. Jeff Flake was asked if he believed Perdue. Flake said he learned of Trump’s disparaging comments a day before the public learned of them.

“Well, all I can say is I was in a meeting directly afterwards where those who had presented the president our proposal spoke about the meeting,” he said. “And they — they said those words were used before those words went public. So that’s all I can tell you is I — I heard that account before the account even went public.”

Shortly after Perdue’s interview, Cotton appeared on “Face the Nation” and was asked about Perdue’s remarks by host John Dickerson.

Cotton, Jan. 14: Yeah, John, I didn’t hear that word either. I certainly didn’t hear what Senator Durbin has said repeatedly. Senator Durbin has a history of misrepresenting what happens in White House meetings though, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by that. Here’s what I did hear. And here is the point.

Dickerson: Sorry to interrupt. You didn’t hear the word, or it was not said? Because Senator Graham also told Senator Scott, your Republican colleague, that this is what happened. Senator [Jeff] Flake was in a subsequent meeting right afterwards where he was told by people in the meeting this happened. So just to button that up, you’re saying it did not happen or you just don’t recall?

Cotton: I didn’t hear it, and I was sitting no further away from Donald Trump than Dick Durbin was. And I know–

Dickerson: But–

Cotton: And I know what Dick Durbin has said about the president’s repeated statements is incorrect.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry, who was not at the meeting, said on ABC’s “This Week” that he was told Trump “used a different, but very closely related vulgarity. He said s-house, and not s-hole.”

A day later, the Washington Post reported, based on accounts from anonymous White House officials, that Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard “shithouse” rather than “shithole,” which the Post wrote allowed both men “to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend.”

Graham appeared to criticize Cotton and Perdue for their selective memories of the meeting. “My memory hasn’t evolved,” he told reporters in South Carolina on Jan. 15. “I know what was said and I know what I said.”

At an event in Chicago on Jan. 15 to mark Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Durbin said: “I know what happened. I stand behind every word that I said in terms of that meeting.”

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, Republican

Diaz-Balart would neither confirm nor deny whether Trump used the obscenity at the meeting to describe African nations.

The Florida Republican issued a Jan. 12 statement via Twitter saying he did not want to be “diverted from all possible efforts to continue negotiating to stop deportations,” without addressing the president’s reported remarks.

Diaz-Balart, Jan. 12: For months, I have been involved in numerous high level bipartisan meetings negotiating DACA, including Thursday’s meeting at the White House. There are almost 800,000 young DACA beneficiaries who will face imminent deportation in March if we do not reach a deal. I will not be diverted from all possible efforts to continue negotiating to stop the deportations. Nothing will divert my focus to stop the deportation of these innocent people whose futures are at stake.

On Jan. 14, Diaz-Balart’s spokeswoman issued a statement saying the congressman “has NEVER repeated, stated, or leaked what is said in private meetings.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen

On “Fox News Sunday,” Nielsen told host Chris Wallace that there was an “impassioned conversation” on immigration at the meeting, but she did not hear “that specific phrase being used.”

Wallace, Jan. 14: Secretary, you were in that meeting in the Oval Office. Did the president say that?

Nielsen: I don’t recall him saying that exact phrase. I think he has been clear and I would certainly say undoubtedly the president will use, continue to use strong language when it comes to this issue. He feels very passionate about it.

I think what was frustrating about that meeting for all of us in the meeting was that although the deal presented in theory and approach to the four pillars upon which we had agreed, did not address the core security issues that we need to do our job. And more importantly, there’s nothing in there that would prevent us from getting here again.

So, we’re not interested in half measures. We don’t want additional temporary populations here. It’s unfair to them, it’s unfair to American citizens and it certainly raises security risks.

Wallace: I don’t understand — I’m just going to press back on you once on this subject. It seems to me — you were in the meeting when these comments were made. I can understand you either saying they were said or they were not said. It is pretty shocking language and to say I don’t recall seems implausible.

If the president of the United States used the word blank-hole talking about countries in the Oval Office or didn’t say it, I would know.

Nielsen: I understand the question. It was an impassioned conversation. I don’t recall that specific phrase being used, that’s all I can say about that.

At least two other Republicans — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Rep. Robert Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — attended the meeting, but we have yet to find any statements from either one about Trump’s remarks at the meeting.

The post What Did Trump Say at Immigration Meeting? appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: Two-thirds of Americans believe that Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland deserves a Senate hearing and vote.

The Party: Democratic

President Obama, on March 16, nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responded by reiterating that the Senate will not consider the nomination, saying the next president should make the appointment.

Faced with a partisan standoff, President Obama and Senate Democrats have been citing public polls that support their position that the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Garland’s nomination.

On the day of the nomination, Sen. Charles Schumer said on CNN that “the American people [are] overwhelmingly of the view that there ought to be a hearing and a vote.”

That same day, Sen. Dick Durbin appeared on MSNBC and said “two-thirds of the American people think Senate Republicans are being unfair, that they aren’t doing their job, they aren’t living up to their constitutional responsibility.” He added, “So let’s face facts here.”

The facts, however, are not as settled as the Democrats make them out to be.

Yes, there are two polls that support the Democrats. A Washington Post/ABC News poll, taken March 3-6, found that 63 percent of those polled believe the Senate should “hold hearings and vote.” Similarly, a CNN/ORC International poll, taken Feb. 24-27, reported that 66 percent of poll respondents said the Senate should “hold hearings.” Durbin’s spokesman, Ben Marter, says the senator was referring to the CNN/ORC International poll.

But there are other polls that don’t show overwhelming public sentiment for a hearing and a vote.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll, taken March 3-6, found that 48 percent prefer a “vote this year” on Obama’s nominee, while 49 percent in The Economist/YouGov poll, taken March 10-12, agreed that “Republican leadership in the Senate should hold hearings on the nominee.”

The latest poll — taken after Obama nominated Garland — comes from Morning Consult. That poll, which was in the field March 16-18, found that 48 percent of those surveyed said the Senate should “hold hearings” on Garland’s nomination, and 47 percent said the Senate should “hold a vote.”

The variation in the polls is likely due to the wording of the questions.

For example, the Washington Post/ABC News poll asks a single question on whether the Senate should “hold hearings and vote” on the nomination. As we said, 63 percent in that poll said the Senate should “hold hearings and vote.” But the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked separate questions on whether to hold hearings and whether to hold a vote.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked poll respondents whether they support or oppose the Republican decision not to hold hearings, and whether the Senate should “vote this year.” The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found more support for holding hearings (55 percent) than for holding a vote (48 percent).

Michael Link, the immediate past president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, called the Washington Post/ABC News poll question a “double-barrel question” that should be avoided.

“We call that a double-barrel question where you are combining two concepts into one,” Link said in an interview with FactCheck.org. “It becomes more difficult” to determine the respondent’s intent, he added. “You don’t know which one they are responding to. We try to avoid that [double-barrel] question.”

Another example: The CNN/ORC International poll cited by Durbin found that 66 percent of those surveyed said the Senate should hold hearings, but they were not presented with the option to say that holding hearings should depend on the nominee. A small percentage — just 1 percent — voluntarily offered that response.

However, poll respondents were given that choice in The Economist/YouGov poll and 16 percent said holding a vote should depend on who is nominated. As a result, only 49 percent — less than half — of those in the Economist/YouGov poll said the Senate should hold hearings.

Link said that the difference between the results of the CNN/ORC International poll and The Economist/YouGov poll indicates that there is “soft support” on the issue of whether the Senate should hold hearings and a vote.

“You’ll get a different answer when you force a choice,” Link said, referring to the CNN/ORC International poll. “That can make a big difference on an issue that is new and not settled yet.”

“This is a new issue. The public’s view is soft and formulating,” Link said of the partisan court fight. “Most people are just getting exposed to this issue. It doesn’t surprise me that we are seeing this variation. These are all good [polling] organizations. Different times, different wording — and that can have an impact. But the key thing is this is a new phenomenon — it is soft and in formulation.”

We take no position on the partisan dispute over how to handle the Supreme Court vacancy or the president’s nomination of Garland, who is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

But the Democrats say the public “overwhelmingly” supports their position, as Schumer put it, when in fact there are other polls that don’t show overwhelming public sentiment for a hearing and a vote.

Here are the poll questions and the results of the polls we cite above:

CNN/ORC International poll, Feb. 24-27:

Next, as you may know, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has created a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Do you think Barack Obama should nominate someone to fill the vacancy or should the seat remain vacant until a new president takes office in January 2017?

Should nominate: 58 percent

Seat remain vacant: 41 percent

No opinion: 2 percent

President Obama has said that he will nominate someone to fill the vacancy. Do you think the Republican leadership in the Senate should or should not hold hearings on the nominee?

Should hold hearings: 66 percent

Should not: 32 percent

Depends on who is nominated (volunteered): 1 percent

No opinion: 2 percent

Washington Post/ABC News poll, March 3-6:

The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has opened a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. After Obama nominates someone to replace Scalia, do you think the Senate should (hold hearings and vote on whether to accept the nomination), or should the Senate (NOT hold hearings, which would block the nomination and leave it to the next president)?  Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Should hold hearings: 63 percent

Strongly, 44 percent

Somewhat, 19 percent

Should not hold hearings: 32 percent

Somewhat, 6 percent

Strongly, 25 percent

No opinion: 5 percent

Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, March 3-6:

Recently, a Supreme Court Justice passed away leaving a vacancy on the court. President Obama will nominate a new person to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Would you prefer the U.S. Senate … vote this year on the replacement nominated by President Obama or leave the position vacant and wait to vote next year on the replacement nominated by the new president or do you not have an opinion one way or the other?

Vote this year: 48 percent

Leave vacant and wait: 37 percent

No opinion: 14 percent

Not sure: 1 percent

The U.S. Constitution requires the President to nominate a candidate to fill an opening on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Senate has the responsibility to confirm or reject a nominee. Republicans who control the Senate say they will not hold confirmation hearings and have no plans to consider a nominee put forward by President Obama. Do you approve or disapprove of this decision not to consider President Obama’s nominee, or do you not have an opinion one way or the other? (IF “APPROVE” OR “DISAPPROVE,” ASK:) And do you strongly (approve/disapprove) or just somewhat (approve/disapprove)?

Approve: 28 percent

Strongly, 22 percent

Somewhat, 6 percent

Disapprove: 55 percent

Strongly, 45 percent

Somewhat, 10 percent

No opinion: 16 percent

Not sure: 1 percent

The Economist/YouGov poll, March 10-12:

As you may know, the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has created a vacancy on the Supreme Court. How important is the choice of the next Supreme Court justice to you personally?

Very important: 47 percent

Somewhat important: 27 percent

Not too important: 10 percent

Not at all important: 5 percent

Not sure: 10 percent

Do you think Barack Obama should nominate someone to fill the vacancy or should the seat remain vacant until a new president takes office in January 2017?

Should nominate: 51 percent

Seat Remain vacant: 36 percent

Not sure: 13 percent

President Obama has said that he will nominate someone to fill the Supreme Court vacancy caused by Antonin Scalia’s death. Do you think the Republican leadership in the Senate should or should not hold hearings on the nominee?

Should hold hearings: 49 percent

Should not hold hearings: 20 percent

Depends on who is nominated: 16 percent

Not sure: 15 percent

Suppose all or most of the Republicans in the Senate oppose President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Do you think they would be justified — or not justified — in using Senate procedures, such as filibuster, to prevent an up-or-down vote on the nominee?

Justified: 38 percent

Not justified: 36 percent

Not sure: 26 percent

Morning Consult poll, March 16-18

Should the U.S. Senate do any of the following regarding Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court?

Hold hearings? 

Yes: 48 percent

No: 23 percent

Don’t know/No opinion: 29 percent

Hold a vote? 

Yes: 47 percent

No: 23 percent

Don’t know/No opinion: 31 percent

Confirm?

Yes: 37 percent

No: 24 percent

Don’t know/No opinion: 39 percent

Who should nominate the next Supreme Court justice?

Obama: 45 percent

2016 winner: 41 percent

Don’t know/No opinion: 15 percent

Democrats citing public opinion surveys that show Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland deserves a Senate hearing and vote:

President Obama, March 16: To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up or down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise — that would be unprecedented. (Source: Remarks on his nomination to the Supreme Court.)

Sen. Dick Durbin, March 16: Well, I can tell you that two-thirds of the American people think Senate Republicans are being unfair, that they aren’t doing their job, they aren’t living up to their constitutional responsibility. … The American people, two out of three, believe this nominee from the president deserves a hearing and a vote — two out of three, including about a majority of the Republicans feel that way. So let’s face facts here. (Source: MSNBC “All In With Chris Hayes” video.)

Sen. Charles Schumer, March 16: With such a qualified man, with the American people overwhelmingly of the view that there ought to be a hearing and a vote – if people vote no after that, so be it – I think it has been a very, very strong day for this choice. (Source: CNN “The Lead with Jake Tapper” transcript.)

The post SCOTUS Nomination: What Polls Say appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: More than 9 million Americans have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act.

The Party: Democratic

Top Democrats, including President Obama, have credited the Affordable Care Act for more than 9 million Americans obtaining health insurance. But that’s an exaggerated figure that includes individuals who renewed their existing insurance plans through Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. It also includes previously insured individuals who switched to plans offered on the state and federal exchanges.

In early January, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said “right now, as we speak, there are 9 million Americans … who have health care that didn’t have it before.” Later that month, in his State of the Union address, President Obama said “because of the Affordable Care Act … more than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage.” And on Feb. 9, Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, increased the figure, saying that “[t]he bottom line is this: 10 million Americans have health insurance today who would not have had it without the Affordable Care Act.”

When Reid made his claim, the 9 million Americans included: 2.1 million who had selected plans on the federal or state insurance marketplaces, or exchanges; 3.9 million who were determined to be eligible for Medicaid and CHIP; and an estimated 3.1 million young adults under the age of 26 who were able to join their parents’ policies as a result of the ACA.

Then, on Jan. 24, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that 3 million people had enrolled in a private health insurance plan through the federal and state-based exchanges since October 2013, and that more than 6.3 million individuals were determined eligible to enroll in Medicaid or CHIP through state agencies and state-based marketplaces in October through December. That’s a total of 9.3 million Americans.

But not all of those people were previously uninsured, as Democrats have claimed or suggested.

In the Jan. 24 blog post, Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, wrote that the 6.3 million included “both Medicaid and CHIP new eligibility determinations in states that expanded coverage, determinations made on prior law, and in some states, Medicaid renewals and groups not affected by the health care law.” So, the 6.3 million includes some who already had Medicaid or CHIP and were simply renewing. It includes those who would have been eligible for those insurance programs without the law. And it could also include those who had insurance through another source and are now eligible for Medicaid.

Indeed, a Feb. 5 report from Avalere Health, a health care industry consulting firm, estimated that most of the Medicaid and CHIP determinations were not new enrollees due to the law. Avalere estimated that between 1.1 million and 1.8 million enrolled because of the health care law. The firm compared the October through December Medicaid and CHIP numbers from CMS to the average monthly number of applications in July through September 2013.

Some listeners may have gotten the impression from Obama’s speech that the 9 million were all previously uninsured. But Sens. Reid and Durbin claimed outright that all gained insurance because of the health care law. We know that’s not true.

Reid and Durbin, for example, are just two members of Congress who had private insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but were required to switch to an exchange plan as required by the law. The 3 million people who selected exchange plans also include other individuals who were insured but switched to marketplace coverage when their plans were cancelled or their insurers pulled out of the individual insurance market altogether. We don’t know how many, because figures aren’t available.

A Jan. 17 Wall Street Journal article highlighting industry surveys of exchange enrollees said that “[i]nsurers, brokers and consultants estimate at least two-thirds of those consumers previously bought their own coverage or were enrolled in employer-backed plans.”

At some point, the ACA may be responsible for more than 9 million uninsured persons gaining health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in 2014, due to the Affordable Care Act, the number of uninsured would decline by 14 million.

But based on the administration’s most recent figures, we’re not at that point yet.

— D’Angelo Gore

Democrats using this talking point include:

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, Jan. 5: [R]ight now, as we speak, there are 9 million Americans … who have health care that didn’t have it before. (Source: Interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”)

President Obama, Jan. 28: Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 3 million Americans under age 26 have gained coverage under their parents’ plans. More than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage. (Source: State of the Union address.)

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Feb. 9: The bottom line is this: 10 million Americans have health insurance today who would not have had it without the Affordable Care Act. Ten million. (Source: Interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, Jan. 9: Nine million Americans now have quality health care coverage; 2.1 have enrolled in private coverage; 3.9 on Medicaid so far; 3 million young adults now covered under their parents’ plan. And, of course, the list will continue to grow. (Source: Weekly Press Conference.)

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Jan. 8: There has been much maligning of the Affordable Care Act. Well, I am here to announce today that close to 9 million people have now been recipients and victors in getting health care. (Source: Congressional Record.)

The post More Than 9 Million Newly Insured appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The Line: If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it.

The Party: Democratic

For years, President Obama promised millions of Americans with health insurance that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” under his health care overhaul. He wasn’t the only one, either.

Back in 2009, several top congressional Democrats echoed the president’s assurances that those who were happy with their plans would be able to keep them.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the health care overhaul efforts “means making sure you can keep your family’s doctor or keep your health care plan if you like it.”

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin told the happily insured “we are going to put in any legislation considered by the House and Senate the protection that you, as an individual, keep the health insurance you have, if that is what you want.”

And current Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray also said: “If you like what you have today, that will be what you have when this legislation is passed.”

But longtime readers of FactCheck.org know we’ve been writing since August 2009 that that promise simply couldn’t be made to everyone who already had health insurance.

That’s because most Americans are covered by plans through their jobs, and nothing in the health care law prohibited employers from dropping coverage or changing health plans as they have been able to previously. Before the health care bill even became law, the Congressional Budget Office projected that up to 10 million people who otherwise would have been covered by employer-provided plans would not be offered coverage under one Democratic proposal.

The health care law also sets minimum standards for insurance coverage, requiring that all health plans cover mental health benefits, prescription drug coverage, vaccinations, dental and vision care for children, maternity care for women, and more. The upgrades mean that some plans that were inexpensive for purchasers — but didn’t cover the required benefits — would eventually cease to exist.

Americans who purchase such plans on the individual insurance market have been receiving notices that their current plans will no longer be offered after this year, as several news organizations reported in October. Those notices make it clear that Obama was over-simplifying and over-promising when he kept saying, “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

Obama, in a Nov. 4, 2013, speech, tried to explain his past promises by saying “what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.” Asked when the president had previously included that detail, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in a Nov. 5 press briefing, said Obama was referring to the law’s clause allowing insurers and employers to “grandfather” plans offered before the bill became law.

“The president was referring to the law and to the fact that the law was written in a way — and everybody who closely covered the drafting of that legislation knew it was written about — that the grandfathering clause was in the law, and he was referring to the implementation of that law through the rule process,” Carney said.

Grandfathered health plans do not have to meet all of the law’s new coverage requirements. But in order to be grandfathered, health plans must have existed on March 23, 2010. Those with individual grandfathered plans had to have them before the law took effect. And to maintain their grandfathered status, the plans must not be changed to cut benefits or significantly raise prices for consumers through deductibles or co-pays.

It’s true that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius explained the grandfather clause in a June 14, 2010, blog post announcing new health care regulations.

“Under the rule issued today, employers or issuers offering such coverage will have the flexibility of making reasonable changes without losing their ‘grandfathered’ status,” Sebelius wrote. “However, if health plans significantly raise co-payments or deductibles, or if they significantly reduce benefits – for example, if they stop covering treatment for a disease like HIV/AIDS or cystic fibrosis – they’ll lose their grandfathered status and their customers will get the same full set of consumer protections as new plans.”

Sebelius went on to say that the “bottom line is that under the Affordable Care Act, if you like your doctor and plan, you can keep them.” But that still wouldn’t be true for many, and Obama glossed over those details in his speeches. The president made the sweeping promise, in one variation or another, while the Affordable Care Act was being debated in Congress in 2009. He said it again after he signed the bill into law in 2010. And he continued to say it after the Supreme Court ruled the law was constitutional in 2012.

Even the president now acknowledges that his promise went too far.

In an interview with Chuck Todd of NBC News on Nov. 7, Obama offered an apology to the many Americans who have been notified that they are, in fact, losing the health plans they previously had and wanted to keep.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” Obama said. “We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and that we’re going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.”

Strangely, the White House linked to the apology on a health care Web page that carried the same promise he now says went too far.

White House website, Nov. 11: If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.

— D’Angelo Gore

Here is a list of some who have promised individuals could keep their health plans:

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, June 10, 2009: We here in the Senate are working on legislation that will protect people’s choice of doctors, will protect their choice of hospitals, will protect their choice of insurance plan. If you like what you have today, that will be what you have when this legislation is passed. (Source: Remarks on the Senate floor.)

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, July 28, 2009: The reform we are pursuing … not only means making sure you can keep your family’s doctor or keep your health care plan if you like it but also that you can afford to do so. (Source: Remarks on the Senate floor.)

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, July 30, 2009: Many people say: I like my health insurance right now. I don’t want to change. I don’t want to go into Medicare or Medicaid. I like what I have. Would you please leave people alone. The answer is yes. In fact, we guarantee it. We are going to put in any legislation considered by the House and Senate the protection of you, as an individual, to keep the health insurance you have, if that is what you want. What we are trying to create are voluntary choices and opportunities. (Source: Remarks on the Senate floor.)

President Obama, Aug. 15, 2009: At the same time — I just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren’t listening — if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan. (Source: Remarks from town hall on health care.)

Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Dec. 24, 2009: Alaskans who have health insurance now, and are happy with it, can keep it. (Source: Press release.)

President Obama, March 25, 2010: From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers — they’re going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is and what it isn’t. They’ll have to finally acknowledge this isn’t a government takeover of our health care system. They’ll see that if Americans like their doctor, they’ll be keeping their doctor. You like your plan? You’ll be keeping your plan. No one is taking that away from you. (Source: Remarks in Iowa City, Iowa.)

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, Sept. 29, 2010: From the beginning, the law has been about preserving what is good about American health care. That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan,and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it. (Source: Remarks on the Senate floor.)

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, April 6, 2012: This bill will help make health insurance more secure for those who already have it and make coverage available for millions of uninsured Americans. And it is important to remember that for those who already have health insurance, the law allows you to keep your existing plan. (Source: Press release.)

President Obama, June 28, 2012: First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. (Source: Remarks on Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act.)

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, web page accessed Nov. 11, 2013: If you like your current health insurance, you will be able to keep it. And you will be able to continue seeing your current doctor. Health care reform would simply give you the choice to change insurance providers if you so choose. (Source: Q & A webpage.)

Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina, fact sheet accessed Nov. 11, 2013: For middle class families, health care reform … Ensures you can keep the coverage you have and guarantees coverage if you change or lose your job. (Source: Fact sheet.)

White House web page, accessed Nov. 11, 2013: If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law. The President addressed concerns from Americans who have received letters of policy cancellations or changes from their insurance companies in an interview with NBC News, watch the video or read a transcript. (Source: White House website.)

The post Keeping Your Health Plan appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Some Democrats have taken to exaggerating the cost of the federal government shutdown, suggesting that it cost the economy nearly 1 million jobs, and claiming that it cost taxpayers $30 billion. Neither statement is accurate.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota stated in an Oct. 18 TV interview with a local station, while discussing the impact of the just-concluded shutdown:

Heitkamp: [S]ome people are saying that the job implications may go as high as almost 1 million jobs. That is just not a path forward.

Heitkamp’s 1 million figure is four times larger than the highest estimate we’ve seen so far from any economist for job losses due to the shutdown.

She didn’t specify the source of her figure. However, the source is probably a study released only four days earlier by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation under the headline, “Fiscal Policy Uncertainty has Resulted in 900,000 American Jobs Lost.” That study, however, was not an estimate of the job cost of the 16-day shutdown alone. It attempted to estimate “the cost of crisis-driven fiscal policy over the past few years.”

That report was prepared for the foundation by Macroeconomic Advisers LLC, and it estimated the effect of “fiscal policy uncertainty” including Standard & Poor’s first-ever downgrading of U.S. federal debt in August 2011 (after the last debt-ceiling showdown), and the “fiscal cliff” showdown in December 2012, as well as the recent shutdown.

Update, Oct. 22: After we posted this item, the White House released a report by its own Council of Economic Advisers citing economic indicators that it said are “consistent with” a conclusion that the shutdown slowed job growth by “about 120,000 private-sector jobs in the first two weeks of October.” The CEA said that figure “could understate the full economic effects of the episode to the degree it continues to have an effect past October 12th.” Still, that’s a fraction of the 1 million figure Heitkamp cited.

As for the cost to taxpayers, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said on “Fox News Sunday” Oct. 20:

Durbin: We just went through a government shutdown of your creation. It’s cost $30 billion for taxpayers, hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the Republican Party brand is at the lowest level in the last 30 years.

We’ve been unable to find any estimate of a $30 billion cost to “taxpayers,” and that figure is 20 times higher than the $1.5 billion estimate President Bill Clinton gave in 1996 for the combined cost of the two government shutdowns, totaling 26 days, that took place in fiscal 1996. Even accounting for inflation, that estimate for the cost of the 1996 shutdowns would be only about $2.2 billion in today’s dollars.

Durbin may have meant to refer to the cost to the U.S. economy as a whole. But estimates for total economic cost only range from $12 billion to $24 billion. The $12 billion estimate comes from Macroeconomic Advisers, but Democrats are fond of quoting the higher of those figures, issued by Standard & Poor’s on Oct. 16, only hours before the shutdown ended. But so far we haven’t seen an estimate as high as $30 billion from any economist.

There’s little question that the shutdown cost taxpayers something. National Parks lost out on user fees during the shutdown, for example. And agencies may end up working overtime to catch up with work that wasn’t done during the closure. There’s also wide agreement that the overall economy will suffer, and job growth will slow, because of the disruption. Government contractors laid off thousands of workers during the closure, for example. And unlike federal workers, those private-sector job holders aren’t likely to get back pay for the time they were idle.

Recent polling shows Republicans are taking most of the blame for the damage. But that’s no excuse for Democrats to exaggerate it.

We sought comment from representatives for Heitkamp and Durbin. We’ve received nothing from Durbin, but a Heitkamp spokesperson said we are misinterpreting the senator’s words: “The Senator referred to job implications, meaning jobs impacted. During parts of the government shutdown, 800,000 federal workers were furloughed, and more than 250,000 contractors’ jobs were also affected.”

We don’t think so. Heitkamp was discussing the cost of the shutdown to the U.S. economy, not the temporary impact on federal workers. Here’s the full context:

Heitkamp: The shutdown was like this incredible event because it was over debt and deficit issues. But yet every day we were out of work, when we wouldn’t let workers work, cost the American public $160 million a day. And now Standard & Poor’s is saying the shutdown cost the American economy $24 billion. And some people are saying that the job implications may go as high as almost 1 million jobs. That is just not a path forward.

— Brooks Jackson

Corrected, Oct. 22: We initially misidentified Sen. Dick Durbin’s home state. He represents Illinois.

The post Democrats Exaggerate Shutdown Costs appeared first on FactCheck.org.