Kennedy-King National Commemorative Site Act

Madam President, I rise to say a word about my friend Thad Cochran, who is retiring from the U.S. Senate.

In 1968, I had the job of recruiting State chairman for Citizens for Nixon-Agnew. I was a very young, wet-behind-the-ears former legislative assistant to Senator Howard Baker. We were working in the Willard Hotel in the fall of 1968. The idea was to try to find outstanding citizens who weren't necessarily Republicans because in the southern part of our country, there weren't a lot of Republicans, especially in the State of Mississippi.

So I called around the State of Mississippi to find out who might be willing to head up this Nixon-Agnew campaign. Everybody I called said: Well, there are two young men here who are just the most outstanding young men, both are cheerleaders at Ole Miss, or had been, and both are going to grow up to be the Governor of Mississippi, which was, at that time, I guess, the nicest thing one could say about some aspiring young man because nobody thought the two U.S. Senators, Eastland and Stennis, would ever retire. So growing up to be the Governor of Mississippi was really a great compliment to a young man in Mississippi at the time. One of those young men was named Trent Lott, and one of those young men was named Thad Cochran.

I telephoned Thad Cochran, and I invited him to become chairman of the Citizens for Nixon-Agnew. He was a Democrat, but he agreed to do that. We met in October of that year in Indianapolis. The mayor of Indianapolis then was Richard Lugar, a young mayor at that time and later a Member of this body. That was the beginning of Thad Cochran's Republican Party activity.

He and that other young man--who were so promising--both ran for U.S. Congress in 1972, and to the surprise of a great many people, they were elected, the first Republicans since Reconstruction, I suppose, from Mississippi--Thad Cochran and Trent Lott.

In 1978, Thad Cochran did something nobody had done from his State since the Reconstruction; he became a Republican who was elected to the U.S. Senate, and he has been here ever since.

The reason he was able to be successful is not surprising. Thad was and is an engaging, pleasant person. His parents were educators. He learned to play the piano. He was a terrific baseball player--good enough to play professional baseball. He joined the Navy. He was, in every respect, an outstanding young man, just as he has been a distinguished public servant throughout his life.

He has been widely respected here by his colleagues, elected to be chairman of the Republican conference, and most recently he has been chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which is as important as any position in this body.

In an era where not everybody seems to think it is important to act like a gentleman, Thad Cochran is a gentleman, and we respect that and the example he has set.

So he has been a pioneer for the Republican Party, he has been a good example for young people, and for all of us, really, in terms of what we should expect and try to emulate in public life, and, to me, he has been a great friend.

So my wife Honey and I would like to say to him and to Kay, his wife, that we respect him, we look forward to the next chapter in his life, and we honor his service to this country.

Mr. President, the Senator from Maine will arrive in just a moment, and I ask unanimous consent for up to an hour for us and Senator Graham and Senator Rounds to address the Senate within that hour--the four of us, and others who wish--to speak on the health insurance issue within that hour.

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the plumber making $60,000 whose health insurance is $20,000 and he pays for all of it and about the fact that the bill we are about to vote on today could have had in it bipartisan legislation--supported by the President of the United States, the majority leader, and the Speaker of the House--that would have reduced that plumber's health insurance bill from $12,000 to $8,000, according to the Oliver Wyman health consulting experts, who have evaluated the bipartisan legislation that we have proposed.

The only reason it doesn't have that in there is because Democrats have objected to putting on this bill we are voting on today the traditional Hyde amendment that governs how dollars are spent when an abortion is involved. The traditional Hyde amendment is a compromise that has been on every appropriations bill--and this is an appropriations bill--since 1976 and that Democrats have voted for hundreds of times and Republicans have voted for hundreds of times. On this very bill that we are voting on today, more than 100 times the Hyde language applies to other programs.

So Democrats are scrambling and embarrassed, coming up with excuse after excuse, trying to explain to the self-employed businessperson-- the farmer, the songwriter, the plumber--who might be making $60,000 or $70,000 and paying $20,000 for their insurance, and paying it all, with no government subsidy--why they are blocking a 40-percent reduction in their health insurance and why they will not apply the Hyde language to the health insurance rate reduction and they will apply it to 100 other programs. Not just in past voting but today, every single Democrat today who votes for the omnibus bill will be voting to apply the Hyde language restricting abortion to at least 100 other programs.

For example, how will they explain this to the plumber, the farmer, and the self-employed businesswoman: I will apply the Hyde language and restrict Federal funding for abortions to the National Institutes of Health but not to reduce your health insurance rates by 40 percent. I will apply the Hyde language to community health centers today, but I am going to block the bipartisan proposal to reduce your health insurance by 40 percent that is supported by the President, the majority leader, and the Speaker of the House. I will vote today to apply the Hyde language to the Federal Employment Health Benefits Program, which provides health insurance to 3 million or so employees, but I will not vote for a health insurance program to reduce your rates by 40 percent because I will not apply the Hyde language to it?

How are they going to explain today and next October, when the insurance rates are announced for 2019, 2020, and 2021, that they had an opportunity in March of this year to reduce rates in 2019, 2020, and 2021 by 40 percent and they refused to do it because they said: We will not apply the traditional Hyde language to health insurance, even though we are going to apply it to the Indian health programs, to the VA, to women's medical care, to global health programs, to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program--to 100 programs that Democrats will be voting on today to apply the Hyde language to. They will do that, but they are going to block bipartisan legislation--supported by the President, the majority leader, and the Speaker--that will reduce the health insurance rates of the plumber making $60,000 from $20,000 to $12,000?

I want to speak about that plumber. I want to speak ahead to October 1, when the rates for 2019 are announced. I want to talk about Marty, the farmer in Tennessee who I met at the Chick-fil-A, who came up to me and said: I was paying $300 a month for my health insurance, and over the last 5 years it has gone up to $1,300, and I can't afford it.

I said: I have a Christmas present for you. Then, I thought I had a Valentine card for it. Then, I thought I had an Easter present for it, because we got bipartisan legislation, supported by the President, the majority leader, and the Speaker. I said: We can put that in the omnibus bill, we can pass it by the end of March, and we can reduce your rates.

There are 9 million Americans who don't get insurance on the job. They don't get insurance from the government. They buy it themselves. They are hardworking Americans. They are the plumber, the farmer, the small businessperson. They are making $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, $90,000 a year. Their insurance bills are $15,000, $20,000, $25,000 a year. They are rapidly approaching a point, if they haven't already, that they have to go without insurance because they can't afford it, and we have a way to do something about that.

It is happening in my State of Tennessee. Rates went up another 57 percent last year for those people. That is thousands of dollars. Yet we could have today reduced their rates by thousands of dollars. Here is how:

We have developed two bipartisan bills, beginning in the fall. Our committee--the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee--held four hearings. We had roundtables to which we invited all the Senators. Senator Murray, the ranking Democrat, and I presided over this.

We talked about all of the issues and tried to see what we could do, and we came up with what we call the Alexander-Murray bill. It had two parts to it. The first part was regulatory reform. We took something already in the Affordable Care Act--the 1332 innovation waivers--and we made it possible for States to streamline it and use it.

We also added a few other things. We changed the law so that Minnesota and New York could use the basic health plan and could tap into the subsidies in the way that those States wanted to do

it. That is $130 million a year in Minnesota and $1 billion in New York. Democrats are blocking that today--$130 million in Minnesota and $1 billion in New York, and Democrats are saying no to that today. Why? Because they will not apply the Hyde language to the health insurance rate decrease, even though they are going to vote to apply it to 100 other pieces of legislation in this very bill.

We did the regulatory reform, and then we did something many Republicans didn't want to do and the President didn't want to do to start with. We extended the cost-sharing subsidy payments for 3 more years. These are payments to reduce rates for low-income people on their copays and deductibles. We agreed to do that.

Then, Senator Collins and Senator Nelson, a Republican and a Democrat, came up with a plan--the House did, too, with Representative Costello--to add reinsurance. Reinsurance is something about which, in our hearings and in our meetings, virtually every Senator in both parties said: We really need to do that, because the reason the individual market is in such trouble is that it has so many of the sickest Americans in it and they are soaking up all the money.

The reinsurance program that we suggested and have in Senator Collins and Senator Nelson's bill--3 years, $10 billion a year--would give States funds as well as planning money to set up those invisible risk pools, those reinsurance programs, that were meant for the sickest Americans to have their needs taken care of, and you lower the rates for everybody else.

So we have regulatory reform, 3 years of cost-sharing subsidies, 3 years of reinsurance, $10 billion a year. The Congressional Budget Office says: If you score it based on real spending, it actually saves the government money by reducing the premiums that taxpayers have to pay for--a $1 billion advantage for New York for each of the next 3 years, $130 million for Minnesota for each of the next 3 years. We fix the problem in New Hampshire, to allow both Democratic Senators and the Republican Governor to say: Please do this; we want to be able to mix our ObamaCare and Medicaid savings.

We said: Yes, you can do that, and so can every State.

Within the Affordable Care Act, we did what Democrats have been saying to do ever since we couldn't repeal and replace it last August and said: We will work with you to fix it.

The part that needs fixing is the part causing the plumber who makes $60,000 to pay $20,000 for his health insurance, and we have a way to fix it--to reduce it by 40 percent, according to Oliver Wyman consulting; by 20 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Yet the Democrats are blocking it today because they will not apply the traditional Hyde language that they voted for every single year since 1976 in the omnibus bill and that they will be voting on today for 100-plus times.

How do you explain that to the plumber? How do you explain that to the farmer? How do you explain that to the 9 million Americans who see their health insurance rates going through the roof?

Let's not make any mistake about who is doing this. We are big boys and girls in the Senate. When we take a stand, we ought to admit it. What the Democrats are doing is they are blocking a 40-percent rate decrease for one single reason--one single reason. The President of the United States supports it, the Speaker supports it, the majority leader supports it, and we are ready to put it in the bill, and they say no.

Let's look down the road to October. All of the insurance companies will announce their rates for 2019, and we will be looking ahead to 2020 and 2021. Rates will be going up instead of going down. The farmer, the self-employed person, the songwriter are going to be saying: How am I going to be able to afford this?

Nothing is more important to Americans than healthcare. Nothing is more frightening to Americans than the prospect of not being able to afford to buy healthcare. That is what we are doing here.

I am disappointed by this. I have spent hundreds of hours on this since September. We had a piece of legislation introduced on this floor by 12 Republicans and 12 Democrats that the Democratic leader said every single Democrat would vote for and the national Democratic chairman said was great bipartisan legislation. That is two-thirds of our bill.

What is the other third? The other third is the Collins-Nelson bill, which adds $10 billion a year for reinsurance. The Governors like this. The State insurance commissioners like this. The plumber and the songwriter like it. Who doesn't like it? A few Democrats who are saying that the Hyde language, which says--let's be specific about what it says--you can't use Federal funds for elective abortions, but you may use any other funds. That is exactly the law that we have in our bill.

The Hyde language is in the bill we are going to be voting on later today. It was put there in 1976. It is adopted year after year. It is on page 1036, if anybody wants to look it up. Then, there is language in the bill that we are going to be voting on today restricting Federal employee health benefits with Hyde-like language, which is on page 588. You will be voting for it today. Then, there is the title X family planning legislation. That is in the bill you are going to be voting for, as well, today. That is Hyde language. Then, there is the Mexico City legislation. You are going to vote for that today.

But you are going to tell the farmer, the songwriter, and the employer that they are not allowed to have a 40-percent health insurance decrease. They are going to have to not be able to afford health insurance for their family. As to Federal funding for the DC government, you are going to vote for that today. Using funds for elective abortions is restricted in the bill that we are voting on today.

Senator Collins from Maine is here, and the Senator from South Carolina is here. They have worked hard on this. We are a group of Senators who I think are fairly, usually seen as trying to get results around here. We are greatly disappointed by this--not just for this institution but for the people we serve because the hard, simple fact is that we have legislation that could be in this bill that will reduce your health insurance rates by 40 percent starting in 2019 and continuing for the next 2 years, until it gets up to 40.

We have the support of the President. We have the support of the Speaker. We have the support of the majority leader. But the Democratic leader says: You can't have it in the bill. We are going to vote 100 times to apply the Hyde language to everything from the National Institutes of Health to community health centers, but we are not going to let you reduce healthcare rates.

That is why Democrats are scrambling, coming up with excuse after excuse. They are going to have to really come up with scrambling and excuse after excuse on October 1, when the rates are announced.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maine for her lucid and heartfelt description of what is before us. She has been an exceptional leader, and she continues to be. She looks for ways to get results.

She sees people--the plumber I talked about making $60,000, the stylist, a farmer--the person who is working and paying all of his or her insurance with no subsidy help and who sees the real prospect coming that when the rates are announced October 1, they may not be able to afford any insurance, and they can see we have a solution for that.

Now, this isn't a Republican solution or a Democratic solution. This is a solution that began to be developed almost the day Republicans failed to repeal and replace ObamaCare. I walked across the aisle to see if we could do what the Democrats were asking. Let's fix what we have temporarily so nobody is hurt. As we have explained this afternoon, we did that.

We have a proposal that is the original Alexander-Murray proposal, developed in four hearings, in which more than half the Senate participated, which at one point the Democratic leader said every single Democrat would vote for. It takes an existing part of the Affordable Care Act and makes it work--that is the innovation waiver-- gives States more flexibility to create more choices and lower cost choices without changing the essential health benefits, without changing the guarantee for preexisting conditions. It is really a modest change, but it is a significant change. Then it has 3 years of cost-sharing subsidies--remember, the President said he did not want to pay those, but he supports this--and then 3 years of reinsurance so we can help the sickest people who are in the individual market, take them out, pay their needs, and reduce rates for everybody else. These are the best Republican and Democratic ideas that have been put together in a package and, as Senator Collins has said, virtually everyone who has looked at this--starting with the Oliver Wyman Health consultants who say it reduces rates up to 40 percent, the Congressional Budget Office says 20. That is thousands of dollars.

If you are paying $20,000 for your insurance, if we do nothing, you might be paying $24,000. If we do this, you might be paying $16,000. That is a lot of money. If we do this, you might be paying $12,000. That is thousands of dollars less. That is a big tax cut for you, and it is a big tax increase. Why are we not doing this?

Let's not kid ourselves. There is a lot of scrambling and embarrassed running around over on the other side of the aisle to come up with an excuse for this, but let's be honest about it. The Democrats are blocking this for one reason. They have convinced themselves they do not want to apply to the health insurance rate reduction in the omnibus bill the same law that applies to more than 100 other programs in this omnibus bill. So every single Democrat over here who says: I can't vote for a 40-percent rate reduction for you, Mr. Plumber or Ms. Hairstylist or Ms. Farmer. I can't do that because I can't put the Hyde amendment on it, but I am going to vote to put the Hyde amendment on the National Institutes of Health, I am going to vote to put the Hyde amendment on community health centers, I am going to vote today to put it on Federal employee health benefits and family planning grants under title X and 100 other programs Democrats are going to vote to put the Hyde language on--yet they say we can't put the same language on a 40-percent health insurance reduction that is composed of three sections of bipartisan legislation that the Democratic leader has said, at least on two-thirds of it, that every single Democrat supported. Now, what is that? What is that?

I mean, this should not be a partisan issue. I am not surprised there is

scrambling and embarrassment on the other side of the aisle. I don't know how they are going to explain this to the American people. I know a lot of people in Tennessee are desperately hoping we succeed. I hear it every time I go home.

Health insurance is the No. 1 concern of the people in my State, and the most frightening prospect is, if they can't pay their bills, then they can't buy insurance. They might get sick and have no way to take care of it.

Mr. President, I will ask consent to put into the Record a few items. The first is a list of 20 programs that are included in the omnibus bill we are likely to vote on today that have Hyde protection.

Now, remember what the Hyde protection is. It is a compromise that was created in 1976 that said Federal funds may not be used for elective abortions, but basically you may use any other funds, and you may create a contract or arrangement to do that. So that is what we do with Medicare. That is what we do with Medicaid. That is what we are voting today to do at the National Institutes of Health, in the community health centers, voting today for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, for family planning grants, for the Indian health programs, for the VA women's health medical care, for global health programs, for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, and school-based health centers. We are voting to put the Hyde protection on area health education centers, on maternal and childcare block grants, on the National Health Service Corps, but we can't put Hyde protection on health insurance--a 40-percent rate reduction on health insurance, a bipartisan proposal that has the support of the President, the majority leader, and the Speaker. They are all willing to put it in this bill, but you say no. You say no, and there is no good reason for that. There is no good reason whatsoever.

We are going to vote to put the Hyde amendment on childcare community development block grants.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of 20 of those programs be printed in the Record, although, there are more than 100 we will be voting on today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent also to have printed in the Record a short summary of the three-part, bipartisan proposal that will produce the 40-percent rate decreases in the individual market, according to Oliver Wyman, and up to 20 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 3 years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Oliver Wyman analysis entitled ``A Proposal to Lower ACA Premiums by More than 40% and Cover 3.2 Million More'' Americans.

Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office estimate looks at this proposal two different ways, but it says that if we base it on real spending--that is, as if Congress actually passed this bill--the Alexander-Murray-Collins-Nelson proposal that reduces insurance rates 40 percent saves the Federal taxpayer money. In other words, it doesn't cost anything.

As a U.S. Senator who came here to get results, who enjoys more than anything working across party lines to cause that to happen--because it takes 60 to get a result--who admires Senators like Senator Collins, who spends her time doing that, I am very disappointed, not just for me, not just for Senator Collins, who has spent hundreds of hours on this, not just for the Senate as an institution, but I think of people who come up to me like Marty at the Chick-fil-A, who said: I was paying $300 a month, and now I am paying $1,300 a month. I can't afford it; I am a farmer.

I said: I have a Christmas present for you. And then I thought, well, I have a Valentine's present for you, and then I thought maybe I could say I have an Easter present for you, and now I can say I can't do it because the Democratic Party voted to put the Hyde protection on more than 100 programs today--as it has done every year since 1976--but it refused to put the Hyde protection on a 40-percent rate decrease that was developed across party lines, in long hearings that were attended by more than half the Senators--all of them coming in and saying: Oh, this is a wonderful thing.

They came up to me and said: Chairman Alexander, this is so good. We wish the Senate would act like this more. We like the fact that you are having open hearings. Democrats are coming. You are letting us all come without being a member of the committee.

Why are we not doing more of this? This is why we don't do more of it. We come to a result. We come up to a partisan end that hurts people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, on this side of the aisle, to thank my friend Senator Cochran.

Yesterday, I made a longer speech in the Congressional Record, but I didn't want this moment to go by without tributes from both sides of the aisle while you are personally present on the floor.

My relationship with Senator Cochran was fortuitous. There used to be two giants in the Senate--Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye--and forever and ever they were the two, a Democrat and Republican--who were in charge of the Department of Defense Appropriations bill, and we bowed to their knowledge and wisdom. Then the day came when they were both gone, and the new people stepping in were Thad Cochran and Dick Durbin.

I felt totally undeserving to be given that responsibility, and certainly could never follow the act of Danny Inouye, as great as he was in serving our country, both in the military and the U.S. Senate, and Thad had the responsibility of following Ted Stevens as the Defense Committee chair.

While we both knew we were being held to high standards as people compared us, as they inevitably would, the thing we decided to do from the beginning was to do it together--to learn on the job and to work together. It really hearkens back to a Senate that I remember--and I am sure Senator Shelby and others remember--when we first got here, when the Appropriations Committee assignments were really bipartisan assignments, start to finish.

My work on the Defense Subcommittee with Thad Cochran was bipartisan from the start. It always was. There was mutual respect. If I ever had an issue, I could go to him. He knew the same thing was true, if there was an issue related to his concerns or the State of Mississippi, he could come to me. We never ever set out to trouble or embarrass one another publicly. We tried to always have a good, positive working relationship. The very few disagreements we had were behind closed doors and usually resolved behind closed doors. It really was the Senate I was elected to and the one I miss today. We need more of it.

Thad Cochran, you made it easy when you were chairman of the Defense Committee for this ranking Democrat to be an active partner of yours in doing some important things. I think we accepted our responsibility and did our level best; I think our American national defense is stronger today because of it; and I am lucky because I had a good friend, good mentor, and good colleague by my side.

I wish you the very best. If you want a longer version of this speech, it was given in the Record yesterday, so you could take it home and read it, if you would like.

I thank you again for being such a great Senator, a great representative of your State of Mississippi, and a great colleague when it came to our appropriations work.

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

Mr. President, we are in the process of considering an omnibus budget bill. It is over 2,000 pages long. In fairness, it includes many provisions of legislation that has been worked on by many of us for months, so it isn't a surprise package, by and large. There are elements in it that are new and that have been recently negotiated, but the underlying bill--the appropriations bills included in it--has been the subject of committee hearings and negotiations literally for months. I know that because since last year, we have been working on the Defense Department appropriations, which is included in the bill.

My reason for coming to the floor, though, is to address an issue that is not included in the omnibus bill--one that I believe should be and one that is timely and compelling--and there is no reason why it is not included. It relates to those young people who were brought to the United States by their parents when they were infants, toddlers, children, and ended up in undocumented status in this country.

Some of them--a very small number of them--may have been smuggled across the border into the United States. More likely, a common situation is that they came here on a visitor's visa with their parents, the visa

expired, and they stayed. That accounts for almost half of those who are currently undocumented in the United States.

The difference is obvious. We are talking about children who really had no voice in their parents' decision about coming to this country and who literally grew up here, many times believing they were legal in the United States. It wasn't until later in life, usually when they were 10 or 12 years old, that their mothers and fathers sat down and said to them: We never filed the appropriate papers. You are undocumented in America. It means that your life is different from the lives of all the other kids you go to school with.

These kids may be worried about making the football team or getting an A in math, but then their parents say: You also have to be worried about somebody knocking on our front door and deporting our family back to some other country.

Your life in the United States could end at any moment. Be careful. Be careful not to violate the law. Be careful to keep your head down. Whatever you do, don't tell people that you are undocumented because it could subject you and members of your family to automatic deportation.

That is what they grew up with. Through no fault of their own, they were brought to the United States. They are living in this country. They are standing in classrooms in our schools, pledging allegiance to that flag every single day, yet not legal, not documented in the United States. They are undocumented.

Sixteen or seventeen years ago, I introduced a bill called the DREAM Act, which said that those young kids deserve a chance--a chance to earn their way to legal status, earn their way to citizenship. If they become part of drug gangs or criminal enterprises, so be it--they will forfeit any right to become any part of America's future; if not, if they are prepared to finish school and prepared to either continue their education, enlist in our military, or get a good job, we will give them a chance. That is what the DREAM Act said, and for 17 years, I have been trying to make it the law of the land, and I have fallen short.

President Obama, when he was a Senator here from Illinois, was my colleague, and he was my cosponsor on the DREAM Act. So when he became President and it was clear that we couldn't pass the DREAM Act in Congress, I asked him: As President, can you do something to help? And he did. He created the DACA Program.

Under the DACA Program, these young people could come forward, pay about a $500 filing fee, and go through a criminal background check to make sure they were no danger to this country. If they passed it, they would be given permission under President Obama's Executive order-- under the DACA order--to live in the United States for 2 years at a time and then to renew their status. During that 2 years, they couldn't be deported, and they could legally work.

It was a big decision for a lot of these young people. Remember what I said earlier--that their parents had warned them: Don't tell the government who you are. Don't tell them where you live. They could use that information against you.

But 780,000 young people came forward, trusting this government-- trusting that if we invited them to be a part of the United States on a renewable, temporary basis, it would not ultimately hurt them--780,000.

What did they end up doing? Most of them went to school, but going to school as an undocumented person in America is a different challenge. You don't qualify for one penny of Federal assistance--no Pell grants, no government loans--so getting through college under those circumstances means borrowing money from some other source or working jobs to pay for your education, which many of them did.

Over the years, these DACA recipients ended up graduating from school. There are 20,000 of them teaching in schools across America. They are the teachers in the grade school and middle school and high school classes, and they have DACA protection. Nine hundred of them volunteered to serve in our military. Think about that for a moment. They stood up and took an oath to serve the United States in the military and to literally risk their lives for a country that does not recognize their legal status. Nine hundred of them are in that circumstance.

Many of them have done amazing things in their lives. I have come to the floor and told maybe 100, 110 stories of these Dreamers. They are amazing young people. They are resilient; they are talented; they are promising; they are exciting. Yet they are not legal in the eyes of the law in America.

So we tried. We tried to make sure there was a way to protect them when the new President came into office. President Trump had said very clearly in his campaign that immigration was a big issue. He said a lot of things. Some of them were inflammatory, but, interestingly enough, he said several times that Dreamers are different. These young people are different.

He told me personally: Senator, don't worry about it; we are going to take care of those kids. I believed him. I was hoping he would find a way to either embrace the Dream Act or extend DACA so that these young people would have their chance.

But on September 5 of last year, President Trump made an announcement with Attorney General Sessions. He said: This is the end of DACA. This is the end of protection for these young people. By March 5 of this year, 2018, the program will no longer exist. He said to Congress: Do something about it. He challenged us to pass a law.

The March 5 deadline was looming. Young people were falling out of the protection of DACA status, and their lives were uncertain. Some of them had quit school. They just didn't think there was any future or hope for them. Some of them faced the prospect of losing their job when they lost DACA protection. That was the reality.

So there we sat, with that March 5 deadline looming--a deadline we knew was important because that was when all protection and all renewals would end for many, many thousands of these young people. A number of us took it up as a challenge, six of us--three Democrats and three Republicans. We sat down for months to try to write a new DACA law--and then there was a breakthrough.

On January 9 of this year, President Trump called about 24 or 25 Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate Members, to actually come to a meeting at the White House in the Cabinet room. It was an interesting meeting. It was the fourth time I had ever spoken to President Trump, and he invited me to sit right next to him. It was a little surprising that a Democratic Senator would be allowed to do that, but he invited me to, and we spent an hour, with the television coverage constant, discussing this issue. The President said some things that were encouraging about what we could do to solve this problem--a problem he had created when he eliminated the DACA Program.

He said many things during the course of that meeting. He said: ``We're going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on . . . phase two, which would be comprehensive.'' He was referring to other immigration measures. Then he said: ``We do a phase one, which is DACA and security, and we do phase two, which is comprehensive immigration.''

The President added that as part of any immigration deal, he wanted to end the diversity visa lottery--a separate issue--and change our longstanding laws that have allowed families to stay together and eventually be reunited as Americans. He referred to this as chain migration.

When the President made that offer to solve the problem, which he had created when he eliminated DACA, several of us came back to Capitol Hill and said: We have to get this done.

We labored quickly and made some tough decisions, Democrats giving on some issues, Republicans giving on others. We came up with a bipartisan bill--just what the President had asked for.

We called him. It was 2 days later--January 11. I know; I made the call. I said: Mr. President, we have a bill. Senator Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, and I, as well as four other Senators, have come up with a bipartisan bill.

He said: Bring it to the White House. Don't waste any time. I want to get this done.

That was at 10 in the morning. We were scheduled and went to the White

House at noon. By the time we arrived, it was pretty clear that something dramatic had happened in the meantime, because someone in the White House had invited five other Members of Congress from the Republican Party, all of whom opposed our effort. The meeting was pretty well stacked against us. I will not get into the detail of the meeting. It has been widely reported. But at the end of it, President Trump rejected a bipartisan approach to solving this problem.

It wasn't the only time he rejected a bipartisan approach. Senator Schumer and Leader Pelosi had offered him a similar approach before, saying: We can work together. It appeared they had an agreement, but it evaporated in a matter of hours.

We know, as well, that there were offers made of bipartisan approaches. Senator McCain and Senator Coons offered a bill on the floor of the Senate. It was a good bill--not exactly what I wanted by any means, but at least it solved the problem. It was vehemently rejected by the Trump administration.

All in all, there were six different bipartisan proposals offered to President Trump to solve the problem he had created by eliminating DACA. He rejected every single one of them.

He sent to the floor of the Senate a bill offered by Senator Grassley of Iowa. Senator Grassley's bill embodied the President's approach to this. Now, understand the Senate's scorecard here. There are 51 Republican Senators and 49 Democratic Senators. So when the President called his own bill, one of our Senators, Senator McCain, was away ill, but there were 50 Republican Senators and 49 Democrats who voted on that day.

How many votes did the President's immigration proposal get? Thirty- nine. The President got 39 votes. It was kind of a shock that the President's own party didn't support the President's bill--at least not all of them.

When we offered the one I supported, the plan offered by Senator Rounds and Senator King, it ended up with 54 votes. Eight Republicans joined to have a bipartisan measure. But it wasn't enough; 54 votes will not do it. On an issue like this, it takes 60. So we have nothing--nothing. What that means is, in the eyes of the law, for the time being, these DACA-protected young people have no legal protection--save one other element.

While we were debating, the courts were also involved. Two different Federal courts issued an order to the Trump administration and said: Stop. Don't do another thing; don't deport these kids. In fact, allow them to renew their DACA status.

Former Senator Sessions, now the Attorney General, filed an emergency effort before the U.S. Supreme Court to stop that decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court rejected it. So now, today, there at least has been a postponement of deporting the young DACA kids. We don't know if that postponement will last a week, a month, a year. There is no telling. It is a pending court case. That is the only thing that is stopping the deportation of these 780,000 young people. That is it.

The obvious question is, Well, why did you stop? If you failed to meet the March 5 deadline, why didn't the Congress--why didn't the Senate, why didn't the House--continue the effort to try to solve this problem? Isn't that what you were elected to do, Mr. Senator?

The answer, obviously, is: Yes, we should. But we haven't.

That is why I have come to the floor today. We have this 2,000-page bill that does not solve the DACA problem. We have this 2,000-page bill that addresses every subject imaginable but doesn't address the looming deadline we face in America. We are one court decision away from hundreds of thousands of young people being deported.

What do the American people think of this idea of undocumented people, here but not recognized by law? I will tell you what they think. Eighty-five percent of the American people believe we ought to do what is right and fair for these young people. They support the Dreamers, and they support giving DACA protection. Eighty-five percent--60 percent of those who voted for President Trump--say that we should fix the DACA Program.

But we have failed again. We have failed to do what the President challenged us to do, as he continues to reject every bipartisan proposal that has been brought before him--every one of them.

I am going to be making a unanimous consent request when this is over. I think I know how it will end. Any single Senator can object and stop the protection of these DACA young people, and one is prepared to do it. It is my understanding that he is going to demand that we instead pass the President's immigration plan, which received-- remember--39 votes. Not even all of the Republican Senators supported it. It wasn't bipartisan in any way. There are provisions in the President's plan that are just plain wrong, and even 14 Republicans realize that and voted against it.

So here we are at this moment, with an important bill with many positive aspects in it for all of America, including my State of Illinois. Yet there is one critical element still missing. We have failed to include a provision to solve the DACA problem created by President Trump. His refusal to accept any bipartisan compromise leaves us emptyhanded and these poor young people struggling to figure out what their lives will be.

Last week, I was in the Chicago for what I refer to as high holy days in Chicago--the St. Patrick's Day weekend, with parades and parties and breakfasts and lunches. I skipped one of the traditional breakfasts to go out to Loyola University's school of medicine. The reason I went there is called Match Day at medical schools. It is when graduates of medical schools apply for their residencies. Residency, of course, is a continuation of their education, leading up to their becoming actual practicing physicians. It is a huge day in each of their lives. They have gone through college; they have finished medical school; and now they wait for that letter that gives them a chance to finish their medical education.

I wanted to be there because six of the graduates of the Loyola University Chicago Stritch College of Medicine were protected by DACA. They are young people who are extraordinarily talented from all over the United States. They were given a chance to go to medical school, and here they were in a situation, waiting to see if they could become doctors. It turned out that because of our failure--because of the President's removing the DACA Program and our failure to pass a replacement, two of them have their residencies in doubt. A residency is a job. It is a big job. You don't just work 40 hours a week. It is sometimes 60 to 80 hours a week. It is a big undertaking. These young people, without DACA protection, cannot legally work in America and, therefore, found it next to impossible to find hospitals and universities that would take them and allow them to complete their medical education. That is the real-life consequence of our failure to act.

That is the real-life consequence of our failure to include in this omnibus bill--or any bill to this point--a solution to the problem created by President Trump. That is why I am going to make this unanimous consent request that will, in fact, pass the Dream Act, solve this once and for all, and create a law that protects these young people and others in similar categories--one that has been offered on a bipartisan basis in the Senate and one that I believe should be passed immediately.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1615

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 1615 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina, and I believe he does have a genuine interest in this issue. I attended several of our meetings to discuss a bipartisan compromise, and I hope we can continue to do that. In the meantime, though, what he has offered is the Grassley approach, which was President Trump's immigration approach, which limited legal migration to the United States and members of families who wanted to be reunified, some of whom have waited 10 or 20 years to rejoin their families in the United States. Unfortunately, it also included the $25 billion wall, which may be the price that has to be paid to spare these young DACA Dreamers, but I object.

Mr. President, I have known and admired Thad Cochran for 40 years--since he first came to the Senate. At the time, I was a young staffer for Senator Bill Cohen, who also was elected to the Senate that same year.

I saw from the start that this gentleman from Mississippi was so bright, insightful, and creative yet also humble, kind, and devoted to helping others. He treated everyone with such dignity. He was nice to everyone, from the elevator operators to the highest officials around the world. He truly is one who leads by example.

Those qualities are his legacy, and I have seen them time and again as a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee when Thad was an important member and, of course, when he became the chairman.

Last year was the 150th anniversary of the creation of the Appropriations Committee, and Thad marked that occasion by reminding all of us of our great responsibility to make thoughtful and informed decisions in the allocation of public funds. In managing appropriations bills, he was always so inclusive, willing to incorporate ideas and priorities from everyone who could make a persuasive case. The fact is, Thad has always placed careful consideration and compromise above partisan politics. That really reflects how Thad has led his life.

He has excelled at everything he has ever undertaken. When he joined the Boy Scouts, he became an Eagle Scout. In his high school, he was valedictorian. In college, he had the highest scholastic achievements. He excelled in serving in the Navy, and, of course, we know how much he has accomplished as our esteemed and dear colleague here in the Senate.

When Thad served as chairman of the Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, he traveled to the State of Maine with me, and we met with Maine's potato farmers and blueberry growers--not exactly staple crops of Mississippi. Thad listened intently to these farmers and growers. It was clear that he cared about them and that he valued our family farms and our rural communities.

That night, we had a lovely Maine lobster dinner at an inn on the coast. During that dinner, Thad shared with me his passion for good literature, his love of music, and his passion for education that had been instilled in him by his parents.

Of course, another issue that brought Thad and me together was making sure that our naval fleet was strong. As a U.S. Navy veteran who served for a time in Boston, MA, Thad has always been a dedicated advocate for his shipyard in Mississippi, as I am for Bath Iron Works in the State of Maine. Thad has twice visited BIW with me to see the great work done there.

In 2013, Thad received the Navy's Distinguished Public Service Award in recognition of his longstanding commitment to American sea power.

Through four decades in the Senate, plus three terms in the House of Representatives, Thad has compiled an admirable legislative record on issues ranging from education to libraries, the arts, our national defense, scientific and biomedical research, conservation initiatives, and civil rights. But perhaps his greatest legacy is that he taught us how a Senator should act, and that legacy will live on forever.

Thad, our Nation is so grateful for your service, and I, personally, am so appreciative of your friendship. I offer my best wishes to you and to Kay. You will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, we have the opportunity today to take immediate action to lower the cost of health insurance by as much as 40 percent and to increase the affordability of insurance for millions of Americans who purchase plans in the individual market.

I commend Senator Alexander, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, for his extraordinary leadership and hard work in this area.

I am also very pleased with the work that has been done by Representative Greg Walden, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Costello.

We have come together, along with a substantial number of our colleagues, including Senators Graham, Rounds, Isakson, and Murkowski, among many others, on this very important insurance stabilization and rate reduction package.

Let me begin by outlining the major provisions of what it is that we are proposing, because there has been, unfortunately, a lot of misunderstanding and, dare I say, misinformation.

First, our legislation, based on the Alexander-Murray bill, would fund the cost-sharing reduction subsidies for 3 years. These are vital for Americans who have incomes that are below 250 percent of the poverty level. CSRs provide government assistance to help them pay for their deductibles and their copays.

Second, our proposal also improves the ability of the States to take further steps to lower insurance premiums for their citizens. We provide meaningful flexibility for States by revising section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, which authorizes State innovation waivers.

Third, based on a bill that I authored with Senator Bill Nelson, our proposal provides a total of $30 billion over 3 years for States to have reinsurance, or invisible high-risk pools, by applying for a waiver under the section 1332 program I just mentioned.

As I know the Presiding Officer well knows, reinsurance is a proven method for dealing with high-risk, expensive claims. It reduces uncertainty and has benefits not only for those who have preexisting conditions and need expensive healthcare but for the entire individual market, and it has been proven to work in States like Maine and Alaska.

We have also included $500 million to assist States with the planning of the designs of their own reinsurance, or invisible high-risk pools. In the House, the Costello bill also had a Federal fallback in recognizing that we were late in the year and that we wanted to provide help immediately, which we have included for 2019, to give States

time to apply for waivers under section 1332.

What does our bill not do?

Our proposal does not change the Affordable Care Act's essential benefit requirements. It does not change the guarantee that an individual will be able to buy insurance. It does not change the protections for people with preexisting conditions. Yet it ensures that the Federal funding directly benefits consumers and not insurance companies.

In considering this plan, Congress faces a fundamental question: Do we want to take action to significantly reduce the cost of health insurance for millions of Americans or are we just going to sit back, say no, and let this opportunity pass us by?

Time is short. If Congress fails to act, insurance rates in the individual market will skyrocket this fall. This will directly harm the 9 million Americans who pay for their own insurance without government or employer assistance. That is, for example, the fisherman in my State who is self-employed, the electrician, the plumber, the carpenter-- there are so many--the hair stylist. They are already paying far too much for their healthcare costs. Well, all of them will be facing another double-digit premium increase if they are to be insured, and rates can only be expected to continue to climb.

Healthcare premiums are already too expensive under the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the problems with the Affordable Care Act that I have been committed to fixing. Last year, the average price of the Affordable Care Act silver plans, which are the most popular plans, increased on average by 34 percent. A growing number of counties in our country are at risk of having no insurers or only one insurer, leaving hard-working individuals with few or no choices for health insurance coverage. Inaction will only exacerbate the premium spikes and the market instability we have already experienced.

When our country is confronted with such a serious problem--I mean, what is more important to people than healthcare?--Americans expect us to come together. They expect us to work constructively. They expect us to provide real relief from the rising cost of health insurance, which makes health insurance unaffordable for far too many Americans, and that is precisely what our plan would do.

Let me be crystal clear. Our proposal is the last opportunity--the last opportunity--to prevent these rate increases that will go into effect, which will be announced on October 1. Our package will help to stabilize the insurance markets and make them more competitive.

Every study has shown that our bill would make health insurance more affordable. According to the leading healthcare experts at Oliver Wyman, our bill would lower individual health insurance premiums in the individual market by as much as 40 percent compared to what people will otherwise pay if Congress fails to act. According to Oliver Wyman, it would also expand coverage to an additional 3.2 million Americans.

I want to touch on a complicated but important issue that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have raised as a reason not to pass this bill. There have been two reasons. One is the application of the Hyde amendment, which has been law for decades, which I will talk about subsequently, but the first has to do with what is referred to as silver-loading and zero-premium bronze plans.

First a little background. The Affordable Care Act was designed to provide two key subsidies for enrollees who purchased coverage on the exchange and qualified from an income standpoint. The first are premium tax credits to help cover the cost of premiums for individuals earning between 100 and 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. The second are cost-sharing subsidies, or CSRs, to help cover the cost of deductibles and copays and other out-of-pocket expenses for individuals who are very low-income--earning between 100 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Despite the fact that Congress never appropriated the funds to pay for the cost-sharing reductions, the Obama administration paid them anyway. The House sued to block this strategy and won in Federal district court.

Lacking an appropriation from Congress, President Trump stopped making these payments last year. That concerned many of us, but let me make clear--he was following the court's decision. In response, insurance companies came up with the silver-loading strategy, under which they increased the price of their silver plans to compensate for the cost-sharing reduction payments they were no longer receiving. In essence, insurers have created silver plans that mimic CSRs for low- income enrollees. Because the ACA's tax credits are tied to the silver plan premium, the tax credits ballooned in size, producing credits so large that they are often sufficient to fully cover the premiums on the bronze plans for lower income enrollees and, by the way, greatly increased the cost to Federal taxpayers, which is why the bill we put together, by right-sizing the market and avoiding the games that were played, actually pays for itself.

We all remember the old saying that ``if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'' Well, free bronze plans for low-income individuals sounded too good to be true, and they are. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are listening to this explanation. The fact is that free bronze plans are only a good deal for low-income Americans who never get sick, who never get hurt, who never need to use their insurance. If they do, they will pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars more out of pocket.

While these plans might have lower monthly payments or even be free, they have much higher deductibles and copays. Based on publicly available data pulled from the exchanges, I am going to describe an example illustrating that individuals with free bronze plans will face much steeper costs when they try to access care than if they paid the small premium for the silver plan.

Let's take the example of Chris and Caroline, ages 34 and 32, who live in Portland, ME. They bought coverage on the exchange for themselves and their two young children for 2018. They make about $34,500 a year, which is about 140 percent of the Federal poverty level. They saw that they could get a ``free'' bronze plan, or they could choose to buy the cheapest silver plan for $54.83 a month. They chose the free bronze plan, not realizing that the silver plan would have given them access to subsidies, which provide lower deductibles and copays to low-income people. If Caroline gets pregnant this year and they are under the free bronze plan, they are going to have to pay out of pocket $7,350--and they make $34,500 a year. Had they picked the least expensive silver plan, they would have had to pay $500.

Consider a hypothetical couple in their early thirties, Jacob and Emma, with two young children, living in Seattle, WA. They are making just under $35,000 a year. When they went shopping for coverage on the exchange, they, too, saw that they could get a free bronze plan, or they could buy the least expensive silver plan for about $84 a month. Jacob and Emma chose the free bronze plan, which doesn't come with the subsidies included in the silver plan to help low-income families with deductibles and copays. If someone in this young family faces a serious illness this year, the silver plan in Washington State would have capped Emma and Jacob's additional expenses at $660. Unfortunately, they have the so-called free bronze plan that some of my colleagues have been touting. They would face up to $7,210 in out-of-pocket expenses--hardly an affordable option for this low-income family.

It used to be well understood by the affordability advocates in and out of the Senate that low-income Americans struggled to meet deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. Just 1 year ago today, the Kaiser Family Foundation issued a report arguing against the House reform bill because it did not contain CSRs, noting that ``cost-sharing reductions are a key part of the financial support currently provided to [low-income] enrollees'' and that without such support, deductibles ``are often out of reach for people with lower and modest income.''

A prior Kaiser Family Foundation report from 2015 showed that only 1 in 10 individuals earning between 100 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level--those are the individuals who would be eligible for CSRs under our bill--has savings or other assets large enough to cover a $6,000 deductible. In other

words, without CSRs, 90 percent of these individuals will have to wipe out their savings to cover their medical expenses before they even meet their deductible. Those who can't meet their deductible won't get reimbursed. For these Americans, a zero-premium plan will really mean a zero-benefit plan.

I cannot believe that silver-loading and free bronze plans is a credible long-term strategy. First, I would note, in addition to the examples I have given, that CBO assessments from last year were that the silver-loading strategy would cost the Federal taxpayers $194 billion over the budget window. Second, because low-income individuals will struggle to meet their deductibles, they will be unable to secure reimbursement of expenses. Sooner or later, taxpayers are going to be asking why they are paying nearly $200 billion more to subsidize policies that deliver such poor benefits.

To be clear, the amendment we are offering prevents this strategy, protecting lower and modest-income enrollees, low-income families and individuals and the taxpayers.

Now, let me discuss the Hyde amendment. I am disappointed, to say the least, that Democrats, who ought to have embraced this proposal, have instead rejected it because its funding is subject to the Hyde amendment. As a pro-choice Republican, I must say this puzzles me. The Hyde amendment has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortions for more than 40 years. It is not new policy. The entire Labor-HHS title of the omnibus before us today is subject to the Hyde amendment.

There are variations of the Hyde amendment in other titles of the omnibus spending bill. It applies to a long list of Federal programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, TRICARE, Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Service, the Peace Corps, the Bureau of Prisons, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I have heard it said that it doesn't apply to commercial insurance that is offered by the Federal Government--that is just not true. It applies to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, through which 8.3 million employees, retirees, and their families get their health insurance coverage. I have not seen my Democratic friends make any effort to change the applicability of Hyde to that insurance program.

Together, these programs account for more than $1 trillion in government spending each year--all of which is covered by the Hyde amendment. That is 100 times the amount of reinsurance we are proposing in our amendment. A trillion dollars of Federal healthcare funding is already covered by the Hyde amendment, which has been policy for 40 years. So how is this, in any way, a radical departure from current policy?

I find it frustrating that some on the other side of the aisle are choosing to block this important package that will provide relief to those who need it most because of the application of the Hyde amendment. Let me say, they cite the Stupak amendment, which is section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act. We leave that in place, we don't touch it, and we do not change the Hyde amendment's exemptions found in section 507, which allow private entities, State governments, or individuals to use their own funds to provide coverage for abortion. In other words, this is nothing radical or new, and it is baffling and gravely disappointing that this should be used to block this package.

Dozens of healthcare consumer and business groups, as well as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners--those State commissioners whose job it is to look out for consumers--have called upon Congress to take action to lower premiums for millions of Americans and their families. These groups include the American Hospital Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Federation of American Hospitals, and there are a wide range of groups representing people with diseases, such as arthritis, cancer, epilepsy. The United Way has called for action, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the American Lung Association. Just yesterday, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners put out a new letter in support of market stabilization.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these three letters be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. President, how incredibly disappointing it would be if some Members derailed this serious effort to reduce the cost of health insurance for millions of Americans. While Members may disagree with certain provisions, the time has come for each and every Senator to decide: Are you for lower rates and more affordable coverage for the 18 million Americans who get their insurance from the individual market or are you content to just sit back and let their insurance rates soar once again this fall, making health insurance even less affordable than it already is?

In my view, the answer is clear and obvious. We must not lose sight of our goal, and that is making health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans. Including our insurance package in the omnibus funding bill is the right thing to do, and it is urgent that we do it now.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate proceeds to the consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 1625, the omnibus appropriations bill, the Collins-Alexander amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about an issue we have talked about a lot in Washington but frankly haven't done enough about, and that is gun violence. In the next number of hours-- certainly all day Saturday--we are going have demonstrations across the country. Young people will be going into local communities, as well as coming to Washington, to march on behalf of those whose lives have been lost and to urge us to take action. The exact name of the effort being undertaken is March for Our Lives. We have never seen on this issue-- and maybe any other issue--this kind of intense activism that young people have undertaken across the country.

This march on Saturday, March for Our Lives, will be unprecedented in recent American history. I am going to be in the city of Philadelphia, and I know some people will be marching in Washington, as well as in communities across the country.

The focus of the work of young people across the country--starting with the students in Parkland, FL, but growing all across the country in these many weeks--will be taking action, demanding that the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and any other legislative body that can have an impact on this should take action. That is what they are demanding. I think there are a number of folks in Washington who have wanted to take action for years.

I hope, in response to that activism, in response to those marches, when we come back after our break--and I hope days and weeks after that--that there will be a response here in the Senate and that we will debate the issue or debate one amendment or one bill and then vote on it, and then take the next bill and vote on that, and keep going until we have a number of votes. It doesn't mean that we can be certain of the outcome. In my judgment, the reason to have a vote is to make sure that the American people see us debating this issue and voting on it.

Otherwise, to take no action, to simply say that there is nothing we can do about a uniquely American problem--the other option of course is to surrender, to say that gun violence is just part of American life, we have to get used to it, there is nothing we can do about it, and surrender to the problem. I think most Americans don't want to keep reading that number of deaths that pile up every year. At last count, there were 33,000 gun deaths in 1 year. I don't think many Americans want to settle for that. That is not the America I know. That is not the America most people know.

In America, we take action on tough issues. We tackle them or try to tackle them. We don't surrender to the problem. We don't surrender to one political point of view and say that paralysis leads to no solution. That is not American.

Back in December of 2012, when Sandy Hook Elementary School was the scene of the kind of horror and carnage that we have rarely seen in American history, there also was that predisposition to just move on and do nothing, to say there is nothing we can do. I was confronted with those questions that same weekend because I knew, in the months ahead, there would be a series of votes. There turned out to be a vote on background checks, a vote on the limitation of high-capacity magazines--in essence, how many

bullets can an individual shoot at any one time. That is the reason for the mass casualties. That is the reason we have so many people who die in school shootings or in movie theaters or in nightclubs or in so many other settings, and, most recently, in yet another school. The third vote, of course, was a vote to ban military-style assault weapons.

Knowing I would be facing those votes, which turned out to be in the early part of 2013, I had to ask myself a basic question, and I think this is a question a lot of Americans are asking at times like this: Is there nothing the most powerful country in the world, the most powerful country in the history of the human race, could do to at least reduce the likelihood that we will not have more mass shootings, we will not have more school shootings, we will not go year after year, after 33,000 people lost their lives from gunshot wounds--a number that is likely to grow if we don't take action. That is the choice: Do almost nothing, nothing itself, or take action. That is the fundamental choice we face. That is why we need votes and debates preceding those votes.

It is hard to comprehend that it has been half a decade--5 years-- since we had a sustained debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate on gun violence. We have had intermittent debates. We have had limited discussions. We have had some speeches. I guess all of that is helpful, but we have had no sustained debate on one of the major issues facing the American people.

They don't expect us to solve this problem in a couple of days or weeks, but they do expect us to vote, and they expect us to debate. After 5 years, it is about time we had a sustained debate.

Many of us receive letters on a range of issues, depending on what the issue of the week is or the issue of the month is. I recently received mail in a form we don't see enough of anymore--postcards. These were written by students and individuals too young to even be referred to as students. Here is one that is only age 5. His name is Corey. He said in his note to me that he doesn't want to have guns in his school, and he wants me to do something about it. It goes on from there in the short note, and he attached some artwork in the back. That is what Corey said; he doesn't want to have guns in school.

Then there is Mason, who wrote to me and said:

I want to feel safe in school. There should not be guns in

my school.

He goes on to talk about what he is worried about. He said: ``I want to feel safe in school.''

Then, finally, probably the one who summed up these issues the best was a young man by the name of Hayden. He wrote to me and said:

I am a 5th grader and I don't feel safe because it is too

easy to get a gun permit. I should not know about this stuff.

I don't feel safe.

Then he ended with this question: ``Am I worth it?'' Then Hayden asked again: ``Am I worth it?'' He asked that twice in a postcard where he is just writing a few sentences. Then he put a heart on the other side. In a few sentences, Hayden is summing up the challenge we face in the Senate and across the country. He said twice in the same letter: ``I do not feel safe. . . . I don't feel safe''--something probably most people my age or in my generation, so to speak, never had to worry about.

We didn't think of going to school and being threatened by gun violence. There might have been anxiety in school, there might have been things we were worried about, but this wasn't one of them. This is new, and this was a uniquely American problem. No other country in the world faces this kind of a problem.

We have to ask ourselves if a young person in fifth grade doesn't feel safe because of these mass shootings, and mass shootings in school, and then asks us, ``Am I worth it,'' every one of us in both parties should say: Of course, you are worth it, Hayden. Hayden is worth the effort to try to keep him safe in school.

If the answer to that question is yes, that he is worth us doing something about it, then you have to ask the question, What am I going to do about it? Are we just going to do what we usually do around here, just don't vote, don't have any sustained debate, and pretend it is not happening because there are forces out there that have a stranglehold on the process that say: You are not even allowed to vote, let alone debate and pass a bill.

There are forces out there that don't even want us to debate the issue, but I think we can do more to respond to Hayden's request and, of course, respond to what young people across the country are demanding.

You have young people who are not old enough to vote yet--and I am not just talking about Hayden and his postcard but all those young people who are coming to Washington and going to town squares in small towns and big cities to march for their lives. Many of them are not 18 years old yet. They can't vote, and they are leading the country, suggesting to us how to vote, demanding that we take action. It is rather ironic that this problem has gotten so bad that young people who still cannot cast a vote are asking us to do our jobs and to vote.

It is not difficult to vote in the U.S. Senate. Usually, you just have to be standing and put your hand up or thumb up or some indication to the individuals in the Senate who record those votes. It is not that difficult. It doesn't require a lot of exertion. It doesn't require a lot of energy. You just have to be on the floor, be standing, and say yes or no. If someone wants to vote against all these gun measures, if they want to vote against background checks and limitation on the high- capacity magazines and still let what we have in American law now, which is a terrorist can get a gun in America--if you want to continue that, fine. That is your choice. That is your choice, but at least vote. At least have the sense of responsibility to vote on a tough issue.

We will have an opportunity to answer the postcard and answer the question Hayden asked--is he worth it? I think he is, and I think we ought to vote.

Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month

Mr. President, I will be brief. I just want to note one of the recognitions of this month. I want to take a moment and remind everyone that March is Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month.

In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 14 percent of children in the United States have a developmental disability; that is, almost 10 million children. Developmental disabilities include autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, learning disabilities, and many other congenital disabilities.

In the past, we took a rather paternalistic point of view with regard to people with developmental disabilities--taking care of them but not raising them up and fostering their skills and abilities. This was shortsighted on our part.

Today, with the help of such laws as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--we heard a lot about that referred to by its acronym, IDEA--the Americans with Disabilities Act, so-called ADA, and then my legislation from a couple of years ago, the ABLE Act, each of these pieces of legislation are breaking down barriers to encourage and support people with developmental and all types of disabilities.

People with developmental disabilities contribute numerous benefits to our society. In Pennsylvania, thousands of people with developmental disabilities are working in competitive, integrated jobs at such places as SAP, FedEx Ground, PNC Bank, Giant Eagle grocery stores, and many small businesses throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

People with developmental disabilities make our lives richer and fuller. As we celebrate them, I pledge--I know this is a pledge many in the Senate make--to protect their rights and the rights of all people with disabilities to have equal access to all of our society.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to talk a little bit about election security, but on a day like today, I have to at least mention where we are with the giant omnibus bill that got dropped on us last night at about 8:30--about 2,300 pages of legislative text--to try to deal with all of government spending, all of discretionary spending.

If people don't know what an omnibus is, it is where we are supposed to pass 12 individuals bills dealing with 12 different topics of our spending. An omnibus is when you take all 12 of those and just do it at once. It is supposed to be the exception to the rule, but for the last 17 years, we have done some version of an omnibus. Today's vote will be the 18th.

We have 2,300 pages with technical legislative language and less than 24 hours to be able to go through it. There is no way to be able to discover what all is in it.

There is another historic event that has happened this past week, as well, which I think connects to this omnibus. Last Friday, the Treasury Department announced that we just crossed over $21 trillion in total debt--$21 trillion.

I have had some folks who have caught me and said: Now that we have gone over $21 trillion and it looks like we could be rapidly approaching $1 trillion of deficit this year alone--which would mean that in the next 12 to 14 months, we will go from $21 trillion to $22 trillion in total debt--gosh, that looks terrible. It has to be this Republican tax plan that is causing it. Well, there will probably be some deficit spending with the Republican tax plan that went in because it will take a couple of years for the income to be able to accelerate with it, but this omnibus alone is $300 billion of additional spending--just this, $300 billion.

So we go up to over $600 billion in deficit spending this past year, and this omnibus will add another $300 billion to that. The disaster relief funding that was done this year was $140 billion on top of that, and the interest payment increase--just the increase--from last year to this year was $54 billion.

It is not just some Republican tax plan that made this change. This is a very rapid acceleration in overspending that is happening right in front of our eyes, and the omnibus is not slowing it down. It is accelerating it. We have to change how we are doing budgeting and the trajectory that we face.

There are 16 of us who have started meeting last month--8 Democrats and 8 Republicans, half from the House and half from the Senate--to evaluate how we do budgeting.

The 1974 Congressional Budget Act that we are currently operating under created this incredibly complicated system that has not worked in a decade. Every year we come up and try to do it again, and every year we end up with some omnibus package, and none of us has an amendment. None of us has an opportunity to be able to see it, read it, or go through it. It is just this: Here is the number. There it is. Vote for it or not.

We have to be able to fix that process. There is no long-term strategy. There is no regular order. There is no opportunity to be able to make changes. There is no plan.

My hope is that by the end of the year, this bipartisan group will have the opportunity to be able to present a different way of doing budgeting. That is not trying to be partisan but just to be able to put a neutral process in place in which we can actually be strategic about where we are going, because we are accidentally stumbling into more and more debt every single month, and it will happen again today.

Election Security

Mr. President, I wish to chat with this body a little bit about election security. Just to give a quick update, as many of you know, the Department of Homeland Security has been actively engaged in trying to fix what they can on election security leading up to the 2018 time period.

I have absolutely zero doubt that the Russians tried to meddle in our elections in 2016. They started in 2014 trying to strategically plan for how they were going to try to interfere in our elections--the social media, the false news, and as many different ways as they can to be able to get out information and misinformation. They started the process early. Quite frankly, they planned and executed well. They exposed a weakness in our system.

We are an open society that is exceptionally trusting of each other, and we are not used to having a foreign entity try to reach in and try to influence us like that.

What the Russians exposed in 2016, we should be well able to push back against in 2018 and 2020 and not be caught off guard again. The Russians reached in and scammed multiple States in their election systems. They were looking at voter rolls, trying to figure out if they could get access to those. Now, they can't change votes by just looking at voter registrations, but if they could look at and download those files, they could also change those files, edit names, edit addresses, and then, suddenly, when people show up to vote, they are not really registered anymore or they are registered at a different precinct. They could create chaos on election day just by going in and editing those names. They could go into the unofficial results websites of secretaries of State and during the

day of the election actually start putting up false election results or changing algorithms and numbers, so that when numbers are added, they are actually counted wrong, just to create uncertainty in the process. So when the actual election day comes, the unofficial results come out, and they are not reliable and everyone doubts the system itself.

Again, that doesn't change votes, and it doesn't change outcomes, but it certainly destabilizes the system. We should be aware of that.

We have multiple States--there are not many, but there are around 10 to 12 States--that cannot audit their elections when Election Day comes and goes. That means that they are completely counting on the machine to be able to keep an accurate count. Now, that machine is not attached to the internet. In fact, there is no State that has their election equipment attached to the internet on the day of the election, but for almost every one of them, there is a software update right before the election. If any entity were to be able to get into any one of the third-party software companies when the update is done and just put a bit of software in there that just messes with the machine, you would literally not know if that election result was reliable or not.

Did that happen last time? No. Were the Russians looking to try to find different software companies and the different makes and models of those companies that make our election machines? Yes, and we should take that as a warning sign. Last time they were looking, and next time they may be looking to mess with it and change it. We should be well prepared for that.

We have a piece of legislation. It is a very straightforward piece of legislation about secure elections. Myself, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins, and most of us who are all engaged in this one simple issue say: How do we stabilize our elections system?

Elections are run by States and should be run by States. There is no reason for us to federalize elections, but the Federal Government should walk alongside States and say some simple things: We are going to have quick communication between the States and the Federal Government. So if a foreign entity is trying to reach into your State to mess with your system, we can quickly let you know about it, and we can help you in the process of protecting your State.

The last time this occurred in 2016, it was months before the Department of Homeland Security was able to actually engage with those States to let them know that what was really happening was a foreign actor and to be able to help them with their security. We have to be faster on that.

We want to be able to streamline that communication. We want to encourage States, when they buy election equipment or they get election equipment, that they be able to audit their results on the day of the elections. The Federal Government should not pick their equipment. Those States should because it is a State responsibility. But we should incentivize them to actually lean in and make sure their equipment is good, because at the end of the day, in a Presidential election, we are all counting on every other State to make sure their election system is good. If it is not, it is a problem for all of us.

We want to make sure that there is not only streamlined communication and that there is not only good and auditable equipment, but that we actually give classification to individuals so that they can deal with classified information. That didn't happen last time, and so, again, it was months before there was any contact back and forth, because the Federal Government wanted to notify the States of what was happening, but no one had the clearance to be able to get the information. Let's fix that.

DHS is in the process of fixing that, but we would like to put in legislation that just remains, so that in the future, we don't lull ourselves to sleep again. Last time, it was the Russians. Next time, it could be the North Koreans. Next time, it could be the Iranians. Next time, it could be a domestic activist group that is just mad at somebody for something, and they have learned the vulnerabilities that the Russians pointed out.

In the days ahead, we need to secure our system for our election. It is not a partisan issue. It shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it should be something we learn the lesson on.

We are quickly learning the lessons about our vulnerabilities--cyber vulnerabilities in our pipelines, in our electric grids, in our phone systems, in internet fibers, in our election systems, in our banking systems, and in multiple other areas. We should learn this lesson and learn it well.

There are people who mean to do us harm. They are not necessarily going to attack us bodily, but they don't like our growing economy, they don't like our values, they don't like our openness, and they want to use our openness against us. We can't imagine doing that to someone else. They practice doing that to us.

We need to put up a basic guard, and we need to communicate to nations and nation-states around the world: If you come and attack us, this is going to be our response, so that they clearly know what they are facing when they come after us next time.

It happened once. It will happen again. Let's make sure that we are ready. Let's pass this bill about safe elections and get our elections secure so that we can trust the results year after year after year, as we have in the past.

I yield the floor.