Take Care Act

Mr. President, President Trump was famous for many things even before he was elected. One of those things was the catch-phrase ``You're fired,'' which he popularized on his reality TV show ``The Apprentice.''

This is a relatively commonplace phrase. It is something that most persons are familiar with, but it is not surprising that the phrase would have so much appeal for a television audience. I think the reason has something to do with the fact that it carries a certain power and resonance with it because the person who has the authority to use it within any organization is, generally speaking, a person who gets to call the shots. It is emblematic of executive control and, therefore, the ability to get things done within an organization.

That is not to say that good leaders get their way solely or even primarily by threatening to fire people who work for them. Effective leadership, more often than not, requires what are sometimes called soft leadership skills.

But the fact, nonetheless, remains that the head of an organization must always have hanging in reserve, sort of like an employer Damoclean sword--the absolute right to terminate a subordinate.

It is the ultimate and essential backstop that enforces and reifies an executive's power to make decisions. This is true for pretty much any leader, whether that leader happens to be the CEO of a corporation, the coach of a sports team, or a general out on the field of battle.

Yet, remarkably, under our laws, the President of the United States lacks authority over many high-ranking officers within the executive branch. Despite its elemental association with Executive power, Congress and the courts have time and again deprived the President of the ability to remove his subordinates at will.

These restrictions often take the form of statutory for-cause removal

protections, such as the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act that provides that Commissioners may be removed only ``for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.''

In enacting laws like this, Congress has cast aside the original meaning of the Constitution and thereby eroded a critical safeguard of American freedom. As anyone who has studied the Constitution or constitutional law, for that matter, can guess, my reference to the FTC's for-cause protection is not accidental.

That statute formed the basis of the lawsuit that culminated in the 1935 decision by the Supreme Court in a case called Humphrey's Executor, in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that Congress may impose restrictions on the President's removal power.

In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier precedent in Myers v. United States, which had held that Congress may not limit the President's ability to remove principal officers within the Federal Government, but Humphrey's Executor didn't simply overrule Myers. Rather, as Justice Scalia later wrote, ``it gutt[ed], in six quick pages devoid of textual or historical precedent. . . . a carefully researched and reasoned 70-page opinion.'' That juxtaposition alone tells you what you need to know about these decisions. One had constitutional text and original understanding and historical precedent behind it. The other was constitutional law by judicial fiat.

Article II of the Constitution unquestionably establishes a unitary executive. The vesting clause provides that ``the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.''

As Alexander Hamilton explained it in Federalist No. 70, placing the totality of the Executive power in a single individual was no happenstance. It was no mistake. It wasn't just sort of some fluke. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized that a unified executive was essential to ensure energy and accountability in the execution of the laws, and the Constitution was drafted accordingly, consistent with this understanding.

Without the authority to supervise and direct, and, yes, ultimately fire his subordinates, it is impossible for the President to fulfill his duty imposed by article II to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''

The Founders also understood that the President's removal power was the bedrock of his authority to oversee the executive branch. In a famous debate during the First Congress, James Madison argued that ``if any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.''

He went on to note that ``if the President should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; [they] will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.''

Madison's argument prevailed, and the First Congress declined, on constitutional grounds, for the reasons articulated by James Madison himself, to create for-cause removal protections for the heads of the newly established executive branch departments. They considered it; Madison raised, very persuasively, this constitutional argument against it; and then they voted it down. That was the original understanding of the removal power, and it predominated for nearly 150 years after the Founding.

Since Humphrey's Executor and its radical departure from the original understanding in 1935, for-cause removal protections, both statutory and otherwise, have, sadly, proliferated, giving rise to a vast, headless, out-of-control branch of government, a fourth branch of government, if you will, that exists beyond the control of the President and is therefore unaccountable to the people.

In fact, by some estimations, there are over 80 so-called independent agencies within the executive branch. These executive branch agencies that we refer to somehow as independent are entrusted with regulating immense swaths of American life--from competition policy and workplace safety regulations to labor relations and even securities laws. They make rules; they adjudicate rights; and they enforce laws. The potential for abuse is tremendous; the inconsistency with the republican principles this country was founded on, obvious.

Now, there are a lot of people here who like the sound of the term ``independent agency,'' and they might suppose, incorrectly, that an agency that is independent, that is beyond the control of the President of the United States to oversee, that that is somehow a good thing.

On closer inspection, we discover that quite the opposite is true. When we insulate someone from Presidential oversight, what we are doing is taking the American people out of the picture. There is a reason why we have elections every 4 years, and those elections focus on the election of a President. It is so there is some chain of accountability between the people and the executive branch of government.

That has become more important, not less, over the last few decades as we have created more and more executive branch agencies and we have entrusted those agencies with more and more power. It has never been more important than it is today to make sure the people are connected. If you disconnect the American people by insulating them from the political process, then you have a whole group of people who these days are charged not just with administrating the laws but, in some cases, with effectively making it and interpreting it, and you are taking them beyond the supervision that would otherwise be appropriate by the President of the United States within the executive branch of government.

In their fight against British tyranny, the Patriots of the American Revolution rallied behind the principle of ``no taxation without representation.'' Today we are faced with a somewhat different threat to freedom, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a case just a few years ago. ``The growth of the Executive Branch, which now wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life, heightens the concern that it may slip from the Executive's control, and thus from that of the people.''

In other words, as Chief Justice Roberts explained, when you take this power away from the President, you are taking it away from the people. The people lose their input on and their control over these very important functions of what is appropriately described as the people's government.

The concern is further compounded by the existence of independent agencies that are, by law, divorced from any Presidential control. As a result, in this new fight against tyranny, our watchword perhaps must be ``no regulation without representation.'' That is why I have spearheaded the Article I Project and why I supported legislation such as the REINS Act and the Separation of Powers Restoration Act that would bring the Federal regulatory apparatus, as we know it, to heel.

Of course, more is needed. We need to not only reform Congress's relationship with the administrative state but the President's as well. To that end, I am introducing new legislation called the Take Care Act. The bill would restore the unitary executive envisioned by the Founders and, in fact, required by the Constitution by stripping away all existing for-cause removal protections from the so-called independent agencies. It would also limit Congress's ability to create for-cause protections by implication in the future and take other critical steps to fortify the President's directive authority.

Simply put, the Take Care Act would eliminate the headless fourth branch of government, empower the President to ensure faithful execution of the law, and make the bureaucracy accountable to the people again. Importantly, the Take Care Act would not cause the work of administrative agencies to become subject to the unmitigated whims and caprices of a President. There is still very real, very meaningful political constraints, including the Senate's advise and consent role, that would ensure, as they do now, in areas outside of these so-called independent agencies, that the executive officers can fulfill their congressionally assigned duties without undue interference.

In other words, although there are some so-called independent agencies as to which the President has no removal

power, there are a whole lot that are not. The President's Cabinet and many other positions within the Federal Government involve people who are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who serve at the pleasure of the President who can be fired at any moment for any reason the President might deem appropriate.

Nevertheless, that does not mean that Presidents go around just firing people arbitrarily because Presidents understand that there is a political cost to doing that. We have seen in recent years, and we have seen earlier in American history, how Presidents, even when they have disagreements with members of their Cabinet or other people who serve at the pleasure of the President--Presidents are still reluctant to fire people because there are political costs attached to that, and especially where Congress perceives there might be a partisan political motive in mind, Congress may well take action.

In the case of the Senate, it almost inevitably will at least threaten, if not carry out the threat, to hold up future confirmations of Presidential appointees if Presidents abuse this power.

So it simply isn't true to say that this would open the floodgates and cause all Presidents to just fire people arbitrarily without hesitation in the future. What it would mean is that our elected President would have the power to represent the people and to oversee the executive branch of the Federal Government just as article II already requires.

So all this bill would do would be to rescind and limit unconstitutional restrictions on the President's removal power, and while it may be more convenient to limit this power by statute, convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the hallmarks of a democratic government, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us.

Another famous catchphrase popularized by an American President is ``the buck stops here,'' which President Truman, of course, displayed on a placard on his desk in the Oval Office at the White House during his Presidency. What it means is, the President is the final decision maker within the executive branch, and, therefore, bears the sole and ultimate responsibility for executing the laws.

In order to fulfill that very special, sacred, important responsibility, the President must have plenary power to direct the President's subordinates in how they carry out their assigned tasks and, if necessary, fire them. That is what the Constitution and, indeed, common sense require. By restoring the original understanding and restoring the removal power to the Presidency, the Take Care Act would give the President this authority.

By taking this step, we would reempower the American people with that which is rightfully theirs to begin with.

Mr. President, President Trump was famous for many things even before he was elected. One of those things was the catch-phrase ``You're fired,'' which he popularized on his reality TV show ``The Apprentice.''

This is a relatively commonplace phrase. It is something that most persons are familiar with, but it is not surprising that the phrase would have so much appeal for a television audience. I think the reason has something to do with the fact that it carries a certain power and resonance with it because the person who has the authority to use it within any organization is, generally speaking, a person who gets to call the shots. It is emblematic of executive control and, therefore, the ability to get things done within an organization.

That is not to say that good leaders get their way solely or even primarily by threatening to fire people who work for them. Effective leadership, more often than not, requires what are sometimes called soft leadership skills.

But the fact, nonetheless, remains that the head of an organization must always have hanging in reserve, sort of like an employer Damoclean sword--the absolute right to terminate a subordinate.

It is the ultimate and essential backstop that enforces and reifies an executive's power to make decisions. This is true for pretty much any leader, whether that leader happens to be the CEO of a corporation, the coach of a sports team, or a general out on the field of battle.

Yet, remarkably, under our laws, the President of the United States lacks authority over many high-ranking officers within the executive branch. Despite its elemental association with Executive power, Congress and the courts have time and again deprived the President of the ability to remove his subordinates at will.

These restrictions often take the form of statutory for-cause removal

protections, such as the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act that provides that Commissioners may be removed only ``for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.''

In enacting laws like this, Congress has cast aside the original meaning of the Constitution and thereby eroded a critical safeguard of American freedom. As anyone who has studied the Constitution or constitutional law, for that matter, can guess, my reference to the FTC's for-cause protection is not accidental.

That statute formed the basis of the lawsuit that culminated in the 1935 decision by the Supreme Court in a case called Humphrey's Executor, in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that Congress may impose restrictions on the President's removal power.

In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier precedent in Myers v. United States, which had held that Congress may not limit the President's ability to remove principal officers within the Federal Government, but Humphrey's Executor didn't simply overrule Myers. Rather, as Justice Scalia later wrote, ``it gutt[ed], in six quick pages devoid of textual or historical precedent. . . . a carefully researched and reasoned 70-page opinion.'' That juxtaposition alone tells you what you need to know about these decisions. One had constitutional text and original understanding and historical precedent behind it. The other was constitutional law by judicial fiat.

Article II of the Constitution unquestionably establishes a unitary executive. The vesting clause provides that ``the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.''

As Alexander Hamilton explained it in Federalist No. 70, placing the totality of the Executive power in a single individual was no happenstance. It was no mistake. It wasn't just sort of some fluke. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized that a unified executive was essential to ensure energy and accountability in the execution of the laws, and the Constitution was drafted accordingly, consistent with this understanding.

Without the authority to supervise and direct, and, yes, ultimately fire his subordinates, it is impossible for the President to fulfill his duty imposed by article II to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''

The Founders also understood that the President's removal power was the bedrock of his authority to oversee the executive branch. In a famous debate during the First Congress, James Madison argued that ``if any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.''

He went on to note that ``if the President should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; [they] will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.''

Madison's argument prevailed, and the First Congress declined, on constitutional grounds, for the reasons articulated by James Madison himself, to create for-cause removal protections for the heads of the newly established executive branch departments. They considered it; Madison raised, very persuasively, this constitutional argument against it; and then they voted it down. That was the original understanding of the removal power, and it predominated for nearly 150 years after the Founding.

Since Humphrey's Executor and its radical departure from the original understanding in 1935, for-cause removal protections, both statutory and otherwise, have, sadly, proliferated, giving rise to a vast, headless, out-of-control branch of government, a fourth branch of government, if you will, that exists beyond the control of the President and is therefore unaccountable to the people.

In fact, by some estimations, there are over 80 so-called independent agencies within the executive branch. These executive branch agencies that we refer to somehow as independent are entrusted with regulating immense swaths of American life--from competition policy and workplace safety regulations to labor relations and even securities laws. They make rules; they adjudicate rights; and they enforce laws. The potential for abuse is tremendous; the inconsistency with the republican principles this country was founded on, obvious.

Now, there are a lot of people here who like the sound of the term ``independent agency,'' and they might suppose, incorrectly, that an agency that is independent, that is beyond the control of the President of the United States to oversee, that that is somehow a good thing.

On closer inspection, we discover that quite the opposite is true. When we insulate someone from Presidential oversight, what we are doing is taking the American people out of the picture. There is a reason why we have elections every 4 years, and those elections focus on the election of a President. It is so there is some chain of accountability between the people and the executive branch of government.

That has become more important, not less, over the last few decades as we have created more and more executive branch agencies and we have entrusted those agencies with more and more power. It has never been more important than it is today to make sure the people are connected. If you disconnect the American people by insulating them from the political process, then you have a whole group of people who these days are charged not just with administrating the laws but, in some cases, with effectively making it and interpreting it, and you are taking them beyond the supervision that would otherwise be appropriate by the President of the United States within the executive branch of government.

In their fight against British tyranny, the Patriots of the American Revolution rallied behind the principle of ``no taxation without representation.'' Today we are faced with a somewhat different threat to freedom, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a case just a few years ago. ``The growth of the Executive Branch, which now wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life, heightens the concern that it may slip from the Executive's control, and thus from that of the people.''

In other words, as Chief Justice Roberts explained, when you take this power away from the President, you are taking it away from the people. The people lose their input on and their control over these very important functions of what is appropriately described as the people's government.

The concern is further compounded by the existence of independent agencies that are, by law, divorced from any Presidential control. As a result, in this new fight against tyranny, our watchword perhaps must be ``no regulation without representation.'' That is why I have spearheaded the Article I Project and why I supported legislation such as the REINS Act and the Separation of Powers Restoration Act that would bring the Federal regulatory apparatus, as we know it, to heel.

Of course, more is needed. We need to not only reform Congress's relationship with the administrative state but the President's as well. To that end, I am introducing new legislation called the Take Care Act. The bill would restore the unitary executive envisioned by the Founders and, in fact, required by the Constitution by stripping away all existing for-cause removal protections from the so-called independent agencies. It would also limit Congress's ability to create for-cause protections by implication in the future and take other critical steps to fortify the President's directive authority.

Simply put, the Take Care Act would eliminate the headless fourth branch of government, empower the President to ensure faithful execution of the law, and make the bureaucracy accountable to the people again. Importantly, the Take Care Act would not cause the work of administrative agencies to become subject to the unmitigated whims and caprices of a President. There is still very real, very meaningful political constraints, including the Senate's advise and consent role, that would ensure, as they do now, in areas outside of these so-called independent agencies, that the executive officers can fulfill their congressionally assigned duties without undue interference.

In other words, although there are some so-called independent agencies as to which the President has no removal

power, there are a whole lot that are not. The President's Cabinet and many other positions within the Federal Government involve people who are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who serve at the pleasure of the President who can be fired at any moment for any reason the President might deem appropriate.

Nevertheless, that does not mean that Presidents go around just firing people arbitrarily because Presidents understand that there is a political cost to doing that. We have seen in recent years, and we have seen earlier in American history, how Presidents, even when they have disagreements with members of their Cabinet or other people who serve at the pleasure of the President--Presidents are still reluctant to fire people because there are political costs attached to that, and especially where Congress perceives there might be a partisan political motive in mind, Congress may well take action.

In the case of the Senate, it almost inevitably will at least threaten, if not carry out the threat, to hold up future confirmations of Presidential appointees if Presidents abuse this power.

So it simply isn't true to say that this would open the floodgates and cause all Presidents to just fire people arbitrarily without hesitation in the future. What it would mean is that our elected President would have the power to represent the people and to oversee the executive branch of the Federal Government just as article II already requires.

So all this bill would do would be to rescind and limit unconstitutional restrictions on the President's removal power, and while it may be more convenient to limit this power by statute, convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the hallmarks of a democratic government, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us.

Another famous catchphrase popularized by an American President is ``the buck stops here,'' which President Truman, of course, displayed on a placard on his desk in the Oval Office at the White House during his Presidency. What it means is, the President is the final decision maker within the executive branch, and, therefore, bears the sole and ultimate responsibility for executing the laws.

In order to fulfill that very special, sacred, important responsibility, the President must have plenary power to direct the President's subordinates in how they carry out their assigned tasks and, if necessary, fire them. That is what the Constitution and, indeed, common sense require. By restoring the original understanding and restoring the removal power to the Presidency, the Take Care Act would give the President this authority.

By taking this step, we would reempower the American people with that which is rightfully theirs to begin with.

I rise today to once again speak about the ongoing threat in the Trump administration to the healthcare and guaranteed protections that millions of American families depend upon. President Trump has tried to pass through the Congress repeal plans that would take people's healthcare away and allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting health conditions or refuse to serve them at all.

When that legislative repeal effort failed in 2017, instead of working in a bipartisan way to lower healthcare costs and improve access to care for all Americans, President Trump turned to another tactic--sabotaging our healthcare system--and there are more Americans uninsured today than there were when he took office.

The Trump administration has even gone to court. They have gone to court to support a lawsuit that would overturn the Affordable Care Act, including its provisions that protect people with preexisting health conditions from discrimination. Just think about that. He is asking a court to strike down healthcare protections for Americans. If he succeeds, insurance companies will once again be able to deny coverage or charge much higher premiums

for the more than 130 million Americans who have some sort of preexisting health condition, including more than 2 million who live in the State of Wisconsin.

What is the President's plan to protect people with preexisting conditions? He doesn't have one. He never has. And I have to say that I doubt he ever will. In fact, this administration has expanded what I call junk insurance plans. These are insurance plans that can deny coverage to people with preexisting health conditions, and they don't have to cover basic and essential health services, like prescription drugs or emergency room visits or maternity care. Most of these junk plans don't cover those things.

When I spoke about this expansion of what I call junk insurance on the Senate floor 2 weeks ago, one of my Republican colleagues responded and claimed that these plans preserve preexisting conditions protections and essential health benefits. So today I wanted to clarify the record, and let's look at the fine print together.

One of the junk plans currently available in my home State of Wisconsin reads, ``This plan has a preexisting limitation provision that may prevent coverage from applying to medical conditions that existed prior to this plan's effective date.''

Another junk plan that is sold in Wisconsin states that the plan does not comply with the guaranteed essential benefits provided by the Affordable Care Act. To quote directly, the description reads: ``This coverage is not required to comply with certain federal market requirements for health insurance, principally those contained in the Affordable Care Act.'' The tiny fine print on this particular junk plan instructs individuals to check their coverage carefully to make sure they are ``aware of any exclusions or limitation regarding coverage of pre-existing conditions or health benefits (such as hospitalization, emergency services, maternity care, preventive care, prescription drugs, and mental health and substance use disorder services). Your certificate might also have lifetime and/or annual dollar limits on health benefits.''

The Affordable Care Act protects people against these insurance company abuses. Yet the expansion of these junk plans puts the power back in the hands of big insurance companies.

Let me be clear. American families do not want to go back to the days when health insurers could discriminate against people with preexisting health conditions, women, and seniors by denying them coverage or charging them higher premiums simply because they get sick.

As I have said in this Chamber many times, the people of Wisconsin want both parties in Congress to work together to make things better by making healthcare more affordable.

I have heard from several Wisconsinites who want to know why the President is working to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away their protections by expanding these junk plans. They are frightened that if this sabotage of our health system continues, insurance companies will again be able to deny coverage or charge higher premiums for the more than 130 million Americans who have preexisting health conditions, again, including more than 2 million in my home State of Wisconsin.

I heard from Keri from Baraboo. Keri is a three-time cancer survivor--two breast cancer diagnoses and one melanoma. She experienced her first diagnosis at age 29. Now at age 61, Keri is able to get the healthcare she needs without being punished financially for having a preexisting condition. Keri is worried that if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, she could lose her health coverage or could be charged more because of her preexisting condition.

Another Wisconsinite, Keith in Brookfield, recently wrote in to my office about what healthcare means to him and his family. Keith and his son both have type 1 diabetes. Both of them have health insurance through the Affordable Care marketplace that allows them to afford the insulin, glucose test strips, and other medications they need. If the Affordable Care Act is repealed, Keith and his son likely would not even be eligible to purchase one of these junk insurance plans. They could be denied coverage entirely due to their preexisting condition.

We really need to act to stop this sabotage now. I want to protect the guaranteed healthcare protections that millions of Americans depend on. That is why I have introduced legislation, with my colleague, Senator Doug Jones of Alabama, to overturn the Trump administration's expansion of junk insurance plans, because we should be increasing access to affordable, high-quality healthcare options.

The entire Senate Democratic caucus supports this legislation, along with the two Independents who caucus with us. The Nation's top healthcare organizations, representing tens of thousands of the Nation's physicians, patients, medical students, and other health experts, support this legislation.

Anyone who says they support healthcare coverage for people with preexisting conditions should support this bill.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1556; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues have once again chosen to object to protecting people with preexisting conditions.

Senator, I would be happy to yield.

I would concur and say that the reason they have earned the nickname ``junk plans'' is because, frankly, some of them are hardly worth the paper they are written on.

First of all, they do not have to comply with some of the very important protections we included as part of the Affordable Care Act-- otherwise known as ObamaCare--especially to protect people who have been ill once before or have been injured once before, people who have a preexisting health condition, maybe a chronic condition that will require medical care throughout their lives.

In the old days, which apparently the Republican Senator wants to return to, there were all sorts of abuses, I would argue, that insurance companies could employ in order to limit their exposure, if you will. They had annual limits. They had lifetime limits. They had the capacity to drop somebody from coverage after an illness developed. They had the capacity to say: No, we are not going to offer you insurance. They certainly had the capacity to charge discriminatory premiums based on the preexisting condition. That causes great concern.

I just recently saw a report about how much a typical--put it this way: a woman with a breast cancer diagnosis who requires chemotherapy and radiation treatment and medication--how much she would be anticipated to spend out-of-pocket if she had a junk plan at the time that diagnosis was made. It was, on average, $40,000.

We also need to talk about another impact these junk plans have, and that is, if you think you have a really good chance of being healthy for the next year, and you decide ``This is a risk I can take,'' you are then fundamentally changing the structure of the marketplace for everyone else. You can anticipate that this is a choice healthier, maybe younger people will make, and it has a distorting impact on premiums in the marketplace. In fact, that is why these plans were curtailed under the previous administration. Now, this administration is greatly expanding these. They are no longer short term. They are long term, and a lot of harm will come.

I want to conclude and say that when we have an administration that first fought legislatively to repeal the Affordable Care Act and then acted administratively to undermine and sabotage the Affordable Care Act through all sorts of administrative Executive actions, including defunding the State navigators who helped people make wise selections for their insurance and also limiting the open enrollment period, and when we have an administration that has decided to go to court and asked the court to strike down a U.S. law in its entirety, we know there is sabotage going on.

I think the choice for the American people couldn't be clearer. We want to make things better, and the administration--enabled by some of my Senate Republican colleagues--is walking down a path that has led to 2 million people losing their health insurance and others at grave risk of losing it in the future.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would my colleague yield?

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague. I am in such strong support of her legislation, the No Junk Plans Act. I will speak briefly on it after the Senator has concluded her important remarks. But apropos of what the distinguished Senator from South Dakota just said, isn't it correct that of course a plan is more affordable if it doesn't cover anything? I would be interested in my colleague's reaction to that, as she is the lead sponsor.

I remember being in Wisconsin and seeing the wonderful support folks there have from my colleague because she has been a leader on these issues.

I am just curious, because certainly my friend from South Dakota, who is a distinguished member of the Finance Committee and works with Senator Cortez Masto and me, often works with us on matters. But unless I am missing something, he said that what he is interested in is care that is more affordable. But it doesn't cover anything. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, I want to tell my colleague from Wisconsin--and I think I speak for the distinguished Senator from Nevada as well--we are counting on our colleague from Wisconsin to come back to this floor again and again to try to pass her bill. I just want to tell her I will be with her every step of the way because I think, colleagues, without the bill from the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, what we are looking at is a new golden age for scam artists peddling insurance that isn't worth much more than the paper it is written on.

I was struck by my friend from Wisconsin's mentioning the old days of junk insurance.

Well, I was around for those old days. I remember when the health insurance system in this country was basically for the healthy and wealthy. If you were healthy, no sweat, you could get insurance. If you were wealthy, you just went off and paid the bills. But the insurance companies could go out there and clobber people with preexisting conditions. So that was junk insurance.

But I am even older than that. I remember when I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. I would go to a senior's house, and they would pull out a shoebox full of policies--10 or 15 policies. The distinguished Senator from Nevada, who has done so much consumer advocacy for consumers, I am sure knows about this challenge with seniors. These policies weren't worth the paper they were written on. They had--because I am kind of a lawyer in name only--what were called subrogation clauses. So if you had two policies, and they basically covered the same thing, both of them would try to squirm out of covering it. Talk about junk insurance.

Finally, I got elected to Congress, like my colleague activist, and we passed a law that said we are going to get rid of that system and that you could have really only one policy, except in unusual situations. There were strong consumer protections.

But if you look at what the Trump golden age of scams is going to bring back, there are going to be lots of people who are going to get clobbered, and, as my colleagues know, the people who are really going to get hit by this are, for example, older women who are pre-Medicare, because very often, in their late fifties and early sixties, they have a lot of difficulty trying to find jobs that pay good salaries and jobs that have good healthcare coverage.

I am so appreciative of what my colleague is talking about.

We are going to hear a lot of buzz words. Opponents of the Baldwin legislation are going to talk about how they are offering flexibility and they are offering patient-centered care. But that is just a bunch of eyewash because what they really do, as you touched on, is to fail to give patients care when they most need care.

Today, Americans ought to be protected from these worthless, predatory scams. One of the things that I was proudest of, really, before my colleagues came here, is a piece of legislation I wrote, the Healthy Americans Act. A number of Republican Senators were cosponsors of this bill. It had airtight, loophole-free protection to ensure that people with preexisting conditions didn't face discrimination.

By and large, we got that provision into the Affordable Care Act. It meant, as John McCain knew--we often talked about it--that healthcare would no longer be there just for the healthy and the wealthy. There would be real protections for those with preexisting conditions.

For all practical purposes, that was really one of the two or three centerpieces of the Affordable Care Act, because, talk about a new age in insurance, that was it. Healthcare insurance would no longer be there for the healthy and wealthy only.

Senator Baldwin is here, and what she is trying to do--I am looking at that clock--is trying to keep the Trump people from turning it back. That is what they want to do when Senator Baldwin talks about the old days--a forced march back to the days when the insurance companies could really, in many instances, just beat the stuffing out of vulnerable people.

I thank my colleague for what she is doing. I heard just a little bit about it before I came over. I basically said: Let's hold off on things for a couple of hours so I can go out there and stand with Senator Baldwin and her allies.

I say to the Senator: To me, what is important is that you have been here today, and it is going to be even more important that you come back again and again and again so that that clock continues to move forward in terms of American healthcare and not go backward. I thank my colleague.

We are really delighted to have Senator Cortez Masto on the Senate Finance Committee, where she has been doing a lot of good work in healthcare

for consumers and seniors. I look forward to her remarks and to working with both of my colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will address one of the most pressing immigration problems facing our nation.

For the past decade, thousands of families have fled violence and poverty to seek asylum in the United States. These families include vulnerable children who must be kept safe once they arrive in the United States. However, since the beginning of the Trump Administration, several new policies have been implemented.

Most disconcerting is the Trump policy to separate young children, even babies, from their mothers and fathers. Dozens of these children spent days and weeks in cages with nothing but thin mats and aluminum blankets.

We have also learned that the Trump Administration then deported many of these parents, leaving the children to be orphaned in this country. In fact, hundreds of children who were separated under this policy have now been apart from their parents for many months, without any immediate prospects for reunification. These children continue to experience extreme stress that leaves them vulnerable to serious, lifelong mental and physical health problems.

Even when families are reunified after months apart, some children no longer recognize the mothers and fathers. This is unconscionable. Today I am introducing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act, a bill that will not only end the practice of separating families at the border, but also put in place other safeguards to protect these at-risk groups.

The first component of the bill I am introducing today is the full text of the Keep Families Together Act, a bill I introduced earlier this year to halt the separation of families and which currently has more than 40 cosponsors. The President claimed to end his policy of separation in June 2018. However, we have since learned that the practice of separating families continues today.

In fact, the Inspector General for Health and Human Services found that thousands more children were separated than the administration initially revealed in June. Parents who try to protect their children from violence and poverty abroad should not be punished by having those children ripped from their arms. Children should not be subjected to severe trauma in the interest of deterring migration.

Instead, families should be kept together and given an opportunity to present their cases for asylum as has been done for the past seven decades.

The second part of the bill I'm introducing today ensures that families with children are not forced into prolonged, indefinite family detention in order to remain together. Child welfare experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United Nations, have found that detention of this sort has tremendous negative effects on children's health and welfare. This bill guarantees that the Trump Administration cannot reverse the crucial protections that are currently in place under the Flores settlement agreement.

The third piece of this bill would help address the backlog in our immigration courts while protecting the basic rights of children. This part of the bill contains provisions to provide adequate resources to our immigration court system. By adding additional judges and staff, courts will be able to reduce the crushing backlog of over a million pending deportation cases.

The fourth component of this legislation is Senator Hirono's bill, the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, that provides counsel for unaccompanied children. This is meant to ensure that these children receive a meaningful opportunity to present their cases in immigration court. This is important because young children, including toddlers, have been forced to represent themselves in immigration court in recent years. It is simply impossible for children to understand their legal immigration status or rights, let alone explain it to a judge.

This bill protects the most vulnerable children in by providing counsel when there is no parent or legal guardian available. The final part of the bill will ensure that immigration judges can manage their caseloads and prioritize the cases as needed. Currently, individuals in deportation proceedings who have been victims of human trafficking or have assisted with criminal prosecutions are often eligible for visas that would protect them from deportation. This bill would allow immigration judges to close these deportation cases quickly to protect these vulnerable individuals and conserve scarce courtroom time. This will be a crucial step in clearing the backlog of pending immigration cases.

By taking these steps, we will help put our immigration system on a pathway to respect the basic rights of children, particularly those who are fleeing violence and poverty abroad. These children are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, and it is absolutely essential that our legal system should treat them with fairness and respect.

These are goals that should be appealing to Democrats and Republicans alike. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.