Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, the Nation continues to reel from the awful events of Sunday night in Las Vegas--the most deadly mass shooting in modern American history. It has gotten even deadlier in the last 24 hours, with 59 dead and 527 injured--some wounded by gunfire, some injured because they were trampled in the chaos. There were 22,000 concertgoers who fled for their lives from the scene. The police found 23 guns in the hotel room of the monster who committed this atrocity and 19 more at his home. Some of them had been modified to cause even more carnage.

Of course, as always, the beauty of the American people and the first responders pulled through. I saw on TV today a man who had been shot. Two young women came and risked their lives while those shots were going. They took off his belt and tied a tourniquet around his upper thigh because he was bleeding profusely from his leg. They saved his life. He said he will never know who they are, but they saved his life. That story, I am sure, will be repeated over and over again. The valor, the bravery of the average American and the greatness of our first responders is the only counterpoint to the evil, the carnage, the horror we have all witnessed.

We cannot banish evil or madness from the Earth, but we sure can do what we can in our power to make our country a safer place. We need commonsense reforms, and these reforms have broad public support.

In the face of tens of thousands of gun deaths every year, too many Republicans in Congress have tried to enact the dream agenda of the NRA and the gun lobby. They have pursued a national concealed carry law. Can you imagine if that were to have passed? This horrible man could have concealed carry under the laws of Nevada and gone to Times Square in New York City or to Walt Disney World in Florida and just shot away.

Most of our police organizations are against this concealed carry bill. In light of the carnage, in knowing of the evil that exists, with the power of evil magnified by guns and automatic weapons, how can we try to pursue it?

What about gun silencers? There is a move actually in this Congress-- it is in the House right now, and I am sure it has support on the other side of the aisle in the Senate--to make it easier for citizens to acquire silencers. Why? Let me tell you something. One of the few ways the police had to go after the shooter was trying to hear the sound of where the guns were coming from.

Thank God our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have pulled back on this bill. It is not the first time. They had to postpone a hearing on the bill when the congressional baseball team was attacked during an early morning practice. When two mass shootings force you to delay a bill that would make those mass shootings harder to detect and stop, maybe it is a sign that you ought to let go of the bill once and for all.

Of course, we have this absurd NRA nostrum that if everyone were to have a gun, we would all be safe because if people were in an arena--a place--where someone was shooting, they could shoot them back. They sure could not have shot back at someone who was 32 stories up in a hotel. This idea that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is absurd in this situation. It is absurd in many situations.

So where do we go from here?

This place has been gridlocked on the issue of gun control for a while. President Trump, before he ran for office, was for certain sane, rational, limited aspects of gun control. After Sandy, he called for the gun laws to be tightened. I know when he ran, that the power of

the NRA, the money of the NRA, and the narrow special interest of the NRA lobbyists here were just the swamp he decried--small groups going against the public interest and persuading Congress to do that. Yet maybe he can have a bit of a reawakening, in the horror of what happened, as he goes to Las Vegas tomorrow.

Today I am calling on the President to come out against the absurd law about silencers--to threaten a veto if he must and put an end to that bill. I am also calling on President Trump to bring together the leaders of Congress and let both sides know he is ready and willing to address head-on this issue of gun safety. He should tell Members of his party it is time to work to address this epidemic that costs the lives of more than 30,000 Americans a year.

I am glad the President is going to Las Vegas--that is a good idea-- but he should take it a step further. He should call us together and lead this Nation in some rational laws about gun safety that the overwhelming majority of Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--support.

If we truly want to honor our first responders and protect our fellow Americans, as we say we do, President Trump should stand up and tell the NRA that they are not always right, abandon some of their most extreme policies--I would abandon most of them--and come to the table and do the work that so many Americans are desperate for Congress to do.

Mr. President, on another matter, the crisis in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, today, President Trump will be visiting Puerto Rico nearly 2 weeks after Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico. In my view, the lateness of his visit is indicative of his leadership and the Federal response to this humanitarian crisis. It has been slow, it hasn't been well coordinated or sure-footed, and it has been too late in coming.

President Obama visited Sandy two days after the storms hit. President Trump himself was much quicker to visit Texas when Harvey hit. Two weeks is too long. It is better than nothing. That is for sure. But it is too long. It sends a signal that maybe he believes what happened in Puerto Rico is less important than what happened in Texas or in Florida.

In the lead-up to Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, President Trump was tweeting on an almost daily basis, prevailing on Texans and Floridians to stay safe from the storm. That was the right thing to do. But when it came to Puerto Rico, there were no tweets or public statements in the lead-up to the storm, and it took several days to even mention Puerto Rico in his tweets. Even then, he had mostly blame for Puerto Rico or pats on the back for his own administration. He kept decrying fake news, but he couldn't fool the American people. They saw on TV what was happening and the devastation that stayed for so long.

Let me give a comparison. The President said that, because it is an island, it is harder to get to. It is, but when Haiti was struck by a massive earthquake in 2010, the United States didn't wait for things to get worse. We ramped up military and disaster assistance quickly and responded with an overwhelming amount of support. Within 2 days of the earthquake in Haiti, 8,000 troops were in route. Within 2 weeks, 22,000 troops were in route with 300 helicopters assisting relief efforts. Even to this moment, the number for Puerto Rico is much smaller. That shows that the response has not been good enough. Why was his response for Puerto Rico so much less than the response for Haiti?

So we need a much better response on the ground in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. I would say to President Trump, I am glad you are going--glad you are going--but this is your chance to make up for what has been a plodding start.

When the President visits Puerto Rico today, he should not get into any political fights or blame Puerto Rico for its problems. The President needs to figure out what is wrong and what else has to be done and marshal the resources of our government and our military to fix it. The 3.5 million American citizens in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are counting on their President. These are American citizens.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my friend from Hawaii for his words.

I will make a statement for the record with regard to Mr. Pai, as I agree with Senator Schatz' vote and will be voting no, but I want to first speak about the horrible situation in Las Vegas.

Mr. President, there are precious few words for days like this. Last night, as everyone now knows, at a concert in Las Vegas, NV, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of 22,000, killing at least 58 and sending hundreds more to the hospital. It was the deadliest mass shooting in the history of our country.

Our collective hearts, so hardened now by the absurd frequency of these mass shootings, are broken once again. We mourn for the families of the fallen, and we pray with the families of the wounded. We have the deepest gratitude for every first responder, cop, and firefighter who rushed to the scene, as their heroism in the moment of this national tragedy has been an inspiration. Yet today we are filled with shock and horror, with sadness and rage.

The horrific massacre was perpetrated by an American on his fellow Americans and the visitors from every corner of the world, who are the very lifeblood of Las Vegas. We are left with many questions, the answers to which we will seek in the coming days and weeks.

How did this monster acquire the arsenal that he used to rain down death on a crowd of innocents? Were these guns purchased and compiled legally? What was this person's perverted motive? Was there any history of mental health issues?

What circumstances could lead a man to commit such violence upon his fellow human beings--complete strangers--what twisted reasoning, what demented logic?

There is much more that we do not know than what we do know. Some of the questions that we have today will not have clear answers. Others are, perhaps, beyond our fathoming. Yet some will have answers, and we will have to reckon with the fact that this man was able to assemble an arsenal of military-grade weapons.

As much as we might hope to, we cannot banish evil from the Earth. Congress cannot do that, and the President cannot do that. What Congress can do and what Congress must do is to pass laws that keep our citizens safe, and that starts with laws that help prevent guns, especially the most dangerous guns, from falling into the wrong hands.

We will take care of the injured--their bodies and their hearts--and nurse them back to health. We will mourn those lost with all of our collective love and support. We will bind up this new national wound. Then, we will aggressively ferret out the facts, and based on that reality, we will confront--we must confront--the deeply troubling issues that have been raised by this atrocity.

Mr. President, first I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak in leader time, and, after my remarks, that the Senator from North Dakota be recognized to speak on the judge nomination and be given the time she wants, about 10 minutes, and that we move the vote to immediately thereafter.

Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Oregon for his outstanding remarks. He has been a leader in keeping the internet open and free and making sure that this new highway system, in effect, is as free as our old highway system, or the existing highway system, to let the big guy and the little guy compete on equal terms. That is all we want, and Mr. Pai doesn't seem to get that.

There is a whole round of appointees from this administration who simply side with big corporations no matter what, and this is an example of just that.

So I thank my friend from Oregon for his remarks.

Mr. President, I have three topics this morning--briefly, healthcare, then, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, finally, taxes.

Mr. President, on healthcare there is a bit of good news. I just spoke with Senator Murray this morning. I saw Senator Alexander in the gym, as I do just about every morning. Both are two of about the best negotiators we have in this body. Both have come to agreements across the aisle on many other occasions. They both inform me that they are on the verge of a bipartisan healthcare agreement to stabilize markets and lower premiums.

Now, we have had some bipartisan sprouts on healthcare recently. It is time for those sprouts to flower, and I am hopeful they will. I told Patty Murray that she has my faith and confidence. She has the freedom to cut the best deal she can, and I hope the leadership will tell the same to Senator Alexander.

It was widely reported, before the Graham-Cassidy bill was withdrawn, that there was pressure on Senator Alexander to pull back. Well, that is over. Let's all come together. Our healthcare system needs it, and our constituents need it. They don't want premiums to go up and coverage to go down, and it would be a great start for some bipartisanship in this place, which I hope we can continue on more issues.

Mr. President, on Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, we know about the crisis. Just looking at the pictures breaks your heart. We hear the stories of people desperately needing their medicine and diabetics needing insulin, which can't be refrigerated because there is no electricity to keep the refrigeration going. There are people dying right now because they can't get the medical attention they need, and, of course, there is a need for food, water, power, and transportation. It is awful.

Yesterday, Leader Pelosi and I met with Gen. Lori Robinson. It felt nice, amid this devastation, to see a woman have four stars on her shoulder. She is a four-star general in the Air Force, and she is head of the U.S. Northern Command. She is the military person in charge.

We met with her to get an update on the Department of Defense's work in assisting the islands. It was evident from our conversation that, while the military is increasing the amount of resources it is sending to the island, there is a lack of command and control about how those resources are distributed. In other words, they probably have enough food, they probably have enough gasoline--that is what the Governor of Puerto Rico said today--but they can't get it to the places it needs to go. Part of it is because they need transportation--trucks and things-- but a lot of it is because there is no one there to make sure. Puerto Rico's command and control has been decimated by this storm as well. People can't get to the places they are supposed to go. They don't have their phones, et cetera.

I spoke with Senator Rubio this morning in the gym as well. He had just recently visited Puerto Rico. He had seen the devastation firsthand, and he told me the same--that Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are struggling, and they need help fast. His visit to Puerto Rico confirmed this idea that we really need command and control.

Well, there is no better command and control organization than our military, and we need our military to start aiding Puerto Rico in the command and control sense, as well as in the shipping of supplies, food, and the other kinds of things they need.

Puerto Rico needs help fast. They need personnel to direct the supplies and resources on the ground. All the aid in the world will be ineffective if it doesn't go where it is needed to go. So I joined Senator Cantwell, the ranking member on the Energy Committee, which has jurisdiction in many ways here, and Senator Nelson, who cares a great deal about Puerto Rico and is from Florida, nearby, and 30 other Senators in sending a letter to the Trump administration that contains a list of needed resources and personnel to coordinate our relief efforts.

It appears there will not be a request for emergency supplemental appropriations this week. We hope it comes very soon.

Mr. President, we cannot forget the utter devastation facing the 3.5 million American citizens in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. I have been on this Earth now for quite a few years, and I have never seen such devastation anywhere in the United States or its territories. So we need to act, and we need to act quickly. Command and control, which our military can help supply, should be at the top of the list.

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

Good morning, Mr. President. First, I would like to talk about taxes.

Today, President Trump and Republican leaders will announce several proposals as part of their tax plan. According to recent reports, that plan will include proposals to repeal the estate tax, lower the rate on passthrough entities, lower the top rate, and actually raise the bottom tax rate. Each of these proposals would result in a massive windfall for the wealthiest Americans and provide almost no relief to middle- class taxpayers who need it most.

It seems that President Trump and Republicans have designed their plan to be cheered in the country clubs and the corporate boardrooms. How does repealing the estate tax help middle-class people?

Only 5,200 of the wealthiest families in America, couples whose estates are worth $11 million, pay the estate tax. Are there any middle-class families worth $11 million? Is that the President's definition of the middle class?

The estate tax is skewed to the very wealthiest among us, and they are going to repeal it. This is not going to fly with the American people, let me tell you.

Our Republican colleagues tried to do something the public disliked on healthcare--taking away benefits, reducing healthcare. Now they are trying to do the same thing on taxes, helping the very wealthiest. They are going to be in for a rude awakening because the American people are going to rise up against this. Over 70 percent of Americans are against tax breaks for wealthy Americans and wealthy corporations.

Lowering the rate on passthrough entities would create a huge loophole, allowing very wealthy Americans, such as hedge fund managers, to funnel their income through a business entity in order to avoid the top bracket and pay a much lower rate. So the upper middle-class family making $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 can pay 39 percent, but these wealthy hedge fund managers, lawyers, and whoever, through a passthrough, can pay no corporate tax and then a 25-percent rate on the rest of their taxes. Does that help middle-class Americans? Absolutely not. Does it help the wealthiest who have the lawyers to set up these passthrough entities? Absolutely.

By lowering the individual top rate, the top 1 percent, who make above $490,000 a year, would get a tax break because their rate would be lowered. God bless them. They make a lot of money. Do they need a tax break? I don't think so.

President Trump clearly believes, despite his rhetoric, that the wealthy in this country deserve another tax cut while middle-class families at best get crumbs. Amazingly, the Trump tax plan will even include a proposal to increase the bottom tax rate--a punch to the gut of working Americans.

The American people should be able to see the principle behind President Trump's tax plan in this one fact. He proposes to cut taxes on the highest income brackets and raise them on the lowest. He raises the bottom rate and cuts the top rate. This is ``wealthfare''-- ``wealthfare''--helping those of great wealth with more tax breaks.

The American people should be able to see the principle behind President Trump's tax plan with little more than an across-the-board tax cut for America's millionaires and billionaires. God bless them. I am glad we have a lot of rich people in America. I don't begrudge them. Many of them have worked very hard to get their money. Some of them get it through an estate; so be it. But the wealthiest among us don't need a tax break. They are doing great.

All of the statistics show that those at the highest end are making more money than ever before and the middle class is flat or sinking. Who needs the break? The Washington Post-ABC poll showed yesterday that more than 70 percent of Americans say our tax system already tends to favor wealth more than the middle class. This bill makes it much worse.

One more thing to watch today is whether the President and his Republicans provide any details about how they intend to pay for these massive cuts. Without these details, I suspect Republicans will turn the age-old trick of promising that economic growth will make up for the entire difference. Some of them call it dynamic scoring, but that name obscures what dynamic scoring really is.

President Trump calls the media outlets fake news. Dynamic scoring is fake math. It is just made-up, fake math to hide another deficit- busting tax cut to benefit the wealthiest Americans.

No less of an authority than James Baker, a conservative Republican and former Republican Treasury Secretary who led the last successful tax reform effort under President Reagan, said:

We must not let tax revenues decline and worsen the

deficit. In other words, tax reform must be revenue neutral

and should be judged on its own merits.

Let's call it the Baker rule--the Jim Baker rule: Tax reform must be revenue neutral, judged on its own merits, with no dynamic scoring and no fake math.

I am amazed that President Trump, whenever he talks, says he wants to help the middle class, and his plan at best throws crumbs at some middle-class people. Some will get a tax increase, especially those in high-tax States like New York, but his plan benefits the wealthy.

Has the President read this plan? Has he been involved in creating this plan or is it the people around him--many

of them from Wall Street--who came up with this plan, and the President doesn't even know what it does?

I will tell you, if he goes to Indiana today and says that his plan helps the middle class rather than the wealthy, he has it backward. It helps the wealthy far more than it helps the middle class.

Healthcare

Mr. President, yesterday the majority announced it would not be holding a vote this week on the latest healthcare bill, Graham-Cassidy. Every American should breathe a deep sigh of relief.

The majority has vowed to revisit ACA repeal, maybe even with this legislation. But President Trump and our Republican colleagues should have learned from these failures that the American people do not want to cut healthcare. If they try to do it a third time, they will fail again for the simplest reason in politics: The public is against what they want to do.

This administration, which campaigned it is for the people and populist, on healthcare is doing what people don't want and on taxes is doing what people don't want. What is going on?

I remind my Republican colleagues that continuing to threaten repeal is like hanging a giant sword of Damocles above our Nation's healthcare system. It causes great uncertainty in the healthcare market, and it leads insurers to raise premiums on average Americans.

Now, I understand that for political purposes Republicans don't want to ever admit that ACA repeal is off the table. They promised it to the American people for 7 years but deluded them on what it really meant. The average American thought that, if you took ACA off the table, premiums would go down and coverage would go up. The bills the Republicans have proposed do just the opposite, but I understand why they do it. They promised it so often. But those promises have a real human consequence in the form of higher costs for everybody. The responsibility and the blame for the rate hikes, should they occur--and they probably will--will fall squarely on the Republican shoulders. President Trump and the Republicans are in charge. Saying, gee, something in the past caused it, when they failed to correct it, is not going to work.

My Republican friends, you are no longer in the minority. You are running the show. It is your responsibility to help bring premiums down. We want to do that and, in fact, there are good bipartisan sprouts. Senators Alexander and Murray are very close to a bipartisan agreement. Now, we hope out of pique or anger that our Republican colleagues will not reject a good bipartisan compromise that helps the American people, put together by the chair of the HELP Committee and the ranking member.

I hope and expect the negotiations to pick up right where they left off because we Democrats want to work with our Republican colleagues to stabilize the markets and lower premiums for millions of Americans. We hope our Republican colleagues will not just sit back, repeatedly threaten repeal, and watch as millions of Americans pay higher healthcare costs. That will be wrong substantively, and, politically, it will fall right on their shoulders.

So I hope we can have the negotiations pick up between Senators Murray and Alexander right where they left off. Each of them said they were close to an agreement before Chairman Alexander was pulled away by Republican leadership.

Insurers are about to set their rates for the next year, and whether we can come together or not could be the difference between a stable market and premiums that are hundreds of dollars more expensive. So for the sake of the American people, for the sake of turning over a new leaf on healthcare, let's work together in a bipartisan way to shore up and improve our Nation's healthcare.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery Effort

Finally, Mr. President, on the crisis in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Hurricanes Irma and Maria have left the islands--home to well over 3 million American citizens--hanging on for dear life. You have seen the pictures, and they are devastating. Water, food, diesel, power, cell service, medicine, shelter, security, the basic needs of human survival are limited and running out in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Diabetic patients who require insulin shots are unable to keep their lifesaving medicine refrigerated. Hospitals still lack power and running water. This was a catastrophe on an epic scale. It may have been one of the worst humanitarian crises within our borders.

Now, the President has a bully pulpit. More importantly, he is in direct control of the vast resources of our Federal Government--the military, the Department of Energy, FEMA, USDA, and much more. He can direct the attention of all Americans to important issues. Previous Presidents have used this platform to focus our attention on disasters that strike our country. Barack Obama did it, George Bush did it, Bill Clinton did it, George H.W. Bush did it, and Ronald Reagan did it. The President can direct resources--boots on the ground and a structure to coordinate it all. But a President needs to act aggressively, comprehensively, and urgently, and some of that has been lacking with this President unfortunately.

A cursory scroll of President Trump's Twitter feed and public comments from the past few weeks does not show him using the power of his office to focus our attention on the crisis in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It has been a week since the storm hit and, as I said, his Twitter feed and public comments don't show him using the power of the office. When he mentions Puerto Rico, President Trump promotes his own administration's efforts and implies that Puerto Rico was partially at fault for the devastation they have been suffering. The response from the administration needs to get a whole lot better fast.

I spoke to the Governor of Puerto Rico yesterday, and he gave me specific items that would provide immediate help. I spoke about them yesterday, and I hope the administration acts on them quickly. But most importantly, we need the administration to send us an emergency and interim aid package to pass, just as we did in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands shouldn't have to wait a second longer for aid than any other American State or Territory. We should take up and pass this package here in the Senate before the week is over.

I yield the floor.

First, let me thank my dear friend and colleague from Illinois for his remarks. As usual, he is one of the most articulate Members of either side. He is also one of the most thoughtful and compassionate, and I hope people will listen to what he has to say.

Healthcare

Mr. President, I would also like to respond to what the majority leader said this morning on healthcare. My good friend Senator McConnell continues to try and create this straw man because he has nothing good to say about his bill. He wants to make this healthcare debate about a false choice between Graham-Cassidy on their side and single payer on our side, but as Senators Sanders and Klobuchar made clear in an excellent debate last night on CNN, Democrats have a lot of ideas to improve healthcare. There is not just one; there are many, and many Democrats support a bunch of different ideas. Each of our ideas, however, endeavors to increase coverage, improve the quality of care, and lower the cost of care. None of the Republican plans achieve these goals. That is the difference.

The difference is that one side wants to cut healthcare to average Americans, increase premiums, and give the insurance companies far more freedom, and one side wants to increase care to the number of people covered, lower premiums, and provide better coverage. That is the divide.

Our colleagues can't stand and debate that issue. They believe in letting the market have more say. We have learned that, left alone, the poor little consumer against a big market gets crushed in healthcare because there are infirmities. It doesn't work like an ordinary market for a whole lot of reasons. So we are happy to have a debate on the real issues.

Does Graham-Cassidy expand or reduce healthcare? They are rushing this through so we don't get a full CBO report. I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle maybe breathed some relief there. CBO said that costs are likely to go way up for older Americans and Americans with preexisting conditions under Graham-Cassidy. They said that Graham-Cassidy would reduce coverage by gutting Medicaid and reducing subsidies that help Americans afford insurance. So there is, indeed, a contrast between the parties. It is a contrast we welcome.

Every Republican plan this year would cause millions to lose insurance and costs to go up, whereas Democrats are looking at many different ideas about how to achieve the exact opposite.

As my colleague said, we want to work in a bipartisan way to improve the existing system. Senator Alexander and Senator Murray have had great negotiations. Once this repeal effort is dead and gone--this repeal and replace--we are willing and eager to sit down and come up with bipartisan improvements and do it in the regular order, as some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have correctly and courageously recommended. Let's do it in regular order.

Senators Alexander and Murray have had hearings, called in witnesses, and have had a lot of bipartisan discussions--just what this body is supposed to do. Let's realize that Graham-Cassidy is highly unpopular with the American people, doesn't do what some are saying it does, and cuts healthcare. Democrats don't want to do that, and neither do the American people. Let's move on and try to make our system better.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands Recovery Effort

Mr. President, the main subject I am going to speak on today is that instead of trying to take healthcare away from millions of Americans, the Senate and the White House should focus on a much more pressing matter this week: the desperate situation in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

After suffering from the winds and rains of Hurricanes Irma and Maria, the island of Puerto Rico is completely devastated. I can't recall in my lifetime a hurricane wreaking such devastation on any part of the United States. There are 3.5 million American citizens facing one of the gravest humanitarian crises in recent memory.

Listen to these facts. Nearly the entire island is without power. The reserves of gas and diesel fuel are dangerously low; there may be a 20- day supply left. I read in the newspaper this morning that 80 percent of the major power lines--the big trunk lines that deliver power--are down. Without power, just think of what that does.

The Governor of Puerto Rico said last night that 40 percent of the people on the island lack potable water; some estimates say it is as much as 65 percent. The food supply is dwindling, so people are without food. Fewer than 250 of the island's 1,600 cell phone towers are operational. People can't find their parents, children, or relatives. There is no way to reach them.

I remember the day of 9/11 when cell phone service went out in New York and I couldn't reach my daughters. This has been going on for days and days and days.

The damage to one of the largest dams on the island has created the need for another massive evacuation, but with 95 percent of the cell phones out of service in that part of the island, the evacuations have to be carried out by officials going door-to-door to the nearly 70,000 residents in harm's way, telling them that they have to leave their homes. Worse still, the damage to Puerto Rico's roads, bridges, and ports have isolated communities and delayed the arrival of aid.

It is not hyperbolic to say that the two storms together have set Puerto Rico back decades. The damage is apocalyptic. It is Biblical.

The situation on the U.S. Virgin Islands is similar. Words and statistics can hardly begin to describe the devastation these Americans are beginning

to grapple with. It has hit home. One of my staffers couldn't find an uncle, and they found him dead on the Virgin Islands last night. So it hits home to all of us and to all Americans. Looking at the pictures and the news reports, the islands now resemble a war zone.

What we need to do now is provide aid to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as quickly as humanly possible--water, food, power, shelter. They need help and they need it now.

Here is what should happen. First, President Trump must issue a full disaster declaration for all of Puerto Rico. Right now, 24 of the 78 municipalities on the island are not eligible for FEMA grants to rebuild their homes.

President Trump should also waive the local cost-share requirement for emergency funds so that Puerto Rico can rebuild without having to worry about falling even deeper into debt.

While our Nation's Armed Forces--and we salute our Armed Forces all the time--are already assisting Puerto Rico, more needs to be done. As the most experienced part of our government in the movement of food, water, mobile power, and medical supplies, the Department of Defense should immediately determine what additional resources and capabilities can be deployed to aid Puerto Rico. If Secretary Mattis hasn't already met with the Director of FEMA, I hope he will do it today.

Most importantly, the administration should prepare an immediate and interim emergency aid request, and the majority leader should put that package on the floor of the Senate before we leave this week. Anything less would be an abject failure of our duty to come to the aid of our fellow U.S. citizens.

The administration submitted a request for Hurricane Harvey less than a week after the storm made landfall. We are rapidly closing in on that same marker for Maria having hit Puerto Rico. We need to move fast. We need to move now. Lives are at stake.

This morning I saw that President Trump had tweeted that Puerto Rico was in ``deep trouble,'' but relief efforts were ``doing well.''

With all due respect, President Trump, the relief efforts are not doing well. They are not close to good enough. All any American needs to do is open up a newspaper or turn on a TV to know that Puerto Rico is not doing well.

In his tweets, President Trump also brought up the issue of Puerto Rico's debt. Now, that is a totally different issue, and it pales in comparison to the immediate humanitarian crisis faced on the island.

Again, now is not the time, Mr. President. Puerto Rico needs help from aid workers, not debt collectors from Wall Street. Yes, Puerto Rico needs debt relief, but first they need humanitarian relief--water, food, medicine, fuel.

But this fits a pattern of how our President unfortunately responds to natural disasters. He insists that relief and recovery efforts are ``doing well'' or ``doing great,'' and sometimes it has no relation to the facts on the ground, as if this is a public relations campaign and not a rescue, recovery, and rebuilding operation. The time for tweets and talk is over.

The American citizens in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands need action and results. The best thing the President can do is to get all of the relevant people in his administration together and come up with an aid package and deliver it to us in the next day or two so that we can pass it before we leave here this week.

Again, instead of trying to take away healthcare from millions of Americans--that is what we are debating now, and that effort seems to be in real trouble--the Trump administration and the Republican majority should put an emergency aid package on the floor before the week is out.

Carmen Yulin Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, said earlier today: ``We need to get our act together because people are dying.''

The situation is desperate. The need is urgent. It is time to act now.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, Puerto Rico and the nearby U.S. Virgin Islands have been buffeted by not one but two successive hurricanes, including a direct hit by the powerful Hurricane Maria. Many citizens have had their homes and businesses destroyed, tens of thousands-- hundreds of thousands--are living without electricity, husbanding gas and food and water and their remaining cash. The situation is desperate. Puerto Rico has taken a serious punch to the gut. They need our help, and they need it now.

These are our fellow Americans--3.5 million of them. It is our duty in the Senate to speedily send aid to the people of Puerto Rico and to the U.S. Virgin Islands, just as we did for the people of Texas and Louisiana who were hit by Hurricane Harvey and the people of my own State when we suffered from Hurricane Sandy, as we will do for the people of Florida who were hit by Hurricane Irma.

So let's all work together to help the island of Puerto Rico rebuild and recover, just as we would anywhere else in America.

At the same time, we must bear in mind that much of the western part of our country is besieged by wildfires. The Senators from Oregon have come to the floor to remind us of our duty to help those parts of the country also.

The administration must quickly prepare an appropriate aid package for Florida, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Western States for Congress to act on in the near future. We Democrats will insist that any package of supplemental aid for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma also include aid for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Western States ravaged by forest fires. We owe it to every State and community impacted by these devastating hurricanes and these horrible firestorms.

One beautiful thing about this country is, although we are 50 States with different ideas and politics and accents, we are also one Nation, bound together, and we will come to the aid of any individual State or territory whenever one of them is in need.

Mr. President, on healthcare, last night we began to see reports of a new version of the Graham-Cassidy bill. Faced with stern resistance from several Members of their own caucus, it appears that the authors of the legislation have tweaked the bill in an attempt to gain the support of the holdouts. Despite sending more money to the States of those Members, this new bill, if anything, is worse in many ways than before and, in the long run, will still result in a net cut for every single State in the country.

It still contains a massive cut to Medicaid, it still defunds Planned Parenthood, and it actually further weakens consumer protections, and almost completely does away with protections for those with preexisting conditions--even worse than in the first version.

The S&P has just come out with a study that estimates that Graham- Cassidy would result in 580,000 lost jobs and $240 billion in lost economic activity by 2027. That is not a Democratic propaganda machine, that is Standard & Poor's; down the middle, 580,000 jobs lost and $240 billion in lost economic activity if Graham-Cassidy is enacted.

Under the latest version, States would be able to lift the regulation that caps out-of-pocket costs, meaning insurance companies could offer barebones policies with sky-high deductibles and copays.

Under the latest version, States could do away with lifetime limits, meaning insurance companies could cap the amount of coverage you receive for a given illness. Imagine the parent of a child suffering with cancer being told your policy only covers 4 months of treatment; you are on your own after that--devastating to too many families in this country.

Under the latest version, States could remove the benefit of getting preventive services at no cost, such as birth control, cancer screening, and immunizations. Under the latest version, States could opt out of the preexisting condition without even applying for a waiver. So even more so than in the old bill, preexisting conditions are not protected.

States just have to submit a plan that allows for adequate and affordable insurance. In other words, the new Graham-Cassidy makes it even easier and even more likely that States will allow insurance companies to discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions. Again, that parent of a child aching with cancer is in real jeopardy. Maybe they can't even get insurance at all.

In short, the new Graham-Cassidy tells every American with potentially high medical costs, you are on your own. If you have diabetes, cancer, congenital illness, or asthma, Graham-Cassidy says that you are on your own. It eviscerates the protections that make healthcare affordable for those who need it most.

It is no wonder that it is so unpopular with Americans. Recently, even though the bill has just been introduced, a majority of Americans say they don't like it. The more they learn--just like with the old TrumpCare--the less they like it.

Americans want good healthcare, lower premiums, and more coverage. This bill does the opposite--higher premiums, fewer people covered, and it makes it harder to get good insurance.

Guess what. We are expected to vote on this bill in just 2 or 3 days. There will have been only a single hearing, which Republicans scheduled almost as an afterthought, just to say they had one. Certainly, there will not be any amendments to the bill. It is not going to go through the committee process. There will not be a shred of input from the minority, despite all the complaints that ObamaCare, which did have input from the minority, was passed by one party's vote.

The Senate's former Historian said he could not think of ``anything comparable'' to the process Republicans are employing in the entire history of the Senate. The Senate's former Historian, a scholar, said that there is nothing comparable to the process being employed now-- one-sixth of the economy, no amendments, one hearing, no changes.

Add to that fact that the CBO will not have enough time to properly analyze this legislation. We will not know how it actually impacts our healthcare system. At most, we will get a barebones analysis sometime today that may not tell us a thing about how Graham-Cassidy would impact coverage--the cost of care, the quality of care, and the stability of marketplaces.

It is shockingly incomplete not to have our CBO tell the American people and tell us--the representatives of each State--how it affects their State and rush it through. Even after the minimal CBO report today, Republicans will still be voting on a healthcare bill with thick blindfolds on their eyes. They will not be able to see it. My guess is that I don't think they want to see it.

When the American people learn what is in this bill, they are going to dislike it intensely--intensely. The new TrumpCare is bad policy. It is being jammed through this body at an alarming, ludicrous pace. To say it is hastily constructed and considered barely scratches the surface.

New versions are coming out every few hours. The websites of the Senators from Louisiana and South Carolina keep saying: We are changing this; we are changing that.

It is Monday. We are voting this week. The Republicans are basically scrawling a healthcare law for 300 million people on the back of a bar napkin. The bill should go down. I believe my Republican colleagues who were skeptical about this policy and this process are too principled to be swayed by last-minute formula tweaks.

Governor Walker of Alaska, an Independent, has said he will not support a healthcare bill that is bad for the country, even if it might be good for his State, which the bill isn't. That is principled leadership. I believe the same kind of principled leadership exists in this body as well. I know it does.

I wish to say to all of my Republican colleagues directly: Vote down this bill. If it goes down, we Democrats are pledged to work in a bipartisan way to improve our healthcare system. We are pledged to work through committee, to support the efforts of Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, and to find a bipartisan consensus on a healthcare package.

We welcome bipartisan change. We know there is always give and take when that happens, but usually the product is better. A bipartisan process led by Alexander and Murray to make the present system better will be a whole lot better for both the process in this body and for the health of the American people than this rushed-through, half-baked proposal.

We disagree in the Senate a lot. Very rare are the times when there is a clear right and wrong, but this bill and the process it has gone through are clearly wrong. The bill would hurt so many people in our great country. The process has damaged this institution and would do much greater damage if it were to pass.

We have a chance--a chance--to legislate the right way, through regular order, by resuming bipartisan work already started by the HELP Committee, which has had hearings and intends to--at least, as I understand it--go through a process with amendments. We Democrats are at the table. We ask our Republican friends to join us at the table once again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, let me so commend my friend and colleague from Connecticut for his intelligent, articulate, and, most of all, passionate words. I hope that everyone on the other side of the aisle hears this.

This is not a game. I know that it is not the Presiding Officer's State, but the States that are taking the money are the ones that did not want to give good coverage--enough coverage--to people. The States like Connecticut and like New York that wanted to help people and had to put in half the money themselves are now being penalized by the States that did not. Most Americans are against that. The vast majority of Americans are against it. When Americans hear what this bill is about, almost none of them like it. None of them like it. That is why we are hiding this bill. That is why we are not debating this bill. That is why we are trying to rush it through without a score.

Yet, just over an hour ago, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary analysis of the latest version of TrumpCare, the Graham-Cassidy bill. The CBO is nonpartisan. The head of it was appointed by the Republican leadership. This is not one of those liberal think tanks that the other side dismisses as we dismiss the conservative ones. This is down the middle.

While the CBO has not filled in all of the details, the outline is devastating enough: The new TrumpCare bill would gut Medicaid, cause millions to lose coverage, create chaos in the marketplace, and not protect Americans who have preexisting conditions.

Members should not need any more details to know how bad a piece of legislation this is--though, certainly, we need to await more details. The other side does not want to. Even in plain language, without the numbers, the CBO makes clear that Graham-Cassidy would be the largest step backward for American healthcare in our Nation's history.

Let's go over a few things that the CBO report listed. These are down-the-middle, green-eyeshade findings that are not political.

First, Graham-Cassidy would gut Medicaid: ``All told, Federal spending on Medicaid would be reduced by about $1 trillion . . . and the program would cover millions fewer enrollees.''

That means they do not know how many millions. My guess is it will be about the same as the previous bills or even worse. That means there will be a drastic cut to healthcare funding that goes to help older Americans in nursing homes, those in opioid abuse treatment programs, and low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid as their source of coverage. All of those would be slashed.

If you are a middle-class family on Long Island, in Anchorage, or if you have someone in a nursing home--a parent--you will be faced with an awful choice with too many likelihoods. Pay thousands of dollars a month out of your own pocket or ask Mom or Dad to come live with you when you don't have a spare room in your house, and you are trying to raise your kids. It is not very pretty.

The CBO writes that Graham-Cassidy would cause millions to lose healthcare coverage, with the most abrupt loss of coverage occurring as soon as 2020 due to ``substantially lower'' enrollment in Medicaid, nongroup coverage, and insurance of all types because there would be no incentive to sign up.

The CBO also wrote that Graham-Cassidy would destabilize the individual market, creating a death spiral.

[Under Graham-Cassidy], average health care costs among

people retaining coverage would be higher, and insurers would

have to raise premiums in the nongroup market to cover those

higher costs. Anticipating such an unsustainable spiral, some

insurers would not participate in the nongroup market. . . .

In many States, the transitions starting in 2020 would be

difficult, and some areas would probably have no insurers

offering policies in the nongroup market.

That is a quote from the CBO. It is not by Chuck Schumer, not by Chris Murphy but from the CBO--destabilizing markets and huge numbers of people not getting insurance.

Here is another thing that the CBO wrote. Graham-Cassidy also fails spectacularly to protect Americans with preexisting conditions because it allows States to opt out of very popular consumer protections in our current law. According to the CBO: ``Coverage for people with preexisting conditions would be much more expensive in some of those States than under current law.''

I have heard my colleague from Louisiana say that this will not change the law with regard to preexisting conditions. Then why did they have to add this clause and give States the option? If they want to keep preexisting conditions, they should keep existing law.

The CBO even predicted that the ``flexibility'' of Graham-Cassidy would likely drive some States to pursue an age tax, charging older Americans five times as much or more for their healthcare than younger Americans.

If you are 50 to 64 and you have worked hard your whole life, your healthcare costs go up. There is a little bit of protection in present law. Much of that protection is removed by the Graham-Cassidy bill. If you are a senior citizen or close to it, you are going to pay more in too many places. That is why the AARP--again, not a very political organization--has come out so strongly against this bill, as, by the way, has the AMA and the American Cancer Society. Chris Murphy listed many of the groups.

All in all, even without specific numbers for estimates, the CBO report confirms much of what we already knew about Graham-Cassidy. It is a wholesale dismantling of our healthcare system, which would create chaos in many places, cause millions to lose coverage, drive up costs, and put healthcare out of reach for the folks who need it the most.

To boot, today, Standard & Poor's--another hardly partisan organization--estimated that Graham-Cassidy would carry a staggering economic cost.

Standard & Poor's estimates that Graham-Cassidy would result in 580,000 lost jobs and $240 billion in lost economic activity by 2027.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are starting tax reform. They want to cut taxes on the wealthiest people, such as big corporations, because it will create jobs. Maybe yes but maybe no--many of us think no. But right here, if we are interested in creating jobs, don't pass Graham-Cassidy because we will lose 580,000 jobs, according to Standard & Poor's.

A number of Republican Senators have expressed their opposition to this bill--most recently, Senator Collins. To Senator Collins and to the rest of my Republican colleagues, I want to say that once repeal is off the table, we want to work with you to improve the existing system. Once this bill goes down, we are ready to work with you to find a compromise that stabilizes markets and that lowers premiums.

We are ready. We have proven some of that already. Senator Alexander and Senator Murray--one a Republican and one a Democrat, the chair and the ranking member of the HELP Committee--were making great progress toward a bipartisan agreement. They held hearings, heard expert testimony, and solicited input from colleagues on both sides of the aisle--something not done with this Graham-Cassidy bill. They were crafting a fair package, where each side got a little and each side gave a little. Once this bill goes down, those negotiations should pick up right where they left off. That is what we on this side of the aisle believe, for sure, and I think many on the other side as well.

There is no time to waste. Insurers are about to set rates for the next year. Whether we can come together or not could be the difference between a stable market and premiums that are several hundreds of dollars more expensive.

We should pick up where Senators Wyden and Hatch--again, one Democrat and one Republican--left off, to come to an agreement to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, for community health centers, and for several other programs that need to be extended this week.

CBO, even with the bare structure of what this bill is all about, issued a devastating report. It is very, very hard to look that report in the eye and say: This bill improves healthcare for Americans--very hard. I hope for the good of our healthcare system, for the good of our country, and for the good of this institution that my Republican friends abandon Graham-Cassidy and its one-sidedness and choose instead to come back to the table with Democrats to do the hard work of forging a bipartisan consensus on healthcare. That is what America wants. That is what America needs.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.