Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to

meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination.

Committee on Rules and Administration

The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 23, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,

and Forestry has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 117th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Boozman, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is wonderful to see you in the Chair.

Mr. President, one thing you can say about Americans, we know how to meet the moment.

When the world was upended by a Great Depression and a quarter of our people were out of work, we took bold action. A brandnew President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and large majorities in Congress ushered in a New Deal that put folks back to work, stabilized our economy, and invested in America's future.

When freedom abroad was threatened by fascism, we again took bold action as a country. We used American ingenuity to build an arsenal of democracy, which, by the middle of 1944, was churning out B-24 bombers every 60 minutes at Ford's Willow Run plant in Michigan.

Now is the time again to take bold action on behalf of the American people. We are now a year into a pandemic that has claimed the lives of nearly 450,000 Americans--450,000 Americans--parents and grandparents and friends and neighbors and cousins and coworkers and community leaders. Almost 15,000 lives have already been lost in Michigan--dear souls lost to us.

And it is not just lives that have been lost. Businesses have closed, workers have been laid off, folks have been without paychecks for months and months.

Parents are struggling to keep food on the table and the heat on while troubleshooting the spotty internet their children depend on to keep their classes going on Zoom.

And grandmas and grandpas are missing out on seeing their families grow up. Babies born last March are already learning to walk and talk, and too many have not had a chance to be with them in person.

Americans know how to meet the moment, and it is time for us to do it again. It is time to pass a rescue plan bold enough to stamp out this pandemic, get families the immediate help they need to weather the economic crisis, and get our children safely back in school.

That is just what our American Rescue Plan will do, and we need to get it done as soon as possible. American families have waited long enough.

There are a lot of good things happening right now. A home COVID-19 test was just approved. Soon we will have three effective vaccines available. We know that we can't get back to normal, though, or revive our battered economy unless we get vaccine off shelves and into American arms.

That is why our plan will increase the number of people being vaccinated, boost our testing capacity, and ensure that our healthcare professionals and other frontline workers have adequate protective equipment.

The plan will also provide additional funding for rural health infrastructure through the agriculture portion of our bill, which I am so pleased to lead.

Our rural hospitals are struggling to survive right now like places where I grew up in Northern Michigan. This funding will help them keep their doors open, purchase necessary supplies, vaccinate more people, and treat more patients via telehealth, which has become so important.

In the meantime, we know that American families need help to survive during this pandemic. They need help. They need to know we have got their backs. They have got to know that, in all of this, somebody has got their back.

The American Rescue Plan will give working families direct checks, extend crucial unemployment programs, boost the child tax credit and earned-income tax credit, which will lift half of American children out of poverty this year.

Can you imagine? We have an opportunity here in Congress, working with our wonderful new President and Vice President, to pass a policy that will lift half the children in poverty out of poverty--not 10 years from now, not 5 years from now--this year. What an exciting prospect. And we need to get it done.

This means struggling families will, with all of this help, be able to cover the rent or the mortgage, pay their bills, keep food on the table. And keeping food on the table is especially crucial in a time when so many of our neighbors are going hungry.

In fact, we know that 50 million Americans across the country--moms and dads and children--right now are facing hunger every day. We are better than this as a country.

We have all heard stories about seniors waiting hours in lines for a box of food or parents skipping meals so their children can have a little more to eat.

The agriculture and nutrition funding in this American Rescue Plan will tackle hunger head-on by extending pandemic EBT for the duration of the pandemic. What does that mean? This is about children. This is about feeding children--children who otherwise may get fed at school but aren' able to do that to be able to have the resources they need from moms and dads to feed them while they are not in school, as well as in the summer.

It will also provide more fruits and vegetables for moms and babies and make sure that families who are eligible for help are getting it. People who need help in this country need to get that help. They need to know we have their back.

We know that two-thirds of SNAP benefits--the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--two-thirds of it goes to families with children. By extending the bump-up in SNAP funding through the end of September, we can make sure families aren't running out of food and going hungry at the end of the month.

That is especially important for children because it is hard to learn--it is hard to learn how to read and write, and it is hard to focus when your stomach is rumbling, when you have got a headache because you haven't eaten. Our children need to be fed, and they need to be back in class as well.

We can't get our economy moving again if parents can't return to work, and parents can't return to work if they are worried that their children aren't safe at school or one of the parents or the only parent has to be home with the children. What do they do?

So all of this fits together, and this American Rescue Plan will provide the support needed to safely reopen the majority of K-12 schools within President Biden's first 100 days.

How important is that? What a great goal for us to have, and we can do that.

We are just days away from working together and being able to get that done, and it will serve all students, no matter how, no matter where they learn.

And for our farmers, speaking as the incoming chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, our farmers who have been directly affected by the ups and downs of the pandemic, the plan addresses the break in the food supply chain, and it enables us to buy and donate their products to food banks.

You know, we had so many selling to restaurants and big enterprises, the food supply chain stopped. They have excess food. I know dairy farmers in Michigan; it breaks their hearts to think of the idea of dumping milk when we need that.

So the efforts that are in this bill will help them be able to move from a bulk supply chain to be able to get gallon jugs, put the milk into the hands of families, and stop the wasting of precious, valuable food that our families need. This is going to help farmers' bottom lines, and it feeds families in need.

Our agriculture provisions also provide critical funding for PPE for farmworkers and workers who labor every day in food processing plants so we have the food that we need--protective equipment that they need and that they deserve.

The plan also targets help for farmers of color who have been hit especially hard by the pandemic, on top of the historical challenges and discrimination they have faced in accessing land and capital. The plan provides critical debt relief to help them weather the storm and keep their operations going until the next growing season.

Vaccinating Americans, providing economic help for families, getting our children back to school safely, those are the three main goals of this plan.

All of these goals have one thing in common: It is about investing in people. It is about putting people first--the American people first. Over our Nation's history, the policies that have truly been lifting people out of poverty and moved them forward have invested in people, from our land grant universities to social security and Medicare and Medicaid, to the Civil Rights Act, to the Children's Health Insurance Program, to increasing the minimum wage. And these are all policies, I am proud to say, created and supported by Democrats.

Investing in our people helps American families, and it helps our economy too. We have seen these Democratic policies create more jobs when you look at the numbers. When we look at the numbers, under which policies and which Presidents have we seen more good-paying jobs? And over and over again it is Democratic Presidents because of the way that we invest. It is what we do, how we invest, to create opportunity to give everybody a fair shot to succeed, to invest in people and opportunity. Those things have created better economies and more jobs.

So, broadly, we are committed to making sure everyone shares in the prosperity of our country, and these policies create the conditions necessary to help people dream big dreams and actually achieve them.

It is a new year. It is a new Congress. It is time to act. It is time to end this pandemic, give families the economic support they need, and get our children safely back to school. This is the moment. This is the moment we need to think big. We need to be bold. We need to lean in on policies that we know work--because they have worked before.

Americans know how to meet the moment, and our moment is now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before our distinguished leader and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee leaves, I want to thank him for his hard work.

Having grown up in a small, rural community in Northern Michigan, I

can speak directly to how important healthcare services are. My mother was director of nursing at a small hospital, and I know, since that time, they have gone through many changes, barely holding on to the hospital. We have had a number of hospital closings and consolidations.

There is important work that has happened in the health community. I want to congratulate the distinguished chairman and also indicate that the Presiding Officer and I, as we were doing the farm bill--it is my honor and privilege to work with the Presiding Officer--we were part of the solution, including language on telehealth in rural development to actually help expand services, and I think telehealth is an important way to do that as well.

I thank the chairman for his comments.

Madam President, I first want to thank my friend and colleague from Ohio for his passion and for caring so deeply, as we all do in our caucus, fighting for people's healthcare.

It seems every week I am down on the floor saying exactly the same thing: Healthcare is personal; it is not political. Healthcare is personal to every single person in Michigan; it is not political.

Whether a senior is able to afford the medication she needs to treat her chronic condition, that is personal. Whether a single dad is able to take his children to a trusted doctor when they get sick or hurt and keep them on his policy until age 26, that is personal. Whether a woman is charged more for the health insurance coverage she needs to detect cancer early enough so it can be cured, that is personal.

Unfortunately, the law that helps seniors afford their prescriptions, ensures children can remain on their parents' insurance until age 26, requires health insurance policies to charge women the same as a man and to cover lifesaving, preventive care, that law is currently in the intensive care unit on life support.

As we know, since 2010, Senate and House Republicans have voted to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act more than 100 different times--100 different times. That didn't sit right with families across Michigan and across the country. They stood up with us, they fought back with us, and together we won.

What Republicans couldn't do in Congress, they are trying to do through the courts. Today, literally, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals begins hearing arguments in a case brought by 18 different Republican attorneys general and Governors.

In short, these 18 Republican attorneys general and Governors, backed by the Trump administration and President Trump, are trying to take away your healthcare. If they win, healthcare reform could be completely overturned and healthcare taken away. That would take everything away, including Medicaid expansion, which we call Healthy Michigan. In Michigan, we have about 700,000 people getting healthcare now who don't have to pick between working a minimum wage job and getting healthcare. They can do both. Children staying on their parents' insurance plans until age 26--

gone. More affordable drugs for seniors--gone. Protections for people with preexisting conditions--gone.

In other words, it would put insurance companies back in charge of your healthcare, and we all remember what that was like.

Women could once again be charged more for coverage and have to get a rider if they want to get maternity care coverage and prenatal care coverage. Remember when being a woman was considered a preexisting condition? I do. Members of my family do.

Families could once again face yearly or lifetime caps on care when they need it the most, when you think about it.

If the Affordable Care Act is repealed through the courts, the insurance companies would once again be able to say to your doctor: You know, I don't think she really needs 10 cancer treatments or 12 cancer treatments, so we will pay for 5. If addiction treatment or mental health treatment is needed, they could say: I don't think you really need to have more than two sessions if you are an addict. Come on. Today, the doctor decides, with you, what you need in terms of number of treatments, and that is the way it should be.

As I mentioned, nearly 700,000 people in my State are getting healthcare through Healthy Michigan or Medicaid expansion, and they could lose that. In fact, they will lose that.

Our uninsured rate has fallen from 12 percent before the Affordable Care Act to 5 percent. So 12 percent of people were not insured at all, and now it is 5 percent. I would call that a success. Is there more that should be done? Yes. But that is positive, not negative.

The number of people without insurance who have been treated has fallen by 50 percent in Michigan--50 percent. And that is great for all of us. It is certainly great for hospitals that were treating people without insurance before. Someone walks into the emergency room and gets care in the most expensive way, and they don't have insurance. What happens? Everybody else's insurance rates go up. That is what happened. When people were able to get their own insurance coverage, insurance rates went down. In fact, we had over $400 million in Michigan that was put into the State government as a savings as a result of not paying for people going to the emergency room without insurance.

A record 97 percent of Michigan children can see a doctor now when they get sick--97 percent. I would argue that is a great success, not something to be taken away or something to play politics with.

Michigan seniors are saving money on their prescription drugs through the Medicare Part D Program--something called the doughnut hole, the gap in coverage that we closed.

More than half of our families in Michigan, which includes people with preexisting conditions, are now able to get coverage. The insurance companies can't say no, and they can't say: When you get sick, you are going to be dropped. They can't deny you from getting the coverage you need if you have a preexisting condition.

One of those people in Michigan is Heidi, who lives in Cedar Springs. She wrote to me in May. I thank Heidi for doing that. Heidi had bought health insurance for years and almost never needed it because she was healthy. In fact, she only used it, she said, when she gave birth to her daughter. That all changed in 2004 when Heidi was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 45. She has since had multiple tests, multiple surgeries, and multiple rounds of chemotherapy, all at least partially covered by insurance.

Heidi wrote this:

My fear every day is that I won't have insurance if these

changes are made. There is no way any company would insure

me. My husband has a life insurance policy that he bought

before we were married. . . . We asked about me. The salesman

nicely said that I am not insurable. So my plan B is, if I

lose my health insurance, I will take that money and save it

for my funeral (since I can't even get a life insurance

policy for enough for a funeral).

Heidi added this:

I am lucky that I thought insurance was a good thing, and,

therefore, paid for it for years through my job.

Heidi depends on protections for people with preexisting conditions. Heidi didn't ask to get breast cancer. It could happen to any of us. Any day, something could happen to any of us or someone in our family. And if you have or will have what is called a preexisting condition, your health insurance will be taken away if this court case, supported by President Trump, his administration, and Republicans, succeeds.

A couple of months ago, I spoke at the Detroit Race for the Cure, which raises money for breast cancer research. It is a wonderful event. We had a beautiful, sunny day. As I stood on the stage and looked out over a crowd of over 10,000 people, mostly women and many wearing pink, I saw women living with preexisting conditions. I saw people like Heidi.

One woman who was standing on the stage near me asked me a question that I will never forget: ``Why is it that I have to worry about whether or not I will be able to get insurance in the future? Why?'' She added: ``Why don't President Trump and other Republicans understand that this is my life? This is my life.'' It is a very good question. It deserves an answer.

Why don't Republicans in Congress, why don't those 18 attorneys general and Governors, and why doesn't President Trump believe that people like Heidi deserve to have healthcare coverage? Why don't they believe that seniors deserve access to more affordable prescription drugs? Why don't they believe that women should pay the same for their health insurance as men? Why don't they believe that young people should be able to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26? And why don't they believe that families, not insurance companies, should make healthcare decisions? Families, with their doctors, should be making health decisions, medical decisions, not an insurance company. If this lawsuit succeeds, we are going to go right back to putting your medical decisions in the hands of the insurance companies.

Healthcare isn't political; it is personal. It is time to stop playing politics with people's health. For each of us, it is our life.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to my longtime staff member and friend, Bill Sweeney, who will be moving on to a new challenge in his career after nearly 20 years of service on my team.

Bill actually started working on the campaign November 1, 1999, and we were sharing stories of his being up in a crowded little space changing my ``Stabenow for U.S. Congress'' signs to ``Stabenow for U.S. Senate'' signs with little stickers that we used because we didn't have very much money at the time.

Bill has been with me a long, long time, and after so many years, it is tough to know what to say because there is so much to say.

Bill Sweeney has worn more hats on my team than anyone ever has. He started working on my campaign, as I mentioned, for the U.S. Senate as a fundraiser. After the campaign, I hired him as my systems administrator, and he played an integral role in setting up my new Senate office. By the way, we are still today using the systems he set up, and I truly believe they are the best the Senate has.

After a short time, I promoted him to director of information technology. Then, Bill's gift for messaging and writing led to more promotions as my director of outreach, speechwriter, and then senior communications adviser.

Eventually, he took on a broader role on my team as deputy chief of staff, chief of staff, and his position now as staff director of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. But these are just Bill's official titles.

He has been a key strategist, writer, crisis manager, event planner, grammarian, computer programmer, and graphic designer. From directing key communications initiatives to designing floor charts, no job has been too big or too small for Bill, and I will be forever grateful.

He has drafted and edited countless speeches, columns, releases, constituent letters, statements, and talking points over the years.

Born and raised in Michigan, he has always been able to capture the values and the heart of Michigan in his writings. His attention to detail is impeccable. He is an expert on proofreading and has impressively planned and organized our annual caucus retreats and has provided us with extraordinary experiences and speakers.

Bill is also one of the most creative people I know, from designing logos to inventing the Velcro ``countdown'' floor chart, like the one you see here, which shows how many days Bill has worked for me in the U.S. Senate. It is actually very cool. I have to show you: They come off. That is pretty inventive. Whenever you see these on the floor of the U.S. Senate, you can think of Bill Sweeney. So we had to make sure Bill had his own chart before leaving.

He is someone who has always been able to make something look good and function well at the same time. He has a passion for organization. He designed many of the systems that my office relies on to run efficiently today. As I said earlier, we literally are using integrated systems that Bill has designed over the years.

Bill is also one of the smartest people I know. I will miss his sharp wit and his sense of humor. With all of the hats Bill has worn, he is leaving very big shoes to fill. I will always be incredibly grateful for his loyalty, his work ethic, his friendship, and his passion for service.

Bill will be joining the team at AARP and continuing to work on so many issues we have championed together over the years. I wish him incredible success and happiness in his new chapter in his career. I apologize, but I am so happy he is moving on to a big challenge and yet so sorry to lose him.

Thank you, Bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I rise to once again talk about the truly obscene cost of prescription drugs and the No. 1 thing we can do to lower prices. It is spelled out right here: Let Medicare negotiate. It is very simple. Let Medicare negotiate to bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

Prescription drug costs are a huge issue for people, frankly, of all ages who need medication in my State. Whether I am talking to farmers in Western Michigan, retirees in the Upper Peninsula, working families in Wayne County or Macomb County, families are feeling the effects.

When you look at the numbers between 2008 and 2016, prices on the most popular brand-name drugs went up over 208 percent. Just ask those farmers in West Michigan and those working families in Macomb; their income did not rise 208 percent.

Perhaps nobody has been hurt more than our seniors who tend to take more medications and live on fixed incomes. In 2017 alone, the average price of brand-name drugs that seniors often take rose four times faster than the rate of inflation. In 1 year, it rose faster than the rate of inflation. Again, I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of the seniors in my State did not see their incomes go up four times faster than the rate of inflation. I can tell you that seniors in the Upper Peninsula didn't see their pensions or Social Security checks increase that much.

What do families do? What do seniors do? We all know the stories. Some people are forced to cut back on other things like food and paying their bills. Some folks cut their heart pills in half or take their arthritis medication every other day instead of every day--which, by the way, is not OK to do. Some families stop filling their prescriptions altogether simply because they can't afford it. This is wrong.

I have always believed healthcare is a basic human right, and that includes prescription medications. How do we lower the cost of prescriptions so families can afford the medications they need to get healthy and to stay healthy? The No. 1 way to do that is to

let Medicare negotiate. It is very straightforward: Let Medicare negotiate. The VA is allowed to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, and the VA saves 40 percent compared to Medicare. In fact, if Medicare paid the same price as the VA, it could have saved $14.4 billion on just 50 drugs if it paid the same prices as the VA. It could have $14.4 billion in savings if Medicare could negotiate for seniors the way the VA is able to negotiate for veterans.

So what is stopping us? Republicans in Congress and pharma lobbyists are standing in the way of getting this done. In 2018, there were 1,451 lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and health product industry. That is almost 15 lobbyists for every 1 Member of the Senate. Their job is to stop competition and keep prices high, and they are doing a very good job.

Back in 2003, when Medicare Part D was signed into law, they blocked Medicare from harnessing the bargaining power of 43 million American seniors. Those 43 million American seniors together could see negotiating power, but it was blocked by language that was put into Medicare Part D. Let me just say that again. It is very simple. Take that language out and let Medicare negotiate.

Sixteen years later, pharmaceutical companies are still boosting their bottom lines on the backs of our seniors. As if putting that language in Medicare Part D wasn't enough, we constantly see efforts to look for an advantage to block competition, to do something to protect prices, to keep prices high, and they are at it again. The name-brand industry that is a huge supporter of the new trade agreement, NAFTA 2.0--some say NAFTA 1.5, some people call it the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement--but this deal with Canada and America that has been put together and negotiated by the administration has something in it to protect the pricing for Big Pharma. The provisions could stop competitors from getting cheaper generic versions of biologic drugs on the market sooner. If you stop the competition, you stop the ability for generic, no-brand names. They are the same drug most of the time but just without a brand name on it. If you stop that competition, even though that competition brings down prices, you can keep prices and profits high. Biologics are some of the most expensive drugs out there. For example, Humira, the world's top-selling prescription drug, treats conditions including Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and it can cost up to $50,000 a year for one prescription drug. How many people do you know who can afford to pay $50,000 a year for their medication for just one drug?

At least three companies have developed generic versions of the drug, but they will not be available in the United States until at least 2023. We have at least three companies with a lower cost generic version that could bring down prices. They will not be available in the United States until at least 2023. Humira isn't a new drug. It has been around since 2002.

When we had a hearing in the Finance Committee--and I want to commend our chairman for doing that and bringing in the top drug company CEOs-- the CEO that puts Humira into the marketplace indicated they have over 130 different patents that protect them from competition. Here we are, in the middle of a trade agreement, where they are wanting to put language in concerning the length of patents in order to protect their position.

By the way, shortly after the President signed the USMCA at the end of last year, the drug companies decided to begin 2019 with price increases on more than 250 prescription drugs, including Humira. So they feel more confident their position is protected; there is not going to be competition. So what happens? They raise the prices again.

Pharmaceutical companies like to argue that they need special giveaways--like they got in Medicare Part D and that they are trying to get in the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement--because they invest so much in research and development. However, it is also true that when given the opportunity to invest in research and development, many companies chose, instead, to put more money in the pockets of CEOs and shareholders rather than using the big tax cut they received to put more into research and development.

I am a huge supporter of research and development. Most of the primary, basic research is done by all of us as taxpayers. In fact, last year, the 500 biggest U.S. companies spent $608 billion on research and development, which is great. That might sound like a lot, but they spent $806 billion buying back their own stock to keep the prices up on the stock. That also makes you wonder why pharmaceutical companies didn't use their tax giveaway to reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

The pricing of prescription drugs in this country is the ultimate example of a rigged system. It is time to come together and unrig it. That is what we should be doing. Our job is to unrig the system.

First, we need to allow Medicare to harness the bargaining power of 43 million American seniors. One recent poll found that 92 percent of voters support allowing Medicare to negotiate. Let Medicare negotiate. That is 92 percent of voters who believe in this.

Second, we need to prevent the pharmaceutical companies from receiving additional sweet deals that keep drug costs high. I think it is about time we make a deal that benefits Michigan farmers and businesses and seniors and working families. That should be our focus. We should not be in a situation where, time after time, there is special treatment, protective language that bars the pharmaceutical industry from negotiating under Medicare or that allows them to protect their patents longer so they don't have competition from generic drugs to bring down prices.

Let's unrig this system and address the highest driver, the biggest driver in raising the costs of healthcare in this country, which is the cost of prescription drugs. We can do something about that, and we need to do it soon.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about something I have talked about many times on the floor and to reiterate over and over again that healthcare isn't political; it is personal. It is personal for people in Michigan. It is personal for every person, every child, and every family all across our country.

It affects each of us, regardless of our political affiliation or the State we live in or what kind of car we drive. Hopefully, you are driving a car made in Michigan.

At some point, just about all of us will need to take at least one prescription medication in our lifetime. The question is, Will we be able to afford it?

Brian Hose knows this struggle very well. He owns Sharpsburg Pharmacy, an independent drugstore in Sharpsburg, MD. He joined me and some of

my Democratic colleagues at a press conference last week on the rising cost of prescription drugs.

As a pharmacist, Dr. Hose works hard every day to make sure the customers he has have access to the medications they need to stay healthy and, in many cases, to stay alive.

However, that task keeps getting harder and harder. Between 2008 and 2016, prices on the most popular brand-name drugs rose 208 percent--208 percent during that timeframe. Dr. Hose's customers didn't see their incomes rise 208 percent during that same time. Certainly people in Michigan didn't see their incomes rise 208 percent during that same timeframe.

According to AARP, the average price of brand-name drugs that seniors often take rose at four times the rate of inflation in just 1 year-- four times the rate of inflation in 2017 alone. That is unsustainable for people.

Dr. Hose's most vulnerable customers are seniors, of course, especially those who live on Social Security. As the price of medications keeps going up and up, Dr. Hose's customers find it harder and harder to pay for the medications they need.

Dr. Hose said this: ``In no way is the current system looking out for the best interests of the patient, who ultimately needs to buy their medications to stay alive.'' Just ask anyone who takes insulin. Insulin is not a new drug. In fact, it has been around since 1922--almost 100 years--when Canadian scientists treated the first diabetic patient. Those scientists sold the patent to the University of Toronto for three Canadian dollars. They said they didn't believe they should make money off of something that was so important to people's lives. Imagine. They knew how important their discovery was and how many lives would be saved. But somewhere between 1922 and 2019, insulin has become less about saving lives and more about making money. In fact, over the past 15 years, insulin prices have tripled, putting people's health and lives at risk.

Last summer, I met Nicole Smith-Holt, who lives in Richfield, MN. She came to Washington, DC, to testify during a hearing on prescription drug prices. Her son, Alec, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was 24 years old. Alec worked hard to keep his diabetes under control, but one thing he couldn't control was the rising cost of his insulin.

When Alec turned 26, he was no longer qualified to be under his parents' insurance plan, as we have under the Affordable Care Act. About 20 days later, he went to the pharmacy to buy his monthly supply of insulin. The bill for his insulin and supplies came to $1,300. It was a week from payday, and he didn't have $1,300, so he started rationing his insulin. Alec never made it to payday.

Nicole said:

I received a call that no parent ever wants to receive or

expects to receive. I was told that my son was found dead in

his apartment, on his bedroom floor all alone.

She added:

We lost an amazing young man. He had so many hopes and

dreams. He left behind a 5-year-old daughter who now has to

grow up without her father. His little brother lost his idol,

his sisters lost a best friend, and my husband and myself

lost our child.

Affordable medication is a life-and-death issue for millions of Americans like Alec. Unfortunately, we have a pharmaceutical industry that is more interested in profits right now than in people.

In 2018, there were 1,451 registered lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and health product industry. That is almost 15 lobbyists for every Senator. Their job is to stop competition and keep prices high, and they are doing a very good job. It is the ultimate example of a rigged system. It has to change.

The No. 1 way we can bring down costs is to let Medicare negotiate the best price. From the beginning, Medicare Part D has been prohibited from harnessing the bargaining power of 43 million American seniors to bring down costs, which is absurd. That didn't make sense back in 2003, when it was passed as part of Medicare Part D's protectionist language, and it doesn't make sense today.

We know how negotiation can work. We know how negotiation can work because it works for the VA, which saved 40 percent compared to Medicare. We have the VA system for veterans, and we have Medicare for seniors and people with disabilities. The VA negotiates. Medicare is stopped by law from negotiating best price--which, by the way, keeps us with the highest prices in the world. In fact, according to a recent AARP analysis, Medicare could have saved $14.4 billion on just 50 drugs in 2016 if that program had paid the same prices as the VA--$14.4 billion. By the way, cut that down, that is hundreds of dollars-- thousands of dollars out of the pockets of seniors and people with disabilities and, more broadly, people across the country in every family.

A recent poll found that 92 percent of Americans support allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. I would love 92 percent agreement on anything. We should be able to act quickly on something that 92 percent of the American public thinks we ought to do. So what is stopping us? The pharmaceutical lobby and my Republican colleagues in Congress. It is time to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who want to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies. It is just plain common sense.

Negotiating a bulk price is not radical; it is actually something that is done in industry after industry after industry.

Dr. Hose said:

Seniors in Medicare Part D are one of the largest

purchasers of medication in the world. Yet they are unable to

leverage their buying power to decrease their costs.

It makes no sense. It makes no sense. It is past time that this should be changed. But we certainly, as we are talking about ways to lower prices right now--and I commend the chairman and ranking member of Finance for working on this issue and the chairman for bringing the top drug company CEOs and the pharmacy benefit managers into committee. I commend him for that. But this is the moment we need to be totally focused and totally serious about bringing down prices in the most effective way. If we want to do it right, we need to allow Medicare to negotiate on behalf of the American people and put people first.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I was looking to my colleagues because I think we all understand and are trying to accommodate each other's schedules and have the opportunity to speak on the floor. So I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. I first thank Senator Casey for organizing this very important discussion on the floor, and Senator Cardin and Senator Wyden for their passion, and I want to join them in speaking out about protecting Medicaid.

We are talking about people, the majority in nursing homes. We have three out of five seniors in Michigan who have nursing home care and get that through Medicaid, which is critically important, as well as children and families. So I want to lend my support to them, and then I wish to expand the talk about another very important piece of healthcare and how we bring down costs for people.

I have always believed that healthcare is a basic human right and everyone should be able to afford the medicines they need. We have seniors in nursing homes that are there. We talked about Medicaid. In fact, they are more likely than not going to be involved in needing prescription drugs, some kind of medicines, and I am deeply concerned that people are not able to get their medications at a price they can afford to get what they need. Unfortunately, that is certainly happening in Michigan right now.

As we know, over the past decade or so, the costs of medications have really skyrocketed. It is actually shocking to see the numbers going up. Between 2008 and 2016, prices on the most popular brand-name drugs have gone up over 208 percent. I know that in Michigan most people's salaries haven't gone up 208 percent. And if someone is living on a pension or Social Security, that certainly hasn't gone up 208 percent.

So these are huge increases. And according to AARP, the average price of brand-name drugs that seniors often take rose at four times the rate of inflation just in 2017--four times the rate of inflation. So even if you are getting a small little increase, an inflationary increase in your salary or in a pension, your medicines could have gone up four times higher.

I hear from seniors all over Michigan about what a struggle this is. I know we all hear this. Some people are forced to cut back on other necessities, like groceries or paying their bills. Others cut their pills in half or skip doses. You know, this has gone on and on for too long. Some folks stop filling their prescriptions altogether, risking their health.

Suzanne lives in Howell, MI. She takes several medications, including insulin, and she shared her story with me. Unfortunately, for Suzanne, the price for insulin has gone from $21 a month to $278 a month to $410 a month--the same medicine. The same medicine was $21 a month and now is up to $410 a month.

Suzanne isn't alone. In fact, insulin prices overall have tripled in the past 15 years, and let me just add that insulin was discovered over 100 years ago by two Canadian doctors who felt they should not be reimbursed for their patent because this discovery was so important for changing people's lives and the quality of their lives. They actually gave the patent to the University of Toronto for three Canadian dollars over 100 years ago, and yet we are now seeing the price triple just in the past 15 years.

This places a real burden on people with diabetes and their families.

Suzanne said this:

I don't even take the amount that I'm supposed to take. . .

. We can't put money into our retirement. My husband has to

work past [retirement age] because we can't afford to live.

She added:

This is a life or death drug. I have to have this drug to

live.

Suzanne doesn't take insulin because she wants to. She takes insulin because she will die without it. Nobody should be forced to risk their health or their life by cutting back on the medications they need to survive.

Unfortunately, the pricing of prescription drugs in this country is the ultimate example of a rigged system. In 2018, there were 1,451 lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and health product industry. That is almost 15 lobbyists for every Member of the Senate. Their job is to stop competition and keep prices high. Our job is to unrig that system and bring prices down. The No. 1 way we can bring prices down is to let Medicare negotiate.

Currently, Medicare is prohibited, as we know, from harnessing the bargaining power of 43 million seniors in America to bring down prescription drug costs. Why aren't we harnessing the market price through negotiation? That doesn't make any sense.

When Medicare part D became law in 2003, that language was put in there to stop negotiation. It didn't make sense in 2003, and it doesn't make sense today.

We know negotiation can work because it works for the VA, or the Veterans' Administration. The Veterans' Administration negotiates prices, and they save about 40 percent compared to Medicare. In fact, according to a recent AARP analysis, Medicare could have saved $14.4 billion on just 50 drugs--$14.4 billion on just 50 drugs--if they had had the same prices as the VA, and this was in 2016--$14.4 billion.

In 2016, Medicare Part D plans spent $3 billion on a hepatitis C treatment, HARVONI. Under VA pricing, that cost would have been $1.7 billion. These are differences that are related to real money coming out of people's pockets when they are trying to just put food on the table and live their lives and be able to survive in many cases.

Medicare Part D plans spent $1.8 billion on REVLIMID, which treats multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer. Under VA pricing, Medicare Part D and American taxpayers could have saved more than half a billion dollars. Given the potential for such huge savings, it is no surprise that the American people support allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

I hear it everywhere I go: Why can't Medicare just negotiate and get a better deal--commonsense?

One recent poll showed that 92 percent of voters support allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies. Only Republicans in Congress and pharma lobbyists are stopping negotiation from moving forward. We need to change the system and put people before profits. We need to put people before profits.

The best way to do that is to allow Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies. That could make a big difference for people like Jack, who lives in Constantine. Jack was diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer late last year. His oncologist wanted him to start taking a drug called Zytiga. It

was going to cost an astonishing $15,000 for the first month.

A generic medication had become available, but after Medicare and supplemental insurance, Jack still would have to pay $3,400 the first month and more than $400 each month after that.

In his letter to me, Jack wrote this:

I just retired in June, moving back to Michigan to be

closer to my family, and this cost . . . is an extreme

hardship.

He added:

Getting pharmaceutical companies to reduce their price so

an average retiree can afford to use them would be a great

place to start. I hope and pray you and your colleagues on

both sides of the aisle would be able to get something done

so people who need the medication that they need to thrive

and survive are able to get it.

Jack is right. He and Suzanne and other people like them across Michigan and across the country deserve better than what is happening right now. I could go on, and I will not, through price after price after price. The reality is prices are too high. We pay the highest prices in the world. Every other country gets involved in negotiating prices on behalf of their citizens.

The drug companies told me at a hearing that they make a profit in every other country but they make more here. They charge more here. Why? Because they can.

So it is time for us to work together to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and put people before profits.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, first, I want to congratulate the senior Senator from Iowa and say what a wonderful story that is about his mom. And to see a picture like that--it is such an inspiring story. He certainly has a lot to be proud of in many, many ways.

I say to the Senator, now I know more about you, knowing that you had such a smart and strong mom. That tells me a lot. Thank you for sharing that.

I rise with two short topics today. First, I, too, want to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote. Even more so, I rise today to celebrate the brave and determined women who fought so hard and for so long for our right to make our voices heard.

I remember coming into the U.S. Senate in 2000 and finding out that it wasn't until 2001--the first year I was here--that we actually had enough women in the Senate to have one woman on every committee, a woman's voice on every committee. It is incredible, actually, that it took until 2001. But this was an important milestone at the time, as together we have been able to achieve many different milestones for women's voices, and we see that continuing to happen.

I want to speak specifically about Catharine Fish Stebbins, a woman from Detroit who was one of those women who fought so hard at the very beginning and on whose shoulders we really stand. She may not have been as well known, but she was a suffragist and an abolitionist. She signed the Declaration of Sentiments at the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls in 1848.

One of the resolutions in that document said: ``It is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to elective franchise,'' and she took that very seriously.

In 1871, accompanied by her husband, Catharine tried to register to vote. She was told no. She tried again, this time accompanied by a friend who lived in another ward. That friend, Nannette B. Gardner, argued that she was a widow and a taxpayer and that she should be allowed to register. But Catharine was once again told no.

In 1872, she tried to register again. This time, she was told no, but she did get election officials to admit that, in their words, ``Mrs. Stebbins would have all the required qualification of an elector, but for the fact of her being a woman.''

Catharine never did get to cast a ballot before she died in 1904. Yet I believe she would be extremely proud of how far we have come as a country and how far we have come in Michigan.

Last November, Michigan elected a woman Governor--our second woman to be elected Governor--a woman secretary of state, a woman attorney general, reelected a woman to the U.S. Senate, and elected three new women Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. It was extraordinary.

That is progress, but in my mind, the real progress was that being women wasn't the story. We didn't win because of the novelty of having all of these women running for statewide office. We didn't win thanks to some ``pink wave'' that was talked about in the press. We didn't win because we focused on ``women's issues'' because, as we know, every issue is a woman's issue. Instead, each of us won because we were strong and qualified candidates who earned our nominations and ran forward-looking and positive campaigns focused on issues important to Michigan families. Everyone was judged on their own. People weren't talking about our gender and whether it was OK to have women in all of these top positions; instead, they were talking about our qualifications and who was the best candidate. To me, that is truly historic.

There is no question we still have a long way to go. Women now make a quarter of this Chamber. We are one out of four--a historic high. I think Catharine would agree with me that it should be at least 50 percent. That would be a good goal. I think we are maybe 54 percent of the voting population; that is good too.

On this 100th anniversary of women's right to vote, I am celebrating how far we have come and the women, like Catharine, who worked so very hard to get us here. Even more important, I think we all should recommit ourselves to the fight to move forward.

Mr. President, I am proud to be here on the floor today to join with Senator Baldwin and Senator Jones on their resolution with Senator Murphy. I have to say to Senator Murphy, before he puts that down, I have to look at that list and tell you that, before the Affordable Care Act, I would get calls like this, and I am sure you did, too.

Someone calls me and would say: I paid into healthcare all my life and never gotten sick, and then I finally needed surgery. What do you mean it only pays for 1 day in the hospital? Well, it never paid for more than 1 day in the hospital, but they didn't know it because they didn't get sick.

So folks buy the junk plans--and thank you for the list--but they buy the junk plan being healthy and then will never know that it doesn't cover those things unless they get sick. When they find out, it will be too late.

So that is why we are here because we know that healthcare isn't political. It shouldn't be political. It is personal for every one of us. It is personal for ourselves and our families. It affects all of us, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, vote, don't vote, urban, rural from any State in the Union.

In fact, when people tell me their healthcare stories, they don't start by telling me their political affiliation. They talk to me about what has happened to them, what has happened to their mom and dad, what has happened to their children. Political affiliation doesn't matter.

People in Michigan simply want to know that the healthcare they depend on will be there for them and be affordable for them and their family today and into the future, and that is the fight that we have as Democrats. We will continue that fight.

Unfortunately, they have reason to be worried about the rise of short-term, limited duration insurance plans. They should be worried about what these plans don't cover--junk plans, as we are calling them. As Senator Baldwin said so well, they are junk. They don't really cover anything. They make you feel good, as long as you are healthy, that you have got insurance, but then you find out, when you get sick, that your child is not covered or you are not covered.

The fact many of these plans are medically underwritten, which means that the insurance company--by the way, junk plans are about putting decisions back in the hands of the insurance company, instead of you knowing that you and your doctor can decide what you need and that it will be covered. The insurance companies can charge whatever they want based on somebody's health, gender, age, or other status.

Remember when being a woman was considered a preexisting condition? I do. These plans are bringing that back. One recent study found that none of these plans that have been approved by the Trump administration so far cover maternity care--none of them. We fought hard--I fought hard--as a member of the Finance Committee to make sure that women's healthcare and maternity care were covered. Our healthcare is as basic a healthcare as any man's healthcare and ought to be covered the same.

I want to repeat this. We have a maternal health crisis in this country, and the administration is pushing plans that don't cover basic coverage for women. On top of that, these junk plans can exclude people with preexisting conditions--yes, they can--and impose yearly or lifetime caps on care.

Remember when you had to worry about how many cancer treatments the insurance company would pay for? Now, there aren't caps so that you can decide and your doctor can decide with you on what it takes to put you in remission and put you on a healthy path. It is estimated about half of Michigan families include somebody with a preexisting condition-- about half--with everything from heart disease to asthma to arthritis. I met with some of them earlier this month during the National Brain Tumor Society's Head to the Hill event.

Tiffany, who is from Livonia, was just 17 years old when she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Since then, her tumor has reoccurred six times. She has been through seven surgeries, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments. The location of her tumor means that Tiffany has also lost some of the use of her left arm and hand. Tiffany doesn't have a choice. Her life depends on having comprehensive health insurance. Unfortunately, that kind of insurance is getting less and less affordable.

So when our Republican colleagues come to the floor and say that we just want to raise prices, let me tell you what has really happened in the last year. The sabotage by the Trump administration, the unravelling of the Affordable Care Act, the junk plans, now the instability and going into court to try to totally repeal the Affordable Care Act, all of that instability--everything that has been done--means that comprehensive health insurance costs have gone up 16.6 percent this year, so somebody buying insurance is paying an average 16.6 percent more than they did last year because of all of this effort to sabotage, undermine, and unravel the healthcare system.

Tiffany should be able to focus on getting the treatment she needs and living her best life possible, not how she will pay for the insurance she needs. We all know Tiffany isn't alone. It is estimated that 130 million people in our country are living with preexisting conditions--130 million people. That is 130 million people who could be hurt either directly or indirectly by these short-term junk plans.

Two weeks ago, I had the chance to speak at the Detroit Race for the Cure, which raises money for breast cancer research and services. As I stood on the stage and looked out at over 10,000 people, a lot of beautiful pink all surrounding us in downtown Detroit, I saw people with preexisting conditions. One woman, who was standing on the stage near me, asked me the question: Why is it that I have to worry about whether or not I will be able to get insurance in the future? Why do I have to worry about that?

She added: Why don't President Trump and other Republicans understand this is my life?

It is not political for her. It is personal. It is her life. I think that is a very good question: Why don't Republicans understand that people like Tiffany and those women in pink deserve healthcare protections?

Protecting people with preexisting conditions isn't about politics. It is about saving lives. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and the efforts of Senator Baldwin and Jones.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to Michigan residents who have given their lives while serving in our Nation's Armed Forces and their families.

As long as Michigan has been a State--and even before--our people have been willing to put their lives on the line in defense of this Nation. From the War of 1812, to the Civil War, the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the fight against terrorism, the people of Michigan have raised their hand when called upon and stood to the very end.

That was never more true than on December 7, 1941.

That morning, 2,341 American servicemembers lost their lives when Pearl Harbor was attacked. More than 30 of those who died were from Michigan.

This spring, I had the opportunity to honor their sacrifice in person when I visited Pearl Harbor with Senate colleagues.

It is difficult to explain just how moving it is to see Battleship Row and to gaze down at the USS Arizona, so quiet and still in those clear blue waters. I thought about what it must have been like that Sunday morning, a day that began like any other, but which would live in infamy.

Imagine being barely out of high school, far from home, and on the, threshold of war. Imagine being aboard a ship that is coming under attack. Imagine the fearful realization that this might be where your story ends.

These veterans gave everything for us. It is our solemn duty to keep the promises we have made to them.

My own father served in the Navy during World War II. Being there at Pearl Harbor reminded me of his sacrifice and the sacrifices made by all of our veterans, especially those we have lost. On Memorial Day and every day, let's give them our heartfelt thanks, surround their families with love, and honor their sacrifice.

Thank you.

Mr. President, this coming Sunday, mothers and other special women who are mother figures and caregivers for our children across the country will be honored for the important work they do to nuture the next generation.

Many moms will receive cards and flowers. Some will enjoy breakfast in bed or dinner out. A few lucky ones might get plaster handprints or handmade mugs--I love those. These gifts, no matter what they are, will be treasured because when it comes right down to it, all moms really want are a couple of things. They want their children to be happy, and they want their children to be healthy.

Unfortunately, thanks to this administration's continuing attacks on our healthcare, a lot of mothers can no longer count on that. Just ask Rachel whose daughter Alice was born in Detroit with a heart condition called Shone's complex. When Alice was only 1 day old, she had her first open heart surgery. Think about that. She was 1 day old. Four years later, she has an artificial heart valve, a love of dancing, and the biggest grin you have ever seen. She also has what the insurance companies call a preexisting condition. She will have to take heart medication for the rest of her life.

Alice's mom, Rachel, writes:

Her hospital stays and medications cost well over a million

dollars--closer to two million. Without the (Affordable Care

Act), our family would be bankrupt, worrying about how to pay

for her life-saving medications.

No mom should have to worry about going bankrupt because her child was born with a heart condition. It could happen to any of us. No family should go broke paying for the medication that is keeping their child alive. Alice deserves better, and Alice's mom deserves better too.

I have said it before, and I will say it over and over again: Healthcare is personal. It is not political. We should be working across the aisle to expand access to care, improve quality, reduce costs, and we should be doing something to resolve the maternal and infant mortality crisis that is happening right now in the United States of America so Mother's Day is a day of joy instead of a day of sorrow.

Instead, we find ourselves fighting an administration that will not stop trying to take away the protections that

people like Alice count on and that thousands, millions across the country count on. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice last month agreed with a Federal judge in Texas who said the entire Affordable Care Act must be struck down, and that includes coverage for those with preexisting conditions.

Not to be outdone, the Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution out of committee that includes repeal of the Affordable Care Act with no replacement. What would that mean for Michigan families? Our Healthy Michigan Program that provides healthcare to more than 650,000 Michiganders, gone. Children staying on their parents insurance until age 26, gone. Lower drug prices for seniors, gone. Protections for people with preexisting conditions, gone. That would be horrible news for Alice and every other Michigan child born with a heart condition or any other health challenge.

So what is the Republican alternative to the ACA? They don't have one, but don't worry. President Trump says Republicans will unveil a ``really great'' healthcare plan after the 2020 election--after the 2020 election.

In the meantime, the Affordable Care Act could be struck down in the courts, with the support of the Trump administration, and Alice and her mom could really be out of luck.

In honor of Mother's Day, here is what we should be doing together. We should reaffirm the Affordable Care Act's protections for Alice and all people with preexisting conditions. We should, once again, guarantee that every insurance plan covers prenatal and maternity care--by the way, instead of the junk plans the administration is approving right now that don't cover prenatal and maternity care. We should also strengthen healthcare for moms and babies through the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid, which cover about half of the births in our country.

A few years ago, the Finance Committee reported out a bipartisan bill that I led with Senator Grassley. It was called the Quality Care for Moms and Babies Act. This bill would create a set of maternal and infant quality care measures in the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid. The goal is simple: improving maternal and infant health outcomes.

It is amazing that we don't have uniform quality health standards across the country. The Quality Care for Moms and Babies Act will help make sure that every mom gets the best pregnancy care possible and every baby gets a healthy start. That is what we should be passing.

In America today, that is, unfortunately, not the case. Our maternal mortality rate is climbing. African-American women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than are other American women, and our infant mortality rate ranks a shameful 32 among the world's 35 wealthiest nations--32 out of 35 in our great country.

We need to change this so more moms and their children will enjoy a happy Mother's Day. Moms like Rachel shouldn't be spending their Mother's Day worrying about what will happen to their children if the Republicans succeed in undoing the Affordable Care Act.

In thinking back on Alice's diagnosis, Rachel said:

I cannot express how stressful and gut-wrenching a time

this was for my family. I am thankful every day for the

Affordable Care Act.

Moms deserve more than flowers and a card. They deserve the peace of mind that comes from knowing their children are born as healthy as possible and will have the healthcare coverage they need. Our moms gave us life. This Mother's Day, let's pay it forward.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the Honorable Damon J. Keith, a civil rights icon and one of the greatest jurists in our Nation's history.

Judge Keith was born on July 4, 1922, in Detroit, to parents who had relocated from Atlanta so his father could work for $5 a day in a Ford Motor Company plant to create a better future for their family.

Judge Keith's father encouraged him to attend college, and he went on to graduate from West Virginia State College, a historically Black college and university, in 1943. Upon graduation, he served his country in a segregated Army unit during World War II.

After his military service, he received his J.D. from Howard University Law School in 1949, passed the Michigan bar in 1950, married Dr. Rachel Boone in 1953, and received his master of laws degree from Wayne State University School of Law in 1956.

It was during his time at Howard when Judge Keith found a mentor in future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Justice Marshall told Judge Keith to ``use the law as a means for social change.'' That is precisely what Judge Keith did throughout the Civil Rights movement, standing up for justice and equal rights for all citizens.

He spent more than 20 years in private practice in Detroit. He served as a cochair of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission with John Feikens in 1964 and helped heal the community during and after the Detroit Uprising of 1967.

That same year, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated him to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Keith, a grandson of slaves, would go on to serve more than 50 years on the Federal bench, becoming the longest serving Black judge in the nation.

Judge Keith gained national prominence for his ruling against President Nixon's Attorney General John N. Mitchell in the United States v. Sinclair case. Judge Keith's decision was later upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. It is now seen as a landmark decision upholding our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In 1971, Judge Keith ordered that Pontiac, MI, develop a new school bus policy to help integrate its schools. Shortly before the order took effect, five Ku Klux Klansmen firebombed 10 Pontiac school buses and threatened Judge Keith's life.

But Judge Keith persisted, ruling in 1975 that the town of Hamtramck must provide new, affordable housing for 500 African Americans after they were displaced by federally supported urban renewal projects. He served as chief judge from 1975 through 1977.

While serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Judge Keith ruled against another President, this time President George W. Bush's secret deportation hearings after 9/11.

Writing for a unanimous panel of judges, he coined the memorable phrase ``democracies die behind closed doors,'' which inspired the Washington Post's motto: ``Democracy Dies in Darkness.''

He remained active into his 90s. He issued a blistering dissent in a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals voting rights case in 2016, in which the majority upheld extremely strict voting requirements in Ohio.

Above all, he was a patriot who deeply loved this country. One of his proudest roles was serving as the national chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, when he led efforts to promote the document our nation was built upon.

Over the years, he mentored countless lawyers, including Michigan's Secretary of State Jocelyn F. Benson, circuit court Judge Eric L. Clay, and Lani Guinier, the first African-American woman to gain tenure at Harvard Law School.

Guinier, who served as Judge Keith's law clerk, once said this: ``Judge Keith has been my second father, someone who presided at my wedding, stood by me during some of the most difficult professional challenges of my life, and guided me with his wisdom,'' she said. ``And I am far from alone.''

Professor Guinier is right. With Judge Keith on their side, the people of Michigan were never alone. We knew that we had someone fighting for us and for justice for all. He used the law as a means for social change, and I think Justice Marshall would be very proud.

My deepest condolences go to his three daughters, Debbie Keith, Gilda Keith, and Cecile Keith Brown, his two granddaughters, and his many friends.