Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican healthcare bill known as Graham-Cassidy. You would expect that Republicans' fourth attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act would be better than the previous three. In fact, the opposite is true. This bill is the worst of the four bills.

This is especially personal for me because the bill hurts California more than any other State. Before I get to this attack on my home State, I would like to list just a few of the many ways this bill harms millions of Americans and puts countless lives at risk.

This bill boots at least 32 million Americans off healthcare. There is no sugarcoating it; Graham-Cassidy cuts health insurance subsidies and slashes Medicaid funding. That will mean fewer people with healthcare, plain and simple.

The bill ends guaranteed protections for those with preexisting conditions. Anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth. This bill says that States can allow insurance companies to charge those with preexisting conditions whatever they want. That means an end to guaranteed coverage because people with health conditions would be charged so much they wouldn't be able to afford coverage. Arguments to the contrary are just wrong.

This bill not only eliminates the Medicaid expansion, it ends Medicaid as we have known it since 1965. The Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act has meant 15 million more vulnerable Americans have gained insurance. With those funds gone, they lose coverage. By radically changing traditional Medicaid, States would have to either cover hundreds of billions in additional costs or kick people off Medicaid. Again, fewer people with coverage, more lives at risk--these are facts, and they are indisputable.

This bill is also devastating for women's health. It ends the guarantee that maternity care, contraception, and other critical services women need will be covered and bars women on Medicaid from accessing Planned Parenthood, which is the primary healthcare provider for millions of American women. We hear so much from the other side about the importance of being able to choose your doctor. This bill says that, if you have chosen a doctor at Planned Parenthood, too bad. It doesn't matter how much you like that doctor; you need to find someone else.

The bill also takes us back to the days of junk plans, when you could faithfully pay your premium and then discover you weren't covered when you got sick. The Affordable Care Act required all insurance companies to cover essential health benefits like cancer treatment, maternity care, prescriptions, and mental health. Graham-Cassidy says States can waive that protection.

Those items I described affect all Americans, but as I said, this bill is also a direct attack on California and other Democratic States. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act couldn't require States to expand Medicaid to cover more families, some Republican States used that as a way to attack President Obama's legacy. Never mind that they were risking their own constituents' lives, it was a political win for them.

Now, Graham-Cassidy proposes taking Federal funds away from those States that did expand Medicaid and give it to those that refused. In California alone, 4 million have health insurance today because my State decided to accept the Federal Government's 90 percent contribution for a small 10 percent buy-in. Graham-Cassidy would end that, pulling the rug out from under those Californians. To say this is unconscionable is an understatement.

What is worse, the bill's authors openly admit this is their strategy--to redirect money from States like California and New York to Republican States. Senator Cassidy said he is just trying to create ``parity,'' but the reason there isn't parity is because Republican Governors and legislatures chose to put politics over people's health. States can choose at any time to opt-in and receive the 90 percent match for Medicaid expansion. Candidly, it is a revolting way to get a bill passed

The one part of this bill that is the same as past versions is the dire cuts to Medicaid. This needs to be repeated: The only thing congressional Republicans have agreed on throughout this entire process is that children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and seniors in nursing homes get too much healthcare.

For any of my colleagues who don't realize the full extent of what Medicaid does for this country, allow me to explain. Gutting Medicaid would devastate care for children, particularly those with disabilities and complex healthcare needs. If anything in Washington were untouchable, I would think it would be providing healthcare to sick children, but apparently not.

Each Republican healthcare bill in the House and Senate goes far beyond just repealing the Affordable Care Act. It essentially ends Medicaid as we have known it since 1965, the year President Lyndon Johnson created the program. Today, Medicaid covers 36 million children, including 5 million in California. That is nearly half of all children in this country. The program has always been a partnership between the States and the Federal Government. The Federal Government has paid a fixed share of all healthcare costs for Medicaid beneficiaries.

Republicans want to end that partnership. Their plan would place strict limits on Federal payments, with States responsible for all costs above that limit. We don't have a full CBO score of this bill, so we don't have the exact numbers, but outside estimates of the total cuts in this bill show States losing over $4 trillion over the next two decades. Let me repeat that figure: over $4 trillion of cuts to Medicaid and health insurance subsidies within a generation.

California alone would be required to pay $139 billion more between 2020 and 2027, and over the next 20 years, it would cost my State $800 billion. These cuts would be backbreaking and force many States to make extremely hard choices. If California couldn't come up with tens of billions of dollars more each year, millions of residents could lose their Medicaid coverage. California's Medicaid director said, ``Nothing is safe--no population, no services.''

In July, I visited UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital in San Francisco. I met with three mothers--Kristin, Sally, and Nina. Their children-- Maggie, Megan, and Drew--have struggled with extraordinary healthcare needs including cerebral palsy, a congenital heart defect, and VATER syndrome, which is a set of complex birth defects. If it weren't for the first-class care they received at Benioff, they wouldn't have survived.

These mothers are heroes. They have dedicated their lives to their children, doing all they can to ensure they lead full, happy lives in the face of such significant adversity. When I asked them how they and their children cope, Nina told me that you simply do your best to live the life you have.

All three of these families are middle class. They are covered by employer-sponsored private insurance, but Medicaid fills the significant gaps in coverage. It covers in-home nurses to provide around-the-clock care, as well as first-rate medical equipment-- services that private insurance doesn't cover. Without in-home care, their children would have been placed in institutions to ensure access to critical around-the-clock care.

If the Senate passes a bill that guts Medicaid, mothers like these may not be able to keep their children at home.

That is a stunning indictment of a party that proclaims its commitment to ``family values.'' One of the first areas where these cuts could show themselves would be our country's 220 top-rate children's hospitals. On average, 60 percent of patients at these hospitals are covered by Medicaid. In some facilities, that number is as high as 80 percent. Those hospitals would inevitably need to reduce services and consolidate locations. Their ability to stay open would be threatened.

You don't need to take my word on this point. The doctors and healthcare professionals who run children's hospitals have made this point crystal clear. Dr. Michael Anderson, CEO of Benioff Children's says, ``Graham-Cassidy will be devastating to sick children and their families. If Graham-Cassidy is implemented, children with complex illnesses will be more likely to have less funding available to them than what they actually need.''

Dr. Paul Viviano, CEO of Children's Hospital Los Angeles--one of the country's top 10 children's hospitals--said previously that the cuts like this to the Medicaid Program would ``threaten'' their programs and ``put at risk life-saving services.'' The reach of these cuts would extend far beyond patients who rely on the Medicaid Program. That is because the research and training of specialists at children's hospitals improves care for children nationwide. If specialists aren't available or are never trained, that hurts all children. Todd Suntrapak, CEO of Valley Children's in Madera, CA, told me that gutting Medicaid ``threatens the very viability of pediatric health care in this country.''

Gutting Medicaid also threatens the wide range of supplemental services like speech and physical therapy that allow children with disabilities to thrive. Many of the letters and calls I have received in opposition to the bill have been from mothers advocating on behalf of their children with disabilities because they know these cuts would hurt their families.

Beth from Davis, CA, has a son named Patrick with Down syndrome. Patrick also battled leukemia as a child. Despite the challenges he has faced, Patrick will soon graduate from high school. His mom expects him to secure a job and live independently because of the support he receives through California's regional center programs.

Medicaid provides the vast majority of the $2.5 billion in Federal funding that our 21 regional center programs receive to facilitate job- training, physical therapy, and other supports for those with disabilities. Beth wrote to me that her family has ``every reason to believe that Patrick will be a tax-paying Californian and we can't wait!'' Gutting Medicaid puts the services that have allowed Patrick to be in a position to graduate from high school on the chopping block.

I would like to close by reminding my Republican colleagues that, if they pass this bill, they are effectively abandoning families during the most painful and difficult times in their lives--telling them they are on their own. I don't believe that is the type of country we are, and it is up to Senate Republicans to prove it. Stop advocating the dangerous repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Instead, let's stabilize its funding and improve it so it works for all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution to recognize September as Workforce Development Month.

As technological advances reshape traditional fields and fuel the emergence of new industries, it is imperative that our workforce development system remain agile and flexible in order to educate and train the next generation of workers and those needing additional on- the-job training skills to stay competitive.

In addition, it is vital that we recognize the importance of all career pathways and professional development whether an individual pursues a 4-year degree or seeks to further their education at a community college, through an industry recognized certificate program, or as an apprentice.

In an effort to face this challenge head on, Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in 2014 with overwhelming bipartisan support. WIOA was signed into law by President Obama and has helped streamline the workforce development system while increasing and strengthening partnerships between regional businesses, workforce development boards, and educational institutions.

In fact, it is these partnerships that have proven to be key to regional success at addressing the workforce needs of businesses. By working together, local businesses and educators can ensure that not only do businesses have access to the talent they need to grow but that those seeking work can find it.

Nationwide, the more than 550 workforce development boards and 2,500 American Job Centers have become a driving force behind growing regional economies by providing training, resources, and assistance to workers aiming to compete in the 21st century economy.

These workforce development boards and American Job Centers work with job seekers and employers across industries ranging from healthcare and information technology to manufacturing and construction.

There are currently nearly half a million registered apprentices across the country, including nearly fifty thousand in California alone.

Bipartisan support for earn-and-learn approaches such as apprenticeships and paid internships is critical for helping future workers gain the skills and experience they need while being able to provide for themselves and their families.

In recognition of workforce development month, Congress reaffirms its support for a comprehensive approach to workforce development, encourages partnerships between industry leaders and educators, and emphasizes the importance of all career pathways in pursuit of economic prosperity.

In closing, during this month it is essential that we acknowledge and commend the professionals who work every day to make these efforts a reality. America's workforce is the backbone of our economy and it is the expertise, dedication, and knowledge of these professionals that has helped develop such a robust system.

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution and encouraging the continued growth of our workforce development system.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate this body on its passage of two important antitrafficking bills: the Abolish Human Trafficking Act and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

I am proud to have worked with Senators Grassley, Cornyn, and Klobuchar on these comprehensive bills and commend them and their staffs for the thoughtful and bipartisan manner in which they were drafted.

I would also like to thank the numerous law enforcement and antitrafficking organizations and, most importantly, the survivors, who have provided feedback and support throughout this process. It is my hope that the legislation passed last night will assist the tremendous work these groups do in the fight against human trafficking.

Both bills reauthorize a number of important programs that help victims and strengthen efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to human trafficking crimes.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which I authored with Senator Grassley, promotes victim-centered training for school resource officers, judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement. It ensures that trafficking victims are properly screened and that more comprehensive data about trafficking crimes are collected.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act also includes one of my top priorities, which is to prevent the proliferation of trafficking offenses over the internet. I want to take a moment to discuss why I believe this to be a deeply important step in curtailing the criminal enterprise of trafficking.

The commercial sex industry is evolving. The use of the internet to sell commercial sex has escalated dramatically over the past several years.

Online platforms have provided an easily accessible and seemingly low-risk forum for buyers. In 2014, one website advertised nearly 12,000 advertisements for commercial sex in a single day.

Some of these sites have become hubs of human trafficking. Backpage.com, in particular, has been used to facilitate sex trafficking of minors for years. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has determined that Backpage.com is linked to 73 percent of all suspected child sex trafficking reports that it receives through its ``CyberTipline.''

Indeed, just a few months ago in my home State, a 3-month investigation into Backpage.com led the Stockton Police Department to discover eight victims being trafficked for sex in the area. Some of these girls were as young as 14 years old. San Joaquin District Attorney's Human Trafficking Task Force said that advertisements on Backpage com offered sexual acts with the victims for as little as $20.

Under current law, it is a criminal offense to knowingly advertise commercial sex acts with a minor. Backpage.com has repeatedly asserted that it has no involvement with the advertisements posted on its website. However, after a thorough review of Backpage.com's screening methods and practices regarding their advertisements, the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations concluded that Backpage.com knows that its website facilitates trafficking and knowingly concealed evidence of criminality by systematically editing its adult ads to help them avoid detection by law enforcement.

Shortly after these findings were publicly released, the Washington Post obtained documents that showed that contractors hired by Backpage.com were specifically instructed to solicit and create sex ads aggressively, including the posting of ads suggestive of sex with minors. In fact, these documents revealed that ``invoices and call sheets indicate Backpage.com was pushing [the contractor] to get as many new listings as possible.''

These revelations are deeply concerning, and I hope that they will be

thoroughly investigated. Those who knowingly advertise minors for commercial sex must be held accountable.

It is appalling that even as serious questions about Backpage.com's culpability are raised, law enforcement officers do not have all of the tools they need to prevent young children from being exploited on the site.

The language we have included in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act will prevent the continued victimization of children by providing law enforcement with a tool to prevent traffickers from using online tools to further their exploitation.

Specifically, the provision adds civil injunction authority to the criminal statute that prohibits the advertisement of commercial sex acts with a minor. This allows the Department of Justice to file civil enforcement cases to prevent traffickers from using the internet and other tech platforms to sell children for sex.

Civil injunction authority is not new. It exists for the Attorney General to obtain orders against criminal defendants to stop them from committing certain kinds of crimes. For example, such authority has been used by the Department to shut down websites from distributing software for spying on people.

Adding this authority to existing criminal trafficking provisions gives law enforcement a more readily accessible means to deny human traffickers access to platforms like Backpage.com and thereby restrict their ability to traffic children online.

I am similarly proud to have cosponsored the Abolish Human Trafficking Act, which was led by Senators Cornyn and Klobuchar. The bill includes critical provisions to aid victims in restoring their lives. It extends the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund, which helps fund victim services and increase law enforcement efforts. It also expands mandatory restitution provisions for sex tourism and other trafficking-related crimes.

The bill further strengthens law enforcement's ability to prevent and prosecute trafficking offenses For example, the Abolish Human Trafficking Act expands the authority of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to use wiretaps in sexual exploitation cases. It also enhances statutory maximum penalties for several human trafficking offenses and establishes a human trafficking coordinator at every U.S. Attorney's Office.

As the sex trafficking industry continues to evolve, so must our laws. We must ensure that we are doing all we can to curtail this criminal enterprise and do right by those who have been victimized. The bills we have passed last night aim to do just that. Again, I congratulate my colleagues on the passage of this important, comprehensive legislation. I hope that ending the scourge of human trafficking will continue to be a top priority for this body.

Mr. President, yesterday, along with several of my colleagues, I introduced the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 2017. This bill would reauthorize a national program to improve the Nation's earthquake preparedness. Senators Murkowski, Gardner, Murray, Wyden, Harris, Merkley, and Cantwell are original cosponsors of this bill, and I thank them for their support.

I firmly believe that, when it comes to a catastrophic earthquake, it is not a matter of if it will occur, it is a matter of when. It is important that we recognize the threats posed by earthquakes and do all we can to plan for the worst. By reauthorizing the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, we will ensure that vital research, assistance to States, and development of early-warning systems continue.

Earthquakes threaten many areas in the United States--some densely populated, some not. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program helps four Federal agencies--the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation--coordinate earthquake research and education activities, as well as develop and disseminate information and best practices in order to protect public safety. The most recent reauthorization expired in 2009.

While there is still much that we do not know about earthquakes, we do know that there are many actions that we can take to reduce earthquake risk. We can map active fault lines and utilize geological knowledge to inform where we build. Research can help architects to design buildings that are more earthquake-resistant, as well as ensure that critical infrastructure such as hospitals and powerplants are able to function after an earthquake strikes. Outreach and better coordination can help prepare response efforts, and developing an early-warning system is a critical tool to guard against severe loss of life.

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act would enable earthquake-prone communities to better prepare and protect themselves by minimizing losses through infrastructure improvements and hazard and risk assessments.

The key provisions of the bill would permanently reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP; remove outdated language related to earthquake prediction and instead emphasizes the continued development of earthquake early-warning systems through the Advanced National Seismic System; require the production of a set of maps showing active faults and folds, liquefaction susceptibility, and other hazards that can be induced by an earthquake, such as landslides; reduce various administrative burdens for Federal agencies that are disruptive to the essential mission of the program and improves data sharing between agencies; enhance coordination among Federal agencies and with State agencies; provide clear direction to the four Federal agencies charged with overseeing NEHRP--the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Science Foundation--to continue working with States and private sector experts on performance- based design features; direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to implement a grant program to assist States with incorporating earthquakes in their hazard reduction portfolios; and direct the completion of a comprehensive assessment of the Nation's earthquake risk reduction progress, as well as remaining areas that require more funding.

The bill has the support of a wide array of groups, including the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Association of American State Geologists, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, the Geological Society of America, the National Council of Structural Engineers Association, the National Emergency Management Association, the Seismological Society of America, and the Structural Engineers Association of California. I thank those groups for supporting this bill.

We have made much progress to create a more earthquake-resilient nation, but we can do more. This bill provides a positive step forward to ensure that we build on the work that has already been done and continue investing in policies that reduce the risk to life, property, and livelihoods as a result of an earthquake.

I thank the Senators who have joined me in cosponsoring this bill, and I urge the full Senate to promptly take up this bill and pass it as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the need to protect undocumented young people, commonly referred to as Dreamers, from deportation.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or what is called DACA, was announced by President Obama in 2012 to solve an urgent need. Hundreds of thousands of young people brought to this country as children were at risk of being deported. They didn't take the action to come; their parents took the action to come and bring them. President Obama's Executive order temporarily protected these undocumented young people from deportation. DACA also provides the opportunity to obtain work permits and has made it possible for many young DACA beneficiaries to enroll in college.

If Congress doesn't act now and pass a law, President Trump's decision to terminate this program will have devastating consequences for nearly 800,000 families across the United States, particularly those in California. This decision to end DACA without first ensuring that young people have legal protection is why we are demanding a vote on the Dream Act as soon as possible. DACA recipients deserve certainty now, not 6 months from now. These young people trusted our government, and it is time we stopped playing with their lives.

The Dream Act, introduced by Senators Graham and Durbin, has been considered many times already by this Congress. It was most recently included in the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate in 2013 with 68 votes. I remember it well. I remember weeks in committee. I remember dozens of amendments. I remember the time on the floor, the hope that we would be able to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It had an agricultural workers program in it. It had this program for undocumented children. It had H2A. It had a whole panoply of reforms in it, and it went down. It got 68 votes here, although it didn't survive in the House.

I believe there is broad bipartisan support for the Dream Act. I just learned, for example, that polls are saying that 70 percent of the people in this country are in favor of it. And I would be confident that it would pass if given an up-or-down vote. So I call on leadership to ensure there is a clean vote on the Dream Act this month.

As I mentioned, 800,000 young people have been admitted to the DACA Program, allowing them to come out of the shadows. They were educated here. They work here. They pay taxes. They are integrated into American society. These young people are fiercely patriotic. In every way that truly matters, they are Americans.

Listen to this: 95 percent of DACA recipients are working or in school. That is 95 percent of 800,000. The typical DACA recipient came to this country at 6 years old. They have known no home other than this one. Many of them only speak English.

Seventy-two percent of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies--companies such as Apple, Amazon, Facebook, J.P. Morgan--employ DACA recipients. DACA recipients are contributing significantly to our economy. It is estimated that ending the program would mean a $460.3 billion hit to the GDP over the next decade.

But protecting DACA recipients isn't a matter of politics or economics; it is really about what is right as Americans and human beings. This is particularly important for me, representing California, because 1 in 4 Dreamers--223,000--live, work, and study in California, and I can testify that they are an essential part of the fabric of our communities. So it is important for Senators and the American public to know the very real human side to this issue.

I want to share the story of a remarkable young woman whom I met and whose family I met. Her name is Vianney Sanchez. She was brought to this country when she was just 1. Today she lives in East Oakland. I met her and her family last month, and I last spoke to her on Monday night. Vianney is a 23-year-old graduate student from UC Santa Cruz with a degree in psychology. She is pursuing a career in public service so she can give back to this country.

Vianney's mother, Maria, whom I also met, worked as an oncology nurse at Highland Hospital, and her father, Eusebio, worked as a truckdriver. They had no criminal record. They owned their own home, which I visited, a small home in East Oakland. They paid their taxes. And they were in this country for 23 years. I saw them the week before the mother and father were deported last month, sobbing in their living room. My office has worked on their case for years, and their deportation was truly heartbreaking. I will never forget having to call Maria and tell her that I had spoken to the Acting

Secretary of Homeland Security, begging her not to deport this family, and that she would be deported and separated from her children the next day. It was one of the most painful calls I have ever had to make.

These heartbreaking photos of the Sanchez family were taken by the San Francisco Chronicle and Bay Area News Group before Maria and Eusebio were forced to leave. This is Maria--20 years a nurse at Highland Hospital. This is Vianney, and this is the second oldest child. The oldest child is DACA, and it has now fallen to her to support her two sisters, maintain the house, work, and hopefully start her career. Her mother, her father, and her American citizen youngest brother are in Mexico. I think these heartbreaking photos tell a story. Vianney now is facing the uncertainty that she, too, could lose protection and be deported. Then what would happen to her sisters?

Every day we fail to act means one more day that Vianney, Melin, and Elizabeth are forced to live with this enormous cloud hanging over their heads. And, you know, Senator, the fear is palpable. You talk to these young people on the telephone, and you can sense what is happening. First of all, they know the government knows everything about them. The government knows where they live, what they do. They have to report regularly. This is kind of a conditional program, and so they are up front and out front. And you would think this would give them a sense of security, but it actually gives them a sense of insecurity because they don't know what the future will bring.

I would like to share the story of another talented and ambitious Californian who has taken full advantage of the opportunity she has been given. This is Denisse Rojas. She arrived in the United States when she was just 10 months old, brought here from Mexico. Like many of our immigrant ancestors, her parents wanted to make a better life for their children. This is a very recent photo of her; you can see she is beautiful.

Denisse's family is similar to other families in California. After arriving in Fremont, her father worked full time in a restaurant while pursuing his high school diploma at night. Her mother attended community college part time for 7 years to earn her nursing degree. After years of trying to gain legal status, her parents were forced to move to Canada. That left Denisse.

Denisse excelled in high school, graduating with a 4.3 GPA. She attended UC Berkeley, which is one of the top public universities in the Nation, to study biology and sociology. She dreamt of going to medical school, driven in part by a family member's earlier death from cancer. The cancer was diagnosed at a late stage because the family's immigration status made it impossible to afford health insurance. Denisse worked as a waitress and commuted an hour each way to classes because she couldn't afford to live on campus. After graduation, she volunteered at San Francisco General Hospital.

This is Denisse today. She is in New York at Mount Sinai Medical School, one of the country's top programs. She is on track to earn her degree in 2019. You can see her in the middle of this photo in her medical scrubs and how proud she is.

To help other students navigate the admissions process and pursue careers in health and medicine, Denisse cofounded a national nonprofit organization called Pre-Health Dreamers. Through Pre-Health Dreamers, Denisse has helped many other students as they work toward their goals.

After graduation, she intends to specialize in emergency medicine and work in low-income communities to provide healthcare to families like her own who too often go without needed treatment.

Parts of California, particularly our rural counties, are very short on doctors. This is a big problem. In the healthcare reform, they are lucky if they have the choice of one insurance. So we desperately need people like Denisse who want to work in communities most in need of skilled health professionals.

Without DACA or passage of the Dream Act, Denisse won't be able to come home. She won't be able to stay. All of the education that has gotten her here--a top-notch university and a top-notch hospital, I assume as an intern or a resident at this time--she wouldn't have the proper work authorization or accompanying documents, and our country would be denied a highly qualified, motivated doctor.

In closing, I really believe we have a moral obligation to do all we can to shield these young people from deportation. Remember, they did not break the law. They were brought here as children, many as babies. Some don't know the language of the land from whence they came. They all speak English very well. They want the American dream. They are motivated, and they are patriotic. I was listening to a young person the other day, and all she wanted to do was be in the military. She is ROTC and wants to be in the military. You know, these are the people who make this country great, and we can't forsake them.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today I offer private immigration relief legislation to provide an immigrant visa or lawful permanent resident status to Maria Mendoza Sanchez, Eusebio Sanchez, and Vianney Sanchez. The family represents the essence of the American dream. I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for this relief.

In August 2014, my office assisted Maria and Eusebio with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during their request for a stay of removal. Under the previous administration, ICE found that their case was worthy of a favorable exercise of discretion. This was an acknowledgement that they posed no public safety risk, had no criminal records, and therefore should not be priorities for deportation.

Despite this, in 2017, the Trump administration, told Maria and Eusebio that they were no longer eligible for a stay of removal and that they should prepare for deportation Mario and Eusebio pled with ICE to reconsider this sudden change in policy and I supported their request--believing it would be senseless and callous to remove them from our Country. However, all possible avenues to delay their deportation were denied by immigration. officials.

In August 2017, after living productive lives in this Country for 23 years, Maria and Eusebio were deported back to Mexico. Their deportation was truly heartbreaking for me, their family, and their community. I personally met Maria and Eusebio and can attest that they are the kind of people we should welcome into the United States with open arms. They are hardworking, law-abiding people who have been self- supporting, have paid their taxes, and owned a home in East Oakland.

Prior to her deportation, Maria worked as a registered nurse in a local hospital in Oakland, CA. She provided care to patients afflicted with conditions such as trauma, stroke, and cancer. Her supervisor said that her ``genuine compassion, appreciation for her work, and deep knowledge of nursing practices made her an excellent addition to [our hospital].'' Another letter of support said that Maria ``is a great asset to our hospital, community, and country. She is the epitome of what Americans should be.'' Maria's bilingual skills made her a strategic asset in assisting patients at work, which serves uninsured, underserved, and low-income populations. Her deportation is a great loss to many of the patients that relied on her critical assistance as they went through medical treatment.

Similar to Maria, Eusebio was a hardworking contributor to their community. He was a truck driver for a San Francisco-based company, and his employer has described him as ``very reliable, trustworthy, [a] team player, and exceptional worker.'' His friends describe him as someone who ``is a good person, responsible at work, willing to help when we need assistance.''

Together, Eusebio and Maria have raised four children--three of whom are U.S. citizens. Their oldest daughter, Vianney, age 23, has protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program. She graduated from the University of California at Santa Cruz with a degree in Psychology. She has aspirations of using her education to work in public service and help her community. She is passionate about doing work that allows her to focus on improving the lives of residents of Oakland and the Bay Area. As a result of Maria and Eusebio's deportation, Vianney will be assuming responsibility of her two younger sisters. I believe that Vianney's determination to make sure her sisters are properly cared for, after dealing with the crushing experience of being separated from her parents, is a testament to her remarkable strength and resilience, and a sign of the kind of values instilled in her by her now deported parents.

The Sanchez's second daughter, Melin, age 21, is a U.S. citizen. She is currently enrolled at the University of California at Santa Cruz, where she is studying molecular cell and developmental biology. She has aspirations of becoming a pediatrician. Maria and Eusebio paid her college tuition and supported her as she studied for the MCAT and volunteered at a hospital. Their deportation leaves Melin's college tuition in peril.

The Sanchez's third daughter, Elizabeth, age 16, is a U.S. citizen and is currently enrolled at the NEA Community Learning Center in Alameda. Elizabeth was diagnosed with a speech delay and learning disabilities at a young age, but with the support of her parents, was able to make great progress and is doing well in school. She needs the support of her parents and continuing to separate her from them will significantly affect her ability to pursue her dreams.

The Sanchez's son, Jesus, age 12, is a U.S. citizen. He was born with a congenital heart disease, which requires continued medical attention. Jesus has accompanied his parents on their return to Mexico. Maria and Eusebio's deportation will have an extraordinary impact on Jesus. He can no longer continue his education in the U.S., the only Country he has ever known. Additionally, Jesus obtained health insurance coverage for his medical condition through his parents. As a result of their deportation, he will lose access to medical care in the U.S.

Maria, Eusebio, and Vianney have become respected members of their community in California. This is exemplified in the overwhelming support they received to shield them from deportation. Separating this family is not what our country stands for. Maria and Eusebio want nothing more than to continue to provide for their children and continue contributing to this great country they called home. Their deportation has greatly affected their ability to do so.

I believe that Maria and Eusebio's deportation has been a tremendous loss

for their children and community. In addition, I believe Vianney needs further protection. This family warrants our compassion, and I will keep fighting for them.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, today I offer private immigration relief legislation to provide an immigrant visa or lawful permanent resident status to Maria Mendoza Sanchez, Eusebio Sanchez, and Vianney Sanchez. The family represents the essence of the American dream. I believe they merit Congress' special consideration for this relief.

In August 2014, my office assisted Maria and Eusebio with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during their request for a stay of removal. Under the previous administration, ICE found that their case was worthy of a favorable exercise of discretion. This was an acknowledgement that they posed no public safety risk, had no criminal records, and therefore should not be priorities for deportation.

Despite this, in 2017, the Trump administration, told Maria and Eusebio that they were no longer eligible for a stay of removal and that they should prepare for deportation Mario and Eusebio pled with ICE to reconsider this sudden change in policy and I supported their request--believing it would be senseless and callous to remove them from our Country. However, all possible avenues to delay their deportation were denied by immigration. officials.

In August 2017, after living productive lives in this Country for 23 years, Maria and Eusebio were deported back to Mexico. Their deportation was truly heartbreaking for me, their family, and their community. I personally met Maria and Eusebio and can attest that they are the kind of people we should welcome into the United States with open arms. They are hardworking, law-abiding people who have been self- supporting, have paid their taxes, and owned a home in East Oakland.

Prior to her deportation, Maria worked as a registered nurse in a local hospital in Oakland, CA. She provided care to patients afflicted with conditions such as trauma, stroke, and cancer. Her supervisor said that her ``genuine compassion, appreciation for her work, and deep knowledge of nursing practices made her an excellent addition to [our hospital].'' Another letter of support said that Maria ``is a great asset to our hospital, community, and country. She is the epitome of what Americans should be.'' Maria's bilingual skills made her a strategic asset in assisting patients at work, which serves uninsured, underserved, and low-income populations. Her deportation is a great loss to many of the patients that relied on her critical assistance as they went through medical treatment.

Similar to Maria, Eusebio was a hardworking contributor to their community. He was a truck driver for a San Francisco-based company, and his employer has described him as ``very reliable, trustworthy, [a] team player, and exceptional worker.'' His friends describe him as someone who ``is a good person, responsible at work, willing to help when we need assistance.''

Together, Eusebio and Maria have raised four children--three of whom are U.S. citizens. Their oldest daughter, Vianney, age 23, has protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, program. She graduated from the University of California at Santa Cruz with a degree in Psychology. She has aspirations of using her education to work in public service and help her community. She is passionate about doing work that allows her to focus on improving the lives of residents of Oakland and the Bay Area. As a result of Maria and Eusebio's deportation, Vianney will be assuming responsibility of her two younger sisters. I believe that Vianney's determination to make sure her sisters are properly cared for, after dealing with the crushing experience of being separated from her parents, is a testament to her remarkable strength and resilience, and a sign of the kind of values instilled in her by her now deported parents.

The Sanchez's second daughter, Melin, age 21, is a U.S. citizen. She is currently enrolled at the University of California at Santa Cruz, where she is studying molecular cell and developmental biology. She has aspirations of becoming a pediatrician. Maria and Eusebio paid her college tuition and supported her as she studied for the MCAT and volunteered at a hospital. Their deportation leaves Melin's college tuition in peril.

The Sanchez's third daughter, Elizabeth, age 16, is a U.S. citizen and is currently enrolled at the NEA Community Learning Center in Alameda. Elizabeth was diagnosed with a speech delay and learning disabilities at a young age, but with the support of her parents, was able to make great progress and is doing well in school. She needs the support of her parents and continuing to separate her from them will significantly affect her ability to pursue her dreams.

The Sanchez's son, Jesus, age 12, is a U.S. citizen. He was born with a congenital heart disease, which requires continued medical attention. Jesus has accompanied his parents on their return to Mexico. Maria and Eusebio's deportation will have an extraordinary impact on Jesus. He can no longer continue his education in the U.S., the only Country he has ever known. Additionally, Jesus obtained health insurance coverage for his medical condition through his parents. As a result of their deportation, he will lose access to medical care in the U.S.

Maria, Eusebio, and Vianney have become respected members of their community in California. This is exemplified in the overwhelming support they received to shield them from deportation. Separating this family is not what our country stands for. Maria and Eusebio want nothing more than to continue to provide for their children and continue contributing to this great country they called home. Their deportation has greatly affected their ability to do so.

I believe that Maria and Eusebio's deportation has been a tremendous loss

for their children and community. In addition, I believe Vianney needs further protection. This family warrants our compassion, and I will keep fighting for them.

I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for his remarks, and I would like to make a few remarks with respect to my position as ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

As has been well described, shortly, we will vote on the nomination of Christopher Wray to be the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Judiciary Committee has reviewed his record and held a full and complete hearing. His nomination was sent to the floor for consideration by a vote of 20 to 0--a very good vote. I am very satisfied that Mr. Wray has the qualifications and independence necessary to lead the FBI, so I will support Mr. Wray's nomination to be FBI Director.

I wish to begin by saying just a few words about what I think, after 24 years in this place, is necessary in going forward.

First, it is really important that we have a strong FBI Director. There can be no manipulation.

Second, Special Counsel Robert Mueller must be allowed to proceed with his investigation undisturbed.

Third, the FBI Director must manage and speak for the FBI on the basis of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, not at the dictates or requests or statements of any politically elected person in this country.

Fourth, the FBI Director must be independent from the White House and any political figure.

This is what the FBI and the American people need now.

As you and I know, the FBI is a critically important law enforcement agency. It must be able to move forward with its work and with its senior leadership in place. As I noted at Mr. Wray's hearing and just noted again, the FBI must be an independent law enforcement organization that is free from political influence.

During his hearing and in his written responses to followup questions, Mr. Wray stated that the FBI Director must maintain ``strict independence,'' and he committed to doing the job ``by the book'' and ``without regard to any partisan political influence.'' He also testified that his loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to any ideology or any individual, including the President. He was believable to all of us in those statements.

Mr. Wray also testified that he would resist any efforts to interfere with FBI investigations and that he would not ``pull any punches.'' When asked what he would do if the President asked him to do something unlawful or unethical, Mr. Wray replied that he would first try to talk him out of it and that, if that failed, he would resign.

These commitments are important. Especially at this moment in history, we need an FBI Director who has the strength and fortitude to stand up and do what is right by the law when tested.

Mr. Wray has received bipartisan support from more than 100 former U.S. attorneys, who enthusiastically endorsed his nomination and stated their belief that Mr. Wray ``is a strong and effective leader with unassailable integrity, judgment and courage.'' According to this group, which included former Bush administration Justice Department officials like Larry Thompson and Ken Wainstein, as well as Eric Holder and Sally Yates, Mr. Wray will discharge the duties of FBI Director ``with honor, independence, and a tireless commitment to the rule of law.''

Earlier this year, when we considered other nominees for the Justice Department, I pointed out that we need leaders with steel spines, not weak knees. I believe that Mr. Wray will be such a leader.

The issue of torture is very important to me. On this issue, I was encouraged by Mr. Wray's acknowledgment that torture is wrong, unacceptable, illegal, and ineffective. He testified under oath that he did not participate in the drafting of the so-called torture memos that were issued by the Office of Legal Counsel some time ago. Mr. Wray has further testified that interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, painful stress positions, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, and mock execution, are ``abusive under all circumstances.''

Importantly, for me, he has committed that the FBI, under his leadership, will never engage in such techniques or other forms of torture and that it will adhere to the policy of using the Informed Interrogation Approach as outlined in the Army Field Manual, which, thanks to John McCain, was added as a new law to last year's military authorization bill. Mr. Wray also committed to me that he will read the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA's detention and interrogation program under a former administration.

On the issue of torture, as well as his independence and integrity, I take Mr. Wray at his word. As we discussed when Mr. Wray and I met in my office, I believe the next FBI Director's independence, integrity, and commitment to the rule of law, sadly, will likely be tested by this administration.

One early test may come in relation to the investigations being conducted by Special Counsel Mueller, this committee, and other committees in Congress. Mr. Wray has committed to supporting and protecting the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Mueller, and I trust Mr. Wray will keep the Judiciary Committee of our House informed of any attempts to interfere with that investigation.

Now, he has a tough job ahead of him. The FBI is our premier law enforcement agency. It faces new criminal terrorism threats every day. I remember FBI Director Comey telling us the FBI had a counterterrorism investigation going on in virtually every State in the Union. That was last year, but I assume many are still going on. On top of that, his predecessor was, as we all know, suddenly fired by the President for reasons that are questionable, and that is the subject of ongoing investigations. Lately, we have seen the President attempt to bully his own Attorney General, but even in the light of these challenging circumstances, I believe Mr. Wray is up to the task.

Based on his testimony and the commitments he has made to me and other members of our Judiciary Committee, I believe we on the committee will all vote to support his nomination, and, if he is confirmed, I commit to working with him to support the FBI, its mission, and the some 30-plus thousand FBI agents and employees who work every day to help protect our Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I want to speak briefly about the nomination of Kevin Newsom to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals from Alabama.

I intend to support Mr. Newsom's nomination. Mr. Newsom is currently in private practice in Birmingham. He previously served as the solicitor general of Alabama. He also clerked for Justice Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court and graduated from Harvard Law School and Samford University. The American Bar Association has unanimously rated him ``well qualified.''

My support for Mr. Newsom's nomination does not mean that this is a judicial nominee that I would have necessarily chosen. There are aspects of Mr. Newsom's record that concern me.

For example, in private practice, Mr. Newsom published an article in which he was extremely critical of the doctrine known as substantive due process. This is the doctrine the Supreme Court invoked in protecting the right to use contraception, a women's right to choose, and the right to same-sex marriage.

Additionally, as solicitor general of Alabama, Mr. Newsom filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in the case Rasul v. Bush, arguing that Federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear habeas claims from foreign nationals who were captured overseas and detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Newsom's position in a 6-3 decision.

Lastly, while Mr. Newsom was in private practice, he filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case Roper v. Simmons, where he urged the Court to reject a brightline rule prohibiting capital punishment for children under the age of 18. His work on this case followed several other cases where, as solicitor general of Alabama, he had argued against procedural rights for individuals on death row.

As I consider this nominee, I have to balance these positions--which do concern me--with other aspects of Mr. Newsom's nomination. Here, we have a nominee unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. His home-State Senators have returned blue slips and support his nomination. Although some outside groups have expressed concerns, no outside group has officially opposed his confirmation.

As a result, I voted to invoke cloture on Mr. Newsom's nomination today. My decision on every nominee will be based on that nominee's individual record.

I also want to briefly remind my colleagues why we are even considering Mr. Newsom's nomination in the first place.

In February 2016, President Obama nominated Alabama U.S. District Court Judge Abdul Kallon for this very same vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit.

Today Mr. Newsom was voted on because Senators Shelby and Strange returned blue slips for his nomination.

I would like the Senate to also know that we held a hearing just last week that included Judge Ralph Erickson to be a judge on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals because Senators Hoeven and Heitkamp returned their blue slips. This shows the importance of the blue slip helping move nominations through the process.

Democratic Senators are conducting their due diligence on these nominees before returning their blue slips, and in the Erickson nomination, the return of the blue slip is bipartisan. Many of the current nominees have voluminous records, and we need to allow home- State Senators to do their work.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Rates Act. This critical health care reform bill would address the soaring cost of insurance premiums.

Many factors contribute to increasing premiums, from the increased prevalence of chronic disease to the consolidation of the insurance market. But no matter the root cause of premium hikes, it is important that rate increases are reviewed to ensure they are fair. When consumers see insurance premiums increase by double digits, it can add an additional burden on top of

mortgage payments, childcare, and student loans. If rates are unreasonable, they should be blocked or modified.

The Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Rates Act would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to act on behalf of consumers to protect them against egregious increases in health insurance rates in States that do not take this action.

In California and several other States across the Nation, State regulators lack the authority to block or modify extreme health insurance rate increases. This legislation does not change any State's ability to take this action. Rather, it simply allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to help fill in the gaps in the health care regulatory space so consumers in all States would have adequate protections against this type of price gouging.

The Affordable Care Act slowed the growth of premium increases and improved the value of health insurance--including how much of premiums insurers must spend on actual medical care and ensuring rate increases are at least reviewed. These were good first steps, but more needs to be done. Far too many Americans are facing rate increases and full consumer protections must be in place to ensure that prices reflect true cost and not simply profits. Providing all Americans with affordable, quality healthcare is of the utmost importance and Congress ought to be building on the successes of the Affordable Care Act while making improvements where necessary.

This bill provides a straightforward, direct enforcement mechanism to ensure that insurers may not impose unreasonably high costs on consumers, by empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services to step in when State regulators do not, or are unable to.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect Americans from unreasonable rate hikes and move toward real, commonsense health care solutions.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Rates Act. This critical health care reform bill would address the soaring cost of insurance premiums.

Many factors contribute to increasing premiums, from the increased prevalence of chronic disease to the consolidation of the insurance market. But no matter the root cause of premium hikes, it is important that rate increases are reviewed to ensure they are fair. When consumers see insurance premiums increase by double digits, it can add an additional burden on top of

mortgage payments, childcare, and student loans. If rates are unreasonable, they should be blocked or modified.

The Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Rates Act would allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to act on behalf of consumers to protect them against egregious increases in health insurance rates in States that do not take this action.

In California and several other States across the Nation, State regulators lack the authority to block or modify extreme health insurance rate increases. This legislation does not change any State's ability to take this action. Rather, it simply allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to help fill in the gaps in the health care regulatory space so consumers in all States would have adequate protections against this type of price gouging.

The Affordable Care Act slowed the growth of premium increases and improved the value of health insurance--including how much of premiums insurers must spend on actual medical care and ensuring rate increases are at least reviewed. These were good first steps, but more needs to be done. Far too many Americans are facing rate increases and full consumer protections must be in place to ensure that prices reflect true cost and not simply profits. Providing all Americans with affordable, quality healthcare is of the utmost importance and Congress ought to be building on the successes of the Affordable Care Act while making improvements where necessary.

This bill provides a straightforward, direct enforcement mechanism to ensure that insurers may not impose unreasonably high costs on consumers, by empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services to step in when State regulators do not, or are unable to.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to protect Americans from unreasonable rate hikes and move toward real, commonsense health care solutions.

Mr. President, today Senators Heller, Bennet, Gardner, and I are introducing the Water Conservation Tax Parity Act. This bill would exempt the value of residential water conservation and storm water runoff management rebates from gross income calculations.

California and the western States have been facing a severe drought. Some public utilities, state and local governments, and water management providers offer programs to promote water conservation and storm water management by providing subsidies. These programs help stimulate responsible water use; however, residential participation is essential to their success.

For example, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has offered a rebate program to encourage residents to replace turf with more water-responsible landscapes. More than 23,000 households have benefited from the turf removal rebates, and the average rebate per household covers 1,500 square feet or about $3,000, which covers about half of the cost to the resident.

Section 136 of the Internal Revenue Code already exempts energy conservation rebates from inclusion in gross income. However, there is no Federal exemption for water conservation or storm water management measures, which may undermine incentives for participation in these programs. These programs are just as valuable as energy conservation programs and should be treated equally in the tax code. This bill would simply exempt water conservation and storm water management rebates from being included in gross income and would be retroactive to 2015. This would maintain the important incentives for resident participation in critical water conservation measures.

This bill is supported by a coalition of organizations and public utilities, including the Western Urban Water Coalition, Alliance for Water Efficiency, American Water Works Association, National Association of Water Companies, U.S. Water Alliance, Association of Water Agencies, WaterNow Alliance, Western Coalition of Arid States, and National Water Resources Association. This bill is crucial to ensuring residents continue participating in water conservation and storm water management programs.

Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and am hopeful that this Congress will move it forward.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today Senators Heller, Bennet, Gardner, and I are introducing the Water Conservation Tax Parity Act. This bill would exempt the value of residential water conservation and storm water runoff management rebates from gross income calculations.

California and the western States have been facing a severe drought. Some public utilities, state and local governments, and water management providers offer programs to promote water conservation and storm water management by providing subsidies. These programs help stimulate responsible water use; however, residential participation is essential to their success.

For example, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has offered a rebate program to encourage residents to replace turf with more water-responsible landscapes. More than 23,000 households have benefited from the turf removal rebates, and the average rebate per household covers 1,500 square feet or about $3,000, which covers about half of the cost to the resident.

Section 136 of the Internal Revenue Code already exempts energy conservation rebates from inclusion in gross income. However, there is no Federal exemption for water conservation or storm water management measures, which may undermine incentives for participation in these programs. These programs are just as valuable as energy conservation programs and should be treated equally in the tax code. This bill would simply exempt water conservation and storm water management rebates from being included in gross income and would be retroactive to 2015. This would maintain the important incentives for resident participation in critical water conservation measures.

This bill is supported by a coalition of organizations and public utilities, including the Western Urban Water Coalition, Alliance for Water Efficiency, American Water Works Association, National Association of Water Companies, U.S. Water Alliance, Association of Water Agencies, WaterNow Alliance, Western Coalition of Arid States, and National Water Resources Association. This bill is crucial to ensuring residents continue participating in water conservation and storm water management programs.

Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation and am hopeful that this Congress will move it forward.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

Founded by David Packard in 1978, the Leadership Group has worked tirelessly to improve the economic health and quality of life in Silicon Valley. I have had the pleasure of working closely with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group--and its Chief Executive Officer Carl Guardino--on many issues important to the San Francisco Bay Area.

For instance, the Leadership Group has been an indispensable partner in efforts to restore the San Francisco Bay and its critical wetlands. Just last year, they helped secure $500 million for those restoration efforts. The Leadership Group was integral in establishing a permanent U.S. Patent and Trademark office in San Jose. That office now supports the creativity and innovation that made Silicon Valley the global leader of the digital revolution. Most recently, the Leadership Group was a driving force in developing transportation improvements in Silicon Valley--including the electrification of the Caltrain system that will cut travel times and improve air quality for countless Californians.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution to recognize the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and its contributions to Silicon Valley, the state of California and our national economy.

Thank you.

Madam President, I rise to speak on healthcare, but I ask unanimous consent that I be able to conclude my remarks prior to going into executive session.

Madam President, I rise to speak against the Republican effort and what it appears to be thus far to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the process they are using to do it.

I just have to say, this is the least transparent process for a major piece of legislation I have seen in my 24 years in the Senate. Former Senate Historian Don Ritchie said that you have to look back before World War I to find another example of such a secret, partisan process for passing a major bill.

The Senate healthcare bill in fact is being written behind closed doors. There is no draft for public review. No Democratic Senator has seen the bill. Republican Senators all say they haven't seen the bill either.

When Republican Senators are asked what is in the bill, unless they are the 13 privileged ones, they say they have no idea. Everyone except the 13 Republicans drafting this bill has been excluded, and these 13 Senators represent just 10 States out of our 50. Health experts and health advocacy organizations have been shut out. No one representing doctors, nurses, patients, children, the elderly, hospitals, community clinics, or health plans is able to provide any feedback at all on how the bill would affect people.

Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times reported that a coalition of more than 15 patient groups, including the American Heart Association, the March of Dimes, and the American Lung Association, tried to get a meeting with Senator McConnell or his staff and were told no. That is unbelievable.

Think of it. Think of the American Heart Association, the March of Dimes, the American Lung Association asking to meet with either the leader or his staff, and somebody says no. Do my Republican colleagues really believe that groups like the American Heart Association don't deserve an opportunity to weigh in on a healthcare bill when our healthcare system affects every single person in this country? Healthcare is the last subject that should be addressed behind closed doors, hidden from public view. Yet, apparently, Republicans intend to bring the bill to the floor without a single hearing. Senator McConnell wants to vote on a bill by next Thursday, I am told. That is 10 days from now. Well, if there is not going to be a hearing, we shouldn't vote. I think: no hearing, no vote.

It is important to point out the contrast between what is happening now and our consideration of the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare. There were 100 hearings, meetings, roundtables, and walkthroughs of the bill between the Senate Finance and the HELP Committees. There were 25 consecutive days and 160 hours of debate on the Senate floor. There were 300 HELP Committee amendments, including more than 160 Republican amendments.

Was our process in 2009 and 2010 perfect? No, it wasn't, but it was infinitely better than what is happening now. This process is such an affront to our democratic system of government.

Senator Harris and I represent California. We are the sixth largest economy in the world. We represent more than 40 million people. That is more than 22 other States combined.

Fourteen million Californians are covered by the Medicaid Program, the program the House bill says we are going to stop the funding for. Fourteen million Californians are more people than the entire population of 9 of the 10 States represented in the secret healthcare negotiations. Four million Californians gained health coverage under the Affordable Care Act--more people than the population of 4 of the 10 States represented in the secret negotiations. Despite the significant effects that any healthcare bill would have on California, both of its Senators have been shut out.

I want to work to improve the Affordable Care Act. I know there are challenges we need to address, and I want to be part of the process, but there is no opportunity to do so.

If the Senate bill is anything like the House bill, the effects would be devastating to my State. If the Senate bill is like the House bill, here is what it would do: It would take healthcare coverage away from 23 million working and middle-class families to finance a tax cut for the richest 5 percent of Americans. This is indefensible. There is no justification for giving millionaires a $50,000 tax break by taking healthcare away from our most vulnerable citizens. I don't know of any who are asking for it. It is some kind of blighted political agenda that you could leave the elderly and the sick untended, and it justifies a $50,000 tax break for a millionaire.

This would end Medicaid as we have known it for 50 years by cutting $834 billion. It eliminates protections for people with preexisting conditions. It defunds Planned Parenthood. It denies all Californians and New Yorkers--all of them--tax credits, unless the States change their laws requiring insurance companies to cover reproductive care, including abortion services. It is almost a blackmail provision.

I am going to talk more about the potential changes to Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal, because they are startling. Everyone needs to understand that the changes Republicans have proposed--and we think are proposing for the Senate bill--go much further than repealing the expansion of the program, which was a big part of the Affordable Care Act.

It has been reported in the media that Senate Republicans are looking at changes to Medicaid that are similar to what is in the House bill. There are rumors that the Senate bill would delay the drastic cuts by a few years. But, regardless, when cuts to the program come, they will be devastating.

Whom does Medicaid provide healthcare for? It is not the wealthy. It is elderly people in nursing homes. It is pregnant women. It is children. It is people with disabilities, and it is low-income adults who typically work but don't get health insurance through their jobs.

Medicaid covers one in three Californians; that is 14 million people. It covers one in two children. It covers three out of five residents in nursing homes. It covers one in two people with disabilities.

Here is something the American people need to understand about Medicaid: The majority of Medicaid dollars are spent on elderly people and people with disabilities. They are the most in need, and they have the most serious health issues.

Let me give you one story. A woman by the name of Kristen from Sacramento wrote to us about her daughter Riley, who is autistic. Riley is covered by Medi-Cal. It provides critical services that allow her to lead a more normal childhood. Here is what the mother said:

When my daughter Riley was born we quickly learned that she

had difficulty with basic tasks like sleeping and eating.

She developed pneumonia multiple times and was continually

sick.

After turning three, she was diagnosed with autism. Riley

is now eight years old and is thriving thanks to Medicaid-

funded support programs like physical therapy, speech

therapy, and feeding therapy.

She is now verbal, learning to write, and reading above

grade level. She wouldn't be doing this well if it weren't

for Medicaid. I am counting on you to protect Medicaid.

Every community in California depends on Medicaid. Let me give you a few examples.

Members of both political parties go to Los Angeles to raise money. Forty percent of L.A. County is covered by Medicaid. Do you know how many that is? It is not a half a million. It is not a million. It is not a million and a half. It is not 2 or 3 million. It is 4 million people who could lose Medicaid funding.

Twenty-eight percent of San Diego is covered by Medi-Cal; that is more than 900,000 people. And 37 percent of Sacramento County is covered by Medi-Cal; that is 560,000 people. Half of Fresno County is covered by Medi-Cal; that is one-half million people.

I was in Fresno just a week ago. There is a wonderful children's hospital. The director of that hospital came over to me and was practically in tears. He said: We treat 300,000 children up and down this area of the State, and if we lose our Medicaid, we cannot continue to provide that treatment--if that takes place.

Fresno has 31 assisted living facilities for the sick, for the elderly, and three out of five beds in that facility are Medicaid. Twenty-seven percent of San Francisco County, my home county, is covered by Medi-Cal; that is 230,000 people. What Republicans, we have learned, may likely propose would end the Medicaid program as we have known it for more than 50 years.

Under current law, the Federal Government pays a certain percentage of all healthcare costs for Medi-Cal beneficiaries. We will likely see a phase-out of the current structure of the program that would amount to $834 billion, cut over 10 years, with 14 million people losing Medicaid coverage nationwide.

They will be in your State, Madam President. They will be in every State on the Republican side of the aisle, and I don't know how a civilized society or a Senate of the United States could do that to people.

The effects of this change could devastate access to healthcare for our most vulnerable citizens and crush State budgets nationwide if they try to replace those funds.

Bottom line, in my State, by 2027, California would need to find $24 billion to cover those who depend on Medicaid for their healthcare today.

What is going to happen with preexisting conditions? We all know that the ObamaCare legislation covers preexisting conditions, so if you have breast cancer, you can get coverage. But you could be charged $28,000 more per year if the preexisting condition of breast cancer isn't covered. It goes on and on like this. If you take away coverage for preexisting conditions and you have, as we have, 52 million people nationwide--including 6 million in California--who have preexisting conditions today, that will be a huge problem for them.

Let me give you one case of a woman from Hesperia, CA. She wrote to us about her 37-year-old son. He has battled Crohn's disease for 28 years. Lisa writes:

My son was without insurance for 10 years because of his

pre-existing condition.

That was before ObamaCare.

During this time the disease caused severe damage to his

small intestine. He was finally able to get insurance through

Covered California and received treatment.

That was after ObamaCare passed.

He had surgery to remove various blockages and scar tissue

and probably saved his life. I am so scared that his coverage

may be taken away.

How can we do that?

Sherry, from Sierra Madre, CA, wrote to me about her two sons. They both have preexisting conditions. She says:

As a single mother of two young men just out of college,

each with pre-existing conditions, I fear they will not be

able to afford health care under the GOP plan.

One son has Lyme disease and requires infusions every three

weeks.

This is a huge expense that is currently manageable under

my health care plan and has been a life-saver for him as the

Lyme impacted his immune system.

Under TrumpCare this treatment would probably not be

financially available for him. That would be devastating for

him.

Let me tell you about something we have found out about. I look at my phone calls, and we get a lot of calls. I know something is serious when we get more than 100,000 calls, and we did on this subject. These were largely people between the ages of 50 and 64, and they weren't in the group market. They were in the individual market, which means you go out to find your own insurance company and you pay the premium.

Under ObamaCare, there is a subsidy for these premiums if you earn under 400 percent of poverty; 400 percent of poverty is about $47,000 a year. If you earn under $47,000 a year, it is much easier to get healthcare. If you are at $50,000 a year, you exceed the 400 percent of poverty.

I am told by Covered California that the current premium in my city for someone 50 to 64 would be $800 a month. That is 20 percent of someone's income--20 percent of an annual income.

This is where the complaints are coming throughout the United States, and this is where we can make an easy fix. A number of us have submitted legislation to do just that. What it would do is take the subsidy, and instead of going off the cliff at $47,000 a year--so

that at $50,000 your premium costs 20 percent of your income--we changed it so that an individual would not pay more than 9.69 percent of their income toward the premium.

This is one example of how we could improve current law and, I believe, take away one of the biggest criticisms and fix it rather easily.

Here is another problem. I wish to share a story from Monica of Oceanside, CA. These are real cases. She was diagnosed with breast cancer shortly after gaining coverage through California's individual market. Her doctor told her she would have been dead, had she not been covered by her new plan. She had cared for her father 10 years prior to his death from Parkinson's disease. She didn't have access to employer- provided insurance and wasn't eligible for Medicaid at the time.

By the time the Affordable Care Act was implemented, she qualified for a plan through Covered California. She wrote: ``Without the ACA, I would not be alive to write this post.''

I wonder if that means anything to anyone on the Republican side of the aisle. No one comes forward; no one says what they would need. This is such a big issue. It affects every single one of us and every single one of our constituents.

Let me correct something. They also say: Well, ObamaCare is dead; it is imploding.

They say this to build support for repealing the law, but they are wrong. In California, which has worked hard to implement the law effectively, the marketplace to buy health coverage functions at a high level.

There are 1.5 million people signed up through the website Covered California. Enrollments have been stable, and there has been no uptick in healthy people leaving the insurance market.

The general consensus among experts is that the Federal healthcare market is not collapsing. Standard & Poor's said that ``2016 results and the market enrollment so far in 2017 show that the ACA individual market is not in a `death spiral.' '' So, please, stop saying that.

In closing, I would like to just say to my Republican colleagues: Don't do this. Don't write a bill in secret. Don't take healthcare away from millions of people to cut taxes for the rich. Don't undermine protections for people with preexisting conditions. Don't allow insurers to go back to the days of selling junk plans. Don't end Medicaid. We have known it for so long. It is working. It is covering poor and elderly all across this country.

Those of us on this side of the aisle want to make the Affordable Care Act better. We want to work to improve our system. We stand ready to work together on behalf of our constituents, but if our colleagues continue down this path, we will fight this bill with all we have. The stakes are too high not to.

Thank you. I yield the floor.