Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am deeply relieved that the majority leader has delayed a vote on the Republican's cruel bill to rip up healthcare for 22 million people. People in Massachusetts and across this country spoke out against this terrible bill, and today they proved they can make their voices heard. But let's be clear. The Republican's so-called healthcare bill has come back to life already more times than the scariest zombie in a horror movie. Despite how deeply unpopular this bill is and how hurtful it would be to families across the country, Senator McConnell says he intends to vote as soon as the Senate returns in a little more than a week. That means that Senate Republicans still stand on the brink of passing legislation that will end health insurance coverage for 22 million people in America.

Make no mistake, if this plan passes, the rich will get richer and other people will die. I know that is a strong statement, and I know some people don't want to hear it. I know some people will hear it, but they don't want to believe it. But facts matter, and here is the fact that Republicans simply want to ignore: People without healthcare coverage are more likely to die than people with healthcare coverage. For many Americans, health insurance is a matter of life and death. Decades of rigorous academic research back this up. The data show that people with no health insurance die earlier than those with coverage.

For example, a 2009 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that uninsured people died at significantly faster rates than those with insurance. The authors claimed that lack of health insurance was associated with nearly 45,000 American lives lost in just 1 year. So 45,000 American lives were lost in 1 year. That is more people in this country dying for lack of health insurance than from breast cancer, and the impact isn't limited to adults. Johns Hopkins researchers found that sick kids without insurance who end up in the hospital are 60 percent more likely to die than the children down the hall who had health insurance.

In 2012, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine compared States that expanded Medicaid, which provided coverage to millions of low-income Americans, to those that didn't. They found that for every hundred thousand people in States that did not expand Medicaid, nearly 20 more people die every year than in the States that expanded Medicaid. That is right. More people died in States that refused to expand Medicaid.

Now, we know a lot about this in Massachusetts, which has been one of the best test cases for understanding how insurance affects death rates. We have been working for years--long before the Affordable Care Act--to expand health coverage. Today, with the help of the Affordable Care Act, more than 97 percent of people in Massachusetts have health insurance. That is the highest coverage rate in the entire country.

Researchers from Harvard and the Urban Institute studied our health reforms to figure out the impact of expanding coverage. Their results, a 2014 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that Massachusetts health reform was associated with a 4.5-percent drop in preventable deaths. These data suggest that, nationwide, the ACA's coverage expansions are already preventing 24,000

deaths a year, and it is in effect in only 31 of the 50 States.

I could keep going, but the consensus is clear. A new study, hot off the press, in the Annals of Internal Medicine put it bluntly: ``The case for coverage is strong.'' The reasons are actually pretty straightforward. People who don't have access to high-quality, affordable care--people who work as hard as they can but just don't have the money--can't go to the doctor when they need to; can't get preventive care, such as breast cancer screenings and vaccinations; and can't fill the prescriptions they need to stay healthy.

When someone doesn't have coverage, they typically wait to go to the doctor until things get really bad--when the cough turns into a rattle, when the lump gets too scary to ignore or the backache makes it impossible to even to walk. This is the reason why everyone who actually works in healthcare--doctors, nurses, hospitals, patient groups, researchers, experts--is coming out against the Republican bill.

The American Medical Association--the nation's largest association of doctors--says that the Republican bill violates the most basic principle of medicine: ``First, do no harm.''

The National Council for Behavioral Health, whose 2,900 member organizations provide mental healthcare and addiction treatment to 10 million Americans, said the bill would ``cost hundreds of thousands of lives.''

National Nurses United, representing 150,000 registered nurses across the country, said the bill would ``prove to be deadly for our nation's seniors.''

The President of a leading coalition of safety-net hospitals said about the Republican bill: ``Let's not mince words. . . . People will die.''

If the Republican bill passes, ``people will die.'' That is what the healthcare professionals are telling us. The Republican plan is to kick 22 million people off their health insurance. They want to slash tax credits that help people afford their premiums. They want to open the door to insurance companies to offer plans with higher costs and less coverage.

And why? Nothing in this bill--not one thing--improves healthcare for anyone--not one thing. No, the only reason for this bill is to finance $569 billion in tax cuts for a handful of millionaires and billionaires.

There has been a lot of concern about the discussion of healthcare getting overheated. The facts do not lie. The academic studies don't mince words. If the Republican healthcare bill passes, tens of thousands of people in this country will die every year.

Republicans can ignore these facts. They can turn away from these studies. They can pretend they don't know what is going on. But the people who lose their healthcare--the babies, the women, the seniors in nursing homes, the people with disabilities, the workers who get hurt on the job, the people who get hit by heart attacks and strokes and diabetes--will suffer all the same.

Yes, if the Republicans go forward with their bill, people will die. Those are the facts. We have less than 2 weeks to make sure the Republicans hear from everyone in this country who wants them to abandon this terrible bill once and for all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have just gotten the latest numbers on the Senate Republicans' reckless plan to take away health insurance from millions of American families, take it away from sick, little kids, take it away from seniors in nursing homes. These numbers are worse than anyone expected.

After weeks of secret work behind closed doors, the Republicans came up with a plan that will take away health insurance from 22 million people and slash the Medicaid Program by nearly $800 billion, all in exchange for shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts to the richest families in this country.

You know, with results like these, Senate Republicans should not still be trying to figure out the best way to ram this bill through the Senate. They should just throw it in the trash.

We don't have a lot of time left, and I know it is easy to tune out these debates and to assume these are all just a bunch of partisan games. So if you aren't inclined to take my word for it, don't, and don't take the Republicans' word for it either. Take a look at what the experts are saying about the Republican bill because since this brutal bill was finally revealed on Thursday, it has been denounced by nonpartisan doctors groups, health policy experts, and patient organizations. The American Medical Association says the bill violates the fundamental principle of medicine: ``First, do no harm.'' The Children's Hospital Association says it is ``a major step backward for children and their health.'' The National Council for Behavioral Health says, ``Instead of `repeal and replace,' it is `wreck and wreak havoc.'''

Lynn Nicholas, the head of the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association, has actually come up with a pretty simple test for the Republican plan: ``I challenge any Republican Senator to name one thing in this bill that will make healthcare in the U.S. better for patients or healthcare professionals who care for them.''

Think about that. She says use that as the test, one thing. That is a pretty low bar--one thing. Yet the Republicans can't pass that test. They can't name one thing in this bill that will improve healthcare in America. That is because this bill is not supposed to improve healthcare in America. It is not a healthcare bill. It is a tax cut for the rich, paid for by gutting healthcare for millions of working Americans.

Doctors, patients, parents, families, experts, they are terrified by this bill because they have read it, and they have concluded that nearly every line in this bill would make life worse for young people and for old people and for families across this country.

I want to focus on just one major part tonight, the part that rips away the Medicaid Program. Let's do some basic Medicaid facts. Who uses Medicaid? Thirty million kids. That is about 4 out of every 10 kids in this country count on Medicaid to help pay the medical bills. About 6 out of 10 children with complex medical needs--children who need breathing tubes, special therapies, and multiple surgeries, 6 out of 10 of those children count on Medicaid to help pay their medical bills. Nearly two out of three seniors in nursing homes count on Medicaid to help pay their bills, and one out of every three people dealing with addiction counts on Medicaid to help pay for treatment.

Who uses Medicaid? America uses Medicaid--children, the elderly, hard-working families, people with disabilities, and people struggling with addiction. At any given moment in this country, one in every five Americans is counting on Medicaid to help pay the bills. What are these people supposed to do when the Medicaid expansion goes away, when this bill's additional massive Medicaid cuts go into effect? What are they supposed to do? What are their families supposed to do?

Dig in on one issue around this. Dig in on opioid abuse. This is a problem that is growing around the country. Last year we lost 2,000 people in Massachusetts alone. I hear from parents who have lost children, from brothers and sisters who have watched a loved one disappear. I hear from people who are desperate because their child or sister or brother can't get into a treatment facility. I hear from dedicated doctors, nurses, and counselors who need more resources so they can expand treatment programs. Now the Republicans propose a bill that is like throwing gasoline on a bonfire. One in three people struggling with an addiction are counting on Medicaid, and the Republicans plan to cut nearly $1 trillion from the program. I do not understand. I cannot understand how the Republicans could turn their backs on literally millions of people who need help.

The cuts to Medicaid are terrible, but there is more. The Republican bill also slashes the tax credits that people use to help pay for insurance. The budget nerds at the Congressional Budget Office say that ``most people'' would ``have higher out of pocket spending on healthcare than under current law.''

Think about that. Under the Republican plan, healthcare costs will go up for most people, and even if someone can manage, somehow, to afford coverage under the Republican bill, the Republicans are willing to let insurance companies drop expensive benefits that the companies just don't want to cover, including--are you ready?--opioid treatment. If this bill passes, it will devastate our ability to fight opioid overdoses. This isn't a hypothetical. This isn't speculation. Before the Affordable Care Act became law, one-third of individual market health plans didn't cover substance use disorder services, and about one in five plans didn't cover mental health services. The insurance companies don't want to cover these services, but the ACA made coverage mandatory. That

meant that no one in this country had to wonder when they showed up at a clinic whether or not their insurance would help them out, but the Republican bill opens the door to dropping those requirements. Millions more people could be left out in the cold at a time when they most need help. This is cruel. Our country is already struggling with a treatment gap, and far too many patients facing addiction can't get the care they need. The last thing we should be doing is kicking millions of these patients off of the coverage they already have.

Now, let's face it. The Republicans realized this, and they have a plan on this issue. They know that what they are doing is indefensible. So they have a plan. They propose to throw $2 billion into a special fund for opioid treatment and say: Problem solved. This is political spin at its worst.

For every dollar the Republicans propose to put into opioid treatment, they are taking out more than $100 from Medicaid, the rock on which our ability to provide opioid addiction treatment is built. Why? Why treat our brothers and sisters, our children, our elderly parents so shamefully? Why? So that Republicans can produce a giant tax cut for a handful of millionaires and billionaires. That is it. Our friends, our families, and our kids can struggle on their own. They can die on their own so that Republicans can cut taxes for the richest people in this country.

What the Republicans propose is morally wrong. It is not too late to do the right thing. It is not too late to reverse course. It is not too late to junk this bill and start over. I hope the Senate Republicans have the courage to do exactly that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today we finally got a look at the monstrosity of a bill that the Republicans have been hiding behind closed doors for weeks. Yes, it is finally clear how the Republicans were spending their time, locked in those back rooms.

Now we know the truth. Senate Republicans weren't making the House bill better--no, not one bit. Instead, they were sitting around a conference room table, dreaming up even meaner ways to kick dirt in the face of American people and take away their health insurance.

Remember, the Senate Republicans worked for weeks on this new bill. They worked really, really hard on it. It is pretty clear now exactly who they were working for. This bill has one flashing neon sign after another telling us who the Republican Party cares about, and it is not American families.

The Senate bill is crammed full with just as many tax cuts as the House bill--tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, tax cuts for wealthy investors, and tax cuts for giant companies. All those tax cuts don't come cheap. They start to add up after a while.

Senate Republicans had to make a choice--how to pay for all those juicy tax cuts for their rich buddies. I will tell you how: blood money.

Senate Republicans wrung some extra dollars out of kicking people off the tax credits that help them afford health insurance. They raked in extra cash by letting States drop even more protections and benefits, like maternity care or prescription drug coverage or mental health treatment.

Then they got to the real piggy bank, Medicaid, and here they just went wild. Senate Republicans went after Medicaid with even deeper cuts than the House version--the Medicaid expansion gone, ripped up, and flushed down the toilet. The rest of the Medicaid Program? For Senate Republicans, it wasn't enough that the House bill was going to toss grandparents out of nursing homes or slash funding for people with disabilities or pull the plug on healthcare for babies born too soon. Senate Republicans wanted to go bigger.

The Republican bill claims to protect kids with disabilities by leaving them out of the calculations that decide how big the Medicaid cuts will be in each State. I don't know if the Republicans were expecting a round of applause for pitting kids with breathing tubes against vulnerable seniors or someone needing treatment for addiction, but I do know this so-called exemption will not do a thing to help these kids. The Republican cuts still slash hundreds of billions of dollars for Medicaid, leaving States with no choice--no choice but to cut services that kids with disabilities desperately need.

Medicaid is the program in this country that provides health insurance to 1 in 5 Americans, to 30 million kids, to nearly 2 out of every 3 people in a nursing home. These cuts are blood money. People will die. Let's be very clear: Senate Republicans are paying for tax cuts for the wealthy with American lives.

Think about what would happen if the Republican bill becomes law next week. Picture a woman in her eighties who lives at home. She is shaky on her feet. She needs help preparing her meals or taking a bath, but her only income is her Social Security check. Right now, Medicaid helps pay for home and community-based services so she can stay in her home, someone who comes by to help for a few hours a week. Because of that help, she gets to stay home, to live independently. The Republicans are determined to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, so their healthcare plan cuts Medicaid money that helps millions of seniors stay in their homes.

Without these services, this elderly woman can't live alone. Where does she turn? The usual answer would be a nursing home. Wait. Medicaid pays for most nursing home care in this country. The Republicans are determined to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, so they have cut Medicaid funding so much that there is no help for this woman at home and no nursing home bed for her either.

What does she do? She stays home without help. She can't climb the stairs anymore. Her world shrinks. Eventually, most likely, she falls and ends up in the hospital. The care is expensive, and she is miserable.

Finally, let's say the hospital gets her back on her feet, but there is nowhere for her to go when she is discharged. She heads back home to wait for the next fall, maybe the one that will be fatal.

In their determination to cut taxes for the rich, is this what Republicans have planned for frail seniors in our country? Wait until they are all used up and then leave them out at the curb for the next trash pickup?

It isn't just seniors who will be hit hard. How about a premature baby born with lung defects? His parents both have full-time jobs, but no matter how hard they work, no matter how many hours they put in, they will never be able to pay for the millions of dollars in surgeries, equipment, medicine, and therapy that their child

needs. Right now, Medicaid makes sure that kids with complex medical needs have coverage for feeding tubes and medication and surgery and physical therapy.

Senate Republicans were so determined to offer tax breaks for the rich that they have taken away this baby's Medicaid. What happens next? Maybe the parents try their best, but they can't pay. Maybe they try a Kickstarter campaign, but it is not going to bring in enough to cover the medical bills. They take out a second mortgage, and then they go bankrupt and lose their home.

Is that the Republican plan for this family--go live in a homeless shelter with your little baby, whose only crime was to be born 14 weeks early?

Senate Republicans can wave their hands and say that everyone will be fine, but it is time for the rest of us to take a long, hard look at exactly what would happen to the people who have to live with the Republicans' reckless cuts.

Senate Republicans know exactly what they are doing with this healthcare bill. Their values are on full display. If they want to trade the health insurance of millions of Americans for tax cuts for the rich, they better be ready for a fight because now that this shameful bill is out in the open, that is exactly what they are going to get.

I yield my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Stephanie DeLuca of my staff and to her service dog Carra.

Mr. President, President Trump said last week that the healthcare bill passed by the House was ``mean,'' and then he said the Senate should make the bill more ``generous, kind [and] with heart.'' It sounds like the President is having second thoughts about this Republican bill.

So now, Mr. President, you are waking up and noticing just how heartless this bill is; you know, the bill your Republican buddies in Congress slapped together in a back room; you know, the one you celebrated with a big press conference in the Rose Garden a few weeks ago; you know, the bill that you and House Republicans gave each other high fives over for taking away healthcare from millions of people, and now it sounds like you want a do-over.

Too bad no one explained to the President that mean is just part of the deal the Republicans have struck. Mean is baked into every sentence of this bill. When you set out to trade health insurance of millions of American families for massive tax cuts for the wealthy, things get real mean fast.

This mean bill does a lot of things, but some of the meanest things about it are how hard it will hit American women. To pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for this bill, Republicans chose to make one of their classic moves--a sort of old reliable for Republican men: attack women's healthcare.

Let's run through just a few examples. Today, most people helped by Medicaid are women. The Republican bill cuts Medicaid by $834 billion. Republicans say millions of women who lose healthcare will do just fine.

Today, plans on the individual market have to cover maternity care and treatment for postpartum depression. The Republican bill says: Forget it. Let the States drop those benefits. Women are the only ones using them anyway.

Today, the law says you can't charge women more by labeling things like pregnancy as preexisting conditions. The Republican bill says: Who cares? Go for it.

Today, women can choose healthcare providers they trust the most, but the Republicans want to eliminate that choice by cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. Republicans say women can do just fine without the care they need.

Frankly, I am sick of many coming down to the Senate floor to explain to Republicans what Planned Parenthood does. I am sick of explaining that it provides millions of women with birth control, cancer screenings, and STI tests every year. I am sick of pointing out, again and again, that Federal dollars do not fund abortion services at Planned Parenthood or anywhere else. Women come to the floor, we explain, we cite facts, but Republicans would rather base healthcare policy on politics than on facts.

Speaker Ryan called this mean bill pro-life, but this is just the biggest political play of all. Calling something pro-life will not keep women from dying in back-alley abortions. It will not help women pay for the cancer screenings that could save their lives. It will not help them take care of their families, have safe sex, or afford their medical bills. The pro-life label is the Republicans playing politics with women's lives.

Let's be blunt. The Republican bill will make it more likely--not less likely--that women and their children will die. Women aren't fools. We can feel the difference. We can tell the difference between reality and lies, and that is why we are here today. That is why we are fighting back on the Senate floor today.

Right now, 13 Senators--all men--are sitting in a room writing revisions to the secret Republican bill. These 13 men will not show us the bill and will not hold hearings on its contents. Just in case anyone missed the point, please note that all 13 of these men have already voted during their time in the Senate to reduce women's access to contraception and abortion. Republicans have told the press that Americans shouldn't worry about the fact that women are shut out because ``reduc[ing]'' the 13 men to their gender is a ``game . . . of identity politics.''

This is not identity politics, and it is certainly not a game. This bill will affect every woman in this country, and we know what is going on behind closed doors: 13 men are trading away women's healthcare for tax cuts for the rich.

American women deserve better than this mean Republican bill, and American women are here to fight back.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I do not think we should vote on a bill that would touch every single human being in this country when one party is locked out of the debate--not able to read the bill and not able to discuss it and help make suggestions and changes. I think that families all across this country should be able to see this bill and be able to evaluate the impact on themselves and on their families.

I am here today, in part, because of a little boy named Nicholas, who was born way too early, who is 2 years old, and who just received a diagnosis of autism, in addition to his other medical challenges. Nicholas is a recipient of Medicaid. I talked to his mother today. She wants to know whether this bill is going to cut Nicholas' care and what this means for Nicholas and his future.

I think it is wrong for Republicans to push through a bill when Nicholas' mother cannot evaluate what the impact will be on her and on her child. So I believe we should post online any bill that is going to affect families like theirs.

Mr. President, for that reason, I ask unanimous consent that a substitute or perfecting substitute amendment offered to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, not be in order if the text of the amendment has not been filed at the desk and made available on a public website for at least 72 hours, along with an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of the bill's budgetary, coverage, and cost implications.

Mr. President, I get letters and emails every day from families begging me not to let Republicans in Congress tear up healthcare in this country. People aren't writing because they find themselves with a lot of extra time on their hands. They are not writing because they are professional activists or political organizers. They are not writing because they like writing letters and emails. They are writing because they are scared. They set aside all the other things they need to do in their day--the sink full of dishes, the load of laundry, the overflowing inbox--and they steal some time to write these letters.

They write these letters because they are terrified--terrified down to their bones that if they don't speak out, their family is going to lose their healthcare coverage, their children will be shut out from care, their elderly parents will lose the assistance they need to pay for nursing home care, their own insurance costs will be going up, and their financial security could be hanging by a thread.

A lot of people write letters and send emails, and a lot of people make calls too. Every week since the Republicans started their cruel effort to take away healthcare from tens of millions of people in this country, my office has been getting phone calls from worried constituents.

Last week, something changed. We went from our regular quota of calls about this terrible Republican healthcare bill to an avalanche of voice mails and phones ringing off the hook.

Since last week, I have gotten more than a thousand phone calls from people who are pleading with me to do whatever I can to stop Republicans who are going forward with their brutal plans. People are literally in tears on the phone. They are scared, and they are angry. They are calling because they know that 13 Senate Republicans--13 men-- are locked away in a secret room, behind closed doors, writing a secret plan to trade their health insurance for tax cuts that will go to the wealthiest Americans in this country.

The bill the Republicans are negotiating behind closed doors isn't a healthcare bill. It is a tax cut for billionaires bill, and it is paid for by cutting healthcare for tens of millions of other Americans.

The Republican healthcare bill has $663 billion in tax cuts in it-- $663 billion in tax cuts for the richest people in this country and for wealthy corporations, tax cuts that would blow a giant hole in the American budget.

The Republicans didn't let that slow them down. They kept their eye on the prize. For the Republicans, the most important thing about this healthcare bill is the tax cuts for the rich. They decided to cut Medicaid by $834 billion in the same bill so they can pay for their tax cuts.

This is a straight-up trade. The Senate Republicans say that Americans should cut health insurance for little babies or for seniors in nursing homes or for people getting treatment for opioid addiction-- all so that millionaires and billionaires can get their tax cuts.

That is not a healthcare bill. That is a statement of values. And it says that tax cuts for a handful of millionaires and billionaires are more important than healthcare for millions of hard-working Americans and their families. There is only one word for what the Senate Republicans are doing with this bill--``shameful.'' It is shameful.

The Republicans negotiate in secret, behind closed doors. They refuse to let anyone see the bill. They will not tell anyone what is in it.

Senator McCaskill asked Chairman Hatch on the Finance Committee if he would hold a hearing on the bill, and he said no. Senator Murray asked Chairman Alexander on the HELP Committee if he would hold a hearing on the bill, and he said no, no plans to do so--no, no hearings, no reviews, no public look at what the Republicans are up to.

What is going on here? I will tell you what is going on. Senate Republicans don't dare let the people back home see this bill. They don't dare let voters see this bill. Instead, they have decided to try to ram this bill through with no hearings, no public discussion, and get it signed into law.

They hope, once that is done, people will not see much point in learning about the details and holding Republicans accountable. They hope that if they can do a quick vote, everyone else will just give up.

I have news for Senate Republicans. That is not going to happen. Senate Republicans may not want to hear from families who are worried about losing their insurance coverage in the middle of a battle with breast cancer. They may not have time for stories about premature babies who need Medicaid so they can get lifesaving care. And maybe they don't want to hear about the grandparents with Alzheimer's who could get kicked out of nursing homes.

Senate Republicans may not want to hear from these people, but I have a message for these Senate Republicans. We don't care how long we have to stand up here. We don't care how many times you try to dodge the question about what is in your secret healthcare bill. Democrats are here to keep demanding that you show us this bill, and we are going to keep insisting that you account for its shameful contents.

I know you would prefer to take the phone off the hook so you don't have to hear it ring, and I know you would like to pretend that there aren't families in your State who would be hurt by this bill, but I am going to take some time to read you a handful of the letters I have been receiving about exactly what is at stake in this debate about healthcare. These families deserve to be heard.

A few months ago I received a letter from Jenny in Worthington, MA. She wrote to me about how she and her husband got good healthcare coverage through the Affordable Care Act and how Medicaid was there when they needed it most, when Jenny was diagnosed with breast cancer.

A few days after President Trump's inauguration, Jenny's son Liam wrote a letter to the President. Liam asked President Trump not to take away his mother's healthcare. I don't know if President Trump ever read that letter, but I am going to read it right now into the Congressional Record.

Dear President Trump,

My name is Liam Barry, and I am ten years old. My mother

has been very ill. Thanks to the ACA, my mother has been able

to have the care and medication she needs. If you repeal the

ACA, my mother will not be able to get the care she needs. I

know there are millions of kids in the same situation as me.

Please think of them when you read this.

Sincerely,

Liam Barry

Thank you for speaking out, Liam. We are fighting for your mom, and we are fighting for you.

Kristine from Cambridge also wrote to me about her fight against cancer. She wrote:

I ask that you and fellow Senators PLEASE fight for the

Affordable Care Act. I am a cancer survivor. When I was 28

years old, I got the news no one ever wants to hear, ``You

have cancer.'' Luckily, for me, I had a job that had

wonderful insurance, and I was able to get medication,

surgeries, and treatment to win the fight--and to not go

broke doing so.

However, I know many young people and old people and

children who would not be here today if it was not for ACA. I

know people who are still fighting their battles with cancer.

They are frightened and losing hope, not because of cancer,

but because they don't know whether they will be able to

continue to get the treatments necessary to stay in the

fight.

I am now 30 years old, and have my whole life in front of

me. Because of what [President] Trump is proposing, I am now

afraid that if I lose my job or if I wish to change jobs, I

might not be able to get the necessary coverage, because I no

longer qualify.

I really didn't think this is what I would be worried about

two years ago after having been through 8 rounds of chemo, 20

rounds of radiation and surgery to clear me of this disease.

Please, I ask that you fight for us. Fight for those who

are in the chemo chair right now, at this very moment, who

are miserable, bald and bloated. Fight for the cancer warrior

who is now crying with worry because she doesn't know, come a

month from now, if she will be able to continue to receive

the life-saving treatment she is entitled to!

That is why we are here tonight. We are fighting for you, Kristine. We are in this fight. Thank you for speaking out about your own fight against cancer and for others who are currently battling cancer and worried about the future of their healthcare.

I also heard from Sarah, who lives in Shrewsbury, MA, and who wrote to me about her concerns that the Republican healthcare bill would endanger coverage of birth control and access to services at Planned Parenthood. Sarah wrote to me this past weekend, while I was out dancing in the Boston Pride parade.

As I type this you are at Boston Pride, which I would have

loved to be at to support my friends, but, due to my

endometriosis pain, here I sit.

I am extremely concerned about the GOP plan to reduce or

strip away insurance coverage for birth control. As a 21-

year-old woman suffering from endometriosis, a very common

disease among young women, I know firsthand that birth

control does more than just prevent pregnancy--in fact, for

many, it is the only treatment for them.

In 10 days I will be undergoing endometriosis surgery, and

for the past 6 months since I've been diagnosed until the

surgery, birth control was the only thing enabling me to

stand up straight most days. Even while taking oral

contraceptives, there were many days I was unable to get out

of bed (today being one).

I am so lucky to have access to an amazing endo specialist

at Brigham & Women's Hospital, and to have access to the

medication and surgery that I need. But every time I groan

about having to go to an appointment, I think about how many

women are suffering from the same debilitating pain, but

without the resources to overcome it. Many women rely on

Planned Parenthood not just for abortions, but to provide

them with the medicine that will enable them to stand up

straight in spite of the pain they deal with every day.

Endometriosis doesn't discriminate, and it cannot be cured,

only treated. Until endometriosis becomes a prominent focus

of medical research, which I feel it should be, we must

protect the right to be treated for it, which means

protecting insurance coverage of birth control, and

protecting Planned Parenthood.

I know that you are a warrior for women's rights, and you

are the patron saint of Planned Parenthood. I know these are

issues you fight for, and I cannot even begin to thank you

enough for all you have done thus far. I hope that by adding

my voice and my personal story, I can fuel your fire and

somehow be a small part in protecting my fellow females and

my fellow endometriosis sufferers (1 in 10 women in the US).

Thank you for fighting for us. Thank you from the bottom of

my heart.

Sarah, thank you for writing, and thank you for fighting. We are going to fight to save your coverage, and next year I expect to see you on the parade route at Pride.

I also heard from Dr. Hemal Sampat, who is a doctor at MGH in Boston. He wrote in with his personal story, and I want to read parts of his letter.

I actually grew up in a low-income family myself. My

parents immigrated to the U.S. My mother is brilliant but

only had a 7th grade education because my grandfather

couldn't afford to send her to school. My father is college-

educated, but struggled frequently with unemployment. My

older brother has multiple disabilities. He's blind and

brain-damaged from a stroke during childhood, epileptic,

intellectually disabled, and has a transplanted kidney. I am

fortunate enough to have been healthy my entire life.

For most of my life, my family was on Medicaid, as well as

other forms of public assistance. . . . My brother,

additionally, due to his kidney disease, got Medicare as

well, but Medicaid was always his secondary insurance. He

sees multiple different specialists and has done very well

over these years.

In spite of us having multiple financial struggles, we

never had to worry about his healthcare being paid for. His

transplant from childhood lasted 19 years, and then about 10

years ago he was transplanted again and has done well with

that.

My parents still live in the same house I grew up in, in

Maryland. Right now, they're cared for by Medicare and

Medicaid. My brother lives with them, receives SSI, and his

health needs are met by Medicare and Medicaid. Although none

of his chronic medical conditions can be cured, they are all

well taken care of.

In the meantime, I grew up healthy, was able to attend

Georgetown through need-based financial aid, was able to get

into medical school at the University of Maryland and pay for

it using Federal student loans (which I'm repaying through

the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program), got into a

dual-specialty residency of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics

at Penn State, and am now working at Harvard and MGH.

My family's story goes to show that Medicaid is about

helping families that struggle, about helping children with

complex medical needs, and about how providing for the good

health of a family can achieve positive outcomes for the

long-term future.

Today, Dr. Sampat works at Harvard at MGH. He makes sure his patients on Medicaid get excellent care. He told me about one of his patients who came in to urgent care in Chelsea. This little girl wasn't even 2 years old yet and was wheezing and had a fever. Here is what the doctor said:

This child and her mother were on Medicaid through

MassHealth. [As] I asked questions, I found out more about

this mother. She was working two to three jobs in order to

make ends meet. Her daughter was in daycare during the day

and then [the] grandmother took care of [the little girl]

most evenings. This mom took care of her daughter on the rare

days she had off and clearly loved and cared for her

daughter.

This young girl's wheezing was probably some of the

earliest signs of what will become asthma. [Her] mom has

asthma, too, and it runs in their family. Asthma is a

completely controllable illness with medication, but it

requires monitoring by a doctor and access to medication.

Because the child has Medicaid, I feel much more confident

that, in spite of how much the mother is struggling

financially, the child has a good shot at growing up healthy.

Without Medicaid, this child could live a life in poor health

from a treatable condition.

These are some of the people the Senate Republicans want to kick to the curb so they can deliver a big tax cut for millionaires and billionaires--a 10-year-old kid with a sick mom, a cancer survivor, a woman with endometriosis, a boy kept healthy by Medicaid so he could grow up to become a doctor at one of the best hospitals in this country and help a little girl with asthma.

Senate Republicans are willing to tear away health insurance from these families to deliver tax cuts for their buddies, but we are not going to let that happen. We can't let that happen. You are fighting back, we are fighting back, and we will keep right on fighting.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse for his important words and all the Senators who have come to the floor this afternoon to talk about the Republican plans to dismantle our healthcare system.

As we speak, Republicans in the Senate are busy behind closed doors working overtime to come up with a secret health plan to ram through the Senate. I guess they are afraid of how the public would react if we could see the full scope of their plans, but in the last 24 hours, we have seen new details about what they want to do. The formula is as clear as it is cruel: destroy healthcare for tens of millions of Americans, including people struggling under the weight of our national opioid crisis. Why? In order to give tax cuts to rich people.

These plans are simply unforgivable, and I say ``unforgivable'' because I cannot find any justification that makes it

OK to take away health insurance from 23 million Americans. I cannot come up with a single sliver of an argument that says it makes sense to rip away more than $800 billion from kids with complex medical needs, seniors in nursing homes, and one of the largest sources of help for people and families struggling with substance abuse disorder, all to produce tax breaks for a handful of millionaires and billionaires.

The Republican agenda is destroying healthcare in this country, and it has never been clearer. President Trump released his budget proposal this week. If the healthcare bill is a punch to the gut, his budget is a knife in the ribs. The Trump budget is about the future, and for the future, Trump says there is too much medical research. He wants to cut more than $5 billion from the NIH budget. That is the place where research is ongoing about treatments for Alzheimer's, cancer, diabetes, ALS. That is America's future that President Trump wants to cut by more than $5 billion.

Then there is the Republican effort to blow up our existing healthcare system. The Republican bill would open the door to discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, and there is more. Insurance companies could drop coverage for mental health and substance abuse disorders. Insurance companies could decide not to cover pregnancy or maternity care. They can drop coverage for prescription drugs. Insurance companies could, once again, impose lifetime limits on diseases like cancer and heart conditions, even for people on employer plans in States like Massachusetts that want nothing to do with the waivers the Republican bill allows.

The CBO says that out-of-pocket costs for these services that are no longer covered would rise ``thousands of dollars a year,'' but cutting out cancer patients and mamas and newborn babies and people with preexisting conditions just wasn't enough for the Republicans. President Trump used his new budget to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the Federal agency leading the fight against opioids. Tens of thousands of people are dying, and the Trump budget cuts money needed in the fight against opioids. It gets even worse.

Together, the Republican healthcare bill and the President's budget rip well over a trillion dollars out of the Medicaid Program, which provides health insurance to one in five people in this country. Medicaid funds more than half the people in nursing homes. When a new baby is born in this country, Medicaid pays for about half of those births. Seniors in nursing homes and new babies are just targets for the Republican cuts.

Then, like extra chocolate sauce drizzled over this misery sundae, the budget also cuts the Children's Health Insurance Program by 20 percent over the next decade. Children's health insurance is the program that works together with Medicaid to provide health insurance for one out of every three kids in this country. Trump and the Republicans say: Let them go sick.

What does that mean? Don't repair a hole in their hearts or fix their broken arms? Don't treat them when they get ear infections or does it just leave someone else to pay? If that is the answer, then tell us who? Who exactly is going to pay for the healthcare for these children?

I just don't get what the Republicans in Congress are thinking. I know they have people back in their home States who are begging them to keep healthcare coverage. Disease, accidents, old age, substance abuse, these misfortunes don't ask whether you are a Democrat or a Republican before they come knocking at your door. I just don't get how Republicans can turn their backs on people who will be hurt, but I understand whom the Republicans are helping.

The CBO score lays it out in black and white. The budget lets you go line by line to see just whom the Republicans do care about. The Republican healthcare bill burns down healthcare access for millions of people in this country in order to hand out tax breaks to a tiny handful of millionaires and billionaires.

The Republican budget rips away coverage for people with disabilities so that giant corporations can keep more of their giant profits. The Republican budget tosses seniors out of nursing homes and puts the brakes on Alzheimer's research so the richest people in this country can rake in millions in tax cuts. That is not puzzling; that is unforgivable.

Let's be clear about what is at stake here. A couple of weeks ago, I was at Malden Care Center, which is part of the Cambridge Health Alliance. Health providers like these in Massachusetts are on the frontlines, and they are fighting back against the opioid epidemic.

The folks at Cambridge Health Alliance told me that before the ACA, they were lucky if one out of every three people walking through their doors had health insurance. Today, after years of hard work in Massachusetts to pass bipartisan health reform and then to implement the ACA, more than 97 percent of the people in our State have healthcare. More than 9 out of 10 people coming into Cambridge Health Alliance clinics now have coverage. Because of that coverage, CHA could offer a wide range of services, including treatment for opioids. They are making headway: More lives saved, more success stories, more healthy babies.

I am not going to tell the seniors and the mamas and the people on the frontlines of the opioid crisis they have to give up those gains to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. If Senate Republicans want to defend this indefensible budget and unforgivable healthcare bill, then they can start by coming out from behind closed doors where they are conducting secret negotiations over healthcare. They can look the American people in the eye and admit they care more about the wealthy few in this country than they do about hard-working families and people who need our help. They can be straight up, and the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--can hold them accountable for what they are trying to do to our families and to our country.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to honor the memory of Trooper Thomas Clardy, who was killed in the line of duty on March 16, 2016.

Last week, the country observed National Police Week, a week in honor of the brave law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty, and on Monday, we will observe Memorial Day, a day we honor the heroic men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country. Thomas Clardy, an officer and a veteran, is one of those brave people to whom our Nation owes a debt of gratitude.

Born and raised in Park City, UT, Trooper Clardy spent his adult life in service to his country, his community, and his family. After graduating from high school, Trooper Clardy spent 2 years in the U.S. Army before transferring to the U.S. Marine Corps, where he served 11 years.

Following his honorable discharge from the Marines, Trooper Clardy began a long and esteemed career in service to his community. He graduated from the Massachusetts State Trooper Academy in 2005 and was a valued member of the Massachusetts State Police until his untimely death.

Trooper Clardy was a dedicated and loving husband to his wife, Reisa, and father to his seven children. Thanksgiving was a sacred holiday for Trooper Clardy. He spent it, without fail, surrounded by friends and loved ones, enjoying football with the kids and spending quality time with the family he loved so much.

Today we honor his service and sacrifice. May his memory continue to challenge and inspire us.

Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to honor the memory of Officer Ronald Tarentino, who was killed in the line of duty on May 22, 2016.

Last week, the country observed National Police Week, a week in honor of the brave law enforcement officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community. Officer Ronald Tarentino was one of those brave officers.

Officer Tarentino was born in Medford and raised in Medford and Tewksbury, MA. The son of a police officer, he followed his father's example when he joined the police force, spending 7 years in the Leicester Police Department before transferring to the Auburn Police Department, where he served until his untimely death 2 years later.

I had the honor of attending the wake of Officer Tarentino and was moved by the stories of his selfless dedication to those around him. Officer Tarentino was the coworker everyone loved. His passion for his work was easily apparent to anyone who knew him. He came into work with a smile and made friends with all of his colleagues. Outside of work, he enjoyed fishing, hunting, and archery and was a member of the Massachusetts Police Association, the Auburn Elks, and Mustangs or Massachusetts.

Most of all, Officer Tarentino was a loving husband and a father of three. Today we honor his service and sacrifice. May his memory continue to challenge and inspire us.

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

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Judge Amul Thapar to serve as a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It should surprise absolutely no one that Judge Thapar is the second nominee to a Federal court to come up for a vote in this Congress. His nomination comes on the heels of the nomination of now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, an ultraconservative who could not earn enough support to be confirmed under Senate's normal rules, a judge so radical, so controversial that Senate Republicans had to change the Senate rules and lower the vote threshold to force his nomination through the Senate.

Now the Senate is poised to vote on a judge cut from the same cloth. Like Justice Gorsuch, Judge Thapar made the list of 21 acceptable judges that far-right groups drew up and handed to President Trump-- judges who would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the rich and the powerful. As in Justice Gorsuch's case, those radical groups are committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure Judge Thapar sits on the Nation's highest courts.

For those groups, the goal is not just to get a few ultraconservative judges on our Federal courts; it is to capture the entire judicial branch. For years, billionaire-funded, rightwing groups have worked hand in hand with Republicans to ensure that our courts advance the interests of the wealthy and powerful over the rights of everyone else. They abused the filibuster to stop fair, mainstream judges from filling vacancies on Federal courts, they slowed the judicial nominations process to a crawl, and they threw the Constitution and Senate precedent out the window by refusing to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Under their watch, judicial vacancies stacked up and courts became overloaded with cases. Now Republicans and their extremist friends have a President who shares their concern about the interests of the 1 percent, and they are ready to stack our Federal courts with judges who will advance their radical agenda. Judge Thapar is much more than up to the task.

There are many reasons to oppose Judge Thapar's nomination to the Sixth Circuit, from his decisions making it harder for working Americans to get access to the judicial system to his support for sentencing policies that don't make us safer but that exacerbate the problem of mass incarceration. There is a lot to object to, but I want to highlight one area that should concern every person who thinks government should work for all of us; that is, Judge Thapar's stance on money in politics.

For decades, our laws restricted the amount of money that individuals and corporations could pour into the political process. In recent years, Federal courts chipped away at those laws, and then Supreme Court decisions in cases like McCutcheon and Citizens United took a sledgehammer to campaign finance laws, unleashing a flood of dark money into the political system.

There are now dozens of perfectly legal ways for the 1 percent to buy influence and favor: corporate campaign contributions and super pacs, the revolving door between government and the private sector, bought- and-paid-for experts to push alternative facts, armies of lobbyists swarming the Halls of Congress. Their investments have paid off in the form of special breaks, exemptions, deals, riders, subsidies, loopholes, and every other handout industry can imagine. That money-- that unaccountable, dark, unlimited money--has fundamentally distorted our democracy.

Judge Thapar would make the problem worse. Judge Thapar believes that actual speech and monetary contributions are basically the same thing. When he had to decide on the constitutionality of a Kentucky rule preventing State judges and judicial candidates from donating to political groups or campaigns, he concluded that the rule was unconstitutional. In his decision, Judge Thapar said: ``There is simply no difference between `saying' that one supports an organization by using words and `saying' that one supports an organization by donating money.'' No difference between talking about a candidate and dumping a bucket of money into the candidate's campaign. Wow.

In Judge Thapar's view, the Constitution should protect a billionaire's right to dump unlimited sums of money into the political process to influence the outcome of elections. That is even further than the Supreme Court has gone. As the Sixth Circuit reminded Judge Thapar when it reversed his decision on donations, even the Supreme Court has refused to treat monetary donations as equivalent to direct speech.

The issue of concentrated money in our political system is one that doesn't split down party lines. Americans of all political views cringe at the massive amounts of secret money that slither through our political process. They have seen politicians beholden to the handful of deep-pocketed individuals and giant corporations, and they have seen those politicians turn their backs on the constituents they were elected to represent. That is at the heart of what is wrong in our Nation. Our government should work for everyone, not just for the millionaires and billionaires.

Fighting for a government that is accountable to the people means fighting to reduce the influence of concentrated money and concentrated power in our political system. It is time to take down the sign that says ``government for sale'' that hangs above Washington, DC, and we can start today by rejecting Judge Thapar's nomination to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Rachel Brand's nomination to the No. 3 spot in the Justice Department. Now, there are many reasons I am opposed to this nomination, but those reasons are all grounded in a central question facing America today: Whom does this government work for? Does it work just for the rich and powerful? Does it work just for the well connected? Does it work just for the billionaire in the White House or does it work for everyone?

One of the worst kept secrets in America is that there are two justice systems; one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else. The first justice system is an exclusive club for giant corporations and wealthy individuals. In that justice system, serious crimes are punished with a slap on the wrist and a small fine. Taxpayers bail out corporations that stole the life savings, and wealthy criminals go back to their lives without missing a beat.

The second justice system is for those who can't buy their way out of prison time. In that system, minor, nonviolent offenses are punished with harsh prison sentences. When those individuals are eventually released, they are branded with the scarlet letter that closes doors to employment and opportunity. It is a system that swallows up people whole and spits them out with nothing.

Americans are very familiar with the difference between those two justice systems. We saw the difference after the worst financial crisis in a generation, when Wall Street tycoons who gambled away the life savings of working Americans walked away free as a bird. We saw it in the War on Drugs when countless Black and Brown people were shoveled into prisons, where they wasted their lives away.

We need to fix this problem. We should be devoting every resource we have to fixing this problem. That starts with the Justice Department, the agency responsible for ensuring that nobody is above the law, and everyone--everyone is held accountable.

Unfortunately, it has been pretty clear to me for some time now that President Trump's Justice Department is pushing as hard as possible in the opposite direction. For much of President Obama's second term, prosecutors were allowed some discretion to consider the unique circumstances of each case and make a measured decision about when to ask for the most serious charge with the maximum penalty or when to ask for less.

It worked. Jail time for low-level drug offenses went down. States saved money, and lives were not irretrievably broken. Last week, that modest advance came to an end. Attorney General Sessions directed prosecutors to charge individuals with the harshest sentences possible. ``Lock them up'' seems to be his approach--but not in all cases. Jeff Sessions sings a very different tune when it comes to white-collar crime. He believes corporations should not be punished for the actions of their executives. Don't punish the companies for a few bad CEO apples.

In Jeff Session's world, we should throw the book at criminals, unless they are rich and powerful. Now, President Trump has chosen to somewhat help Jeff Sessions carry out his vision. His choice to be the third highest ranking official at the Justice Department is Rachel Brand, the nominee for Associate Attorney General.

She is well equipped to carry out that soft-on-white-collar-crime approach. She has extensive experience--years of experience--fighting on behalf of the biggest and richest companies in the world. She spent years leading the Chamber of Commerce's assault on the rules that protect working families, evidently deciding time after time that it is corporations that should get every break.

As the head of regulatory litigation of the chamber of commerce, Ms. Brand worked to dismantle environmental rules that prevent companies from poisoning our air and water. She worked to shield financial companies

from accountability when they broke the law or did not play by the rules. She worked to end the employment rules that prevent companies from abusing their workers.

If she is confirmed to the No. 3 spot at the Justice Department, she can watch out for giant corporations from her perch right inside the government. The Brand nomination is just another predictable move from a President who clearly believes that one set of rules should apply to the rich and powerful, and another set of rules should apply to everyone else.

We all remember Donald Trump's promise during the campaign that he was going to drain the swamp. Well, it is 118 days in, and the swamp is bigger, deeper, uglier, and filled with more corrupt creatures than ever. Over the last several days, President Trump has made it perfectly clear that he believes he should be above the law.

After he fired FBI Director James Comey, Trump went on national television and told the world that he fired Comey, in part, because Comey was leading an investigation into ties between the Trump campaign, the Trump administration, and Russia. Trump said top of mind when he fired Comey was ``this Russia thing with Trump.''

Now we have learned that he apparently pressured Comey in private meetings to drop aspects of the Russia investigation before he fired him. It is a basic presumption of our democracy that politicians cannot interfere with the law enforcement investigations into their own potential wrongdoing, but President Trump openly admitted trying to interfere with an ongoing investigation, and he clearly believes there should be no consequences for himself.

I understand that President Trump thinks he should be able to decide what investigations into his dealings go forward and what investigations get stopped on the spot. I understand that President Trump thinks he should be able to pack his Justice Department full of people who will watch out for billionaire CEOs and giant corporations. After all, he has packed other agencies with similar people.

I understand that is what President Trump thinks, but he is wrong. One of the things that makes our democracy strong is that we believe no one is above the law, not CEOs, not giant corporations, and not the President of the United States. It is up to the Senate to remind the President of that fact. We can start by rejecting the nomination of Rachel Brand to serve as Associate Attorney General. I ask everyone who believes in the promise of equal justice under the law to do the same.

(The remarks of Ms. Warren pertaining to the introduction of S. 1162 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce the reintroduction of the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act of 2017. This legislation would allow student loan borrowers to take advantage of lower interest rates, and I urge both my Senate colleagues and the Trump administration to support it. In a few short months, millions more college graduates will be hit with their first student loan bills.

Already, more than 44 million Americans have student loans, and many are struggling to pay loans that are running at interest rates of 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent and even more. It is time for real action to help struggling borrowers. That is why, today, I join 36 of my Democratic colleagues in the Senate and 98 of my Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives to reintroduce our plan to allow borrowers to lower their monthly payment by refinancing their existing loans to today's lower interest rates, 3.76 percent for undergrads, a little higher for graduate students.

Supporting America's students should not be a political food fight. In fact, President Trump talked about student loans when he was on the campaign trial, including a plan to reduce the maximum number of years for repayment for most students.

As a candidate, Donald Trump said that ``students should not be asked to pay more on the debt than they can afford.'' I agree with that, which is why Congress should allow students to lower their monthly payments by refinancing to today's lower interest rates. Donald Trump also said that ``student loan debt should not be an albatross around student's necks for the rest of their lives.''

I agree with that too. The legislation I am introducing today would lower the outstanding balance for millions of Americans, allowing them to get out from under their student loans faster. Here is one more. Donald Trump said that it is ``terrible that one of the only profit centers we have is student loans.'' He also said that ``it is not fair and that should not take place.''

Unfortunately, right now, that is exactly what is happening. According to a recent analysis of Congressional Budget Office data by the Institute for College Access and Success, after all the costs are accounted for, the Federal Government is now on track to make $81 billion off student loans over the next 10 years.

That is obscene. The Federal Government should not be making a profit off the backs of our students, period. Yes, Candidate Trump talked a lot about this problem, but talk is cheap, and President Trump has not done a thing to fix the problem. In fact, he seems to have lost all interest in students and their student loans. Since his election in November, he has not even mentioned his campaign promises about student loans.

Instead, he and Education Secretary DeVos have gone in the opposite direction, using their short time in office to deliver one blow after another to hard-working Americans who are struggling with student debt. Back when he was running for President, Donald Trump made a lot of promises, but empty promises don't help the students who have been punched in the gut by Secretary DeVos's decision to roll back critical consumer protections for borrowers.

Hollow campaign pledges do not help the students, the veterans, the members of our Armed Forces when they are hurt by student loan companies, like Navient, that break the law and brazenly announce to the world that they don't think they have a responsibility to act in the best interests of students.

Rally speeches don't mean much when this administration is ripping up policies that would have made it harder for greedy student loan companies to rake in lucrative government contracts while cheating students. Last year's rhetoric means nothing to the struggling borrowers who can now be charged sky-high fees--as high as 16 percent-- by student loan collection companies thanks to yet another policy Betsy DeVos ripped up.

Students know what is going on. The loan companies know too. Industry stocks have skyrocketed since November. Mr. President, keep your promise and start by supporting this refinancing bill.

For nearly 4 years, Republicans have filibustered this bill and refused to even debate it, despite its overwhelming public support. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans have offered nothing--nothing--to seriously address the problems of student loan borrowers. Those problems keep getting worse. Today's students are wrestling with $1.4 trillion in student loan debt, and every year the student loan debt increases by nearly $100 billion.

Interest rates are scheduled to jump up again later this summer, meaning the urgency for Congress to act and allow borrowers to access today's rates is stronger than ever. The Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act would give millions of borrowers across this country a chance to save hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars a year. That is real money, money they can put toward paying down the balance on their debt, money they can use to save for a home, money they can spend on buying a car, money they can put toward building a solid future.

By refusing to act and ignoring this debt crisis, Republicans threaten to bury the hopes of an entire generation. It is time for Congress to step up and fix this problem. It is also time for the President to step up as well.

President Trump, you campaigned on the idea that the Federal Government should not be making a profit off the backs of hard-working students. So support this legislation. Put it in your annual budget, this proposal. Call on Members of your own party who have held up this bill to get on board. Demand action to refinance student loan debt, and keep the promises you made to America's young people.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce the reintroduction of the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act of 2017. This legislation would allow student loan borrowers to take advantage of lower interest rates, and I urge both my Senate colleagues and the Trump administration to support it. In a few short months, millions more college graduates will be hit with their first student loan bills.

Already, more than 44 million Americans have student loans, and many are struggling to pay loans that are running at interest rates of 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent and even more. It is time for real action to help struggling borrowers. That is why, today, I join 36 of my Democratic colleagues in the Senate and 98 of my Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives to reintroduce our plan to allow borrowers to lower their monthly payment by refinancing their existing loans to today's lower interest rates, 3.76 percent for undergrads, a little higher for graduate students.

Supporting America's students should not be a political food fight. In fact, President Trump talked about student loans when he was on the campaign trial, including a plan to reduce the maximum number of years for repayment for most students.

As a candidate, Donald Trump said that ``students should not be asked to pay more on the debt than they can afford.'' I agree with that, which is why Congress should allow students to lower their monthly payments by refinancing to today's lower interest rates. Donald Trump also said that ``student loan debt should not be an albatross around student's necks for the rest of their lives.''

I agree with that too. The legislation I am introducing today would lower the outstanding balance for millions of Americans, allowing them to get out from under their student loans faster. Here is one more. Donald Trump said that it is ``terrible that one of the only profit centers we have is student loans.'' He also said that ``it is not fair and that should not take place.''

Unfortunately, right now, that is exactly what is happening. According to a recent analysis of Congressional Budget Office data by the Institute for College Access and Success, after all the costs are accounted for, the Federal Government is now on track to make $81 billion off student loans over the next 10 years.

That is obscene. The Federal Government should not be making a profit off the backs of our students, period. Yes, Candidate Trump talked a lot about this problem, but talk is cheap, and President Trump has not done a thing to fix the problem. In fact, he seems to have lost all interest in students and their student loans. Since his election in November, he has not even mentioned his campaign promises about student loans.

Instead, he and Education Secretary DeVos have gone in the opposite direction, using their short time in office to deliver one blow after another to hard-working Americans who are struggling with student debt. Back when he was running for President, Donald Trump made a lot of promises, but empty promises don't help the students who have been punched in the gut by Secretary DeVos's decision to roll back critical consumer protections for borrowers.

Hollow campaign pledges do not help the students, the veterans, the members of our Armed Forces when they are hurt by student loan companies, like Navient, that break the law and brazenly announce to the world that they don't think they have a responsibility to act in the best interests of students.

Rally speeches don't mean much when this administration is ripping up policies that would have made it harder for greedy student loan companies to rake in lucrative government contracts while cheating students. Last year's rhetoric means nothing to the struggling borrowers who can now be charged sky-high fees--as high as 16 percent-- by student loan collection companies thanks to yet another policy Betsy DeVos ripped up.

Students know what is going on. The loan companies know too. Industry stocks have skyrocketed since November. Mr. President, keep your promise and start by supporting this refinancing bill.

For nearly 4 years, Republicans have filibustered this bill and refused to even debate it, despite its overwhelming public support. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans have offered nothing--nothing--to seriously address the problems of student loan borrowers. Those problems keep getting worse. Today's students are wrestling with $1.4 trillion in student loan debt, and every year the student loan debt increases by nearly $100 billion.

Interest rates are scheduled to jump up again later this summer, meaning the urgency for Congress to act and allow borrowers to access today's rates is stronger than ever. The Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act would give millions of borrowers across this country a chance to save hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars a year. That is real money, money they can put toward paying down the balance on their debt, money they can use to save for a home, money they can spend on buying a car, money they can put toward building a solid future.

By refusing to act and ignoring this debt crisis, Republicans threaten to bury the hopes of an entire generation. It is time for Congress to step up and fix this problem. It is also time for the President to step up as well.

President Trump, you campaigned on the idea that the Federal Government should not be making a profit off the backs of hard-working students. So support this legislation. Put it in your annual budget, this proposal. Call on Members of your own party who have held up this bill to get on board. Demand action to refinance student loan debt, and keep the promises you made to America's young people.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we have a retirement crisis in this country. Today, among working families on the verge of retirement, about a third have no retirement savings of any kind and another third have total savings that are less than one year's annual income.

Let's be blunt. Social Security alone is not enough for a secure retirement. Hitting retirement with little or no savings means spending those last years hovering around the poverty line, with little or no money for important purchases, like dental care or hearing aids, or extras, like buying a birthday gift for a grandchild.

There are a lot of different reasons people hit retirement with no savings, but one big reason is that 55 million Americans don't have the ability to save for retirement through a workplace retirement account. For years, the Republican-controlled Congress has done nothing to help the 55 million Americans who don't have an employer-provided retirement plan to save for their retirement--nothing--so seven States have actually stepped up. They passed legislation to provide retirement accounts to their constituents, and 23 more States are currently considering proposals like this. Massachusetts has stepped up, too, passing legislation to allow workers in small, nonprofit organizations to save for retirement in a State-administered plan.

These State efforts are a big deal. The actions of just those first seven States could expand coverage to 15 million Americans who don't currently have an employer-sponsored retirement account. These efforts would go a long way toward starting to chip away at the retirement crisis in our country, and both Republicans and Democrats should be applauding the efforts of the Governors, State treasurers, and State legislatures who are doing this important work. But instead of passing legislation to incentivize States to continue their innovative work or instead of bringing up a bill on their own encouraging companies to offer retirement accounts to their workers, Republicans are voting on a bill that would pull the rug out from underneath these State plans, jeopardizing all of the States' recent progress.

Republicans are constantly saying they are the party of federalism, deregulation, and State flexibility. Over and over again for the past several months, my colleagues across the aisle have come down to the floor to overturn regulation after regulation because they claim those regulations ``limit the role of State and local governments.'' So why on Earth are they now passing a bill to run roughshod over the States?

The States certainly aren't asking them to take it up. The National Conference of State Legislatures--the bipartisan organization representing the legislatures of all 50 States--sent a letter urging Congress not to pass this bill because ``it will result in an unwarranted preemption of state innovation, will restrict the ability of millions of hardworking Americans to save for retirement, and will prove costly to federal and state budgets.'' And 23 State treasurers and top budget officials, both Democrats and Republicans, from Idaho to Mississippi, wrote urging Republican leadership to ``protect the rights of states and large municipalities to implement their own, unique approaches . . . to address this growing retirement savings crisis.''

No, the State legislatures didn't ask the Republican Congress for this bill, and the American people are certainly not calling their Senators asking that they overturn the rules to help them save for their retirement either. Seventy-two percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Democrats support the work the States are doing.

If it is not the State legislatures and it is not the State regulators and it is not the American people who want this bill passed, why are Republicans pushing it forward? Why are we voting for this legislation?

Four words--national chamber of commerce. The national chamber of commerce has been fighting tooth and nail to kill these retirement initiatives. Their armies of lobbyists are swarming over Capitol Hill. They are peddling misinformation about what these plans do, all because the giant financial firms that pump money into the national chamber of commerce are worried that the State plans will offer better investment products with lower fees for customers.

Yes, the giant financial firms are right to be worried. States probably will not award investment contracts to the companies with the highest fees or to the companies offering kickbacks and prizes to make the sale. They are going to award contracts to companies that can provide the best product at the lowest cost. That is how a competitive bidding process works.

The financial firms hiding behind the chamber of commerce don't want competitive bidding, they don't want transparency, they don't want to fight on a level playing field, and they are willing to spend a whole lot of money to make sure they don't have to. In fact, the Chamber is so serious about keeping the system rigged that they have sent letter after letter to every Member of Congress and their staff, letting them know they are watching this vote.

Just in case you can't read between the lines, for extra emphasis, in bold and underlined typeface, their letters warned that they will be ``consider[ing] . . . votes on, or in relation to, [this] resolution[] in our annual How They Voted scorecard.'' Whoa. The chamber of commerce is going to score who votes to help the big financial corporations and who doesn't, and they are going to make sure that all those potential campaign contributors know about the vote.

This is what gives Washington such a terrible reputation. The American people didn't send us here to work for giant financial institutions and their armies of lobbyists and lawyers. I don't care what kind of threats the chamber of commerce puts out; it is wrong to pass a law to kick people in the teeth when they are trying to save for their retirements. The lobbyists may be watching this vote, but the American people are watching, too, and they are ready to fight back.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.