Floor Statements

Mr. President, this week in Wyoming, one of our finest will be recognized by the Wyoming GOP for a lifetime of service and leadership. I am privileged to tell my colleagues about Rita Meyer.

Rita honorably served our great country for more than 23 years in the U.S. military. She served as an enlisted airwoman before becoming an officer in the Wyoming Air National Guard. Rita is a combat veteran of both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Enduring Freedom. In 1995, the Air National Guard brought Rita to D.C. to act as the strategic planning officer for the National Guard Bureau's counterdrug directorate.

Upon returning to Wyoming, Rita was appointed full-time comptroller for the Wyoming Air National Guard. Although eligible to retire from National Guard service in 2004, Rita answered the call and volunteered for an Active-Duty command in Southwest Asia. She was selected to serve as the 455th Airlift Wing Expeditionary Mission Support Group commander at Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. She completed her tour in May 2005.

Having attained the rank of full colonel, Rita retired from her incredibly distinguished military career in November of 2007. Colonel Meyer was recognized for going above and beyond during her service by being awarded with the Legion of Merit, the Order of the Bayonet, and the Order of St. Barbara.

Although retired from the service, Rita would continue to give back to the Armed Forces. Colonel Meyer served as a member of my service academy nomination board. She also served as head of former Senator Malcolm Wallop's board. I can attest to how vital volunteers like Rita are to the process of nominating young men and women of Wyoming to West Point and the U.S. Naval, Merchant Marine, and Air Force Academies.

In addition to an outstanding military career, Rita is an exemplary scholar. Rita earned two degrees from the University of Wyoming: a bachelor of arts in education and a bachelor of science in finance. She later earned a master of business administration in international business from Regis University, as well as a master's in national resource strategy from the National Defense University in Washington,

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor today as part of our national celebration of the 100th anniversary of U.S. women's suffrage.

Now, 100 years ago today, on June 4, 1919, Congress passed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution giving women the right to vote. This hard-fought legislative victory would ensure women's full participation in our democracy.

On August 18 of 1920, women's suffrage became U.S. law. Now, some of the people watching may not know that Wyoming was actually more than 50 years ahead of the Nation when it came to women voting. That is a fact.

This year, people back home in Wyoming are celebrating both the 100th anniversary of the U.S. women's right to vote and the 150th anniversary of Wyoming women's right to vote. Wyoming truly is the Nation's trailblazer when it comes to women's equality.

Many people think of Wyoming as the Cowboy State, and that name honors our State's great western heritage, but Wyoming is also known as the Equality State--the first State in the Nation to grant women the right to vote, long before statehood, actually, because, on December 10, 1869, the Wyoming territory passed the first law in the United States granting women the right to vote and to hold public office. The law meant full civil and judicial equality with men.

The following year, on September 6, 1870, Louisa Ann Swain, of Laramie, WY, became the first woman in the United States--in the history of the entire country--to vote in a general election.

Twenty years later, Wyoming reaffirmed its commitment to women's rights as we sought statehood. Wyoming, categorically, refused to enter the Union without the right for women to vote. When standing on principle became a major sticking point, Wyoming stuck to its guns on women's equality.

In fact, retaining women's right to vote was so essential that Charles Burritt, of Johnson County, a delegate to the Wyoming Constitutional Convention, famously declared: ``If we cannot come into the union of states with a platform of right, why then we will stay out and willingly remain in a territorial form of government until all of us have passed away to the grave.'' That is how important this issue was to the people of my home State of Wyoming.

In Congress, Joseph Carey was here as a Wyoming delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. He presented the case for statehood in the House of Representatives. He emphasized the strong values of the people of Wyoming, values that included political parity between men and women. Members of Congress opposed to women's suffrage meanwhile argued strongly against Wyoming becoming a State. One Representative opposed to statehood even remarked--and I will quote him from the Record of the House of Representatives. He said: ``Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to say that in my judgment the franchise has been too liberally extended.'' It is a Member of the House of Representatives arguing against allowing Wyoming to become a State.

Well, Wyoming, of course, won the debate narrowly. On March 26, 1890, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the Wyoming statehood bill by a vote of 139 to 127. The measure passed the Senate a few months later, and then on July 10, 1890--that is the day we became a State--President Benjamin Harrison signed Wyoming's statehood into law, naming the 44th State the ``Equality State''--not the ``Cowboy State,'' not a ``Western State'' but the ``Equality State.'' Let me just say that my State may have been the 44th State to enter the Union, but Wyoming will always be the first when it comes to women's rights.

Wyoming has declared 2019 as ``The Year of Wyoming Women,'' and on December 10 of this year, Wyoming will celebrate Wyoming's Women's Suffrage Day. It is a time to pay tribute to Wyoming's many women trailblazers, such as Nellie Tayloe Ross, who was Wyoming's 14th Governor and the first elected woman Governor in the United States.

Governor Nellie Tayloe Ross completed the term of her late husband, Governor William Ross, who had died suddenly in office. She showed great courage and resolve by then running for election--and she did this against the advice of close family and friends--and she won. On January 5, 1925, Nellie Tayloe Ross became the first U.S. woman to be sworn in as Governor, serving with distinction until 1927. She didn't stop there. Nellie Ross went on to become the first female Director of the United States Mint, serving five terms here in Washington from 1933 to 1953. She died in 1977 at the age of 101.

I want to recognize another Wyoming trailblazer today--educator Estelle Reel. Estelle Reel was the first woman elected to Wyoming's statewide office as the superintendent of public instruction. Only 1 year later, in 1895, she became the first woman confirmed by the U.S. Senate to a Federal position, the Superintendent of Indian Schools.

There are a few more Wyoming women firsts whom I would like to mention.

On March 7, 1870, Esther Hobart Morris was the first woman to serve on a jury. That jury was in Laramie, WY. She was also the first female justice of the peace, appointed on February 17, 1870.

In 1870, Wyoming's Mary Atkinson became our country's first female court bailiff.

Wyoming was also home to the first all-woman city government, elected in 1920 in Jackson, WY, and they are shown here in this photograph as Wyoming's trailblazing women. The Jackson Press dubbed them ``the petticoat government.''

Clearly, the people of Wyoming and all Americans owe an incredible debt of gratitude to the Nation's extraordinary women leaders, past and present, so this year, we celebrate those first laws that gave women the right to vote and ensured their full participation in our democracy.

Thank you, Madam President.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, tomorrow, a number of us will be traveling from Washington to France, to Normandy, for the 75th anniversary of D-Day on Thursday. We will commemorate the heroic, selfless efforts of a courageous group of Allied forces, and we will honor all of our World War II veterans.

The 156,000 Americans and British and Canadian troops who stormed the beaches of Normandy, France, on that fateful day, June 6, 1944, turned the tide to win the war in Europe.

Launched from England, the Allies' landing in France was carefully planned and really brilliantly executed. In his D-Day message to the troops, General Dwight David Eisenhower instilled confidence. His message was this:

The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere

march with you.

In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on

other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the

German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the

oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a

free world.

That was the message from General Eisenhower.

Well, because of the tremendous sacrifices of our Allied forces, Nazi Germany surrendered unconditionally less than a year later, on May 7, 1945.

The price for European peace and security proved high. In all, there were 4,414 Allied deaths on D-Day alone, and 2,501 Americans were killed that day. Allied deaths in the Battle of Normandy, which lasted until August, topped 226,000.

Now, 75 years later, thousands of veterans and world leaders will gather on this hallowed ground to honor the self-sacrificing soldiers who fought for our freedom.

My home State of Wyoming lost five of its finest sons on D-Day. I want to recognize these heroes who never made it home: Private Raymond Dahlman, PFC Thompson Dicks, Private Thomas Offutt, Jr., PFC Steven Serkovich, and Private Jack Simpson.

I also salute Wyoming's 602 living World War II veterans, including my wife Bobbie's father, Bob Brown of Thermopolis, WY, who served not only in World War II in Europe and then was sent to the Pacific, but he was also called up to serve our Nation once again in the Korean war.

In all, 16 million Americans fought in World War II; more than 400,000 U.S. servicemembers were killed in the war; and most of those who returned home have now passed away.

So today I want to highlight one of my home State's D-Day heroes who died 5 years ago at the age of 92: SSG Chester ``Chet'' Stephens of Glenrock, WY.

Chet was born in Casper, WY, in 1911 and moved with his family to a ranch south of Glenrock.

At 21, he was called to serve in the Army in World War II, joining the 161st Field Artillery Battalion. Chet supplied ammunition to the battery throughout the war. The 161st landed in Normandy's Omaha Beach in the third wave and fought the Nazis for months.

Chet was awarded the Bronze Star for his heroism in crossing a flooded road to deliver ammunition to his stranded comrades.

His battalion stopped only 7 miles from Berlin, Germany, before he returned home to Glenrock and to his lifelong love of family ranching. In fact, he was still ranching at the age of 92 when he died in 2014.

So I will be thinking of Wyoming's D-Day heroes and all of our State's World War II veterans during the tribute at Normandy.

I will also be thinking of my dad. He was part of the liberation of France, fighting in the pivotal Battle of the Bulge.

I will carry his dog tags with me when I go overseas, the dog tags that he wore during World War II in the liberation of France.

I will also carry with me the medal that was given to the brave soldiers who fought in the liberation of France. The medal says ``1944.'' There is a chain around France with breaks in the chain, and on the back, it says ``la France''; it says ``liberateurs''--the liberation of France.

I will also have with me the missal he carried, his prayer book. It says: My military missal. There is a crucifix on the front and on the back, a rosary, the crucifix, and then the beads that were elevated in the printing so that one could, in a foxhole, in a time of war, with this in your pocket, pray to your Lord and God.

You know, from the time I was a little boy, my dad would always say: John, you should thank God every day because you live in America. You don't know how fortunate you are.

We are truly blessed to live in this great country, and it is due to the selfless actions of our troops--those brave soldiers who risked their lives--and many gave their lives for the rest of us.

As President Franklin Roosevelt said in his D-Day prayer: ``Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization.''

We must never forget those who fought for our freedoms. So many gave their lives to protect our way of life.

We owe an incredible debt of gratitude to our Gold Star families and the sacrifices of those families and of their loved ones.

So on the 75th anniversary of D-Day, it is a time to remember all of our brave service men and women, to reflect on their faithful service to this country, and to recall the sacrifices that they have made and continue to make in defense of this great Nation.

Let me close by saying God bless our troops who fought and died in World

War II. God bless our servicemembers, veterans, and their families, and God bless, yes, the United States of America.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, if cloture is invoked on the Combs nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Combs nomination at 1:45 p.m., Wednesday, June 5. I further ask that following disposition of the Combs nomination, the Senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the Holte, Alston Jr., and Hertling nominations in the order listed; finally, that if cloture is invoked on those nominations, the confirmation votes on the nominations occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader and that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 230, submitted earlier today.

I know of no further debate on the measure.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 5; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Schenker nomination under the previous order.

Madam President, for the information of all Senators, at 11 a.m., tomorrow, the Senate will vote on confirmation of the Schenker, Tarbert nominations in the order listed.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, and under the provisions of S. Res. 229, as a further mark of respect for the late Thad Cochran, former Senator from Mississippi.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 7:43 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor again today to discuss Washington Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare scheme. Every American needs to know about this very radical plan.

Democrats essentially want Washington, DC, to take over all of healthcare in this country and to abolish private health insurance that 180 million Americans get through their jobs. Incredibly, this proposal offered by Senator Bernie Sanders has the backing of many leading Democrats running for President and 109 Democratic Members of the House of Representatives.

So I want to continue the debate today by focusing on the terrible impact this radical scheme will have on all of the fine men and women who provide healthcare to people across the country. Of course, the impact on them will impact the patients for whom they provide care and services.

I am talking about the Nation's dedicated medical professionals, especially

those who serve in our community hospitals. I actually know many of these healthcare providers because I am one of them. For many years I practiced orthopedic surgery in Casper, WY. I was a medical doctor, a physician, and chief of staff at the Wyoming Medical Center.

When practicing medicine in Casper, WY--or anywhere in the Presiding Officer's home State of Nebraska--you really treat patients from all over the State. That is because many people in Wyoming live in small towns. I am talking about patients in towns like my wife's hometown of Thermopolis, WY. My wife's parents are there. When they need specialty care, they go to Casper. For those who haven't traveled in Wyoming, it is about a 2-hour drive one way when the weather is good.

My point is, when you work in the Casper hospital, you are actually covering a large area in our State, and that is often the case in many States. So when I hear that Washington Democrats want to have a one- size-fits-all healthcare plan, I wonder if they have given any thought to people in the Nation's heartland, to people out west. Are they considering people in rural communities at all?

I will state that I think about the people of Wyoming every day. I am there every week. The staff at small hospitals who serve rural communities like Thermopolis, Rawlins, Lusk, Kemmerer, and at the Lovell hospital, where I attended a health fair this past Saturday, talking to all of the folks there--their needs are things I am not convinced Washington Democrats have any knowledge of or care for at all. The people at these hospitals work hard just to keep the doors open so that they can continue to care for patients right there.

So alarm bells go off when I see headlines like the one from the Washington Post that said:

``Who's going to take care of these people?'' As

emergencies rise across rural America, a hospital fights for

its life.

That is the headline in the Washington Post, referring to a community hospital in Osage County, OK. The hospital has a sign out front that reads: ``A small community is only as healthy as its hospital.'' That is the truth.

Hospitals across rural America are struggling. Many are, in fact, fighting for their lives. Still, Democrats are offering a plan that will destroy private health insurance in America, which is the lifeblood of our Nation's healthcare system; 180 million Americans get their insurance this way.

Democrats want to drastically reduce provider payments which, of course, would drive many doctors from practice and shutter many small hospitals. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator has said a one-size-fits-all system ``would decimate physician networks, creating a permanent physician shortage.''

So how can rural hospitals survive with no financial cushion if Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare plan passes? Just ask the New York Times, of all people. Last month, the Times ran with this headline: ``Hospitals Stand to Lose Billions Under `Medicare for All.' '' Hospitals stand to lose billions.

The Times cites a study from George Mason University that found Medicare provider reimbursement rates are more than 40 percent lower than private insurance rates--40 percent lower. At these payment rates, the Times says, ``[s]ome hospitals, especially struggling rural centers,'' like those in the Presiding Officer's home State and mine ``would close virtually overnight.''

There would be an overnight closure of hospitals under Bernie Sanders' and the Democrats' one-size-fits-all scheme for medicine in America.

I am sure a lot of people listening out there are thinking, maybe it is all a mistake; maybe Democrats don't really mean to threaten hospitals. Well, the fact is, Democrats have long argued that hospitals need to close. That is what they have said.

Look at what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who is an architect of ObamaCare and a professor in Philadelphia, said on the subject. He actually wrote a book outlining all of this. It is titled, ``Reinventing American Health Care.''

He predicted that 1,000 U.S. hospitals would close by 2020. Well, we are approaching that year. We haven't closed 1,000 in this country, but over 80 have closed, and those are rural hospitals.

Last year he published an op-ed in the New York Times--the same Dr. Emanuel--ominously titled, ``Are Hospitals Becoming Obsolete?'' He writes:

Hospitals are disappearing. While they will never

completely go away, they will continue to shrink in number

and importance. This is inevitable and good.

Well, not in rural America--``good,'' he says, that thousands of hospitals and patients who rely on them are forced to close their doors for good. I disagree fundamentally with this principle and what he is saying.

Of course, all people who practice medicine in small towns want to keep the doors open because they know the impact on the lives of the people who live in those communities. Just last week I had a chance to visit with Dr. Mike Tracy, a family physician in Powell, WY. He is past president of the Wyoming Medical Society. He is passionate about caring for his patients, and guess what. He doesn't participate in Medicare at all. Instead, he provides his services privately by charging his patients a set, transparent monthly fee. He does what he does to keep his practice open. His focus is on his patients, not on Washington paperwork, and his patients are very happy. His practice is successful. The patients are happy with the time he is able to sit and be with them and look at them and focus on them, instead of the mandates of a Washington computer screen.

So you see, there are doctors like Mike all across the country who don't want a one-size-fits-all healthcare system. Many doctors and many small community hospitals cannot afford it, and they will not survive it. Certainly, many rural communities can't survive it.

As the Presiding Officer knows better than most, as he has traveled his State and as I have traveled mine, if a small community loses a hospital, it is harder to attract doctors, nurses, teachers, businesses--all of the things that are vital for a community to have. So the threat is very real in terms of what the Democrats and what Bernie Sanders and the one-size-fits-all healthcare plan would bring to our country.

Let me just tell people who are watching the debate right now: Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare--what this will mean for you is that you will pay more to wait longer for worse care. That is what it means. That is what it means to you. You will pay more to wait longer for worse care. That is what is at stake.

We all need to make our voices heard loud and clear: no to Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare scheme, yes to real reforms that improve healthcare and bring down the costs for all Americans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I come to the floor as part of Military Appreciation Month. It is a time, clearly, to remember our brave service men and women, to reflect on their faithful service to this country and to recall the many sacrifices our troops and their families have made and continue to make in defense of this great Nation.

Many of us will be heading overseas for the 75th anniversary of D-day to commemorate the efforts of an incredible group of allies on the fateful day and the weeks and the months that followed.

As I stand here today, I think of those soldiers, and I think of my wife Bobbi's dad, Bob Brown--currently 92 years old, living in Thermopolis, WY, longtime postmaster. He still drives Meals on Wheels, as he says, ``for the old folks.''

He was called to Europe in World War II, and he is one of those few who was in World War II in the European theater as well as in Japan as part of that first occupation and then called back to Korea as part of the 2-300 who continued in the fight for our freedoms.

He continues today to serve our United States. His wife, Jerry, who went through all of this in Thermopolis, WY, knows the sacrifices he and so many have made.

My dad, World War II, Battle of the Bulge. I still carry his dog tags from the Battle of the Bulge with me. I have them with me today on the floor of the Senate, and I carry them with me when I go to see our troops overseas.

He is the guy who had to quit school in ninth grade because of the Depression. In World War II--and I have gone through some of his old papers--I found pictures of him and a number of members of the artillery who were part of the liberation of France.

From the time I was a little boy, he would say: John, you should thank God every day because you live in America. You don't know how fortunate you are.

We are so blessed to live in this great country, and it is to the men and women who continue to protect this land, who fought for our freedoms--my dad, his wife, Louise, the sacrifices they have made on behalf of all of us.

Today we honor all of our Armed Forces, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the Marines, the National Guard.

In particular, today I want to salute the members of the Wyoming Army National Guard because they are now deploying to the Middle East. Some 300 Wyoming soldiers from six units will be sent to the Middle East between January and September--the largest Wyoming deployment in nearly a decade.

The deployments began in January with the G Company of the 2nd Battalion, 211th Aviation, a medical evacuation company--the most deployed unit in the Wyoming Guard.

The medevac unit that was sent to Afghanistan includes Wyoming soldiers from Bear River, from Casper, from Carpenter, from Guernsey, from Cheyenne, Laramie, and Wheatland.

This past week, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon participated in a sendoff ceremony in Casper for 130 Wyoming National Guard troops headed to Texas ahead of a 9-month deployment to the Middle East.

The Wyoming troops from the 2nd Battalion of the 300 Field Artillery, the ``Cowboy Cannoneers,'' the group my father-in-law, Bob Brown, was part of--they are from more than two dozen communities from Casper to Lovell, to Cheyenne, to Moorcroft. This Guard unit will serve under the U.S. Central Command covering Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.

Wyoming and the entire Nation owe an incredible debt of gratitude to these fearless fighters for our freedom.

God bless the U.S. Armed Forces, God bless our troops, our veterans, and God bless the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to address again today the Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare scheme. It is a radical plan to take over all of healthcare in America and to take away health insurance from millions of Americans.

Still, nearly every Senate Democrat running for President and 109 Members of the House of Representatives, Democrats all, have backed one-size-fits-all healthcare. Last week, former Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota had words of wisdom for her fellow Democrats. She writes in the Washington Post: ``Most Americans are satisfied with the healthcare they receive and do not want their coverage options taken away and replaced,'' as she said, ``with a one-size-fits-all government program.''

I agree. The fact is, according to the Census Bureau, 90 percent of Americans have healthcare coverage. Of those, 200 million are covered by private health plans, and 180 million have employer-provided healthcare coverage. Most say that their current plan works well for them.

The 180 million Americans covered through their jobs work hard. These people go out every morning and support their families. According to a survey released last year, the vast majority of people with employer- provided coverage--71 percent of them, to be precise--like their current healthcare plans.

So who exactly are those workers on employer-sponsored plans? Well, many are union members. They negotiate their health coverage through their union representatives. Many are public employees, Federal and State employees, people who serve this country. So why do Democrats who support one-size-fits-all healthcare want to outlaw proven, popular, and predictable health coverage for millions of these working families?

Democrats certainly seem to be putting politics above principle. What is more, they clearly believe that Washington knows best. But shouldn't we be asking what these hard-working Americans who have good private health insurance want? Well, shouldn't we ask them what is best for them and what is best for their families?

Let's take the Teamsters Union, for example. In an article published in 2017, the Teamsters said:

The availability of high-quality health care has been a top

selling point for those who belong to unions. It is a benefit

these workers have bargained for, and oftentimes they have

sacrificed higher pay for these excellent insurance benefits.

Let me underscore this point: The Teamsters Union believes their health benefits are excellent, and maybe Democrats should ask the United Steelworkers about their insurance coverage. If you go to the steelworkers' website, you will find their answer: ``The Steelworkers Benefit Plan . . . provide[s] high-quality, affordable health and welfare benefits to USW [United Steelworkers] members and their families.''

Basically, if you are a union worker watching this debate right now, you need to know that Democrats in Washington are coming for your hard- earned healthcare benefits. Make no mistake. Under the one-size-fits- all healthcare legislation offered by Senator Bernie Sanders and so many Democrats running for President, this high-quality health insurance program and their insurance will cease to exist.

It is no wonder that last year some high-profile public sector unions started sounding the alarm about losing their health benefits. When New York State debated a Sanders-like proposal to take over healthcare, who raised the loudest objections? Well, it was the public sector unions, of course.

So again, we have millions of union workers, Federal and State employees, and their families, all with excellent healthcare benefits that are on the Democrats' chopping block. Instead of helping fix the Nation's healthcare problems, Democrats are looking to destroy what is actually working.

Remember, it is more than union workers and public sector employees who are threatened. Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare plan is gunning for retired military members' health insurance as well. We are talking about the TRICARE health insurance program for military families. There are more than 9 million military families enrolled in TRICARE. Our servicemembers have earned their TRICARE coverage through years of faithful service defending this Nation. I believe one of our greatest responsibilities is to provide for those who protect this Nation, both those who currently serve and our retired servicemembers.

Back home in Wyoming I talk with servicemembers, with veterans, nearly every weekend. These proud Americans want me to make sure that TRICARE works for them and to protect and strengthen benefits that work and that they have earned through their service. Still, far-left Democrats don't want to listen to reason. They are hell-bent on a one- size-fits-all approach to healthcare.

It is especially ironic that Democrats even want to ban ObamaCare plans--the plans they voted for and put in place. It has been less than a decade since Democrats passed ObamaCare, and now they want to repeal it and replace it, basically saying that ObamaCare has failed.

For years I have come to the floor to discuss the shortcomings of ObamaCare. Every time Republicans have offered to improve healthcare, we have heard from the Democrats that ObamaCare is off-limits and they can't possibly make any changes to that law. Now that the Democrats are running for President, suddenly they are singing a different tune. They are done defending ObamaCare. In fact, Democrats are happy to repeal ObamaCare so they can replace it with a one-size-fits-all healthcare plan for America.

Senator Heitkamp is actually warning them not to cast aside ObamaCare and start all over again with a one-size-fits-all plan.

Well, let me just say as a doctor, as a physician who has taken care of patients for decades, my focus continues to be on improving healthcare for American patients and their families. Americans want to focus on real healthcare reforms that make a difference for them and their families in terms of the cost and in terms of the quality of their care. These are the issues that Republicans are working on right now: protecting patients with

preexisting conditions, lowering prescription drug costs, and ending surprise medical bills.

Surprise medical bills are bills patients receive that come out of nowhere. These bills are an unfair financial burden on many families, completely unexpected medical costs that they can't afford and aren't expecting. Just last week I was at the White House with President Trump announcing a plan to help patients by ending these surprise bills.

Republicans also remain committed to protecting patients with preexisting conditions and to lowering the cost of prescription drugs.

Democrats have a choice to make. They can follow the far-left Democrats pushing their radical one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare. Again, this extreme scheme will mean the loss of health insurance coverage for millions and millions and millions of hard- working people, union workers and their families, our veterans, people who helped protect and save this country, Federal and State employees and their families, and all of the Americans who are currently enrolled in ObamaCare plans.

The better option for Democrats is to work with Republicans on commonsense, bipartisan solutions, real reforms that improve healthcare for all Americans. Let's reject one-size-fits-all healthcare that will make Americans pay more to wait longer for worse care.

That is the key. One-size-fits-all healthcare, I will tell people listening in today, means that you will pay more to wait longer for worse care. It is time to reject one-size-fits-all care for Americans. Let us work together to give all patients the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is rare to find Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and USA TODAY editors all in agreement, but they are all on the same page when it comes to Senator Sanders' radical scheme for a complete takeover of healthcare in America. All three papers say that the Democrats' single-payer plan--a one-size-fits-all plan for America--is a bad idea. Remember, it is not just Senator Sanders' plan; nearly every Senate Democrat who is running for President has supported this extreme proposal, as have 180 Members of the House of Representatives.

Post, Journal, and USA TODAY editors are citing last week's report by the Congressional Budget Office as raising a number of alarm bells. USA TODAY calls it a pipe dream. The Post charges Senator Sanders with deeply misrepresenting how difficult it would be to adopt single-payer healthcare for America. They called it costly. They called it complicated and expensive. The CBO projects in its report on a single- payer plan that government spending on healthcare would increase substantially. They go on to say that to cover the massive cost of government-run care--the Journal says that income taxes of American families would have to at least double.

Added to the expense is the shock of banning virtually all private insurance in this country. There are 180 million working Americans who receive their health insurance through work. Outlawing private health plans would cause a serious disruption, forcing 180 million Americans-- working families--from their employer-sponsored health insurance coverage.

The Washington Post notes that these employer-provided plans cover most Americans under the age of 65. The Journal says that any savings would have to come from where the money is, which is cutting payments to doctors and restricting care--restricting care. That restricts treatment as well as new technologies. Lower reimbursement rates could drive many doctors from practice and shutter many small hospitals in my rural communities and in your rural State, Mr. President. We are talking about problems in our rural communities all across America. The result would be longer wait times and lower quality of care.

To quote the Post, ``No matter what Senator Sanders says, there is no Medicare for all without tradeoffs.'' Mark my words--Medicare for all would soon become Medicare for none. Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare plan--a one-size-fits-all healthcare plan would mean that you would pay more to wait longer for worse care. You would pay more to wait longer for worse care. That is what one-size-fits-all healthcare looks like for Americans, for people all across the country.

This single-payer plan means major tax hikes to cover massive costs. It means much longer lines for lower quality care. It means the elimination of private health insurance for Americans. It also means the end of the Medicare Program that seniors rely upon and so many depend on, on a daily basis. That is where I want to focus some of my remarks today--our seniors' healthcare needs and why it is so important to protect their Medicare benefits that they have paid into over their entire working lives.

For seniors today, there are 60 million of them who rely on the Medicare Program. Medicare is nothing less than a medical lifeline. Yet, if the Democrats impose socialized medicine on the entire country, seniors will quickly find Medicare replaced by a massive, new, government-run, one-size-fits-all program--a system that lowers the quality of care for them and makes it harder to get the care they need.

These older Americans worked hard their entire lives, put in the effort, and each month or each week had money deducted from their paychecks that went into paying for Medicare. They have paid into this Medicare system for decades. The average for a couple in America--they have paid in about $160,000 in terms of withdrawals from their paychecks over the course of their working lives. They deserve nothing less than what they paid for, that they paid into.

For more than 50 years, Medicare has helped countless seniors live healthier, more productive lives. Does Medicare face challenges? Absolutely. There is no question about that. But ending Medicare as we know it would not solve our healthcare problems; it would simply make them much worse--certainly for the 60 million Americans currently on Medicare.

I have seen Medicare's value as a doctor. While practicing medicine in Wyoming for decades, I saw firsthand how effective Medicare is in helping patients receive the care they need.

Now, as a Senator, I talk with seniors back home in Wyoming all of the time and listen to their healthcare concerns. The week before last, I was at two different health fairs in Wyoming, where people can go for low-cost blood screenings and learn more about diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and proper diet. I visited with people in Rawlins, WY, and Mountain View, WY. Hundreds of people came out. There were 1,500 people at the Rawlins health fair.

People in Wyoming actually know me as a doctor first and as a Senator second, and above all, they count on me to protect their Medicare. That is my concern with this one-size-fits-all approach the Democrats have been proposing. People in Wyoming want to make sure that I keep Medicare strong, keep fighting for them, because the current system allows them to get to the doctor they need.

In Wyoming, where people live far away and the hospitals are few and far between, we know that with a program like this--and certainly from the CBO report last week--small hospitals will very likely close.

Almost 90 percent of Medicare patients say that they like the program and that it works well for them. There is nearly 90 percent approval. Members of the Senate would be astonished and happy with those sorts of approval numbers for themselves. It is a program that is working for them, and now what is being proposed by the Democrats is going to absolutely have devastating effects on Medicare and our patients on Medicare.

We need to do more to lower the cost of care for all Americans, but we need to protect Medicare. To put all of these new people on a Medicare Program is going to make it that much harder for our seniors who are currently on Medicare.

Medicare partners with private health insurers to provide seniors with better, more affordable care. It is a program called Medicare Advantage. There are 22 million American seniors who are on this Medicare Advantage Program. Nobody forces them to sign up; they choose it simply because, as the name implies, there are advantages to participating in Medicare Advantage in terms of preventive care and in terms of coordinating care. Our seniors look at these plans and say: You know, that is right for me. It provides value for my money. I enjoy what I get.

So it is no surprise that since 2010--things came along, and ObamaCare was passed--the number of seniors in Medicare Advantage has more than doubled, because it is a good program for them. Nevertheless, all 22 million people currently on Medicare Advantage would lose Medicare Advantage if the Democrats' one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare--which 180 Members of the House have cosponsored and which the Senate Democrat candidates for President are cosponsoring--were to pass. But that is what the Democrats are proposing--taking Medicare Advantage away from 22 million Americans.

In January, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators in sending a letter to

the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services urging support for Medicare Advantage. Ironically, 6 of the 22 Democrats who signed this letter have now flip-flopped back to this far-extreme-left proposal to outlaw private health insurance in America. That is what they are running for President on and promoting today.

Medicare works with private insurers to make seniors' prescription drugs more affordable as well. This program is called Medicare Part D. More than 43 million seniors participate in Part D plans. Again, it is voluntary. How do we know it must be a good program? Because that many people see value in the program, and they have signed up for it. Can we improve the prescription drug program? Absolutely. We are working right now to lower prescription drug costs. We have already eliminated the gag order, where pharmacists couldn't talk to patients. We have done the right thing there.

So why are the far-left Democrats attempting to destroy private health plans? I mean, it is astonishing. Why do they want to end Medicare as we know it? Why do they want to turn Medicare for our seniors into Medicare for None?

Well, while ``free healthcare'' may make for a catchy campaign slogan, it is unfair to deceive the American people, especially our seniors. To quote the editor of the Wall Street Journal, ``Voters should know Sanders is promising miracles when what he'll deliver is poorer care for everyone.''

So here we have it. The Congressional Budget Office came out with its study about what the impacts will be. The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA TODAY--all of them say this is not right for America.

Let's be clear. All Americans will pay a high price for Democrats' one-size-fits-all, government-run healthcare scheme, and I actually think seniors may suffer the most. It is clear to me that with a one- size-fits-all healthcare plan, people will pay more to wait longer for worse care.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.