Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to briefly thank the Senator from Delaware.

As the Senator from South Dakota said, this has been a very contentious issue, but we thought that if we listened enough, we might find a few things we could agree on. Senator Murray and I not only involved our committee, which is a committee of 22 or 23 Senators, but we invited anyone not on the committee to come and meet with the witnesses--the Governors and the State insurance commissioners--for an hour before the hearings. We had nearly 60 Senators involved in the entire process on those 4 days. That is pretty remarkable when you have 60 Senators--more than half of whom are not on the committee of jurisdiction--attending and participating, and that helped develop what we did.

The person with the best attendance was Mr. Carper, the Senator from Delaware. He is not a member of the committee, but he came to every one of the committee meetings, and he often stayed for the hearings themselves. I thank him for his active participation.

In boiling it all down, I think what we are trying to say is, there is a lot we still do not agree on, but we have heard the American people. Healthcare is on their minds. They are signing up, and those who are in the individual market are getting sticker shock if they do not have any government support. For the next couple of years, we have a plan that will avoid chaos and begin to limit the growth of premiums and, in 2019, reduce premiums. In addition to that, it will give Americans a new plan to buy called the catastrophic plan, and it will give many States the opportunity to use some of their own ingenuity to create a larger variety of choices.

That is a good set of options with which to respond to the American people who ask: Why don't the President and the Congress work together to do something about healthcare? It does not solve all of the problems, but it is a step in the right direction, and it is something we can build on.

I thank the Senator from Delaware for his contribution, and I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his.

I hope, when the President returns from Asia, that he will look at the agreement he asked us to produce, and I hope he will support it. If he does, I believe it will be part of the law when we go home for Christmas.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. President, last week the Senate confirmed Kyle Fortson to be a member of the National Mediation Board.

The National Mediation Board, established by the 1934 amendments to the Railway Labor Act of 1926, is an independent U.S. Federal Government agency that facilitates labor-management relations within the Nation's railroad and airline industries.

Pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, National Mediation Board programs help to resolve disputes to promote the flow of interstate commerce in those industries through mediation, representation, and arbitration of labor-management disputes.

A dedicated public servant, Kyle Fortson is eminently qualified to serve on the National Mediation Board. I am fortunate to say that Mrs. Fortson currently serves on my staff as labor policy director at the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--HELP--Committee, after serving in that position from 2010 to 2013 for Senator Mike Enzi. I have benefitted from Mrs. Fortson's experience, knowledge, and counsel.

Mrs. Fortson previously served as labor counsel at the same committee from 2004 to 2010. Before that, she was a policy analyst at the Senate Republican Policy Committee from 2003 to 2004 and served as counsel to Senator Tim Hutchinson from 2001 to 2003. She also served as judiciary counsel to Congressman Spencer Bachus from 1999 to 2001.

Mrs. Fortson graduated with a B.A. in history from the University of Colorado in 1996 and with a J.D. from George Washington University in 1999.

Mrs. Fortson was nominated on June 26, 2017. On July 3, 2017, the committee received Mrs. Fortson's Office of Government Ethics paperwork, including her public financial disclosure and ethics agreement. Based on these documents, the Office of Government Ethics wrote to me that Kyle Fortson ``is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest.'' The committee received Mrs. Fortson's HELP Committee application on July 27, 2017. Mrs. Fortson was favorably reported out of the HELP Committee on October 18, 2017.

While the National Mediation Board will be very fortunate to have Mrs. Fortson as a member, her departure will be a loss to the U.S. Senate and the HELP Committee. I am proud to support Kyle's nomination, and she will serve on the National Mediation Board with distinction.

Mr. President, today we celebrate the 25th anniversary of high-performance computing at Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Leadership Computing Facility.

For a quarter century, Oak Ridge has led the way globally, pushing the boundaries of computational performance and continually giving scientists more powerful platforms for simulation and discovery at every scale--from the smallest building blocks of atoms to the vastness of galaxies--in biology, chemistry, physics, materials science, cosmology, industrial modeling, nuclear power, and more.

Using Oak Ridge's computing facility, scientists have expanded the scale and scope of their research, solved complex problems in less time, and filled critical gaps in scientific knowledge.

The Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility has led the rapid evolution of scientific computing that has produced a millionfold increase in computing power and has been home to both the first teraflop--1 trillion calculations per second--and the first petaflop--1 quadrillion calculations per second--systems for scientific computing. Oak Ridge has twice placed two supercomputing systems at the top of the international TOP500 list, where supercomputers are ranked by their number-crunching performance.

Today computer simulation is an essential part of modern science, but in 1992, when Oak Ridge established its Center for Computational Sciences, which was later renamed the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, not many people thought that the next great center for high- performance computing would be located in east Tennessee.

As I have said many times, this region has one of the most formidable concentrations of brainpower anywhere in our country.

The Department of Energy unleashed that brainpower when, later that year, it selected Oak Ridge, along with its partners, three national labs and seven universities, to lead one of the Office of Energy Research's--now the Office of Science--new high-performance computing research centers to serve scientists from national laboratories, universities, and private industry.

Meanwhile, in 2002, Japan introduced its Earth Simulator, which was at the time five times more powerful than any other high-performance computer in the world.

I traveled with former Senator Jeff Bingaman to Japan, and we were briefed on the significance of Japan's investment in the Earth Simulator.

Japan's development of the Earth Simulator meant that the United States no longer was the clear leader in high-performance computing, and for the first time, American researchers were looking abroad to obtain access to the latest computing tools.

Senator Bingaman and I made it a priority to recapture the lead in high-speed computing by introducing and passing the High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004.

This legislation paved the way for Oak Ridge to regain the lead in supercomputing. Within a few years, the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility deployed a supercomputer called Jaguar that would break the petaflop barrier--a quadrillion calculations per second--in 2008 and take back the top spot on the TOP500 list in 2009.

For the past 25 years, the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility has not only been home to some of the world's most powerful computers, but it has also been a global leader in the development of software applications and tools for scientific research. That is important because it is not just about having the fastest computer, it is also about having the experts who know how to program and use them.

Each year, the facility provides computer systems 10 to 100 times more powerful than most other computers available for research for the lab's own scientists, as well as international teams of scientists trying to make breakthroughs on the toughest science challenges.

Those scientists publish new science discoveries in nearly 500 research papers per year.

Beyond basic science, dozens of companies, from small businesses to Fortune 500 giants, have used Oak Ridge supercomputers to accelerate their own research and development and gain a competitive advantage in the global market.

For example, these high-performance computers have allowed companies to develop an add-on for long-haul trucks to optimize airflow, which improves fuel mileage by up to 10 percent.

Other companies were able to use simulations to extend the shelf life of consumer products and to analyze combustion in gas turbines to improve performance and lower emissions.

Not only does supercomputing help scientific discoveries and companies, supercomputers at our national laboratories can be used by Federal agencies as a ``secret weapon'' in the effort to combat issues like Medicare and Medicaid waste, fraud, and abuse; to find terrorists and criminals; and to help the National Institutes of Health find cures and treatments for disease.

Other countries have taken notice of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility's success, tried to duplicate it, and now threaten our lead in scientific computing.

The United States faces a choice between falling behind competitors like China or advancing technologies that can make us safer and more competitive.

In the June 2017 ranking of the world's most powerful supercomputers, China maintained the top two places, Switzerland was third, and Titan at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is the fastest supercomputer in the United States, moved down to fourth.

In 2018, the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility will complete Summit, which will be more than five times faster than Titan and will help researchers better understand materials and nuclear power and support more energy breakthroughs.

The fiscal year 2018 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, which I wrote with Senator Feinstein, prioritizes supercomputing and recommends $150 million for the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, as well as $381 million to support the delivery of the first exascale machine.

I am very proud of the men and women from all over the world who have come to east Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory to make the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility a world-leading center for computational scientific research.

I thank them for 25 years of hard work and dedication, and I look forward to their continued success answering some of the hardest scientific questions.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the article, ``More ACA Plans to Come With No Premiums in 2018,'' by Anna Wilde Mathews and Christopher Weaver that was published in the Wall Street Journal on October 27, 2017.

Mr. President, when the 18 million Americans in the individual insurance market--those are Americans, shopkeepers, songwriters, farmers, men and women who don't get their health insurance from the government or on the job--begin enrolling on Wednesday, they will discover something very strange.

The Wall Street Journal, in a weekend story, explained exactly how strange this phenomenon will be. Some of these 18 million Americans will be able to get their insurance for free. They will pay absolutely nothing for their premium, but others will see their premiums skyrocket far beyond the increases they have seen in recent years.

Here is what the Wall Street Journal says:

In nearly all of the 2,722 counties included in the data,

some consumers will be able to obtain free health insurance

because they qualify for larger federal premium subsidies

that cover the full cost of the plan, according to the new

analysis.

The Wall Street Journal continues:

In the coming weeks, insurers are gearing up to promote the

no-premium option. . . . On the flip side, those who don't

get premium subsidies under the 2010 law may be responsible

for the full brunt of steep rate increases, though they may

be able to mitigate the impact by staying away from silver

plans.

Insurers are gearing up to shepherd Americans into plans that will cost zero because taxpayers will be paying much higher subsidies. Meanwhile, the 9 million Americans in the individual health insurance market who do not have subsidies may be responsible for what the Wall Street Journal calls the ``full brunt of steep rate increases.''

What is causing this strange phenomenon? It is happening because Congress--us--has not funded cost-sharing reduction subsidies, or CSRs, for the 2018 plan year. Cost-sharing reduction subsidies are payments in the Affordable Care Act which the government makes to insurance companies to reimburse them for deductibles and copays for many low- income Americans. According to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the President of the United States can no longer make these payments himself without the approval of Congress so President Trump ended those payments this month.

Insurance companies have raised premiums to make up the difference, loading most of the increase on the silver plan premiums. They did that because, under the Affordable Care Act, subsidies are based on silver plan premiums. So as premiums go up, subsidies go up. If silver plan premiums skyrocket, then the subsidies skyrocket, and then you can use your giant subsidy to go buy a bronze plan and pay nothing in premiums.

In California alone, according to the Wall Street Journal article, about half of the 1.1 million who buy health insurance with subsidies can get their insurance for free next year. To be clear, because Congress didn't provide temporary funding for the cost-sharing reductions for 2018, more than half of Californians on the ACA exchange can get free government-paid healthcare.

For the last few weeks, I have been saying that the chaos we are going to see, if we don't continue the cost-sharing payments, will be a four-lane highway to single-payer insurance. Now we see why. Premium- free private insurance for millions funded by the taxpayer--I am not sure what is conservative about that.

We don't need to worry about the insurance companies. They obviously know how to take care of themselves. As the article details, if the cost-sharing payments aren't made over 2 years, insurance companies shouldn't lose a penny. They have to pay, under law,

the copays and deductibles, but they have already secured permission to raise premiums for 2018 to cover that. Because courts have said the payments are illegal, they secured approval of rates that are 20 percent higher in 2018 just for this purpose. So the insurance companies are not hurt by stopping the cost-sharing reduction payments.

If subsidized Americans aren't hurt by stopping the payments and insurance companies aren't hurt by stopping the payments, then who is hurt by stopping the payments? Hard-working, low-income Americans making less than $11,000 a year who don't qualify for Medicaid and Americans who make more than $47,000 a year and who therefore have no government subsidy to help buy insurance. They must face these premium increases on their own.

A hard-working Tennessean in the individual market--let's take a look at her. She has already seen her premiums increase 176 percent over the last 4 years. For 2018, it is going to be up another 36 percent in Tennessee, on average. She will pay the whole bill, no government help.

Then take the American taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that failure to continue the cost-sharing reduction payments increases premiums and therefore the subsidies to pay for those premiums by $194 billion over 10 years--$194 billion over 10 years added to the Federal debt because we don't continue the cost-sharing subsidies.

How do we avoid this? Believe it or not, we can avoid this situation by enacting a bill that will both prevent this strange phenomenon and reduce the Federal deficit by $3.8 billion. Senator Murray from Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Senate HELP Committee, and I introduced this bill. We were among 12 Republicans and 12 Democrats last week who proposed the bill and recommended it to the Senate, to the President, and to the House of Representatives after we conducted four hearings. In addition, we invited Senators not on the Senate HELP committee to join us in the development of this bill, and 37 showed up. We had about 60 of us who had some participation in the development of this proposal that Senator Murray and I recommended. We presented to the Senate our recommendation for continuing cost sharing and giving States more flexibility in approving premiums so people would have more choices and lower prices.

You may have noticed that a growing number of Republicans and conservatives are recommending that Congress act to continue for 2 years the so-called cost-sharing reduction payments as copays and deductibles for low-income Americans. The heads of the two tax-writing committees, Senator Hatch and Representative Kevin Brady, introduced legislation that would continue cost sharing in 2018 and 2019. In fact, earlier this year, almost all House Republicans voted to continue cost sharing for 2 years as part of their repeal-and-replace ObamaCare bill. Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham have said the provision to continue cost sharing temporarily would have been a part of their Senate repeal-and-replace bill, but Senate budget reconciliation rules didn't allow it.

President Trump has recognized this. He has asked for a short-term bill to prevent this kind of chaos. He encouraged me to talk to Senator Murray about this and to use cost-sharing reduction continuation as a way to negotiate some more flexibility for States so they could approve more choices at lower prices, which is exactly what Senator Murray and I did. That is what we recommended--the 24 of us, 12 Republicans and 12 Democrats--to the full Senate last week.

Some people still worry that continuing the cost-sharing payments is the same thing as propping up ObamaCare--those are the words we hear-- or bailing out insurance companies. We hear those words too. In fact, just the reverse is true.

As the article explains in the Wall Street Journal, cutting off the cost-sharing payments, in the current circumstances, would increase insurance premiums on hard-working Americans who have no government subsidies, it would increase the Federal debt by nearly $200 billion over 10 years, and it would spend billions more in taxpayer dollars funding ObamaCare subsidies. Let me say that again. As the Wall Street Journal article explains, cutting off the cost-sharing payments in the current circumstances will increase insurance premiums on hard-working Americans who receive no government subsidies--up 36 percent in Tennessee--increase the Federal debt by $200 billion over 10 years, and spend billions more in taxpayer dollars funding ObamaCare subsidies.

There are two groups of people who would be basically held harmless if Congress does not approve the cost-sharing payments; one, Americans with ObamaCare subsidies; and, two, insurance companies. On the other hand, according to the CBO report last week, continuing the cost- sharing subsidies as part of the Alexander-Murray agreement would actually save taxpayers $4 billion by reducing premiums and therefore ObamaCare premium subsidies.

During 2018, it would provide rebates to consumers State by State to those hard-working Americans with no government subsidy, and it would begin to lower premiums in 2019. It would also give all Americans the opportunity to buy a new category of policy--catastrophic--so that a medical catastrophe doesn't turn into a financial catastrophe, and it would give States more flexibility to write policies with more choices at lower prices.

Many States want to do that. They need these additional flexibilities to stabilize their markets because problems with the individual market did not start with the uncertainty over the cost-sharing payments. We need to return power over the insurance markets to States if we want to begin creating long-term solutions.

The President and many others have said they don't want to bail out insurance companies. I don't want to bail out insurance companies. Senator Murray doesn't want to bail out insurance companies. I don't think I have run into anybody in the U.S. Senate who wants to bail out insurance companies. Our agreement doesn't bail out insurance companies. In fact, it does just the reverse.

If President Trump is looking for his majority, he might find it in Americans who don't like higher taxes and who don't like more government funding for ObamaCare subsidies. Somewhere the idea got started that continuing cost-sharing payments bails out insurance companies, but insurance companies are big boys and girls. They know how to take care of themselves, and they have proved it once again.

Failure to continue the cost-sharing subsidies is going to hurt taxpayers, and it is going to hurt unsubsidized Americans who have no subsidy to help buy their insurance. There is nothing conservative about that.

Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition entitled ``More ACA Plans to Come With No Premiums in 2018.''

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I see the Senator from New Hampshire on the floor. I ask through the Presiding Officer if she is about to speak or if I may speak after her. What I would like to do is to give a brief report on the Congressional Budget Office's report of the Alexander- Murray proposal, of which the Senator from New Hampshire is a cosponsor. I would like to do that either before or after she speaks. Either way would be fine.

Mr. President, in respecting Senator Cornyn's prerogative, I will stop when he comes to the floor.

I believe that Senator Murray has come to the floor and has reported that the Congressional Budget Office has just finished an evaluation of the Alexander-Murray proposal to the U.S. Senate that would be for the purpose of reducing premiums and avoiding chaos in the individual insurance markets during the years 2018 and 2019.

The Senator from New Hampshire is a strong sponsor of that legislation. It is unusual, in fact, that it has 12 Republican Senators and 12 Democratic Senators. Not many pieces of legislation come to the floor with that support. The reason we accelerated work on it was that President Trump called me and asked me to work with Senator Murray to try to develop such a proposal. So now it is being considered by the President, by the House of Representatives, and by other Members of this body.

An important piece of information, as Senator Murray has said, is what the Congressional Budget Office writes about the impact of our proposal on the Federal taxpayers and on the consumers across the country.

President Trump has been very clear on one thing he wants, which is that we do not bail out insurance companies if, in 2018, we pay cost- sharing payment reductions, which are payments to pay for deductibles and copays for low-income Americans.

I 100 percent agree with President Trump on that, and Senator Murray 100 percent agrees with President Trump on that. We have language in our proposal to make sure that benefits go to consumers and to taxpayers and not to insurance companies. We asked the Congressional Budget Office to review that, and this is what it wrote: ``On net, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that implementing the legislation would reduce the deficit by $3.8 billion over the 2018-2027 period relative to CBO's baseline.''

In other words, the Alexander-Murray proposal would reduce Federal spending by $3.8 billion. Not only does it not cost anything, but it saves the taxpayers money.

They then wrote a second thing, and this is quoting the Congressional Budget Office: ``CBO and JCT expect that insurers in almost all areas of the country would be required to issue some form of rebate to individuals and the federal government.''

Let me say that again. This is the CBO talking, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, with respect to the Alexander-Murray proposal that has been cosponsored by a total of 24 Senators--12 Republicans, 12 Democrats: ``CBO and JCT expect that insurers in almost all areas of the country would be required to issue some form of rebate to individuals and the federal government.''

The Congressional Budget Office has found that our proposal benefits taxpayers and consumers, not insurance companies. The specific benefit to the taxpayers is $3.8 billion. The exact benefit to consumers has not been determined yet because that will be done State by State. Under our proposal, every State would come up with a plan to say, in 2018, because of the cost-sharing payments, premium rates need to be lower than they are already set. Then, in that State, they would be, and as a result, there would be rebates to individuals.

The CBO also found that there is a provision in the law for a catastrophic plan. That is a new insurance plan for people over the age of 29 that would have lower premiums and higher deductibles, but it would allow people to afford an insurance policy so that a medical catastrophe would not turn into a financial catastrophe.

``CBO estimates that making catastrophic plans part of the single risk pool would slightly lower premiums for other nongroup plans, because the people who enroll in catastrophic plans tend to be healthier, on average, than other nongroup market enrollees.''

A major objective, I think, of all of us is to attract more young, healthy people into the pool as a way of lowering rates for everybody.

``As a result of the slightly lower estimated premiums, CBO and JCT expect that federal costs for subsidies for insurance purchased through a marketplace established under the ACA would decline by about $1.1 billion over the 2019-2027 period.''

We have already said what the Congressional Budget Office has reported earlier; that if we don't pass something like the Alexander- Murray proposal, this is what happens: If the cost-sharing payments are not paid, premiums in 2018 will go up an average 20 percent. They are already up. Our proposal will take them down. The Federal debt will increase by $194 billion over 10 years, if we don't pass our proposal, due to the extra cost of subsidies to pay higher premiums, and up to 16 million Americans may live in counties where they are not able to buy any insurance in individual markets. The 350,000 Tennesseans in individual markets in Tennessee would be terrified by the prospect of not being able to buy any insurance or by the skyrocketing premiums.

I thank Senator Cornyn and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, for allowing me to interrupt and make a brief statement.

Let me go to the bottom line once more. The President has said repeatedly, Senator Murray has said repeatedly, and I have said repeatedly that the Alexander-Murray amendment, the short-term bipartisan plan to reduce premiums and avoid chaos, must not bail out insurance companies. We have written language to make sure it does not, and now the Congressional Budget Office says it does not. It does not bail out insurance companies. It does benefit consumers. It does benefit taxpayers to the tune of $3.8 billion. That is very important information.

I am encouraged by the President's comment yesterday. He thanked me at the luncheon for working in a bipartisan way on this. I am encouraged that Senator Hatch and Kevin Brady have introduced a bill recognizing the importance of continuous cost sharing. The ball is in the hands of the White House right now. They have our recommendations. They made some suggestions. That is the normal legislative process.

I am hopeful that something that has this kind of analysis; that it doesn't bail out insurance companies, that avoids a big increase to the Federal debt, that makes certain that people will be able to buy insurance for the next couple of years, that begins to lower premiums, that almost all Democrats want and that Republicans in the House have all voted for once this year when they voted for their repeal-and- replace bill--something like that sounds like something that might become law before the end of the year, and I believe the sooner the better.

I thank the Presiding Officer, Senators Cornyn and Shaheen.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes, and that following my remarks, the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, a week ago Saturday night, I was having dinner with my wife. It was about 8:30 in the evening, and the telephone rang, my cell phone, sitting in my pocket. I pulled it out, and it was the White House operator. The President was calling. So I walked out of the restaurant, sat on a curb outside in the dark, and had about a 15-minute conversation with the President of the United States while my dinner got cold.

President Trump said: I am calling about the cost-sharing reduction payments. I have cut them off as of October 1. The court says they are illegal. I don't want insurance companies to be bailed out. I think I can get block grants to replace ObamaCare, but I don't want people to suffer in the meantime.

So he said to me: I think I might want to get a bipartisan interim deal, a short-term deal. I have called Chuck Schumer and told him that.

The President put that out in a tweet that day.

So the President said to me: Why don't you negotiate with Senator Murray and try to get one; meaning a short-term, bipartisan deal.

I said: Well, what about the CSR payments?

He said: I can put them back, and you can use that as a negotiating tool to get a better deal with the Democrats.

I responded that I was already working on an agreement with Senator Murray.

He said: Finish it, and let me know.

He called me again last Saturday. We talked about it again, and we talked twice yesterday.

I reported to the President that we finished our negotiations and that we are here today to present to the Senate the agreement we recommend.

The bill has 22 sponsors, half Democratic and half Republican--very few bills come to the floor with that many cosponsors originally--and there are a number of others on the Republican side and I understand from Senator Murray a number on the Democratic side who support the idea.

I ask unanimous consent that a list of the cosponsors I am about to read be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the agreement that Senator Murray and I would like to present to the Senate for its consideration and the President's consideration and the consideration of the House of Representatives be printed in the Record following my remarks.

The Republican Senators who are cosponsoring the Alexander-Murray proposal, in addition to me, are Senator Rounds, Senator Graham, Senator McCain, Senator Cassidy, Senator Collins, Senator Ernst, Senator Murkowski, Senator Burr, and Senator Corker. I thank them all for doing that. Senator Murray will talk about the equal number of Democratic cosponsors that we have.

We hope Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, the President of the United States, and the House of Representatives will consider our proposal. This is a first step--improve it and pass it, sooner rather than later. Our purpose is to stabilize and then lower the cost of premiums in the individual insurance market for the years 2018 and 2019.

In plain English, most Americans get their insurance from the government or on the job. About 6 percent of insured Americans, or 18 million Americans, go into the individual market to buy it. They are the ones we are worried about. They are the ones we are seeking to help. There are 350,000 such people in Tennessee--songwriters, farmers, small business women--they are the ones who are terrified by the prospect of skyrocketing premiums and even the possibility that they might not be able to buy insurance at all.

Our agreement tries to help in two ways. No. 1, it permanently amends the Affordable Care Act to give new flexibility for States to create insurance policies that have a larger variety and lower costs. No. 2, it continues the cost-sharing reduction payments during 2018 and 2019.

Now, first, about cost-sharing. Cost-sharing reduction payments are subsidies that pay for co-pays and deductibles for low-income Americans. That is what they are. Every Democrat wants them to continue, so do many Republicans, including every Republican in the majority in the House who voted for their repeal-and-replace bill this year because it continued the cost-sharing payments for two years.

Let me say that again. Every Republican in the House of Representatives who voted to repeal and replace ObamaCare this year voted for a provision that continued the cost-sharing payments for 2 years. Our bill does the same thing. The only difference is, we eliminate any question about whether paying them is legal.

Now, why would so many Republicans and so many Democrats support these payments for 2 years and why would the President of the United States be interested in them? It is because the Congressional Budget Office has told us that if we don't do it--if we let them expire-- premiums in 2018 will go up an average of 20 percent. They

are already set, in most cases. The Federal debt will increase by $194 billion because of the extra cost of subsidies to pay the higher premiums, and up to 16 million Americans may live in counties where they are not able to buy any insurance in the individual market.

So unless the cost-sharing payments, which the President says are illegal--and I agree with him. The Federal Court in Washington, DC, has told him they are illegal, not properly authorized by Congress. Unless they are replaced by something else temporarily, there will be chaos in this country, and millions of Americans will be hurt.

The President says there should be no bailout of insurance companies--no bailout of insurance companies. I agree 100 percent and so does Senator Murray. She can speak for herself. I have said to the President in our telephone calls--as I mentioned, 4 of them in the last 10 days--that if there is a way to improve the language in our bill, we would like to do that. We have a page and a half to make it clear that the benefits go to consumers, not insurance companies. That can always be improved.

Some conservatives object to the idea of paying them at all, but I would ask this: What is conservative about unaffordable premiums? What is conservative about $194 billion of new Federal debt? What is conservative about creating chaos so millions can't buy insurance or at least failing to deal with the chaos that has been created? What is conservative about a four-lane highway that would be the chaos that leads to a single-payer solution for insurance in this country? Do we really think that if 50 counties in Tennessee or Iowa or Kansas or any State are in a situation where no one can buy insurance on the individual market, that government-sponsored insurance is not far behind? Of course it is. That is why Senator Graham and Senator Cassidy have cosponsored our bill, because our bill would have been part of the Senate Republican repeal-and-replace bills if budget rules had allowed it.

Senator Graham and Senator Cassidy know that if we repeal and replace ObamaCare in 1 year or 2 years or 3 years, it takes 2 or 3 years for it to take effect. We still need the cost-sharing payments for the interim, and you can't pass those in the Senate with 51 votes. It takes 60. Democrats are for it. The Republican House majority has voted for it. The sponsor of the Senate repeal-and-replace bills are cosponsors of this agreement. It sounds like something that might actually become law before the end of the year.

Second, flexibility. The biggest difference between the Senate Republicans and the Senate Democrats with regard to health insurance and the individual market is whether Washington should write more of the rules or States should write more of the rules. Our position has been that States should write more of the rules. We have had about 50 votes--maybe more--and we have lost them all. We have made thousands of speeches, and we have lost them all. In the last 7 years, we haven't moved an inch toward our objectives of giving States more flexibility in creating insurance policies in the individual market. This agreement does.

It provides and authorizes States to offer an insurance policy called catastrophic insurance for people of all ages that would keep a medical catastrophe from turning into a financial catastrophe. It encourages interstate agreements among States in health insurance. It streamlines the innovation waiver--section 1332, we call it--for States that want to do what Alaska did, which is to create a fund to pay for the very sick and then reduce premiums for everybody else by 20 percent and use no new Federal dollars. Most important, it changes the law to make it easier for States like Iowa, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Alaska, and many others to use their creativity to write policies that offer more choices and lower costs.

Some have said: Well, that is not enough. Well, that is more than we have gotten for 8 years, and it is the first step.

I welcome anyone who wants to negotiate further with Senator Murray or Senator Schumer. That is what the legislative process is about.

Now, because I forgot to do it when I listed the sponsors, I would like to add Senator Isakson and Senator Grassley to the sponsor list, which would be two additional Republican sponsors, I would say to Senator Murray. That gives us a total of 12. I thank Senator Grassley for his support.

The only thing I would say to those who want to negotiate further to get more flexibility is to keep in mind that with the cost-sharing payments, you can't get most of those changes without 60 votes in the Senate.

I thank Senator Murray for being an able and effective negotiating partner. We have worked on many pieces of legislation together. She is tough and respected in her caucus. She does what she says she will do, and she is interested in getting a result. I respect that and I thank her.

I thank President Trump for his encouragement. He called me 10 days ago, he called me last Saturday, and he called me again yesterday. I thank him for his encouragement--to encourage someone to come up with a bipartisan agreement to cover these 2 years so people wouldn't be harmed--and his willingness to consider what we are offering today.

I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer because they have created an environment in which Senator Murray and I could make this proposal. I hope they and our other colleagues will seriously consider it.

The President was right to suggest that we need a short-term agreement so people will not be hurt. Now, some people are still objecting to the idea of continuing these temporary cost-sharing payments for 2 years and the other provisions that would have as the objective to keep premiums from going up in 2018 and for premiums to begin to go down in 2019.

They are listening to groups around Washington, DC. I would suggest they listen to some other people. Listen to the waitress, listen to the songwriter, listen to the bricklayer, listen to the small businesswoman, and the people of America--and there are 350,000 in Tennessee--who may be terrified by the prospect of increasing premiums or even by the prospect of not being able to buy insurance at all. These are people who don't get insurance from the government. They don't get it on the job. They might never know when they are going to lose their job and they will be in this individual market.

We have a solution here. Senator Murray and I--24 total Senators--are offering it today. We are certain it can be improved. We look forward to working with those who would improve it, but I do not believe Congress would want to fail to deal with a problem that will hurt millions of Americans if we allow it to continue.

I predict this agreement that we 24 Senators are suggesting today will become law in some fashion before the end of the year. I think most Senators and most House Members will be looking around for a solution when they consider the consequences of a failure to act. When they look for a solution, I believe this solution supported by 24 Senators--half Democrats, half Republicans--will be the easiest solution to adopt. I believe all the Democrats want it. Almost all of the House Republicans have already voted for it this year, and the Senate Republican leaders who would prefer to repeal and replace ObamaCare would put it in their bill if they could get it in there, but they can't because the budget rules will not allow it.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor to Senator Murray.

Mr. President, if I could ask a question, through the Chair, to the Senator from Washington.

In my conversations with President Trump, he has made it clear--and several of my colleagues have made it clear on the Republican side-- that they don't want to bail out insurance companies. What I responded is that I 100-percent agree.

I have already said this to the President, but I think it is important for our colleagues to know that probably the most heated debate Senator Murray and I had was not over whether we agreed with that but on how to actually do it in the most effective, strongest, toughest way possible.

So I wish to emphasize the point that these payments are designed to help low-income Americans pay their copays and deductibles. We have in our agreement about a page and a half of language that requires every State to make sure the benefits of those payments go to the consumers in 2018 and not to the insurance companies.

I wish to ask Senator Murray if she sees any disagreement at all between her and me, and most of our colleagues on that side of the aisle and over here, about whether we want to bail out insurance companies or whether we

would be willing to consider any effective language that would improve our own language.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to draw attention today to the 200th anniversary of the birth of Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith.

The Baha'i Faith has over 5 million followers around the world, including over 2,000 in Tennessee. Baha'is come from virtually every racial, ethnic, national, tribal, and linguistic background on the planet.

On October 22, 2017, Baha'i communities across the United States and around the world will commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Baha'u'llah--the founder of the Baha'i Faith--and celebrate his life and his teachings.

Baha'u'llah was born to a noble family in 1817 in Persia, modern-day Iran. As a young man, he was known for his charity and service to others and was called the father of the poor. In 1844, he founded the Baha'i Faith, a new and independent religion with its own scriptures, laws, teachings, and practices.

Baha'u'llah proclaimed a message of justice, unity, and peace. This message called for, among other things, the equality of women and men, an end to racial prejudice, universal education, interfaith harmony, and international cooperation. As a result of his teachings, Baha'u'llah was imprisoned and exiled for over 40 years by the Persian and Ottoman empires.

Despite the injustice and oppression he faced throughout his life, Baha'u'llah continued to promote a message of peace and unity based upon harmony within the human race. In every place to which he was banished, he touched the lives of all those around him. Even some of his opponents, after meeting him, became his friends and admirers.

Today Baha'is in Iran are still persecuted for their faith, and human rights experts have called their situation one of the clearest and most severe cases of religious persecution in the world.

The Baha'i Faith first arrived in the U.S. over 120 years ago. Baha'is now live in every State of the Union, including Tennessee, where the community has grown to over 2,000 members.

Wherever they live, Baha'is champion the principles that Baha'u'llah proclaimed. They strive to build a better world by being good citizens, serving their communities, and working side by side with others to promote the common good.

On this important occasion, I congratulate the Baha'i community of Tennessee and across the United States on the bicentennial of the birth of Baha'u'llah.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, to speak for up to 10 minutes

Mr. President, later this week, Senator Murray and I, with other Senators, will introduce bipartisan legislation to give States additional flexibility to create more choices of health insurance policies in the individual market and to extend cost-sharing reduction subsidies during 2018 and 2019. These subsidies pay for copays and deductibles for millions of low-income Americans who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Our goal is to stabilize and then lower the cost of premiums and to enable all Americans to have access to health insurance.

Our legislation will be based on the four hearings and other meetings that the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee held last month. I am chairman of that committee, and Senator Murray is the ranking Democratic member. These hearings and meetings were bipartisan. They were lengthy. They were remarkable in this sense: They engaged nearly 60 Senators from both political parties in extensive discussions. We not only had the four hearings, which involved the 23 members of our HELP Committee, but we invited any other Senator who wished to come to a committee meeting ahead of time to meet the Governors and the State insurance commissioners and others who were testifying, and 37 did. So we have had extensive participation by 60 Members of the U.S. Senate through four hearings and a variety of committee meetings in the process that developed this legislative proposal that Senator Murray and I have agreed upon.

According to witnesses at our hearings, according to the Congressional Budget Office and Congress's Joint Tax Committee, without these cost-sharing payment reductions, premiums will rise, the Federal debt will increase to pay for the higher subsidies by $194 billion over 10 years, and up to 16 million Americans may find themselves living in counties where no company sells insurance in the individual market.

Imagine yourself as a 45-year-old songwriter in Tennessee who loses her job, has three kids, goes to the individual market, and finds that she can't buy health insurance; no company is offering it because we did not act. Those are the consequences we are talking about.

Witnesses also testified that one way to lower costs for consumers is to give States more flexibility than the Affordable Care Act now allows to design health insurance plans that give consumers more choices.

We have purposefully limited our proposal to two themes: first, 2 years of temporary cost-sharing payments and, second, amendments that would give States meaningful flexibility in using the section 1332 innovation waiver, which is already a part of the Affordable Care Act.

The problem with the waiver is that while it was designed to give States the opportunity for innovation, it has been very restrictive. It limited the number of opportunities States could use. It would be like saying to someone: You can drive anywhere you want to in the United States as long as you end up in New York or in Nashville or in Birmingham, AL. Our goal is still to protect patients but to give States more flexibility in offering more choices.

There are, of course, many other good and useful ideas that would improve Federal laws regulating health insurance. There are many on the Republican side, and there are many on the Democratic side. There are probably even ideas that both of us would agree on, but Congress has been stuck for 7 years in a partisan stalemate over the Affordable Care Act. Most of that stalemate is about the individual insurance market.

Most people get their insurance from the government, Medicare, or Medicaid. Most of the rest of the people get their insurance from their employer on the job; that is 50 or 60 percent of Americans. Only 6 percent of Americans get their insurance in the so-called individual market. It is about 350,000 people in Tennessee. Every single one of them is very important, and every single one of them is terrified by the skyrocketing premiums in that market and by the possibility that they might not be able to buy insurance at all in that market if we don't act.

We concluded that the best course would be to take this limited, bipartisan first step, which would avoid the chaos that could occur during 2018 and 2019 if premiums continue to skyrocket and millions of Americans find themselves without a way to purchase health insurance. Once we complete this limited first step, then we can take the second and the third steps.

I want to undersell this proposal rather than oversell it. It has significant advantages in terms of cost-sharing reductions, which make it more likely that premiums will stabilize in 2018 and actually go down in 2019. It has significant advantages in changing the law so that States will have more flexibility in offering choices, which is another way to lower costs, but it is only a limited first step.

Senator Murray and I hope that by the end of the week we can present Senate leadership--Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer--with the support of a significant number of Republican and Democratic Senators. We then hope the Senate will pass the legislation, the House will agree to it, and the President will sign it.

During the last several days, I have had encouraging discussions with President Trump, who called me on two different occasions, encouraging me to work with Senator Murray to come to a bipartisan agreement. I am grateful to him for that encouragement, and I am grateful to her for her patience and for working on this so diligently for such a long period of time. I see she has just come to the floor.

I think one other thing Senator Murray and I can agree on is that we hope our next legislative assignment is easier than this one. I think we both also agree that the sooner we act, the better, so Americans will have the benefit of lower premium costs and the peace of mind of knowing that they will be able to buy insurance for themselves and their families.

I would like to say through the Chair to Senator Murray that I asked for 10 minutes to speak, and then I asked for 10 minutes for her to follow me. I am about finished, and when I am through, then she has the floor, according to my request.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a brief summary of the agreement that Senator Murray and I have.

Mr. President, I have said repeatedly over the last several weeks that while it is important that the two of us, as the chairman and the ranking member of the HELP Committee, come to an agreement, that is not nearly enough because our real job was and is to see if we can find, among a significant number of Republicans and a significant number of Democratic Senators, a consensus that will cause this to be enacted, will cause the Senate to pass it and the House to pass it and the President to sign it. In my opinion, we wouldn't have come to an agreement ourselves unless we thought that was likely.

I will not go into the specific provisions that are in this, except to briefly summarize them. The first group of them makes the section 1332 innovation waivers work by giving more flexibility. In New Hampshire, for example, the State would like to use Medicaid savings to help pay for the cost of its Affordable Care Act waiver, and this would allow that. In Maine, for example, the State has applied for a waiver. The waiver has been approved, but the use of the funding has not been approved. This would allow that. Alaska, Oklahoma, Iowa, for example, all have waivers in line that they would like to submit to give a greater variety of choices in their States and hopefully lower premium costs, but it is too restrictive under the current conditions.

About the only sort of waiver that the current Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services can approve is the Alaska- type waiver, which is a good idea. Alaska created a reinsurance fund, which helped the very sick Alaskans, immediately lowered premiums 20 percent for all other Alaskans, and then used the savings from the lower subsidies as a result of the lower premiums to pay for 85 percent of the cost of the fund. Minnesota has tried a similar thing. Maine did that on its own a few years ago. We have streamlined the approval process for those waivers, so that can be done more easily.

I would emphasize that a number of these, while they are limited proposals, could not be done in a budget reconciliation process. They had have to be done with 60 votes.

The proposal also includes what we call a new copper plan, catastrophic insurance for all ages. We still keep the patient protections; that is, preexisting conditions, et cetera. We still keep the essential health benefits, but we allow someone who is healthy and young, for example, to pay a higher deductible and a lower premium if that is what they choose to do. We direct the Department of Health and Human Services to go ahead and write regulations to encourage interstate health insurance compacts. We compromised on the outreach funding and agreed that we will spend about twice as much as or more than President Trump wanted to expend, but we will do most of that by grants to the States. And of course we agree on 2 years of funding for the cost payments.

Finally, I would say that if we do not do this, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Tax Committee, and CMS, premiums next year will increase 20 percent, there will be a $194 billion increase in the Federal debt over 10 years, and up to 16 million Americans might find themselves unable to buy insurance through the individual market. In my view, this agreement avoids chaos, and I don't know a Democrat or a Republican who benefits from chaos.

I thank President Trump for his encouragement to me and to Senator Murray to try to succeed on this. I thank Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, for creating an environment in which we could get to this point. I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell--despite his focus on tax reform--for allowing us to work together and try to do this. I especially thank Senator Murray, who, whenever she sets about to get a result, I have found, she usually gets one. I could not have a better partner to work with on difficult issues in the Senate. In fact, the one thing we probably most agree on, we found the most difficult to solve; that is, in 2018, we want to make sure that the cost-sharing payments go to the benefit of consumers, not the insurance companies. I want that. Senator Murray wants that. The President wants that. My Republican colleagues want that. And I know Democrats want it. We believe we have strong language in our proposed agreement to do that, but we are going to make sure that it is the strongest possible language.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I look forward to working with Senator Murray over the next few days to see if we can find a consensus among Republicans and Democrats to present to the Senate leadership. I hope that we can then pass it, the House will pass it, and the President will sign it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to explain my reason for the objection.

First, I would like to say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I am grateful for her work on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where she is a valuable, diligent, and constructive member. We work on a great many things together and have agreed to very many things. However, we disagree on this one, and here is why. Let me summarize it at the beginning of my remarks and then explain it with a little more detail.

No one who has a Perkins loan today loses that loan, period. So if you are a student anywhere in the country and you have a Perkins loan for this year, you don't lose that loan, period.

Second, no one who has a Perkins loan for next year loses that loan because no one has one. They were ended 2 years ago. Every student was told in his or her financial aid information that the Perkins Loan Program ends this year, so no one could expect to have one next year. No one has been granted one for next year, so no one who has a loan is losing a loan.

Why did we, in December of 2015--2 years ago--reach a bipartisan agreement to sunset, or end, the Perkins Loan Program in 2 years, which is the end of this week? In that agreement, we allowed graduate students to receive Perkins loans for 1 additional year and undergraduates to receive Perkins loans for 2 additional years. It was made clear at that time--2 years ago--that this was the last time the program would be extended, but we wanted to have a smooth transition, and we did not want students and colleges and universities to be surprised. That agreement, therefore, included many requirements for institutions of higher education to inform students over the last 2 years that the Perkins Loan Program would end on September 30 of this year, which is the end of this week. That agreement also set policies to make the sunsetting of Perkins loans as smooth as possible for students. The expiration of this loan program was not and should not have been a surprise. It has not received any appropriation since the year 2004, and the U.S. Department of Education reminded institutions that it was ending the program this year.

Now, why? Why are we ending the program? Why did we agree to do that 2 years ago, and why have the last three Presidents recommended that we end it--President Obama, President Trump, and President Bush?

The Department of Education estimated that in the 2016 to 2017 school year--that is the school year that just ended--the Perkins Loan Program provided less than $800 million in new Perkins loans to about 300,000 recipients. That may seem like a lot, but by comparison, the Department estimated that the Federal Government disbursed over $22 billion to almost 7 million undergraduate students in the Stafford Subsidized Loan Program, or the regular Direct Loan Program. The Perkins loan--a separate loan--provides an average loan of roughly $2,000, and it illustrates the complicated mess in which students find themselves because of our Federal student aid system today.

The Perkins loans have a higher interest rate than other loans that are available to students today. The interest rate is 5 percent, compared with 4.45 percent for undergraduate loans. And students who have a Perkins loan aren't eligible for certain programs that exist for students with other loans, such as the income-based repayment programs and the public service loan forgiveness programs, which help students manage repayment of their loans. Those aren't available to students with a Perkins loan. The default rate for Perkins loans is higher than for the Stafford loan.

The bill which the Senator from Wisconsin has offered would cost taxpayers, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $900 million for a 2-year extension. If we were to extend the program over 10 years, it would cost $6.5 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The bill does not have an offset, so these billions of dollars would only serve to add to the $20 trillion Federal debt we already have.

I object because I think it is time for our country, through legislation by this Congress, to move on to a simplified Federal student aid program that has only one Federal loan for students, one Federal grant for students, and one work-study program for students.

As I have spoken often about on this floor, along with Senator Bennet from Colorado, we would like to reduce the application form for those Federal grants and loans called FAFSA--the dreaded FAFSA which 20 million students and their families fill out every year. We would like to reduce that from 108 questions to 2 or 5 or 10 questions.

We need a much simpler program for Federal student loans, and the end of the Perkins Loan Program is a small step toward that end.

As I mentioned, President Bush recommended that the program end, President Obama recommended that the program be changed and folded, in effect, into the regular Direct Student Loan Program, and President Trump has the same position.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, including the Senator from Wisconsin, on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act later this year, when we can work together to improve our Federal student loan programs and our grant programs, find ways to simplify them, make it easier and cheaper for students to attend college, and to help students pay those loans off, after they get them, in a fair and simpler way.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks because I see the Senator from Mississippi is here.

Of course I will be glad to work with the Senator from Wisconsin. The fact is, 2 years ago we agreed to end the program. The graduate loans ended last year, and the undergraduate loans end this year. Everybody was told about it.

Every student who wants a loan can get a direct student loan from the government at a lower rate, with better repayment programs and better payment provisions than the Perkins loan. So no one is losing a loan, and everyone can get a better loan if they apply for a direct loan.

We do need a simpler program, and we need to simplify the application process for applying for the loans and grants and for paying them off.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 1985, when I was Governor of Tennessee, I got a call from Don Hodel, the Secretary of the Interior for President Reagan. He asked me to be the chairman of ORRRC 2, a follow-up (commission to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, which was led by Laurance Rockefeller a generation earlier. I agreed in part because of my love for the outdoors, but also because Don told me that Gil Grosvenor would serve as vice chairman of the commission and Pat Noonan would serve on the board.

The chance to work with them and the National Geographic Society made the request to serve as chairman of the commission even more attractive. My first act as chairman was to change the name from ORRRC 2 to the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. The new name did a better job of conveying our mission: ``to look ahead for a generation and see what needs to be done for Americans to have appropriate places to do what they want to do outdoors.''

More than a generation has passed now, and on this 30th anniversary of the commission, we can look back on the recommendations of the report and take an assessment.

Overall, the commission found that ``outdoor recreation occurs close to home, in or near towns or cities where 80 percent of us soon will live. So, more and more, the solutions must be found close to home. We have concluded that the best way to assure that Americans will have adequate outdoor recreation opportunities is through a prairie fire of concern and investment, community by community. State and local governments will play a major role, but implementation of our recommendations ultimately will depend on the efforts of thousands of individual citizens, nonprofit organizations, and businesses.''

The idea that outdoor recreation occurs close to home was especially true for me.

I was one of the luckiest guys in the world growing up in Maryville, in Blount County, TN.

When you grow up next to a national park, what do you do? You grow up in the park. You spent your weekends and special times there, and most all the memories I have are related to the Smokies.

When I was 15, my dad dropped me off at Newfound Gap on the day after Christmas. I was with two other boys in 3 feet of snow, and my dad said, ``I'll pick you up in Gatlinburg,'' which was 15 miles away. He did, later that afternoon.

Then, later that same year, we were in Spence Field, and we made an error in judgment. About 3 in the morning, I looked over, and I thought one of my bunkmates was moving around, but it turns out it was a bear. We left breakfast in our packs inside the tent, which is something you should never do and something I have never done since. These are memories that stick with us forever.

A generation earlier, in 1958, Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to ensure America did not neglect its heritage of the outdoors. The commission was chaired by Laurance Rockefeller. Like me, Laurance Rockefeller was fascinated with the natural world from a young age. His father, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was an enthusiastic supporter of park-building and historic preservation. John D. Rockefeller, Jr., also had a hand in shaping my childhood outdoor memories.

1872, Congress established Yellowstone National Park, carving the park out of land already owned by the Federal Government. In the following years, Congress followed this model, protecting and preserving Federal acres out West. In the early 20th century, citizens in the eastern part of the country began to push for national parks of their own. However, the land was already privately owned and would need to be purchased and donated to the Federal Government before a park could be created.

In the late 1920s, $5 million was raised to create a new national park in the Smokies on the border of Tennessee and North Carolina. The two States had appropriated $2 million each for the effort and combined that with $1 million in private donations, but that was only half the money needed to purchase the land that was needed to create the new park.

That is when John D. Rockefeller, Jr., stepped in and matched the money that had been raised with a donation of $5 million through the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fund. Rockefeller's donation assured the purchase of the land and the creation of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, where I spent my childhood and still live next to today.

Nearly 25 years after the Great Smoky Mountains National Park was established, John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s son worked with Congress to find solutions to continue to protect our Nation's treasures. The Rockefeller Commission advocated for a Federal national recreation policy ``to preserve, develop and make accessible to all Americans the resources needed for individual enjoyment and outdoor recreation.''

The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System grew out of the recommendations of the report. Years later, the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors reaffirmed our commitment to these Federal programs, and we also took an important step forward by recommending policies that States, towns, and individuals could adopt. We focused on State and local action, calling for investments from communities around the country to help keep our outdoors great.

First, our commission recommended land trusts, ``private landowners recognizing the opportunity to provide expanded recreation resources and services to the public.'' Local land trusts have been one of the fastest growing conservation tools in the past 30 years. These local land trusts work with landowners who volunteer to preserve their property through conservation easements. According to the Land Trust Alliance's ``Land Trust Census,'' there are over 1,300 land trusts that are active in the United States.

These 1,300 national, State, and local land trusts have conserved more than 56 million acres as of the end of 2015, an increase of 9 million acres since 2010. In Tennessee, 15 active land trusts have protected nearly 900,000 acres throughout the State. In 1999, Jeanie Nelson and former Governor Phil Bredesen founded the land trust for Tennessee. In less than 20 years, the land trust has

protected over 100,000 acres of Tennessee landscapes. In 2015, the Foothills Land Conservancy, which ``is dedicated to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the lands and environments of the Southern Appalachian region,'' completed ``a record number 24 land partnerships totaling 7,215 acres'' spanning five States and seven Tennessee counties.

When our report came out 30 years ago, less than 5 million acres were protected by State and local land trusts. Today more than 20 million acres are protected by State and local land trusts. The explosion of state and local land trusts has greatly increased access to our country's outdoors.

Second, our commission recommended that ``local and state governments create a network of scenic byways, compose of scenic roadways and thoroughfares throughout the nation.'' We are seeing the benefits from that recommendation today. In 1991, Congress created the National Scenic Byways Program to recognize and protect roads for their archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic value.

Today, according to the Federal Highway Administration, there are 150 designated National Scenic Byways and American Roads in 46 States throughout the Nation. Five of these national scenic byways pass through Tennessee.

In the 1980's, as Tennessee was building new highways to attract the auto industry, the State created 10,000 miles of State roads and scenic highways. These roads, marked with mockingbird signs, prohibited new billboards and new junkyards and allow people to enjoy the beauty of the state as they drive across the country. These scenic byways bring visitors to Tennessee and the beauty of our State keeps them coming back.

Third, we recommended that ``communities establish greenways, corridors of private and public recreation lands and waters, to provide people with access to open spaces close to where they live, and to link together the rural and urban spaces in the American landscape.'' Today, there are almost 1,000 greenways and trails in Tennessee that provide access to the outdoors to Tennesseans in their own communities.

A good national example of the popularity of greenways is the dramatic increase in rails-to-trails projects across the country. In communities throughout the Nation, unused railroad tracks and the land surrounding the tracks are sold or donated and converted into to new recreational trails.

According to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, there are over 22,000 miles of open trails that were converted from previous railroad tracks and rights-of-way. In Tennessee, today there are over 30 rails-to- trails projects that cover 125 miles.

Fourth, we recommended full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was first proposed in Laurance Rockefeller's Commission. The idea for the Land and Water Conservation Fund was very simple. It was to say, ``When we have an environmental burden, we should have an environmental benefit.'' If we are going to drill for oil offshore for example, that is an environmental burden. We said let's take some of those revenues and use them for an environmental benefit.

So since the 1960s, we have used oil and gas revenues to conserve important parts of America. Rocky Fork, in my home State of Tennessee, is an excellent example of the productive use of LWCF funding. Ten years ago, the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and the Conservation Fund began working with the U.S. Forest Service, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to protect Rocky Fork, a 10,000-acre tract in Tennessee within the Cherokee National Forest.

In 2015, working together and using Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars, Federal, State, and local partners saved the largest unprotected tract of land in the Southern Appalachians from development. To make sure everyone could enjoy this natural treasure, the State of Tennessee used some of the land to create the Rocky Fork State Park. The State park--with its proximity to the Appalachian Trail, miles of native brook trout streams with cascades and waterfalls, historic battle site, Black Bear Reserve, significant wildlife habitat and scenic vistas--may 1 day be the State's most popular park. It wouldn't have been possible without tree Land and Water Conservation Fund.

As chairman, I also called on my fellow Governors to establish State- level outdoor commissions. Twenty-five States responded by establishing commissions or holding Governors' forums. Seven additional States had recently completed conferences on the topic in anticipation of a national study. The purpose of my call to the Nation's Governors was ``to stimulate action at the local and state levels on behalf of the outdoors. More than 2,000 people testified at hearings or participated in meetings sponsored by States in 1986.'' The Tennessee State-level outdoor commission, Tennesseans Outdoors, sought to ``look 40 years down the road, to consider what people will want to do outdoors, and to see that there will be places for them to do those things.''

The Tennessee Commission recommended setting aside special places throughout the State, making the most of the State's resources, ensuring a quality environment, spreading the word on the importance of the outdoors and recreation, and providing stable funding for important conservation and outdoor recreation projects. Specifically, one of the report's recommendations was for cities to promote urban open space preservation and riverfront planning. Today all of my home State's major metropolitan areas have taken steps to implement this recommendation.

In 2004, Memphis adopted the Memphis Riverfront Master Plan, and the city has been making progress on riverfront redevelopment. Just 3 months ago, the Big River Crossing--the longest public pedestrian and bike bridge across the Mississippi River--opened in Memphis.

In 2005, the city of Chattanooga completed the 21st Century Waterfront Project, which redeveloped 129 acres ``along the river to create multiple public spaces and opportunities for citizens to enjoy Chattanooga's waterfront.''

In 2006, Nashville began the process to revise the Nashville Riverfront for the 21st Century to ``provide new public attractions, parkland and waterfront access, giving residents and visitors a reason to come and enjoy both banks of the Cumberland River.''

Also in 2006, Knoxville adopted the Knoxville South Waterfront Vision Plan to implement an improvement strategy for 750 acres along the 3- mile shoreline of the Tennessee River that flows through Knoxville.

Last year, the Tennessee Wildlife Federation called for the State to create a forum on Tennessee's great outdoors to ``assess the current status of our state's natural resources, identify critical challenges facing their management and conservation, and develop strategic solutions to ensure their persistence well into the future.''

When advocating for a new forum, Mike Butler, the CEO of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation, acknowledged the success of the implementation of many of the recommendations of the Tennesseans Outdoors report, but also recognized that much has changed over the last 30 years and ``these changes have had a profound effect on our natural resources and outdoor recreation needs.'' Mike understands the need to reexamine the issues facing our State's great outdoors and to work together to maintain and expand the benefits that our outdoors provide.

Like the State of Tennessee, 30 years ago, we looked at ways to help our future generations enjoy the great American outdoors like we did. Our report stated: ``We have learned over the course of our study of urgent needs for action to protect our outdoor recreation estate. Preservation of fast-disappearing open space, investment in rehabilitation of deteriorating facilities, getting ahead of urban growth as it races across the land--these are actions which cannot wait, but must be taken now, for tomorrow they will be more expensive, or in some cases, impossible.''

From land trusts to greenways to scenic highways, many of the recommendations have been implemented, and we, as a country, have been able to preserve some of our open spaces and protect our outdoor recreation estate.

One way to illustrate the success of these programs is to take a look at the economic benefit of today's outdoor economy. According to an Outdoor Industry Association economic study in 2012, outdoor recreation generates $646 billion in consumer spending and 6.1 million direct jobs each year. In Tennessee, outdoor recreation generates $8.2 billion annually in consumer spending and supports 83,000 direct jobs across the State.

Our work is not done. Theodore Roosevelt once said that nothing short of defending this country in wartime ``compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us. . . .''

On the 30th anniversary of the Americans Outdoors Commission report, I look forward to continuing to work to protect and preserve the great American outdoors and leave future generations a more beautiful nation.