Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, there are many lobbyists around Capitol Hill. They perform the important task of informing Members and their staff about issues that are going to come before us. Some of them are volunteers, and some of them are paid very handsomely.

There is a special group of lobbyists who are roaming the corridors of Capitol Hill in the House and Senate today and tomorrow. They are young people from across the United States. Many of them are college students, and all of them have one thing in common: They are Dreamers. They are young people who came to the United States under the age of 18, many of them 2 years old, 4 years old, brought here by their parents. They grew up in this country. They went to our schools. Some of them were excellent students. Many of them have gone on to college-- at their own expense many times. Some have even enlisted in our military. They have a nagging problem. The problem is that they are not legally citizens of the United States. They don't have legal status in the United States, and so the uncertainty about that status has led many of them to wonder what their future will be.

About 5 years ago, President Obama, at my urging, issued an Executive order that changed their lives. It was called DACA. It gave them a chance to come forward and register with the government, submit themselves to a criminal background check, get fingerprinted, pay a $500 fee, have their background looked at in detail, and gave them a chance to stay in the United States for 2 years at a time, and in that 2-year period not be subjected to deportation and be able to work.

Four weeks ago, President Trump announced that the DACA Program was going to be rescinded. Many of these young people don't know what their future will be from this point forward. A number of them came out to the steps of the Capitol this afternoon to talk about their lives. Two in particular I wanted to mention.

Nathali Bertran from Columbus, OH, is a student who graduated from college after great sacrifice and has gone on to become an engineer. She is currently working in the Columbus area for a global automotive company. She has a bright future if she is allowed to stay in the United States. She doesn't know the answer to that because we haven't come up with a replacement for DACA, which was rescinded by President Trump.

Jesus Perez is from Tulsa, OK. He had given up on a college education and a future, and then DACA came along, and he decided he wanted to be a doctor. He is on his way. He has finished community college. He is now about to complete his studies at Oklahoma State, and he wants to go to medical school. He works as a transporter and a surgical orderly in a hospital to make enough money to stay in school. His future is completely in doubt because of the uncertainty around what is going to happen to those who were protected by DACA.

I have said many times that these young people were brought here by their parents. They didn't make the decision. I don't want to look negatively on their parents. If I were given a choice of skirting the law or even breaking the law to save my child's life or to give them security and safety, I know what I would do. I also know what these parents did. But the kids themselves were not in on that decision process.

Now, all they are asking for is a chance to be a part of the only country they have ever known. They got up in the classroom every day at school and pledged allegiance to the only flag they ever knew, and most of them can sing only one national anthem, the anthem of the country they believe is their own, the United States. That is an important part of this conversation.

If we believe in fairness and justice in America--and I think we do-- we want to be fair and just to these young people. If they have not done something in their lives that is dangerous, such as commit a crime, for example, that is serious, they ought to be given a chance. If they are willing to go to school or to work or to enlist in our military, why wouldn't we welcome them in so that they can be a part of our future, as they should be. The alternative, in many cases, is to ship them back to a country they cannot remember or never really knew, to a language they don't speak. That is not the right outcome.

I want to thank Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He is my Republican cosponsor of the Dream Act. Senator Graham has been a stalwart. He and I may disagree on an issue every other day, but on this issue, we agree. We agree that America should step forward and do the right thing for these young people.

I hope these lobbyists--I will use that term--who are Dreamers, who are roaming the Halls of Congress, will

make the same impression on my colleagues that they made on me--that their special lives and their special future will make this Nation a better Nation in the years to come.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, sometimes, when I am asked to describe my politics, I say, ``I believe in the Gospel of Saints Paul''--Paul the Apostle, Paul Douglas, Paul Simon, and Paul Wellstone.

Paul the Apostle was, of course, one of the most important figures in the history of the early Christian Church. Paul Douglas, Paul Simon, and Paul Wellstone were Members of this Senate and champions of human rights and human dignity.

This Friday, another champion of human rights and human dignity--Dr. Timuel Black--will honored by Citizen Action Illinois with its ninth annual Pauls Award, named for Paul Simon and Paul Wellstone.

I am lucky enough to have been friends with both Pauls--Simon and Wellstone. I am sure that they would have approved heartily of the decision to honor Dr. Black with an award bearing their names.

Dr. Timuel Black is a decorated World War II veteran, an educator, author, labor leader, civil rights activist, and historian--and a bender of the moral arc of the universe. He is a visionary and--for me and so many others--a personal hero.

Timuel Black was born in 1918, in Birmingham, AL--the son of a sharecropper and the grandson of slaves.

He was 8 months old when his family moved to Chicago--the first wave of the great migration of African Americans from the Deep South to the North. They settled in a part of town called the Black Belt, now known as Bronzeville.

He attended DuSable High School, a legendary all-Black public high school, where his classmates included Nat King Cole and John Johnson, who would go on to found Jet and Ebony magazines.

On his 23rd birthday, Japan bombed U.S. Navy ships at Pearl Harbor.

He served 2 years in a segregated U.S. Army. He participated in the Battle of the Bulge, the invasion of Normandy and the liberation of Paris, and he earned four battle stars.

He thought he had seen the worst of World War II--then he witnessed what had happened at Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp.

The horrors that he witnessed at that death camp changed his life.

For a time, he was filled with despair. Then he resolved to spend the rest of his life doing whatever he could to advance the causes of human rights and human dignity.

He returned to Chicago and earned an undergraduate degree from Roosevelt University and a master's degree from the University of Chicago.

He helped establish the Congress of Racial Equality. He also helped found a labor union that helped me work my way through college: the United Packinghouse Workers of America.

He began his professional career as a social worker, but he quickly discovered that his real love was ``teaching young men and women about the world they live in and how to be responsible citizens of that world.''

He spent more than 40 years as a teacher, including positions at DuSable and other Chicago public schools, as well as Roosevelt University, Columbia College Chicago and schools in the City Colleges of Chicago system.

Timuel Black was watching television in December 1955 when he saw ``this good-looking man in Montgomery, Alabama.'' He was so moved that he boarded a plane to meet him.

A year later, Tim Black convinced that young man to come to Chicago-- the first time Dr. Martin Luther King would speak in the city.

In 1963, Dr. Black helped organize the Freedom Trains that carried thousands of Chicagoans to hear Dr. King and

others speak at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. He was there when Dr. King delivered his immortal ``I Have a Dream'' speech.

He was with Dr. King in 1966 when an angry mob jeered him in Chicago's Marquette Park neighborhood.

In 1983, Tim Black provided influential support to help elect another of his DuSable High School classmates, Harold Washington, the first African-American mayor of Chicago.

Some years later, a young community organizer who had just returned to Chicago with a Harvard law degree asked Professor Black to teach him about organizing people so they could create a better life for themselves and their children.

Over the years, Professor Black and that young organizer became good friends.

On January 20, 2009, it was my privilege to invite Professor Black and his incredible wife, Zenobia Johnson-Black, to be my guests as that community organizer swore an oath to become President of the United States of America--Barack Obama.

My friend, Paul Wellstone, had a beautiful definition of politics. He used to say: In the last analysis, politics is not predictions and politics is not observations. Politics is what we do. Politics is what we do, politics is what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope for and what we dare to imagine.

Dr. Timuel Black has witnessed injustice and inhumanity, but he has never stopped working to believe in a better world, and he has never stopped working to make that world a reality. He is a true inspiration, a Chicago treasure, and an American hero.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to voice my concern regarding the nomination of Ajit Pai to serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

Many of my colleagues are planning to speak about the threat Mr. Pai poses to a free and open Internet, but what brings me to the floor is a different looming threat to the public interest: the proposed Sinclair Broadcast Group merger with Tribune Media Company. If approved, the Sinclair-Tribune merger would create the Nation's largest television broadcast company in history, reaching over 70 percent of households nationwide. There is reason for concern.

Mr. Pai's track record at the FCC has shown that he will not hesitate to put the needs of industry ahead of the best interests of consumers. Under his leadership as Chairman, the FCC acted to reinstate an outdated loophole known as the UHF discount that would make it easier for companies to get around rules limiting national media ownership. These rules are essential in maintaining the trust Americans have placed in their local broadcasters and ensuring consumers benefit from programming representing diverse viewpoints.

What was Mr. Pai's motivation for putting this loophole back in place? I will just say this: The loophole was reinstated in April, and Sinclair announced its acquisition of Tribune in May.

My concerns about the merger are not solely grounded in Sinclair's practice of mandating its stations distribute its self-produced conservative content, as troubling as that is. Rather it is that no single company should be

able to decide what 72 percent of the country's news looks like. The Sinclair-Tribune merger undermines competition and threatens local broadcasting as a trusted and diverse voice for its viewers in Illinois and across the country.

Because of Mr. Pai's deregulatory campaign and repeated failure to put the best needs of the consumer first, I will oppose his nomination to serve a second term as a Commissioner for the Federal Communications Commission.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Connecticut. He sponsored a filibuster on this issue, I believe it was last year. I participated in it, as did many Members of our caucus.

Both he and Senator Blumenthal bring a special perspective to this issue of gun violence, representing the State of Connecticut and the families who lost their first graders. I believe they were first graders who were shot down, 20 of them killed in their classrooms.

I remember, when I heard that story on how those children died and their teachers died, I thought to myself: This must be the moment that will motivate America to finally do something if innocent, first grade children can be shot down in their classrooms in this fashion.

The honest answer is that we have spoken a lot about the issue, but we have done little or nothing to change the circumstances that led to their death.

If that were the only case, it would be bad enough, but the Orlando nightclub--I believe 49 were killed there. Some crazed person went there and killed innocent people gathered at that nightclub.

As Senator Murphy has said, when you go through the litany, it is an endless litany of victims of gun violence--and last night in Las Vegas, NV, the worst gun crime in the modern history of the United States of America, the worst.

Estimates now, which I saw as I came to the floor, are that 58 have died and over 500 were seriously injured. I don't know what the ultimate numbers will be, but those numbers, in and of themselves, are incredible.

Last night, we witnessed what was the worst mass shooting to date in the Nation. This gunman, supposedly, at 10 p.m. last night in Las Vegas local time, began firing from a room on the 32nd floor of a hotel into a crowd of people gathered for a country music festival. He supposedly was holed up in his hotel room with at least 10 guns and obviously fired hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

As I mentioned, 58 people have been reported to have died, and over 515 injured. Those are staggering and horrifying numbers.

There are literally hundreds of families tonight and communities who have been changed forever by this horrendous crime. Our prayers, obviously, naturally, go out to them in this moment of loss and uncertainty.

During and after the shooting--as we expect but should never take for granted--law enforcement, first responders, acted like the heroes that they are, working to stop the shooter, securing the scene, helping the victims, saving lives. We are grateful to these first responders, who so often are called to run to the sound of gunfire to keep us safe, not to run away.

It is unthinkable that this type of shooting tragedy could happen in the United States of America, but I am sorry to say it is becoming a regular occurrence. This was the worst, but yesterday, October 1, was also the 2-year anniversary of the mass shooting in Roseburg, OR, when a gunman killed eight students and a professor at a community college.

Also, this past weekend, at least 33 people were shot in the city of Chicago. At least four died. The relentless toll of gun violence never seems to stop.

The American Medical Association has declared that gun violence is a public health crisis in America. On an average day, 300 Americans are shot. On an average day, 300 Americans are shot. About one-third of them will die from that gunshot.

Mass shootings, as Senator Murphy said earlier, have become a daily occurrence. If our critics would say ``Please, don't exploit the event of a mass shooting by speaking on the floor,'' as Senator Murphy has made clear, then we wouldn't be able to speak any day of the year because they are so common.

We can't let this become the new American normal. We can't just shrug our shoulders when we see over 30,000 Americans shot and killed year after year after year. We can't sit back and do nothing while hundreds of our fellow Americans are shot in one night simply because they went out to hear a music concert.

Just this last week, I was at a concert in Nashville, TN, at the Ryman, the site of the Grand Ole Opry; 2,000 people gathered there. They were mainly folks from the Midwest, many of them retired, who love country music, I am sure, as the people in Las Vegas did. When I heard about what happened in Las Vegas, I thought: Well, what if someone had walked into that theater and opened fire? It could have, sadly, happened there.

What are we going to do about it? Certainly, there will be outrage at the death. There will be grief over the loss. But then what? That is what Senator Murphy challenges us to think about.

We serve in the U.S. Senate. We are not just casual observers of this violence. We are supposed to pass laws to make America safer. What will we do because of what happened in Las Vegas last night? That is the question that brings me to the floor this evening. If we have a responsibility to keep our families and America safe, what are we prepared to do?

For the gun deaths in Chicago, there are some things that I would do instantly. Background checks--I don't believe we should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm or more than one, incidentally, and take them out of the back door without somebody asking: Who are you? Do you have a criminal record? Would you be disqualified from buying these same guns at a licensed gun dealer?

Currently, the law is riddled with loopholes, and those loopholes lead to death, death on the streets of Chicago.

We also have these purchases being made by straw purchasers. In other words, the girlfriend, who has no criminal record, who walks into the gun

shop in the suburbs of Chicago and buys the gun for her boyfriend outside in the car, who is going to use it that night to shoot up a rival gang member or some other criminal activity. Those are two very obvious things I would push for instantly: Close the gun show loophole; make sure we do something about straw purchasers so that the penalties are serious enough that they will never do it again.

There is more. This morning, I was on a radio show in Chicago, one of the most famous ones, I guess. I listened to a fellow named Steve Cochran celebrating his 1,000th show on the air. This was the topic we talked about.

Steve asked me: Well, what can we do? I said: Steve, we have to rely on people who honor the Second Amendment and believe it is an important part of our Constitution to stand up and lead. I am talking about members of my family who are hunters and sportsmen. I have been out hunting myself. We have to have people who are concerned about guns for self-defense stand up and say: We have to draw a reasonable line. There is no reasonable line under the Second Amendment that would allow what happened in Las Vegas last night.

To think that someone could injure over 500 people and kill 58--what kind of weaponry did he use? We will know. We will find out the details, but it certainly goes beyond any reasonable weaponry needed for self-defense, sport, or hunting purposes.

Can we not at least appeal to those who honor the Second Amendment to join us in drawing a reasonable line so combat and military-style weapons that can lead to such carnage are not considered to be normal or acceptable? Decades ago we did when it came to machineguns. Decades ago we said this is a weapon no one should have, period, except for the military and perhaps law enforcement. Can we return to that conversation? We are going to need the leadership from people who believe in the Second Amendment to make it happen.

We have seen Democrats and Republicans join together to pass meaningful laws to deal with public health crises like opioid addiction. We have to do the same for this public health crisis.

I am sorry to report that a recent nominee for Surgeon General of the United States was almost denied that opportunity because he was bold enough to say that gun violence is a public health crisis. It certainly is.

There is no single law or policy that will prevent every tragic shooting, just as there is no single law or policy that will end heroin overdoses, but let's start working together to do something.

We can't stop the shootings that have already happened in Las Vegas, Chicago, Roseburg, OR, and across the Nation. We failed to respond in time for those victims and their families. But if we work together, we can stop shootings in the future. That is something we should all strive to do.

We must do all we can to spare families the unimaginable pain so many in Las Vegas are feeling today in the aftermath of this horrible tragedy. I hope we will.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, textbook costs are one of the most overlooked barriers to college affordability and access, and they are continuing to get more expensive.

Over the last decade, 2006 to 2016, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index shows that consumer prices for college textbooks increased almost 90 percent. It means students have to spend more every year. In 2016 to 2017, the College Board recommended that students budget an average of $1,250 for their books.

A survey released by the Student Public Interest Research Group reported that 65 percent of students decided not to buy a textbook because of the cost, and 94 percent of those students worried it would hurt their grade.

This week, I joined with Senators Al Franken and Angus King and Representatives Jared Polis and Kyrsten Sinema to reintroduce the Affordable College Textbook Act. This bill would establish a grant program to encourage the creation and use of high-quality open textbooks which are free to use. Greater access to and widespread use of these open textbooks can save each student who uses one hundreds of dollars, and, long term, it puts pressure on the traditional college textbook market to come up with affordable alternatives.

My home State of Illinois provides an example of how this bill would work. The University of Illinois used $150,000 in Federal money to pilot an open textbook project at its main campus. The university, working With faculty, developed an open textbook, ``Sustainability: A Comprehensive Foundation.'' This textbook was published electronically for free and open use. You can go online today and find it.

Instead of a student having to shell out $150 or more for his or her introductory environmental sustainability class, he or she can use this free online book. That is a direct savings to a student every time a professor assigns this text in place of a traditional textbook. Today it is saving students money in Illinois, but also across the country at other colleges and universities where it has been adopted by faculty into their curriculum.

I would again like to thank my colleagues, Senators Al Franken and Angus King, for joining me in this effort I would also like to thank the wide variety of organizations that support this bill, including the U.S. PIRG, SPARC, National Association of Big Ten Students, National Association of College Stores, American Association of Community Colleges, United Negro College Fund, and others.

Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues in Congress will join us in supporting this bill to create a program at the Federal level to encourage the creation and adoption of these materials. In the meantime, I hope students across the country will reach out to their professors and have this conversation with them. Ask them to adopt these free, quality materials that are available today.

Mr. President, over the last few days, three Republican Senators have publicly stated that they

will vote against the healthcare repeal bill that may come to the Senate this week.

In announcing his opposition, one Republican Senator, John McCain of Arizona, issued the following statement: ``As I have repeatedly stressed, healthcare reform legislation ought to be the product of regular order in the Senate.''

Last night, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine stated: ``This is simply not the way that we should be approaching an important and complex issue.''

She went on to say: ``The fact that a new version of this bill was released the very week we are supposed to vote compounds the problem.''

This should be the end of the Graham-Cassidy repeal debate. Republican leadership should finally scrap this one-sided effort to literally change the healthcare system for America.

There was a hearing yesterday--the only hearing on the bill we are about to vote on. It was a lengthy hearing, but it, frankly, did not entertain all of the witnesses or any amendment process so that Members could really have input into the bill we are going to face.

The Congressional Budget Office is supposed to tell us what this critical legislation will do for America. It issued a preliminary finding yesterday that millions of Americans would lose their health insurance and that those with preexisting conditions, as well as their families, if they could buy insurance, would find it very, very expensive.

At the end of this week, funding for our Nation's community healthcare centers will run out, as will funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program. Shouldn't we be focused on reauthorizing those programs appropriately in a timely way? Let's allow the HELP Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction when it comes to healthcare, to do its work. I have faith in two Senators--one Republican and one Democrat--to do the right thing on this. Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a Republican, and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, a Democrat, have proven before that they can take complex issues such as Federal funding for education and find a bipartisan compromise.

What would America say if we announced at the end of next week or even this week that we have a bipartisan compromise to make healthcare stronger in the United States, that it is going to pass the Senate, that we are going to send to it the House, and that we are going to get something done this year in the Senate?

First, most Americans would be amazed and skeptical, as they should be, but if we can prove that we are going to do it, they would applaud us for finally reaching a point at which we do something on a bipartisan basis.

That was the process that was underway until last week. Senator Alexander was given orders by the leadership: Step back. Let's vote on Graham-Cassidy. Don't do anything more on a bipartisan basis.

Well, this is the week for that vote, and I hope it is the week in which that vote ends in the basic defeat of the approach and a return to bipartisan compromise and bipartisan negotiation.

I don't know what it will take for the Republicans in the Senate and the House to end this never-ending crusade against so-called ObamaCare. They have voted 50, 60, 70 times. We know how they feel about it, but the American people have said to them: It is not enough to oppose ObamaCare; give us a better alternative. And that is where they have stumbled each time.

Over the weekend, rather than making improvements to fix what is wrong with their bill, many Republicans doubled down in secret meetings, negotiations, and with incentives that were built into the newest version of the bill.

The latest Graham-Cassidy repeal measure would slash funding to the States, decimate the Medicaid Program, eliminate protections for people with preexisting conditions, and basically throw our entire healthcare system into chaos. A few special changes were made for special States, but the changes that have come to Graham-Cassidy in the closing days have not really changed the fundamental problem with the bill in that it diminishes Medicaid coverage.

Medicaid is the health insurance program about which most people say: Well, that is for the poor people of America. To some extent, that is true, but it has reached far beyond that. Two out of three senior citizens in nursing homes and other institutional settings rely on Medicaid for basic healthcare. If the cutbacks in Medicaid take place that Graham-Cassidy calls for, what will these seniors do? What will you do for Mom, for your grandmother, or for your grandfather when it reaches a point at which they cannot any longer count on Medicaid to help them pay their medical bills? Will American families have to step up with their own savings? Will they have to look for alternative settings to those in which their parents and grandparents are today? That is the stark choice Graham-Cassidy will create for many families across America.

No one has had time to properly review this latest proposal, in large part because it was drafted behind closed doors--no input from experts, no support from the medical community. You would think, after saying it over and over again, that the Republicans would challenge the following statement: There is no medical advocacy group in the United States of America who supports the Graham-Cassidy bill. That is the case in my State. The Illinois Hospital Association, doctors, nurses, surgeons, pediatricians, and community health are all opposed to this bill, every single one of them, as they were to the previous versions. It says something when the bill to change America's healthcare system is opposed by the people who provide healthcare to America. All of them oppose it. It is that bad.

Republican leaders want to force a vote this week. If that is what it takes, then we have to move to that vote, but I wish they would save some time. I wish they would move to this bipartisan negotiation I referred to earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan agency that is supposed to measure the impact of legislation so that, before we vote on it, we know if it is good or bad for the Nation and for the people we represent. Here is what it told us last night in a preliminary review, but it has not had time to review this bill in detail.

In a preliminary review, the CBO told us: ``The number of people with comprehensive health insurance . . . would be reduced by millions each year.''

How in the world can we as Senators make a proposal for the United States of America which we know will take health insurance coverage away from millions of Americans--exactly the opposite of what our goal should be?

The CBO went on to write: ``Federal spending on Medicaid would be reduced by about $1 trillion.''

There are some Republicans, fiscal conservatives who say that we have to stop the growth of this program, but none of them--not one of them-- can address the fundamental issue: Who will then take care in paying for the delivery of babies to low-income families? Half of the children who are born in my State of Illinois are paid for by Medicaid. Their moms are taken care of by Medicaid until the moment of birth. What will you replace that with if you eliminate Medicaid funding?

What about the disabled who count on Medicaid as their health insurance? If you are blind or face a serious disability, Medicaid is the answer for basic health insurance for you. If you are going to cut $1 trillion out of Medicaid, what will you say to those disabled Americans who want the same peace of mind that we all want in having health insurance?

School districts all over Illinois and all over the Nation receive Medicaid funds to care for special ed students--counselors, transportation, even feeding tubes. If you take the money out of Medicaid, what will we do for those school districts that are trying their best to give kids a fighting chance, even those with serious disabilities? That is the reality.

The CBO went on to write: ``Coverage for people with preexisting conditions would be much more expensive . . . and could become unavailable for many more people.''

This Republican proposal takes us back to that moment in history when health insurance was so expensive and so hard to find--almost impossible for those with preexisting conditions. Why would we ever want to go back to that? There is hardly a family in America

who does not have someone they love, who is part of the family, who has a preexisting condition.

Let me remind those who do not have that circumstance that you are one accident or one diagnosis away from being part of this class of Americans who wants health insurance even though the health of those Americans has not been perfect.

In sum, this bill does not do what its authors say it will. They like to tell the American public that States will magically be able to cover the same number of people and provide the same level of benefits with billions of dollars less in funding. The Governors--Democrats and Republicans--have stepped up and said: This is ridiculous. We cannot be asked to accept the burden of health insurance for generations to come, while the Federal Government continues to cut the money that is necessary to provide that protection.

The CBO rejected the claims that are the basis for this Republican bill. Since the Republicans refuse to wait for the CBO to complete its full analysis, we have asked outside health experts what they think the impact would be of this legislation which is before us this week.

Here is what they say: Within a few years, this bill would likely rip health insurance away from more than 20 million Americans, including 1 million people in the State of Illinois. In a State of 12\1/2\ million people, which I represent, 1 million people would lose health insurance because of this Republican proposal that is before us this week.

The average 60-year-old person in Illinois would see his health insurance premiums increase by $11,700 a year. Almost by $1,000 a month his health insurance would go up. Why? Because they change a basic formula. In the Affordable Care Act, we see that the disparity in premiums charged between the highest and lowest will be no more than 3 to 1. They change the ratio in their Republican bill to 5 to 1. It means that those over the age of 50 and under 65 are going to see premium increases estimated to be almost $1,000 a month.

By 2026, Illinois would see its healthcare funding slashed by $8 billion. By 2036, this number would soar to $153 billion.

Medicaid, which covers half of all children in Illinois and two out of three seniors in nursing homes, would be decimated. Also, the Medicaid expansion in Illinois, which helps us to combat the opioid epidemic, provide coverage for 650,000 Illinoisans, and bring stability to our hospitals all across the State, would be shut down.

Here is what the Illinois Hospital Association said about this bill:

Illinois cannot absorb additional financial burdens and

would be forced to reduce eligibility, covered services, and

payments to providers. The magnitude of these cuts and

changes to Medicaid is staggering.

Let's also review what this does to people with preexisting conditions. The Republicans say that this is all about giving flexibility to States. We hear that over and over again. It sure sounds nice until you realize that it is a code word for there being massive funding cuts and the elimination of basic health protection.

In the name of ``State flexibility,'' this bill would allow insurers to charge those with preexisting conditions sky-high premiums the moment they get sick.

Under this bill, ``State flexibility'' means reimposing annual and lifetime limits on patients, including infants who are born with serious medical problems.

Under TrumpCare, ``State flexibility'' means charging Americans over the age of 50 up to five times more than younger people. That is exactly why the American Association of Retired Persons, the AARP, has steadfastly opposed these Republican changes.

To my Republican friends, ``State flexibility'' means tossing out essential health benefits, which is the guarantee that your insurance will cover the basic services your family may need--prescription drugs, maternity care, mental health and addiction treatment.

I spoke to one of my Republican colleagues the other day and asked: What are you driving at here? Are you saying that we can reduce the cost of health insurance if we give people the option of saying that they will not buy coverage for mental illness and substance abuse treatment?

He said: Yes, that is one thing they can do.

I said: Then what happens next month when you discover that your daughter, a sophomore in high school, is now taking opioids and may move to heroin next? You want to intervene. You want to do it, but now you have to pay out of pocket because you didn't buy the essential coverage of mental illness and substance abuse treatment.

It is a shortsighted game to reduce premiums and give up basic essential benefits, but that is what Republicans propose. That is why this measure is opposed by every major medical provider and patient organization nationwide: AARP, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, nurses, disability groups, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the Alzheimer's Association--the list goes on and on. But guess who also came out in opposition to this bill? Insurance commissioners and Medicaid directors. These are the officials who would actually have to implement these cuts. They agree with the Congressional Budget Office that you can't slash the healthcare budget by 20 to 30 percent and expect that States will have ``flexibility'' to make up the difference. The bipartisan association representing every Medicaid director in the country--every one of them--stated that Medicaid cuts would ``constitute the largest transfer of financial risk from the federal government to the states in our country's history.''

Show me a State that can cover as many people with the same benefits if one-third of the money is taken away. That is what the Republican bill does.

Here is what Governor Sandoval, a Republican Governor in Nevada, said:

Flexibility with reduced funding is a false choice. . . . I

will not pit seniors, children, families, the mentally ill,

hospitals, care providers, or any other Nevadan against each

other because of cuts to Nevada's health system proposed by

Graham-Cassidy.

This is a Governor speaking in the same clear terms as Governors of both political parties about the impossible dilemma that would be created by this bill.

Enough is enough. The law that we passed, the Affordable Care Act, helped 20 million people get health coverage. People with preexisting conditions were finally protected. Women are no longer discriminated against when it comes to health insurance. Americans get free preventive healthcare, such as cancer screenings. Is it a perfect law? Not by any means, but at 3 percent of the individual market, we need to do better, and we can. We need to improve that market.

First, the Trump administration must do its best to help us, not hurt healthcare in America. If they are setting out to sabotage this healthcare system, they can do it, but I hope they will not. The President will not suffer if they do, but a lot of innocent American families will. It will make it harder for people to enroll in insurance groups. It will slash funding for outreach. It will actively discourage insurers to offer health plans to individuals.

Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor to the Democratic leader.

In closing, I ask unanimous consent that the September 22, 2017, article in the New Yorker by Dr. Atul Gawande be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of A.J. Wilhelmi, president and CEO of the Illinois Health and Hospital Association also be printed in the Record.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the statement by the National Association of Medicaid Directors, to which I referred, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what America wants is to solve problems, not create them. The Graham-Cassidy bill will create problems for every American family. Let's do something right. On a bipartisan basis, let's sit down and work out improvements to our healthcare system. Let's stop the partisanship when it comes to healthcare. Let's come together now.

We each have our grievances against one another, one party or the other. The American people are tired of our grievances. They are expecting us to do something positive. We can do it. Let's return to the bipartisan negotiation process.

I think that Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray, Republican and Democrat, can lead us to a good path to strengthen our healthcare system.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.