Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

In 1992, under President George H.W. Bush, the Senate unanimously approved a treaty to allow the United States to join the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since then, we have been engaged in a global conversation with nations around the world to tackle the challenges of climate change and ensure that we leave future generations a planet that is not plagued by catastrophic drought, famine, floods, wildfire, and a rising sea level.

After years of intense negotiation, the world finally reached an international agreement that resulted in a global commitment, and 195 countries from around the world, except for 2, came together. Nicaragua abstained; they wanted a stronger agreement. Syria was another country that stepped aside and didn't take part, for obvious reasons. Representing more than 90 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, these 195 countries committed to reducing their carbon emissions to prevent the average global temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees.

I cannot fathom why any President of either political party would want to isolate the United States from the rest of the world, from our allies and trading partners, by leaving this agreement.

President Trump justified this decision with concern for American jobs and American business. Yet, since the election, American business leaders have called him on the phone, sent a barrage of public letters, and paid for full-page ads in newspapers, trying to get the message through to him in any way possible that American business strongly supports the Paris Agreement, which President Trump has walked away from.

Tech companies and retailers, insurance companies, and even energy companies, such as ExxonMobil and BP, support global engagement on climate. In fact, the World Economic Forum estimated that the Paris Agreement represents a $23 trillion investment potential due to the growing demand in every corner of the world for clean energy. Between consumers who want

clean energy and local regulations that require it, the demand for clean energy will continue to grow here in the United States and around the world.

While pulling out of the Paris Agreement might seem like a way to protect jobs, for example, in the coal industry, the truth is that when these jobs do go away, it is mostly due to other things: market forces and automation.

I have been down in the coal mines of Southern Illinois, Central Illinois. I have seen the way they mine coal today. For those who have not been there and paid close attention, it may come as a surprise. It is largely automated. Massive machinery, known as continuous miners, literally chew away at the walls of coal, transporting it back up to the surface for transport.

Back in the day, hundreds, if not thousands, of coal miners would head for their jobs with little more than a pick or an ax or a shovel or some drill. Today, it is an automated industry, and fewer jobs are creating more and more coal opportunities because automation is a big part.

In addition, there is a change in the global energy market. Because of fracking in States like North Dakota and South Dakota, we have seen an increase in the availability of natural gas at lower prices. Last year, for the first time in modern history, we had more electricity generated in 1 month in America from natural gas sources than from coal sources.

We have turned a corner when it comes to the availability of alternatives in energy. Between consumers who want access to clean energy and local regulations that require it, clean energy is going to continue to grow in demand.

Meanwhile, even in my own home State of Illinois, which is the fourth largest coal-producing State in the Nation, we already have thousands more workers in the solar industry than in the coal industry.

Clean energy jobs are growing. Remaining engaged on climate change spurs new investment and strengthens American competitiveness for jobs in the future. These jobs include designing more efficient solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and manufacturing the components for export all over the world. Why should other nations get to lead this growing industry of clean energy and the United States step away? We can create those jobs right here in America--American jobs for American workers in clean energy opportunities. We should lead the world in the creation of clean energy jobs.

This decision by the Trump administration to turn its back on this revolution in energy is going to cost us dearly. When the coal jobs do decline, we have responsibilities to retrain the workers for clean energy jobs and other opportunities in the future. The Paris Agreement ensured that we have credibility as leaders, access to global markets, and reduced financial risk for our citizens and businesses associated with changing climate.

By walking away from the agreement, America is not just giving up an environmental commitment, but it is giving up economic opportunity. We have given away our leadership, isolated ourselves from the rest of the world. They are not going to wait for us; they are going to move forward and look for other leaders than the United States. This President talked about making America first. His decision to walk away from the Paris Agreement puts America dead last when it comes to energy in the 21st century.

Climate change is a dire threat to the global economy and global stability. It will cause catastrophic consequences for global health, food security, and habitat on land and in the ocean. My constituents in Illinois are already experiencing the adverse effects of changing climate.

In recent years, our State--and, I might add, many others--has seen historic storms, floods, and droughts, causing millions of dollars in damage. Climate models suggest that if current global warming trends continue, Illinois will have a climate similar to the Texas gulf coast by the end of this century. For Illinois farmers, these changes to the environment have a direct effect on their livelihood and for all of us, a direct impact on our food supply.

Climate change also has significant national security implications that affect our shores--ones we simply can't ignore. The crisis in Syria, the flow of refugees from unstable parts of the world, is an early warning of the link to climate change and how humanitarian crises, particularly from less stable parts of our shared planet, are going to get worse if we continue to let climate change go unaddressed.

Back in 2011, when pro-democracy protests began in Syria, many of those joining were displaced farmers who had suffered 4 years of drought, made worse by the effects of climate change. The National Academy of Sciences published findings earlier this year showing that extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was more likely due to climate change and that the drought was a factor in the uprisings in 2011.

Last year, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Tom Friedman wrote about massive migration out of parts of West Africa through the Sahara Desert to Libya, where people were hoping to eventually cross the dangerous trek across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. He wrote: ``Just as Syria's revolution was set off in part by the worst four-year drought in the country's modern history--plus overpopulation, climate stresses and the Internet--the same is true of this African migration wave.''

Former CIA Acting Director Mike Morell recently called President Trump's decision to pull the United States from the Paris climate agreement the worst decision made by this President so far.

Mr. Morell pointed out that pulling out not only cedes American leadership in the world, but it harms our own national security by ignoring the impact of climate change on failed and fragile states that are homes to instability and violence. He further noted that we face three possible threats to our existence: nuclear war, a natural or manmade biological threat, or climate change. President Trump's dangerous decision, if not reversed, will contribute to that threat.

Anyone in this Chamber claiming to be serious about national security simply cannot be credible without addressing the long-term threats posed by weak states and climate change in the decades to come.

It is amazing to me that people around the world have come together to recognize the danger and the urgent need to act on climate change everywhere in the world except right here in the United States of America.

I don't understand the other political party. I can remember a time when we would have a debate on climate change on the floor. We would be talking about the Environmental Protection Agency, created by a Republican President, Richard Nixon, and we would have Senators from both sides of the aisle actively debating climate change, realizing that it is a threat to our future. Those days have changed.

Any debate now about environment is strictly one-sided. Was the science changed when it comes to global warming and climate change? Not at all. Ninety-eight percent of scientists agree that we have global warming, and the reasons for it relate directly to greenhouse gas emissions.

So what has changed? Why isn't this a bipartisan debate anymore? The politics have changed. They have changed dramatically with the way we finance political campaigns in this country. Groups have emerged--one in particular, the Koch brothers, who have made their fortune in carbon industries and who have promised any Republican who steps out of line on climate change this: You are in for a fight; you are going to face a primary. Don't you dare stand up and talk about climate change here on the floor of the Senate.

That is where we are today. We have come to a standstill, and now we have a President who has decided to walk away from this issue. This President has chosen politics over science and greed over responsibility. His decision is a fateful decision for our children, our grandchildren, and generations to come.

There may be some momentary applause in some places because President Trump has walked away from this global agreement to deal with this global challenge, but I could tell you the cheers are short-lived. When we see the price that we are going to pay--and that our kids will pay-- for this gross irresponsibility, there will not be a lot of cheering.

I have said this on the floor before, and I will say it again because I am waiting for someone on the other side

to come to challenge me: The Republican Party of the United States of America is the only major political party in the world today that refuses to take climate change seriously. I have said that over and over, and I expect Senators from the Republican side to come to the floor and say: That is not true; we take it seriously. But they don't. Or I expect them to come to the floor and say: No, there is another major political party that also denies climate change.

One Republican Senator, after I said this on the floor repeatedly, pulled me off to the side in the corridor, looked around, and whispered: There is a party in Australia that also doesn't believe in climate change.

You think to yourself: So it has come to that. We have isolated ourselves in the eyes of the world when it comes to protecting this world for generations to come. We are going to pay a heavy price for that, but the biggest price is going to be paid by future generations.

Can we make a little sacrifice today, drive more energy-efficient cars and trucks, and think about ways to heat our homes and to light up our rooms that don't consume so much energy? Well, of course, we can. We have already done it, and we can do so much more. Walking away from the Paris Agreement is not the path that should lead America into the 21st century.

Healthcare Legislation

Mr. President, earlier today, Majority Leader McConnell came to the Senate floor to, once again, be critical of the Affordable Care Act, a law that has resulted in more than 20 million Americans gaining health insurance. The law has lowered the uninsured rate to the lowest in American history. This law has put an end to insurance discrimination based on preexisting conditions or gender. It is a law that has made sure that Americans suffering from mental health or substance abuse addiction can get treatment. It is a law that extended the solvency of Medicare by a decade and decreased prescription drug costs for seniors by more than $1,000 for each senior in America. It is a law that has helped to reduce--cut in half--the number of bankruptcies filed in America because so many were the result of medical bills that people just couldn't pay. I was proud to vote for this law.

Is it perfect? Of course not. Can it be improved and strengthened? Yes, it should be. Improvements can be made the same way we have made improvements in Medicare, Social Security, and in so many other programs over the years, but not by repealing Social Security, not by repealing Medicare but by sitting down on a bipartisan basis to try to find a way to make sure that we don't deny health insurance coverage to 23 million people in America because of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and to find a way not to raise costs on older Americans, which the bill that passed the House of Representatives would do, and to find a way to make this law better for people living in rural America.

My hometown is in downstate Illinois. I, as a Congressman and Senator, have represented a lot of small towns in sparsely populated counties. They value many things. They sure value their schools, their basketball teams and football teams. I will tell you what they value as much, if not more, than anything else--their local hospital.

The local hospital makes such a difference in smalltown America. It is not only a lifesaver--it saves you from driving another 50 or 100 miles for quality care--but it is also a source of great employment. Probably the best paying jobs in town are at the local hospital. If you want to keep a business or attract one, a local hospital is a good selling point.

Do you know what the bill that passed the House of Representatives will do to the rural and smalltown hospitals in Illinois?

Don't take my word for it. Ask the Illinois Health and Hospital Association. They anticipate losing 60,000 jobs in Illinois because of the healthcare repeal bill that passed the House of Representatives, and they know that many hospitals downstate and many in the inner city are going to be forced to cut back in services, if not close, as a result of it.

What can we do to make this a better bill, to make the Affordable Care Act work more effectively? Let me give you a couple of ideas. First, we don't have anything in the law today that deals with prescription drug prices. We are at the mercy of people--pharmaceutical companies, investment bankers, and others--who come and control these pharmaceutical patents. They can literally raise the cost of these drugs beyond the reach of many families.

I had a young man come see me. He is in high school. He has been fighting diabetes since he was a little boy. He and his mother talked about the dramatic increase in the cost of insulin that he has faced over the last several years. Insulin has been around a long time. This is not a new wonder drug. It is a critical, lifesaving drug, but the prices and costs of insulin are going through the roof, and there is no way under current law for us to deal with it. Should we take that up? Of course, we should.

Blue Cross Blue Shield in Illinois told me recently that they spent more money last year on pharmaceutical costs than they did on inpatient hospital care, and the costs continue to go up. We need good, lifesaving drugs. We need to reward the companies that find them with a profit. But as to those who want to gouge prices and take advantage of people of modest income or folks who don't have insurance, there has to be a way to answer that and to deal with it honestly.

Yesterday, I went with eight other Senators up to the National Institutes of Health. It is out in Bethesda, MD. It is the premier medical research facility in the world. We are lucky to have it right here in the United States.

Time and again they told us about breakthrough drugs that were making a big difference that started with research at the National Institutes of Health. I asked at one point: Is it too much to ask the pharmaceutical companies that take your basic research idea and turn it into a profitable product to give some of those profits back to the NIH to continue their research? They said: We have tried to do it, but the pharmaceutical companies walk away. They don't want to give us a penny for our future research.

Well, that is wrong. We ought to be investing in that research, rewarding the pharmaceutical companies for their development of these products, as well, but making certain we continue this leadership in the world when it comes to medical research and pharmaceuticals.

The individual market on health insurance is one that troubles us because it is the area where people who don't have health insurance through their place of employment or don't qualify for a government health insurance plan--like Medicare, Medicaid, veterans care, or the like--go to buy insurance on the insurance exchange. This is where the premiums have gone up. Now, why have the premiums gone up in that one sector? Because when it comes to individuals, those who are older and sicker are the first to sign up, but the healthier, younger ones are the last.

We can sit down on a bipartisan basis and find ways to create an incentive so that we can increase the participation in this insurance pool and bring down the premium costs for those who are paying.

The third thing we need to do is to make sure that no matter where you live in the United States, there is an option to choose when it comes to buying your health insurance. One of the things we can do is to take one of the most popular medical care programs in history--the Medicare Program itself--and duplicate it in a public option available to people across the United States. Do you want to buy a health insurance program that looks like Medicare, a not-for-profit program? This would be your chance.

So those are three ideas that I think we could bring forward in an effort to make the Affordable Care Act even more responsive.

Senator McConnell, the Republican Leader, comes to the floor frequently to talk about the choice to expand the Medicaid Program, as allowed under law in many States. I would welcome the opportunity to expand that program.

Most people do not understand the Medicaid Program. Oh, that is health insurance for poor people. Well, in a way, it is, but it is so much more. For example, one out of every two births in

Illinois is paid for by the Medicaid Program to keep mom healthy so she delivers a healthy baby and to keep that baby healthy as soon as it is born. It is paid for by Medicaid in 50 percent of the cases of new births. But that is not the most expensive thing.

The most expensive thing under Medicaid is for your mom and your grandmother who is in a nursing home, living on Social Security and Medicare, and they need help. So they qualify for Medicaid to pay for the medical care they need so they can continue to live wholesome lives.

The third area, of course, is medical insurance for the disabled who have ongoing needs. Those three areas make up Medicaid. When the Republican proposal that came out of the House wanted to cut $600 or $700 billion and give tax cuts to wealthy people, they took it out of Medicaid.

So which of the groups that I just described to you would you take health insurance away from--mothers with new babies, elderly folks in nursing homes with no resources, or the disabled who live in our communities?

I would think it is a step in the wrong direction to hit any of these groups. That is why Medicaid was expanded in so many States and why we should continue to find ways to expand it in a responsible fashion.

As I go back home and talk to people about this Republican alternative that passed the House of Representatives, it is very clear they oppose it.

I have challenged those Congressmen who voted for the Republican repeal bill to find one medical advocacy group in my State that supports their effort. There are none. The Illinois Health and Hospital Association, the Illinois Medical Association, the Illinois Nurses Association, and the Illinois pediatricians all oppose it.

The AARP, or American Association of Retired Persons, opposes it because the bill removed the protection for elderly people when it came to the cost of premiums. The AARP believes--and I am afraid the facts bear it out--that what passed the House of Representatives will dramatically increase health insurance premiums for people between the ages of 50 and 64. We can do better, but we need to do it on a bipartisan basis.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Judge Amul Thapar to serve on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Thapar is President Trump's first nominee to serve on a Federal appeals court. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered this nomination and no Democrat voted for it.

Judge Thapar is on the list of 21 candidates that the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation have selected for President Donald Trump to choose from when filling Supreme Court vacancies.

Judge Thapar is well known to the Federalist Society. He was a member of that organization prior to becoming a district court judge, and since he became a judge he has spoken at Federalist Society events 17 times.

Some of my colleagues on the Republican side are like Captain Renault in Casablanca, who claimed he was ``shocked, shocked'' to find out there was gambling going on in Rick's Cafe.

They are shocked that anyone could be concerned about the Federalist Society, which they claim is just a simple debate club. Far from it-- consider the following background.

The organization was founded in 1982 by students at two law schools, Yale and the University of Chicago, under the faculty supervision of Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, who just happen to be the two most prominent conservative legal scholars of their generation.

According to a recent article about the Federalist Society by Jeffrey Toobin: ``within just a few years, the group was embraced and funded by a number of powerful, wealthy conservative organizations, which eventually included foundations associated with John Olin, Lynde and Harry Bradley, Richard Scaife, and the Koch Brothers.''

The Federalist Society's website includes the group's purpose statement. It claims that the legal profession is: ``currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society.''

The statement describes the Federalist Society as a group of conservatives and libertarians calling for: ``reordering priorities within the legal system,'' to fit their principles. Does that sound like the mission statement of a nonpartisan debate society?

How has the Federalist Society gone about this reordering? It's been largely the work of Mr. Leonard Leo, the longtime executive vice president of the Federalist Society who is currently serving as an advisor to the Trump White House.

Mr. Leo has been credited with being a driving force behind the Supreme Court nominations of Justice Neil Gorsuch, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. That is one-third of the current Supreme Court that he has helped put in place.

Mr. Leo recently gave a speech where he said: ``I've seen that comment about the third of the Supreme Court. I prefer controlling interests. But we haven't quite been able to launch a hostile takeover yet.''

Mr. Leo went on to advocate for radical change, saying: ``I would love to see the courts unrecognizable.'' He has said of the judicial confirmation process: ``it's like war.''

In an unprecedented move, President Trump outsourced the selection of Supreme Court candidates to Mr. Leo, the Federalist Society, and the right-wing Heritage Foundation. He publicly thanked these special interest groups for putting together his list of 21 Supreme Court candidates, and Mr. Leo was the first person to call Neil Gorsuch about his nomination.

As Jeffrey Toobin wrote, Leonard Leo: ``knew how to play the game-- how to find a nominee who met Trump's ideological requirements as well as his own, while observing the proprieties expected for judicial nominees.''

Mr. Leo told Mr. Toobin that it was: ``easy'' to find these nominees because: ``when you've been working in this vineyard for twenty-five years you know everybody.''

That brings us back to Judge Thapar.

Leonard Leo, and the big money right-wing interests that fund the Federalist Society, feel that they know Judge Thapar well enough to include him on the list of 21.

They have had plenty of opportunity to get a sense of his views, as Judge Thapar had been a member of the Federalist Society and has frequently spoken at their events.

At his hearing and in my questions to him, I sought reassurance from Judge Thapar that he would be independent from this right-wing group and President Trump.

His answers did not provide that reassurance.

For example, I asked Judge Thapar whether he agreed or disagreed with the Federalist Society's purpose statement. He ducked the question, saying he didn't know what the Federalist Society meant by the statement.

I asked him if he thought it was appropriate for the President to delegate his Supreme Court selection process to the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, since this creates incentive for judges not to contravene the views of those organizations and their big-money donors. He ducked again, saying he would not opine on this because he claimed it was a ``political question.''

In the aftermath of Citizens United, special interest groups pour dark money into campaigns in support of Republican judicial nominees like Judge Thapar. I asked Judge Thapar if he would discourage secret donations in support of his nomination.

After all, if we don't know who is secretly donating in support of his nomination, how will we know when Judge Thapar needs to recuse himself because one of those donors has an interest in a case he is considering?

He dodged that question too, saying he wasn't aware of any donations about his nomination. Of course, he wouldn't be aware of secret donations--that's the problem.

I also asked him about the original understanding of the Constitution's Emoluments Clause. He said he could not discuss it because there is pending litigation on the matter.

That is curious, because I thought the Federalist Society's view was that the original meaning of constitutional provisions was immutable and unchanging. If the meaning of the Constitution doesn't change, why do Federalist Society nominees decline to tell us this meaning when there is litigation underway affecting President Trump?

I asked Judge Thapar about his decision in Winter v. Wolnitzek. This was a major campaign finance decision in which he applied strict scrutiny to invalidate a ban on judges making political contributions. A unanimous Sixth Circuit panel reversed his ruling.

A group of 24 campaign finance reform organizations sent a letter saying: ``Judge Thapar embraced the troubling `money is speech' paradigm in a radical way that goes beyond Supreme Court doctrine.'' These groups oppose his confirmation, and I ask unanimous consent to have their letter printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Given Judge Thapar's evasiveness on questions about his views, I am left to judge him on his record, such as his troubling decision in the Winter case, and the fact that the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation handpicked him for their judicial wish list.

I need more reassurance than that to support a nominee for a lifetime appointment on the Federal court of appeals. I will oppose his nomination.

Mr. President, I would like to address the comments that were made by the Republican majority leader about the issue of healthcare. What he said today I have never heard him say before. He said it was the fault of the Democrats for refusing to work with the Republicans to change the Affordable Care Act. I had not heard that before.

I find it an interesting suggestion because what happened after the House of Representatives passed a measure 3 weeks ago to change the healthcare system in America, the issue then came to the Senate but did not go through the regular order of business.

It is my understanding--and has been reported widely in the press-- that Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, assembled a group of 13 Republican Senators who have been meeting in private over the last 3 weeks to discuss an alternative to the healthcare bill that passed in the House of Representatives. There are no Democrats in that room. None have been invited. Incidentally, there are no women in that room from the Republican side--13 male Senators meeting in private.

So to hear this suggestion from the Republican leader that the real problem they are running into is that the Democrats are not helping, we were not invited to this party. They are meeting privately to come up with something, and I don't know what it might be, but I have an idea of how we can achieve a bipartisan real effort when it comes to healthcare in America.

I would suggest we create a committee in the Senate. I have a name for it, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I suggest we have 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats on that committee. I suggest they sit down, take the bill sent by the House, and improve it, make it better. Now, this suggestion is such a good one that the committee already exists.

It is under the chairmanship of Lamar Alexander--whom I respect personally very much--and the ranking member, Patty Murray of the State of Washington, a Democrat. I know, having spoken to Senator Murray, she is ready to roll up her sleeves and go to work to write a revision to the healthcare bill, the healthcare system in America.

There have been no hearings, none, on the measure passed by the House of Representatives. So when the Republican leader says he wishes the Democrats would join in the effort, this committee is ready and willing to work. I am sure, if he picked up the phone and called Senator Alexander and Senator Murray, they could get to work on doing a much better job than what the House of Representatives did.

Why am I so critical of the House of Representatives? Not because of the traditional rivalry between the Chambers, but because yesterday the Congressional Budget Office took a look at the bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives 3 weeks ago by two votes. It was all Republicans voting for it. It passed by two. A number of Republicans refused to support it. It had no support from the Democratic side.

It was an unusual bill because it went out of the regular order of business. The regular order of business suggests that when you are going to do something that might have an impact--a large impact--on America, you should go to an agency that is a nonpartisan, expert in the field, that will analyze your bill and tell you what impact it will have. Most of us think we have pretty good ideas for making America a better place to live and good ideas for legislation.

Luckily, we have something called the Congressional Budget Office, which sometimes brings us back down to Earth and says: It might not work exactly as you thought it would work. Traditionally, bills-- significant bills that affect a lot of Americans and families and things important like healthcare--they are submitted to the

Congressional Budget Office so they can analyze them and decide the impact they will have.

Well, 3 weeks ago, Speaker Paul Ryan and Republicans in the House said something I had not heard before in my service in Congress. They said: We are not going to wait for this analysis. We are going to vote on this bill even before the Congressional Budget Office has a chance to analyze its impact. Remember, we are talking about changing the healthcare system in America, and that literally impacts every single American. It is one-sixth of our Nation's economy. You would think, before anyone was bold enough to suggest they wanted to change the system, they would at least send their proposal to the Congressional Budget Office for an analysis. The Republicans in the House failed to do so, refused to do so, passed the measure by two votes, and sent it to the Senate.

So, yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office completed its analysis. Now that we have an analysis of what is known as TrumpCare or the Republican healthcare approach, it is pretty clear why they did not want the Congressional Budget Office to take a look at it. This is what the Congressional Budget Office reported publicly last night: Next year, under the Republican proposal for healthcare reform, 14 million Americans will lose their health insurance. Over the next 10 years, 23 million Americans will lose their health insurance.

Do you remember when we started this conversation? The goal was to make sure we changed the laws in America so more Americans would have the protection of health insurance. Just the opposite occurs if the Republican plan goes forward. The second thing we were looking for is a goal in healthcare reform to reduce the growth, the rate of growth, in health insurance premiums.

Every one of us knows what that is all about. Health insurance premiums have been going up way too high for way too long. The Republicans have been critical of the current system, saying the cost of health insurance is going up too fast. So they put in their reform proposal which passed the House of Representatives.

Here is what the Congressional Budget Office had to say about the Republican approach: Next year, premiums for health insurance will increase by 20 percent in the individual market. That is the market where we have seen this dramatic growth in costs already, and the Republican plan makes it worse.

The third thing we find is this argument by the Republicans that somehow the current healthcare system in America, the Affordable Care Act, is in a death spiral. Listen to what the Congressional Budget Office said about the health insurance market in America today. The CBO affirms that under current law, marketplaces--health insurance marketplaces--are stable.

However, under the Republican repeal bill, one out of every six Americans will be living in parts of this country where the individual market would become unstable as a result of the Republican bill. So instead of stabilizing the market and ending the so-called death spiral, the Republican bill makes it worse.

It turns out that when you take a close look at this so-called death spiral, you find the Republicans have their hands around the throats of the healthcare system of America choking it and claiming this patient is not looking good, Doctor. If they would stop their efforts to sabotage the current system and work to improve it and make it stronger, then we could save health insurance for a lot of Americans and bring stability to the system.

The Republican bill at its heart is not about a healthcare bill, though, it is about tax cuts. The Republican proposal for healthcare reform starts with eliminating almost $900 billion in taxes paid by the wealthiest people in America. By taking $900 billion out of the healthcare system, they are unable to keep health insurance alive for so many Americans. The Republican approach eliminates $834 billion in the Federal Medicaid Program. What is the Federal Medicaid Program? Let me give you three examples of what it is.

In Illinois today, half of the babies who are born are paid for-- their medical care is paid for by the Medicaid system: prenatal care for mom so the baby is healthy, the delivery of the baby, and postnatal care afterward. These are lower income individuals. Half of them are paid for by Medicaid today, but that is not the most expensive part of Medicaid.

The most expensive part of Medicaid is for your mom and dad and your grandmother and grandfather who are in a nursing home and have no savings left. All they have is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is the most expensive part of Medicaid. Those who are disabled living in my State, in Alabama, in New York, and other States--disabled people and low-income people need medical care and they rely on Medicaid.

So when the Republican healthcare reform and repeal cuts $800 billion-plus out of Medicaid, it is at the expense of the groups I just mentioned: babies and moms, elderly people in nursing homes, and the disabled. Those are the ones who will see a cutback in medical services so we can give a $900 billion tax cut to the wealthiest people in America.

I know the Democratic leader is here. I want to yield the floor when he arrives, but I want to close by telling a story. Yesterday, I had three moms and a dad who brought their children to a press conference. It was a great press conference, if I may say so. These kids stole the show, as they should. Each one of them--each one of them had a compelling story about having survived a terrible illness. Many of them were cancer victims.

Moms told stories. One mom said: I was changing my little girl, and I noticed a lump in her abdomen. It turned out to be a neuroblastoma cancer tumor. It was removed. My little girl spent weeks, months in the hospital, and she is still going back.

Each one of them told a story. As you looked at these kids, smiling and happy and bouncing around, you thought to yourself: Thank goodness. Thank goodness for America, with its great medical care, and thank goodness these families had health insurance--because they were there concerned about what the Republicans are doing when it comes to preexisting conditions.

Because these kids have survived cancer, they are risky from an insurance viewpoint. We decided 6 years ago to put an end to that worry for these families. You cannot discriminate against a person or a family in America based on a preexisting condition--thank goodness-- because one out of three of us have a preexisting condition. The Republican approach takes away that protection and says Governors can ask for a waiver so health insurance in their State can discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.

So three moms and a dad came yesterday and said: Please stop this Republican plan. What will our families do? Our kids have preexisting conditions. We cannot afford to see our premiums go through the roof because the Republicans withdraw this protection.

That is the real-life consequence of this debate. This is not just about a lot of politicians on Capitol Hill blowing hot air. It is about families--real families with real kids and real challenges and whether they are going to have real protection when they need it.

The Congressional Budget Office yesterday came out with a report and said the measure that passed the House, the Republican measure, is a disaster for families across America. We have to stop it. We have to do everything in our power to do it. I might say to my friend from New York, the Democratic leader, that when the Republican leader came to the floor this morning and said: Why won't the Democrats join us in repairing the Affordable Care Act? I say to the Republican leader: Open the door of that room where you have 13 male Republican Senators sitting down and debating the future of healthcare. Open the door, open the windows, and let's have an honest, open, bipartisan conversation not about repealing our healthcare system but making it stronger, protecting the very families who showed up yesterday at a press conference and whom I am going to remember for a long time.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have two words for Bill Dauster: Thank you.

Thank you, Bill Dauster, for your brilliant mind and unwearying service to the U.S. Senate, to the American people, and to America's most noble ideals.

Thank you for your good humor, and thank you for your endless supply of good ideas.

The Senate is going to miss you.

In Steven Spielberg's Movie ``Lincoln,'' with Daniel Day-Lewis, there is a scene in which President Lincoln is talking with Congressman Thaddeus Stephens of Pennsylvania, played by Tommy Lee Jones.

Thaddeus Stephens was one of the most righteous, uncompromising abolitionists in all of American history--and thank goodness for him.

In the movie, he tells President Lincoln that there is no use in appealing to the moral decency of slaveholders and their allies to end slavery and racial discrimination.

The reason, he says, is that ``the inner compass that should direct the soul toward justice has ossified''--become utterly useless-- ``through tolerating the evil of slavery.''

President Lincoln's reply was so wise. He said, ``A compass, I learnt when I was surveying, . . . it'll point you True North from where you'e standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and desert and chasm that you'll encounter along the way.''

He went on to say,``If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp, what's the use of knowing True North?''

There is a lesson in that story for all of us.

Passing laws in our democracy requires more than passion and more than clever speeches.

Passing laws requires legislative skill. It requires mastery of parliamentary procedure and arcane rules. That is how we avoid the ``swamps and desert and chasms'' that President Lincoln spoke of.

Bill Dauster knows more about the rules of the Senate than probably anyone since Senator Robert C. Byrd. That has made him something of a legend in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle.

But what makes him even more admirable is the reason that Bill Dauster has mastered the mechanics of lawmaking.

Bill has worked for a lot of big names in American politics, but it is dignity and justice and fairness for the little guy that has always driven him.

In 30-plus years, he left the Senate only twice, for brief stretches. Once was to be President Bill Clinton's deputy assistant for economic policy during the golden years of a budget surplus. The other time was in 1998 and 1999, to work on the Presidential exploratory committee of Senator Paul Wellstone.

Paul Wellstone used to say: ``I didn't come to the Senate to fight for the Rockefellers. They have enough lobbyists. I'm here to fight for the little feller.''

That could be Bill Dauster's motto too.

Bill Dauster has the rare sort of vision in which no one is invisible, no one is so small that they are undeserving of respect.

Bill isn't the only dedicated public servant in his family. His equally brilliant wife, Ellen Weintraub, has served as a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission since 2002.

They are the parents of three grown children, Matthew, Natanya, and Emma.

We thank the entire Dauster-Weintraub family for sharing Bill with us.

Somehow, even with the obligations of work and family, Bill has found the time to be something of a Talmudic scholar.

So let me end with this thought, from the ancient Taludic sage, Rabbi Tarfon, who wrote, ``Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.''

For 30 years, Bill Dauster has helped this Senate pass laws that have made life more just and more merciful for untold multitudes, in America and around the world. Although he is leaving the Senate, I know he wil never abandon that work.

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

Today I am reintroducing the Fairness for Struggling Students Act. This bill takes an important step toward addressing the student debt crisis in America. It would once again treat private student loans like nearly all other forms of private unsecured debt and permit these loans to be discharged in bankruptcy.

Student loan debt has reached an astronomical $1.4 trillion--more than double what it was in 2008. Student loan debt is now the second largest form of consumer debt in America, after only mortgage debt. The balance of student loan debt is larger than credit card and auto loan debt. Currently, around 44 million borrowers hold student loan debt, with an average balance of roughly $30,000.

This past weekend, the New York Times published an editorial that clearly and concisely describes the student debt crisis that we face. The editorial is titled ``Student Debt's Grip on the Economy,'' and I ask consent to place it into the Record. As the editorial points out, ``student debt has become a drag on graduates' hopes and a threat to economic growth.''

This editorial reports that as college costs have continued to increase, wages have not kept pace. Students continue to take out larger amounts in loans to afford the rising costs of college. This crushing student loan debt has forced young people to delay making important life decisions like getting married and economic investments such as home ownership. We are also seeing an increase in the wealth gap between college graduates with student debt and those without student debt. The burdens of student debt are threatening the notion that being college-educated is enough to get ahead. As the editorial notes, ``the fallout from these burdens, afflicting those who are supposedly best prepared to face and shape the future, is not only a personal financial issue but also a social and economic one.''

These burdens are even more significant for students who have taken out private student loans. Federal student loans have fixed, affordable interest rates, and a variety of consumer protections including forbearance in times of economic hardship and manageable repayment options. Private loans, on the other hand, frequently have high, variable interest rates, and they lack the repayment options and protections that federal loans offer. In 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reported that the outstanding private student loan debt in America was $165 billion, at least $8 billion of which was then in default. As it turns out, many students were steered into costly private student loans by for-profit colleges, often when the students still had eligibility for lower-cost federal loans.

One of those students is a woman named Marta, from Chicago, who wrote to me about her story and asked me to only use her first name. Marta came to the United States from Poland in 1994 with her family, hoping for a better life. She is a U.S. citizen now, and has a family of her own. As an aspiring designer, Marta wanted to enroll in a college that would help launch her career. So after meeting a recruiter at a college fair from the now-closing, for-profit Harrington College of Art and Design, she enrolled in the fall of 2004. At the urging of the recruiter, she signed the enrollment paperwork and began courses. Being the first in her family to attend college, she did not know the difference between private and federal student loans. The recruiter assured her that the paperwork was just part of the normal college enrollment process.

It was only after she graduated that Marta learned that in signing the paperwork the recruiter gave her, she had taken out a combination of federal student loans and much riskier and more expensive private student loans. She now has over $120,000 in student debt, the majority of which is in private student loans. The monthly payments are overwhelming and Marta worries about what this crushing debt means for her family's future. Thanks to high-interest rates, her private loans continue to grow despite doing her best to make her payments.

Marta enrolled in college to get a good career and widen her future opportunities. But she has been left with enormous debt from a failed for-profit college. And now she is struggling and needs a fair chance to get back on her feet. There are stories like Marta's in every corner of America. And it's time to do something about it.

Today I am reintroducing the Fairness for Struggling Students Act. This bill would restore the bankruptcy code's pre-2005 treatment of private student loans.

Since 2005, private student loans have enjoyed a privileged status under the bankruptcy code: they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy except in extremely limited circumstances. Only a few other types of private unsecured debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy--criminal fines, child support, back taxes and alimony. In contrast, nearly all types of private unsecured debt, including credit card and medical debt, are dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Congress had no good reason to make private student loans non- dischargeable in 2005. It was a provision that was quietly slipped into a broader bankruptcy reform bill with little debate and no justification. There was no evidence that private student loan borrowers had abused the bankruptcy system to avoid repayment before 2005. But, since the law changed in 2005, lenders have been incentivized to extend expensive private student loans to students that the students cannot repay and that they can never escape. This is overwhelming for students and an impairment on our overall economy.

The Fairness for Struggling Students Act will make important relief available to students being crushed by private student loan debt, and will discourage private lenders from extending risky loans.

This bill is supported by a large coalition of educational, student, civil rights and consumer organizations including the American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, American Association of University Women, American Council on Education, American Federation of Teachers, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Demos, Empire Justice Center, NAACP, National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National Association of College Admission Counseling, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, National Consumers League, Public Citizen, The Institute for College Access and Success, UNCF, and Young Invincibles.

I want to thank the cosponsors of this bill, Senators Whitehouse, Franken, Blumenthal, Hirono, Warren, Reed, Wyden, Baldwin, Hassan, Kaine, and Murphy for their support, and I hope more of my colleagues will join us.

This is just one step of what we need to do to get control of the student debt crisis in our country. But it is a critical step, and it is long overdue. Let's give struggling students a fair chance,

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

Today I am reintroducing the Fairness for Struggling Students Act. This bill takes an important step toward addressing the student debt crisis in America. It would once again treat private student loans like nearly all other forms of private unsecured debt and permit these loans to be discharged in bankruptcy.

Student loan debt has reached an astronomical $1.4 trillion--more than double what it was in 2008. Student loan debt is now the second largest form of consumer debt in America, after only mortgage debt. The balance of student loan debt is larger than credit card and auto loan debt. Currently, around 44 million borrowers hold student loan debt, with an average balance of roughly $30,000.

This past weekend, the New York Times published an editorial that clearly and concisely describes the student debt crisis that we face. The editorial is titled ``Student Debt's Grip on the Economy,'' and I ask consent to place it into the Record. As the editorial points out, ``student debt has become a drag on graduates' hopes and a threat to economic growth.''

This editorial reports that as college costs have continued to increase, wages have not kept pace. Students continue to take out larger amounts in loans to afford the rising costs of college. This crushing student loan debt has forced young people to delay making important life decisions like getting married and economic investments such as home ownership. We are also seeing an increase in the wealth gap between college graduates with student debt and those without student debt. The burdens of student debt are threatening the notion that being college-educated is enough to get ahead. As the editorial notes, ``the fallout from these burdens, afflicting those who are supposedly best prepared to face and shape the future, is not only a personal financial issue but also a social and economic one.''

These burdens are even more significant for students who have taken out private student loans. Federal student loans have fixed, affordable interest rates, and a variety of consumer protections including forbearance in times of economic hardship and manageable repayment options. Private loans, on the other hand, frequently have high, variable interest rates, and they lack the repayment options and protections that federal loans offer. In 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reported that the outstanding private student loan debt in America was $165 billion, at least $8 billion of which was then in default. As it turns out, many students were steered into costly private student loans by for-profit colleges, often when the students still had eligibility for lower-cost federal loans.

One of those students is a woman named Marta, from Chicago, who wrote to me about her story and asked me to only use her first name. Marta came to the United States from Poland in 1994 with her family, hoping for a better life. She is a U.S. citizen now, and has a family of her own. As an aspiring designer, Marta wanted to enroll in a college that would help launch her career. So after meeting a recruiter at a college fair from the now-closing, for-profit Harrington College of Art and Design, she enrolled in the fall of 2004. At the urging of the recruiter, she signed the enrollment paperwork and began courses. Being the first in her family to attend college, she did not know the difference between private and federal student loans. The recruiter assured her that the paperwork was just part of the normal college enrollment process.

It was only after she graduated that Marta learned that in signing the paperwork the recruiter gave her, she had taken out a combination of federal student loans and much riskier and more expensive private student loans. She now has over $120,000 in student debt, the majority of which is in private student loans. The monthly payments are overwhelming and Marta worries about what this crushing debt means for her family's future. Thanks to high-interest rates, her private loans continue to grow despite doing her best to make her payments.

Marta enrolled in college to get a good career and widen her future opportunities. But she has been left with enormous debt from a failed for-profit college. And now she is struggling and needs a fair chance to get back on her feet. There are stories like Marta's in every corner of America. And it's time to do something about it.

Today I am reintroducing the Fairness for Struggling Students Act. This bill would restore the bankruptcy code's pre-2005 treatment of private student loans.

Since 2005, private student loans have enjoyed a privileged status under the bankruptcy code: they cannot be discharged in bankruptcy except in extremely limited circumstances. Only a few other types of private unsecured debt cannot be discharged in bankruptcy--criminal fines, child support, back taxes and alimony. In contrast, nearly all types of private unsecured debt, including credit card and medical debt, are dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Congress had no good reason to make private student loans non- dischargeable in 2005. It was a provision that was quietly slipped into a broader bankruptcy reform bill with little debate and no justification. There was no evidence that private student loan borrowers had abused the bankruptcy system to avoid repayment before 2005. But, since the law changed in 2005, lenders have been incentivized to extend expensive private student loans to students that the students cannot repay and that they can never escape. This is overwhelming for students and an impairment on our overall economy.

The Fairness for Struggling Students Act will make important relief available to students being crushed by private student loan debt, and will discourage private lenders from extending risky loans.

This bill is supported by a large coalition of educational, student, civil rights and consumer organizations including the American Association of Community Colleges, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, American Association of University Women, American Council on Education, American Federation of Teachers, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Demos, Empire Justice Center, NAACP, National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National Association of College Admission Counseling, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, National Consumers League, Public Citizen, The Institute for College Access and Success, UNCF, and Young Invincibles.

I want to thank the cosponsors of this bill, Senators Whitehouse, Franken, Blumenthal, Hirono, Warren, Reed, Wyden, Baldwin, Hassan, Kaine, and Murphy for their support, and I hope more of my colleagues will join us.

This is just one step of what we need to do to get control of the student debt crisis in our country. But it is a critical step, and it is long overdue. Let's give struggling students a fair chance,

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire before she leaves the floor for her statement on the Affordable Care Act. I know she made reference to the recent report from the Congressional Budget Office that we just received, and it tells the whole story. It tells us all we need to know about TrumpCare 2--the second attempt by the Republicans to replace the Affordable Care Act. What it tells us in the starkest terms is exactly the reason why the Republicans didn't want to wait around for this analysis.

For the record, the Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan agency of the Federal Government that analyzes our great ideas and tells us what is going to happen if they become law. I know this agency pretty well because

when we wrote the Affordable Care Act, we waited and waited and waited, sometimes weeks at a time, until some bright idea that we thought we had was analyzed in the cold reality of healthcare in America. Sometimes they came back and said good idea, and many times they came back and said bad idea.

The Republicans passed TrumpCare 2 in the House about 3 weeks ago and wouldn't wait for the Congressional Budget Office analysis. We thought to ourselves, that is unusual. That is the standard everybody uses in Congress. They wouldn't wait because they knew what was coming, and today it was announced.

This afternoon, here is what the Congressional Budget Office said about the Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Next year, under the Republican plan, 14 million Americans would lose their health insurance. How about that for a starter. That is the starting point of their analysis. Over the next 10 years, 23 million Americans would lose their health insurance. Next year, premiums--the cost of health insurance--would increase 20 percent in the individual market. The CBO affirms that under current law--the Affordable Care Act--the marketplaces are stable. However, under the Republican repeal bill, one-sixth of the population resides in parts of America where the individual market would become unstable beginning in the year 2020.

There will be $834 billion in cuts in Federal Medicaid Programs over the next decade. Do we know what those cuts mean? In my State, half the children born are covered by Medicaid. The mothers get prenatal care so the babies are healthy--paid for by Medicaid. The delivery is paid for by Medicaid. The postnatal care of that little infant is paid for by Medicaid.

That is not the most expensive part of Medicaid in my State and in most States. The most expensive part is for your mom and your grandmother in the nursing home. That is where most of Medicaid money goes. Two-thirds of it goes to those folks in nursing homes who have no other source of income, not to mention the disabled who count on Medicaid.

What the Congressional Budget Office tells us is that the Republican plan is going to devastate Medicaid across the United States. Which of the groups I just mentioned do we think we can toss overboard--babies born to low-income mothers, or the elderly who have no place to turn and have exhausted their savings and are living in nursing homes, or the disabled who need the help of Medicaid on a regular basis? Those are the casualties of this Republican repeal plan, not to mention the fact that the real driving force behind these terrible healthcare decisions is a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America.

This is from the Congressional Budget Office again: $88 billion in tax cuts for the superwealthy and big businesses, including drug companies.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, through the Chair, in response to the Senator from New Hampshire, they are equally disastrous.

Listen to these quotes from the Congressional Budget Office this afternoon about the Republican repeal plan: ``People who are less healthy, including those with preexisting conditions, would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive individual market insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law if they could purchase it at all.''

Listen to this. It goes on to say: ``In particular, out-of-pocket spending on maternity care and mental health and substance abuse services could increase by thousands of dollars in a given year for the individual market enrollees who use those services.''

Let me bring this home to your State. Your State has been devastated--our State has been hurt badly--your State has been devastated by the opioid crisis. I would like the Senator from New Hampshire, if she would, to respond to that by giving us some detail. What they are saying is that the Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act is going to deny coverage in health insurance for substance abuse treatment for families whose kids are discovered to be on opioids.

I yield through the Chair without yielding the floor to the Senator from New Hampshire to describe her challenge in New Hampshire.

That is what the Congressional Budget Office reports.

So we have these discussions on the floor--and the Senator from New Hampshire has been in the middle of them because of her State's experience with opioids--and both parties come together and wring their hands and say: What are we going to do about the opioid-heroin crisis in America? And we have come up with some good ideas. But here we have the Republican effort repealing the Affordable Care Act, which cuts the legs out from under all of our efforts because it takes away from families' Medicaid coverage that they are using for drug treatment, as well as coverage in their health insurance plans.

That is exactly what the Congressional Budget Office reports to us.

This afternoon we had a press conference and we invited four or five families to come in with their kids. The theme of the press conference was, what is going to happen if your child has a preexisting condition?

Well, there were some amazing little kids there and some heroic moms and dads telling the story about what happens when you discover that your little infant has a cantaloupe-sized tumor from neuroblastoma and what happens for that family, what happens to that infant. Thank goodness those kids were all standing there smiling. They fought the good fight, and they have to continue to fight it, and each and every one of them is branded as having a preexisting condition. Back in the old days, before the Affordable Care Act, that meant those families were unable to buy health insurance, or if they could buy it, they couldn't afford it because the premiums were too high. So we passed the Affordable Care Act and said: Enough. We are not going to allow you to discriminate against anyone for a preexisting condition.

If you have a spouse with diabetes, if you have somebody in your family who is a cancer survivor, they can't use it against you. They can't discriminate. Now the Congressional Budget Office tells us what is going to happen to those people. We are going back to the bad old days when those families will not only have to stay awake at night

worrying about whether that baby of theirs is going to survive, they are going to stay awake at night also worrying about how in the world they are going to pay for their health insurance.

Is that the Republican answer? Is that Trumpism at work when it comes to healthcare in America? I can't believe the American people voted for that. I can't believe they are saying to our Republican colleagues: We really don't care if our health insurance covers preexisting conditions. Of course they care.

They come back with something called high-risk pools. I am sure the Senator from New Hampshire can remember those. Let me tell you about some of those warnings around swimming pools that say: No diving, the pool is too shallow. Well, the high-risk pools for preexisting conditions are way too shallow. No family with preexisting conditions should dive into those pools because the amount of money provided for by the Republicans in their affordable care repeal would only cover about one out of four families with preexisting conditions. Three out of four families: You are on your own.

Think about that. If you have ever been in a position in life where you are a parent with a sick child and have no health insurance, you will never forget it as long as you live. I know because I have been there. When I was a law student with a little baby who was sick, I had no health insurance. I will never forget it as long as I live.

Why don't the Republicans hear the same message we hear? Why aren't they listening to these families and the struggles they are going through to keep their kids alive? And they come up with a repeal plan that is going to make it exceedingly difficult--in some cases impossible--to provide quality care to these kids and to people with preexisting conditions. That, to me, is not our responsibility.

I go to the conclusion of the Senator from New Hampshire, which I think is the right one. Is the Affordable Care Act perfect? No. It is one of the most important and I think the most giving bills I have ever voted for, but it is far from perfect. We should be sitting down with the other side of the aisle--Republicans and Democrats--not to repeal the Affordable Care Act but to make sure we make the repairs that make a difference.

Each one of us has a list of things we would like to see addressed. The cost of premiums are too high in the individual market. Let's address that directly, and we should. The fact that pharmaceutical drugs don't have any regulation or control in terms of pricing is just plain wrong. And third--I will just put on my agenda--I think every American should have the option of a public option plan like Medicare. You can decide if that is right for you or your family, but a not-for- profit plan based on Medicare should be available to every American no matter where you live. Those are the three things I would put on the table right away. To walk away from coverage for 23 million Americans and to endanger the coverage for those who remain with premiums they can't afford is hardly humane and hardly consistent with American values.

So I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her contribution in this. We have to get the message out.

If I may also say, I agree completely that discriminating against veterans should hardly be the starting point for the reform of our healthcare system.

I want to make this point because I know exactly what the first speech will be from the Republican side of the aisle. This point in the Congressional Budget Office affirms that under current law insurance marketplaces are stable. They are stable. That isn't what you will hear from the other side of the aisle. The other side of the aisle loves to use the phrase ``death spiral,'' that the current healthcare system in America is in a death spiral.

The only death spiral in the current healthcare system is brought on because the Republicans have their hands around the throat of that system and they are choking it. Their sabotage of our current healthcare system is the reason there is uncertainty in the insurance markets. The insurance companies told us that this week: We don't know where you are going in Washington. We don't know what the future will hold. We have an obligation to our shareholders and people who work for us to make sure we protect ourselves. So we are going to hold back in terms of commitment.

So to the Republicans I would say: This is no death spiral. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy to bring down our healthcare system, and shame on those who would do it at the expense of vulnerable populations across America.

I will mention one other group while the Senator from New Hampshire is on the floor. The Illinois Hospital Association roundly opposes this Republican TrumpCare bill. The reason they do is they say it endangers smalltown hospitals--and we have a lot of them in our State--and inner- city hospitals as well. I am sure that is the case in New Hampshire.

I am sure, in the Senator's State, like in our State of Illinois, there are larger cities with big hospitals that treat all kinds of cases, but were it not for that safety net of hospitals in small towns, these people living there would drive an extra 50 or 100 miles to get to a hospital and would see the loss of critical services for trauma and emergencies that currently exist with these smalltown hospitals.

According to the Illinois Hospital Association and others, the first casualties of the Republican repeal bill--the first casualties of TrumpCare--it is estimated in Illinois that we will lose 60,000 healthcare jobs at our hospitals because of the Republican approach. How important are these jobs? I will go out on a limb: In most communities, they are the best paying jobs in the community. The men and women who are the doctors and the nurses and the specialists who provide that basic care in these towns, sure, they get compensated better than most, but we want to compensate them and keep them there because without them, people don't have the basic health services they count on.

So from every perspective, whether it is the doctors, the nurses, the pediatricians, substance abuse treatment, hospitals and clinics, the Republican approach to repealing ObamaCare--repealing the Affordable Care Act--is devastating, and the Congressional Budget Office put it in writing today.

I might say, we should close by saying what is happening in the Senate after the House passed this terrible bill, which the Congressional Budget Office told us about. Well, we don't know. It is a mystery. We would have expected that someone in the Senate would have decided: Let's put a bill on the table, let's have an open public hearing, let's have a debate about where we go, and let's make a good, sound decision that is in the best interests of the American families. That is not the case at all.

Instead, the Republican leader in the Senate has chosen 12 or 13 men to sit in

a room outside of the view of the public and to craft an alternative to the terrible bill that passed the House. Nobody has seen it, nobody wants to talk about it. It has not been scored. It has not been debated. That is their idea of reforming healthcare in America. That is not going to work--at least not going to work for the best interests of the families I represent.

If we are going to come together on a bipartisan basis to repair and strengthen the Affordable Care Act, let's do it, but let's do it in the light of day, instead of hiding behind the doors of some room with 13 Senators who have been given this blessing, anointed, to try to come up with a new healthcare system for America. That, to me, is inconsistent with our responsibility--our public responsibility--when it comes to this critical issue.

So I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for her input on this. There will be more to be said.

I agree with that. Also, as the Senator from New Hampshire knows better than anybody, originally being a woman was a preexisting condition.

It would disqualify you or raise your premiums because you are a woman. We got rid of that gross discrimination against women when we did the Affordable Care Act. We shouldn't have a similar level of discrimination when it comes to writing any improvement in this Affordable Care Act.

This is a big enough Senate and a big enough place for us to all gather around the table and make sure we do this in the best interests of all Americans, regardless of gender, regardless of background, regardless of where you live. That is the way we should approach something as serious as an item that accounts for $1 of every $6 in the American economy--an item that is literally life and death for families all across Illinois, New Hampshire, and all across the United States.

The Congressional Budget Office said it all today. It is time for us to put Trump 2.0 to rest and try to come up with something which really is befitting this great Nation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge my friend, Mayor Daniel J. McLaughlin of the Village of Orland Park, in my home State of Illinois. There is no stronger advocate for the people of Orland Park than Dan McLaughlin. For more than three decades, he has served his community with distinction.

Dan began his service to Orland Park in 1983 as a village trustee. A decade later, he was elected mayor and would go on to serve for six terms. In 1995, Mayor McLaughlin created the Orland Park Open Lands program, which preserved nearly 300 acres of open space, two family farms, and created the village's nature center. In the same year, he completed the Orland Park Veterans Memorial. Each Memorial and Veterans Day, the village gathers at the memorial, Ara Pace--Place of Peace, at the Orland Park Village Center--and adds the names of veterans to the granite wall surrounding the memorial. It is a wonderful tribute that allows residents of Orland Park to thank those who bravely served our country.

During his tenure, Mayor McLaughlin also brought the community together through an increase in village sponsored events and outdoor concerts. He believed in fitness for fun, and his leadership helped save the Orland Park Health and Fitness Center, created Centennial Park West, and expanded the aquatic center, which now includes ice skating, sledding, a dog park, and bicycle paths.

His governing philosophy was simple, ``plan for people not cars.'' That vision led to a pedestrian-friendly center in the heart of downtown Orland Park in the historic 143rd train station, where people can come together to play and work. Throughout his career, Mayor McLaughlin grew Orland Park's economy by marketing the I-80 corridor, helping to bring in new businesses while retaining the ones already thriving in the village.

Mayor McLaughlin has been honored by numerous organizations, including the American Institute of Architects; Chaddick Institute; Chicago Magazine; Chicago Southland Convention & Visitors' Bureau; Congress of New Urbanism; Government Finance Officers Association; Home Builders Association of Greater Chicago; Illinois Arts Council; Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police; Metropolitan Mayors Caucus; Moraine Valley Community College; the Chicago Building Congress; the United States Conference of Mayors; and the United States Green Building Council--just to name a few.

I want to thank Mayor McLaughlin for his commitment to the people of Orland Park. I especially want to thank Dan's wife, Patricia McLaughlin, and four children--Bridget, Mary Kate, Dan, and Matt--for sharing so much of their husband and father with the Village of Orland Park. Now as he moves to the next chapter in his life, I wish him and his family all the best.

Mr. President, let me say at the outset that I offer my condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed or injured in last night's despicable attack at a concert in Manchester, England. Details are still coming in, but this looks like an act of terror in the heart of one of our key European allies. America is joining with the people of Great Britain in expressing our sorrow and sadness over the loss of these lives and the injuries that were sustained.

Mr. President, on a separate note, it has been more than 5 months since the intelligence agencies in the United States reached a solid consensus on a critical issue. The agencies presented to the American people 5 months ago their damning assessment that Russia actively tried to interfere in our last Presidential election to help elect someone they thought would be a better friend to the Russian interests.

I think it is important to recall some of the key findings by our own intelligence agencies on a virtually unanimous basis. They said:

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential

election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's

longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal

democratic order, but these activities demonstrate a

significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and

scope of effort compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an

influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential

election.

Our intelligence agencies went on to say:

Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S.

democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her

electability and potential presidency. We further assess that

Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference

for President-elect Trump.

Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered

campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election to future

influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies

and their election processes.

We have never seen anything like this in our history--nothing. What Vladimir Putin did--or tried to do--is staggering, momentous, and something we should not ignore. A foreign adversary intentionally manipulating America's democracy and election to try to get a result friendly to Russia but not consistent with American public opinion-- that was his goal.

The dictionary defines an act of war as ``an act of aggression by a country against another with which it is nominally at peace.''

Was the Russia attack on our election an act of war? Is sure seems close to the definition. At a minimum, it was an act of cyber war against America and an attack on our democracy. It should not go unanswered. Troublingly, there have been few answers forthcoming from this President and this Congress.

What did the White House and the majority party in Congress do to respond to this act of cyber war to protect against any future attacks? Virtually nothing. As more and more questions have emerged about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and these Russian actions against our election, possible Russian money, and the President's business interests, and troubling ties between those close to Trump and the Russians, this President has instead been trying to endear himself to the Russians, incredibly.

That is right. On May 10, he had a closed meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador in which the President reportedly boasted about sensitive intelligence and--this is truly incredible-- also boasted about firing our Nation's FBI Director to relieve the ``great pressure'' on him over the Russia investigation.

In fact, he reportedly told the Russians:

I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut

job . . . I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's

taken off . . . I'm not under investigation.

That is the end of the attributed quote to the President of the United States.

Let that sink in for a moment. The President of the United States was bragging to the same people who attacked our election and democracy that he had fired the top law enforcement officer investigating that attack. That is incredible, both for its obvious appearance of obstruction of justice but also for what should have so obviously been said in that meeting instead.

President Trump, instead of a frivolous exchange with a dictatorial regime that attacked our Nation, should have had as his first message to the Russians the obvious: Do not ever interfere in our elections or those of our allies again or you will face serious consequences--end of meeting.

Then the President should have come out and related this conversation to the American press and to the American people.

Instead, the President let the Russians bring their own official photographer from the TASS Soviet news agency into the Oval Office and--get this--excluded all of the American press--just the friendly Russian cameras. Then, the Russians gleefully sent out victory tweets of the President's warm and friendly greeting.

This is totally upside down. Yet it only gets worse. Stunningly, it was just revealed Monday night that President Trump asked two of the Nation's top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against the FBI investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and the Russian Government.

The Washington Post reported that President Trump made separate appeals to the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and the Director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Mike Rogers. Coats and Rogers both rightly refused to comply with President Trump's request, properly deemed as an inappropriate request from the President of the United States to leaders of our intelligence-gathering community. I applaud the respect of these two men for our democratic norms and system of government and the rejection of the President's reckless, selfish request.

This is breathtaking--an American President running from the Russians to our Nation's top law enforcement agency to our intelligence community, bizarrely pleading innocence on a matter of grave national security and trying to undermine ongoing investigations.

Former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith said Trump's deeply troubling effort is an echo of President Nixon's ``unsuccessful effort to use the CIA to shut down the FBI's investigation of the Watergate break-in on national security grounds'' and, in his words, these actions were ``an appalling abuse of power.''

I had argued that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should either appoint a special counsel to look at the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians or tender his resignation. I said this after he was set up by the Trump administration to write a memo explaining the firing of James Comey as Director of the FBI and giving as his reason to protect the honor and integrity of Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

That was a laughable assertion.

Rosenstein wrote it. For at least 24 hours, that was the official line from the Trump White House. Then, there was the Lester Holt interview on NBC, and the President came out and said: I wanted to get rid of him months ago; I wanted to put an end to this Russian thing.

I am pleased that Mr. Rosenstein made the right decision when he appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to fill the special counsel role.

Back in the year 2001, that ominous year of 9/11, I first met Robert Mueller. He was the Director of the FBI. We worked together on some important issues relative to the FBI. I came to respect him very much. He is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war, where he served as an officer in the Marine Corps, a former Federal judge, a man of the opposite political faith, but a man who clearly loves his country above party, whenever he is asked. He is a man who has not only risen to the challenge of public service but who has excelled to the point where his term as Director of the FBI was extended--a rarity around Washington and, certainly, on a bipartisan basis almost unthinkable these days. But it happened with Robert Mueller. It happened because he is smart, he is principled, and he loves his country, and we know it. I don't think Rod Rosenstein could have chosen a better person.

I don't know if I will ultimately agree with his investigation of this critical issue, but I will respect his findings, whatever they may be, because I know that they are heartfelt, sincere, and principled.

While this special counsel investigation will be critical, it is not a substitute, however, for continued congressional action, as well, as some have suggested or perhaps hoped. I know the Senate Intelligence Committee is actively pursuing this matter, and I salute them for that effort, but I think we need to think about more. We need to think about an independent commission--a bipartisan, transparent commission--to deal with policy questions. For instance, what are we going to face from the Russians in the next election? What did we learn in the last election to protect ourselves?

The special counsel is going to focus on whether crimes were committed, but I am deeply concerned that there may be matters related to Russia's attack that may not involve crimes themselves but should be made public to the American people. It is Congress's responsibility, just as it was after the September 11 tragedy, to make sure the American people know as much as possible in a democracy. That is how it works.

Former Watergate investigator Scott Armstrong made this point in an op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. He pointed out how a select congressional committee and a special prosecutor overcame partisan and jurisdictional conflicts to get to the truth during Watergate. He noted:

A mature special prosecutor and a well-led congressional

inquiry can coordinate over issues like witness immunity.

Congress can creatively expand its witness list beyond

prosecution targets and fill in critical details from

satellite witnesses . . . If the committee is aggressive and

truly bipartisan, it can not only educate and reassure the

public, but also legislate solutions to prevent future

abuses.

There are a lot of parallels between the Watergate era and what we face today, but, sadly, one major difference from the Nixon era to the Trump era is the willingness of members of the President's own party to stand up and speak out.

Back in Nixon's day, there came a moment when a handful of Senators from this Chamber changed history, and one of them was Barry Goldwater. He met with President Nixon and he said: There are only so many lies you can take, and now there has been one too many.

Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania joined him, as well as another Republican--John Rhodes, a Republican leader in the House. They made it clear to President Nixon that what he had done was unacceptable by any standard and they would no longer stand by him. It took courage for them to do that. The President saw the writing on the wall, and he resigned.

We are looking for similar leadership today from both sides of the aisle--not just Democrats but Republicans as well--to stand up and defend our democracy from Putin's interference.

There have been months of relative inaction. It is clear that the President is not going to stand up to Russia. It is time for all of us--Democrats and Republicans in Congress--to act for the good of this Nation and get to the truth of what happened and make sure Russia can never do this to our democracy again.

Mr. President, the Trump administration released its fiscal year 2018 budget this morning. For all the talk on the campaign trail of standing up for the forgotten Americans in this country, the President's budget takes aim at the exact programs that many rely on. From healthcare and food stamps to student loans and disability, President Trump's budget is nothing less than an assault on seniors, low-income Americans, children, and the disabled.

The President's budget calls for more than $3.6 trillion in cuts to Federal spending over the next 10 years, with more than $1 trillion of these cuts coming from some of the most vital programs in our Nation's social safety net. Nothing is more essential to our Nation's low- income, disabled, and elderly Americans than Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP. But the President's budget slashes more than $600 billion from Medicaid, despite the President's repeated promises on the campaign trail to protect the program. More than 3 million people in my State--20 percent of the people who live there--currently depend on the Medicaid Program for healthcare, including 1.5 million children and more than 300,000 seniors and disabled people.

The budget cuts $193 billion from SNAP by making it harder for people to qualify for this assistance in putting food on the table. Forty-four million children, disabled, and low-income people around the country accessed food through the SNAP program last year.

Also weakened in the President's budget is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant that helps States provide financial assistance to families who are literally struggling to survive. And the budget cuts about 20 percent of funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, providing health insurance for poor children. Isn't that incredible? The President doesn't believe that is a priority-- health insurance for poor children.

It is often said that the President's budget reflects our values, and this budget shows that President Trump clearly values tax cuts for the upper income individuals in America over the lives of poor and middle- class Americans.

The President's budget also includes historic cuts in nondefense discretionary spending. Over the next 10 years, President Trump proposes to cut domestic spending so significantly that spending on defense would exceed spending on domestic priorities by almost $300 billion. To pay for an increase in defense spending and to build his big, beautiful wall, the President would slash funding from programs essential to hard-working Americans--programs that support affordable housing, home heating bills, Meals on Wheels, student loans, clean drinking water, preserving the Great Lakes, early childhood education, and infrastructure.

Even medical research is on the Trump chopping block. President Trump has proposed cutting one-fifth of the budget for the National Institutes of Health, including $1 billion from the National Cancer Institute. President Obama, with Vice President Biden, with strong bipartisan support, put together a moonshot--a Cancer Moonshot--to do something significant in cancer research. President Trump's budget virtually eliminates it.

NIH has helped cut U.S. cancer death rates by 11 percent in women and 19 percent in men. It has helped ensure HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence. It contributed to the near eradication of polio and smallpox, but make no mistake, these changes didn't just happen. They occurred because of sustained Federal investment in medical research.

I salute my colleague on the other side of the aisle, Roy Blunt, the Appropriations subcommittee chair when it comes to NIH. For 2 straight years now, 2 fiscal years, he has given more than 5 percent real growth in NIH spending. I have praised him on the floor and back home and publicly over and over again. That Republican Senator, and many Democratic Senators, stood together because we believe in medical research. The Trump budget does not.

We cannot afford these devastating cuts, and we can't afford to sit on our hands and face the millions of families across America who count on us to have the right priorities. Clearly, the President's budget is far from a new foundation for American greatness. This budget would have a devastating impact on Americans most in need of a helping hand, on everything from healthcare to food access, to quality education and affordable housing.

They always say the President's budget is dead on arrival. This budget, I hope, will be dead on arrival. It doesn't deserve the light of day or a breath of life.

We need to come together, as we did in this year's budget, on a bipartisan basis, order the priorities that America sent us to prioritize, and then work together to pass it. I hope it is done on a bipartisan basis. That is what America wants, both parties to work together. We can do it. We did it for this fiscal year. We can do it for the next, but our first step in reaching an agreement is to make sure there is a sound rejection of President Trump's budget. His budget will not make America great again.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to thank Reverend Dennis H. Holtscheider for all he has done to bring educational excellence to our State.

After nearly 13 years as president of DePaul University, the largest Catholic university in the country, Father Holtschneider will be retiring later this summer. He originally planned on stepping down in 2019 at the end of his contract, but always putting DePaul first, he decided that wouldn't fit with the university's planning cycle. After leading the university through two successful strategic plans, he said, ``It's best for DePaul if I step aside in the summer of 2017 so that a new leader can assist the institution to name and ambitiously pursue its next set of strategic objectives.'' What a class act. It is no surprise, for more than a decade, Reverend Holtschneider has put DePaul University first.

During Father Holtschneider's tenure, U.S. News and World Report recognized DePaul University as among the country's ``Most Innovative Universities.'' While many colleges and universities shift their missions over the years, Reverend Holtschneider has always remained committed to DePaul University's founding principles--a devotion to first generation students. He has raised about $460 million in philanthropic support for this noble cause, including $333 million for the ``Many Dreams, One Mission'' campaign to ensure access to high quality education for future generations of DePaul students.

Born in Detroit, Father Holtschneider graduated from Niagara University with a bachelor's degree in mathematics, studied for the priesthood at Mary Immaculate Seminary, and also received a doctorate in higher education administration from Harvard University. Prior to joining DePaul University, Father Holtscheider served as executive vice president and chief operating officer of his alma mater, Niagara University. He also was the director and rector of Vincentian College Seminary and has been a faculty member in the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Since 2014, Father Holtschneider has chaired the board of Ascension, the Nation's largest Catholic and nonprofit health system, but will be stepping down to become executive vice president and chief operating officer later this summer.

Father Holtschneider has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the ACE Council of Fellows Mentor Award for his work preparing the next generation of academic leaders in higher education. He has been listed on the Diversity MBA Magazine's Top 100 and Under 50 Diverse Executive Leaders. I especially want to thank Father Holtschneider for his leadership on comprehensive immigration reform, which was honored by the Archdiocese of Chicago with its ``Strangers No Longer Award.''

I congratulate Reverend Holtschneider on his many accomplishments throughout his long and distinguished career. I thank him for always being a trustworthy counselor and personal friend. I thank him for his service and wish him all the best as he begins the next chapter in his life. Those of us who have worked with him over the years know he will bring that same sense of professionalism and dedication to the field of healthcare at Ascension.

Thank you.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)