Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 203 on the nomination of William Emanuel to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall

vote No. 200, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Noel J. Francisco, of the District of Columbia, to be Solicitor General of the United States. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 201, on the nomination of Noel J. Francisco, of the District of Columbia, to be Solicitor General of the United States. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 202, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of William J. Emanuel, of California, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 198, the motion to invoke cloture on H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 199, passage of H.R. 2810, as amended, the National Defense Authorization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 197, the motion to invoke cloture on McCain-Reed amendment No. 1003, as modified, the substitute to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 195, the motion to table Paul amendment No. 871 to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 194 on the nomination of Kevin Allen Hassett, of Massachusetts, to be Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 193, the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavailable for rollcall vote No. 188 on the nomination of Timothy Kelly, of the District of Columbia, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 189, the motion to table Paul motion to refer H.R. 601, the Emergency Supplemental Continuing Resolution and Debt Limit Act, with instructions. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 190, the motion to table the motion to refer H.R. 601 to committee with instructions to report back without any provision that was not contained in the House message accompanying the bill H.R. 601. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 191, the motion to invoke cloture on the House message to accompany H.R. 601, with further amendment--emergency aid, debt limit, CR. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 192, the motion to concur in the House amendment to H.R. 601 with further amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate advanced H.R. 2430, the FDA Reauthorization Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation ensures Americans will continue to have access to safe medications and the FDA has the tools they need to continue our Nation's approval process remains the gold standard. I am also pleased to see tropical disease priority review voucher state that a sponsor qualifies for a neglected tropical disease priority review voucher under existing law until September 30, 2017, so long as they submit at least one portion of a human drug application by that date.

I would like to ask Senator Isakson if it is our intention to allow for sponsors who have been working in good faith with the Food and Drug Administration on a human drug application for a product that addresses a neglected tropical disease to qualify for a priority review voucher, as long as they begin a rolling submission to the agency by September 30, 2017?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Isakson, for clarifying the language. It is important to provide this clarity to ensure products, for which at least one portion of the application is submitted in accordance with Section 506(d) of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act by September 30, 2017, qualify for the vouchers under current law.

Mr. President, let me thank the ranking member for his kind comments. I thank the chairman for his continuous engagement in this regard and his leadership.

I remind my colleagues that what gave us the vehicle to consider Russia and North Korea was the countering Iran act that I was pleased to author with the chairman and with the ranking member and other colleagues in a bipartisan approach.

When we started on Iran, there were those who wanted to look only at its intercontinental ballistic missile violations. I and others persisted and said: Wait a minute. Iran is far more nefarious in its activities--beyond intercontinental ballistic missiles.

It is collective leadership that brought us to a much broader bill that we are about to vote on today, where Iran is being pursued for the violation of its international order.

We just had the Prime Minister of Lebanon here, and he was saying to us: If you are concerned about Hezbollah, then find where the source of the

money is. The source of money for Hezbollah is Iran. If you are concerned about intercontinental ballistic missiles, I would add, it is Iran. If you are concerned about the greatest exporter of terrorism, it is Iran. If you are concerned about human rights violations within Iran, it is the leadership of Iran.

This is about sending a message to Iran that, in fact, when you violate the international order, there are consequences to it. It is about sending a message to Russia that when you violate the international order, annex Crimea, invade Ukraine, indiscriminately bomb civilians in Syria--and then when you try to affect the elections of the United States of America, you have a cyber attack, from my view, on the election process.

We can debate whether it affected the election. That is not the issue. The mere fact that Russia tried to affect our elections should be upsetting from the average citizen to the President of the United States. We have an opportunity to make very clear to Russia and to any other nation that this will not be tolerated.

Finally, to North Korea: North Korea's dangerous provocations in its path to nuclear weapons and a delivery system to be able to deliver those nuclear weapons are some of the greatest challenges we have.

We have an opportunity to come here today and say: You have to observe the international order. We have to go back to the basis of the rules that ultimately came about after our leadership in World War II to preserve the international order that has brought us peace and prosperity.

There are only a handful of peaceful diplomacy tools you can pursue. One of them is the use of sanctions in order to try to prod countries to move in a certain direction and to observe the international order. That is our opportunity today with Iran, with Russia, with North Korea. I hope we will seize it unanimously because when we do that, we send the most powerful message in the world that the United States-- Democrats, Republicans, Independents--stand together in terms of defending the national interests and security of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committe on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that prohibit eliminating or reducing funding to States unless the Congressional Budget Office certifies that such changes will not increase the number of uninsured Americans, decrease Medicaid enrollment in Medicaid expansion States, reduce the likelihood nonexpansion States will expand, or increase the State share of Medicaid spending.

I am offering this motion to ensure individuals who gained coverage due to the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion do not lose their coverage and States that expanded Medicaid are not penalized by this bill.

The following Senators support my motion to commit: Durbin, Heinrich, Udall, Booker, Shaheen, and Blumenthal.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, ensure that the bill shall not take effect until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies under oath, with standing given to each State attorney general for any charges of perjury, that no individual with a preexisting condition will be unable to receive the necessary medications to sustain their life, limbs, eyesight, or other necessary healthcare and medications for the preexisting condition due to a State cutting essential health benefits, minimum services, or necessary medication from the insurance plans offered through their exchanges. I am offering this motion because individuals with preexisting condition must not lose access to the medications they need to manage their conditions and live full, productive lives.

The following Senators support my motion to commit: Shaheen and Blumenthal.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with Instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, add automatic sunset to the bill and reinstate the Affordable Care Act if the uninsured rate increases 10 percent as compared to the rate at the beginning of fiscal year 2017. I am offering this motion because any bill that increases the uninsured rate is a giant step backward.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, add an automatic sunset to the bill and reinstate the Affordable Care Act if the uninsured rate increases 20 percent as compared to the rate at the beginning of fiscal year 2017. I am offering this motion because any bill that increases the uninsured rate is a giant step backward.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, ensure that the bill shall not take effect until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies under oath, with standing given to each State attorney general for any charges of perjury, that no domestic violence victim will have less coverage for any condition arising from the abuse than they have under current law. I am offering this motion because survivors of domestic or sexual abuse must receive the care they need to deal with their past trauma.

The following Senator supports my motion to commit: Blumenthal.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, add an automatic sunset to the bill and reinstate the Affordable Care Act if, (A), premiums increase by more than 10 percent for the average senior aged 50 to 64 within any 365-day period in the next 10 years; or, B, out-of- pocket costs increase by more than 10 percent for the average senior aged 50 to 64 within any 365-day period in the next 10 years. I am offering this motion to provide relief for older Americans who will be harmed by harmful provisions in this bill.

The following Senator supports my motion to commit: Shaheen.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, ensure that the procedure for distribution of funds from the State Stability and Innovation Program also factor in the number of uninsured in the State when reviewing the cost of premiums in the State as compared to the national average and prioritize States with a larger number of uninsured.

I am offering this motion to ensure States with higher populations receive their fair share of the funds.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the

same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, ensure that no State can deny a woman who becomes pregnant Medicaid coverage regardless of income. I am offering this motion because all women deserve access to maternity care and we know a healthy pregnancy will help ensure a healthy baby.

The following Senators support my motion to commit: Shaheen and Blumenthal.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, ensure that there is not a disproportionate impact on women and minorities from reductions in Medicaid funding.

I am offering this motion because these healthcare repeal bills have one thing in common: the changes proposed will disproportionately harm women and minorities.

The following Senators support my motion to commit: Shaheen and Blumenthal.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; No. 2, strike section provision amending Section 2701(a)(l)(a)(iii) of the Public Health Service Act; and No. 3, preserve the existing permissible age variation in health insurance premium rates under the Affordable Care Act. I am offering this motion this change in permissible age variation will harm older Americans.

The following Senator supports my motion to commit: Shaheen.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, ensure that the bill will not take effect until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies under oath--with standing given to each State attorney general to bring perjury charges--that no individual with autism or any caretaker of an individual with autism will have higher out-of-pocket costs as compared to average costs for similarly situated individuals in fiscal year 2017. I am offering this motion because individuals with autism and their caretakers face high costs of medical care and any legislation increasing those costs will prove burdensome for American families.

The following Senator supports my motion to commit: Booker.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, eliminate provision that would harm children by reducing their access to affordable healthcare or limiting coverage or benefits under Medicaid.

The following Senators support my motion to commit: Booker, Baldwin, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Leahy, Brown, Peters, Van Hollen, Harris, Franken, Feinstein, Udall, Coons, Carper, Reed, Duckworth, Durbin, Gillibrand, Stabenow, Wyden, Hirono, Cardin, Casey, Bennet, Warren, Heinrich, Nelson, and Shaheen.

I am offering the motion to protect American children from being harmed by the upheaval that will result in insurance markets from this bill becoming law.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that No. 1, are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and No. 2, ensure that States cannot waive essential health benefits for individuals with autism.

I am offering this motion because individuals with autism should not lose access to these critical health insurance benefits.

The following Senator supports my motion to commit: Booker.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the legacy of a great New Jerseyan upon her retirement from a 40-year teaching career. As Mary Jo Codey wraps up her final school year at Gregory Elementary, a public school in West Orange, NJ, we congratulate her on a long and fruitful career inspiring and educating our children while putting them on the path to success. Even as the first lady of New Jersey under the administration of her husband, Richard Codey, Mary Jo refused to leave the children she loved so much, saying, ``When asked if I would resign my teaching responsibilities during my tenure as the First Lady, my response was consistently `no.' Teaching was and is my passion!'' Her dedication and service to her students and to her State will not soon be forgotten.

While teaching may have been Mary Jo's first passion, her drive to make life better for children and families extends well beyond the classroom. I have been honored over the years to work closely with Mary Jo on an issue near and dear to her heart. Ten to 20 percent of women across America are suffering from postpartum depression, and after the birth of her first son in 1984, Mary Jo was one of them. Then, after the birth of her second son, her depression returned, but this time she was able to recognize it and seek treatment for it. Instead of hiding her illness or being ashamed of it, Mary Jo's personal struggle became the motivation for her to raise awareness for postpartum depression and work tirelessly to improve diagnostic and treatment options on the State and Federal level.

Thanks to her leadership, New Jersey became the first State to provide resources to ensure that uninsured mothers can receive postpartum depression screening and treatment. I am proud to say that Mary Jo and I worked together to pass the Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom's Opportunity To Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act, or MOTHERS Act, as part of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. This legislation encourages better education, support services, and research for postpartum depression, and we owe its passage largely to advocates like Mary Jo Codey. Now, we still have a long way to go to ensure that postpartum depression and other aspects of maternal mental health are given the awareness and resources that they deserve. However, even as she closes the book on her teaching career, I know that Mary Jo's work is far from over, and she will not rest until we reach our goal. Whether it is her advocacy on behalf of postpartum depression or breast cancer, of which she is a survivor, her commitment to improving the lives of children, mothers, and families is unwavering.

With that, I look forward to continuing to work with Mary Jo in the coming years, thank her for her incredible service to New Jersey and all of us, and congratulate her on her retirement.

Mr. President, I do.

Mr. President, call me old-fashioned, but as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I still believe the legislative process matters, especially when you are dealing with matters of life and death, like healthcare.

In 2009 and 2010, we had a painstakingly open, deliberative process while drafting our healthcare reform bill.

In the Senate Finance Committee alone, we held 53 hearings, roundtables, and meetings, consulting with patients, advocates, doctors, and industry leaders.

Only after months of bipartisan negotiations and marathon markups did we bring the healthcare bill to the floor, and when we did, we spent 25 days debating it in full view of the American

people. That is how we passed a law that protected Americans with preexisting conditions. That is how we stopped health insurance companies from dropping consumers the moment they got sick. That is how we passed a law that delivered coverage to 9 out of 10 Americans for the first time in history.

Because when you have an open, deliberative, bipartisan process, you can deliver real progress to millions of Americans. But when you have an ugly, partisan, backroom process, you get an ugly, partisan bill. And that is what we have with the Senate Republican healthcare bill.

It is an ugly bill, born out of an ugly process with ugly consequences for the American people.

And you don't have to take my word for it. Just last night, the CBO confirmed that the Republican health bill will leave 15 million more Americans uninsured next year--and 22 million uninsured by 2026.

And mind you, this is the plan that Republicans promised would be so much better than the unpopular, disastrous legislation passed by House Republicans earlier this year.

Well, if Trump thought the House healthcare bill was mean, then the Senate Republican plan is downright nasty.

It is really quite simple. Republicans want to give the 400 wealthiest families in America--the Warren Buffets and Donald Trumps of our society--a huge tax cut they do not need, paid for by taking healthcare away from those who need it the most.

For years, Republicans railed against the Affordable Care Act, and pledged they would repeal and replace it with something better. But under the plan they put out last week, the only people who are better off are millionaires and health insurance company executives.

Across the board, Americans will pay the price. They will pay higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket cost, higher deductibles--all for less comprehensive coverage. That is because the GOP plan still rolls back key consumer safeguards, like protection from lifetime limits and coverage for preexisting conditions.

It still ends the Affordable Care Act's Federal guarantee that every health plan cover essential health benefits, like prescription drugs, prenatal care, hospital stays, and more. It still defunds Planned Parenthood and saddles women with higher costs. It still imposes a crushing age tax on middle-aged Americans.

My Republican colleagues like to say that this bill gives Americans more choice over their healthcare. But I have heard from countless New Jerseyans in recent weeks who know that under the Republican health plan, they will have no choice but to go uninsured.

I have heard from older workers, like Howard in Park Ridge, NJ.

He writes: Without subsidies provided under the ACA, my 51-year-old wife and I would have no insurance. We could not afford premiums in excess of $1100 a month. . . . Without these subsidies millions will go uninsured and many of these people, myself included, will die.

If all the choices Republicans provide workers like Howard are unaffordable, what good are they? That is not choice. That is a death sentence.

Or consider the half a million low-income New Jerseyans who secured coverage thanks to the ACA's Medicaid expansion.

My Republican colleagues call them ``able-bodied adults.'' But they aren't able to even afford a trip to the doctor under this bill. Many of them have low-wage jobs that don't come with health benefits-- dishwashers, cashiers, home health aides. These are the people I grew up with in Union City. These are the people abandoned by the Republicans' heartless healthcare plan--people like Alton Robinson of Morris County. He credits Medicaid expansion with saving his life.

Alton struggled with addiction for nearly two decades. Medicaid enabled him to get substance abuse treatment and the physical and mental healthcare.

Today, Alton is clean. His life is on track. And he spends his working days helping other New Jerseyans get on the path to recovery.

Republicans' cruel bill leaves millions of people who rely on Medicaid expansion with no options at all. And for what? To give health insurance executives, real estate moguls, and hedge fund managers a massive tax cut they don't need?

According to New Jersey Policy Perspective, a handful of New Jersey millionaires and corporations get a $15 billion tax cut under this terrible Republican health plan, while over half a million people lose their coverage.

And, of course, this legislation goes far beyond ending Medicaid expansion. It ends Medicaid as we know it.

Their plan fulfills a decades-old right-wing mission to shred the social safety net--forcing the most vulnerable among us to pay for tax cuts for the richest among us.

It has nothing to do with giving States more choice over how to run Medicaid. Because when you slash Medicaid by nearly $800 billion, you leave States with no choice but to provide less care. When you cut Medicaid funding by $60 billion in New Jersey, you leave the State with no choice but to abandon the most vulnerable--people like Leandra, the 13-year-old girl I met last week in Newark. She suffers from a rare muscle disease that leaves her confined to a wheelchair, too weak to walk and in extraordinary pain. She takes 18 medications each day. She has survived 19 surgeries.

Leandra can't speak out against this horrible, cruel Republican healthcare bill that would jeopardize her life. But we can. And we must continue to be Leandra's voice until Republicans finally hear her.

That is the kind of process we need when we talk about healthcare--a process that gives voice to the voiceless.

So today I say to Americans everywhere: don't sit on the sidelines. Don't be silenced. Make your voices heard. Tell Republicans what this heartless healthcare plan means for your families and your future.

Mr. President, I have a group of Nordic Parliamentarians I am hosting in a few minutes. Let me say that I join my Senate Finance Committee colleagues in this effort because I still think the legislative process matters, especially when dealing with matters of life and death like healthcare.

To reiterate, in 2009 and 2010, we had a painstakingly open, deliberative process while drafting our healthcare reform bill. In the Senate Finance Committee alone, we held 53 hearings, roundtables, meetings, consulted with patients, advocates, doctors, industry leaders, and only after months of bipartisan negotiations and marathon markups did we bring the healthcare bill to the floor. And when we did, we spent 25 days debating it in full view of the American people. That is how we passed a law that protected Americans with preexisting conditions. That is how we stopped health insurance companies from dropping consumers the moment they got sick. That is how we passed the law that delivered coverage to 9 out of 10 Americans for the first time in history.

When you have an open, deliberative, bipartisan process, you can deliver real progress to millions of Americans, but when you have a backroom, partisan process, you get an ugly, partisan bill, and that is what we have with the Senate Republican healthcare bill. It is an ugly bill in terms of what it does to people, it is born of an ugly process, and it has ugly consequences for the American people.

Just last night, as we all heard, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan scoring division for all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, said 22 million people will lose their health insurance and 15 million next year if the law were to pass.

Mind you, this was a law that was supposed to be better than the House Republican version. Well, that bill was mean, this bill is downright nasty. It takes healthcare away from those who most need it, only to give tax cuts to the Warren Buffetts and Donald Trumps of the world, who, fortunately for them, don't need it.

It is amazing to me that for years I have heard my Republican colleagues rail against the Affordable Care Act--or as they call it, ObamaCare--and pledge to repeal it and replace it with something better. They had 7 years to come together and decide what that would be, and then, on a plan that was put out only late last week, we see the consequences of something that was rushed together by 13 men, no women, and nobody creating the diversity of America that relates to their

healthcare. That is fundamentally wrong, and I am not surprised that many of my Republican colleagues revolted against it--at least at this point. The question is whether they will continue to demand of their party and of all of us the type of healthcare that we want to see for each American, because under the plan as it was proposed, Americans will pay higher premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs, higher deductibles, all for less comprehensive coverage--pay more for less.

It rolls back key consumer safeguards. There is a difference between a guarantee--when we hear the word ``entitlement,'' we are really talking about a guarantee against lifetime limits. You have a serious disease, and you come up to that cap in your insurance. You still have the disease, you still have cancer, you are still treating it, you are still fighting it, you are trying to save your life, but you don't have any more money because there is no more insurance coverage. We eliminated that under the law. There is no guarantee of continuing that safety under the Republican bill.

There is no guarantee that when you give States waivers, the way in which they treat those waivers--that you truly have a guarantee against preexisting conditions being a prohibition to getting healthcare.

Finally, if you are middle class and middle aged, this bill gives you nothing. Nothing. If you are an older American, it costs you enormously.

Let me make my final point about Medicaid. Look, I am tired of hearing about Medicaid being only about the poor, as if the poor don't deserve health insurance. They certainly do. But Medicaid is about a lot more than the poor. In my home State of New Jersey, 60 percent of recipients are either seniors or those who are disabled. They didn't choose to be disabled; they either were born with or developed a disability. They deserve the full potential of their God-given potential, as anybody else does. Medicaid provides them healthcare so they can be a successful part of our society. Medicaid provides seniors with dignity in the twilight of their lives. Medicaid provides for pregnant mothers who may not have insurance elsewhere. Medicaid takes care of special education children in our schools. And, yes, Medicaid takes care of the poor.

Medicaid expansion helps those who go to work in some of the toughest jobs in my State and in our country. They have the dignity of having healthcare and being able to stay healthy so they can work. We want them to work. Yet we take away the healthcare that is the very essence of what keeps them healthy so they can work. That is not the America I know. That is not the healthcare that was promised.

We can do better, and we can do better together. What we need to do is get over the mantra of, let's just repeal the Affordable Care Act instead of improve it. If you want to improve it and improve the healthcare of Americans, you are going to find a lot of Democrats ready to do that, myself included.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor, like many of my colleagues, shocked at the Republican majority's brazen, secretive effort to hijack the legislative process and pass a bill that would hurt millions of Americans.

I have served in public office for more than four decades, and never once in my 45 years as a mayor, a State legislator, a Congressman, or a Senator has it been so hard to understand the motivations of an opposing party. What kind of problems are Republicans trying to solve with legislation that raises premiums, reduces coverage, decimates Medicaid, and increases costs for everyone? Certainly not any of the concerns I have heard in New Jersey. Never has someone come up to me at the local diner to say that their premiums are too low or that Medicaid covers too many children or that cancer patients don't pay enough out of pocket.

There is only one place in America where these bad ideas have any traction, and that is behind closed doors in Washington, where 13 Republican men are working on a secret bill to take healthcare away from millions of people and raise costs on millions and millions more. They want no transparency, no bipartisan input, no hearings.

Those are the same Republicans who in 2009 and 2010 accused Democrats of ramming healthcare reform through Congress too quickly. In fact, it was the majority leader who said at the time: ``This massive piece of legislation that seeks to restructure one-sixth of our economy is being written behind closed doors without input from anyone.'' Even the Vice President--a Congressman at the time--said it is ``wrong for legislation that'll affect 100 percent of the American people to be negotiated behind closed doors.'' Mind you, all of these complaints came during what was a far more open, transparent process.

I sit on the Senate Finance Committee. I remember the process quite well. I remember our chairman at the time, Senator Baucus, bending over backward to get Republican input. We held 53 meetings--hearings, roundtables, briefings, and negotiations--on healthcare reform. Afterward, we held the longest Finance Committee markup in over 20 years--a markup that led to the adoption of nearly a dozen Republican amendments, on top of the two dozen amendments we accepted before the markup began.

Democrats also made huge bipartisan overtures on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. They, too, held a transparent process and adopted over 160 Republican amendments--160 Republican amendments.

Then and only then did we bring the bill to the floor of the Senate, and when we did, we spent 25 consecutive days in session debating the bill on the Senate floor in front of the American people.

In short, Democrats spent months making compromise after compromise in the hopes of getting Republicans on board, only to learn that they never had any intention of working with us at all. They never cared about expanding access to care or reducing prescription drug costs for seniors or making insurance affordable. They didn't work with us then, and they certainly are not working with us now.

Behind closed doors, 13 Republican men are debating just how many millions of Americans will lose their coverage under this bill. Is it 23 million? Is it 20 million? Is it 16 million? Behind closed doors, they are discussing just how high the age tax should be on middle-aged workers. Is it $8,000 a year or $10,000 a year or $12,000 a year?

Behind closed doors, they are picking and choosing which consumer protections to gut. Should they bring back lifetime limits on coverage, which is a real problem if you have a serious disease? Before, there were lifetime limits. So you had coverage, and then all of a sudden, you hit that ceiling. If you had challenges, for example, with cancer, and you expended all of your coverage, you still had an illness that needed to be treated. Now you were one illness away from bankruptcy.

Would you let patients with preexisting conditions sink or swim in high-risk pools, allowing insurers to once again charge women more than men simply because they are women? Same age, same bracket, same geography.

It is easy to see why Republicans want to keep this bill out of the public eye. If it is anything like the House version passed earlier this year, it is going to be a terrible, mean-spirited bill--a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would take insurance away from 23 million people. It would raise premiums by 20 percent a year and price middle-aged consumers out of the market. It is a bill that, according to reports, even President Trump said is too mean. I have to tell you something. If a bill is too mean for President Trump, it is certainly too mean for New Jersey.

Today, I understand that a comment was attributed to the President. He was meeting with a group of business leaders. He says he wants a health bill with heart--with heart. I can tell you, it is not this bill because the House bill--and, from what I am hearing, behind closed doors, the potential Senate bill--is a heartless bill.

I am not the only one with that view. I was glad that most of my New Jersey colleagues in the House of Representatives rejected this bill in a bipartisan way. Indeed, every House Democrat and nearly every House Republican in our delegation understood why this bill would devastate New Jersey.

This bill will price thousands of New Jerseyans out of the private health insurance market, especially those nearing retirement age. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for a 60-year-old worker who earns $20,000 a year in Monmouth County will see their premiums increase by 900 percent--900 percent. That is an increase of nearly $9,000.

Every day, New Jerseyans are reaching out to tell me what is at stake in this debate and what this secretive effort will mean for their health and their financial security. Take Dr. Howard Fredrics, a 54- year-old constituent from Park Ridge who emailed to say:

Without subsidies provided under the ACA, my 51-year-old

wife and I would have no insurance. . . . We could not afford

premiums in excess of $1100 a month. . . . Without these

subsidies, millions will go uninsured and many of these

people, myself included, will die.

Of course, my Republican colleagues like to say their plan will give Americans more choice. We don't know what the plan is, but they keep saying--at least the House plan--we are going to give Americans more choice. But if all the choices are unaffordable, what good are they? What good is it to have ``more choices'' if you can't afford any of the choices?

If they provide significantly less coverage, what good is it to say I have insurance when the moment I get sick, I don't have the coverage for it? So I have been paying for a policy that doesn't really help me at the moment I need it.

They also say their plan will give States more choice on how to run Medicaid. When you cut Medicaid by $800 billion, you leave States no choice but to scale back the health services they provide. That is not choice. That is not choice.

Leaving nursing home patients out in the cold, ending respite care for children with disabilities, denying low-income children a fair shot of the American dream--that is not choice.

New Jersey alone will face $30 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade--cuts that will not only leave thousands of families uninsured but, according to the Milken Institute, will cost New Jerseyans more than 41,000 jobs. It is no wonder Senate Republicans are terrified of having to defend this bill. It is a terrible, mean bill, and they don't have the guts to tell the American people what is in it, even though they want to pass it next week. If only they had the courage that so many New Jerseyans have shown me in recent weeks as I have toured our State--hard-working Americans who have been willing to share their personal healthcare stories.

It is not easy to share a serious illness you have with everybody in the world, but so compelled are they and so courageous, I would add, that they do. People like Irma Rivera, a constituent I recently met in Jersey City, told me about her battle with uterine cancer nearly a decade ago. She was fortunate to survive, but without the Affordable Care Act, she would be blacklisted by health insurance companies for the rest of her life, simply because she is a survivor of that cancer. Today Irma is covered and receiving world-class care.

I also met with Samantha Williams, a young mother in Burlington City. She told me about her son's brush with a life-threatening asthma attack. They were uninsured so they avoided going to the emergency room, as so many people do. The illness gets worse and worse, more consequential to your life, more consequential to the cost, but eventually his breathing got so bad, she had no choice. The doctor said if they had waited any longer, her son might have never made it. She credits Medicaid with saving his life.

I also want to know how my Republican colleagues can reconcile their concern with the opioid epidemic with their plan to end the Medicaid expansion that is saving so many lives. Just yesterday, I received an email from Irene in Oakhurst, NJ. She writes:

My daughter is a recovering drug addict on the Medicaid

program which pays for mental health care and services. . . .

She's part of the opioid epidemic that has taken the lives of

so many young people like her. She's been drug free for

almost a year. Taking money from this program would be

disastrous not only for her but for so many people who cannot

afford any other healthcare.

So I listen to those compelling stories. They are courageous to tell their stories to the whole world--very personal stories. Yet there isn't the courage here to come forth with a bill and let's debate it open, in public. This bill leaves millions of low-income Americans who depend on Medicaid expansion with no options at all. And for what? To give insurance health executives, real estate moguls, and hedge fund managers a massive tax cut they don't need. If there was ever such a thing as class warfare, this is it.

In my home State of New Jersey, 250 millionaires are slated to get a collective tax cut of $14 million. You heard it right--250 millionaires get a tax cut, while over half a million New Jerseyans lose their healthcare coverage. That is a pretty awesome thought--an incredible thought. It is totally mean-spirited. It is certainly without heart. Many of them are people who work in some of the toughest jobs, but they don't get healthcare benefits at the job where they work, from dishwashers and cashiers and home health aides, just to mention a few. These were my neighbors growing up in the tenement in Union City-- people who worked tirelessly to give their children a better life and so often put their own health on the back burner.

Many of us thought the cruel legislation Republicans passed through the House would be dead on arrival in the Senate. Instead, an incredibly unpopular bill has a new lease on life. Why? Because padding the pockets of the health insurance industry, capping Medicaid spending, and cutting taxes for millionaires have been at the top of Republican wish lists for years.

The notion that the GOP can pass this secret bill with no debate is insulting to our democracy, and the idea that they can dismantle this historic law without hurting millions of people is just not true because, make no mistake, when you take $800 billion out of Medicaid, everyone feels the pain. When you add 23 million people to the ranks of the uninsured, everyone feels the pain. When you send more people back to the emergency room as their way of getting healthcare, saddle consumers with higher out-of-pocket costs, and end protections against insurance company abuses for patients, everyone feels the pain.

What really boggles my mind--what I just can't understand is, there is no shortage of problems in our healthcare system--real problems that need real solutions. Ask anyone, and I mean anyone, about our healthcare system. I will guarantee you will get an earful about what is wrong with it. You will hear from parents about deductibles that are too high, from workers about how hard it is to find in-network doctors, from seniors about generic drugs that suddenly cost thousands of dollars, police officers about the opioid crisis tearing apart our communities, and hospital staff concerned about the nursing shortage, business owners, like the group I met from Cumberland County, NJ, yesterday who want Congress to work in a bipartisan way to lower employees' healthcare costs.

Imagine, just for a moment, how thrilled Americans would be if Republicans actually had a bill that solved some of their problems instead of bringing back old ones. Imagine how excited my Republican colleagues would be to show off a bill that improved, instead of endangered, people's lives, but my Republican friends are not excited to show off this bill because when you are excited to show a bill--when you have a great product, you want the whole world to know about it. When you have a terrible product, you don't want anyone to know about it, and they don't want to defend it because they know it is indefensible.

For 7 years, my Republican colleagues put politics over policy. For 7 years, they demonized ObamaCare, with no substance behind their rhetoric. Now their poll-tested platitudes have caught up with them, and they know it. That is why they let 13 Senators, who represent less than one-quarter of the country, meet behind closed doors, and that is why their hope is to keep this bill a secret until the very last minute.

So today I have come to the floor with a message for my Republican colleagues: If you want to have a debate about how to improve our healthcare system and about how to help more families get covered and about how to lower costs more and create a healthy, more productive nation, these are issues Democrats have been ready to have that debate on. I have said it in the Senate Finance Committee. We did remarkable things under the Affordable Care Act, but there is still room for improvement. We are ready to have that debate because Democrats know that while the Affordable Care Act was a historic law--a law that stopped insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you got sick, that covered 90 percent of Americans for the first time in our history, that required healthcare plans to cover essential health benefits like visits with specialists, prenatal care, mental health and addiction treatment, hospital stays, and more--despite all of the positive steps forward, in spite of all the good the Affordable Care Act did, Democrats have never stopped believing we could even make it better.

Before we can make our health system better, we must stop Republicans from making it worse. We cannot go back to a time when healthcare was a privilege granted only to those who could afford it, when it was always, I think, a right afforded to all Americans. The only way we can go forward is by working together with bipartisan input, with open debate, with full transparency on an issue that affects virtually every American, in full view

of the American people we were elected to serve. They deserve no less, but they are getting a lot less by the majority as it relates to this bill--behind closed doors, in secret, that even the President of the United States says is mean. The only thing I can agree with President Trump on is we need a bill with heart, and from what I have seen and heard so far, this is pretty heartless.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would have cast my vote in favor of Scott Brown to represent the United States as Ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa. New Zealand has been a treaty ally of the United States since the signing of the Australia-New Zealand--United States Treaty in 1951. As a crucial partner and ally, the United States and New Zealand share core values of democracy, human rights, and liberty, and I believe it is imperative for the United States to maintain strong allegiance to our longstanding friends throughout the world.