Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Oklahoma be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions from Friday, March 23, through Monday, March 26, 2018.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of

the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore, and the majority and minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn, to then convene for pro forma sessions only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times, and that following each pro forma session, the Senate adjourn until the next pro forma session: Monday, March 26 at 11:30 a.m.; Thursday, March 29 at 3:45 p.m.; Monday, April 2 at 12 noon; Thursday, April 5 at 11:30 a.m. I further ask that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, April 5, it next convene at 3 p.m. on Monday, April 9; and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Boom nomination; finally, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, April 9.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I would like to speak today about National Stop the Bleed Day.

Our country will recognize National Stop the Bleed Day on March 31, 2018. Stop the Bleed is a program offered by the American College of Surgeons to help educate the general public on techniques to assist victims suffering from uncontrolled bleeding using direct pressure, gauze and bandages, and tourniquets.

Each year, more than 180,000 people die from traumatic injuries sustained as a result of events including vehicle crashes, falls, industrial and farm accidents, shootings, and natural disasters. The most common preventable cause of these deaths is losing too much blood in the minutes before trained responders arrive. Just like CPR training, a civilian familiar with basic bleeding control techniques is better equipped to save a life. The effort to make this training available to the public is driven by the goal to reduce or eliminate preventable death from bleeding.

I urge my colleagues to join me and rise in support of National Stop the Bleed Day and help to end the loss of life from uncontrolled bleeding by getting trained to ``Stop the Bleed.''

Mr. President, I agree with the comments of my colleagues on the need to pass S. 2361 during the 115th Congress. The legislation is narrowly tailored such that it would provide the opportunity for reapplication or continuation of FHLB membership only for those captive entities that meet a series of criteria pertaining to the mission of their parent companies to serve the residential mortgage market. These captive members have proven track records of responsible membership, have contributed to the system, and have invested their capital in the respective FHLBs. Moreover, each and every captive that would be affected by our bill are subsidiaries of financial institutions that are aligned with the overall mission of the FHLBs.

I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Baldwin.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my remarks before the vote begins.

Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in support of Kirstjen Nielsen in her nomination to be the sixth Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

The challenges facing the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security are daunting. Our national debt exceeds $20 trillion, and there is, unfortunately, no serious effort to reduce the 30-year projected deficits, which exceed more than $100 trillion.

In the last few months, we have experienced unprecedented destruction from natural disasters, stressing the budgets of both HHS and FEMA. Our borders are not secure, allowing illegal immigration to persist, illicit drugs to flow unabated, and making us vulnerable to external forces. Meanwhile, our enemies are emboldened.

The threat of Islamist terrorism has evolved, metastasized, and spread throughout the world, even reaching our homeland. We see increased stress from cyber attacks, hacking, and social media-inspired acts of terrorism. We face perhaps the greatest danger from enemies within. In the past 5 years, 262 Americans have been killed and over 1,000 injured from acts of evil committed here at home. These are some of the challenges awaiting the next Secretary of Homeland Security.

The Secretary oversees a department that is composed of 22 separate agencies, each with a diverse mission. It employs 240,000 people, with a budget of $66 billion. It faces challenges with unity of effort and habitually low morale.

President Trump nominated Ms. Nielsen to lead DHS, and she is ready to answer this call of duty. She has been working in and around the Department since its creation. Ms. Nielsen brings valuable, practical experience to DHS. She is an expert in risk management, with a focus on cyber security, emergency management, and critical infrastructure.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Ms. Nielsen served as the Director of the Office of Legislative Policy at TSA. She then moved to the White House Homeland Security Council as Special Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Senior Director for Prevention, Preparedness, and Response.

Before rejoining DHS earlier this year, Ms. Nielsen founded a risk and security management consulting firm.

Ms. Nielsen served as DHS Chief of Staff under then-Secretary Kelly, witnessing firsthand how the right leadership and support can quickly and dramatically improve agency morale.

General Kelly calls Ms. Nielsen a superstar. In a letter supporting her swift confirmation, he wrote: ``What truly sets Kirstjen apart is her integrity, sense of service to our nation, and dedication to the men and women who risk their lives serving our great country every day.''

Former Secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff have also voiced their support, as have more than 40 former senior homeland security and intelligence officials from both parties. Secretaries Ridge and Chertoff wrote of Ms. Nielsen:

Ms. Nielsen is a homeland security leader for our times.

More than any previous Secretary, she understands the 21st

Century challenges of the borderless cyber domain and has

worked in both the public and private sectors to address this

deeply interconnected and consequential risk to America's

national security and economic stability.

Kirstjen Nielsen offers our nation the credentials required

of the Secretary of Homeland Security in today's environment:

expertise in homeland security policy and operations;

national and international perspective; and public and

private sector experience.

I do want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for their support and cooperation in moving this nomination quickly through committee and to the floor vote that we are about to undertake.

To my colleagues, I just want to say that we are fortunate to have a nominee with such experience and dedication to the mission of the Department of Homeland Security, and I urge all of you to support her confirmation.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the passage of H.R. 2810, the instructions to the clerk in amendments Nos. 1065 and 1086 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the disasters of ObamaCare and a possible solution. It is a powerful first step--not perfect but a step that would take us off the path toward a single- payer system and put us on a path toward federalism, with greater State control but, in many respects, greater freedom for the American public.

During the last healthcare discussion and debate, I spoke with a couple, Sherry and Vern Colby from River Falls, WI. They had a real problem: They had preexisting conditions. They were quite pleased when ObamaCare passed because their preexisting conditions, they believed, would be covered. So they signed up for ObamaCare in 2014, paid the premiums, sent in their paycheck stubs to make sure their income levels qualified for the subsidies. Then a funny thing happened when they got their tax returns in March of 2015: They had to pay back more than $15,000 in subsidies because they made $59,000. They had to cash in pretty much all of their 401(k). They had to sell their house so they wouldn't lose it in foreclosure.

I spoke with Sherry Colby today because, as we have debated the possibility of passage of Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson, we have heard a lot of demagoguery. We have heard a lot of false charges. I would like to refute a couple of those.

One of the claims of ObamaCare is it guaranteed that if you have a preexisting condition, you are free from worry, you will be covered. Well, in Sherry and Vern Colby's case, that is simply not true.

I spoke with Sherry just this afternoon. Again, they had to sell their house, and they had to cash in their 401(k). Their nightmare didn't end at that point in time because President Obama, as he left office, took short-term, limited-duration plans--that duration from 264 days down to 90 days. Now Sherry and Vern Colby are forced to buy these short-term, limited-duration plans that only last for 90 days. When I say ``forced,'' the problem they have is that they work. Vern drives milk trucks 60 hours a week. Sherry works in a florist's shop 30 hours a week. They make too much to be subsidized under ObamaCare. They don't make enough to be able to afford the premium of $14,000 per year with a $12,500 deductible. So right now they are paying $5,500 a year, and they have a $5,000 deductible per quarter and a 70/30 copay for a short-term, limited-duration plan that can and did exclude their preexisting conditions.

Shortly after they signed up with IHC, Vern had a condition that required a hospital stay. The problem is, his preexisting condition wasn't covered under their insurance. The bill for that hospital stay was $45,000. To add insult to injury, because their short-term, limited-duration plan is not ObamaCare compliant, they are also paying the penalty. They are purchasing insurance, paying $5,500 per year, $20,000 in deductibles, a $45,000 hospital bill, and they are still penalized by the American Government under ObamaCare.

Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson maintains the provision of the guaranteed issue, covering people with preexisting conditions. There are all kinds of charges that somehow ObamaCare has guaranteed coverage for those individuals and Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson would not.

Personally, I believe Governors, State legislators, and the people in the State of Wisconsin will be far more concerned about Sherry and Vern Colby and will have innovative solutions, such as Wisconsin's high-risk pool or Maine's invisible high-risk pool, to actually bring down premiums so the Colbys can actually afford insurance without having to quit their jobs.

But that is not the main reason I came to the floor today. While sitting in that chair or watching TV over the weekend, listening to people's speeches, I have heard repeatedly from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson that it is going to destroy Medicaid as we know it, that it will be slashing spending in Medicaid--massive, deep cuts.

Let me go to a couple of charts.

This first chart really has nothing to do with healthcare--except it has everything to do with healthcare. What this chart shows is the CBO projection of deficits over the next 30 years by decade. CBO made the projections as a percentage of the GDP. Nobody understands percentages--we don't buy hamburgers with percentages--so we converted those percentages of GDP into dollars. According to our best calculations, CBO projects almost a $10 trillion deficit over the next 10 years; the second decade, $37 trillion; the third decade, $82 trillion, for a whopping total of a $129 trillion deficit over the next 30 years. That would be added to our $20 trillion worth of debt.

There are a number of ways of describing this deficit. I am putting up two right now. What is it composed of? Well, if you take a look at revenue versus outlays, the deficit is composed of about an $18 trillion deficit in Social Security alone. In other words, Social Security over the next 30 years will pay out $18 trillion more in benefits than it brings to the payroll tax; Medicare, $39 trillion. Interest on the debt over that same 30 years will be $65 trillion for a whopping total of $122 trillion of deficits over the next 30 years. That explains 95 percent of the deficit.

Another way of looking at that deficit is this: Over the next 30 years, our revenue will equal almost $200 trillion--$199 trillion. Outlays for Social Security will be $69 trillion; Medicare, $55 trillion; Medicaid and ObamaCare $32 trillion, for a subtotal of $156 trillion. If you add $65 trillion interest on the debt, we are already exceeding our revenue.

You will notice that there is no money at all for any agencies, for national defense, for any other welfare programs. All the money is consumed by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and interest on the debt. This is clearly unsustainable.

Let's talk about cuts. What would a cut really look like? Well, this is the

truth in terms of what we are projected to spend on Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and what we would spend under Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson. If you go back to the year 2009, we were spending slightly more than $200 billion for Medicaid alone. This last year, we were spending about $438 billion. We have basically doubled spending in just the last 9 years. According to projections, by the end of this time period, we will be spending over $700 billion per year on ObamaCare and Medicaid combined. Graham-Cassidy would spend a little less than that--not much less.

Let me take a look at what a real cut would be. There are no cuts; you will notice spending never declines year over year--not once. It continues to grow year over year, not that far from the projections.

This is what a real cut looks like. Many of my colleagues have talked about and campaigned on something they call the penny plan--a way to rein in out-of-control Federal spending by doing something that seems pretty reasonable, which is to take any government program and just reduce a dollar's worth of spending by just a penny. It would be a 1- percent cut per year. If we were to do that to ObamaCare and Medicaid, you would see what a real cut looks like--a pretty minor cut, the type of cut many people have suggested under the penny plan, but that is what a real cut looks like. What Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson does is not a cut; it is just a slight reduction in the rate of growth and spending.

Again, oftentimes colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about drastic cuts. Well, let me detail what I would consider to be a possibly drastic cut. Let's say, rather than just 1 percent a year, we reduce spending by 5 percent a year or 10 percent a year. You know, I would agree with folks on the other side; if we were proposing those types of cuts, I would say that is slashing spending. I would say that would be a massive or draconian cut. But, again, that is not what we are doing. We are just slightly reducing spending over the next 10 years.

Let's look at this a little bit differently. Let's take a look at cumulative spending. If you just take cumulative spending year over year and add it up--our current projection on ObamaCare and Medicaid-- we would spend $5,688 billion; that is, $5.67 trillion. The Graham- Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposed spending is the green line, $5.44 trillion or a reduction of $226 billion over 10 years, a 3.99 percent decrease--not draconian, not massive, not slashing. It is a small, slight reduction in the growth of spending.

Let's take a look at what would happen if we just adhered to the penny plan in terms of cumulative spending. Again, this would be a real cut--1 percent per year. We would take the current law at $5.67 trillion. The penny plan would actually reduce that to $4.2 trillion, and you would save $1.5 trillion for about 26 percent in savings. That would be a real cut that would constrain the growth of entitlements so we can further reduce the mortgage of our children by just a little bit.

Why is this important? Again, to put things in perspective, over the next 10 years--this is blown up from our first chart--the projected deficit, according to CBO is close to $10 trillion--$9.6 trillion. What we are proposing under Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson is a $226 billion reduction in the rate of growth of spending on Medicare or on Medicaid and ObamaCare--a 2.4-percent reduction in relationship to the $9.6 trillion projected deficit. Is that massive? Is that draconian? I don't believe so.

The types of controls we need to start enacting, if we are ever going to stop mortgaging our children's future, would be more like the penny plan, but even there, you can see how inadequate that is, based on the problem. The penny plan would reduce spending by $1.48 trillion--about a 15.4-percent reduction to our $9.6 trillion deficit.

Let me conclude by talking about the fact that here in Washington, DC, here in Congress, we are not very good at solving problems, partly because not very many Members or their staffs have ever served in the private sector. They don't really understand people like Vern or Sherry Colby, who, as President Bill Clinton said, ``are out there busting it,'' working 60 to 70 hours a week. Their premiums have doubled and, in many cases, tripled. Their coverage is cut in half. They can't afford ObamaCare. They don't understand how businesses are struggling to pay the premiums when they provide healthcare. They don't understand it, and what they certainly don't understand is the problem-solving process: admitting you have a problem, defining that problem, gathering the information, doing the root cause analysis, and then, based on that careful analysis, based on the information, setting achievable goals and designing legislation, then designing the solution.

We haven't been honest with ourselves in this body. We haven't come to grips with why premiums have doubled and, in many cases, tripled. It was because of the faulty design of ObamaCare--the fact that we are asking 5 to 6 percent of the American population to shoulder the full burden of covering people with preexisting, high-cost conditions. There is a way of addressing this, but we have to be honest. We have to set aside the rhetoric. We have to set aside the demagoguery.

We have to take that first step of loosening the ties of this one- size-fits-all model here in Washington, DC, letting the States innovate--like Wisconsin, like Maine's invisible high-risk pool--to actually bring down premiums. In Maine, when they enacted invisible high-risk pools, premiums for young people were cut to one-third of what they had been under guaranteed issue. For older folks, they were cut in half. It is possible to do this if we are honest and if we are courageous.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in about 5 minutes, I am going to be asking for consent to pass the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Belina Right to Try Act of 2017.

I wish to take a few moments, though, to tell the story of how that right-to-try bill, which has been passed by 37 States, obtained that name. I believe it was probably March of 2014 that I met Trickett Wendler, a young mom with three children, who came to Washington, DC, with a group of other individuals advocating for those patients and their families with people suffering from ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease--an incurable and devastating disease.

A week before meeting Trickett, I met with the Goldwater Institute, which was talking about its right-to-try legislation. They were beginning to pass through State legislatures. Just mentioning the fact that I supported the right to try brought tears streaming down Trickett Wendler's face. Unfortunately, Trickett Wendler lost her battle to ALS on March 18, 2015. She has inspired something that I think is going to give so many thousands--maybe tens of thousands, maybe millions--of Americans hope when they face a similar type of disease, where there is no hope, where there are no further options, other than potentially an experimental drug that has been proven safe, according to the FDA.

In our press conference announcing the introduction of this bill, we had met Matthew Belina, a naval aviator and lieutenant commander--one of the finest among us--also stricken with ALS. We had little Jordan McLinn, a little boy with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and his mother Laura was speaking at that press conference. Remarkably, a man also stricken with ALS, Frank Mongiello, his wife Marilyn, and their children asked to speak. He made such an impression on our gathering, which encapsulated that press conference, particularly his speech in a video that I showed to my colleagues, which resulted in so many cosponsorships of this bill.

These are real people facing their mortality with no hope. This right-to-try piece of legislation will give those individuals and their families hope.

I want to truly thank my lead cosponsor from across the aisle, Senator Joe Donnelly, who is in the Chamber here today, and also Senator King and Senator Manchin, who decided not to play any politics whatsoever and also were willing to cosponsor a bill offered by somebody who was in a tough reelection fight. I want to thank my 43 Republican cosponsors, particularly Senator McConnell. As leader, he was one of the first cosponsors who helped me to get those other 42 cosponsors. I want to particularly thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, who have worked so cooperatively with me and my staff to make this moment possible. I would like to thank Vice President Pence, who also met Frank Mongiello and became a real advocate for this, and President Trump, who after meeting these types of victims--these individuals--also supported this piece of legislation.

I wish to thank the Goldwater Institute and Darcy Olson for their tireless efforts at promoting the right to try and the 37 States and the 97.7 percent of the legislators who, when given a chance to vote to give people the right to try and the right to hope, voted yes.

I would also like to thank a very special person, Dr. Delpassand, who really demonstrated why this is such an important piece of legislation. Dr. Delpassand is an oncologist from Houston, TX. He was engaged in an FDA trial on an aggressive form of endocrine cancer with 150 patients. It was working. The drug was working. He petitioned the FDA to allow another 78 patients to participate in the trial. The FDA said no, but Dr. Delpassand said yes, putting his career at risk.

It is that kind of courage that we want to reward today by passing this right-to-try bill.

In conclusion, I want to thank the thousands of patients and their families who have taken their wheelchairs and gone to their State capitals and have come here to Washington, DC, to advocate for their personal freedom, their personal liberty, for their right to try, for their right to hope, and for the right to hope of millions of other Americans faced with these incurable diseases.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 204 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Johnson- Donnelly amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.