Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wildfire Smoke Relief Act of 2019 with the ultimate goal of providing Federal emergency assistance to at risk individuals in areas with unhealthy air quality caused by wildfire smoke. By actively preparing for the effects of wildfire smoke inhalation, this bill attempts to ensure the long term health and security of all of those affected by wildfires.

In 2018, over 2,000 fires burned nearly 900,000 acres in the State of Oregon. The result of these fires was weeks and weeks of wildfire smoke. In Southern Oregon alone, there were 39 days with unhealthy air quality directly caused by smoke from wildfires. People need proper air filtration equipment, and in extreme cases, to seek refuge in a smokeless area. Communities are being choked by wildfire smoke, and each year wildfires are becoming more destructive than the previous.

Vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, pregnant women, and low-income families are disproportionately affected by wildfire smoke. Additionally, those with chronic heart or lung conditions are at a similarly heightened risk. Symptoms from smoke inhalation can develop within a relatively short time of exposure, and according to research, is akin to smoking several packs of cigarettes per day. Symptoms vary and can include poor development of lungs in children, shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, nausea, reduced lung capacity, bronchitis, headaches, and visual impairment.

The bill would authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide assistance to at risk individuals by providing smoke inhalation prevention equipment and low-cost home improvements when air quality causes unhealthy air quality levels or three consecutive days. Smoke inhalation prevention equipment would include an air filter, a face mask or respirator, a portable air filtration unit, and other low cost equipment used to keep smoke out of a house.

In severe cases, the Wildfire Smoke Relief Act would authorize FEMA to provide transitional sheltering assistance for at risk individuals. In these extreme cases FEMA can arrange alternate, cost-efficient housing arranged for at-risk people to escape the smoke.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Jeff Merkley in introducing the bill today and look forward to working with my colleagues toward enactment of the Wildfire Smoke Relief Act in the 116th Congress.

Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues Senator Joni Ernst, Congressman Rob Bishop, and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell to introduce the bipartisan Recreation Not Red Tape (RNR) Act. In Oregon and nationwide, the outdoor recreation economy is growing. Nationally, outdoor recreation generates $887 billion in annual consumer spending and 7.6 million American jobs. As those numbers keep rising, communities across the country are benefiting from growing American interest in enjoying the great outdoors. Our bill will help grow the economic potential of the outdoor recreation economy by opening access, reducing red tape, and updating Federal recreation guidelines.

Unfortunately, getting outside often requires permits, parking passes and camping fees that are important to maintaining public lands, but too often involve confusing, complicated and lengthy processes to obtain. This bill removes barriers to outdoor recreation, making it easier for visitors from near and far to get outdoors and enjoy America's treasures. By streamlining paths for more people to get outdoors, the Recreation Not Red Tape Act will encourage outdoor recreation opportunities, giving communities an economic boost.

The RNR Act includes provisions from Senator Heinrich's Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act. The bill improves the Federal outdoor recreation permitting process by eliminating duplicative and bureaucratic reviews, requiring time limits for processing permit applications, reducing fees, and simplifying multi-jurisdictional trips. The bill also ensures recreation permits are available for online purchases.

The RNR Act encourages all military branches to include information about outdoor recreation opportunities as part of the basic services provided to service members and veterans, and encourages all military branches to allow active-duty service members to engage in outdoor recreation or environmental stewardship activities without taking away their hard-earned leave.

For the first time, the RNR Act directs Federal land management agencies to enhance recreation opportunities when making land and water management decisions. The RNR Act ensures Federal land managers have and maintain recreation access goals. Importantly, the RNR Act highlights the recreational values of public lands across the county and encourages more National Recreation Area designations in the future by creating a system of National Recreation Areas to manage recreation lands in uniform guidelines.

Additionally, the RNR Act encourages volunteer opportunities to help agencies carry out public lands maintenance projects, such as trail maintenance on Federal lands. The bill establishes a pilot program to create uniform interagency trail management standards for trails that cross agency jurisdictional boundaries.

Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues Senator Joni Ernst, Congressman Rob Bishop, and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell to introduce the bipartisan Recreation Not Red Tape (RNR) Act. In Oregon and nationwide, the outdoor recreation economy is growing. Nationally, outdoor recreation generates $887 billion in annual consumer spending and 7.6 million American jobs. As those numbers keep rising, communities across the country are benefiting from growing American interest in enjoying the great outdoors. Our bill will help grow the economic potential of the outdoor recreation economy by opening access, reducing red tape, and updating Federal recreation guidelines.

Unfortunately, getting outside often requires permits, parking passes and camping fees that are important to maintaining public lands, but too often involve confusing, complicated and lengthy processes to obtain. This bill removes barriers to outdoor recreation, making it easier for visitors from near and far to get outdoors and enjoy America's treasures. By streamlining paths for more people to get outdoors, the Recreation Not Red Tape Act will encourage outdoor recreation opportunities, giving communities an economic boost.

The RNR Act includes provisions from Senator Heinrich's Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act. The bill improves the Federal outdoor recreation permitting process by eliminating duplicative and bureaucratic reviews, requiring time limits for processing permit applications, reducing fees, and simplifying multi-jurisdictional trips. The bill also ensures recreation permits are available for online purchases.

The RNR Act encourages all military branches to include information about outdoor recreation opportunities as part of the basic services provided to service members and veterans, and encourages all military branches to allow active-duty service members to engage in outdoor recreation or environmental stewardship activities without taking away their hard-earned leave.

For the first time, the RNR Act directs Federal land management agencies to enhance recreation opportunities when making land and water management decisions. The RNR Act ensures Federal land managers have and maintain recreation access goals. Importantly, the RNR Act highlights the recreational values of public lands across the county and encourages more National Recreation Area designations in the future by creating a system of National Recreation Areas to manage recreation lands in uniform guidelines.

Additionally, the RNR Act encourages volunteer opportunities to help agencies carry out public lands maintenance projects, such as trail maintenance on Federal lands. The bill establishes a pilot program to create uniform interagency trail management standards for trails that cross agency jurisdictional boundaries.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak after the chairman, Senator Inhofe, and after the ranking member, Senator Reed.

Mr. President, tonight I am going to speak about Saudi Arabia's brutal murder of U.S. resident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi. This despicable act has been condemned by the Congress, by the American people, and by governments and citizens around the world, but Donald Trump and members of his administration will not talk about it. They seem to think it is just fine to sweep this atrocity under the rug. I am here to describe why the Congress must not let that happen and how I intend to do everything in my power to make sure it does not happen.

The Senate is now debating the Defense Authorization Act, which this year includes the Intelligence Authorization Act. I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Intelligence bill that is part of the defense legislation contains an amendment I offered with my colleagues, Senator Heinrich, Senator Harris, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Bennet. That amendment requires that the Director of National Intelligence provide a public report identifying those who carried out, participated in, ordered, or were otherwise responsible for the killing of Mr. Khashoggi.

Last Wednesday, the United Nations released a detailed report on the Khashoggi murder. The report described how even before Mr. Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Saudi officials had meticulously planned his killing.

A team of more than a dozen Saudi agents were organized. Their travel and accommodations were designed to mask the purpose of their trip to Turkey. The consulate office where the killing took place was cleared of staff. In the moments before Mr. Khashoggi's arrival at the consulate, the Saudi agents were recorded discussing how to kill and dismember him and dispose of his body.

They referred to Mr. Khashoggi as ``the sacrificial animal.'' The report even describes the recorded sounds of the killing and the dismemberment.

Who bears ultimate responsibility for this brutal, horrendous, despicable crime? The U.N. report stated that every expert--every expert--who was consulted found it inconceivable that an operation of this scale could be implemented without the Crown Prince. They found that, at the very least, being aware that some kind of criminal act was to be conducted against Mr. Khashoggi was, in their view, clearly, something the Crown Prince knew about.

The U.N. then concluded that there was ``credible evidence warranting further investigation of high-level Saudi officials' individual liability, including the Crown Prince.'' I have read that directly from the U.N. report.

The Senate has also spoken on this in a resolution passed unanimously. The Senate stated that it believes the Crown Prince is responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Donald Trump and his administration refuse to discuss this publicly. Last November, Donald Trump said the intelligence community was continuing to assess information about the killing, but as for the question of whether the Crown Prince had knowledge, the President said only: ``Maybe he did and maybe he didn't.'' Then he said: ``We may never know all the facts.''

So we have, in the Intelligence Committee, something at the beginning of the year called an open threats hearing. It is a public hearing. At that open threats hearing, I asked the CIA Director whether the Senate's unanimous belief that the Crown Prince was responsible was correct. She acknowledged that the Khashoggi murder was premeditated. In terms of who was responsible, she referred us to what the Saudis had said publicly, but Director Haspel said she would not disclose to the public what the intelligence community thought with respect to who was involved in the brutal murder of Mr. Khashoggi. That is why there is a provision in the Intelligence Authorization Act that we are considering as a part of this Defense bill, requiring a public report on the Khashoggi killing. The provision is there so, finally, more than 8 months after the murder, there will finally be some real accountability.

Now, those who may be following these remarks or this discussion may ask: Why does this matter? Why is this important? It matters because the Trump administration has bent over backward to please the dictator running Saudi Arabia.

The U.N. report recommended an FBI investigation of the Khashoggi murder. Donald Trump made it clear that he is not interested in that either. It is part of a pattern. In one of the most dismal and disappointing responses I have seen to any national security concern, this administration refuses to look into whether Saudi officials helped Saudi criminal suspects flee the United States to escape justice.

The administration continues to turn a blind eye to the Saudi Government's grotesque human rights abuses. Donald Trump vetoed bipartisan legislation that would have ended U.S. support for a devastating and seemingly endless war in Yemen. The President recently invoked what I consider to be a phony emergency to go around Congress and sell arms to the Saudis. Example after example, whether it is within our borders, in a consulate office in Istanbul, or elsewhere, this administration's record is the same. They will help cover up the Saudi Government's brutality.

Jamal Khashoggi, besides being a U.S. resident, was a journalist who wrote for a U.S. newspaper. The absence of accountability for his murder sends a horrendous message that as far as the Trump administration is concerned, it is open season on journalists. Donald Trump is making this clear when he cozies up to dictators cracking down on journalists in Russia, Hungary, and the Philippines. That doesn't even include his affection for the dictator of North Korea, where we all know there is no press at all.

Donald Trump's contempt for a free press in the United States is as apparent as it is dangerous. The White House and Pentagon have simply stopped all press briefings. Donald Trump has threatened to use the taxation and antitrust powers of the government to punish the media when they dare to criticize him. At his rallies, he has whipped up support against the media to the point where people are threatening journalists in attendance. Almost every day, he dismisses any media outlet that accurately describes what he disagrees with, with respect to their comments, the corruption in his administration, as fake news. Recently, he accused journalists at the New York Times of treason after they dared to publish a story that displeased him.

The Trump administration created a secret list of journalists it targeted for tracking and questioning--journalists who were reporting on the administration's cruel treatment of migrants at the southern border. Border agents have even detained journalists--American citizens--and subjected them to prying and detailed questions about their travel and their work.

Most ominously, over and over, he called journalists enemies of the people. That is language that is designed to justify state repression or vigilante violence against journalists. It is also language that comes, unfortunately, directly from the worst dictators in history. That is based on the record, based on the public statements I am walking through tonight. That is what Donald Trump thinks of the press, which is why the Saudis told him that Jamal Khashoggi was an enemy of the state.

As far as I can tell, the President seems to believe that first amendment freedom of the press basically should only apply to people who say nice things about him.

I don't know of any such provision in the First Amendment about which the Founding Fathers felt so strongly. They thought freedom of the press was almost as important as anything else people could imagine. The Founding Fathers didn't in any way suggest the First Amendment applies to discussing only nice things about someone who is a public official. Reporting facts to the public on corruption in the administration and the President's tax cheating, on the administration policy of locking up migrant children in cages without beds, soap, or toothbrushes--Donald Trump evidently considers all of this to be a treasonous act.

The brutal, premeditated murder of Jamal Khashoggi is, in my view, the canary in the coal mine for press freedom around the world. These are dangerous times for journalists. It is already a dangerous career in many countries. If dictators see the killing of Jamal Khashoggi as a signal that they, too, can get away with cold-blooded murder, then the question is, How many more journalists and dissidents are going to die?

That is why, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am tonight drawing the line right here. For me, the events of the last week have only highlighted the urgency of this issue. In a nationally televised interview aired just yesterday, Donald Trump was asked repeatedly about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Each time he kept coming back to Saudi money. He said: ``Take their money.'' And he repeated it: ``Take their money.''

I disagree that U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia somehow mean that they have all the leverage and that the United States is helpless, but even more important, the message that impunity for a brutal murder can be bought is both repulsive and dangerous.

Right now, Donald Trump is telling the Saudis and every other dictator in the world that for the right price, you can murder a U.S.- based journalist you don't like. You can dismember his body, and you can make it disappear. As far as Donald Trump is concerned, what we have seen recently is that the lives of journalists are for sale.

In the same interview, Donald Trump was also asked about the U.N.'s call for an investigation into the Khashoggi murder. He made it clear that, again, he would resist any public accountability. He said the murder had already been ``heavily investigated'' and that he had seen ``so many different reports.'' Well, it is time for the American people, the Congress, and everyone around the world fighting for press freedom to see the reports.

Something else happened last week that I thought was also very important for the Senate to reflect on. Jamal Khashoggi's fiancee wrote an extremely important essay in the New York Times. She wrote: ``Washington has chosen not to use its strong ties and leverage with Riyadh to get the Saudis to reveal the truth about Jamal's murder and to ensure those responsible are held accountable.''

Jamal Khashoggi's fiancee described her meetings with Members of Congress who are sympathetic but were embarrassed that nothing had been done, and this is what she concluded:

``I began to feel that Jamal had not only died in Istanbul but also in Washington.''

This must not be the last chapter. The U.S. Congress must demonstrate that the fight for press freedom does not die in the Nation's Capital.

To describe how I intend to proceed here, you have to give a little bit of a sense of how the Intelligence Committee works. The Intelligence Committee accepts as boilerplate that we always keep classified what are called

sources and methods. It is just automatic in the consideration of any business before us and before the Congress. That is because we so admire--I know the Presiding Officer feels this way--we so admire those who work in the intelligence field and in the national security field, and should sources and methods be exposed, we can have people who are helping to keep us safe die. So we put it in every bill.

In order to get my amendment to make sure that we would actually have the American people get the information that the intelligence community has about how Mr. Khashoggi died, I accepted boilerplate language about protecting sources and methods. But I want to be clear--because the intelligence community has, in effect, bobbed and weaved around this issue for some time--that if the intelligence community attempts to use that boilerplate language to avoid real accountability and real transparency, I am going to fight them tooth and nail, and that includes using the procedure, which I will describe tonight, that is available to members of the Senate committee to get information to the American people.

I am going to be specific here just for a moment. I am going to describe section 8 of S. Res. 400, which allows members of the Intelligence Committee to initiate a process that ultimately would permit the Senate to release information over the objection of the President of the United States. I don't make this statement lightly. I don't make threats lightly, and I hope it doesn't come to this.

I hope the intelligence community finally adheres to the intent of the provision in this legislation and tells the American people and the world what it knows about the death of Mr. Khashoggi. But if the intelligence community stonewalls again--once again blocks the truth from the American people--I am not going to rest. The stakes are too high. Press freedom here and around the world must survive. Intimidation and murder cannot be allowed to stand.

I state tonight that I will use S. Res. 400 and every tool at my disposal to finally get this long overdue information about the death of Jamal Khashoggi to the American people.

I yield the floor.

I note that my colleague from Oregon, who is doing important work, is here and I am sure wishes to speak now.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to take the opportunity to join communities across the country and around the globe to commemorate the 19th observance of World Refugee Day.

Let me start with two sobering statistics from the UN agency charged with protecting refugees. The first is that 25 people were forced to flee their homes every minute of last year. The second is that more than 70 million people have now been forcibly displaced by conflict and persecution, the highest number the UN refugee agency has ever seen. So suffice it to say that the global need is real.

Which is why it is so heartbreaking to see Donald Trump's repeated efforts to try and slam America's doors shut to the world's most vulnerable.

It is particularly outrageous that the Trump folks aren't even on track to admit their own historically low cap of 30,000 refugees this year.

Let's be clear: Turning away refugees isn't some cornerstone of conservatism. Ronald Reagan admitted tens of thousands of refugees, so did George W. Bush.

In another era, that would have included my family, who fled Nazi persecution in the 1930s, seeking sanctuary in this country. I would have never had the honor of representing my State of Oregon here in this body had America sent my parents away.

Now, Edith and Peter Wyden aren't exactly household names, but here are a few that should be: Madeleine Albright, Albert Einstein, Gloria Estefan, Mila Kunis, and Elie Wiesel.

America is so much the richer for their contributions to diplomacy, physics, music, film and television, literature, and more.

So there is a practical reason for accepting refugees: Doing so makes America better.

There is also a moral reason for accepting refugees. Faith traditions speak of it as a duty to repair the world or to welcome the stranger. In Oregon, we just call it the right thing to do.

America is better than the administration's cruel and callous policies. I remain committed to challenging Donald Trump's exclusionary, anti-refugee policies on all fronts, and I challenge my colleagues to do the same.

Folks are looking to the Senate for strong, principled leaders. They want more than rhetoric; they want results.

So I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to honor this World Refugee Day by rolling up their sleeves and working to revive America's historic, bipartisan commitment to the plight of refugees around the world.

Mr. President, before Senator Casey leaves the floor, I just want to make a couple of remarks, as the senior Democrat on the Finance Committee, a ranking member. I particularly want to praise Senator Casey for being our go-to person on the whole issue of Medicaid.

Ever since we began to see the substantial cuts in 2017, as Senator Casey knows, he has been the person we have said is our go-to leader for the most vulnerable Americans who count on Medicaid being there for them.

I want to tell a short story about one of Senator Casey's many contributions to those who find Medicaid to be just a healthcare lifeline. When the Trump administration began its attack on Medicaid benefits, I had been the director of the Gray Panthers at home before I got involved in public service, and a lot of folks came to me. They said: Ron, that probably isn't a big deal for seniors because Medicare covers most of those nursing home bills. And I had to say: Gosh, that is really not the case. Medicare really covers only a small fraction of nursing home bills. It covers the bills that are essentially for hospital-like services, and most of nursing home care in America really ends up getting picked up by Medicaid. Something like two out of every three beds in long-term care facilities, which are custodial facilities, end up being funded by Medicaid.

Senator Casey basically took it upon himself, as part of this effort, to lead the Democrats on the Finance Committee and to lead the Democrats in our caucus to go out and talk about what this really means to the most vulnerable people in America. As my colleagues know, probably 4 or 5 months into this debate with this relentless attack on Medicaid coming week after week after week, most Americans began to understand a little bit about what was on the line for millions of senior citizens.

I thank my colleague because he really began the effort to make the point that growing older in America is really an expensive proposition. Even when you save and you scrimp, you don't go on a vacation, you don't buy the boat, and you don't do the extra, growing older is really an expensive proposition. So if you have a widower on the corner in your neighborhood, and he always mowed his lawn, and he always helped with the sports teams and the like, and now he is getting kind of frail and may need some nursing home care, now we still have a safety net, an essential safety net for those people.

I am going to talk a little bit about some of the challenges of Medicaid. But I would like particularly to begin my remarks--Senator Cardin has been an advocate in the Finance Committee, as well, on Medicaid--by pointing out that Senator Casey, really, at the very outset of this discussion, began the effort to make the case that a lot of people weren't aware of, and that is that Medicaid is a safety net for millions of older people.

Here is the story of Medicaid in 2019. For the vulnerable in America, our people want to make sure that there is more access to Medicaid. Unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle, Republicans are taking that very access away. Just for a few minutes, I am going to draw out this contrast because there is quite a difference of opinion between how the majority party in the Trump White House are working against the interests of vulnerable folks across the country.

As I mentioned, 2016 saw the beginning of this all-out attack by Republicans on Medicaid--hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts, proposed caps, block grants, basically an unravelling of the program as we know it today.

Essentially, from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME, people said: No way. We

are not going to support this kind of attack on Medicaid. So in some States, like Utah, they chose the ballot box to actually expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The voters chose more access to Medicaid, not less. But Republican lawmakers in Utah had decided to deny them their choice. Just think about that one.

I sure hear a lot of talk on the other side of the aisle about States' rights and empowering people at home. This is an example of where voters chose more access to Medicaid, not less. The Republican lawmakers said: Hey, we know better than that. We are not going to give folks that choice. So Utah lawmakers took a hatchet to the plan that voters approved on election day and started carving it out. The only expansion they would allow is a lot smaller than what voters wanted-- spending more money to cover fewer people.

Then lawmakers in Utah followed a path cleared in other Republican- controlled States, and that was to punish those who were enrolled in Medicaid with essentially bureaucratic water torture, with such a barrage of paperwork that it was almost impossible to penetrate what was really necessary to get through the program. This has been seen in Arkansas, Kentucky, and elsewhere.

All of this, of course, is not couched in the bureaucratic maze of redtape it actually is. The discussion is always: Well, this is just about work. That is just not true. It is about getting people kicked off their healthcare.

When you talk about Medicaid patients, you are talking about people who are working and people who want to work. What we are up against are a host of Republican schemes that are basically putting stacks of paperwork between those who need healthcare and their doctors.

These are busy working people with kids to raise, older parents to care for, and bills to pay. Yet lawmakers are trying to force them to fill out stacks and stacks of paperwork just to make sure that somebody can actually find their way through the maze and see a doctor.

If you look at what happened in Arkansas in 2018, you get a sense of how destructive these bureaucratic schemes are to people's healthcare. There were 18,000 people who lost their Medicaid coverage--18,000 people. Trump officials swore up and down that those paperwork requirements wouldn't hurt anybody, but as we saw when the Secretary of Health and Human Services came before the Finance Committee earlier this year, they shrugged when you asked why so many people lost their coverage in Arkansas after the paperwork requirements were put in place.

A Federal judge even weighed in, blocking all of this paperwork, while the Trump administration continued to push the States to take them up. The schemes spread to States across the country, and it was not just paperwork.

With the Trump administration's blessing, Tennessee is the first State trying to turn its Medicaid Program into a block grant. This basically takes a sledgehammer to Medicaid as we know it now. Medicaid block grants mean putting nursing home care--which I just outlined earlier in discussing Senator Casey's important role here--at risk for millions of seniors. You risk children and people with disabilities having to be cut off from their healthcare. But block-granting Medicaid is one of the top goals for Republicans in the Trump administration.

Finally, Trump administration budget slashers are trying a new, additional scheme that is going to hurt so many people across the country. In this particular area, they basically are trying to bring some mathematical sleight of hand so they can change key economic measures in ways that boot vulnerable people off Medicaid and off food stamps.

What they are doing here--again, this is all shrouded in language that just sounds eminently reasonable--is basically talking about where the poverty line ought to be, and then they want to find an artificial way to push the poverty line down without doing anything to lift people out of economic hardship. So you are talking about parents who work long, hard hours and still struggle to make ends meet, people who are trying to find affordable housing, who have practically given up the idea of being able to save for retirement, and who are still trying to pay college tuition. What does the Trump administration say? These people just have life too easy.

The impact of this change would be enormous. Three hundred thousand children could lose comprehensive health coverage, and a quarter million adults could lose their coverage.

Colleagues, this is the Medicaid agenda for Senate Republicans and the Trump administration: Let's go out there and look under every possible rock to find a scheme to restrict access to Medicaid. That is the agenda. Find a way to cut the funding, to deny expansion after the voters approved it.

We now have two members of the Finance Committee with a long, long history of advocating for vulnerable people facing health challenges, so I am going to close and just say this: Ever since I was director of the senior citizens--the Gray Panthers--I always said that the single most important issue in America is healthcare. Whether it is North Dakota or Michigan or Maryland, if you and your loved ones don't have your health, everything else pretty much goes by the board. Somehow that message has not gotten through to the majority here in the Senate because under this majority and under the Trump administration's healthcare agenda, they are buying into a completely different set of principles. They are willing to set millions of Americans back with respect to their healthcare needs. On this side of the aisle, we are going to keep fighting to protect Medicaid.

As I indicated, our next two speakers have a long track record of advocating for the vulnerable. I am just going to make a unanimous consent request. Senator Cardin has been very patient with respect to waiting to speak.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the passing of Molly Holt. Known affectionately as the Mother of All Korea's Orphans, Molly Holt dedicated her life to advocating for disabled, often homeless, children and adults in South Korea. Born to international adoption pioneers Bertha and Harry Holt, Molly carried the family legacy with a steadfast dedication to serving those less fortunate.

Molly first traveled to South Korea as a young nursing graduate, eager to assist her father as he attempted to provide care for the many children left orphaned by the Korean war. She spent most of her life working tirelessly with the residents of the Holt Ilsan Center in Korea, a long-term care facility for children and adults who have special physical, medical, or mental needs. Molly was a champion for the children at the Holt Ilsan Center, who affectionately referred to her as Unnie or big sister. It was through her steadfast advocacy that many children housed at the center were able to find permanent, loving homes.

Molly Holt will be remembered as an exceptional Oregonian, a woman who was guided by her strong convictions towards a life of charity and compassion. Even in the face of a debilitating illness, Molly remained committed to serving the people that she loved with her whole heart. Her passing is a loss that will be felt across the world, but her legacy of earnest, passionate service will continue to inspire us for decades to come.

Mr. President, marine energy technologies generate electricity using the natural power found in ocean waves, tides, currents, and temperature differences in ocean water. This nontraditional form of hydropower has the potential to fuel American homes and businesses with renewable electricity and address the very real challenge of climate change. Additionally, establishing a commercially viable marine energy industry in the United States would support a robust manufacturing and construction supply chain and create thousands of good-paying clean energy jobs.

The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that marine energy could produce enough renewable energy to power millions of homes. Furthermore, with more than half of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of a body of water, there is vast potential for marine energy to efficiently provide clean electricity to communities across the country--from large cities to remote coastal communities.

Because these promising marine renewable energy technologies are still in the early stages of development, federal support is needed to encourage private investments in marine energy projects, moving the United States closer to large-scale deployment of these innovative clean energy technologies.

The Marine Energy Research and Development Act advances this research by reauthorizing DOE's marine renewable energy programs from 2020 through 2021. The bill gives priority to projects and technologies that have the highest likelihood to lead to commercial utilization of new marine energy systems.

The bill also directs DOE to research ways of building a stable marine energy supply chain in the United States, as well as ways of harmonizing marine energy development with ocean navigation, fisheries, and critical infrastructure such as undersea cables.

The bill includes funding authorization for the National Marine Renewable Energy Research Centers, which are located in Florida, Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest. These three centers make use of federal funding and the resources of five universities to test and refine various marine energy technologies. The bill also provides DOE new authority to establish new National Marine Energy Centers.

Mr. President, marine energy technologies generate electricity using the natural power found in ocean waves, tides, currents, and temperature differences in ocean water. This nontraditional form of hydropower has the potential to fuel American homes and businesses with renewable electricity and address the very real challenge of climate change. Additionally, establishing a commercially viable marine energy industry in the United States would support a robust manufacturing and construction supply chain and create thousands of good-paying clean energy jobs.

The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that marine energy could produce enough renewable energy to power millions of homes. Furthermore, with more than half of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of a body of water, there is vast potential for marine energy to efficiently provide clean electricity to communities across the country--from large cities to remote coastal communities.

Because these promising marine renewable energy technologies are still in the early stages of development, federal support is needed to encourage private investments in marine energy projects, moving the United States closer to large-scale deployment of these innovative clean energy technologies.

The Marine Energy Research and Development Act advances this research by reauthorizing DOE's marine renewable energy programs from 2020 through 2021. The bill gives priority to projects and technologies that have the highest likelihood to lead to commercial utilization of new marine energy systems.

The bill also directs DOE to research ways of building a stable marine energy supply chain in the United States, as well as ways of harmonizing marine energy development with ocean navigation, fisheries, and critical infrastructure such as undersea cables.

The bill includes funding authorization for the National Marine Renewable Energy Research Centers, which are located in Florida, Hawaii and the Pacific Northwest. These three centers make use of federal funding and the resources of five universities to test and refine various marine energy technologies. The bill also provides DOE new authority to establish new National Marine Energy Centers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Thomas Huelskoetter, Gnora Gumanow, Ashley Semanskee, Michael Moynihan, Nicola Hill, Hilary Gelfond, Eric Parolin, Sheree Hickman, Forrest Graves, Anne McDonald, Celeste Acevedo, Anne Cox, and Skyler Brocker-Knapp.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to join my friend Senator Markey here today. It has been exactly 1 year since the Trump FCC engineered the repeal of net neutrality, and I am going to spend the next few minutes making sure people understand what the effect of that has been. I want to begin by picking up on a point Senator Markey made with respect to what this is all about.

Net neutrality may still be a term that some people aren't familiar with, but what it is all about is a free and open internet. It means, in simple English, that after you pay your internet access fee, you get to go where you want, when you want, and how you want. That is what net neutrality is all about, and that is the essence of a free and open internet. As Senator Markey said, we wish we had had this policy embedded once and for all in Federal law. We wish it had happened eons ago, because we have been working both in the Senate and in the House to do it.

Now, if you are just picking up on this, you probably want to know: Well, the Senators are saying how the Trump FCC changed things in the last year; exactly what has happened? I am not sure the sky is falling and the like. So what I am going to do for a few minutes is to talk about actually what has happened over the last year.

Suffice it to say that the big cable companies are counting on making these changes. As for these changes, which are going to hurt consumers in a steady, creeping way, my sense is that the American people ought to know, for example, what these changes are doing to them and their service and what they pay for it.

There is one example that you have already seen. The big carriers are selling so-called unlimited data plans that totally throw away the definition of the word ``unlimited.'' To understand the complicated limits on internet access in these kind of new, newfangled unlimited plans, you almost need a degree in big-cable legal jargon. Consumers might be forced to swallow hard and accept it, but that doesn't make it acceptable.

Big cable companies and the entertainment giants are also reshaping their industries through megamergers. As big carriers merge, there is less competition and consumers have fewer choices. Some of those new megacorporations also own the content they distribute, and they want to reach as many consumers as possible. That means that what is happening now is that the internet is starting to fracture.

Sign up for internet service with one company, and you will be able to see their preferred bundle of content in high definition at top speeds. If you want to go outside their bundle of websites and streaming services, plan to pay a whole lot more.

That is a bad deal for the American consumer. American consumers ought to be able to access what they want and when they want to. As Senator Markey and I and Senator Cantwell have talked about, it is also a nightmare for the startup companies, the engines of innovation in America that will not be able to afford special treatment and will not be able to compete with these behemoths.

Now, the Trump FCC repealed net neutrality--and I will close with this--by making some very farfetched promises. They said, for example, that there would be new innovation. They can produce new innovation, Senator Markey, without any regulation. That hadn't happened.

The Trump FCC said the level of private investment in telecom would boom. We are still waiting on that one too. The Trump FCC spun a tale about voluntary net neutrality. We could all do this voluntarily-- claiming that the big cable companies would do the right thing on their own. That doesn't even pass the smell test.

By the way, colleagues, if the companies were fine with net neutrality, why would we need to get rid of it? They sure put a lot of effort into getting rid of this altogether.

The bottom line is, the Trump FCC has put consumers, from sea to shining sea--from Oregon, all the way across the country--basically at the hands of Big Cable. That is what they did when they repealed net neutrality.

I want to take some time to outline the changes we have seen in just the last year because not all of these changes are going to come at once. In fact, I think it is fair to say the big cable companies are counting on Americans not noticing sometimes when the terms of their contracts get worse, but, bit by bit, people are going to notice when their prices start rising. The fractures in the internet--I guess the big cable companies will try to figure out a way to say that, too, was a good deal for consumers, a discount on the content within one bundle rather than a price increase and data limits on everything else.

I will close with just one final point. That last example violates everything that Senator Markey, Senator Cantwell, and I have stood for, which is an open and free internet after you pay your internet access fee. I say this today, as Senator Cantwell gets ready to close this for us, we still envision what Senator Markey and I proposed, as I call it, eons ago. We still have made it clear that we are going to be out here fighting to embed, once and for all, in Federal law, an open and free internet. That means, after you pay your access fee, you get to go where you want, when you want, and how you want, and nothing less-- nothing less--keeps pace with the American consumer.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Markey, for his leadership on this, and Senator Cantwell, our leader on the Commerce Committee, and I look forward to working with both of them.

Mr. President, would my colleague yield?

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague. I am in such strong support of her legislation, the No Junk Plans Act. I will speak briefly on it after the Senator has concluded her important remarks. But apropos of what the distinguished Senator from South Dakota just said, isn't it correct that of course a plan is more affordable if it doesn't cover anything? I would be interested in my colleague's reaction to that, as she is the lead sponsor.

I remember being in Wisconsin and seeing the wonderful support folks there have from my colleague because she has been a leader on these issues.

I am just curious, because certainly my friend from South Dakota, who is a distinguished member of the Finance Committee and works with Senator Cortez Masto and me, often works with us on matters. But unless I am missing something, he said that what he is interested in is care that is more affordable. But it doesn't cover anything. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, I want to tell my colleague from Wisconsin--and I think I speak for the distinguished Senator from Nevada as well--we are counting on our colleague from Wisconsin to come back to this floor again and again to try to pass her bill. I just want to tell her I will be with her every step of the way because I think, colleagues, without the bill from the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, what we are looking at is a new golden age for scam artists peddling insurance that isn't worth much more than the paper it is written on.

I was struck by my friend from Wisconsin's mentioning the old days of junk insurance.

Well, I was around for those old days. I remember when the health insurance system in this country was basically for the healthy and wealthy. If you were healthy, no sweat, you could get insurance. If you were wealthy, you just went off and paid the bills. But the insurance companies could go out there and clobber people with preexisting conditions. So that was junk insurance.

But I am even older than that. I remember when I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. I would go to a senior's house, and they would pull out a shoebox full of policies--10 or 15 policies. The distinguished Senator from Nevada, who has done so much consumer advocacy for consumers, I am sure knows about this challenge with seniors. These policies weren't worth the paper they were written on. They had--because I am kind of a lawyer in name only--what were called subrogation clauses. So if you had two policies, and they basically covered the same thing, both of them would try to squirm out of covering it. Talk about junk insurance.

Finally, I got elected to Congress, like my colleague activist, and we passed a law that said we are going to get rid of that system and that you could have really only one policy, except in unusual situations. There were strong consumer protections.

But if you look at what the Trump golden age of scams is going to bring back, there are going to be lots of people who are going to get clobbered, and, as my colleagues know, the people who are really going to get hit by this are, for example, older women who are pre-Medicare, because very often, in their late fifties and early sixties, they have a lot of difficulty trying to find jobs that pay good salaries and jobs that have good healthcare coverage.

I am so appreciative of what my colleague is talking about.

We are going to hear a lot of buzz words. Opponents of the Baldwin legislation are going to talk about how they are offering flexibility and they are offering patient-centered care. But that is just a bunch of eyewash because what they really do, as you touched on, is to fail to give patients care when they most need care.

Today, Americans ought to be protected from these worthless, predatory scams. One of the things that I was proudest of, really, before my colleagues came here, is a piece of legislation I wrote, the Healthy Americans Act. A number of Republican Senators were cosponsors of this bill. It had airtight, loophole-free protection to ensure that people with preexisting conditions didn't face discrimination.

By and large, we got that provision into the Affordable Care Act. It meant, as John McCain knew--we often talked about it--that healthcare would no longer be there just for the healthy and the wealthy. There would be real protections for those with preexisting conditions.

For all practical purposes, that was really one of the two or three centerpieces of the Affordable Care Act, because, talk about a new age in insurance, that was it. Healthcare insurance would no longer be there for the healthy and wealthy only.

Senator Baldwin is here, and what she is trying to do--I am looking at that clock--is trying to keep the Trump people from turning it back. That is what they want to do when Senator Baldwin talks about the old days--a forced march back to the days when the insurance companies could really, in many instances, just beat the stuffing out of vulnerable people.

I thank my colleague for what she is doing. I heard just a little bit about it before I came over. I basically said: Let's hold off on things for a couple of hours so I can go out there and stand with Senator Baldwin and her allies.

I say to the Senator: To me, what is important is that you have been here today, and it is going to be even more important that you come back again and again and again so that that clock continues to move forward in terms of American healthcare and not go backward. I thank my colleague.

We are really delighted to have Senator Cortez Masto on the Senate Finance Committee, where she has been doing a lot of good work in healthcare

for consumers and seniors. I look forward to her remarks and to working with both of my colleagues.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a set of three bills that will lower the cost of energy storage, increase flexibility in the power grid, and create a comprehensive set of grant programs to advance development of renewable energy technologies throughout the country.

Currently, many energy technologies--like energy storage--compete in unfair markets, making it hard for new innovations to measure up to more established technologies like those of the fossil fuel industry. Congress and the Department of Energy

can work hand-in-hand with industry to level the playing field, using a fair, tech-neutral approach when updating the electricity system, to benefit the American consumer.

My Reducing the Cost of Energy Storage Act will provide funding to the Department of Energy to research and develop ways to lower the cost of energy storage technologies. Ultimately, this bill will make it possible for renewable energy to be used on a more reliable and affordable basis.

To protect the power supply from disruptions caused by natural disasters, which can wipe out power to millions of homes, my Flexible Grid Infrastructure Act will require the Department of Energy to find and develop ways to make the power grid more flexible and responsive to these challenges. The bill will also connect displaced workers to training programs that will allow them to transition to high-skill clean energy jobs. Finally, this bill will provide States and utilities with resources to upgrade the flexibility and reliability of the power grid.

In order to ensure private sector growth in distributed energy technologies, my Distributed Energy Demonstration Act will create competitive, cost-share grant programs for new small-scale, grid- connected projects, such as rooftop solar panels, hot water heaters, electric vehicles, and modernized utility pricing technologies.

Together or apart, these bills will promote a more flexible electricity grid that can respond to power disruptions from natural disasters and ensure reliable, low-cost electricity for consumers now and in the future. They will also lower costs for energy storage technologies that make renewable energy more reliable and cost- effective, boost funding for cutting-edge research, and reward State and private sector innovations, which will make renewable energy more reliable and affordab1e for U.S. energy consumers.