Floor Statements

Mr. President, most of us have heard the metaphor that small businesses are the engines that power our economy. What we don't hear people talk about as much is the fuel that feeds the engines: capital. Without capital, entrepreneurs cannot see their ideas to fruition, successful business owners cannot expand to meet the needs of the market, and eager job seekers must take their skills elsewhere. Without capital, Main Street falters, and Wall Street keeps the advantage.

Today, more than 9 years after the start of the great recession and many policy reforms later, access to capital remains a challenge. This capital drought hampers small business growth, economic development, and job creation in Oregon and across the country. Despite this, government regulation continues to tie the hands of many willing small businesses lenders--namely, credit unions. According to some estimates, credit unions could lend an additional $11 billion to small businesses if Congress loosened restraints on credit union business lending.

With this in mind, I am pleased to introduce today the Credit Union Residential Loan Parity Act with Senator Murkowski. This bill would increase access to capital by exempting certain loans from the member business lending cap imposed on credit unions. Currently, loans made for one- to four- person, non-owner-occupied housing are treated as business loans when they are made by credit unions. As such, these types of loans count against a credit union's business lending cap, effectively limiting a credit union's ability to provide loans to small businesses. Our legislation would address this issue by allowing credit unions to treat these types of loans as residential loans--the same treatment these kinds of loans receive when made by other financial institutions. In effect, the bill would exempt residential loans from the business lending cap. This exemption would increase access to capital for small businesses, which in turn would create jobs and grow our local economies. In addition to generally increasing credit union lending, our legislation would directly free up capital for small businesses that make much needed investments in rental housing.

I am hopeful that this legislation will be received by colleagues for what it is--a simple step to help ensure America's small businesses have access to the fuel they need to power our economy.

It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation swiftly.

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

Mr. President, most of us have heard the metaphor that small businesses are the engines that power our economy. What we don't hear people talk about as much is the fuel that feeds the engines: capital. Without capital, entrepreneurs cannot see their ideas to fruition, successful business owners cannot expand to meet the needs of the market, and eager job seekers must take their skills elsewhere. Without capital, Main Street falters, and Wall Street keeps the advantage.

Today, more than 9 years after the start of the great recession and many policy reforms later, access to capital remains a challenge. This capital drought hampers small business growth, economic development, and job creation in Oregon and across the country. Despite this, government regulation continues to tie the hands of many willing small businesses lenders--namely, credit unions. According to some estimates, credit unions could lend an additional $11 billion to small businesses if Congress loosened restraints on credit union business lending.

With this in mind, I am pleased to introduce today the Credit Union Residential Loan Parity Act with Senator Murkowski. This bill would increase access to capital by exempting certain loans from the member business lending cap imposed on credit unions. Currently, loans made for one- to four- person, non-owner-occupied housing are treated as business loans when they are made by credit unions. As such, these types of loans count against a credit union's business lending cap, effectively limiting a credit union's ability to provide loans to small businesses. Our legislation would address this issue by allowing credit unions to treat these types of loans as residential loans--the same treatment these kinds of loans receive when made by other financial institutions. In effect, the bill would exempt residential loans from the business lending cap. This exemption would increase access to capital for small businesses, which in turn would create jobs and grow our local economies. In addition to generally increasing credit union lending, our legislation would directly free up capital for small businesses that make much needed investments in rental housing.

I am hopeful that this legislation will be received by colleagues for what it is--a simple step to help ensure America's small businesses have access to the fuel they need to power our economy.

It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation swiftly.

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

Mr. President, I don't wish to turn this into a bouquet- tossing process, but I think it is very clear that Senators on both sides of the aisle are very, very pleased to see our friend

from Georgia back today. We are wishing him health and Godspeed. We look forward to his full and complete recovery. We are so glad to have him here.

I am also pleased that Senator Coons is on the floor, because I think it would be fair to say that Members on both sides of the aisle who have watched how Senator Coons has conducted himself throughout this extraordinarily contentious debate would say that Senator Coons makes all of us very, very proud.

It is no secret that he has tried repeatedly to bring both sides together, and he and I have talked often about this. I think there are going to be opportunities for finding common ground on important legislation, breaking out of this gridlock that we all understand is not what the Senate is all about and forging toward more mainstream topics. When we get there, to a great extent, it will be because of the thoughtful comments of my friend from Delaware.

Mr. President, the Senate is going to act on one of its most sacred and important constitutional duties, the advice and consent on the nomination of the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

The long tails of these Supreme Court debates stretch through generations and shape our government deep into the future. The choice the Senate makes in this extraordinary debate will have a profound impact, from the broadest governing statutes down to the most specific particulars of the law that affect our daily lives.

There are several issues that are particularly relevant to this nominee that have gotten short shrift. I am talking about secret law, and warrantless wiretapping, death with dignity. I intend to discuss these issues shortly.

I would like to begin, however, by stating that whether one supports or opposes Judge Gorsuch, our job would have been easier had the judge been more forthcoming in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. He chose, however, not to do so. So what the Senate has to go by instead is the judge's lengthy record of adhering to a rigid and far- right philosophy that is packaged in the branding of so-called originalism.

The originalist says that our rights as a people are contained within and linked to our founding documents. But that viewpoint is plainly incorrect. In practice, originalism becomes a cover for protecting the fortunate over the poor, corporations over individuals, and the powerful over virtually every other American. It is a political agenda that masquerades as philosophy, an agenda whose sole intent is reserving power for those in power and limiting the recognition of the rights reserved to the people.

Far from endorsing such a creed, our Constitution is actually a document of constraints, constraints that bind the government, not the people. The full scope of our fundamental rights as a people, as Justice M. Harlan once wrote, ``cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.'' The exact concept is written into the Bill of Rights itself. The Ninth Amendment says: ``The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.''

James Madison, the founder so significant that Americans are said to live in a ``Madisonian Democracy,'' was outspoken about the dangers of future readers or interpreters thinking that the fundamental rights contemplated by the Framers were limited to the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

So our founding document and its Framers made clear that rights were not enumerated by the Constitution; they were retained by the people. Individual liberties, from personal privacy to a woman's right to vote, the choice of contraception and abortion, interracial marriage, same- sex marriage, equal protection of the law--these liberties and, let me emphasize, many, many, many more have always existed. In fact, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were silent on much of what Americans consider fundamental to a free people. That silence left the door open for the courts, as we shed the prejudices of a darker age, to recognize the true meaning of the words ``all men are created equal'' and ``inalienable rights.''

The process has been painfully slow. The Constitution, like any document composed by politicians, is fraught with original sin. For example, the three-fifths compromise was a shameful device of political accommodation. Through long stretches of our history, political agendas have left many individual rights unrecognized or unprotected by the courts. They ruled in favor of the powerful and against the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised, often with the justification that their rulings adhered to the text of the Constitution.

Nowhere did the Constitution expressly deny women the right to vote, but the Supreme Court ruled against Virginia Minor in 1875. The Federal Government was not expressly granted a right to intern residents of Japanese descent, but the Supreme Court allowed it in Korematsu. There was no constitutional basis on which to deny people of different ethnicities the right to marry. On those issues and more, our judges were wrong. Supreme Court Justices were wrong. In the service of the economic, political, and religious powers that be, the Court has defended slaveholders, denied the franchise, permitted racial, sexual, and other discrimination, and routinely--routinely--elevated the power of the State over individual liberties. Any defense of those rulings as adhering to the text of the Constitution is just plain wrong.

Let's look more closely at women's voting rights. In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court found that women did not have the right to vote because that right was not expressly stated anywhere in the Constitution. In a unanimous decision, the Court took the absurd position that a document predicated on voting, organized by voting, and dependent on voting for any amendment, still did not protect the right to vote for all citizens. Such is the intellectual bankruptcy of a long legal tradition sustained by its defense of the status quo.

The 19th Amendment was a response to the abridgement of a fundamental right by political parties and their dependent courts, but it did not create a new right. It was a long overdue fix made necessary by an originalist court.

If there is a national evolution that extends protection of rights and liberties to disenfranchised and oppressed people, it is because with time, our wonderful country tends to correct its wrongs. It did so with a Civil War and the amendments that followed. It did so with women's suffrage and the Brown decision. It did so more recently with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Historically, our country has gradually recognized fundamental rights and liberties.

``Recognition''--I use that word intentionally. It is recognition because there are no new rights, per se. They are inalienable, and those rights are not limited to those spelled out in the Constitution. A jurist governed by that principle would respect individual rights, but that simply isn't the viewpoint taken by many so-called originalists on the far right today.

The rightwing originalism looks, in my view, a lot more like the judicial philosophy that trampled on the rights of Americans in days past--a philosophy that throughout our history has left many Americans marginalized, disenfranchised, and oppressed by the State.

Unfortunately, after listening very carefully to Judge Gorsuch present his views and after reviewing his writings, including some I will mention that specifically talk about my home State, I have no faith that Judge Gorsuch would be any different from this philosophy that I mentioned that has left so many Americans marginalized in our country.

Judge Gorsuch not only has a long record of conservative activism in the courtroom, but he has demonstrated an out-and-out hostility toward the right of individuals to make decisions about their own lives and their own families without interference from the State. In one troubling instance, he went so far as to author a book attacking death with dignity. This of course has been a matter that historically has been left to the States, and the people of my State twice approved death-with-dignity ballot measures and our death-with-dignity laws have been in place for nearly 20 years. The Supreme Court upheld it more than a decade ago in a case known as Gonzalez v. Oregon. But

Judge Gorsuch's record and his own words put the will of millions of Oregonians in question.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to deny suffering Oregonians the right to make basic choices about the end of their lives. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government a power to deny people in my State the right to make those emotional, difficult, wrenching decisions about end of life. It is a private matter between individuals and doctors, and when politicians attempt to force regulations through the back door by going after doctors and their ability to prescribe, in my view that is an obvious over-the-line Federal infringement. But my guess is there are probably going to be some folks on the far right that are going to try that route again.

Nothing Judge Gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing gave me any indication that he respects the death-with-dignity issue as settled law or that he would rule against Federal abuse of power to intrude on a private choice. The bottom line is that Judge Gorsuch is locked into an extreme rightwing viewpoint on this issue.

And there is more. As I have listened to this debate and, particularly, the number of comments that some of those who have espoused the views that concern me so much come back to, part of this is that they are always talking about States' rights. States' rights-- that will be the altar that we really build our views and philosophies around. I will state, however, that when we listen to some of what they are having to say about States' rights, what they are really saying is that they are for the State if they think the State is right. That is not, in my view, what fundamental rights--particularly, ones that have been afforded to States--ought to be all about.

As I indicated, I think his views with respect to death with dignity really do involve a Federal abuse of power in its intruding on private choices, but there are other issues that concern me as well.

He has made it clear, in many instances, that he favors corporations at the expense of the working people. He has sided with insurance companies to deny disability benefits to people with disabilities, with large companies to deny employees basic job protections, and has even written that class action lawsuits are just tools for plaintiffs to get ``free rides to fast riches.''

No example better illustrates this tendency--and my colleagues have talked about it--than the case of the truckdriver in TransAm Trucking v. Department of Labor. In this case that leaves one practically speechless, Judge Gorsuch sided against a truckdriver who was fired for leaving his freezing cold truck when his life was in danger.

I have another significant concern about Judge Gorsuch that came up in the context of his confirmation hearings. It is something that, I think, a lot of Americans and even those in government are trying to get their arms around. I have been on the Intelligence Committee since the days before 9/11, and one of the things we have come to feel strongly about is the danger of what I call ``secret law.'' I want to make sure people know exactly what I am talking about when I describe ``secret law.''

In the intelligence world and in the national security sphere, operations and methods--the tactics used by our courageous men and women who are protecting us and who go into harm's way to protect our people--always have to be secret. They are classified. They have to be because, if they were to get out, we could have Americans die--the people who do all of that wonderful work and, possibly, millions more. Sources and methods have to be secret, but the law and our public policies ought to always be transparent.

The American people need to know about them because that is how we make informed decisions in our wonderful system of government. Voters are given enough information to make the choices. Sources and methods and operations have to be secret, but the law and political philosophies have to be public.

Judge Gorsuch, as a senior attorney in the Department of Justice, was a practitioner of secret law. As I indicated, the public is not going to know about secret operations; we protect them. But trust in government and in our legal system cannot survive when Americans understand that the law says one thing and then the government or a secret court says that it means another. Secret law prevents the people from knowing whether their fundamental rights are being infringed by an unaccountable, unconstrained government that is aided by compliant courts.

Secret law also keeps the Congress in the dark. Congress's job is to represent the people and oversee the government. Congress, barring rebellion, is the only recourse of a free people against an executive- judicial alliance of secrecy that infringes their liberties. It is my view that secret law makes a mockery of the oath that Members of Congress, Justices, and each Senator here has taken to serve, protect, and defend our Constitution. Secret law is fundamentally corrosive to the rule of law in America.

As we learned during his confirmation hearings, Judge Gorsuch was a supporter of secret law. In 2005, the CIA was conducting a secret torture program. In May of that year, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel determined, secretly, that torture techniques, such as waterboarding, were legal. Somehow, it deemed them consistent with statutory prohibitions on torture and the Constitution. This was extraordinary, willful, faulty legal analysis. It was entirely inconsistent with how the Congress and the public would read the law or the Constitution.

Then our distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, who knows a little bit about these issues in his having been subjected to them in the defense of our country, passed the Detainee Treatment Act. Senator McCain understood, in having fought for our country--given fully of himself--that our government had to find a way out of this problem. The McCain law prohibits the cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment that has been at issue here.

By any measure, both the law--the language of the law, the clear intent of the Congress--and the context in which it was passed would leave every American to understand that a decision had been made by their elected officials to limit the power of government. Yet Judge Gorsuch, then an employee of the Bush administration's, had a solution.

In December of 2005, he wrote to the author of the Justice Department's opinion, Mr. Bradbury, about a Presidential signing statement that would magically transform the McCain law into an endorsement of torture. What Judge Gorsuch wrote was that the McCain amendment that prohibited cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment was best read as, essentially, codifying existing interrogation policies. In other words, according to Judge Gorsuch, John McCain's law--the one that passed 90 to 9 in the U.S. Senate--endorsed torture when it did just the opposite.

The issue came up in his nomination hearing. Judge Gorsuch's explanation was that he was making the recommendation as a lawyer who was helping his client, which was the administration. I have to say, if there is one thing we have learned, this ``just following orders'' defense has gone on for far too long in this city. It is a small and feeble excuse and is unbecoming of a judge who has been nominated to the highest Court in the land. A judge who justifies government violations in the law and the Constitution just so his boss can say ``I was following the advice of counsel'' is making a choice to do wrong.

The McCain amendment--what we passed here in the Congress--did not green-light torture. It did not codify torture, period. Anybody who has ever heard John McCain talk about this issue and describe his personal, horrifying experiences with torture knows that it, certainly, could not have been his intent when writing the bill.

Any lawyer, especially one secretly advising the government, first has an obligation to the law and the Constitution. Judge Gorsuch's failure to recognize that principle and his choice to do wrong, in my view, disqualifies him from having a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Torture is not the only illegal program on which Judge Gorsuch has left his fingerprints. After news broke of the illegal, warrantless wiretapping program, Judge Gorsuch helped prepare

testimony for the Attorney General, which asserted that these authorities are vested in the President and are inherent in the office.

It added: ``They cannot be diminished or legislated away by other co- equal branches of the government.''

If that were the case, then no action taken in this area by the elected representatives of the people would have any weight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has existed since the 1970s, would just be some kind of advisory statement. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which we are going to debate this year, would be little more than wasted paper. Then the USA FREEDOM Act, which ended the bulk collection of law-abiding Americans' phone records, might as well have never been signed into law.

Voting for those bills and voting to confirm Judge Gorsuch call into question any Member's commitment to those laws that we passed.

In response to a question during his nomination hearing, Judge Gorsuch said that he did not believe the Attorney General's testimony and that, again, he was only acting as a scribe, as a speechwriter. As such, he absolved himself of responsibility for his actions. Again, I think that it is just wrong to use this as an excuse. Like the endorsement of torture, assertions of Presidential authority to override congressional limits on warrantless surveillance rip at the fabric of the rule of law. Judge Gorsuch, a man who chose to get up and go to work every day for individuals who were violating the law, had the power to say no, but he would not make that choice.

Colleagues, the Senate is voting to confirm an individual to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. What Judge Gorsuch has stood for and against over the course of his legal career is all we have to go on in this debate, and we will have to reflect on it. A history of support, in my view, for secret, illegal, and unconstitutional programs is an unacceptable record for someone who is seeking a place on the Supreme Court.

I have reminded this Senate of how, time and again, the Supreme Court has rubber-stamped the excesses of our executive and legislature over the years rather than defended individual liberty. That is the record-- the Supreme Court rubbing-stamping the excesses of the executive and legislature rather than protecting the individual liberties of the American people.

It is my view that it is our job as Senators to ensure that the Supreme Court does not repeat the errors of yesterday--enshrining disenfranchisement and discrimination and denying equal protection of the law based on prejudice and political agendas. I believe that the only way to prevent this abuse is to appoint judges who recognize that the judiciary is a bulwark against any attempt to infringe on our unalienable rights.

The bottom line for me, colleagues, is whether Judge Gorsuch recognizes that rights are reserved for the people.

There is no respect for individual rights and liberty to be found in a viewpoint that allows for secret law to justify torture, that favors the powerful over the powerless, or that tramples on the rights of Americans to determine the courses of their own lives. Unfortunately, we have learned over the last few weeks that this is Judge Gorsuch's record.

I oppose his nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the retirement of my friend Wayne Kinney.

Wayne is retiring as my central Oregon field representative after more than two decades of outstanding service to our State--and more specifically serving at one point or another the residents of Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wheeler, and Wasco Counties.

Suffice to say, Wayne knows everyone, and most of those folks could spend hours recounting their own tales of this quintessential public servant.

Simply put, he will be deeply missed.

But before Wayne takes his well-deserved retirement to his native New England--where he can be nearer to family and maintain closer supervision of his beloved Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots--I want to share my personal appreciation for this exemplary public servant, all-around good guy, and wonderfully avuncular curmudgeon.

Wayne can forever lay claim to a significant piece of Oregon history. He opened Oregon's first Senate field office east of the Cascades shortly after I first took office in 1996.

Wayne opened and ran my eastern Oregon office in La Grande before moving to Bend.

In his service to Oregonians, he has put more miles than anybody I know on Oregon roads, at all hours, in all kinds of weather, to towns where there often are more cows than people.

Wayne's fierce sense of loyalty and commitment to public service has driven him to cover all the ground he has over the years from Wasco to Wagontire, Ontario to Olene, Joseph to John Day, Bend to Burns, Madras to Mitchell, and all points in between.

That loyalty extends to the rural communities he serves and the Oregonians in those communities who might not otherwise have a voice.

Wayne always keeps the door open for cattlemen, farmers, and countless others who often feel the government is removed from their struggles.

It is Wayne's ability to reach out and make connections with all of those folks that played such a large part in ensuring ``every nook and cranny'' in Oregon gets a voice.

Wayne is not just a champion in general for rural Oregon communities. He has also proven to be an able advocate for creating opportunities for rural women that allows them to bring their voices into statewide discussions.

Let me tell a couple of anecdotes about Wayne to provide a glimpse into this wonderful character--and all that he has meant to Oregon.

For my colleagues who have not been to central and eastern Oregon, I would only note that the distances between towns can be great, but Wayne never let those long drives be a roadblock.

In fact, his goal was to be anywhere and everywhere. He achieved that goal by--I believe in his words--making sure that, if anybody was so much as dedicating a new soda machine, he would be there to put in the first dollar.

Just as great at times as the challenges of distance in his area are the weather challenges. Again, Wayne never let that be a roadblock.

I remember well flying into rural Condon, OR, for a townhall in the snow, and who should I see with the local police chief sweeping the runway of snow? Wayne.

It has been said by some that there is an unbridgeable urban-rural divide in Oregon. I know from more than 800 townhalls in every part of Oregon, that is untrue.

In fact, I have come to use the term ``the Oregon way'' to describe how it is in our State's DNA to put aside partisanship in favor of civil conversations to find the best solutions.

Among the many tributes in recent days in Oregon to my friend, I was struck by something I read about Wayne that captures how he ``lived and breathed'' the Oregon way.

On Wayne's Facebook page recently, a Republican posted this powerful praise: ``Had lunch today with a good friend. Politically, Wayne and I are polar opposites. He is a Democrat, an officer with the Oregon Democratic Party and staff member with Senator Wyden, and I have served on the Executive Committee of the Oregon Republican Party, as well as County Central Committee Chairman. Over the years, we have had some great discussions, even disagreements about some very important issues, but we have handled our disagreements respectfully and remained friends. Wayne has announced his retirement and is also leaving our great state to move back east so he can be near family. The Oregon Democrats, and Senator Wyden are losing a tremendous asset, and a great leader of their Party.''

Oregon truly is losing a tremendous asset, and so am I.

I will miss Wayne tremendously, but I take heart that his work will live on in the issues he has resolved for Oregon and the relationships he has deepened among Oregonians.

As Wayne begins his well-earned retirement, he has my eternal gratitude, and he has Oregon's.

Mr. President, I hear colleagues from the other side of the aisle talk again and again about how they want patient-centered healthcare. That is the refrain--patient-centered healthcare. Make no mistake about what this resolution is all about. It turns that phrase on its head because what it says to certainly women who are patients: You are not free to go get the healthcare you want.

It seems like this never ends--another day, another effort to deny women the opportunity to have the kinds of healthcare choices and the healthcare services that they feel strongly about.

I am not going to take long; I know colleagues are in a hurry. I just want to say that the next time you hear this lofty rhetoric-- particularly from the majority--about how everything they are going to do in American healthcare is going to put the patients at the center of healthcare, give people more choices, and protect the freedom that they talk about in healthcare--understand, if you vote for this resolution, you are repudiating all of those speeches. I have heard Senator Murray talk about it. She says it very eloquently.

The bottom line is that this resolution not only doesn't support that lofty rhetoric about patients being at the center of healthcare, this resolution deprives women of choices and access to healthcare services they want.

I hope my colleagues will join Senator Murray and understand the dangerous consequences of what is at stake. Oppose this resolution and save the Vice President the trip to the Hill.

I yield back.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank my friend from Illinois for his very thoughtful and warm remarks about somebody who we all admired very much, Ed Greelegs.

I remember so many times talking to him about the rights of seniors, and a lot of us who thought we knew something about the subject didn't know half of what Ed did. This was a guy with a really razor-sharp mind, but he had an even bigger heart, and particularly a heart for people without clout and power. I don't think it was an accident that he gravitated to the senior Senator from Illinois, I might add as well.

So I thank my friend for his very gracious remarks about somebody we all admired very much.

Mr. President, I am here this afternoon because from the people who brought us TrumpCare, which was so favorable to the fortunate few and the special interests, now comes legislation that is going to make it harder for working people and working families to save for their own retirement. To kind of put that in context, whenever we have a debate about retirement, we always hear people say: You know, you just ought to realize that Social Security, this earned benefit--an earned benefit for Americans--you have to realize it is not going to cover everything. You have to save privately. You have to save for your retirement. And now, what we are seeing is the powerful special interests--the people with deep pockets and great political influence--are talking about restricting the chance for those typical working families to do the very thing that those people usually say is the solution. They say: No, we can't have government programs; you have to save privately for your retirement. And now come along those very powerful special interests, and they want to talk about restricting the ability of working families to save privately.

So we are now debating the first of two resolutions that would put a huge dark cloud over the new programs with individual retirement accounts, called auto-IRA programs, that States like mine and a handful of cities are seeking to build.

Right now, immediately, it is the locally based programs that are trying to promote private savings, giving the working-class family the chance to do it, and they are the ones who could be undermined. Of course, depending on what happens around here, the State programs could be next.

So at this time in American history, when we are facing a very large challenge with respect to savings, when a little over half of the workers approaching retirement age have nothing--zero--saved in retirement accounts such as individual retirement accounts or 401(k) plans, these two resolutions amount to a game plan that would take the savings crisis, which is already bad, and make it worse.

Around 55 million Americans don't have access to a retirement plan at work. More often than not, it is the employees of small- and medium- sized businesses who don't have that job benefit, and it is no fault of their own. In my view, this shouldn't even be a partisan question. There ought to be bipartisan interests in helping these workers find new opportunities to save. It ought to be easier than it is today.

I see my friend and colleague from the Finance Committee in the Chair, and as he knows, we have had countless committee hearings in the Finance Committee. We have been part of multiple floor debates when I have heard Members on both sides of the aisle talk about the importance of private savings. Yet here we are in the Senate, and yet we are looking at an effort on the part of the majority at this point that wants to ram through resolutions that would make it harder to save, not easier.

So juxtapose what is going on today and then think about all of the committee hearings in the Finance Committee, in the HELP Committee, where we hear people talk about private savings. We ought to make it easier; we ought to have smarter policies. Today the U.S. Senate is looking at making it harder for working families to save.

Here is a little bit of background about this and what it means to my home State of Oregon, and we are looking at winning the NCAA championship here in a few days, so there are a lot of things we are talking about in Oregon right now. But I wanted to especially come and talk about another area where we are leading right now; that is, trying fresh approaches to retirement savings.

Oregonians want as a State to help close the gap for the 55 million Americans without an employer-sponsored plan. After a lot of study and careful planning, my home State of Oregon is one of a handful of States that have passed what has come to be known as an auto-IRA. The actual name of the program is OregonSaves, and it is set to launch this summer.

What it means--and the highlight of it is this is a voluntary program--is we are creating a new set of opportunities for workers to actually save. What it means in my State is if you are a worker at one of these businesses, when you get a job, you will get a retirement account, and you will be able to start saving.

Now, I want to emphasize that it is not mandatory. Any worker who wants to opt out could do so, but it is designed to be simple and easy to use for everybody involved.

I wish to describe for a moment some of my conversations with Oregonians and workers who have been part of these auto IRAs. They come up at townhall meetings in every county of my State--I have had a little over 800 now--and we have discussed savings. They come up often, and they say: I have been hearing about these new IRAs, and I am automatically enrolled in one.

Then they say: You know, if they hadn't automatically enrolled me in it, I probably wouldn't have done it because there is always an expense in our

household, there is always something we think we probably should do, and we would say to ourselves: We had better do that now, and we can come back and talk about saving later.

Those employees have come up and said: We probably wouldn't have done it without this automatic enrollment. But, Ron, I am so glad that we have it because I have seen that this is really beneficial, and it in effect has persuaded me that I have to take a very disciplined approach. I am glad this is automatic, and I especially like the fact that I have the last word on the subject. In other words, if I feel for one reason or another I can't do this automatic savings, there would be an opportunity for me to opt out.

It is automatic, and it provides this path for people to start saving. It is cost-effective. It is straightforward for employers. It eliminates a lot of redtape and administrative hassle. Most importantly, it gives the worker the last word--the right to opt out of this.

The Trump administration says it wants to cut redtape that burdens business. In my view, this legislation does the opposite. It makes it harder for small businesses to provide retirement savings programs for their workers.

One after the other, Oregon employers are raving about the opportunity the program represents for them, especially when it comes to recruiting and retaining top-notch employees and helping those workers build a nest egg. I just gave a little bit of empirical evidence from these community meetings I hold where workers say they particularly like what this does. It is almost like a little bit of a nudge to save and build a nest egg.

Judi Randall, the finance director of an affordable housing provider in Roseburg, OR, says it would make a big difference for a rural nonprofit organization like hers to have OregonSaves available to help employees secure their retirement.

Joy Andersen, another Oregon leader, is the administrator at the Asher Community Health Center in Fossil, OR. I had my first community meeting in this small town of about 500. Joy has talked about how important it is to her to have an attractive retirement plan to recruit employees to come work in Fossil in eastern Oregon.

Kevin Max runs Statehood Media in Bend, a small company with big aspirations. He notes that there is no better State in the country than Oregon when it comes to employee recruitment. He says that OregonSaves gives companies like his another leg up with an even better package of benefits.

I believe it defies logic that in light of all of these positive returns from employers and from workers, that the Congress would want to stamp out a program like OregonSaves which has so much potential, but the resolution going after State initiatives--and there are two-- would pose that kind of threat.

My view is that these are not easy programs for States or cities to set up. There are legal issues that date back decades that have to be worked through. There is a lot of heavy lifting at the Labor Department to get the legal roadblocks out of the way. If these resolutions pass, it would wipe out months and months of work that has gone into making this kind of State- and local-based partnership possible.

This particular issue ought to be a no-brainer. Saving in the private economy is the right thing, as I have said, for a host of reasons. People scrimping and saving to set aside money for retirement is the key to a healthy retirement policy so everybody is in a position to have a dignified retirement rather than stretching every penny they have, relying just on Social Security, family members, and food banks to make ends meet. I believe our people want the opportunity to save, and they like the idea of this automatic IRA because it is fair to workers and fair to employers.

My view is that the Senate ought to stand up and recognize that by voting against these ill-advised resolutions, this is a chance to support the interests of working people who would like to save in the private economy, ahead of special interests. I hope the Senate will do the right thing for those hard-working people and their families and vote these resolutions down.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I just want to commend my colleague from Massachusetts for an excellent presentation. He has really outlined A to Z with respect to what this issue is all about. I commend him, and I also commend the ranking member of the committee, Senator Nelson, our colleague from Florida, for his excellent job.

Before he leaves the floor, picking up on the remarks of our colleague from Massachusetts, I am particularly struck by the fact that I have always thought that it is a classic conservative principle to empower the individual--to empower the individual to make fundamental choices about what would be important to them and their family and their wallets and all of the activities that are central to the life of a working class family.

What we have been touching on--very eloquently by my colleague from Massachusetts--is we are going to be voting in a little bit to strip rights from individuals, to retreat from that classic conservative principle of empowering individuals and families to make decisions.

I think, for all of the reasons that my colleague from Massachusetts has talked about and that Senator Nelson has been talking about, this idea of stripping from individuals the right to make these fundamental decisions and allowing the gatekeepers of the internet to collect, share, and profit from personal information of consumers without their consent is an extraordinary mistake for our country at this time.

I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I think, for many people, these issues have, in effect, converged with respect to privacy policy as it relates to the private marketplace, which is what this ill-advised proposal that we are going to vote on today is all about.

We are constantly offered up ideas that suggest that you really are faced with what amounts to a flawed set of choices. In the intelligence area, we are consistently told: Well, you just have to give up a little bit of liberty to have security. And the reality is that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. Smart policies give us both. They give us security and liberty. Unfortunately, around here, we are coming up with policies, like weakening strong encryption, that are reducing both--reducing security and reducing liberty. I think what we are dealing with here on this ill-advised resolution in the Senate, with respect to the FCC rule, is yet another set of false choices--that you can either have internet access or privacy. They are not mutually exclusive. Just as we can have security and liberty, we can have internet access and privacy for all of the reasons that my friend from Massachusetts has been outlining.

Now, the FCC acted on the responsibility given to them by the Congress to protect browsing history--arguably the most intimate, personal information imaginable. Browsing history makes what the Senate did in the past with metadata look like small potatoes. Browsing history is really a picture into your personal life. I have appreciated the support of my colleagues for making sure that in the intelligence field, without court oversight, you couldn't get access to people's browsing history.

The Congress, in effect, told the Federal Communications Commission to protect browsing history, favorite applications, and even locations of American broadband users, and the FCC acted on it. Before that time, there were no rules in place outlining how an internet service provider--those are the ISPs that we always hear Senators talking about--may use, share, or even sell their customers' private information. So, just as the FCC has done for wireline phone customers, the FCC said it was going to keep up with the evolution of telecommunications networks by ensuring privacy protections would apply to broadband internet use. This struck a lot of us as just common sense. Again, building on the conservative principle of empowering the individual, the judgment was that by creating what are called ``opt- in'' consent agreements, where the consumer makes an affirmative decision about what they want--it is not what government wants, it is not what big companies want, it is what the consumer wants. The judgment was that by creating this opt-in consent agreement, the consumer would get a clear understanding of what the broadband provider knows about them from, for example, their computer or from their smartphone.

The big internet service providers are in a unique position to see where information flows over the networks and can see more of Americans' data than probably anybody else in what we might call the internet ecosystem. The websites we visit, what we look for, what time we are online--all of this, even our location--would be considered highly personal and highly sensitive information.

The responsibility of the internet service provider is to protect consumer privacy. It is compounded by the fact that the majority of broadband consumers have only one option for fast internet service to their home. There is only one company offering them service. So it seems to me what we are talking about--what Senator Markey has outlined--really looks like bad news for folks in rural areas where they are only going to have one provider, and, frankly, I think in a lot of metropolitan areas, particularly where there are modest-income individuals.

Without these protections in place, most consumers are left with the choice of giving up their browsing history for an internet service provider to sell to the highest bidder or to have no internet at all. So think about what that means for, say, an older person.

By the way, under what is being considered in the other body on healthcare, people between 50 and 64 aren't going to have a lot of extra money laying around. Those are people who are going to get clobbered--clobbered--by the healthcare bill that is being considered in the House today.

What is being considered in the House today--talking about the wallets of people between 50 and 64--would allow the insurance companies to charge people who are pre-Medicare five times as much as younger people. So they are already going to be paying thousands of dollars more out-of-pocket. Now, given what may happen in this body, we would have consumers left with the choice of giving up their browsing history for an internet service provider to sell to the highest bidder or have no internet at all. So we are socking it to them in terms of their healthcare premiums, and then we are socking it to them in terms of essential communications as well.

I just think this is unacceptable and certainly contrary to the whole notion of classic conservatism, empowering the individual. And it is certainly taking away these rights from folks in rural America--most of my towns in Oregon have populations of under 10,000 people. This proposal that is being discussed here is going to strip consumers of basic rights that are practically a requirement for economic success in the 21st century.

I am going to close by picking up on another point that I think Senator Markey said very well, and I believe I heard Senator Nelson, our ranking member, touch on as well. It looks to me like a subject that should not be in controversy: basic transparency and accountability for the individual, and individual empowerment. It shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't be a contentious matter. My colleague and I served in the other body for a number of years, and we built coalitions of people all across the political spectrum around the principles we are advocating today. Providing transparency and empowering the individual shouldn't be a contentious issue.

Under these regulations, internet service providers can still collect and use their subscribers' information. The rules simply ensure that internet service providers receive consent--receive permission from an empowered consumer--that it is OK to reuse or sell their information, and the companies would provide the consumers an explanation of how their data is collected and where it is shared. These rules are about transparency, plain and simple. Customers, especially those, as I have indicated, who are captive to one internet service provider, deserve to know how their internet service provider is using their data.

The broadband privacy rules are not some kind of attack on monetizing consumer data, but simply a recognition of the importance of consumer consent.

I will close by saying that more and more in this area, the American people are getting presented false choices. They are being told, as I see on the Intelligence Committee, that you have to give up some of your liberty to have your security. Those are false choices. They are not mutually exclusive. Everyone in America, everyone paying attention to this debate ought to know that they have a right to both. Don't ever, ever let a politician tell you that you have to give up some of your liberty to have your security. You have a right to vote, and it is our job, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to come up with policies that do both.

Today, we ought to make sure that people aren't presented with another false choice--that to have Internet access you have to give up your privacy rights. You can have both, and the Federal Communications Commission has sought to come up with a sensible policy to do that.

So I join my colleagues, particularly my friend from Massachusetts, who knows so much about this field, and our terrific ranking minority member, Senator Nelson, in urging colleagues to oppose a harmful resolution that, in my view, turns class conservatism on its head and strips consumers of their rights in a truly ill-advised manner.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the technology fellow on my staff, Christopher Soghoian, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center in Baker, OR, on its 25th anniversary and to recognize the cultural and historical importance of this special place. Twenty-five years ago, volunteers, philanthropists, and community leaders came together with the Bureau of Land Management to make this dream a reality, and today I want to honor them for their dedication to their community and the State of Oregon.

Since 1992, the Interpretive Center has brought to life the story of the Oregon Trail. Through life-size displays, historical artifacts, and live performances by historical interpreters, visitors to the center are transported back in time to the first days of Baker City. What started as a small goldmining town grew through the years as more emigrants arrived. These pioneers had fought through challenging conditions and traveled thousands of miles to reach Oregon, but had they not persevered, the growth of this State could never have taken place. We owe it to those who blazed the trail before us to listen to their story, and we owe it to ourselves to take their lessons of perseverance, innovation, and community spirit to heart.

It is no coincidence that the community that came together to make the Interpretive Center possible, shares the characteristics of their ancestors. In the 1970s, Baker City was struggling to keep up with a changing economy. It took the innovative vision of modern-day pioneers, who recognized the cultural importance of this place, to bring its rich history back to life. Joining forces with the Bureau of Land Management, community leaders worked together to create the Interpretive Center and jumpstarted Baker City's growing tourism industry.

Over 25 years, this community has continued to contribute to the sustained success of the Interpretive Center. From the hard-working caretakers of the center's 4 miles of interpretive trails, to the philanthropy of individuals like the late Leo Adler who help sustain the center financially, the people of Baker City demonstrate every day the same spirit as the pioneers they honor. In this way, the story of the Interpretive Center mirrors the very story it tells.

It stands today as a living testament to the value of learning from our past. Therefore, I wish today to not only celebrate this milestone, but to encourage us all to reflect on the example set by both the pioneers of the Oregon Trail and those who continue to blaze new trails for their communities every day.

Mr. President, I know both sides are working on trying to get an arrangement for the vote.

Mr. President, I also want to tell my colleague from Texas that I listened very carefully to his remarks with respect to transparency in government. He has had a long interest in the Freedom of Information Act and the like. I noted that he made a comment about the Bay of Pigs, about which information is still classified, and I know something about this because my dad wrote a book about the subject. My hope is that my friend from Texas and his interest in transparency will also extend to some other areas.

As I indicated, I am very familiar with my colleague's record with respect to Freedom of Information Act issues, which really is impressive. I

hope to get him involved in some other areas of transparency--perhaps in campaign finance reform and the issue I am going to be speaking about today, that of getting the American people the information--after 6 years of stonewalling--on how many lawful Americans are getting swept up in what will be Dan Coats' top priority, that of the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

I want my colleague to know, in my being very much aware of his good work on the Freedom of Information Act issues, that we are going to try and conscript them into some other transparency issues as well.

Mr. President, of course.

I will tell my colleague, as to what the majority and the minority have agreed to, as soon as those consent requests are ready, then we will take a time out from my remarks and make sure that matter is resolved.

As we wait for the matter Senator Cornyn has mentioned, I will begin the discussion of the nomination of Dan Coats to be the Director of National Intelligence.

I have known Senator Coats for many years. He has been the lead cosponsor of the bipartisan Federal income tax reform proposal, which has been a special priority of mine. I do not know of a single U.S. Senator who does not like Senator Coats. He is honest, a straight shooter, and gracious. My remarks are not about my personal affection for Senator Coats.

The reason I am voting against the nomination is due to the matter I just touched upon with the Senator from Texas, which is, for 6 years, it has been impossible to get the intelligence community to provide the Congress and the American people information that is absolutely critical to the debate on reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. For 6 long years, Democrats and Republicans, both in this body and in the other body, have been trying to get this information.

So this morning, given the fact that this legislation would be the top priority of Senator Coats, as he said in the Intelligence Committee, I want the Senate and the country to understand why this issue is so important.

First, I am happy to yield to my friend from Texas.

I thank my colleague.

Now, as we consider the nomination of Senator Coats, and recognize that his top priority, by his admission, would be the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--particularly section 702--I want to begin this discussion by saying that it is because the intelligence community has stonewalled Democrats and Republicans in both this body and in the other body for 6 years on the information that we need to do good oversight that I have come to the floor to outline what I think the central issue is all about.

I am going to begin my remarks by way of saying that, at a time when Americans are demanding policies that give them more security and more liberty, increasingly, we are seeing policies come from both this body and the other body that provide less of both.

A good example would be weakening strong encryption. Weakening strong encryption is bad from a security standpoint, and it is bad from a liberty standpoint. When government creates policies that give the American people less of both--less security and less liberty-- obviously, the American people are not going to react well.

My view is that when the government--particularly intelligence agencies--don't level with the American people about large-scale surveillance of law-abiding Americans, our people are justifiably angry. When the government tries to keep this information secret--as I have pointed out on this floor before--in America, the truth always comes out. Leveling with the American people is the only way for agencies to have the credibility and the legitimacy to effectively do their jobs. They have critically important jobs in keeping our people safe from threats.

Now, with respect to Senator Coats, at his confirmation hearing, since he said the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would be his top priority, I asked our former colleague how many Americans-- innocent, law-abiding Americans--have actually been swept up in the surveillance program known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under section 702, the government conducts warrantless surveillance of foreigners who are reasonably believed to be overseas. It does this work by compelling telecommunications companies and internet service providers to provide the content, phone calls, and emails, and other individual communications.

Now, there are several different ways this happens, and I will get to that in the course of these remarks. What we are talking about--what I want people to understand--is that this goes to the content of communications. This is not about metadata collection. Congress, as the Senate knows, reformed that in the USA FREEDOM Act. This is surveillance without any warrants, and once the FISA Court signs off on the overall program, the details are up to the government.

Now, this was not always the case. For decades, individual warrants were required when the government needed the assistance of the country's telecommunications firms. Then the Bush administration created a secret, but legal, warrantless wiretapping program.

After the program was revealed, the government then went to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court to get approval. But when the government ran into some trouble with the court, the Bush administration argued that the Congress should create the current program. It was first passed in 2007 under the name Protect America Act. That became the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008.

Now, fortunately, the Congress included a sunset provision, which is why it was up for reauthorization in 2012, and that is why it is up for reauthorization this year. This year it is Senator Coats' top priority, if confirmed. Whoever is the head of the intelligence community will be the point person for this legislation.

I want it understood that the reason that I am going through this background is that I believe the American people deserve a fully informed debate about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization. You cannot have that debate--you cannot ensure that the American people have security and liberty--unless you know the impact of section 702 of that bill on the constitutional rights of law- abiding Americans.

So for 6 years, in this body, Democrats and Republicans--and in the other body, Democrats and Republicans--have been asking the same question: How many law-abiding Americans are having their communications swept up in all of this collection? Without even an estimate of this number, I don't think it is possible to judge what section 702 means for the core liberties of law-abiding Americans. Without this information, the Congress can't make an informed decision about whether to reauthorize section 702 or what kind of reforms might be necessary to ensure the protection of the individual liberties of innocent Americans.

At Senator Coats' nomination hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, I asked Senator Coats whether he would commit to providing Congress and the public with this information. I will say, because of my respect for Senator Coats and our longtime cooperation on issues like tax reform and a variety of others, I hoped that Senator Coats would be the one--after 6 years of struggling to get this information-- to make a commitment to deliver it to the Senate Intelligence Committee before work on the reauthorization began. Instead, Senator Coats said: ``I will do everything I can to work with Admiral Rogers at the NSA to get you that number.''

If confirmed, I hope that happens. But after asking for the number of law-abiding Americans who get swept up in these searches for years, and getting stonewalled by the executive branch, hoping to get the information we need to do real oversight is just not good enough.

The problem--the lack of information on the impact of this law on the privacy of Americans--goes all the way back to the origins of the authority. In December of 2007, the Bush administration, in its statement of administration policy on the FISA Amendments Act, stated that it would likely be impossible to count the number of people located in the United States as communications were reviewed by the government. In April of 2011, our former colleague Senator Mark Udall and I then asked the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, for an estimate. In July of that year, the Director wrote back and said: ``It is not reasonably possible to identify the number of people located in the United States whose communications may have been reviewed under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.''

He suggested reviewing the classified number of disseminated intelligence reports containing a reference to a U.S. person, but that is very different than the number of Americans whose communications have been collected in the first place. And that is what this is all about: How many law-abiding Americans--innocent, law-abiding Americans--are getting swept up in these searches? It will be an increasingly important issue as the nature of telecommunications companies continues to change, because it is now a field that is globally interconnected. We don't have telecommunications systems just stopping at national borders. So getting the number of Americans whose communications have been collected in the first place is the prerequisite to doing real oversight on this law and doing our job, at a time when it is being reauthorized and the American people want both security and liberty and understand that the two are not mutually exclusive.

So Director Clapper then suggested reviewing the classified number of targets that were later determined to be located in the United States. But the question has never been about the targets of 702, although the mistaken targeting of Americans and the people in our country is another serious question. The question that Democrats and Republicans have been asking is about how many Americans are being swept up by a program that, according to the law, is supposed to only target foreigners overseas.

So let me repeat that. That is what the law says. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act says that the targets are supposed to be foreigners overseas, and Democrats and Republicans want to know how many law-abiding Americans, who might reside in Alaska or Oregon or anywhere else, are getting swept up in these searches.

(Mr. SULLIVAN assumed the Chair.)

So this bipartisan coalition has kept asking. In July of 2012, anticipating the first reauthorization of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I and 11 other Senators from both parties wrote to Director Clapper. This bipartisan group wrote:

We understand that it might not be possible for the

intelligence community to calculate this number with

precision, but it is difficult for us to accept the assertion

that it is not possible to come up with even a rough estimate

of this number. If generating a precise estimate would

require an inordinate amount of labor, we would be willing to

accept an imprecise one.

We asked about imprecise estimates, just a ballpark: How many law- abiding Americans are getting swept up in these searches that the law says are designed to target foreigners?

We asked about orders of magnitude: Is the number closer to a hundred or a hundred thousand or a hundred million?

We still got no answer, and section 702 was reauthorized without this necessary information. So last year, looking at the prospect of the law coming up, there was a renewed effort to find out how many law-abiding Americans are getting swept up in these searches of foreigners.

In April 2016, a bipartisan letter from members of the House Judiciary Committee asked the Director of National Intelligence for a public estimate of the number of communications or transactions involving U.S. persons collected under section 702 on an annual basis. This letter, coming from the House--Democrats and Republicans--again asked for a rough estimate. This bipartisan group suggested working with Director Clapper to determine the methodology to get this estimate. In December, there were hints in the news media that something might be forthcoming. But now, here we are, with a new administration, considering the nomination of the next head of the intelligence community, who has said that reauthorizing section 702 is his top legislative priority, and there is no answer in sight to the question Democrats and Republicans have been asking for over 6 years: How many innocent, law-abiding Americans are getting swept up in these searches under a law that targets foreigners overseas?

Having described this history, I want to explain why this issue is so important, starting with the many ways in which innocent Americans can be swept up in section 702 surveillance.

The first are targeting mistakes in which, contrary to the law, the target turns out to be an American or someone in the United States. The full impact of these mistakes on law-abiding Americans is not readily apparent. The most recent public report on section 702 noted that there were compliance incidents involving surveillance of foreigners in the United States and surveillance of Americans. This is in violation of the law, and it happens.

The second way in which Americans can be swept up in section 702 collection is when they communicate with an overseas target. This is usually called incidental collection and is often mischaracterized. I have heard many times that the program is intended to find out when Americans are communicating with ``bad guys''--and I want it understood, I am not interested in some kind of ``bad guys caucus.'' I know of no Senator who is not interested in protecting our country from those kinds of threats. If a known terrorist overseas is communicating with someone in the United States, we ought to know about it. But section 702 is not just a counterterrorism program. The statute requires the collection be conducted ``to acquire foreign intelligence information.'' As implemented, the standard for targeting individuals under the program is that the government has reason to believe those persons possess, are expected to receive, or are likely to communicate foreign intelligence information. Obviously, that is broad. It doesn't even require that a target be suspected of wrongdoing. So if someone tells you that your communications will be collected only if you are talking to al-Qaida or ISIS, that is just factually wrong.

It is also important to note that the government is prohibited from collecting communications only when the sender of an email and everyone receiving that email are in the United States. So an American in the United States could send an email to another American in the United States, but if

the email also goes to an overseas target, it is going to be collected.

That then brings us to the different kinds of collection under section 702 and how they affect the liberties of our people in different ways. In one form of collection known as PRISM, the government orders an internet service provider to provide the government with messages to and from a specific email address. Then there is something known as upstream collection, which is when the communications are collected off the telecommunications and internet backbones. In other words, phone calls and email messages are collected in transit. This kind of collection raises a number of other reasons to be concerned about how many law-abiding Americans are getting swept up. For one, it is through upstream collection that the government can collect emails that are neither to nor from a target. The email merely has to be about a target, meaning, for example, it includes a target's email address in the content. In other words, the government can collect emails to and from Americans, none of whom are of any interest to the government whatsoever, so long as the target's email address is in the content of the email. The law requires only that one of the parties to the communication, who, again, could be another American, is overseas, and even that requirement is harder for the government to meet in practice.

The implications here ought to be pretty obvious. You don't even have to be communicating with one of the government's targets to be swept up in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act collection. You don't even have to be communicating with a foreigner. You or somebody emailing you just needs to reference a target's email address.

I have now mentioned that this target is not necessarily a terrorist because the law allows for surveillance ``to acquire foreign intelligence information.'' That has been interpreted to allow the targeting of individuals who the government has reason to believe possess, are expected to receive, or are likely to communicate foreign intelligence information. It is a broad standard, and the government could then collect the communications of all kinds of foreigners around the world. Think about how easy it would be for an American business leader to be in contact with the broad set of potential targets of this program. Consider how easy it would be for Americans, communicating with other Americans, to forward the emails of these people. All of this could be collected by the government.

The upstream collection also includes the collection of what are called multicommunications transactions. This is when the NSA collects an email that is to, from, or about a target, but that email is embedded among multiple other communications that are not. These communications may have nothing to do with the target, but the government just kind of, sort of ends up with them--and some of them are sent and received entirely within the United States.

These are the ways in which law abiding Americans--innocent, law- abiding Americans who have done absolutely nothing wrong, both overseas and in the United States--can have their communications collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These are law-abiding Americans, innocent Americans, not necessarily suspected of anything, and it is their privacy and their constitutional rights that have caused Democrats and Republicans in this body and in the other body to seek the actual numbers of how many law-abiding Americans are getting swept up in these searches that are supposed to target foreigners overseas.

The reason this is important is that the program is getting bigger and bigger. The exact numbers are classified, but the government's public reporting confirms steady increases in collection. At some point, the size of the program and the extent to which Americans' communications are being collected raises obvious concerns about our Fourth Amendment. The question is not if the program raises constitutional concerns, but when. And that gets to the heart of what our bipartisan coalition has been concerned about: If it is not possible for the Senate to know as part of reauthorizing this law how many Americans are being swept up by this program, we cannot determine whether the government has crossed a constitutional line.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an agency the Congress has tasked to look at these issues, has raised the very same concerns I am outlining this morning. In the 2014 report by the Board-- the nonpartisan organization tasked by the Congress--concluded that the lack of information about the collection of the communications of law- abiding Americans' communications under section 702 ``hampers attempts to gauge whether the program appropriately balances national security interests with the privacy of U.S. persons.''

They went on to say:

The program [is] close to the line of constitutional

reasonableness. At the very least, too much expansion in the

collection of U.S. persons' communications or the uses to

which those communications are put may push the program over

the line.

They recommended exactly what our bipartisan coalition has been calling for--that the government provide to the Congress and, to the extent consistent with national security, that the public and the Congress get data on the collection of these communications of law- abiding Americans.

The most frequently heard argument against what our bipartisan group of House and Senate Members has been calling for is that, whatever number of communications are being collected on law-abiding Americans, it is minimized, which implies that information about Americans is hidden.

This is a particularly important issue. I have heard my colleagues on the other side say frequently: Well, if law-abiding Americans are having their communications swept up, we shouldn't get all concerned about that because this array of Americans' communications is being minimized. Somehow that means it is not getting out; it is being hidden. That is not necessarily what happens. To begin with, all that collection does not stay at the National Security Agency. All the emails collected through the PRISM component of section 702 go to several other agencies, including the CIA and the FBI. Then we have those three agencies, in particular, authorized to conduct searches through all the data for communications that are to, from, or about Americans: Look for an American's name, telephone number, email address, even a key word or phrase. They can do that without any warrant. There doesn't have to be even a suspicion--even a suspicion-- that an American is engaged in any kind of wrongdoing. The FBI's authorities are even broader. The FBI can conduct searches for communications that are to, from, or about an American to seek evidence of a crime. Unlike the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, the FBI doesn't even report how many searches for Americans it is conducting. Moreover, neither the FBI nor the CIA reports on the number of searches for Americans that it conducts using metadata collected under section 702.

The authority to conduct searches for Americans' communications in section 702 data is new. Before 2011, the FISA Court prohibited queries for U.S. persons. I am going to repeat that. Under the Bush administration and in the first 2 years of the Obama administration, it was not possible to conduct these backdoor, warrantless searches of law-abiding Americans. Then the Obama administration sought to change the rules and obtained authority to conduct them.

In April 2014, the Director of National Intelligence's response to questions from me and Senator Mark Udall publicly acknowledged these warrantless searches. By June the House voted overwhelmingly to prohibit them. That prohibition didn't become law, but I can tell you that it is sure going to be considered in the context of this reauthorization. The House voted overwhelmingly to prohibit these warrantless searches.

So the question really is this: What exactly is the privacy impact of these warrantless searches for Americans? In 2014, I managed to extract from the intelligence community some, but not all, necessary information about how many Americans had been subject of the searches. That was a step forward, but what the data doesn't tell us is who the subjects of these searches are. More to the point, it doesn't tell us how many Americans are potentially the subject of these searches. If the number

is small, the potential for abuse, obviously, would be smaller. If the number is large, the potential for abuse is much greater. Without an understanding of the size of the pool from which the government can pull the communications of law-abiding Americans, there is just no way of knowing how easy it would be for the government to use this law as a means to read the emails of a political opponent, a business leader, a journalist, or an activist.

I now want to turn to the ultimate form of abuse, and that is something called reverse targeting. It is prohibited by law and defined as collection ``if the purpose of the acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States.'' This prohibition also applies to U.S. persons. The question, though, is how this is defined and how the public can be assured it is not happening.

If you look at the language, you can see why there has been bipartisan concern. The collection is only prohibited if the purpose is to get the communications of Americans. The question obviously has risen: What if getting the Americans' communications is only one of the purposes of collecting on an overseas target? What is actually acceptable here?

This issue was concerning in 2008, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act passed with a prohibition on reverse targeting. But that was before the country knew about the collection of emails that are only about a foreign target and that could be to and from Americans. That was before the Obama administration sought and obtained authority to conduct warrantless searches for communications to, from, and about Americans out of section 702 PRISM collection.

That makes an important point to me. This bipartisan coalition--of which I have been a part--has fought back against executive branch overreach, whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. I cited the fact that President Obama brought back something with the great potential for abuse and that President Bush said he wanted no part of. As we look at these issues, it is important to understand exactly what the scope of the problem is. Each of the agencies authorized to conduct these warrantless searches--the NSA, FBI, CIA--are also authorized to identify the overseas targets of section 702. The agencies that have developed an interest in Americans' communications, which are actually looking for these communications, are the same agencies that are in a position to encourage ongoing collection of those communications by targeting the overseas party.

I believe our bipartisan group believes that there is very substantial potential for abuse. Because of these decisions taking place in the executive branch without any judicial oversight, it is possible that no one would ever know.

To quote the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: ``Since the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, the extent to which the government acquires the communications of U.S. persons under Section 702 has been one of the biggest open questions about the program, and a continuing source of public concern.'' The Board noted that the executive branch has responded with any number of excuses for why it couldn't provide the number of how many innocent law-abiding Americans get swept up in these searches. One excuse has been the size of the program. But as Members--Democrats and Republicans--have said repeatedly, an estimate, perhaps based on a sample, is sufficient. Nobody is dictating how this be done.

Another excuse has been that determining whether individuals whose communications have been collected are American would itself be invasive of privacy. Now this is something of a head-scratcher. I will just say that, as to the value of knowing how many law-abiding Americans get swept up in these searches, privacy advocates have stated that this far-fetched theory, this far-fetched excuse for not furnishing it, doesn't add up in terms of the benefit of finding how many Americans are swept up in these warrantless searches.

The government is genuinely concerned about the privacy implications of calculating the number. I and many of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, have been willing--and we renewed this in the last few weeks--to have a discussion about the methodology under consideration.

In the months ahead, the Senate is going to be debating a number of issues relating to this topic, such as U.S. person searches, reverse targeting, and the collection of communications that are just about a target. The Senate is going to discuss how to strengthen oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Congress, and the privacy board. The Director of National Intelligence will be right in the center of the debate.

There is more information that the American people need. There is more information that this body needs in order to carry out its responsibility to do real oversight here. The center of these discussions about the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act involves one question: How many innocent, law-abiding Americans have been swept up in this program that has been written and developed to target foreigners overseas? Congress's judgment about the impact of section 702 depends on getting this number. An assessment of the program's constitutionality rests on the understanding of the impact it has on Americans. A full grasp of the implications of the warrantless searches of Americans requires knowing how many Americans' communications are being searched through. Countless questions related to the reauthorization of the program all require that the public have this information.

I am just going to close by way of saying what those questions are because if you want to do real oversight over a critically important program, you have to have the information to respond to these questions. The questions are these: Should there be safeguards against reverse targeting? Should Congress legislate on ``upstream'' collections and the collection of communications about targets, which raises unique concerns about the collection of the communications of law-abiding Americans? Are the rules related to the dissemination, use, and retention of these communications adequate? Should there be limits on the use of these communications by the FBI for non-intelligence purposes?

Just think about that one for a minute. What does it mean to people in our part of the world where people feel that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive, but they are going to insist on both? What does it mean to them on the question of whether there ought to be limits on the use of this information by the FBI for non-intelligence purposes? That is exactly the kind of question that people are going to ask.

I am heading home today for townhall meetings in rural areas, and those are exactly the kind of questions that Oregonians ask. People understand this is a dangerous time. That is not at issue.

I serve on the Intelligence Committee, along with Senator Feinstein, and I have been one of the longer serving members. The fact that this is a dangerous world is not a debatable proposition. There are a lot of people out there who do not wish our country well. But what I say to Oregonians and what I will say again this weekend is this: Any politician who tells you that you have to give up your liberty to have security is not somebody who is working in your interest because smart policies give you both.

That is why I started talking about the benefits of strong encryption--critically important for security. These questions are ones that I don't think are particularly partisan. That is why a big group of Democrats and Republicans here and in the other body have been seeking the information about how many law-abiding Americans get caught up in these efforts to target a foreigner overseas. We are now at a critical moment. A government surveillance program, with very obvious implications for privacy and constitutional rights, is up for reauthorization by the end of the year. While more information may be part of the answer, we have to have the best possible estimate to answer those questions that I just outlined.

The American people want Congress to get to the bottom of questions that go right to the heart of our having

policies that promote both their security and their liberty. I think the public expects a full debate. You can't have a full and real debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unless you have some sense of how many law-abiding Americans are getting swept up in these searches of foreigners.

I believe the American people expect serious oversight over it. They want assurances that their representatives in Congress have a sense of what is actually being voted on. After years of secret surveillance programs being revealed only in the news media, I think the public has rightly insisted on more openness and more transparency.

So getting the information that I have described today, which will deal with Senator Coats' top priority of reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is a critical first step. Once the Senate knows the impact of this program on Americans, then you can have a full and real discussion--a real debate in Congress--with the public and with the Director of National Intelligence.

I took the view in the committee, despite very much liking Dan Coats and his being the bipartisan cosponsor of what is still the only Federal income tax reform proposal we have had in the Senate since the 1986 law was authored, I said that I cannot support any nominee to be the head of national intelligence if that nominee will not guarantee that before this reauthorization is brought before the Senate and brought before the Intelligence Committee, that we have the information needed to do our job, to do real oversight, to show the American people it is possible to come up with policies that promote security and liberty. For that reason, despite my friendship with Senator Coats, I cannot support the nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Senate has been digging into the legal quagmire of drug testing the unemployed. I would like to begin by saying that no matter where a Senator comes down on the issue of drug testing, my view is that this measure before us is simply bizarre.

If, like me, you believe that drug testing is ineffective and mean- spirited, you ought to oppose this measure because it simply vilifies unemployed workers who are actually less likely to use drugs than the general population.

For those Senators who support drug testing, this measure blows up what has been a bipartisan compromise and a Labor Department rule allowing select testing to go forward. The result of this measure passing would actually be to block testing from going forward.

The fact is that the courts have ruled that suspicionless drug testing violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. That is why there is now actually a rule that is narrow.

We have the courts expressing skepticism about this, and there is actually a rule that is narrow so that, in effect, States that are doing this drug testing have what amounts to guardrails to avoid running afoul of the Constitution. If you pass this measure, you will throw out the guardrails, opening up, in my view, the possibility of yet more litigation on Fourth Amendment grounds.

Now, as I touched on in my opening comments, there isn't evidence that unemployment insurance recipients use drugs any more frequently than the general population. In fact, studies actually indicate that they are less likely to use illegal drugs than the general population. So this idea that somehow there is a presumption of irresponsible conduct and guilt is just baseless.

To be eligible for unemployment insurance, workers have to have substantial recent work experience. They have to be unemployed through no fault of their own. Workers can only collect unemployment benefits if they are actively searching for work and available to work.

For States that have implemented drug testing policies, there is evidence that the costs dwarf the potential savings. The costs of operating drug testing programs are charged to State health and human services accounts, and I think we all understand that those have been squeezed mightily by the effort to treat opioid addiction. In my view, instead of wasting money by drug testing Americans who are looking for jobs, the States ought to be putting those very same dollars toward

substance abuse treatment, given the fact that opioid addiction has hit our country like a wrecking ball.

Moreover, we have said that fighting opioid addiction ought to be a bipartisan cause. If Republicans wanted to do everything possible to fight addiction, they shouldn't be going forward with TrumpCare, a bill that would be a disastrous setback when it comes to fighting opioid addiction. The fact is that colleagues on the other side of the aisle here in the Senate--colleagues not from my side but colleagues from the other side--have expressed their concern about what TrumpCare means for the fight against opioid addiction.

The hard numbers are actually out now on TrumpCare, and they show that the majority is going into overdrive to pass a bill that strips millions of Americans of their access to treatment for substance abuse. Today Medicaid is strengthening our mental health network, expanding access to substance use disorder treatment, and is at the forefront of some promising new work to fight opioid addiction. So TrumpCare hits the cause of treating opioid addiction in a devastating way. It slashes the healthcare safety net, and, in my view, it would inflame the epidemic of drug abuse deaths across the country.

At the same time, there is this partisan effort to slash funding for addiction treatment. Republicans have dredged up an old head-scratcher of an argument that drug testing Americans and denying them earned benefits somehow just magically helps to overcome addiction. This is an important point.

Just like Social Security, unemployment insurance is an earned benefit. It is an earned benefit that ought to be there for workers who fall on hard times.

So what the majority is pushing for in this debate looks to me like light years away from what was discussed last year when there was discussion before the election about helping Americans in every part of the Nation who are struggling with opioid addiction.

You have to ask this question: What earned benefits are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle going to crusade against next? Is the drug testing crusade going to turn next to Social Security and Medicare recipients as an excuse to deny seniors benefits that they have earned--earned benefits that they worked hard for through a lifetime of work?

I am going to wrap up by way of saying that, if this measure passes, I think States are just going to be thrown into bedlam. The current law, based on a compromise--a bipartisan compromise reached in 2012-- says States can drug test recipients of unemployed benefits in two cases: first, if the unemployment insurance recipient lost their job for drug-related reasons and, second, if the unemployment insurance recipient is applying for a type of occupation that requires drug testing, as defined by the rules of the Department of Labor.

Let's say, for example, that two unemployment benefits recipients are specifically applying for jobs as schoolbus drivers or air traffic controllers. The rule that is on the books now says that States can drug test those individuals because they are applying for work in occupations that require drug testing.

Now, as far as I can tell, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to eliminate the rule that defined those occupations. States would be blocked from performing any occupation-based drug testing for unemployment recipients, and the States would just be walking into a legal minefield if they wanted to go ahead with testing programs anyway.

Make no mistake about it. When this passes--if it does--drug testing policies go on hold until the Congress passes a new law, rather than our continuing a carefully put together bipartisan compromise of just a couple of years ago.

I have been trying to see this from my colleagues' perspective. I have listened to the arguments from the other side. I just find this a baffling, bizarre kind of analysis. All this measure does is create a huge amount of new uncertainty. That doesn't strike me as a good way to reduce bureaucracy and make government more efficient.

If the majority decides to take another crack at this issue down the road, I can only guess at what kind of new ideas they might have that would, again, miss the point of making sure we had a narrow, defined, and bipartisan approach to deal with this issue.

My view is that this is an ill-conceived campaign against working people built on a completely false premise. The premise is that if you are looking for work, you are guilty of drug use until proven innocent. My view is that we ought to keep trying, as I have said, on major issues involving health and taxes and infrastructure and trade. When you are dealing with important questions, we should work to find the common ground. It is not about taking each other's bad ideas. It is about taking each other's good ideas.

My view is that what was done a few years ago was a good and narrowly tailored bipartisan idea. What the Senate may choose to do is basically to throw that in the trash can, create bedlam, and make it impossible for States to move because they are in a sort of legal limbo. I don't see how that meets the test of sound policy.

This measure before us today sets back the cause of strengthening the unemployment insurance system. It sets back the cause of advocating for Americans struggling with addiction. I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure when we vote here in a little bit.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, the hard numbers are now in on TrumpCare, and there is no sugarcoating them for the American people, as 24 million Americans get kicked off their insurance plans, as $880 billion is slashed from Medicaid in the first decade, and as a payday worth hundreds of billions of dollars goes out to the wealthiest and the special interests. That is what is going to be dropped on Ms. Verma's plate if she is confirmed and if the bill passes. It is her nomination that is up for debate right now, and we should make no mistake that she is going to be in charge of the specifics.

If TrumpCare passes, under section 132, the new Administrator would be able to give States a green light to push sick patients into high- risk pools when the historical record shows that these high-risk pools are a failure when it comes to offering good coverage that is affordable.

The new Administrator would be in charge of section 134 and could decide exactly how skimpy TrumpCare plans would be and how many more Americans would be forced to pay out-of-pocket for the care they need.

The new Administrator would handle section 135, which paves the way for health insurers to make coverage more expensive for those who are approaching retirement age. That is just the start.

The fact is that TrumpCare is about enormous tax breaks for the fortunate few, financed by raiding Medicare, gutting Medicaid, and hurting older people and the sick and those who are of modest income. Ms. Verma would have the job of implementing all of this at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

My view is that the Senate cannot debate this nomination without debating the matter of the TrumpCare program itself because it will be a very huge part of the job. Today, I am going to walk through some of the specifics with regard to TrumpCare, beginning with the scheme that I call ``Robin Hood in reverse.''

If you look at the funds, it is clear that this is an eye-popping transfer of wealth away from older people, from women and kids--from the most vulnerable--directly into the wallets of the fortunate few. No part of the TrumpCare bill shows this more clearly than the fact that it steals from the Medicare trust fund to pay for a tax cut that goes only to the most fortunate--only to those who make a quarter million dollars or more per year.

Everybody in America who brings home a paycheck has a little bit taken out each and every time for Medicare. It is right there on the pay stub. It is automatic. Under TrumpCare, the only people who are going to see a Medicare tax cut are the people who need it the least. I want to repeat that. Everybody in America, when one gets a paycheck, sees a Medicare tax, and everybody pays it, and we understand why it is so important. There are going to be 10,000 people turning 65 every day for years and years to come. The only people who are going to get that Medicare tax cut are the people who need it the least, and that tax cut that is going to go to the fortunate few will take 3 years off of the life of the Medicare Program, depleting the program in 2025 instead of in 2028.

That particular cut breaks a clear Trump promise not to harm Medicare. All through the campaign, then-Candidate Trump was very, very firm in his saying that he would do no harm to Medicare.

He said:

You can't get rid of Medicare. Medicare's a program that

works . . . I'm going to fix it and make it better, but I'm

not going to cut it.

The promise not to cut Medicare lasted about 6\1/2\ weeks into the Trump administration before it was broken. The bottom line is that TrumpCare raids Medicare. It raids Medicare and causes harm to Medicare in violation of an explicit Trump promise during the campaign, and it brings Medicare 3 years closer to a crisis to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest in America.

So you have this enormous, eye-popping transfer of wealth from working people, seniors, and people of modest means to the most fortunate. Yet, somehow, people have the chutzpah to say it is a healthcare bill? I do not think so. It is a huge, huge tax windfall for the fortunate.

There is also the tax break on investment income. Once again, this is a break that is going to only go to the most fortunate among us, and, with the investment tax break, the overwhelming majority of the benefit--nearly two-thirds of it--will go to the top one-tenth of one percent of earners in America. That looks like an awful lot of money that is going to be going to the fortunate few, but we are not even done there.

On top of all of this, there is yet another juicy tax--this time for health insurance executives' salaries. It is another juicy tax cut for executives who are making over $500,000 per year.

It is not just Medicare that is getting raided under this proposal. Some of those who are hit the hardest by TrumpCare are those who are approaching retirement age. If you are an older American and are of modest income--55 or 60--and you have to get insurance in the private market, TrumpCare is going to cause your prices to go through the stratosphere. In parts of my home State, especially in rural areas, a 60-year-old who brings home $30,000 a year could see his insurance costs go up by $8,000 or more.

Much of this is due to what we call an age tax. It is a key part of TrumpCare. It is another key part of what Ms. Verma will be in charge of implementing. The bill would give health insurance companies the green light to charge older people five times as much as they charge younger people. If you are a person of modest means, are a few years away from qualifying for Medicare, and your insurance premiums jump by $8,000, that means you are just out of luck. You are going to be locked out of the system. You are, basically, going to have to hope that you just do not get sick before you are eligible for Medicare.

Those tax credits that you hear so much about from TrumpCare advocates are not going to be of much consolation to you. That is because TrumpCare puts a hard cap on your tax credit as an older person--just $4,000--and the odds are good that it would not come close to covering the expense of a decent insurance plan.

Now, I am going to turn to Medicaid because TrumpCare does not just make little changes around the margins. It does not strengthen or preserve this program that covers 74 million Americans. TrumpCare hits Medicaid like a wrecking ball, and it has particular implications for seniors. I am going to walk through those.

The Medicaid nursing home benefit is very much at risk now because of the TrumpCare cuts as it relates to Medicaid. Medicaid picks up the bill for two out of three nursing home patients. These are the people who have worked a lifetime, raised kids, put them through school, and scrimped and saved all they could. These are the people who, in Kansas and in Oregon and across the country, never went on the special vacation, who never bought a boat. All they did was to try to scrimp and save and educate their kids. The fact is that growing old in America is pricey, and after a few years of balancing the rent bill against the food bill and the food bill against the medical costs, what happens is that a lot of seniors just exhaust their savings.

When I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers, what I saw in my State--and it is duplicated everywhere--was older people walking every single week on an economic tightrope. They were balancing the food bills against the medical bills and the medical bills against the rent bills, and they just couldn't keep up. They burn

through all of their funds and they burn through their modest savings, so when it is time to pay for nursing home care, they have to turn to Medicaid.

Today in America, the Medicaid nursing home benefit is a guarantee that those vulnerable older people--the people who are walking on that economic tightrope--are going to be taken care of. TrumpCare breaks the Medicaid nursing home guarantee, and it goes even further than that. A lot of States--mine is one--worked hard to give more care choices to seniors as well as those with disabilities. Maybe instead of living in a nursing home or an institution, they would rather be in the community. Maybe they would rather live at home where they are most comfortable. TrumpCare could mean that those home- and community-based choices could disappear as well.

So what we are talking about is that with these cuts in Medicaid, at a time when, in Kansas and in Oregon and across the country--what we have tried to build for older people is a continuum of services. There would be help at home. There would be help in terms of long-term care facilities. There would be a wide array of choices. And because of Medicaid, there was enough money to fund these choices, to fund this continuum of care for vulnerable older people. Now, as a result of the Medicaid cutbacks, my concern is that there is not going to be enough money for any of these choices--not going to be enough money for the nursing home benefit, not going to be enough money for home- and community-based services. Suffice it to say that my own home State has indicated to me that they are very concerned about the cutback in home- and community-based services.

Nobody wants to see older people get nickled and dimed for the basics in home care they rely on and good nursing home benefits. Yet, when it comes to Medicaid, TrumpCare would effectively end the program as it exists today, shredding the healthcare safety net for older people and millions of others in our country.

It puts an expiration date on the Medicaid coverage that millions of Americans got through the Affordable Care Act. For many, it was the first time they had health insurance. It brought an end to an era where those individuals could turn only to emergency rooms for care. And now TrumpCare is going to cap the Medicaid budget and just squeeze it and squeeze it and squeeze it some more until vulnerable people will not be able to get care.

The program is particularly important for seniors and the disabled, and I want to make sure that people understand what it means for children as well, for those in the dawn of life as well as those in the twilight of life.

Medicaid pays for half of all births, and kids make up half of Medicaid's enrollees. It is important to remember that in many cases, these are kids who already have the odds stacked against them. They are from low-income families. They are foster kids. They are kids with disabilities. We know they are already facing an uphill climb. Medicaid, though, has been there now with the Affordable Care Act to make sure they could see family practitioners and even pediatric specialists. That was just unheard of for these youngsters before the Affordable Care Act. And when a kid needs emergency care, Medicaid is what makes it affordable. TrumpCare puts that in danger.

I have talked about what it means for older people and what it means for the disabled and what it means for kids, and I am just going to keep on going because now that we have the hard numbers in--the hard numbers have arrived here in real time from the budget office that is charged with giving us this analysis--it is important to talk about what it means, because budgets are not just facts and figures and cold sheets of paper; they are about people's hopes and aspirations. And the hopes and aspirations that I have had since those days when I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers were to make sure that people had affordable, quality, decent healthcare choices because in America, if you don't have your health, you really are missing much of what makes life so special in our country.

The bill also takes an enormous toll in other areas, and I want to mention next opioid abuse. By slashing Medicaid, TrumpCare is going to make America's epidemic of prescription drug abuse-related deaths even worse.

The papers this morning had accounts about how families were losing most of their children to opioid addiction--most of their children lost to opioid addiction--on the front pages of the papers. Medicaid is a key source of coverage for mental health and substance abuse disorder treatment, particularly after the Affordable Care Act, but this bill takes away the coverage for millions who need it.

Republican State lawmakers, to their credit, have spoken out about this issue. Frankly, it just ought to be a head-scratcher for anybody who remembers the last Presidential race when, in the primary race, a parade of candidates rolled through State after State that had been hit hard by the opioid crisis, and all of those candidates were trying to outpromise the one who had spoken previously in terms of how they would help solve the opioid crisis. Then-Candidate Trump was one of the most outspoken on saying that he would fix the opioid crisis. He said he was the guy who could end the scourge of drug addiction and get Americans the help they need. Instead, what we have is TrumpCare, which makes the opioid crisis worse, and there is no getting around it.

TrumpCare puts States in the unimaginable position of having to decide whose Medicaid to slash. Are they going to tell seniors that the nursing home benefit is no longer a guarantee and they are going to have to get in a long waiting line for an opportunity to get a place in the local nursing home? Should they tell pregnant women that births are no longer covered? What about telling mothers and fathers that their kids are cut off and they will have to hope for the best or make their way back to the emergency room?

I also want to touch on a final point that really deserves some discussion and hasn't gotten much, and the finance staff has been looking at it; that is, how TrumpCare really creates a disincentive to work, because I think TrumpCare and Ms. Verma's role implementing it are going to have a substantial effect on American workers and entrepreneurs.

It is my view that TrumpCare creates a substantial, significant disincentive to work. Today, if you are on Medicaid, you are able to pick up a few extra hours at work or go out and accept a higher paying job without the fear that you will lose access to care. That is because under the Affordable Care Act, low-income Americans get the most help when it comes to paying insurance premiums. A lot of persons can get health insurance for less than $100 a month.

Let's compare that with the TrumpCare approach. Under the TrumpCare plan, those who are walking an economic tightrope, bringing home barely more than the minimum wage, don't get the most help. They don't get the most help, and they could see their insurance costs go up by thousands and thousands of dollars each year, which would effectively mean they would be locked out of the healthcare system. So for millions of persons, staying on Medicaid would suddenly look a lot more attractive. Making a little more money and losing your Medicaid coverage could mean losing your access to high-quality healthcare altogether. So my view is nobody has been able to counter this. TrumpCare, in effect, would keep Americans trapped in poverty.

Entrepreneurs and Americans who want to go back to school to pursue a degree would face the same dilemma. Somebody who wants to quit their job and pursue their dream of starting their own business ought to be able to do it without a fear that they won't be able to any longer afford healthcare. The same goes for those who want to go back to school full time to pursue a degree or certification. TrumpCare makes insurance unaffordable for those persons.

TrumpCare is going to be the big issue on Ms. Verma's plate if she is confirmed this afternoon in the Senate to administer this office. We all understand that this bill has been taking a pounding from all sides. Moderate Republicans and those who consider themselves conservative Republicans are against it. Governors from both

parties are against it. Democrats are united. The AARP, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Nurses Association have all come out against the bill--not any surprise to me. I don't think these groups think that healthcare and healthcare legislation is primarily about ladling out big tax breaks for the fortunate few, but that is what this so-called healthcare bill does. And it is financed by raiding Medicare, by gutting Medicaid, and by hurting older and sicker and lower income Americans.

There has been a lot of happy talk about why we ought to support this bill, but what I have tried to do this afternoon is lay out the broken promises. This weekend, for example, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services said: ``I firmly believe that nobody will be worse off financially in the process that we're going through, understanding that they'll have choices, that they can select the kind of coverage they want for themselves and for their family.'' That statement from the Secretary of Health and Human Services is disconnected from the facts. The simple math shows that TrumpCare forces millions of people-- particularly older people and less affluent people--to pay thousands of dollars more for their health insurance.

The OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, was pressed on why TrumpCare breaks the President's promise of ``insurance for everybody.'' His response was that TrumpCare is about access, and the bill ``helps people get healthcare instead of just coverage.'' But we all understand that access doesn't mean a lot if people can't afford to get coverage. That is the future that TrumpCare is going to bring for millions of Americans.

I asked Ms. Verma the most basic questions during her confirmation hearing so we could get even a little bit of an insight into how she would approach these issues. I asked for one example--these are not ``gotcha'' questions; these are the questions you ask if you want to know about running a program involving $1 trillion. I asked Ms. Verma for one example of what to do to bring down the cost of prescription medicine. I gave her three or four to choose from. I particularly would like to see more transparency by lifting this cloud of darkness surrounding how medicines are priced. She didn't have any answers to any of these questions.

So here is where this nomination stands. Ms. Verma gave the Finance Committee and the public virtually nothing to go by in terms of how she would approach this job, but the fact is that, if confirmed, she would be one of the top officials to implement TrumpCare--a bill that raids Medicare, slashes Medicaid, and kicks millions of Americans off their health plan to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy.

I am unable to support this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. President, over the past decade, the Trump administration's nominee to be CMS Administrator, Seema Verma, has demonstrated a conflicting pattern of working directly for the State of Indiana on its health programs while also contracting with a handful of companies that provided hundreds of millions of dollars in services and products to the very same programs she was helping the state manage.

Those companies are Hewlett Packard, Health Management Associates, Milliman, Inc., Maximus, and Roche Diagnostics. All were vendors to the State's Healthy Indiana Program agencies, while Ms. Verma helped design and direct that Program--first for Governor Daniels and then for Governor Pence. As she describes her role on her company's website, ``Ms. Verma is the architect the Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP), the Nation's first consumer directed Medicaid program under Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Governor Pence's HIP 2.0 waiver proposal. Ms. Verma has supported Indiana through development of the historic program since its inception in 2007, from development of the enabling legislation, negotiating the financing plan with the state's hospital association, developing the federal waiver, supporting federal negotiations and leading the implementation of the program, including the operational design.''

Ms. Verma collected more than $6 million from Indiana taxpayers while overseeing the State's Medicaid reform and ACA implementation. At the same time, while under contract with the State as a consultant, Ms. Verma also collected more than $1.6 million from Milliman Actuaries, more than $1 million from Hewlett Packard, $300,000 from Health Management Associates, and tens of thousands of dollars from Roche Diagnostics and Maximus. All while these companies held important contracts with the State.

In addition to being on ``both sides of the table,'' in at least two cases involving her contracts with Hewlett Packard and Health Management Associates--her duties for the State of Indiana overlapped directly with the tasks those firms were also billing the state to complete.

While there are questions about Ms. Verma's work for the several companies above, I want to focus for the moment on what I believe to be the clearest conflict: her work on behalf of Hewlett Packard.

Hewlett Packard Conflicts. In 2014, the Indianapolis Star newspaper reported:

``Verma's work has included the design of the Healthy

Indiana Plan, a consumer-driven insurance program for low-

income Hoosiers now being touted nationally as an alternative

to Obamacare. In all, Verma and her small consulting firm,

SVC Inc., have received more than $3.5 million in state

contracts. At the same time, Verma has worked for one of the

state's largest Medicaid vendors--a division of Silicon

Valley tech giant Hewlett-Packard. That company agreed to pay

Verma more than $1 million and has landed more than $500

million in state contracts during her tenure as Indiana's go-

to health-care consultant.''

While this in and of itself is deeply concerning, Indiana state contract records show that Ms. Verma was instrumental in helping the state determine this contract was even necessary in the first place.

Let me say that again: Ms. Verma, in her role of advising Indiana, helped the state determine there was a need for the services of a vendor like Hewlett Packard. She then joined the company on a bid to provide those services, received a contract, and was ultimately paid more than $1 million. Hewlett Packard bought the company that originally contracted with the state, Electronic Data Systems in 2008. That company, in a January 2008 press release characterized the Indiana contract in this way:

`` `The EDS solution will provide Indiana with enhanced

transparency as it implements Gov. Mitch Daniels' package of

Medicaid reforms such as the Healthy Indiana Plan . . .' `At

the conclusion of the procurement process, it was evident

that EDS was able to bring great value and experience to the

taxpayers of Indiana,' said Mitch Roob, Family and Social

Services Administration Secretary. `The technology and

insight that EDS has to offer will be a tremendous asset as

we continue to make great strides in new, innovative

programs, such as the Healthy Indiana Plan.' ''

Ms. Verma helped Indiana outline Medicaid reform policy goals as State contractor before joining a vendor in its bid to fulfill those duties--and then remained a paid participant on both sides. Furthermore, it appears that Ms. Verma was billing Hewlett Packard and Indiana, in some cases, for the same work she was already performing under her own contracts with the State. In written responses for the record to the Finance Committee, Ms. Verma provided a 2013 presentation from Hewlett Packard and herself to Indiana health program executives.

The presentation identified several functions that Ms. Verma would provide to the State through the Hewlett Packard contract. Many of those duties are exceptionally similar to duties the State had already contracted with her directly to provide in 2012 and 2013.

For example, that 2013 presentation outlined specific duties HP was paying her to perform that included: monitoring the Federal regulatory environment, providing Medicaid policy expertise, and supporting Indiana's State Plan Amendment waivers and process. These were things Verma was already under contract to provide the state directly.

On February 21, 2012, Verma's firm was contracted by the State to review Federal regulations that would impact Indiana's Healthy Indiana Plan.

On May 13, 2013, she was contracted to provide the State with advice on the impact of new ACA regulations related to Medicaid.

To me, that sounds a lot like monitoring the federal regulatory environment in the HP presentation.

Under the February 21, 2012 contract, Verma's firm was contracted by the State to provide general policy expertise to the Healthy Indiana Program--also known as Indiana's Medicaid program.

To me, that sounds a lot like providing Medicaid policy expertise in the HP presentation.

Under this same February 21, 2012 contract, Verma's firm was contracted by the State to develop State Plan Amendments and waivers-- these are the agreement between the State and Federal Governments that ensures the State adheres to Federal rules for Medicaid and CHIP.

To me, that sounds a lot like supporting Indiana's State Plan Amendment waivers and process in the HP presentation.

Ms. Verma has not addressed how being paid twice for what appears to be largely similar work was ethical. She has, however, consistently denied that any conflicts of interest existed while she worked both sides of these deals in Indiana. During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on February 16, 2017, Ms. Verma claimed she had her staff recused themselves when potential conflicts arose:

``When there was the potential or when we were working on

programs, we would recuse ourselves. So we were never in a

position where we were negotiating on behalf of HP or any

other contractor with the state that we had a relationship

with.''

That all sounds well and good but that claim has been disputed by the former head of Indiana's Family and Social Services Agency. As first reported in 2014 by the Indianapolis Star,

``Verma's arrangement with HP also came as a surprise to

former FSSA Secretary Debra Minott, who said she learned

about it sometime in 2013. `We had delayed paying an HP

invoice because of an issue we were trying to resolve, and HP

sent Seema to our CFO to resolve the issue on their behalf,'

Minott said. `I was troubled because I thought Seema was our

consultant.' ''

Ms. Minott made this allegation again just last month in a February 14, 2017 story by the Associated Press about Ms. Verma's conflicts,

``There was at least one instance where Verma crossed the

line in Indiana when she was dispatched by HP to help smooth

over a billing dispute, said Minot. `It was never clear to me

until that moment that she, in essence, was representing both

the agency and one of our very key contractors,' said Minot,

who was removed as head of the agency by Pence over her

disagreements with Verma. `It was just shocking to me that

she could play both sides.' ''

Additionally, in response to questions for the record that I submitted to Ms. Verma, she said that her firm worked directly with HP for the state, and that representatives from SVC participated in meetings between the state and HP,

``SVC worked with the State of Indiana and its vendors,

including HP, to design systems for implementation of the

Healthy Indiana Plan. We helped vendors translate the policy

and waiver language into system operations. We did not

oversee HP or any other vendor in this regard, and did not

negotiate or participate in change orders or contract

amendments. To the best of my recollection, State officials

participated in all meetings with HP regarding the Healthy

Indiana Plan work at which SVC representatives were also

present.''

That sounds to me like Ms. Verma and her team were in meetings with both HP and the State discussing issues where her duties clearly overlapped and when she was being paid by both parties. In fact it sounds like the only safeguard in place was that State officials sat in on these meetings between her firm and HP.

Finally, with regard to her claim that she always recused herself, I specifically asked her to provide for the record any documentation that she had of the process for determining when she needed to recuse herself and documentation of the recusals actually taking place. She replied that there were none.

Consequently, it's hard to believe Ms. Verma was truly able to avoid very real conflicts of interest while she and/or her firm were guiding HP's work on behalf of the State and sitting in on meetings with both the state and HP while being paid by both.

In the case of Health Management Associates, Verma also had contracts with the state that covered the exact same work HMA was separately being paid by Indiana to fulfill and while she was also being paid by HMA. For example, in 2007, the State awarded Verma's firm a non- competitive contract to develop the Request for Proposal for a company to implement the Governor's Healthy Indiana Program. On the same day, Indiana gave HMA its own non-competitive contract to develop the very same proposal. This occurred while HMA was also paying Verma's firm on a separate but related contract. Again, as in the case of HP, she was helping the State manage key programs while being paid by contractors performing work for those programs. In this case, what she was doing for the State was essentially the same thing that the contractor was being paid to do--develop a Request for Proposal to implement the Healthy Indiana Plan.

Ms. Verma claims there was no conflict because she did not directly oversee these two contractors--HP and HMA--in her role with State. She also points to the fact that in 2012 she received an opinion from the Indiana Ethics Commission that stated her work for HP was not in violation of state conflict of interest laws because she was a consultant, not a State employee.

I do not believe that her work for the State and her work for these contractors was a true arms-length relationship. As the Associated Press recently highlighted, Ms. Verma maintained an office in the State government center and that the AP characterized her work as ``usually reserved for state administrators.'' The existence of this opinion, in my view, does not absolve Ms. Verma from what look to be very clear and obvious conflicts of interest.

I am not alone in this opinion, as President George W. Bush's ethics lawyer Richard Painter--hardly a liberal partisan--said Ms. Verma's consulting arrangement in Indiana, ``clearly should not happen and is definitely improper.'' Ms. Verma helped the State decide it needed a vendor like HP, and then went to work for HP on the resulting contract. She was also under contract with yet a third company--Health Management Associates--which was being paid to develop the Request for Proposal for the same contract. That certainly seems like a conflict of interest to me.

When I asked her in writing whether she had obtained similar ethics opinions with regard to her work for any of the other state contractors who had hired her--Milliman, Roche Diagnostics, Maximus, or Health Management Associates, she said she hadn't.

All of these companies continue to do business with the State of Indiana and with other State and Federal health programs that will be under Ms. Verma's purview at CMS. Maximus, for example, is the largest provider of enrollment services for these programs in the U.S.

Just because Indiana chose to play fast and loose with conflicts of interest doesn't mean that these practices were right.

I have no confidence that Ms. Verma will take her responsibilities to avoid such conflicts at CMS any more seriously than she did in Indiana.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the following documents printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 and colleagues, today the Senate turns to consider the nomination of Seema Verma to be the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

I would be the first to say that in coffee shops across the land, people are not exactly buzzing about the office known as CMS, but the fact is, this is an agency that controls more than a trillion dollars in healthcare spending every year. Even more important and more relevant right now, if confirmed, and if TrumpCare somehow gets rammed through the Congress over loud and growing opposition, this is going to be a major issue on her plate right at the get-go.

I thought it would be useful to just give one example of the connection involved in this legislation. TrumpCare cuts taxes for the special interests and the fortunate few by $275 billion, stealing a chunk of it from the Medicare trust fund that pays for critical services to the Nation's older people.

If TrumpCare passes and Ms. Verma is confirmed, under section 132 of the bill, she would be able to give States a green light to push the very frail and sick into the high-risk pools that have historically failed at offering good coverage to vulnerable people at a price they can afford. Under section 134 of TrumpCare, Ms. Verma would be in charge of deciding exactly how skimpy TrumpCare plans would be and how much more vulnerable people would be forced to pay out of their pockets for the care they need.

Under section 135 of the bill, if confirmed, Ms. Verma could be paving the way for health insurers to make coverage more expensive for older people approaching retirement age.

Given all that, I want Members to understand there is a real link between this nomination and the debate about TrumpCare, and this is, in effect, the first discussion we have had about TrumpCare since these bills started to get moving without any hearings and getting advanced in the middle of the night.

The odds were against Republicans writing a single piece of legislation that would make healthcare more expensive, kick millions off their coverage, weaken Medicare and Medicaid, and produce this Robin Hood in reverse, this huge transfer of wealth from working people to the fortunate. Nobody thought you could do all of that at the same time, but somehow the majority found a way to do it. Republicans are rushing to get it passed before the American people catch on.

As part of this debate about Seema Verma, we are going to make sure people understand this nomination is intertwined with what happens in the discussion about TrumpCare and how these particularly punitive provisions with respect to Medicare and Medicaid would affect our people.

For 7 years, my colleagues on the other side have pointed to the Affordable Care Act as pretty much something that would bring about the end of Western civilization and, at a minimum, would basically continue a system responsible for every ill in our healthcare system. That was the argument. The Affordable Care Act is responsible for just about every ill and will practically be the end of life as we know it.

Their slogan was to ``repeal and replace,'' and it was a slogan they rode through four elections to very significant success. The only problem was, it was really repeal and run, and that replacement was nowhere in sight. Now the curtain has been lifted. The lights are shining on TrumpCare, and it sure looks to me like there are a lot of people not enjoying the movie. TrumpCare goes back to the days when healthcare in America mostly worked for the healthy and the wealthy.

We have a lot of debate ahead, so we are not going to just lay it all out here in one shot.

I do want to mention some key points on the roll that Ms. Verma, if confirmed, would play. I want to start by addressing what this means in terms of dollars and cents.

If you look at the fact that the Medicare tax, which everybody pays every single time they get a paycheck, and that money is used to preserve this program that is the promise of fairness to older people-- the Medicare tax would be cut for only one group of Americans in this bill. I find this a staggering proposition. The people who need it the least, couples with incomes of over $250,000, people who need it the least would be given relief from the Medicare tax--not working families, just the wealthy.

As I indicated, we are talking all told about $275 billion worth of tax cuts to the special interests and the fortunate few, and it is largely paid for by taking away assistance to working people to help, for example, pay for their premiums.

I brought up the ACA Medicare payroll tax for a reason because I think when Americans look at their next paycheck--if you are a cop or a nurse and you get paid once or twice a month and you live, say, in Coos Bay, OR, or in Medford, another Oregon community, you will see it on your paycheck. If you are a cop or a nurse, no tax relief for you, but if you make over $250,000--on a tax that is used to help strengthen Medicare's finances, at a time when we are having this demographic revolution--the relief goes to people right at the top, and you reduce the life expectancy of the trust fund for 3 years.

The first thing I will say with respect to what this means, the provision I have just outlined breaks a clear promise made by then- Candidate Trump not to harm Medicare.

I remember these commercials--we all saw scores and scores of them-- Candidate Trump said to America's older people--many of whom voted for him, I think, to a great extent because they heard this promise--he said: You know, you have worked hard for your Medicare. We are not going to touch it. We are not going to mess with it.

When the President was asked about cutting Medicare, here is what he said: Medicare is a program that works. People love Medicare, and it is unfair to them. I am going to fix it and make it better, but I am not going to cut it.

The President of the United States said he is not going to cut it.

Well, that promise not to harm Medicare lasted 6\1/2\ weeks into the Trump administration so the wealthy--the wealthy--could get a tax reduction, the fortunate few who need it least, and

the effect would be to cut by 3 years the life of the Medicare trust fund.

I think that ought to be pretty infuriating and concerning for people who work hard--cops and nurses and people who are 50, 55, 60 today. They are counting on Medicare to be around when they retire, but because TrumpCare made it a focus to give tax relief to the fortunate few, that tax relief cuts 3 years off the life of the Medicare trust fund.

If that wasn't enough, people who are 50, 55, 60, before Medicare, they are going to get another gut punch. This one is in the form of higher costs.

In parts of my home State--particularly in rural areas like Grant County, Union County, and Lake County--I am sure I am going to hear about this. I have townhall meetings in each one of my counties. A 60- year-old who makes $30,000 a year--now those are the people we have long been concerned about, particularly people between 55 and 65 because they are not yet eligible for Medicare.

A 60-year-old, in communities like I just mentioned, who makes $30,000 a year, could see their costs go up $8,000 or more. The reason that is the case is a big part of TrumpCare. It is based on something we call an age tax.

Back in the day when I was the director of the Oregon Gray Panthers-- and I was really so fortunate at a young age to be the director of the group for close to 7 years--we couldn't imagine something like the hit on vulnerable older people that this age tax levies. Republicans want to give the insurance companies the green light to charge older Americans five times as much as they charge younger Americans. The reality is that older people are going to pay a lot more under TrumpCare. That is what we were trying to prevent all those years with the Gray Panthers. We didn't want to see older people pay more for their healthcare, the way they are going to under TrumpCare if they are 50 or 55 or 60.

I think the real question is whether they are going to be able to afford insurance at all. The reality is that a lot of those older people whom I have just described--and I have met them at my townhall meetings--every single week they are walking on an economic tightrope. They balance their food costs against their fuel costs and their fuel costs against their rent costs. Along comes TrumpCare and pushes them off the economic tightrope where they just won't be able to pay the bills, particularly older people in rural areas.

So the reality is that it is expensive to get older in America, and we ought to be providing tools to help older people. But what TrumpCare does is, instead of giving tools to older people to try to hold down the costs, TrumpCare basically empties the toolbox of assistance and basically makes older people pay more.

Next, I want to turn to the Medicaid nursing home benefit. Working with senior citizens, I have seen so many older people--the people who are on an economic tightrope, who are scrimping and saving--even as they forego anything that wouldn't be essential, burn through their savings. So when it is time to pay for nursing home care, they have to turn to Medicaid. The Medicaid Program picks up the bill for two out of every three seniors in nursing homes.

Now, today the Medicaid nursing home benefit comes with a guarantee. I want to emphasize that it is a guarantee that our country's older people will be taken care of. All of those folks--the grandparents whom we started working for in those Gray Panther days--had an assurance that grandparents wouldn't be kicked out on the street. TrumpCare ends that guarantee.

You could have State programs forced into slashing nursing home budgets. You could see nursing homes shut down and the lives of older people uprooted. We could, in my view, have our grandparents that are depending on this kind of benefit get nickeled and dimed for the basics in home care that they have relied on.

When it comes to Medicaid, TrumpCare effectively ends the program as it exists today, shredding the healthcare safety net in America. It doesn't only affect older people in nursing homes. It puts an expiration date--a time stamp--on the Medicaid coverage that millions of Americans got through the Affordable Care Act. For many of those vulnerable persons, it was the first time they had health insurance. So what TrumpCare is going to come along and do is to put a cap on that Medicaid budget and just squeeze them down until vulnerable persons' healthcare is at risk.

If low-income Americans lose their coverage through Medicaid, it is a good bet that the only TrumpCare plans they will be able to afford are going to be worth less than a Trump University degree.

I want to move next to the effects of the bill on opioid abuse. Clearly, by these huge cuts to Medicaid, TrumpCare is going to make America's epidemic of prescription drug abuse-related deaths even worse. Medicaid is a major source of coverage for mental health and substance use disorder treatment, particularly after the Affordable Care Act, but this bill takes away coverage from millions who need it. We have had Republican State lawmakers speaking out about this issue as well as several Members of the majority in the Congress.

Colleagues, just about every major healthcare organization is telling the Congress not to go forward with the TrumpCare bill--physicians, hospitals, AARP--that is just the beginning. But the majority is just charging forward, rushing to get this done as quickly as possible.

We are going to have more to say about these issues.

I see my colleagues here.

To close, just by intertwining, how this appointment is going to be a key part of the discussion of TrumpCare revolves around the questions we asked Ms. Verma.

For example, I was trying to see if this bill would do anything to help older people hold down the cost of medicine. Now we have heard the new President talk about how he has all kinds of ideas about controlling the cost of medicine. Here was a bill that could have done something about it.

I see my colleagues, Senator Stabenow and Senator Cantwell.

I said to the nominee: I would be interested in any idea you have-- any idea you have--to hold down the cost of medicine. On this side we have plenty of ideas. We want to make sure that Medicare could bargain to hold down the cost of medicine. We have been interested in policy to allow for the importation of medicine. We said: Let's lift the veil of secrecy on pharmaceutical prices.

I asked Ms. Verma: How about one idea--just one--that you would be interested in that would help older people with their medicine costs. She wouldn't give us one example.

I am going to go through more of those kinds of questions, because the reality is--and I see Senators Stabenow and Cantwell here--that what we got in the committee was essentially healthcare happy talk. Every time we would ask a question, she would say: I am for the patients; I want to make sure everybody gets good care.

So I thank my colleagues, and I yield for Senator Cantwell.

Of course.

My colleague from Washington is ever logical.

When I looked at this, I thought of it as an innovation desert because I was looking for some new, fresh ideas. We have seen some of them from Senator Cantwell's State, and I think the Senator from Washington makes a very

important point with that poster because the reality is that this is a cap. This is a limit on what States are going to get. As I touched on in my comments, I think what is going to happen is this cap is not going to be enough money for the needs. I think this is going to slash the help for nursing home care under Medicaid, which pays two-thirds of the bill, and I think the nursing home care under this flawed TrumpCare proposal is going to get nickeled and dimed.

My colleague from Washington is right. I tried to read section by section, and we have read it several times. But we wanted to make sure to look--to my colleague's point--for innovation, and this proposal is an innovation desert.

If I can add this, because I think my colleagues are making a very important point. If you look at the demographics, there are going to be 10,000 people turning 65 every day for years and years to come. Senators Stabenow and Cantwell are making a point about flexibility. The reality is, if I look at the demographic picture, we are going to need more out of a lot of care options--institutional care, community-based coverage. But I think the point Senator Cantwell started us on is that, at a time when we have a demographic where we are going to need more for a variety of care options--a continuum of care--what my State is basically saying is that we are going to get less of everything. There is going to be less money for the older people who have nursing home needs. I am looking at a new document from the Oregon Department of Human Services, and it indicates that we are going to lose substantial amounts--something like $150 million for community-based kinds of services. So I appreciate the point my two colleagues are making.

I would only add that what we learned in our hearings and in our discussion is that women, particularly the women served by the Medicaid Program, are really dealing with the consequences of opioid addiction as well.

In our part of the world, I would say to Senator Stabenow and Senator Casey--in Oregon and Washington--we feel like we have been hit with a wrecking ball with this opioid problem. Again, when Senator Cantwell talks about shifting the costs, she is not talking about something abstract. This

is going to take away money for opioid treatment.

So I am very pleased that my colleague is making these points, and I look forward to the presentation.