Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the healthcare bill that is currently pending before us. Now that I have had a chance to look at it a little bit, I can see why there has been a lot of secrecy surrounding this process.

Before talking about how I think this bill would hurt Virginians, let me talk about the process itself and how flawed I think it is. But the good news is that it is a process that can be fixed.

This morning, when the bill was first described on the floor, I was interested when my friend the senior Senator from Texas, the majority whip, said we were doing it this way, through a budget reconciliation process, because Democrats didn't want to work together. I took offense at that comment.

As the Presiding Officer knows, I am a member with him on the committee. I was just added to the committee in January. I have been in the Senate for 4 years. I have had great committees, but this is the committee I always wanted to be on because, as a former mayor and Governor, the two biggest line items in the budget I have had to deal with have been education and health. So, finally, I am on the committee I most want to be on.

I believe this session of the Senate started on January 3. That was my first day on the committee. I have a letter I wrote on January 5. I had been a committee member for 2 days, and I wrote a letter to my chairman, whom I hold in the highest regard, Senator Alexander; the Senate majority leader, Senator McConnell; and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid and Medicare issues. I wrote a letter on January 5, and I got 13 Democrats, including me, to sign this letter.

The gist of the letter is this: We would like to work with you. We would like to work with you to find solutions that would improve our healthcare system, whether that be within the Affordable Care Act or, more broadly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicare Part D. We want to work together.

That was on January 5, 2 days after I had been added to the committee. As a member of the committee, I have been given no opportunity--not one--to work on this bill.

The committee we serve on works productively. We work productively on pharmaceutical issues. We work productively on educational issues. In the committee the Presiding Officer and I serve on, we have passed legislation through our committee and sent it to the floor. Some of the legislation we have sent has already gone off the floor to the House. This is a committee that has a great bipartisan track record, and I am convinced that bipartisan track record is going to continue. But there has been one topic which has been taboo, and that has been to allow meaningful bipartisan discussion about this healthcare bill.

When the House bill passed--now a number of weeks ago--it was our expectation that we would have hearings in the HELP Committee and in the Finance Committee about the bill. We haven't. The Democrats on the HELP Committee got a little riled up one day. We were having a hearing about something else, and a lot of us said: Wait a minute. We are not talking about the biggest topic in domestic politics in the country right now, which is this House health bill. We should be doing that in this committee. If we are not doing it in this committee, we are really not doing it.

Why does it matter to have hearings in the committee? It is the committee hearing process where you put witnesses at a table and ask them questions. We would have patients, we would have hospitals, we would have doctors, we would have nurses, and we would have pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, and we would ask them: What is good and what is bad about this bill? What is good and what is bad, and what needs to be fixed about healthcare in this country? That is what you do in hearings, but we haven't had one hearing, and the Finance Committee hasn't had one hearing either.

We haven't had hearings in the committee on the House bill. We have had no willingness to hold hearings on the Senate substitute that was revealed today. The effort to draft the bill was closed-door. The notion that Democrats wouldn't participate--we weren't invited to the meetings. We didn't know where they were. We didn't know when they were. We had no chance to participate. Now we are being told that this bill described this morning--and we thought we were reading it online-- no, that is a discussion draft, not the bill itself. So I don't know whether the bill is going to be different, or is it the same? The notion is to rush it to the floor and then essentially to close off debate with a very meager amendment process.

The Presiding Officer knows this, but I just want to explain for the public. By not having committee hearings where you can talk to witnesses and hear from the public and then discuss and propose amendments, this is what it will be on the floor: 20 hours of debate about the most important topic in anybody's life--their health. Twenty hours and then you finish the debate.

Then, the majority leader indicates there is an unlimited amendment process, but the amendment process under budget reconciliation is as follows: An amendment will be considered, and there will be 1 minute of debate allowed for each side--1 minute.

We are talking about healthcare. We are talking about life and death. I have a number of bills I filed that I want to offer as amendments, but for us to truly debate it and for the American public to truly understand it, 1 minute is ridiculous. But that is apparently going to be the rule for us next week.

I think it is an outrage for a body that is known as the greatest deliberative body in the world to take up such an important topic and be told that it is in such a constrained way. So I just want to object to the characterization of the process this morning, that Democrats refuse to work together. I have evidence to the contrary. Within 48 hours of being put on this committee, I asked for an opportunity to participate in this debate. I think I am entitled to respect as an elected Member of this body and a member of the HELP Committee to be engaged on matters dealing with healthcare. But thus far, I have not had this opportunity, and that is so out of character for the HELP Committee, I might add.

I am going to be discussing this bill tomorrow with stakeholders in Richmond, where I live. Let me tell you what I see that really troubles me about the Senate bill. I think this bill hurts Virginians-- especially seniors, children, people with disabilities, and working families--and it hurts them all to deliver giant tax breaks, largely to the wealthiest Americans. It also shifts costs from the Federal budget to the States, and as a former Governor, that worries me.

This bill would slash traditional Medicaid, which is a program that more than 1 million Virginians rely on. It is really important to point out that, when you are cutting Medicaid by potentially more than $1.3 trillion over 10 years, that is what the House bill cut out in Medicaid--the House bill plus President Trump's proposed budget, $1.3 trillion in cuts to Medicaid--and this bill could cut Medicaid even deeper by our reading of it.

You have to ask yourself, you cut Medicaid by that much--who are Medicaid recipients? In Virginia, nearly 60

percent of Medicaid recipients are children. Kids who are in public schools receiving special education, many of their services are paid for by Medicaid. A youngster undergoing a cancer operation at Children's Hospital of King's Daughters in Norfolk, a lot of that is being paid for by Medicaid.

A kid who has autism and is getting a couple of hours of autism- related services to help them be successful in school is paid by Medicaid. A child in a dangerous household who might have to get institutionalized--not because the child is doing something wrong but because there aren't parents in the household who are helping the household stay together, they are in danger of being institutionalized--Medicaid can send services a few hours a week into the household to stabilize the family so the child doesn't have to be institutionalized, and that is being paid by Medicaid.

When you cut Medicaid, that is whom you are affecting; 60 percent are children, 15 to 20 percent are people with disabilities. That is who is on Medicaid in Virginia; 10 to 15 percent are parents and grandparents in nursing homes and pregnant women. That is who is on Medicaid in Virginia.

The Medicaid cuts in this bill are even steeper, even more significant than the cuts in the House bill. The bill would continue to allow something that I think is very challenging and that was a carryover from the House bill and may even be worse, which is the ability to charge older adults in the 55- to 64-year-old age range as much as five times higher than younger enrollees in the marketplace.

When most people are in the 55- to 64-year-old range, they are not necessarily at the peak of their earnings. Their earnings are often starting to come down a little bit. If you let their rates rise that dramatically, you are really hurting people who can't easily go back and reenter the marketplace and the workforce at the same level they could have when they were younger.

This is a bill that will hurt 22,000 Virginians who rely on Planned Parenthood for lifesaving healthcare. That is how many women in Virginia use Planned Parenthood as their primary doctor, as their primary physician--22,000, and this bill would hurt it.

This bill would weaken health benefits by reducing the essential health benefits contained in the Affordable Care Act, and that affects pregnancy, that affects mental health, that affects opioid treatment programs, and it would force States to make very difficult budget choices.

If you cut Medicaid by that much, you are going to make Governors and mayors decide: Wow. OK. Whom do I cut? Do I cut the kids? Do I cut the disabled? Do I cut the elderly? Do I cut all three or do I raise taxes? You are just pushing this off on the shoulders of States.

There is good news. I want to finish with good news. I always try to finish or find some good news. There is good news. We can do this right. We don't have to do this wrong. It is actually really simple. When the Senate bill is truly ready, and it is not just a discussion draft but a real bill and it is put on the floor, all we have to do is refer the bill to the two committees--the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee.

Let the committees hear from the public, from providers, patients, doctors and nurses, and hospitals. Let members of the committee-- Republicans and Democrats--ask questions. Let us propose amendments. Let us improve it.

This doesn't have to be a complete up-or-down. Why can't we have a meaningful discussion and ask questions and propose amendments in a deliberative way and improve the bill? It is not as if the Democratic minority can just roll over you. We are the minority in this body, and we are the minority on both the HELP and Finance Committees. Unless I can put an amendment on the table and convince some Republicans it is a good idea, my amendment is going to be voted down. If I can't convince somebody around the table this is a good idea, I will take it, and my amendment will be voted down. At least, let's have a meaningful discussion about the most important expenditure anybody ever makes in their life and the largest sector of the American economy.

What would be wrong, what could be wrong in letting the HELP Committee take a look at the healthcare bill? What would be wrong, what could be wrong with letting the Finance Committee take a look at a bill that affects Medicaid and Medicare, which is in their jurisdiction?

What would be wrong, what could be wrong with allowing public witnesses to come to these committees and testify what they like and what they don't like? I may learn some things about the bill that I like after listening to some witnesses. What would be wrong, what could be wrong with allowing this to happen in this great deliberative body?

I guarantee it would improve the outcome. It would improve the product. More minds looking at this and debating and in dialogue will improve it, if what we want is an improved healthcare system. Maybe that is not what we want. Maybe doing our best job is not what we want. Maybe what we want is the ability to put something through only with votes from one party and with the other party completely shut out of it.

What I think we should want is to do the best job for the most people when it comes to the most important thing in their lives, their health.

I will conclude and say that we can get this right. We can take advantage of the work product of the Republicans, who have been working on this draft by putting it in the HELP and Finance Committees and allowing the body to treat it as any other piece of legislation and improve it before we are forced to vote for it in a rush vote on the floor.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I also rise to talk about the healthcare of every American. This is critically important to every person and every family in this country. It is critically important to every local, State, and Federal budget in this country. It is also critical to the economic productivity of our Nation.

In a purely partisan move, the House barely passed a bill that would take health insurance away from 23 million American people over the next 10 years, dramatically increase premiums to seniors, jeopardize coverage of people with preexisting conditions, and impose huge burdens on States.

One of the reasons the House bill was so bad--condemned even by President Trump, who labeled it ``mean''--was because it flowed from a bad process. The House held no hearings on the final bill. There was no meaningful testimony from patients or healthcare providers. They did not accept any amendments from Democrats. They rushed the bill through to vote before the Congressional Budget Office could score the bill. So no wonder. No wonder the House bill is opposed by the American Medical Association, the AARP, nurses, hospitals, patient organizations, Democratic and Republican Governors. Yet the Senate is poised to make exactly the same mistake--preparing a secret bill, with no testimony, no public scrutiny, no opportunity for meaningful amendments, no opportunity for Democrats to participate.

We have the opportunity to get this right, and we have the responsibility to get this right.

There are so many problems with the House bill. As a member of the HELP Committee, I went on Friday to the Culpeper Free Clinic about 75 miles from here to talk about the need for real improvement in our healthcare system, not a repeal that would hurt vulnerable people. At this clinic, which is celebrating its 25th year, I saw dedicated staffers and volunteers, and I talked to patients. I talked to them about how this organization has provided compassionate care to working people in this region of Northern Virginia who don't have health insurance.

The fact that Virginia has refused to expand Medicaid is one of the reasons the need for their care is so significant. Fully 70 percent of the free clinic patients in Virginia would be eligible for Medicaid if the State would just join the 35 other States that have expanded Medicaid.

What I heard at the Culpeper Free Clinic is that they are already bursting at the seams because we haven't expanded Medicaid.

If there are additional cuts to Medicaid, it would overwhelm the ability of the 60 free clinics in Virginia to provide compassionate care.

Just a few hours ago, earlier today, I went to Albemarle County near Charlottesville and had a roundtable session with educators, families, and children's advocates to highlight another key problem with the Republican approach. By dramatically cutting Medicaid, who is the most likely victim? Children. The most numerous victims of Medicaid cuts are children.

In Virginia and nationally, nearly 60 percent of the recipients of Medicaid are kids. Yet the President, through the TrumpCare bill and the President's submitted budget, proposes to cut Medicaid by $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years--$1.3 trillion over the next 10 years-- and this deeply frightens parents, educators, and kids I talked to today.

I heard from parents of kids with cerebral palsy and autism, parents whose kids are receiving support through Medicaid to buy a wheelchair or get services so they can learn to adjust with autism. This will help them grow into adults who have a chance of living independently. These parents had heartbreaking stories, often telling me: I had no idea of the challenges of parenting a disabled child until I had one myself. They view Medicaid as absolutely critical to their children's educational and life success.

They talked about the current shortfalls in the Medicaid funding that leave their kids on waiting lists for services. One mom has been on a waiting list for a developmental disability waiver. I asked her what they told her about the waiting list, and this was her quote: ``They have told me my child will die before he is off the waiting list.'' And that is under the current program, before $1.3 trillion is cut out of it.

I heard from school administrators who talked about the importance of Medicaid funding for their programs that serve students and special ed teachers who are worried about the effect on their work if Medicaid is slashed.

Local superintendents and school board members talked about the difficult challenges of funding their school budget if Medicaid funding is cut. They posed it as a difficult choice. If the Feds cut $1.3 trillion out of Medicaid, do they reduce their funding for their students with disabilities, or do they take local funds away from other important programs to backstop those programs, or do they have to raise their own State and local taxes to make up for the Federal cuts?

I heard from child service advocates today who would see their program slashed if Medicaid is cut. Here is an example. Many of them serve court-involved young people--not kids charged with crime but kids who are in court because of difficult home lives and challenging situations with their parents or guardian, and they are in danger of being pushed into the foster care system or into institutions because of problems at home. Medicaid pays for support services to help stabilize their family lives. If these services are reduced and more children get institutionalized, how does that help anyone? How does it help these kids? How does it help society? How does it help our budget? It is much more expensive to put a child in a group home or an institution than to provide a few hours of Medicaid services in their home once a week.

The 60 percent of Virginia Medicaid recipients who are children and the parents and teachers and nurses and others who worry about them and help them don't see this as a partisan issue. It is fundamentally an issue of compassion. We will and should be judged by how we treat our children. Why slash funds that are used to help our kids? Is it really important to cut Medicaid by $1.3 trillion, hurting millions of children, so we can give a few adults a $900 billion tax cut?

I am on the Budget Committee. We had a hearing recently with OMB Director Mulvaney, within the last 2

weeks. Director Mulvaney tried to reassure us in his opening statement that the Medicaid cuts were really about doing people a favor--about doing people a favor. He testified: We are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on programs like Medicaid; we are going to measure compassion by the number of people we get off these programs and back in charge of their own lives.

I want to repeat that, from the President's chief budget official: We are going to measure compassion by the number of people we get off these programs and back in charge of their own lives. What a cruel thought. That reads like something a villain in a novel by Charles Dickens would say, but that is the philosophy of this administration and this effort. Will we now tell a kid who loses the wheelchair that is partly paid for by Medicaid ``You are now back in charge of your own life''? Will we tell a single mom whose child is receiving services to help with autism but now loses access to these services ``Guess what. You are back in charge of your own life''? Will we tell a teenager in a broken home whose Medicaid services are the only difference between staying in the community and being put in an institution ``Guess what. You are now back in charge of your own life''?

Since Medicaid also provides funding for our parents and grandparents who can no longer care for themselves and have to be cared for in nursing homes, will we go to those seniors who lose places in nursing homes and say ``Guess what. Now you are back in charge of your own life''?

Slashing Medicaid isn't about putting anyone back in charge of their own life. Medicaid enables kids to go to school and succeed. Medicaid enables disabled people to function well enough to go to work and pay taxes. Medicaid enables seniors to receive compassionate care when they can't care for themselves, and cutting Medicaid jeopardizes the ability of people to live with independence and dignity.

No, folks, let's not kid ourselves. This is not an effort to empower anyone. It is about casting them aside because they are too young or too old or too sick or too poor, and it is about giving a tax break to some people with the very funds we are taking away from the most vulnerable members of our society.

That is why I oppose this ``mean'' effort by the majority as a secretly crafted bill to repeal the ACA. We can improve healthcare if we work together. Let the Finance and the HELP Committees discuss any bill, hear from patients and providers, allow amendments and debates before rushing anything to a vote that would so cruelly affect the lives of millions and millions of people.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I applaud the bipartisan work that my Senate colleagues have put into legislation to impose sanctions on Russia. Russia's interference in the 2016 election represents an assault on our democracy that, until this point, has gone largely unanswered by the Administration and Congress. Russia has also conducted cyber attacks on allies and illegally invaded and violated the sovereignty of Ukraine and Georgia. I know that my colleagues take this issue very seriously, and I support the bipartisan compromise, which will maintain existing sanctions on Russia for its cyber and military intrusions in Ukraine and require additional mandatory sanctions on Russia's energy sector, those providing arms to Syrian troops, corrupt Russian oligarchs and their networks, and human rights abusers. We cannot allow Russia's hostile actions toward Western democracies to go unchecked. This legislation sends an important message to Russia and the world that the United States stands strongly against Russia's anti-democratic actions.

At the same time, the original version of the legislation would have had unintended consequences for our nation's civil and commercial space sectors. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, and commercial space missions are critical to space exploration, weather data, and sending U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station, as well as supplying them with cargo and instruments for scientific research. Under the original legislation, these missions would have been threatened or prevented from moving forward. In response, Senator Gardner introduced an amendment that would exempt NASA and commercial space-related launch activities from the sanctions bill. I was proud to cosponsor this amendment.

In addition to our defense assets, Virginia is at the epicenter of the Nation's civil space program and commercial space industry. For more than 70 years, NASA's Wallops Flight Facility has served as a key national asset to the U.S. space program, an economic driver for the Eastern Shore, and an invaluable benefit to the Commonwealth. The Mid- Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island serves as a leader in commercial space, partnering with Virginia-headquartered Orbital ATK to launch critical cargo to the International Space Station. Finally, research projects at NASA Langley Research Center and Virginia's superb academic institutions are developing tomorrow's innovative technologies and scientific discoveries. As Governor and now Senator, I have remained a strong supporter of Virginia's booming industry, research, and launch services. Without Senator Gardner's amendment, some of these activities in Virginia would cease to exist.

To be clear, I stand in agreement with my Senate colleagues on the issue of Russian sanctions. I also believe that our space program must transition to American-made rocket engines and parts, and I know that U.S. companies are working hard in conjunction with NASA toward that goal. But we need time for that transition to occur, and this important amendment would make it possible without hurting our current capabilities. In addition, while the Department of Defense has been afforded the opportunity to develop new technologies while maintaining the status quo, it is only fair that we provide the same chance to civil and commercial space entities.

For these reasons, I was proud to cosponsor Senator Gardner's bipartisan amendment to S. 722. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to enhance and expand our Nation's space program.

Madam President, I rise to speak about the ongoing debate in the body concerning the next chapter in healthcare and what we can do about it together and, especially, to address one part of the healthcare market--the individual market.

As most know--and this has been an item about which we are deep into discussions, the people and the Members of this body--before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Americans with preexisting conditions faced unfair barriers to accessing health insurance coverage, and healthcare costs had risen rapidly. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, my own family, which is probably like the healthiest family in America because the five of us have only had three hospitalizations for three childbirths--all for my wife--we had twice been turned down for insurance coverage for at least one member of our family because of preexisting conditions.

Since 2010, the rate of uninsured Americans has declined to a historic low. More than 20 million Americans have gained access to health insurance coverage--many for the first time in their lives. In Virginia, over 410,000 Virginians have accessed care on the individual marketplace and another 400,000 would be eligible if Virginia decided to expand Medicaid.

Many Virginians use the individual market, and they have shared their stories with me on my website. I have on my Senate website ``ACA Stories,'' where I encourage people to share their stories.

The individual marketplace, as folks know, is if you are buying health insurance, not through an employer, and you are buying individually--you may or may not be qualified for a subsidy--that particular marketplace is really important for people who aren't employed by companies that offer group plans, but it also has its challenges.

One of my stories was from Lauren Carter, who lives in Lovingston, VA, in Nelson County. She wrote in to say:

My 39-year-old son has cerebral palsy and a blood clotting

disorder. His ``pre-existing conditions'' started at

conception. Three years ago, he lost his full time job with

health insurance benefits.

The ACA allows him to continue receiving medical care and

purchase his life saving medications. He supports himself

through multiple part time jobs--

This young man with cerebral palsy--

employer based insurance is not an option for him at this

time.

Laura Kreynus from Mechanicsville, VA, near Richmond wrote:

My daughter was diagnosed with Crohn's Disease in April of

2013. That September, my husband was diagnosed with

Parkinson's Disease. We are farmers, we raise the food for

America. As such, we are independently insured.

They have no large employer to cover them.

Prior to finding a plan through the ACA in January 2015,

our monthly insurance premiums were to increase to nearly

$3,000 a month . . . yes, each MONTH! On top of that, our

health insurance had an annual cap on prescription coverage

of $5,000. The Humira that my daughter takes to combat her

Crohn's Disease retails for $3,800 a month, and that is not

the only medication she requires. So basically, after one

month, we reached the prescription coverage cap, meaning we

would have to pay $3,800 a month for medication on top of

$3,000 a month premiums. Who has an extra $6,800 a month to

pay for this? That is way more than we earn monthly as

farmers.

With the health insurance plan we got through the ACA, our

premiums for 2015 were $1,500 a month, less than half of what

we would have been paying under the previous plan. But the

real saving grace was no prescription cap, so my daughter's

medications are covered with a copay after we reach the

deductible. This is still a lot of money, but at least we can

treat our daughter's disease and hopefully keep her healthy.

And even though our premiums have gone up to nearly $2,000 a

month from $1,500 a month under the ACA, at least we can

still have insurance.

For families like Lauren's and Laura's, the individual marketplace is critical. But like Laura said, premiums are frequently too high. You have to have robust enrollment, competition, and certainty for premiums to come down.

Unfortunately, there has been increasing uncertainty in the individual market due to actions taken by the current administration. On January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive order directing relevant agencies not to enforce key provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Later in January, the administration terminated components of outreach and enrollment spending, including advertising to encourage people to enroll in the individual marketplace.

The administration has also repeatedly threatened to end cost-sharing reduction payments, which reduce costs for approximately 6 million people with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty level. These actions, these statements, these inactions, and this uncertainty have created uncertainty in the individual marketplace, leading to instability for insurance carriers, higher premiums, and reduced competition.

In Virginia, we have seen Aetna and United leave the individual marketplace, and they have cited this uncertainty created by this administration as the principal reason. In other States, there are counties that are at risk to have no insurers offering coverage on the marketplace in particular States or sometimes in regions in the States.

So this is a problem we can address, and we don't have to repeal the Affordable Care Act to do it. We just need to improve the Affordable Care Act, using a tool that has had bipartisan support in this body for some time.

So yesterday Senator Carper and I introduced the Individual Health Insurance Marketplace Improvement Act, and I want to thank the other original cosponsors of the bill: Senators Nelson, Shaheen, and Hassan.

One way to address uncertainty is to use a common insurance tool, reinsurance--a permanent reinsurance program to help stabilize premiums and increase competition. The Affordable Care Act originally had a reinsurance program. It was temporary. It lasted for the first 3 years of the program, and it did hold premiums down. What we would do is that we would take that idea, which worked, and we would make it permanent. We would make it permanent and modeled after a very successful and bipartisan program: Medicare Part D. Medicare Part D provides a prescription drug benefit for seniors. It was passed with bipartisan support during the administration of President George W. Bush, now more than a decade ago, and the reinsurance program has helped hold down costs.

This reinsurance program would provide funding to offset larger than expected insurance claims for health insurance companies participating in State and Federal marketplaces. It would encourage them to offer more plans in a greater number of markets, thereby improving competition and driving down costs for patients and families. Basically, if reinsurance can cover high costs, an insurance company will know it has a backstop, which gives it a measure of stability, and also can set premiums at a more reasonable level for everyone.

The bill would also do one other thing that is important. It would provide $500 million a year from 2018 to 2020 to help States improve outreach and enrollment for the health insurance marketplaces, especially to draw in new members and educate the public--especially young people who are maybe moving just past their 26th birthdays and can no longer be contained on family policies--about the need to be insured. The outreach funding prioritizes counties where there are limited insurers left in the marketplace.

This is not the only improvement that is needed for our healthcare system. We need to do more to keep costs down, figure out a way to have prescription drugs be more affordable, and we can certainly use technology and data to drive better health outcomes, but this is a fix. It is a fix of an important part of our system, the individual market. It is a fix using an idea that has already worked and has already compelled the support of both Democrats and Republicans--reinsurance in Medicare Part D. This should be something Democrats and Republicans can agree to.

My worry is that we are participating now in a secretive effort to write a healthcare bill behind closed doors and possibly put it on the floor for a vote without hearing from a single patient, without hearing from a single provider, a hospital, a business that has a hard time buying insurance for its employees, an insurance company, or pharmaceutical company.

We ought to be debating these bills in the world's greatest deliberative body and proposing amendments and hearing from stakeholders and then doing the best job we can when we are dealing with the most important expenditure that anybody ever makes in their life, healthcare. Healthcare is also one of the largest segments of the American economy, one-sixth of the economy. Why would we want to pass a bill in secret?

Senator Carper, my colleagues, and I have introduced this bill as a good faith effort to say what I actually said when I first got on the HELP Committee in early January of 2015. There is a huge group of us just waiting for the door to open so that we can have a meaningful discussion about moving our system forward, and I believe this bill could be a very good part of stabilizing and improving the individual market and bringing relief to many Americans.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2017, legislation to ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans. This bill would protect Americans from housing discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. No American should be turned away from a home they love because of who they love.

I am a former civil rights attorney. And during my practice, I focused on fair housing and I learned that a home is more than just a door, a roof, rooms, and walls. Your home is critical to your identity and central to the life of every American.

And a home becomes even more important when you are searching for a safe, stable place to live. But, say you run into problems as you're trying to rent that dream apartment and it is not because you are not a good tenant or a good neighbor. Instead, you learn that the apartment you wanted is suddenly no longer available because, after you met the landlord in person, they don't approve of your personal life or your appearance. Or you learn your rental application cannot be processed because you and your partner share the same sex.

Housing discrimination is real. And it is a reality for LGBT Americans because of incomplete protections in the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the landmark federal housing law. The FHA only prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. And if someone thinks this is not a real problem, more than 20 states and over 200 localities protect sexual orientation and gender identity in their own housing discrimination statutes.

This is about equality, plain and simple. I want to thank my fellow Virginian, Representative Scott Taylor, for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank all the civil rights attorneys across the nation who fight for justice on this issue every day. This is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2017, legislation to ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans. This bill would protect Americans from housing discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. No American should be turned away from a home they love because of who they love.

I am a former civil rights attorney. And during my practice, I focused on fair housing and I learned that a home is more than just a door, a roof, rooms, and walls. Your home is critical to your identity and central to the life of every American.

And a home becomes even more important when you are searching for a safe, stable place to live. But, say you run into problems as you're trying to rent that dream apartment and it is not because you are not a good tenant or a good neighbor. Instead, you learn that the apartment you wanted is suddenly no longer available because, after you met the landlord in person, they don't approve of your personal life or your appearance. Or you learn your rental application cannot be processed because you and your partner share the same sex.

Housing discrimination is real. And it is a reality for LGBT Americans because of incomplete protections in the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the landmark federal housing law. The FHA only prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. And if someone thinks this is not a real problem, more than 20 states and over 200 localities protect sexual orientation and gender identity in their own housing discrimination statutes.

This is about equality, plain and simple. I want to thank my fellow Virginian, Representative Scott Taylor, for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank all the civil rights attorneys across the nation who fight for justice on this issue every day. This is the right thing to do.

Mr. President. Today I am introducing a bipartisan bill to make the process of siting natural gas pipelines fairer and more transparent.

For some time now, I have been listening to Virginians with passionate views on the proposed Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley Pipelines. For various reasons, many oppose one or both of these projects, while others support these projects. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is tasked with analyzing all the issues-- purpose and need for a project, impacts on 2 'people living on the route, potential risks to the environment or property--and deciding what course best serves the public interest.

From listening to all sides, I have concluded that while reasonable people may reach different conclusions, FERC's public input process is flawed and could be better. Accordingly, this legislation proposes several steps to address several shortcomings, all of which were originally brought to my attention by Virginia constituents. For instance, this bill requires programmatic analysis of pipelines proposed around the same time and in the same geographic vicinity so that the full impacts of multiple projects can be analyzed. It requires a greater number of public comment meetings so that citizens are not required to commute long distances to meetings at which they must speed through just a few minutes of remarks on these complex topics. And it clarifies the circumstances under which eminent domain should and should not be used.

I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mark Warner on this bill, and our Virginia Republican colleague Representative Morgan Griffith is preparing a similar bill in the House of Representatives. While our views may differ on many aspects of energy policy, we can all agree that the public deserves reasonable opportunity to weigh in on energy infrastructure projects and that this process can be fairer and more transparent without mandating a particular outcome.

I encourage the Senate to consider this legislation, not to pave the way for pipelines nor to throw up insurmountable roadblocks to them-- but to give the public greater certainty that the federal government's infrastructure decisions are fair and transparent.

Mr. President. Today I am introducing a bipartisan bill to make the process of siting natural gas pipelines fairer and more transparent.

For some time now, I have been listening to Virginians with passionate views on the proposed Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley Pipelines. For various reasons, many oppose one or both of these projects, while others support these projects. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is tasked with analyzing all the issues-- purpose and need for a project, impacts on 2 'people living on the route, potential risks to the environment or property--and deciding what course best serves the public interest.

From listening to all sides, I have concluded that while reasonable people may reach different conclusions, FERC's public input process is flawed and could be better. Accordingly, this legislation proposes several steps to address several shortcomings, all of which were originally brought to my attention by Virginia constituents. For instance, this bill requires programmatic analysis of pipelines proposed around the same time and in the same geographic vicinity so that the full impacts of multiple projects can be analyzed. It requires a greater number of public comment meetings so that citizens are not required to commute long distances to meetings at which they must speed through just a few minutes of remarks on these complex topics. And it clarifies the circumstances under which eminent domain should and should not be used.

I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mark Warner on this bill, and our Virginia Republican colleague Representative Morgan Griffith is preparing a similar bill in the House of Representatives. While our views may differ on many aspects of energy policy, we can all agree that the public deserves reasonable opportunity to weigh in on energy infrastructure projects and that this process can be fairer and more transparent without mandating a particular outcome.

I encourage the Senate to consider this legislation, not to pave the way for pipelines nor to throw up insurmountable roadblocks to them-- but to give the public greater certainty that the federal government's infrastructure decisions are fair and transparent.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize a game-changing scale of investment in making America's infrastructure more resilient to natural disasters.

The BUILD Resilience Act would build on the National Disaster Resilience Competition first authorized in the 2013 Hurricane Sandy emergency supplemental disaster package. It would authorize $1 billion a year over 5 years to jumpstart large-scale investment in community resilience--supporting jobs, strengthening infrastructure, and reducing risk to communities from disasters like hurricanes and flooding.

This bill aims to follow the ``ounce of prevention'' principle. Cleaning up after a disaster is important, but if we invest in sturdier infrastructure before the disaster, there will be less to clean up after the disaster. This is borne out in two separate studies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every $1 invested upfront in resilient infrastructure saves $3 on the back end. The Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences estimates $4 of benefit.

The Sandy Competition supported resilience projects in low-lying coastal areas of Virginia and Louisiana; in Sandy-affected areas of New York and New Jersey, in flood-prone Midwest regions like Iowa and North Dakota, and elsewhere. But Virginia's grant illustrates the scale of the challenge. This grant is supporting innovative flood-control projects but only in two at-risk neighborhoods of Norfolk, which is only one part of a broader Hampton Roads region. Neighboring localities like Newport News and Chesapeake submitted proposals to address their own infrastructure needs, but funding was insufficient. Since there will always be risk of another devastating storm, we must learn from Sandy and take steps now to protect our communities later. This bill tries to do that.

With a range from 1\1/2\ to 7 feet of sea level rise projected by the year 2100, the Hampton Roads region is the second largest population center at risk from sea level rise in the Nation, behind only New Orleans. Residents are dealing with skyrocketing flood insurance premiums and flooding not only after a Sandy or a Matthew but from ordinary rainstorms. This is a direct Federal responsibility given the presence of the largest concentration of naval power in the world. An ODU study estimates that the main Norfolk city road leading into Naval Station Norfolk could be inundated by the tides a few hours per day by midcentury. That makes this not only an infrastructure issue but a national security issue.

I hope to work with the White House and Congress to advance a comprehensive infrastructure package that rises to this challenge.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize a game-changing scale of investment in making America's infrastructure more resilient to natural disasters.

The BUILD Resilience Act would build on the National Disaster Resilience Competition first authorized in the 2013 Hurricane Sandy emergency supplemental disaster package. It would authorize $1 billion a year over 5 years to jumpstart large-scale investment in community resilience--supporting jobs, strengthening infrastructure, and reducing risk to communities from disasters like hurricanes and flooding.

This bill aims to follow the ``ounce of prevention'' principle. Cleaning up after a disaster is important, but if we invest in sturdier infrastructure before the disaster, there will be less to clean up after the disaster. This is borne out in two separate studies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every $1 invested upfront in resilient infrastructure saves $3 on the back end. The Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences estimates $4 of benefit.

The Sandy Competition supported resilience projects in low-lying coastal areas of Virginia and Louisiana; in Sandy-affected areas of New York and New Jersey, in flood-prone Midwest regions like Iowa and North Dakota, and elsewhere. But Virginia's grant illustrates the scale of the challenge. This grant is supporting innovative flood-control projects but only in two at-risk neighborhoods of Norfolk, which is only one part of a broader Hampton Roads region. Neighboring localities like Newport News and Chesapeake submitted proposals to address their own infrastructure needs, but funding was insufficient. Since there will always be risk of another devastating storm, we must learn from Sandy and take steps now to protect our communities later. This bill tries to do that.

With a range from 1\1/2\ to 7 feet of sea level rise projected by the year 2100, the Hampton Roads region is the second largest population center at risk from sea level rise in the Nation, behind only New Orleans. Residents are dealing with skyrocketing flood insurance premiums and flooding not only after a Sandy or a Matthew but from ordinary rainstorms. This is a direct Federal responsibility given the presence of the largest concentration of naval power in the world. An ODU study estimates that the main Norfolk city road leading into Naval Station Norfolk could be inundated by the tides a few hours per day by midcentury. That makes this not only an infrastructure issue but a national security issue.

I hope to work with the White House and Congress to advance a comprehensive infrastructure package that rises to this challenge.

Mr. President, for purposes of today's votes, I want to announce that had I voted on Thursday,

May 18, 2017, I would have voted no on confirmation of Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General, and I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 55, the nomination of Terry Branstad, of Iowa, to be Ambassador to China.

Mr. President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the School Infrastructure Modernization Act.

To claim the federal tax credit for historic preservation, a building renovation must be for a different purpose than that for which the building was previously used, a requirement known as the ``prior use'' rule. This bill waives that requirement for renovations of K-12 public school buildings. This will make it easier to restore historic-but- dilapidated school buildings across the country so our children have safe, modern spaces in which to learn.

As a Richmond City Council member and later Mayor, I faced challenges familiar to many municipalities--overcrowded schools, aging buildings, and limited dollars in the budget. But in one particular case, I and a group of local stakeholders identified a creative solution. On one hand we had an overcrowded Thomas Jefferson High School with in-zone and magnet students. On the other hand, we had a closed Maggie Walker High School that needed renovations. We put together a financing package that made use of federal and state historic tax credits to renovate Maggie Walker High School and satisfied the prior use rule by consolidating the magnet program from Thomas Jefferson into a new Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and

International Studies. Today, some 20 years later, this is one of America's highest performing public high schools. Without the federal historic tax credit, this would have been too expensive to make happen.

This bill will make it easier to do similar projects around the country. More modern school buildings will bolster the quality of public education, and carrying out these projects will generate private sector infrastructure investment and jobs. In Virginia alone, according to a 2013 study, more than 800 K-12 schools are at least 50 years old, representing some 40% of all the K-12 schools in the Commonwealth.

As the Senate considers tax reform and a comprehensive infrastructure package, I encourage my colleagues to support this common-sense incentive that is good for education, good for infrastructure, and good for jobs.

Mr. President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the School Infrastructure Modernization Act.

To claim the federal tax credit for historic preservation, a building renovation must be for a different purpose than that for which the building was previously used, a requirement known as the ``prior use'' rule. This bill waives that requirement for renovations of K-12 public school buildings. This will make it easier to restore historic-but- dilapidated school buildings across the country so our children have safe, modern spaces in which to learn.

As a Richmond City Council member and later Mayor, I faced challenges familiar to many municipalities--overcrowded schools, aging buildings, and limited dollars in the budget. But in one particular case, I and a group of local stakeholders identified a creative solution. On one hand we had an overcrowded Thomas Jefferson High School with in-zone and magnet students. On the other hand, we had a closed Maggie Walker High School that needed renovations. We put together a financing package that made use of federal and state historic tax credits to renovate Maggie Walker High School and satisfied the prior use rule by consolidating the magnet program from Thomas Jefferson into a new Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and

International Studies. Today, some 20 years later, this is one of America's highest performing public high schools. Without the federal historic tax credit, this would have been too expensive to make happen.

This bill will make it easier to do similar projects around the country. More modern school buildings will bolster the quality of public education, and carrying out these projects will generate private sector infrastructure investment and jobs. In Virginia alone, according to a 2013 study, more than 800 K-12 schools are at least 50 years old, representing some 40% of all the K-12 schools in the Commonwealth.

As the Senate considers tax reform and a comprehensive infrastructure package, I encourage my colleagues to support this common-sense incentive that is good for education, good for infrastructure, and good for jobs.

Mr. President, when a United States servicemember gives their life in service to their country, they often leave behind family who we are equally indebted. Ensuring that these survivors are provided every opportunity to succeed and get a quality education supports our values and upholds our promise to servicemembers and military families. Unfortunately, our ability to uphold our promise to dependents of servicemembers who were killed in action (KIA) in Iraq and Afghanistan following the attacks on September 11, 2001 was affected recently.

In May 2016 the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to institutions of higher education requiring them to reduce the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant awards by 7% or roughly $400 per student. These grants are critical for students to use for tuition, books, and room and board and any future cut would be significant for a young college student. Many children and dependents of servicemembers who were KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan are now reaching college age so more and more students will not be receiving as much in grants as they should be getting and rightfully deserve.

Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Tester the Protect our Gold Star Families' Education Act of 2017. This legislation will move the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant program to the Pell Grant program to stabilize the funding source for these awards and ensure Gold Star families have access to the maximum Pell Grant funding available if they previously did not qualify for Pell Grants. The program would maintain the same eligibility requirements under the existing Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants--parent or guardian having died as a result of military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11 and are 24 years old or younger--and the award would continue to equal the maximum Pell Grant for that award year.

While Virginia public universities already offer tuition assistance to dependents whose parents were killed in action or were permanently disabled under the state's Virginia Military Survivors and Dependents Education Program (VMSDEP), these funds could be used to offset tuition at private institutions and could also cover additional expenses, including room and board, books, and supplies. Over 500 Virginians have attended or are currently attending college at public universities with assistance through VMSDEP and would qualify for these Pell Grants as well.

Our Gold Star families have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country and ensuring they have access to a quality college education is the right thing to do. Moving the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant under the Pell Grant program will provide more security to Gold Star families and help ease the burden of college costs. As more of our post 9/11 Gold Star children are starting to reach college age, now is the right time to improve the grant system. I hope that my colleagues will incorporate this bill in a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. President, when a United States servicemember gives their life in service to their country, they often leave behind family who we are equally indebted. Ensuring that these survivors are provided every opportunity to succeed and get a quality education supports our values and upholds our promise to servicemembers and military families. Unfortunately, our ability to uphold our promise to dependents of servicemembers who were killed in action (KIA) in Iraq and Afghanistan following the attacks on September 11, 2001 was affected recently.

In May 2016 the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to institutions of higher education requiring them to reduce the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant awards by 7% or roughly $400 per student. These grants are critical for students to use for tuition, books, and room and board and any future cut would be significant for a young college student. Many children and dependents of servicemembers who were KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan are now reaching college age so more and more students will not be receiving as much in grants as they should be getting and rightfully deserve.

Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Tester the Protect our Gold Star Families' Education Act of 2017. This legislation will move the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant program to the Pell Grant program to stabilize the funding source for these awards and ensure Gold Star families have access to the maximum Pell Grant funding available if they previously did not qualify for Pell Grants. The program would maintain the same eligibility requirements under the existing Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants--parent or guardian having died as a result of military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11 and are 24 years old or younger--and the award would continue to equal the maximum Pell Grant for that award year.

While Virginia public universities already offer tuition assistance to dependents whose parents were killed in action or were permanently disabled under the state's Virginia Military Survivors and Dependents Education Program (VMSDEP), these funds could be used to offset tuition at private institutions and could also cover additional expenses, including room and board, books, and supplies. Over 500 Virginians have attended or are currently attending college at public universities with assistance through VMSDEP and would qualify for these Pell Grants as well.

Our Gold Star families have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country and ensuring they have access to a quality college education is the right thing to do. Moving the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant under the Pell Grant program will provide more security to Gold Star families and help ease the burden of college costs. As more of our post 9/11 Gold Star children are starting to reach college age, now is the right time to improve the grant system. I hope that my colleagues will incorporate this bill in a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.