Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following letters from Senator Hoeven and me to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and from Margaret Zientek to Senator Murkowski and Congressman Young.

Madam President, Republicans have spent months trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They knew that tens of millions of Americans would lose their care, they knew it would betray our Federal trust responsibility to Native Americans, and they knew it would throw one-fifth of our economy into chaos. TrumpCare failed because the American people opposed it. Americans spoke out against it in record numbers. TrumpCare failed to pass four times. We hope that now we have put that to bed and we can move on.

But rather than listening to millions of Americans, President Trump has responded by sabotaging the Affordable Care Act. His reckless behavior is already causing chaos in the marketplace. His actions have hyped up the cost of premiums. He has sent out-of-pocket costs through the roof. Instead of helping Americans get better healthcare, he has put it out of reach for millions.

I commend my colleagues Senator Alexander and Senator Murray. They have found a bipartisan solution to this new healthcare crisis caused by our President. I urge Leader McConnell to put it onto the floor.

The Affordable Care Act isn't the only healthcare program at risk. The President and Republicans are letting funds run dry for other critical health programs. Last month, the Children's Health Insurance Program expired. CHIP insures almost 9 million children across the country, including over 11,000 kids in my home State of New Mexico. The Community Health Centers Program also expired last month.

Republicans failed to extend the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Services. That is one of the most effective health programs that we have. Without it, more than 1,000 New Mexico parents could miss out on home visits. They will not get crucial information about how to nurse their newborns, recognize healthy behavior in infants, and teach basic skills to their children. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians is also set to expire in December.

I urge Republicans to work with us to reauthorize these critical healthcare programs. We need to act urgently. We can get this done by Thanksgiving or earlier if we work together.

Madam President, I want to talk about CHIP first.

CHIP provides comprehensive health insurance for kids whose families do not quite qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford private insurance. CHIP covers basic medical care, like immunizations, prescriptions, routine checkups and dental visits. Thanks to CHIP, the rate of uninsured kids in America has dropped from 14 percent to 4.5 percent.

CHIP has been a lifesaver for some families. This is Colton. He is from the small town of Anthony, NM. Colton was 8 years old when he was diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately, the cancer was treatable, and he was insured by CHIP. So the cost of his treatment and medications were covered. Without CHIP, Colton's family would have had to have paid hundreds of dollars a month for his treatment, which is the cost of a month's rent.

Families should not have to choose between lifesaving care for their children and a roof over their heads.

Colton's father wrote to the Santa Fe New Mexican, and it read:

Watching my son battle for his life was almost more than I

could bear. I couldn't imagine dealing with the stress of

scraping together everything we had to cover the medical

bills if we didn't have coverage. Having [CHIP] allowed us to

focus on what was truly important--Colton's future and being

there for my family as we went through this life-changing

experience.

But, now, States are looking at contingency plans. New Mexico has reserves but only until next spring. Some States will be forced to cover all of the cost in just a few months, and others are preparing to send notices to families that their coverage will end. No parent who is already in crisis because of a sick child should have to go through that. CHIP was a bipartisan success story. I hope that we can get back to working together on this.

The 50-year-old Community Health Centers Program delivers comprehensive healthcare services to some of our Nation's most vulnerable individuals--schoolchildren, people experiencing homelessness, agricultural workers, and our veterans. In New Mexico, 17 of these clinics serve 333,000 patients in 90 underserved and rural communities.

The Community Health Centers are also important to the economy in rural communities. In New Mexico, they employ almost 3,000 people across the State. These clinics cannot sustain a 70-percent funding cut if Federal support is canceled. Many would be forced to shut their doors.

I recently visited one of these clinics--the De Baca Family Practice Clinic in Fort Sumner, NM. It provides high-quality medical services to over 3,000 patients. Over one-fifth of its patients are children, and another one-fifth are seniors, but if funding runs out, the De Baca Family Practice Clinic will be forced to start laying off essential medical staff and to reduce its hours.

Clinic director Lisa Walraven told me: ``You simply cannot reduce funding by 70 percent from a small frontier healthcare facility and expect anything other than a significant loss of access to care.''

Both CHIP and community health centers provide preventive care to underserved communities throughout New Mexico. They are supporting our healthcare system to ensure that we don't let any families fall through the cracks.

Indian Country also depends on these programs and others like them to provide vital care to their communities. The Federal Government has a trust and treaty obligation to provide healthcare to Native Americans. Yet the Indian Health Service is severely underfunded. CHIP and similar programs help to supplement care that the Indian Health Service cannot provide. CHIP currently covers more than 1,400 Native American children in New Mexico. Allowing these programs to expire would betray our treaty obligations.

Another program cited that is critical to Indian Country is the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. It provides grants to Native communities for diabetes treatment and prevention. Without proper treatment, diabetes can lead to limb amputation and kidney failure. The disproportionate impact on Native Americans is a public health problem that we cannot ignore.

This program is making real progress. It helps to fund over 300 Native health programs in 35 States, including 29 programs in New Mexico. They help educate communities about how to prevent diabetes and provide care so that Native patients can manage their diabetes more effectively.

It is one of the most effective public health initiatives ever undertaken by the Federal Government. Diabetes-related kidney failure has dropped 54 percent among Native Americans. In some States, like Alaska, leg amputations among Native people with diabetes have decreased more than 68 percent. This program literally saves life and limb.

Program directors across Indian Country tell me that without this funding they will have to start laying off staff and limiting their diabetes programming. We need to provide funding to Tribal communities so that they can invest in projects that will be more effective in preventing diabetes over time.

Congress must act to allow this successful program to reach its full potential. We cannot allow diabetes to become a death sentence in Indian Country once again.

The failure to fund CHIP, the failure to fund the community health centers, home visiting health services, and the Special Diabetes Program will force families into another health crisis. Every day that we neglect these programs, more people will suffer. These programs have years--sometimes decades--of proven success.

The American people want Congress to work together to come up with bipartisan solutions. Most of these programs were created through bipartisan cooperation. Let's get back to that spirit and work together for the American people again.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. President, for the recognition this evening.

Mr. President, I rise to support the Consumer Financial Protection Board's arbitration rule that has been spoken about this evening very eloquently by my colleagues here on the Democratic side.

The new rule protects consumers from predatory financial practices. These consumers are our everyday constituents. They are servicemembers and veterans, moms and dads, the elderly, students, and working people. It protects these folks by limiting binding arbitration clauses.

Now, what is a binding arbitration clause? These clauses take away consumers' rights to seek relief in court when they are wronged. This rule puts money in the pockets of consumers who have been taken advantage of.

The Consumer Financial Protection Board estimates that the rule will mean $342 million per year in compensation to consumers. Repealing the rule would take that money, which should go to consumers, and give it to some of the wealthiest corporations in this Nation.

When millions of consumers are scammed, what is the most logical remedy? When millions of consumers are scammed, what is the logical remedy--millions of separate cases before arbiters selected by the corporation or a class action case before an impartial judge and jury?

The right to go to court before a jury of your peers is enshrined in the Constitution. The Seventh Amendment states:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy

shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall

be pre-

served. . . .

Now, let's talk about the Seventh Amendment and what one of our Founders said. James Madison wrote:

Trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the

liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights

of nature.

This rule guarantees access to our impartial courts. It is always good to have the spirit of the Constitution and the Founders on your side.

I stand with the supporters of this rule. Who are they? There are many. For example, there is the American Legion. Just today, its legislative director wrote in no uncertain terms:

A vote to overturn the CFPB arbitration rule is a vote

against the military and veterans.

The Military Coalition, representing 5.5 million servicemembers, also supports this rule. In July, they wrote: ``Forced arbitration is an un- American system wherein servicemembers' claims against a corporation are funneled into a rigged, secretive system in which all the rules, including the choice of the arbitrator, are picked by the corporation.''

These are incredibly strong statements of opposition from military and veterans groups. Also in July, over 300 consumer, civil rights, labor, and small business groups wrote: ``The rule . . . is a significant step forward in the ongoing fight to curb predatory practices in consumer financial products and services and to make these markets fairer and safer.''

Signers of this letter include the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, Consumers Union, the NAACP, LULAC, and dozens of other organizations.

Conservatives also support this rule. One of the early tea party activists, Mr. Judson Phillips, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Times. He said: ``This time, the CFPB is right and the Republicans should stand on the side of American citizens and protect the Constitution and the Seventh Amendment.''

Where are our Republican friends? They are not here on the floor talking about this rule.

Finally, the American people broadly support this rule. A recent poll showed 67 percent supported the rule; only 13 percent opposed it. So who opposes this rule and who is behind this resolution to repeal it? Corporations that want to avoid penalties in court when they abuse their customers and big financial industry trade associations and lobbyists.

It would allow credit card, student loan, and payday lending firms-- which would see big benefits if this resolution passes--to keep forcing consumers to sign contracts that take away their right to go to court.

Wells Fargo, one of the largest banks in America, spent years creating millions of fake accounts, just to bill their own customers more fees. They eventually admitted a complete and total fraud of epic proportions. Equifax, one of the largest credit bureaus in America, allowed over half of all American consumers' personal information to be hacked. These companies should not be able to use binding arbitration to avoid the legal consequences of their actions. Today's debate is a perfect example of how policymaking in Washington is broken.

A Federal agency did what is required. It undertook an exhaustive study and created a rule to protect consumers from abusive contracts. Now the affected industry is spending millions on lobbying and public relations to repeal the consumer protection rule--to protect their bottom line at all costs.

This vote will decide the fate of $342 million per year. Should it go to consumers who were wronged? Of course, it should. Or should it stay with the corporations that committed those wrongs? Of course, it should not.

Congress is not popular these days. Americans overwhelmingly believe special interests and lobbyists have too much power compared to the regular people. Today, we can take a step to repair our reputation. We should side with our constituents on this important vote and reject this resolution. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back.

Mr. President, this amendment calls for legislation to fully and permanently fund the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. Senator Heinrich and I have long called for this solution. Rural counties in New Mexico and other States across the West and across the country have large amounts of Federal lands within their boundaries. These counties rely on funding from the PILT Program to provide better schools, maintain roads and bridges, and support thousands of local jobs.

We currently fund PILT year by year. I have fought for this funding as a member of the Appropriations Committee, but we need to do more. We need to pass permanent funding to ensure that local communities can count on our resources being there every year to provide basic services. I urge support for the Udall-Heinrich amendment and yield back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Thank you, Madam President, for the recognition.

Madam President, today I wish to talk a little bit about something very obscure that is buried in this budget bill, but it is something that is very, very important to me. First, before I talk about the specific policy issues, I just want to talk about a personal exploration I had. This is with regard to

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and this special area up here called the 1002 area.

I had the opportunity in the 1980s to take a raft trip down across this Arctic Coastal Plain and down to the sea, and part of the reason was that many of the Alaska Senators at the time used to say: If you are going to make policy in Alaska, you ought to see that part of Alaska. So I took the opportunity to see it. I took a raft trip down a river called the Hula Hula River, which flows out of the Brooks Range, a large mountain range, into the Beaufort Sea.

I can say that from my personal experience, this is one of the wildest, most magnificent places on the Earth.

I would like to talk a little bit about the creatures and critters we saw there. We saw the beginning of the caribou migration, which occurs over in Canada to this area in Alaska, where they calf on the 1002 area. It is one of the biggest migrations in the world of a mammal species. We saw grizzly bears. One grizzly bear actually came into our camp, and we had to retreat and watch whatever it was going to do until it moved along. We saw musk oxen. We saw polar bears. We saw what a marvelous and incredible area this was and what a rich, rich ecosystem it was.

I was reminded of my Uncle Mo, Congressman Morris Udall, who was the author in 1980 of legislative protections for this area. He required congressional action to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and this 1002 area. He did that because he realized how significant and how magnificent it was.

One of the things we have to realize is what we are protecting here. People travel all over the world to go to the Serengeti and see the migration of the animals on the Serengeti plains. This same caribou migration is very much like the Serengeti. In fact, it is our Serengeti, when you have animals migrate from Canada all the way into Alaska and back. This is our Serengeti. It is a special place. It is a real treasure, and I don't have any doubt in my mind that we should save it.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge represents one of the world's wildest and more biodiverse places. Its Coastal Plain or the 1002 area is the biological heart of the refuge. There is no other place like it on the planet. Congress showed remarkable restraint and forethought when it put the Refuge under Federal protection, and I am proud my Uncle Mo Udall was instrumental in passing legislation that doubled the size of the Refuge. Under that law, only Congress can open up the 1002 area for drilling.

Today I rise in strong opposition to the Republican proposal to drill for oil in this remarkable place. I will fight their plan tooth and nail. The only reason they are doing this is to pay for tax cuts for big corporations and tax cuts for the richest Americans.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain is an environmental time machine. It is a rare place on this Earth, where almost everything has been preserved as it was over 10,000 years ago. Oil and gas development would change its delicate ecosystem forever. We could never get it back.

This Refuge is the largest Arctic conservation area on the globe. It is part of our national heritage. It is part of the world's heritage. That is why I compare it to the Serengeti, where people travel from all over the world to see that migration. The same thing is true here. It would be wrong to plunder this magnificent area for short-term gain, especially when that gain is speculative.

The 1002 area is home to 37 species of land mammals, 8 species of marine mammals, 42 fish species, and over 200 species of birds. Migratory birds fly in and out of this area from every State and every continent. The coastal plain in the Refuge is only 20 to 30 miles wide. No other equivalent slice of Alaska's North Slope is as biologically diverse.

Let me share a few examples of the wildlife that depend on this area. Here is a photograph of a caribou and its young during the spring calving time. The 1002 area hosts the largest and most concentrated herd of Porcupine caribou in the world: 197,000 caribou make the longest land migration of any animal--2,700 miles--to give birth there on the coastal plain in the 1002 area. Their numbers are strong now, but even a small change in reproductive rates could threaten the herd's existence.

Here is a picture of a polar bear. Nine hundred Beaufort Sea polar bears den on- and offshore in this area. The magnificent polar bear is threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and with climate change causing sea ice to melt rapidly, more bears are expected to den on shore.

Here is a photo of the musk oxen. About 250 musk oxen live there year-round. This impressive mammal survived the last ice age, but forcing them from their habitat now could threaten their survival.

People also depend on the Refuge. The Gwich'in have lived there for thousands of years. They call themselves people of the caribou because their culture and way of life are intertwined with the Porcupine caribou herd. Caribou represents about 80 percent of the Gwich'in people's diet. They use caribou skins for clothing, bedding, and shelter. They make fish hooks, skin scrapers, and other tools from Caribou bones.

Gwich'in are spiritually tied to the caribou as well. They have a saying: ``Every caribou has a bit of the human heart in them; and every human has a bit of caribou heart.'' The Gwich'in people depend on the caribou for their material and spiritual survival. Oil development in caribou calving grounds would threaten their very future.

The Republicans' budget resolution instructs the Senate Energy Committee to identify at least $1 billion in deficit savings over the next 10 years. The Republicans have their sights on the 1002 area to produce that $10 billion. As I said, this estimate is highly speculative, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume the number of $1 billion is correct. It still doesn't even scratch the surface of the $1.5 trillion deficit the Republicans recklessly propose. It is not even one one-thousandth of the money the Republicans need to raise to pay for the megadeficit they will rack up to pay for a tax break for the superwealthy.

Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not necessary for U.S. energy independence. We are now an oil exporter, and oil prices are low. Low prices are forcing companies to stop drilling in areas that are much more accessible and less sensitive to development. Opening the Refuge now makes even less sense as more and more people are demanding fuel-efficient and electric cars.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the last truly wild places in America. The decision to protect the Refuge from drilling was done carefully and thoughtfully. The decision to undo that protection should be given the same care and thought.

We haven't held hearings. We haven't even been able to hear from and question experts. Directing the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to draft legislation to raise funds without a public process is premature. The American people will have to live with our decision. This rushed proposal shortchanges them and it shortchanges future generations.

There are few places left in the world where the Arctic coastal plains, foothills and mountains and the wildlife they support are wild and free. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of those places. This unique, grand, and biologically rich place deserves full protection in perpetuity.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Melanie Thornton, a congressional fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am joined today by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich. We thought we would come to the floor together and talk about Senator Domenici, our former colleague who passed away recently.

Pietro Vichi Domenici was born to Italian immigrants in Albuquerque, NM, in 1932. He was a grocer's son. He worked in his parents' store and attended Catholic school. He graduated from our own University of New Mexico. He pitched in college on the Albuquerque Dukes' farm team, and he taught high school mathematics. He went to law school and built a law practice. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1973 and became New Mexico's longest serving Senator.

He was a husband, father, and grandfather. He married Nancy Burke right out of law school, and his beautiful wife of 59 years was key to his long and successful career. She is a good friend of ours, and we spent an hour with her in Albuquerque a little over a week ago. She is still very strong, and she is still very focused, as one would expect as a mother and grandmother of her children and grandchildren.

Pete Domenici was a statesman. He worked across party lines to find pragmatic solutions for the American people. New Mexicans will always remember him as one of the strongest fighters our State will ever know.

Senator Domenici and I belonged to different political parties, and we didn't always agree on things, but I always appreciated that he cared deeply about the issues, and he put the Nation and New Mexico's interests first as he saw them. I join all of New Mexico in thanking him and in mourning his passing.

Senator Domenici's math skills and his beginnings in local government served him well during his 36 years in the U.S. Senate. Anyone who has served in city government knows the importance of a budget. Sitting as chair or ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee for 22 years, he held the Federal Government to the same rigorous, logical standard. He mastered the complexities of the Federal budget and served longer in a leadership position on that committee than any other Senator. He was a budget deficit hawk and a realist. He understood that supply-side economics do not work and that big tax cuts will not result in growth leading to a balanced budget. He went up against his own party, and he went up against President Ronald Reagan on the same budget issue.

In the 1990s, he worked with President Clinton to produce a budget surplus for fiscal year 1998--the first surplus in our budget since 1969. His willingness to work with Democrats, his pragmatism, and his stature with his own party made it possible.

On the Budget Committee, he understood how to align New Mexico and national interests.

He recognized the potential of our National Labs--Los Alamos and Sandia--and the potential they had for our State. He understood their importance to the national interest. He championed their work for decades. Our Labs provide thousands of good jobs in central and northern New Mexico, and the breadth and depth of their research and scientific contributions to our Nation are nothing short of astonishing. Pete Domenici played a critical role in the Labs' developments.

He also had a key appreciation of the importance to New Mexico and the Nation of our military bases. In 2005, Cannon Air Force Base in southern New Mexico was slated to close. This would have cost New Mexico lots of jobs and would have had a devastating impact on the overall economy of the State. Senator Domenici, along with the entire delegation and Governor Richardson, worked to secure a different and critical mission for Cannon Air Force Base. Today, the 27th Special Operations Wing is going strong at Cannon. Six thousand men and women are employed, and rural Roosevelt and Curry Counties benefit from the base's $500 million economic impact.

Senator Domenici's fingerprints are not only all over the Budget Committee but are all over the Energy and Natural Resources Committee-- which he chaired for 4 years in the early 2000s--and the Indian Affairs Committee, which I am fortunate to sit on today. He helped position the United States to be energy independent through the Energy Policy Acts of 2005 and 2007--the last time we really had bipartisan energy acts. He was a strong advocate on behalf of Tribes, working

to advance Indian healthcare and resolve longstanding water rights disputes, protecting Native art from counterfeiting, and improving reservation roads.

My Uncle Mo talked a lot about the importance of being able to disagree without being disagreeable and to work together, if possible. Senator Domenici understood that while the delegation was divided by party, it was united in its love for New Mexico. He knew that New Mexico would be stronger if everyone worked together. It is partly thanks to him that our delegation continues a tradition of working together regardless of party.

Senator Domenici's commitment to bipartisanship did not end in 2009 with his Senate tenure; he continued to try to find solutions that worked for everyone as a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

The Pete V. Domenici Institute for Public Policy at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces carries on his tradition through scholarship. The Senator said:

It's time for us to join together and take these [partisan]

issues out of politics. The problems we face are so big,

people from both sides need to sit down and say, ``We can't

approach this the normal way.'' Some great leadership is

needed.

We could really use that commitment to bipartisanship in the Senate halls today.

Senator Domenici was in Washington for many years, but he never was out of touch with everyday New Mexicans. Whether it was the acequia repairs in the Espanola Valley, creating a port of entry at Santa Teresa, funding new fighter jets at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, establishing the Petroglyph National Monument, protecting Valles Caldera, forming the Hispanic Cultural Center and Museum in Albuquerque, Pete Domenici identified New Mexico's needs and came up with solutions.

Pete and Nancy had a special passion for people who live with mental illness, borne from his own family's experience. This is an issue that he and I talked a lot about and that our two families shared. He worked across the aisle for many years to achieve parity in insurance coverage between mental healthcare and medical services. Any family who experiences serious mental illness understands that the two should be treated the same and that adequate mental healthcare is absolutely necessary.

In 2008, Congress passed the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. That Federal law means that millions of persons with mental illness and substance abuse disorders have better access to the care they really need.

Senator Domenici spoke passionately and personally about mental health. He also did so on immigration. His mother originally immigrated to the United States illegally. During World War II, she was taken in a raid aimed at ``Italian sympathizers.'' Those of us who were here during the immigration debates in 2006 remember his plainspoken and moving speech on the floor of the Senate, where he said:

I understand this whole idea of a household with a father

who is American and a mother who is not, but they are living,

working, and getting ahead. I understand that they are just

like every other family in America. There is nothing

different. They have the same love, same hope, same will and

same aspirations as those of us who were born here have.

I couldn't agree more.

Pete Domenici, my good friend, son of Italian immigrant grocers, a great Senator, a great American, and a great New Mexican, thank you for your remarkable contributions. You leave an exceptional legacy for New Mexico and for the Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Madam President, for the recognition.

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

Thank you, Mr. President, for your recognition.

I rise today with my colleagues from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Heitkamp and Senator Cortez Masto, to talk about how the Republicans' latest and most heartless healthcare bill hurts American Indians and Alaska Natives.

I have just heard some good news that this bill might not be brought up for a vote this week, but Republicans insist that they will continue their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and raid the Medicaid expansion program, which will devastate Indian Country. So this latest withdrawal is great, but they are saying that it is not going away. So we have to maintain vigilance on this issue.

We came together before, in July, when Republicans' Better Care Reconciliation Act threatened to roll back healthcare for Native communities. With that bill's defeat, we hoped the debate over legislation that jeopardized healthcare for Native communities was behind us, and we hoped we could begin to work in earnest in a bipartisan way to address the real healthcare problems that Americans face.

Given this new threat, my Indian Affairs Committee colleagues and I must remind this Chamber, once again, that the Federal Government bears a solemn trust, treaty responsibility, and obligation to ensure that Native Americans receive quality healthcare. Each version of the Republican repeal we have seen so far violates that trust responsibility by taking healthcare away from hundreds of thousands of Native Americans and abdicating the Federal Government's Native healthcare responsibilities. If any of these proposals pass, Native Americans' health and lives will be in danger. These efforts must be stopped.

Everyone familiar with Indian Country knows that the Indian Health Service is severely underfunded. ``Don't get sick after June'' was a familiar refrain on many reservations, pueblos, and villages. Limited funding meant medical services were often rationed to only emergency care or life and limb. IHS patients were not guaranteed access to comprehensive medical services, specialized services, or preventive care.

The Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid expansion changed this equation and changed it dramatically. The ACA alone has increased third-party billing revenues to IHS more than 25 percent, and Medicaid funding for IHS has increased nearly 50 percent. Tribal and urban health facilities have been able to move away from healthcare rationing.

Medicaid expansion has provided health insurance to an additional 290,000 Native Americans from 492 Tribes--almost 90 percent of all Tribes. This includes 45,600 Tribal members from my home State of New Mexico.

Uninsured rates in Indian Country have decreased from 53 percent to 39 percent, and many Tribal communities' uninsured rates are even lower. At the Santa Domingo Pueblo in New Mexico, 22 percent of Kewa Pueblo Health Corporation's patients were uninsured in 2013. In 2016, the uninsured rate was down to 7 percent. At the IHS Sante Fe Service Unit in New Mexico, 84 percent of our patients now have some sort of insurance. On the Turtle Mountain Reservation in North Dakota, they have seen a 14-percent reduction in uninsured Tribal members. At the Portland Urban Indian Health Center, the rate of uninsured has gone from 56 percent to 8 percent, solely due to Medicaid expansion. This is impressive. Let me just say that again. It has gone from 56 percent uninsured to 8 percent.

Medicaid expansion has helped to make up for this historic underfunding in IHS services. Third-party billing revenue through Medicaid is now up to 35 percent of the Kewa Pueblo Health Corporation's total budget. For the Jicarilla Apache Tribe in New Mexico, Medicaid makes up more than 75 percent of their third-party billing revenue. At the Navajo Crownpoint IHS hospital, 50 percent of their budget comes from Medicaid third-party billing revenue. For Seattle's urban Indian health clinic, operated by the Seattle Indian Health Board, Medicaid and Medicare expansion have resulted in a revenue increase of 146 percent since 2012.

Medicaid expansion has allowed IHS to expand services and build new facilities. Kewa Pueblo Health Corporation has used some of its third- party billing to offer new specialty-care services, like obstetrics and podiatry, and to build new clinic space. Santa Fe IHS used its additional funds to build new examination rooms for Santa Clara Pueblo, establish a mobile health unit for San Felipe Pueblo, and update outpatient rooms at the main clinic in Santa Fe. The Seattle urban Indian clinic uses its additional revenue to expand patient services to include a pilot opioid addiction program.

In the words of the National Council on Urban Indian Health, Medicaid expansion has been an ``unqualified success.'' The ACA brought new hope to Native families and communities.

But this latest Republican plan will undo this success. Thank goodness it has been withdrawn. In that plan, they claim they will preserve Medicaid expansion eligibility rules for Tribes. This offers a false hope.

Like most people on Medicaid, Tribal members go on and off the rolls as their income fluctuates. Proposals like Graham-Cassidy would require that they be continuously enrolled in Medicaid expansion and work to receive benefits. If not, they would be dropped permanently from the program.

Section 128 of Graham-Cassidy is also being pushed as helpful to Indian Country. This section expands IHS's Federal reimbursement rate to non-Native providers, but really it is a veiled attempt to buy off State leaders concerned about massive cuts to the Medicaid Program. It will not improve Tribal healthcare facilities. It will undercut the IHS, and it will undermine the Tribal self-determination by bypassing Tribal input in the Federal Medicaid reimbursement process.

There are 30,000 Native Americans who now have private individual health insurance thanks to the ACA. Every Republican plan so far strips away the ACA's cost-sharing subsidies and tax credits, which help make private insurance affordable for many of these Tribal members and for millions of working Americans. The Republican bill does nothing to help these Native Americans keep their health insurance.

The sponsors can try to dress this bill up, but the glaring reality is that TrumpCare 2.0 would be terrible for Indian Country. In fact, it is worse for Tribes than any other proposed repeal plan so far.

It is no surprise that prominent Native organizations--the National Indian Health Board, the National Congress of American Indians, and the National Council of Urban Indian Health--oppose Graham-Cassidy and proposals like it. They join virtually all major patient advocate organizations and medical organizations in their opposition, including the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Medical Association.

Eighty percent of the American people disapprove of the Republicans' attempts to undermine healthcare. Graham-Cassidy is woefully out of touch with the American people and, especially, with Indian Country. I am glad this bill will not receive a vote this week.

Just like tens of millions of our fellow Americans, Tribes, Tribal organizations, and individual Native Americans all around the country are worried about what Republicans will do to their healthcare. I have received a record 15,000 calls, emails, and letters from constituents about healthcare this year. Almost all of them have been

opposed to the Republicans' relentless attacks on healthcare, and not a single Tribe has reached out to my office in support of this bill.

These attacks are happening behind closed doors. There was only one rushed hearing, and it was yesterday. There is no formal Congressional Budget Office analysis, and there has been no meaningful consultation with Tribes. Although many of us have called for that, there has been no consultation. It is difficult to adequately describe the recklessness, cruelty, and cynicism in the Republicans' rush to tear down the ACA.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee started a bipartisan effort to address the real healthcare needs in this country, but Republicans froze it once Graham-Cassidy was introduced. I am really hoping now that Chairman Lamar Alexander and Vice Chairman Patty Murray can get back to the bipartisan work that needs to be done. Other time-sensitive legislation with broad, bipartisan support--like reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, which need to be enacted before the end of September--was pushed aside.

Congress needs to change focus. We need to work across the aisle to meet the needs of the American people, and we need to improve Native American healthcare. We have come a long way under the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid expansion, but we are far from being able to declare victory. I echo our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain. Given the enormous impact of healthcare on the lives of Americans and our economy, we need to find bipartisan solutions through the regular order.

Partisan repeal of the ACA is not right for Indian Country or for America.

Now, Mr. President, I would yield the floor to my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp. I worked for many years as attorney general with Senator Heitkamp. She was a great champion during those years for Native Americans and, specifically, for Native American children. She has been an incredible advocate on the Affordable Care Act and the good that it has done for Native Americans.

Mr. President, let me thank my colleague Senator Heitkamp for her great advocacy today for Native Americans. I have known her for a long time. In every public service job she has had--whether it was the State tax commissioner of North Dakota or the

attorney general and now U.S. Senator--she has always been a great advocate for the Tribes. We so much appreciate that. I can tell you, she is one of the hardest working members of the Senate in the Indian Affairs Committee. She really brings what you talked about--a great bipartisan approach to this. We look forward to doing more of that in the future.

I also wish to say to the Presiding Officer that he has shown bipartisanship on opioids, and we have an epidemic. So we can show that there is bipartisanship.

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for myself and Senator Cortez Masto to engage in a colloquy and then yield to her.

I say to Senator Cortez Masto, thank you so much. Thank you for bringing the statements forward from Chairwoman Torres. She has every right to be concerned.

The short answer to her question is, yes, we don't want to go back. Chairwoman Torres is right to be concerned. Tribal leaders across the country want to know how this bill would impact their members, but, as Senator Heitkamp highlighted, Republican leadership has not engaged in any meaningful Tribal consultation.

I know that is something that concerns you a lot. Working with you on our committee, you always raise that issue--Tribal consultation and how important that is. That did not occur before these proposals were put before us.

Repeal of the Medicaid expansion would pull millions of dollars out of critical funding at the Indian Health Service and would return the entire system to life or limb. Medicaid funding at IHS has increased by over $240 million since the Affordable Care Act passage, and that is an increase of 43 percent.

Under the ACA, Tribes and urban Indian health facilities have started offering a much wider range of healthcare services to Native Americans, such as OB-GYN, podiatry, and behavioral health.

I have mentioned the old official IHS motto several times: ``Don't get sick after June.'' This was a motto because the Indian Health Service would run out of money after June. So what people would say with regard to their healthcare in Indian Country is ``Don't get sick after June''--a pretty outrageous situation. In practical terms, that motto translated to exactly the sort of healthcare rationing Chairwoman Torres described in her letter.

Imagine living in that sort of healthcare system, where diabetics are told that help is only available once their kidneys start to shut down, where expectant mothers can't access prenatal care.

The reality is that Graham-Cassidy--and we hope another proposal doesn't come forward like Graham-Cassidy; we know they buried that today--would turn back the clock in Indian Country, taking us from this current era of Tribal healthcare innovation back to the days of life and limb.

I thank Senator Cortez Masto for her great advocacy for Native Americans. I know very well her work as State attorney general. I know she worked with Tribes and wanted to try to work through problems rather than litigate them all the time.

I wanted to say to your chairwoman in Nevada that we really appreciate her hard work on behalf of her Tribal members and other Tribes around the country.

I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Thank you very much, I say to Senator Cortez Masto. Today, you can at least tell your chairwoman that this bill has been withdrawn. There is not going to be a further vote on it. But I would urge her--and I know you know this well--we need to stay vigilant. This can be brought up at any time. It can be attached to a major piece of legislation moving forward. So urge her to continue this great advocacy. We really appreciate your advocacy.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, thank you for your recognition. I am honored to come here today and follow Senator Leahy and Senator Kaine and their speeches on DACA. I have also watched over the last couple of days, and I think almost every Democratic Senator has been down to the floor to speak with passion about this issue. I am just so proud of our caucus and our Members who have stood up and called the President on this issue.

Today, I stand with millions of Americans protesting the President's heartless decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program known as DACA. This inhumane and cruel decision threatens the hopes and aspirations of our country's young Dreamers, and there is no doubt it will harm the economy. I call on all Members of Congress-- especially the Republican leadership--to act now and to act swiftly to keep families together and allow these kids to realize their huge potential by making DACA the law of the land. That is what we need to do, make DACA the law of the land. If the President will not do the right thing, then Congress must take action and Congress must do this.

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents across New Mexico and throughout our country agree that Dreamers deserve to live and work in the United States. According to a Morning Consult-Politico poll released this week, 76 percent support allowing them to stay--76 percent Democrats, Republicans, Independents. What a big number.

Most Americans agree that our Nation benefits from the contribution immigrants make in our communities and our economy. They believe our government should honor its promise to Dreamers. Many of these young people came here as small children and have not known any other country.

Take Roxana. Roxana came to Santa Fe, NM, when she was 1 year old. She is now 22. She registered with DACA as soon as she could. She completed the paperwork, paid the fee, and she has complied with all of the requirements. She now works as a medical assistant with La Familia Medical Center in Santa Fe. La Familia is a great healthcare clinic. It provides excellent medical care to everyone in Santa Fe, including many immigrants and low-income patients.

Roxana loves her work at La Familia, and she loves being able to help her fellow immigrants. Roxana had plans to go to nursing school, but the President's action to end DACA jeopardizes those plans and puts them on hold. In Roxana's words, ``Santa Fe, NM, is my home. It's where I know people. It's where I've lived. It's where I've gone to school. It's where I've grown up. It's my life. It's something that is mine but doesn't truly belong to me.''

Those are her words. We must give Roxana and the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers what should truly belong to them.

Dreamers more than pull their economic weight in our country; 97 percent are employed or are in school or do both. They work in Fortune 500 companies and public schools. They labor on farms and dairies. They create businesses, volunteer in our communities, pay taxes, and pay into Social Security and Medicare. Why would we choose to kick some of our most talented and most productive workers out of the country? Why kick some of our best and brightest young people out of this country?

Ending DACA would cause chaos for employers. Forcing these motivated young people out of work could cost us 700,000 jobs--as many as 30,000 a month. That adds up to $460.3 billion in economic output over the next 10 years. Medicare and Social Security contributions could drop by $24.6 billion over the same period of time.

One of those young people who contributes in New Mexico is Brandon. Brandon came with his mother from Mexico to the United States when he

was 2 years old. Brandon goes to college and studies every day to be an architect, and he makes straight A's. He holds down a job to help support his family with medical bills and volunteers in his community. Brandon is grateful for the DACA Program that has given him the opportunity to work and pay taxes. Yes, he is grateful to pay taxes.

This President continues to divide our country like no other President we have known. Every day it is clear that his values are not in line with ours. I increasingly believe he is not fit to lead this great Nation.

His campaign began with anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric. He accused Mexican immigrants of being rapists and criminals, and his bigoted words have never stopped. He called for a wall along the entire border with Mexico--a wall that would cost billions of tax dollars and which border communities don't want. He called for a ban on Muslim refugees--turning our backs on people who are fighting terrorism and who value the freedoms that we have here in the United States. He tacitly accepted the support of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and bigots in Charlottesville. He pardoned a law enforcement officer who terrorized the Latino community in Maricopa County, AZ, with unconstitutional raids and who forced detainees into inhumane living situations. Joe Arpaio is not a ``good guy'' as President Trump called him. Joe Arpaio is the criminal.

This President doesn't seem to value--let alone embody--the principles that America stands for, and now he wants to kick out of the country young people who do value this country--like Carlos.

Carlos was brought to New Mexico from Mexico when he was less than 1 year old. New Mexico is the only home he has known. Because of Carlos's immigration status, his opportunities were limited. He couldn't play sports in school, couldn't go on field trips, even though he pledged allegiance to the United States with his classmates.

Carlos registered with DACA 2 years ago and, in his words, he was given wings. He is a full-time student at New Mexico State University, studying to be a mechanical engineer. He volunteers as a firefighter. He works as a server at a local restaurant. He began a drive to help Hurricane Harvey victims. Carlos says:

We as DREAMers have proven ourselves to be worthy of being

here in the United States.

There are 800,000 young people like Roxana, Brandon, and Carlos hoping to do their part to make our country strong. By any measure, DACA has been a huge success. We already have the outlines of a program that works for America. We in Congress must roll up our sleeves and make this program the law of the land, and we must make sure that America truly does belong to Roxana and all of our Dreamers.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to longtime New Mexico State Representative Luciano ``Lucky'' Varela, who passed away on September 2, 2017. Lucky served the State of New Mexico for over five decades--first as a financial expert for the State finance department and then as a respected legislator in the New Mexico House of Representatives. We will remember Lucky as a champion for all of New Mexico, for his expertise and legislative skills, and also for his kindness, civility, and great heart.

Lucky was born to Celestino and Catalina Varela in Pecos, NM, on February 17, 1935. Growing up during and right after the Great Depression, his early jobs including hauling firewood to miners working near Pecos. He developed a strong work ethic and a love of the outdoors. Those early experiences informed his work in the State legislature, including his effort to keep New Mexico rivers and streams open to sportsmen and recreationists.

Lucky graduated from Pecos High School and joined the U.S. Army in 1957. He served 2 years in the Army and 6 years in the Army Reserve. He graduated from the College of Santa Fe with a degree in accounting. He then earned a law degree from LaSalle University.

Lucky worked as a comptroller for the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration from the early 1960s to the mid-1980s. There he got to know the State's finances inside and out--knowledge that would be key to his success in the legislature.

After retiring from State government, Lucky couldn't sit still. He ran for a seat in the New Mexico House of Representatives and represented District 48 in Santa Fe for 30 years, from 1987 to 2016.

Lucky's knowledge of State finances was legion. It is said that he knew State agency finances better than the agency heads. He served as chair of the legislative finance committee and deputy chair of the house appropriations and finance committee. Lucky understood the numbers, but just as importantly, he understood the people behind those numbers--their struggles, hopes, and dreams. He championed public education, seniors, State employees, and technology, fighting for increases funding for public schools, higher salaries for teachers, raises for State employees, and modernizing State government technology.

During the fiscal crisis of 2009, Lucky is credited with singlehandedly developing the budget that balanced the budget and saved State finances. This ensured schools stayed open, State employees were not laid off, and State police got paid.

One of his final accomplishments was a 2013 bill he cosponsored to overhaul the Public Employees Retirement Association pension fund-- helping make sure State retirees are secure in their retirement.

Lucky gave selflessly to the people of Santa Fe, the entire State of New Mexico, and our Nation, but he was even more devoted to family. Lucky is survived by his three children--Jeff, James, and Bernadette-- and nine grandchildren. New Mexico is a better place thanks to Lucky's over 50 years of service. We will miss him dearly.

Mr. President, this May, a spray of pesticide from a nearby orchard drifted over to a field, exposing nearly 50 farmworkers in California. They soon became sick with nausea and vomiting. Several were hospitalized. The workers described it as a living nightmare.

The chemical they were exposed to is called chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxic pesticide related to sarin gas. It has been in use since it was developed by Dow Chemical over 50 years ago. Today, it is most often used on fruits and nuts, including strawberries, citrus, apples, and pecans from my home State of New Mexico. It is also used on grains and vegetables like broccoli and cauliflower.

A few years ago, Bonnie Wirtz also experienced the effects of chlorpyrifos. Bonnie is a farmer in Minnesota. She was exposed when spray drift came into her home through the air-conditioner. Her heart started racing, almost to the point of cardiac arrest, and she couldn't breathe. At the hospital, her nurse practitioner told her she wasn't surprised. She had seen others with similar reactions.

About 10 years ago, Claudia Angulo--a farmworker in California's San Joaquin Valley--was exposed to chlorpyrifos when she was pregnant. Claudia worked sorting oranges, apples, broccoli, and other produce treated with the chemical. When her son Isaac was born with a mental disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, she suspected the pesticides she was exposed to.

A few years ago, European scientists tested some of Isaac's hair. He had traces of over 50 pesticides in his body, and the highest concentration was chlorpyrifos. It has long been known that exposure to chlorpyrifos can be deadly. After years of study, researchers in the United States and a number of other countries now believe there is a strong connection between chlorpyrifos exposure and mental disability, ADHD, and memory deficit in children. They believe the chemical damages children's developing brains, even if they are exposed before birth. Latino children, whose parents are exposed to the pesticide, and grow up near fields treated with it, are at the greatest risk.

Scientists believe the pesticide poses a threat even to children exposed to it from produce from the grocery store or through drinking water. The connection is so strong that scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency recommended that the EPA ban all uses of the pesticide in 2015. The agency had already negotiated a ban on household use 15 years ago.

This March, the EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ignored his own scientists and the body of scientific evidence that chlorpyrifos is dangerous. Instead, he reversed course and refused to ban chlorpyrifos. That is why I rise to talk about this danger to our children.

When moms and dads feed fruits and vegetables to their children, they are trying to do the right thing. They shouldn't have to worry that these foods are laced with dangerous nerve agents. They shouldn't have to worry that the farmworkers who picked that produce or the farmers living near it were exposed.

I have been part of the fight to protect public health and the environment from toxic chemicals most of my life. I remember when Rachel Carson published ``Silent Spring'' in 1962. My father, Stewart Udall, was her champion when she was fiercely attacked by the chemical industry.

Just over a year ago, I led the bipartisan effort to reform the broken Toxic Substances Control Act. I spent several years working to reform how the EPA regulates chemicals, fighting to stand up a credible program that could be respected, that could restore confidence in the EPA on chemical safety.

I am very disappointed to have to do this, to introduce a bill on a related matter, pesticide regulation. Normally, I would argue that Congress should stay out of the business of regulating individual chemicals. That is why the EPA was created, to make thoughtful, science-based decisions on issues that affect public health and the economy.

In his first decision at the EPA, the administrator has shown his hand. He did not respect the science, not even his own scientific team, and not even when the science is overwhelmingly decisive. If the EPA and this administration will not act to protect the public, to protect children, then Congress must.

I have studied the case for banning chlorpyrifos. There is no question it needs to come off the market. In this situation, I believe Congress must step in to protect children's health. That is why I have introduced the Protect Children, Farmers, and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act--to do what the EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt refuses to do: ban chlorpyrifos.

Let's look at the reasons for banning chlorpyrifos. There are three very good ones. There are three reasons, I believe, this bill is necessary. First, Administrator Pruitt is wrong. The science is established that chlorpyrifos is a threat to health in its current use. The EPA has studied and studied the toxicity of chlorpyrifos for over a decade. I have talked to the scientists who have been studying it for over 30 years.

In a December 2014 risk assessment, the EPA found chlorpyrifos caused unsafe drinking water contamination. Based on that assessment, the EPA formally proposed, in November 2015, to revoke the use of chlorpyrifos on food. As recently as December 2016, the EPA reaffirmed its determination.

The pesticide is intended to act on the nervous system of insects, but it can act on the human nervous system as well. It can cause immediate symptoms like nausea, vomiting, convulsions, respiratory paralysis--as Bonnie Wirtz and farmworkers in California experienced. In extreme cases, it can kill.

More worrisome, even low-level exposure of chlorpyrifos to developing fetuses in young children can interrupt the development processes of the nervous system. Exposure during gestation or childhood is linked with lower birth weight, slower motor development, and attention problems.

Long-lasting effects on child brain development from in utero exposure also include impaired perceptual reasoning and working memory and undermined intellectual development by age 7. Exposure to organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos is associated with changes in children's cognitive, behavioral, and motor performance. In plain English, chlorpyrifos damages children's brains.

Second, chlorpyrifos was one of the most widely used household insecticides until the EPA raised concerns in 2000--17 years ago. Household use was phased out. That same year, the EPA discontinued use of chlorpyrifos on tomatoes altogether and restricted its uses on apples and grapes. Currently, chlorpyrifos is still widely used in agriculture, but its use is on the decline.

In 2012, EPA required no-spray buffers around schools, homes, play fields, daycare centers, hospitals, and other public places. Growers are already working to find alternatives.

The third reason is, scientists, doctors, advocates, I, and many of our colleagues were shocked when Administrator Pruitt changed course on chlorpyrifos in March, choosing to wait until 2022--5 years from now.

The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote a letter to Administrator Pruitt in June telling him that ``EPA has no new evidence indicating that chlorpyrifos exposures are safe.'' As a result, EPA has no basis to allow continued use of chlorpyrifos, and its insistence on doing so puts all children at risk.

The science hasn't changed since the EPA proposed to ban chlorpyrifos in 2015 and in 2016. Only the politics have.

The law should protect Americans from unsafe pesticides. Under the Food Quality Protection Act, the EPA Administrator ``may establish or leave in effect a tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue in or on food only if the Administrator determines that the tolerance is safe.''

``'Safe' means . . . that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will [come] from aggregate exposure.''

If the Administrator can't determine that a pesticide is safe, the Administrator must revoke or modify the tolerance.

In the case of chlorpyrifos, Administrator Pruitt did not determine the pesticide is safe with reasonable certainty, nor could he. Instead, he hid behind his claim that the issue requires years more study.

This issue has been the subject of litigation for many years. When the EPA asked the Federal court overseeing the lawsuit for a mere 6- month extension for more study, the court gave a resounding no. It called the request ``another variation on the theme of `partial reports, missed deadlines, and vague promises of future action' that has been repeated for the last nine years.''

The EPA Administrator has now given himself a 5-year extension. He is failing to follow the Food Quality Protection Act, and he is tying up the Federal Government in more unnecessary and wasteful taxpayer-funded litigation. In the meantime, children, farmers, and farmworkers are at risk because the Administrator refuses to follow the law.

It doesn't stop there. Administrator Pruitt wants to dismantle protections for farmworkers. The EPA is proposing to delay two rules vital to protecting our Nation's farmworkers: The agricultural worker protection standard and the certificate of pesticide applicators rule. Farmworkers have one of the highest rates of chemical exposure among U.S. workers. They are regularly exposed to pesticides. Despite the urgent need to protect them and their families, they actually are less protected than other workers.

We don't know exactly why Administrator Pruitt is choosing to believe a chemical company over respected scientists at his own Agency and around the world, but we can follow the money and guess one reason. While the President and the Administrator ignore science and the law, they have not ignored Dow Chemical Company. Dow gave the President $1 million for his inauguration. Its CEO attended the signing ceremony when the President issued his Executive order requiring agencies to roll back what he called unnecessary regulations. The CEO even got the signing pen. And the CEO met with Administrator Pruitt shortly before the order not to ban one of Dow's big moneymakers.

Administrator Pruitt may choose to put aside science, public health, and environmental protection in favor of big chemical profits, but Congress should not. I urge all of my colleagues, especially those across the aisle, to stand with me and pass this protection for children, families, farmers, and farmworkers.

I thank my cosponsors and the cosponsors who are coming aboard every day: Senators Blumenthal, Booker, Durbin, Gillibrand, Harris, Markey, Merkley, and Cardin.

There have been many public health and labor groups that have stood up on this issue--just to name some of them today: National Hispanic Medical Association, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Farmworker Justice, Project TENDR, United Farm Workers, Earthjustice, GreenLatinos, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, LULAC, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group, Pesticide Action Network, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Mana, and others.

The pesticide registration information act is currently moving through Congress. This gives Congress the opportunity to address chlorpyrifos use and worker protection. This bill is a good start for those discussions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is now in its third day of voting on major healthcare legislation, and we still have no idea exactly what the Republican leadership wants or what bill they are going to put on the floor. The Republican leadership tosses out options, bills that would affect the lives of millions of Americans and one-sixth of our economy. Not even Republicans know what proposal is coming next, and the American public certainly doesn't know what is coming, and they are very interested because they have healthcare and they want to know if it is going to be taken away from them.

It is as if the Republicans are playing healthcare roulette. The leader spins

the roulette wheel, the ball lands arbitrarily on some version of the ACA repeal, and the leader quickly calls a quick vote on that random version of ACA repeal.

Soon we are going to vote on a cynical amendment from the Republicans offering Medicare for all. My understanding is the Senator offering this isn't even going to support his own amendment. If you were in a State legislature, you would be prohibited from offering an amendment like that. They oppose this Medicare-for-all amendment. They oppose Medicare for all. So why are they seeking a vote? To distract from their own dangerous bills and reckless process. It is a desperate ploy, and everyone sees through it. I support healthcare for all. It should be a right in this Nation. But this is a phony and insincere amendment.

All the while, the President stands to the side, not caring one whit what the bill looks like or how many people will be hurt in the rush to get a bill out the Senate door.

On Tuesday, we voted on the leadership's Better Care Reconciliation Act 2.0. That would cut 22 million Americans off healthcare. It also has been rejected overwhelmingly by Americans.

Yesterday, we voted on straight ACA repeal, not replacement. That bill would throw 32 million Americans off of healthcare. That idea is no more popular than the other bills.

Today, maybe we will vote on a last-ditch version which would repeal parts of ObamaCare, the so-called skinny repeal option. That bill is no better. It would mean 16 million Americans get thrown off healthcare, and the other very important part of this is that it would raise premiums 20 percent. We have heard our friend from Nebraska come down here on the floor and talk about their concern about healthcare and concern about the cost of premiums. They ought to know that this proposal is going to raise premiums 20 percent.

This bill is the Republicans' last hope. It takes away the individual mandate to get health insurance and the employer mandate to provide health insurance to employees. Like the other schemes the Republicans have tried, it would hike premiums for the elderly and for the sick.

Blue Cross Blue Shield is opposed to this proposal. They say ``strong incentives for people to obtain health insurance and keep it year round''--that is what they are looking for, that is what is in current law, and we have the Republicans wanting to take it out.

There must be Affordable Care Act cost-sharing provisions for consumers. Otherwise, there will be--and this is Blue Cross Blue Shield again--``steep premium increases and diminished choices that would make coverage unaffordable and inaccessible.''

Like the other schemes, this won't ensure that more Americans will have healthcare; it means many fewer will. It doesn't decrease healthcare costs; it increases healthcare costs. Even worse, there have been no committee hearings, no public input on this or any of the other versions of ACA repeal the Republican roulette ball has landed on.

To give you a sample of the public feeling on this issue--I am seeing it across New Mexico--my office has received 14,500 calls, emails, and letters rejecting the Republican plans. It is an unprecedented number from the small State of New Mexico.

I agree with Senator McCain. We must go back to regular order. We must stop this gamesmanship. We need to work together on a solution to improve the Affordable Care Act by bringing down costs, making it easier for small businesses to provide healthcare, and especially making prescription drugs more affordable--but not by denying New Mexico families and millions more access to quality healthcare.

The Republicans are playing with people's lives. Making sure severely disabled children have healthcare through Medicaid is not a game; neither is kicking elderly grandparents out of their Medicaid-funded nursing homes or enabling women to get breast and cervical cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood.

It is hard to keep up with the Republican versions 2.0, 3.0, 4.5, 5.0 of the Affordable Care Act repeal. Every bill is consistent in cutting care for millions of Americans.

The Republicans keep proposing so-called healthcare bills that are not actual healthcare bills. The real healthcare bill would protect gains made, cover more people, and make health insurance more affordable. The Republican bills do none of these things. Their bills reverse the gains, cover millions fewer people, and make health insurance less affordable, especially for those most vulnerable.

The American people want everyone to have affordable healthcare. That must be our goal. Republicans and Democrats should be working hard right now to get us to that national goal.

I have shared the stories of New Mexicans who have lives that have been changed, and even saved, because of the Affordable Care Act--New Mexicans like Mike, from Placitas. Mike had an aggressive cancer but was diagnosed early, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and doctors saved his life. Alexis, from Albuquerque, had a stroke and brain surgeries when she was 28. She had affordable health insurance under the ACA, and those subsidies helped her keep health insurance and get healthcare coverage. Elena was able to afford a lifesaving mastectomy because of Medicaid expansion. These are real people who are now jeopardized by the Republican bills and Republican proposals.

There are thousands more across New Mexico and millions across the country who are crying out for the Republican majority to change this reckless and dangerous scheme.

I yield the floor.

My colleague from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, is here. He has been a real champion in terms of fighting for working families and for their healthcare.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motions to H.R. 1628 and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

I ask that the Record reflect the support of Senator Heinrich.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motions to H.R. 1628 and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer a motion to commit H.R. 1628 to the Finance Committee to review the impacts of this bill on the Indian Health Service, Tribal Health Programs, Urban Indian Health Programs, or Indian Tribes or other Tribal organizations, or with respect to services provided to individuals who are American Indian or Alaska Native.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, and it is supported by Senators Cantwell, Cortez Masto, Heinrich, Heitkamp, Franken, Murray, Merkley, Schatz, Stabenow, and Tester.