[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 153 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6088-S6095]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued


                 Orders for Tuesday, September 26, 2017

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, 
September 26; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the 
morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved 
to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later 
in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following 
leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to 
proceed to S. 1519; finally, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. 
until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas.


         60th Anniversary of Central High School's Integration

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise to mark an important occasion in 
my home State of Arkansas and our country.
  In September of 1957, nine young African-American teens who were 
determined to receive the same education that had only been available 
to their White peers became the focus of an event that had 
repercussions throughout the Nation.
  When the Supreme Court ruled that the racial segregation of public 
schools was unconstitutional in its 1954 Brown v. Board of Education 
decision, it paved the way for integration of public schools across the 
country.
  Although the highest Court in the land had spoken, the process of 
desegregating the public schools was complex and still faced incredible 
opposition. Civil rights groups worked with citizens to help them 
enroll students of color in traditionally all-White schools. The Little 
Rock Nine were beneficiaries of such assistance from Daisy Bates and 
the Arkansas NAACP, among others.
  On the first day of class in the fall of 1957, Little Rock Central 
High School became ground zero in the movement for public school 
integration. Governor Orval Faubus called in the Arkansas National 
Guard amid threats from pro-segregationists to hold protests at Central 
High and prevent any African-American students from entering the 
school. Unfortunately, the Guard was initially deployed in order to 
help thwart the integration effort, and as a result, Arkansas and 
Central High became a flashpoint that represented just how difficult 
integration would be, especially across the South. Despite the 
hostility, there were forces within Little Rock that were working 
together to successfully achieve a peaceful public school 
desegregation, starting with Central High.
  Eventually, President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division of 
the

[[Page S6089]]

U.S. Army to Little Rock and federalized the Arkansas National Guard to 
protect the students and ensure public safety at a time when tensions 
were running very high throughout the city. President Eisenhower's 
actions helped make it possible for the Little Rock Nine to actually 
enter the school and attend class. Even though they were allowed to 
attend Central High, the African-American students were still subjected 
to a daunting amount of abuse and hostility. They told stories of being 
threatened and intimidated by fellow students and mistreated by the 
school's administration.
  Ernest Green, Elizabeth Eckford, Jefferson Thomas, Terrence Roberts, 
Carlotta Walls LaNier, Minnijean Brown, Gloria Ray Karlmark, Thelma 
Mothershed, and Melba Pattillo Beals each chose to confront injustice 
and inequality in a very visible and courageous way. These Arkansans 
are now icons of the civil rights movement. Their actions and 
willingness to step forward and face what they had to have known would 
have been an incredibly difficult and emotional experience deserves 
celebration and recognition. By resolving to carry out these actions at 
such a young age, the Little Rock Nine set an example for Americans of 
every age to follow. It takes courage to do the right thing in the face 
of overwhelming adversity. That lesson has not been forgotten.
  Arkansas has come a long way since the integration of Central High. 
While there is still work left to be done, Arkansans are proud of the 
progress we have made. Today, leaders and citizens across our State 
come together to promote equality and celebrate our diversity.
  The theme of the 60th anniversary celebration of Central High's 
integration is ``Reflections of Progress.'' This is so appropriate 
given that we have indeed made so much progress in the years that have 
followed the tumultuous start to integration.
  In an effort to ensure that the legacy of the Little Rock Nine lives 
on, exhibits and items recognizing their contributions are on display 
at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and 
Culture in Washington, DC. The museum itself is a moving experience 
that I highly recommend for every visitor to our Nation's Capital. For 
Arkansans, we have an added incentive to visit in order to see the 
displays that honor the brave actions and determination of these Little 
Rock teens. We are also grateful that these items are on view for the 
entire country to observe and reflect upon.
  The integration of Central High School serves as a poignant reminder 
of where we have been as a country but also of where we are headed. I 
am eager to work with my fellow Arkansans and all Americans as we 
pursue a better future for ourselves, our children, and our 
grandchildren.
  I am proud to support legislation introduced by my fellow Arkansas, 
Senator Tom Cotton, to extend the boundary of the Little Rock Central 
High School National Historic Site in order to preserve the surrounding 
buildings. It is inspiring to know that our State is taking the 
opportunity to appropriately mark this significant occasion.
  I commend the city of Little Rock, the Little Rock School District, 
and the Central High Integration 60th Anniversary Committee for the 
hard work and preparation to properly honor and celebrate this historic 
milestone. I thank all who have been involved in the planning of this 
celebration. I know that it will provide many Arkansans the chance to 
remember and reflect upon the Central High integration and the Little 
Rock Nine and also to educate younger generations about the struggle 
for equal rights. We will certainly build upon the celebration and take 
another step forward by remembering our history and creating a brighter 
tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments. Thanks 
to Senator Boozman for honoring the little known, courageous, now no 
longer young men and women but then boys and girls of Little Rock.
  I have had the good fortune of getting to know over the years Ernie 
Green, who was the senior in high school of the Little Rock group. He 
went on to Michigan State. Martin Luther King attended his, I believe, 
high school graduation, maybe his Michigan State graduation. I am not 
sure.
  My brother arranged for my daughter, some years ago on her birthday, 
to get to have dinner with Ernie Green because we had watched the 
docudrama of the Ernie Green story, about the young men and women of 
Little Rock.
  I say thank you to Senator Boozman for honoring them.


      Disaster Relief for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

  Mr. President, I want to take a moment for the millions of American 
citizens who are fighting for their lives in Puerto Rico, to never ever 
forget that the people in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are, in 
fact, American citizens.
  It has been 5 days since Hurricane Maria ripped through the island of 
Puerto Rico. People are without power, they are without communication, 
and in many cases with no end in sight.
  My staff has checked to see the condition of the veterans hospitals, 
both in Puerto Rico and in the three American Virgin Islands. There has 
been a mixed response. Some of them are up and running with electricity 
and water. Some of them are running with a generator. Some of them have 
been simply suspended or closed for a period of time.
  It is up to us to make sure--one of the first things we can do is 
make sure those hospitals are served and running, and there is 
obviously so much more we need to do.
  Much of the island of Puerto Rico remains mostly cut off from San 
Juan. The government has dispatched runners on foot to try to maintain 
contact in towns outside the capital. Towns are blocked from rescuers. 
Patients are worried they will run out of medicine.
  The Washington Post talked to a woman in a mountain town. Her mother 
has diabetes. They have no power. She worries they will run out of 
prescriptions or generator fuel to keep her insulin refrigerated. I 
repeat. These are citizens of the United States of America. She is 
worried her mother's ulcer will become infected. She fans her mother 
with a piece of cardboard to keep the flies away.
  These are American citizens. We cannot ignore them. Puerto Rico's 
secretary of the Department of Agriculture estimated the storm wiped 
out 80 percent of the crop value on the island. Entire farms were wiped 
out. Entire plantations are destroyed. One farmer said there will be no 
food in Puerto Rico. Officials predict the storm will set the island 
back for decades.
  Listen to Jenniffer Gonzalez, Puerto Rico's representative in 
Congress. Understand that Puerto Rico elects a Congressman or, in this 
case, a Congresswoman. She comes here. She doesn't have voting rights 
on the floor of the House of Representatives so Puerto Rico has 
representation but not the kind of representation Oklahoma or Ohio has, 
but, again, they are citizens of the United States of America.
  The Resident Commissioner said:

       The devastation . . . has set us back 20 to 30 years. I 
     can't deny that the Puerto Rico of now is different from that 
     of a week ago. The destruction of properties, of flattened 
     structures, of families without homes, of debris everywhere. 
     The island's greenery is gone.

  Our country has been hit hard by hurricanes this year. I was proud of 
the way we came together in this body to support the people of Texas 
after Hurricane Harvey. That seems almost like ancient history. We have 
seen bipartisan cooperation on getting aid to Florida following 
Hurricane Irma. Our job is far from done. There is more to do.
  We must do the same thing for our brothers and sisters, our fellow 
American citizens in Puerto Rico. We need to provide relief to the 
people of Puerto Rico with all the resources we always provide to 
American citizens when Mother Nature deals us a devastating blow. We 
can't allow children and grandparents to die waiting for help in our 
own backyard.


                 Tribute to Cathy Glenn and Dave Ahart

  Mr. President, this building is full of people who work hard to make 
our government function. I am not really talking about Senators. I am 
talking about low-paid workers in our cafeteria, I am talking about 
people who keep the offices clean for our constituents, I am talking 
about the tour guides who give

[[Page S6090]]

Americans from all over the country a glimpse of the historic 
buildings, and I am talking about the clerks right here on the Senate 
floor. These people work so hard in the background. Too often they 
don't get the credit they deserve serving the American public. I want 
to honor two of them today.
  This week, the Senate is losing two of the kindest, most cheerfully 
hard-working and imaginative people in this building, my dear friends 
Cathy Glenn and Dave Ahart.
  For nearly three decades, Cathy and Dave worked in the Senate 
recording studio, helping all of us do one of our most important jobs, 
talking with and listening to the people with whom we serve.
  For a decade, I have spent my Thursday mornings--virtually every 
Thursday morning the Senate is in session--with Cathy and Dave. Every 
Thursday morning, I go to the radio studio to talk with radio stations 
across Ohio. It is early. It is toward the end of the week so no one 
would blame them for being quiet or even being grumpy, but Dave and 
Cathy always bring joy to everyone around them.
  Because of them and Ohio's great radio hosts, Thursday morning is 
among the highlights of my week here. We share friendship. We share 
baseball. They give me baseball trivia questions I can later then test 
on Senator McCain or Senator Schumer. They do all right, I should say.
  Anyone who knows me knows I am a Cleveland Indians fan. The Indians 
have won 29 out of the last 31--never equaled in Major League history, 
except in 1884, it is believed.
  I am also a pretty big fan of baseball trivia, and that is something 
Dave, Cathy, and I share. About every week since 2007, I arrive at the 
radio studio to a new baseball trivia question before I do my radio 
interview. We lost the records from the first couple of years, but the 
first question we have on record is dated July 29, 2010: Name the only 
two Hall of Fame pitchers--at that time--with losing records.
  Sometimes they give me hints, especially early in the morning.
  They had hints. Hint No. 1: One pitcher was a starter and one was a 
reliever. Hint No. 2: One of the pitchers pitched in the big leagues 
from 1948 to 1965. Hint No. 3: One of them pitched for the Major 
Leagues from 1968 to 1985. The answer is--not to keep you in suspense--
Satchel Paige, who played for the Indians and St. Louis Browns. 
Lifetime, he had 28 wins and 31 losses, but he was one of the greatest 
pitchers in the Negro League. He was born in the early 1900s, starting 
in the 1920s, when he was perhaps the single best pitcher in the Negro 
League. The Cleveland Indians, under the ownership of Bill Veeck, soon 
after they signed Larry Doby, the first Black player in the league, 
signed Satchel Paige, who helped to take the Indians to the World 
Series that year.
  The other pitcher was Rollie Fingers of Steubenville, OH. He played 
for the Oakland A's and San Diego Padres. He had 114 wins and 118 
losses. He had more losses than he had wins because he was a closer or 
relief pitcher who finished off games, and typically they have more 
losses than they have wins. I don't want to go into those details on 
the Senate floor because many people who are listening probably don't 
really care, but I do, and so I am going to continue.
  Dave and Cathy's dedication to America's game and to bringing joy to 
their jobs didn't end there. They made baseball dioramas, a word I did 
not even know until I came to the Senate and met them. Sometimes a 
baseball diorama is sort of a 3-D replication of a baseball stadium, 
complete with a nod to their favorite baseball-loving canine, my dog 
Franklin Roosevelt. People who know me know that of course our dog is 
named after Franklin Roosevelt.
  They celebrated opening day every April--all of us having hope for 
the next year--with popcorn, peanuts, and crackerjacks in the radio 
studio. What always moved me wasn't just the love for baseball--that 
counted for a lot--but their incredible kindness, thoughtfulness, and 
joy of living. That is what makes them such good friends to each other, 
to Connie, Rachel, and me.
  I can't think of anyone in this building who deserves a long, happy 
retirement more than Dave and Cathy. I wish them years of time spent 
with friends and loved ones and with a husband and a wife watching a 
lot of baseball games. Selfishly, I wish Dave and Cathy wouldn't go. 
Your friendship has meant so much to me. Thursday mornings just will 
not be the same.
  Thank you.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               CFPB Rule

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, Wells Fargo creates 3.5 million fake 
accounts, charging customers fees and ruining credit scores. Equifax 
lets hackers steal personal information on 143 million Americans, 
putting nearly 60 percent of American adults at risk of identity theft. 
What is the Republican Party's response? To take away your legal rights 
to hold companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax accountable.
  I know that sounds nuts, but it is true. Here is the issue. If you 
have a checking account, a credit card, a private student loan, or any 
other number of financial products, there is a good chance that you 
have given up your right to go to court if this financial firm cheats 
you. That is because millions of financial contracts include a forced 
arbitration clause that says that, if you want to legally challenge 
something your financial company did to you, you can't join with other 
customers in court. You have to go to arbitration all by yourself.
  Think about what that means in the real world. You wake up one 
morning, and you find a mysterious $30 fee on your account statement. 
You call the bank and say: Hey, I didn't agree to this. The bank tells 
you: Go pound sand. So what are your options?
  Well, if there is no forced arbitration clause in your contract, you 
can join a class action lawsuit against the bank for free. Chances are 
you are not the only customer who got hit with an unauthorized $30 fee. 
A class action gives you a chance to get some of that money back, and, 
just as importantly, the bank might actually have to cough up some real 
money and think twice before hitting you and their other customers with 
hidden fees again.
  Think what happens if there is a forced arbitration clause. You can't 
join with other customers in court. Your only option is to go out on 
your own and file an arbitration claim, which will cost you $200 or 
more just to get started. OK. Who is going to pay $200 to get back a 
$30 fee? No one. And that is exactly what the banks are counting on. 
They can get away with nickel-and-diming you forever.
  Earlier this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau put a 
stop to that. They issued a new rule that prohibits financial companies 
from forcing you to give up your right to join in a class action. The 
rule guarantees your right to join other customers in court and to hold 
your bank accountable.
  But Republicans in Congress are now coming after the rule. House 
Republicans have already voted to reverse the rule, and now Senate 
Republicans are gearing up to follow suit.
  Make no mistake: Anyone who votes to reverse this rule is saying loud 
and clear that they side with the banks over their own constituents, 
because bank lobbyists are the only ones who are asking Congress to 
reverse this rule. Every other organization--all of those that 
represent actual human beings--want the rule to be saved.
  Let me read from just a few. The Military Coalition, which represents 
more than 5.5 million veterans and servicemembers, supports the CFPB 
rule because ``our nation's veterans should not be deprived of the 
constitutional rights and freedoms that they put their lives on the 
line to protect, including the right to have their claims heard in a 
trial.'' The Coalition says, ``The catastrophic consequences these 
[forced arbitration] clauses pose for our all-voluntary military 
fighting force's morale and our national security are vital reasons'' 
to preserve the rule.
  The AARP, which represents nearly 40 million American seniors, says 
that the CFPB rule should be preserved because it ``is a critical step 
in restoring consumers' access to legal remedies

[[Page S6091]]

that have been undermined by the widespread use of forced arbitration 
for many years.''
  And the Main Street Alliance, which represents thousands of small 
businesses, says the CFPB rule will help small businesses fight against 
big financial firms that try to drive up their fees.
  There it is: veterans, servicemembers, seniors, small businesses, 
consumers--all lining up to support the CFPB rule. But that is not all. 
Let Freedom Ring, which is an organization that proudly touts itself as 
``supporting the conservative agenda'' likes the CFPB rule too. They 
say it is ``in keeping with our Framers' concerns that without 
appropriate protections, civil proceedings can be used as a means to 
oppress the powerless.''
  That is the thing we have to understand. The effort to reverse the 
CFPB rule isn't about promoting a conservative agenda, and it sure as 
heck is not about promoting a working people's agenda. It is about 
advancing the donors' agenda, the big money agenda. That is it, period.
  It is amazing. Not even a decade ago, the banks sparked a financial 
crisis that hurt millions of working families. And while the big banks 
got a taxpayer bailout and are back to doling out multimillion-dollar 
bonuses to their executives, a lot of working families are still 
struggling to recover.
  Yet, here in Congress, the Republican Party is still carrying water 
for the big banks. The big banks say: Jump. The Republican Party asks: 
How high? The big banks tell Congress to take away their customers' 
rights to hold them accountable, and the Republican Party says: You 
bet. The big banks say: Take away those rights right now--right on the 
heels of Wells Fargo and Equifax sticking it to millions of customers. 
The Republican Party, without an ounce of shame, says: Yes, sir, just 
keep those donations coming.
  The Republican Party will stop carrying water for the big banks only 
if you demand it. There are a lot of dollars on the other side, but 
your votes, your calls, your emails can make a real difference. Tell 
your Senators to stand up to the big banks and vote no on this 
resolution.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. President, over the past several weeks, families all over this 
country have raised their voices yet again. They have not given up, nor 
have they been shouted down, and they have made it very clear where 
they stand on the issue of healthcare.
  The American people don't want tens of millions of people to lose 
their healthcare coverage. They don't want to open the door to 
insurance companies discriminating against people with preexisting 
conditions or eliminating addiction coverage or denying care for people 
with mental illness. They don't want to kick our grandmothers out of 
nursing homes or tell the parents of babies born prematurely that they 
are on their own to deal with a multimillion-dollar hospital bill. They 
don't want the Republican healthcare repeal bills--not any of the bills 
that have come before and not the latest version that was revealed this 
morning that is still as rotten to the core as every bill that has come 
before it.
  Doctors and nurses don't want the Republican repeal. Neither do 
hospitals and insurance companies and nursing homes and Governors and 
State insurance commissioners.
  But Senate Republicans plow ahead anyway. They are so desperate to 
destroy the Affordable Care Act that they keep yelling about how our 
healthcare system is in crisis, how it is imploding in front of our 
very eyes, trying to convince everyone that we need to blow the whole 
thing up in order to save it. But the thing is, while Republicans try 
to manufacture an imaginary healthcare crisis to justify their cruel 
repeal bill, there is a real crisis about to unfold--a crisis created 
by the Republicans.
  September 30 is the deadline for several healthcare provisions. If 
Congress doesn't act this week, Federal programs that help children, 
pregnant women, people in need of addiction treatment, veterans, 
Medicare beneficiaries, and other populations will run out of funding 
or just expire altogether. In many cases, Republicans and Democrats 
have bills stacked up, just waiting to get a vote, the agreements all 
hammered out. But instead of bringing those bills to the floor, the 
Republican leadership is fixated on repealing health insurance 
coverage. They insist on voting again on something that most of America 
doesn't want while they ignore the work on healthcare that needs to get 
done now. This is beyond stupid.
  One of the most important programs that will be expiring is the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage for 9 
million low-income children and pregnant women across this country. 
Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Orrin Hatch wrote this legislation 
together back in the 1990s. Today, that program works with Medicaid to 
provide health insurance for one out of every three kids in this 
country, including foster children and kids with special health needs.
  Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden--a Republican and a Democrat--have a 
bill ready to go to extend this program. Funding expires on September 
30, but instead of holding a vote on that bill, Republicans want to 
spend this week trying to squeeze reluctant Senators to support the 
Graham-Cassidy bill, which contains permanent cuts to the Medicaid 
Program.
  Then there is the funding for community health centers, which provide 
high-quality, integrated care. In Massachusetts, our community health 
centers serve one in every seven residents. Our health centers are on 
the frontlines of the opioid epidemic. They are working to eradicate 
tuberculosis. They are improving nutritional health. They are taking 
the stigma out of mental health treatments. And they save money, 
promoting prevention and reducing the use of hospital emergency rooms.
  Community health centers are a big part of what is working well in 
healthcare today--more coverage at lower cost. They work, but they are 
running out of time. Funding for community health centers runs out on 
September 30. Last week, 70 U.S. Senators--including 24 Republicans--
signed a letter urging Congress to act to extend this funding. But 
instead of extending these funds, the Senate Republican leaders say: 
Too bad, we are too busy trying to knock millions of people out of 
healthcare coverage.
  Then there is the funding for medical training at a special type of 
health center--teaching health centers. This program helps train 
primary care doctors. Greater Lawrence Family Health Center in 
Massachusetts was the very first community health center in the country 
to have a residency program like this. Almost 80 percent of their 
residents continue to work in underserved communities after they 
graduate--areas that often have a shortage of primary care physicians.
  Funding for this program also runs out on September 30. Senator 
Collins and Senator Tester--a Republican and a Democrat--have a bill 
ready to go to extend funding for teaching health centers. But instead 
of holding a vote on that bill this week, Republicans have said: Sorry, 
we are too busy trying to take away healthcare coverage from the many 
people who walk through the doors of community health centers.
  What else is at risk if Senate Republicans refuse to act before 
September 30? A whole package of Medicare Programs, which help seniors 
and people with disabilities access the care they need. In 
Massachusetts, this includes the SHINE Program, which helps Medicare 
beneficiaries pick the right health insurance plans.
  Medicaid payments that go to hospitals treating large numbers of low-
income patients are also going to run out.
  Funds for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting 
Program, which funds home visits to new and expectant parents to help 
give them the training they need and the help they need to keep a new 
baby healthy and safe, will run out. Senators Grassley and Menendez--a 
Republican and a Democrat--have a bipartisan bill ready to go. But 
instead of voting to help those new babies and their families, 
Republicans want us to vote on a bill to take away health insurance.
  Let's not forget the bipartisan compromise that Senator Alexander and 
Senator Murray--a Republican and a Democrat--were working on to lower 
health insurance premiums. In order to keep insurance premiums down for 
millions of insurance plans, the bill has to

[[Page S6092]]

pass this week. But Republicans walked away from the table because it 
is more important to them to rip healthcare from millions of Americans 
than to lower healthcare costs for hard-working families across this 
country.
  There is a whole list of concrete things that Republicans and 
Democrats could be working on together to improve healthcare in this 
country--healthcare for babies, for new moms, for seniors on Medicaid, 
for people with disabilities, and for every American who buys an ACA 
insurance plan. In fact, behind the scenes, Republicans and Democrats 
have already been working together on these programs. The bills are 
ready to go. They are drafted, they are printed up, and they are just 
waiting for a vote.
  We are on the edge of a healthcare crisis. It is a healthcare crisis 
created by the Senate Republican leadership that insists that we burn 
time off the clock this week, voting on yet another effort to rip away 
people's health insurance.
  The Senate has real work to do--work that could help millions of 
American families. It is time to drop this cruel effort to repeal 
healthcare and instead focus on making sure that important health 
programs don't run out of funds in the next few days. That is what the 
American people want to see us do.
  Mr. President, I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks 
of the Senator from Massachusetts. There is a lot of work we need to do 
this week; she is right. There are healthcare crises right around the 
corner for millions of kids and families that we could be working on 
solving right now. As the Senator knows, both Connecticut and 
Massachusetts are still being wrecked by an opioid crisis--one that in 
my State is getting worse by the year, not better. We could be working 
together on that. We have brothers and sisters all throughout the 
United States who are right now in crisis because of devastating storms 
that have hit. We could be working together on trying to provide a 
meaningful response, and we aren't. Yet, again, we are back now talking 
about TrumpCare redux. This is version 10, version 11. I think there 
have been three versions already this week. This one is really the most 
dangerous version yet.
  CBO just released a scaled-down analysis, noting that there was no 
way they would be able to provide a full analysis given the compressed 
schedule, given the need to pass this by the end of this week because 
of Republicans' desire to make sure that not a single Democrat is 
included in the negotiation. They gave us some hints as to what their 
score would say once it was fully completed.
  Federal spending on Medicaid would be reduced by $1 trillion over the 
course of this decade. There is simply no way to rip $1 trillion out of 
the Medicaid system--the Medicaid system, by the way, as all my 
colleagues know, that provides insurance to the disabled, to children, 
and to the elderly--without millions of people losing access to 
healthcare, people who have nowhere else to go.
  CBO unsurprisingly says that the number of people with comprehensive 
health insurance would be reduced by millions, and they predict that 
States would allow insurers to set premiums on the basis of an 
individuals' health status. None of that is news to people who have 
read this piece of legislation.
  I want to talk for a second about why CBO comes to those conclusions 
and why this is the most dangerous version of the bill yet.
  In this bill is a massive reordering of the American healthcare 
system. The healthcare exchanges, which right now insure millions of 
Americans across the country, are essentially eliminated under this 
bill because the whole reason they existed was to funnel tax credits 
that are attached to individuals based on their income to help them buy 
insurance. Those tax credits go away under this proposal; thus, the 
exchanges go away.
  Medicare as an entitlement is ended by this bill. No longer will you 
as an individual have a payment from the Federal Government attached to 
you because of your income or your health status or your disability. 
States will now get a block sum of money to do essentially what they 
wish, which may or may not cover the same number of people today 
covered under Medicaid.
  While proponents of this bill are trying to contend that it still 
protects people with preexisting conditions, no one is buying it, no 
one is believing it, because on the face of the text, it does not. It 
is important to explain why that is.
  While technically it is up to the States as to whether they protect 
people with preexisting conditions, under this new version, States can 
just sign a form that allows them to permit insurers to price based on 
medical acuity again--meaning charge sick people more. They will have 
to exercise that option under this version of TrumpCare. They will be 
forced to exercise that option because what is also eliminated by this 
version of TrumpCare is the requirement that healthy individuals buy 
insurance. You cannot require insurance companies to charge sick people 
the same as healthy people if you don't provide incentives for healthy 
people to sign up. There is no incentive, at least under the latest 
version of the bill that I read; thus, anybody who has taken a 
semester's worth of education on insurance practice will tell you that 
States will be faced with two choices: one, reimpose their own 
individual mandate--and I am going to guarantee you that based on the 
vitriol that has been launched against the individual mandate from 
Republicans in this Chamber and the House of Representatives over the 
past 6 years, most States will probably not take on their Republican 
Senators and congressional delegation by passing their individual 
mandate--or they will be forced to drop the protection for people with 
preexisting conditions.
  CBO and JCT anticipate that many States--I would argue the majority 
of States--will have to drop that protection for people with 
preexisting conditions because they will not pass an individual 
mandate; thus, rates will skyrocket for sick people or anybody who has 
ever been sick, making insurance unaccessible for Americans who have 
had a cancer diagnosis or an addiction diagnosis or a mental illness 
diagnosis.

  This bill is a massive reorientation of the American healthcare 
system, the elimination of Medicaid as we know it, the end of the 
healthcare insurance exchanges, the end of the tax credits to help 
people buy healthcare insurance, and the end of the mandatory national 
protections for people against abusive insurance practices. We are 
potentially going to vote on this later this week without a CBO score--
with one hearing, with no markups.
  I don't care how mad my Republican friends were about how the 
Affordable Care Act was passed. That was done in an open process, with 
dozens of hearings, with markups in every committee, with 30 days of 
debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, with hundreds of Republican 
amendments that were offered and adopted as part of the affordable 
healthcare act, with over a year of public input and debate about the 
pros and cons of the proposal.
  None of that is happening on Graham-Cassidy. This is being rushed 
through in the dead of night, with no time for Americans to review it, 
no time for Members of this body to look at it, and no ability for any 
Senator in the Democratic Party to be able to have any input into the 
final product. This is nothing like what happened on the Affordable 
Care Act. No matter how mad you are that in the end you couldn't vote 
for it, Republicans had plenty of opportunity to have a say. The 
American people had plenty of opportunity to take a look at it. That is 
not happening with Graham-Cassidy.
  Because there is no CBO score, we have to rely on outside independent 
groups to size up the potential disaster of this bill. The Center for 
American Progress--which admittedly is a left-leaning organization but 
is one of the few that have taken the time to take a look at the text 
and what it will mean--came to the conclusion that 32 million people 
would lose coverage. The Commonwealth Fund, which is not a political 
organization, which is an independent, nonpartisan healthcare think 
tank, essentially came to the same conclusion, saying that after 2026, 
32 million people would lose coverage. The Commonwealth Fund says that 
15 to 18 million people could become uninsured by 2019.

[[Page S6093]]

  I have had this chart up here for 3 or 4 months, and I have had to 
adjust it over and over again because it started out with 23 million 
people losing insurance as we analyzed the first Republican repeal 
bill. Then, when the new version came in, you can see I had to write in 
22 million people because the amended version that we were going to 
vote on right before the break was 1 million better. I had to redo my 
chart based upon this analysis of Graham-Cassidy, resulting in 32 
million people losing insurance. Thirty-two million people. It is hard 
to understand how many people--32 million people will be losing 
insurance over the course of 10 years. That is the total population of 
Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, West 
Virginia. We had to cross out Rhode Island, but then we had to add 
Mississippi, Arkansas, Vermont, Wyoming, and Utah.
  Forgive me; I had to do my own artist's rendering of these States 
because the data is coming in so fast and the vote is coming so 
quickly, I didn't have time to have this chart made up again.
  That is 32 million people. Think about that. Over 10 years, the 
equivalent population of all of these States--what is that? 17 States, 
19 States--all losing healthcare at the same time. That is a 
humanitarian catastrophe, and nobody knows it because this bill is 
being pushed through without any debate, without any CBO score. That is 
what could happen if this passes.
  It is no surprise that basically everybody in the American healthcare 
system opposes this piece of legislation. The proponents cannot find a 
single verifier inside the medical community for this piece of 
legislation.
  This morning, I heard Senator Graham say: Well, that is to be 
expected. You know, we are making a big reform, and anytime you are 
making a big reform, the status quo players aren't going to like the 
result.
  Well, that is a little unfair because the status quo for groups like 
the American Heart Association or the Juvenile Diabetes Research 
Foundation or the American Cancer Society--the status quo for them is 
that their members--people who have cancer or juvenile diabetes or 
heart disease--don't go bankrupt any longer because they can't afford 
insurance. So, yes, they are kind of upset that 32 million people are 
going to lose insurance--many of their members--and that we are going 
to go back to the day in which if you are sick, if you have cancer, in 
most States, you can be charged more. So, yes, people are protective of 
the status quo--the part of the status quo that makes sure that sick 
people or people who have ever been sick don't lose insurance.
  I think it is actually worthwhile for just a second--bear with me--to 
give a quick sense as to how many people in the medical community 
oppose this bill. Here is just a beginning list: the AARP, the School 
Superintendents Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, the ALS 
Association, America's Essential Hospitals, America's pediatric 
dentists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of 
Family Physicians, the American Association on Health and Disability, 
the American Cancer Society, the American Dental Association, the 
American College of Physicians, the American Congress of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists, the American Diabetes Association, the American 
Federation of Teachers, the American Heart Association, the American 
Hospital Association, the American Lung Association, the American 
Osteopathic Association, the American Medical Association, the American 
Public Health Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the 
American Psychological Association, the Arthritis Foundation, the Big 
Cities Health Coalition, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Children's 
Hospital Association, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, the Cystic 
Fibrosis Foundation, the Endocrine Society, Family Voices, the 
Federation of American Hospitals, the HIV Medicine Association, the 
Human Rights Campaign, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the 
Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Lutheran Services in America, Main 
Street Alliance, March of Dimes, the Medicare Rights Center, the 
National Association of County and City Health Officials, the National 
Association of School Nurses, the National Alliance of State & 
Territorial AIDS Directors, the National Coalition for Cancer 
Survivorship, the National Health Council, the National Multiple 
Sclerosis Society, the National Organization for Rare Diseases, the 
National Partnership for Women and Families, Planned Parenthood, the 
Arc Connecticut, the Arc of the United States, the Trust for America's 
Health, and 47 religious organizations representing various 
denominations, including American Muslim Health Professionals, Alliance 
of Baptists, Methodist Federation for Social Action, the National 
Council of Jewish Women, the Presbyterian Church of the United States, 
the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church.
  That is the tip of the iceberg. You are not really in good company if 
you are supportive of this bill when every single medical association, 
every single patient advocacy organization, every single hospital 
association, every single insurer thinks that you are wrong. You would 
like to think there might be a couple of these groups who would think 
it was a good thing to pass a bill that uninsures potentially 32 
million--maybe 25 million, maybe 22 million--and jeopardizes 
preexisting protections for millions of Americans.
  What is so bonkers about this is that we were this close to getting a 
bipartisan agreement. It is not as if there wasn't another path. I sit 
on the HELP Committee. I had half a dozen conversations with Senator 
Alexander and Senator Murray. I know we were 80 percent of the way 
there on passing a bipartisan package of reforms--at least out of the 
HELP Committee--that would have kept what was working in the Affordable 
Care Act and tried to fix what wasn't working.
  I saw Leader McConnell's tweet from earlier today in which he said 
that Senate Democrats have two thoughts on how to fix ObamaCare--one, 
do nothing; two, a fully government-run system that would take away 
even more of their decisions.
  That is not true. That is not true, and everybody here knows that it 
is not true. Why? Because Senate Democrats were sitting down and 
talking with Senate Republicans. We were at the table just a week ago, 
trying to come up with a package of reforms. So to say that the 
Democrats want only a single-payer healthcare system or what we have 
today is not true, and everybody knows that is not true.
  I am certainly raw at the fact that Republicans walked away from that 
negotiating table when we were so close. I do not think that was in the 
best traditions of the U.S. Senate, but I am ready to sit back down at 
the table. I know that Patty Murray is ready to sit back down at the 
table if this process blows up, as every previous attempt at repealing 
the Affordable Care Act with a thoughtless alternative has blown up.
  My constituents are not happy with the American healthcare system. 
They like a lot of the things the Affordable Care Act did, but they 
acknowledge there are still lots of problems that need to be solved. 
Amongst those constituents in my State who like what the Affordable 
Care Act has done but who still want to see changes are Isabelle and 
Rylan.
  Isabelle first wrote about her son to my office 2 days after the last 
election. This is Rylan, who was born with a congenital heart defect. 
He looked healthy when he was born. He and Isabelle had been scheduled 
for discharge from the hospital when Rylan went in for some routine 
testing, but he never came back. His parents kind of knew something was 
up, but when the doctors arrived back in their room, they told Isabelle 
and her husband that Rylan needed to be rushed to the hospital for 
emergency surgery because his body was not getting enough oxygen, and 
there was something wrong with his heart. He was diagnosed with several 
severe heart defects, and he required emergency open heart surgery.
  The first thing Isabelle thought was: How are we going to pay for 
this? Does insurance cover it?
  She found out, much to her relief, that insurance did cover it, 
because insurance was required to cover things like hospitalizations 
under the Affordable Care Act and that they would not lose coverage, 
because no matter how big the bills got, the Affordable Care

[[Page S6094]]

Act prohibited insurance companies from cutting her off.
  Isabelle has been a warrior in preserving those protections in the 
Affordable Care Act, and I just want to leave you with an email that 
she sent me this week.
  She writes that she is exhausted and that she is so tired of having 
to fight over and over and over again for Rylan. She feels that no 
matter what she tries to do, this repeal is going to happen, regardless 
of Rylan's story, and that they are just going to be casualties of this 
political imperative to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  In 3 weeks, Rylan is going to be going up to Boston for his big 
cardiac and neuro checkup. She wishes that their biggest fight were to 
keep him healthy and alive, but it is not. They are engaged in a 
political fight to try to stop the protections, which keep him alive 
and keep this family solvent, from being stolen from them.
  This is not a game to Isabelle and to Rylan. This is not about 
politics. This is about this little boy's life. I am going to tell you 
that my State cannot hold this together if you cut Federal funding for 
healthcare by 50 percent to Connecticut, as this bill would do--maybe 
more. What we are hearing is that money is going to be stolen from 
States that have implemented the Affordable Care Act in order to be 
delivered to the States of Senators who have not yet committed to the 
bill on the Republican side. We cannot hold it together for Rylan in 
Connecticut if you take away half of our Federal healthcare funding, if 
you take away the tax credits that help people buy insurance, if you 
take away the Medicaid that helps insure these kids--if you let 
insurers go back to the days in which they discriminated against these 
kids. It is not a game to Isabelle.
  She writes:

       Every time the repeal comes up (what is it--the third time 
     or more), I feel sick with anxiety. How quickly the rug will 
     be pulled from under us. How quickly the bricks will begin to 
     fall.

  We are ready to work with you. We are ready to sit down, once again, 
and try to work something out that gets Democrats and Republicans 
together on this and that does what the American people want us to do--
keep what works in the Affordable Care Act and improve what does not 
work. Please give this up. You are ruining the lives of these families 
who, in addition to having to save their children's lives, are having 
to become full-time political activists to stop this from happening. We 
can do this together. We can deliver peace of mind to these families. 
It is not too late.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me so commend my friend and 
colleague from Connecticut for his intelligent, articulate, and, most 
of all, passionate words. I hope that everyone on the other side of the 
aisle hears this.
  This is not a game. I know that it is not the Presiding Officer's 
State, but the States that are taking the money are the ones that did 
not want to give good coverage--enough coverage--to people. The States 
like Connecticut and like New York that wanted to help people and had 
to put in half the money themselves are now being penalized by the 
States that did not. Most Americans are against that. The vast majority 
of Americans are against it. When Americans hear what this bill is 
about, almost none of them like it. None of them like it. That is why 
we are hiding this bill. That is why we are not debating this bill. 
That is why we are trying to rush it through without a score.
  Yet, just over an hour ago, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office released a preliminary analysis of the latest version of 
TrumpCare, the Graham-Cassidy bill. The CBO is nonpartisan. The head of 
it was appointed by the Republican leadership. This is not one of those 
liberal think tanks that the other side dismisses as we dismiss the 
conservative ones. This is down the middle.
  While the CBO has not filled in all of the details, the outline is 
devastating enough: The new TrumpCare bill would gut Medicaid, cause 
millions to lose coverage, create chaos in the marketplace, and not 
protect Americans who have preexisting conditions.
  Members should not need any more details to know how bad a piece of 
legislation this is--though, certainly, we need to await more details. 
The other side does not want to. Even in plain language, without the 
numbers, the CBO makes clear that Graham-Cassidy would be the largest 
step backward for American healthcare in our Nation's history.
  Let's go over a few things that the CBO report listed. These are 
down-the-middle, green-eyeshade findings that are not political.
  First, Graham-Cassidy would gut Medicaid: ``All told, Federal 
spending on Medicaid would be reduced by about $1 trillion . . . and 
the program would cover millions fewer enrollees.''
  That means they do not know how many millions. My guess is it will be 
about the same as the previous bills or even worse. That means there 
will be a drastic cut to healthcare funding that goes to help older 
Americans in nursing homes, those in opioid abuse treatment programs, 
and low-income Americans who rely on Medicaid as their source of 
coverage. All of those would be slashed.
  If you are a middle-class family on Long Island, in Anchorage, or if 
you have someone in a nursing home--a parent--you will be faced with an 
awful choice with too many likelihoods. Pay thousands of dollars a 
month out of your own pocket or ask Mom or Dad to come live with you 
when you don't have a spare room in your house, and you are trying to 
raise your kids. It is not very pretty.
  The CBO writes that Graham-Cassidy would cause millions to lose 
healthcare coverage, with the most abrupt loss of coverage occurring as 
soon as 2020 due to ``substantially lower'' enrollment in Medicaid, 
nongroup coverage, and insurance of all types because there would be no 
incentive to sign up.
  The CBO also wrote that Graham-Cassidy would destabilize the 
individual market, creating a death spiral.

       [Under Graham-Cassidy], average health care costs among 
     people retaining coverage would be higher, and insurers would 
     have to raise premiums in the nongroup market to cover those 
     higher costs. Anticipating such an unsustainable spiral, some 
     insurers would not participate in the nongroup market. . . . 
     In many States, the transitions starting in 2020 would be 
     difficult, and some areas would probably have no insurers 
     offering policies in the nongroup market.

  That is a quote from the CBO. It is not by Chuck Schumer, not by 
Chris Murphy but from the CBO--destabilizing markets and huge numbers 
of people not getting insurance.
  Here is another thing that the CBO wrote. Graham-Cassidy also fails 
spectacularly to protect Americans with preexisting conditions because 
it allows States to opt out of very popular consumer protections in our 
current law. According to the CBO: ``Coverage for people with 
preexisting conditions would be much more expensive in some of those 
States than under current law.''
  I have heard my colleague from Louisiana say that this will not 
change the law with regard to preexisting conditions. Then why did they 
have to add this clause and give States the option? If they want to 
keep preexisting conditions, they should keep existing law.
  The CBO even predicted that the ``flexibility'' of Graham-Cassidy 
would likely drive some States to pursue an age tax, charging older 
Americans five times as much or more for their healthcare than younger 
Americans.
  If you are 50 to 64 and you have worked hard your whole life, your 
healthcare costs go up. There is a little bit of protection in present 
law. Much of that protection is removed by the Graham-Cassidy bill. If 
you are a senior citizen or close to it, you are going to pay more in 
too many places. That is why the AARP--again, not a very political 
organization--has come out so strongly against this bill, as, by the 
way, has the AMA and the American Cancer Society. Chris Murphy listed 
many of the groups.
  All in all, even without specific numbers for estimates, the CBO 
report confirms much of what we already knew about Graham-Cassidy. It 
is a wholesale dismantling of our healthcare system, which would create 
chaos in many places, cause millions to lose coverage, drive up costs, 
and put healthcare out of reach for the folks who need it the most.
  To boot, today, Standard & Poor's--another hardly partisan 
organization--estimated that Graham-Cassidy would carry a staggering 
economic cost.

[[Page S6095]]

Standard & Poor's estimates that Graham-Cassidy would result in 580,000 
lost jobs and $240 billion in lost economic activity by 2027.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are starting tax reform. 
They want to cut taxes on the wealthiest people, such as big 
corporations, because it will create jobs. Maybe yes but maybe no--many 
of us think no. But right here, if we are interested in creating jobs, 
don't pass Graham-Cassidy because we will lose 580,000 jobs, according 
to Standard & Poor's.
  A number of Republican Senators have expressed their opposition to 
this bill--most recently, Senator Collins. To Senator Collins and to 
the rest of my Republican colleagues, I want to say that once repeal is 
off the table, we want to work with you to improve the existing system. 
Once this bill goes down, we are ready to work with you to find a 
compromise that stabilizes markets and that lowers premiums.
  We are ready. We have proven some of that already. Senator Alexander 
and Senator Murray--one a Republican and one a Democrat, the chair and 
the ranking member of the HELP Committee--were making great progress 
toward a bipartisan agreement. They held hearings, heard expert 
testimony, and solicited input from colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle--something not done with this Graham-Cassidy bill. They were 
crafting a fair package, where each side got a little and each side 
gave a little. Once this bill goes down, those negotiations should pick 
up right where they left off. That is what we on this side of the aisle 
believe, for sure, and I think many on the other side as well.
  There is no time to waste. Insurers are about to set rates for the 
next year. Whether we can come together or not could be the difference 
between a stable market and premiums that are several hundreds of 
dollars more expensive.
  We should pick up where Senators Wyden and Hatch--again, one Democrat 
and one Republican--left off, to come to an agreement to extend the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, for community health centers, and 
for several other programs that need to be extended this week.
  CBO, even with the bare structure of what this bill is all about, 
issued a devastating report. It is very, very hard to look that report 
in the eye and say: This bill improves healthcare for Americans--very 
hard. I hope for the good of our healthcare system, for the good of our 
country, and for the good of this institution that my Republican 
friends abandon Graham-Cassidy and its one-sidedness and choose instead 
to come back to the table with Democrats to do the hard work of forging 
a bipartisan consensus on healthcare. That is what America wants. That 
is what America needs.

                          ____________________