[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8656-8661]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Elwood 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of 
Courtney Elwood, of Virginia, to be General Counsel of the Central 
Intelligence Agency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about other 
matters, and I will get to those in a moment. I can't help but be 
struck by the Democratic leader's sudden interest in addressing 
healthcare reform.
  It is a fact that even if Hillary Clinton were elected President of 
the United States, we would be revisiting the failed promises of the 
Affordable Care Act. For example, premiums, since 2013, have gone up 
105 percent in the individual market. Those are people who don't have 
employer-provided coverage or aren't on Medicare or Medicaid. Small 
businesses and individuals who have to go out and purchase their 
healthcare have seen premiums go up 105 percent.
  We hear stories every day--and I will recount some of those from 
Texas--where people say they have zero choices. For example, in Iowa, 
we learned there are no insurance companies that are willing to sell 
health insurance on the individual market. That isn't because of 
anything that President Trump or the Republican majority have done. 
These are the failures of ObamaCare.
  President Obama made extravagant promises about ObamaCare, none of 
which has really proven to be true. He said he would bring down 
premiums $2,500 for a family of four. Well, these folks in the 
individual market have seen their premiums go up 105 percent since 
2013. He said that if you like your policy, you could keep your policy. 
That proved not to be true because unless you bought the government-
approved healthcare policy, insurance companies couldn't sell it on the 
exchanges. He said: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
  But as people found out when their policies changed, frequently the 
doctors in the network they could see changed. People saw premiums go 
up. They lost coverage they liked, and they lost the doctor they had 
confidence in.

[[Page 8657]]

  So the suggestion of the Democratic leader that somehow this current 
situation is a result of President Trump or congressional action is 
ludicrous. I think people understand that, but I just couldn't resist 
responding a little bit to what he had to say, because sometimes when 
people don't respond they assume there isn't a response, and clearly 
there is.


              Tribute to Texas Military Academy Appointees

  Mr. President, it is good to be back at work here in Washington after 
a work week at home. I had the honor, starting on Memorial Day, of 
spending some time with Texas's newest recruits to our country's 
military academies.
  Every year, now for the 11th year, I have had the privilege of 
hosting an academy sendoff ceremony in ``Military City U.S.A.,'' my 
hometown of San Antonio. This annual gathering recognizes the bright 
young Texans who have accepted an appointment to one of the premier 
military academies that serve our Armed Forces, and I am always proud 
to celebrate the incredible achievement they have made so far in their 
young lives and encourage them as they begin a life of public service. 
It is truly inspirational, and it is my favorite event of the year.
  This year about 272 young Texans have answered the call to get a 
service academy education and a career in military service. It is a 
good deal if you can qualify for it because basically you get a free 
ride to one of these premier service academies, and we train the next 
generation of military leaders, which is good for all of us.
  My wife Sandy and I look forward to this event each year, and we find 
that Memorial Day is a fitting time to send off these young men and 
women, while we at the same time remembering the ultimate sacrifice 
made by those who gave their lives answering that same call to service.
  I try to recruit a top-tier speaker to these events, somebody who 
will challenge and inspire these young men and women, and this year was 
no exception. ADM William McRaven, the Chancellor of the University of 
Texas System, spoke to these incoming midshipmen about lessons he 
learned in public service and his 37 years in the U.S. Navy as a Navy 
SEAL.
  He spoke candidly that this would be the greatest challenge of their 
young lives but also the most rewarding. He said it would be a decision 
they would never regret. He also spent some time--appropriately, on 
Memorial Day--talking about the heroes who have sacrificed all to serve 
the military in the greatest country in the world. So all in all, 
Memorial Day was a great day, and it was a great event for these young 
men and women.


    Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower 
                            Protection Bill

  Mr. President, as we come back the week after Memorial Day, I know I 
am not the only one encouraged to find better and more effective ways 
to serve our country. Fortunately, this Chamber in the Senate will have 
a chance to do that. Soon we will vote on a bill that will reform the 
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, a Department riddled with 
inefficiencies and marked too often by scandal and corruption.
  This is a huge government department. At last count, some 330,000 
people worked for the Veterans' Administration and, unfortunately, we 
have all become familiar with the horror stories of fake scheduling, 
indicating that people actually were being seen who were not seen, huge 
wait times, and people literally dying as a result of not getting the 
treatment they earned by virtue of their service in the military 
through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The legislation we will vote on is called the Department of Veterans 
Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act. It will 
protect the Veterans' Administration employees who care deeply for 
veterans by protecting them as whistleblowers. It also provides 
managers with the tools they need to address poor performance and 
misconduct. To sum it up, this bill will make it easier for VA 
employees to be held accountable, and that is something the Veterans' 
Administration and our veterans desperately need, and it has for some 
time. It will make the VA work better for the men and women who have 
served us so well.
  I should point out that at a time when I suspect people doubt whether 
there is any bipartisanship in the Congress or in Washington, this is a 
bipartisan piece of legislation. It was voted out of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee by a voice vote 2 weeks ago, which essentially is by 
unanimous consent.
  It has growing support among groups focused on helping our returning 
warriors to get the treatment, care, and support they need. That is 
because the VA bill will do what it is supposed to do and, 
unfortunately, hasn't always done well, which is to serve our veterans.
  Like all of us, I have the honor of meeting with our veterans 
regularly and working with them to help them succeed after giving so 
much of themselves to keep our country safe.
  One other example of bipartisan legislation that was signed last week 
by the President of the United States is a bill called the American Law 
Enforcement Heroes Act, a bill that I introduced to help connect 
veterans to opportunities in law enforcement in their local 
communities. So it is another example--perhaps, not in the headlines. 
There is not a big partisan food fight over it. So maybe most people 
are not aware of it. But I think it is important to remind people that, 
amid all of the distractions they see in Washington and in the news, 
there is important work being done to benefit people who certainty 
deserve it, and that would be the case for our veterans.
  I am thankful for the work of the chairman of the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, Senator Isakson, as well as the diligent and 
thoughtful work of the Senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio, on this 
important veterans bill. I look forward to passing this bill soon.
  Mr. President, I also look forward this afternoon to confirming the 
nominee for general counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. 
Director Pompeo has been there for some time now, having been nominated 
by President Trump and confirmed. He is an outstanding choice to be the 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Like every organization, 
it seems these days, the CIA needs a good lawyer to lead its effort to 
make sure that it conducts itself precisely in accordance with the rule 
of law.
  Ms. Elwood is extraordinarily qualified. She served during the 
administration of President George W. Bush as Counselor to the Attorney 
General, Deputy Counsel to the Vice President, and Associate Counsel to 
the President. I am confident that she will serve as a sharp, 
independent mind to the CIA. I hope we will confirm Courtney Elwood 
soon, and I trust we will.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Finally, Mr. President, as we redouble our work on the failed 
ObamaCare law and seek to replace it with market-driven solutions so 
people can actually buy insurance they want at a price they can afford, 
I want to briefly remind my colleagues why we are fixing it. I alluded 
to that at the beginning, and I will close with a few more reminders.
  Just last week it was reported that only three insurance companies 
that offered plans on the ObamaCare exchanges will return to the 
Houston area in 2018. In 2016, just last year, there was more than 
twice that number. So we see that the pool of available choices for 
Americans on the exchanges has shrunk and continues to shrink in places 
such as Iowa, where it has gone away entirely and where there is no 
insurance company willing to sell insurance on the ObamaCare exchanges. 
Houston, after all, is the Nation's fourth most populous city. So if 
you see that sort of trend there, it can and will happen everywhere.
  ObamaCare continues to fail the American people by not delivering on 
its promises. I have said before that in my previous life I was 
attorney general of the State of Texas. One of the most important jobs 
the attorney general's office does is consumer protection, protecting 
consumers from fraudsters and

[[Page 8658]]

those who would try to deceive them and cheat them out of their hard-
earned money. I have said, because I believe it to be true, that 
ObamaCare represents one of the largest cases of consumer fraud I have 
ever seen. When President Obama made the extravagant promises he made 
and yet we have the evidence of its failure, it is clear that the 
American people were misled when it came to ObamaCare.
  Many people aren't getting the access to healthcare they thought, and 
those who are using ObamaCare exchanges are finding it increasingly 
expensive. The premiums, as I indicated earlier, have gone up 105 
percent in 39 States with ObamaCare exchanges, since 2013 alone. Then, 
with the deductible, most people find that their out-of-pocket costs 
before the insurance actually kicks in keeps going up and up and up, to 
the extent that many people essentially find themselves without the 
benefit of the insurance they are paying so much for because the 
deductible is so high. We know the insurers on the exchanges just keep 
passing the cost on to the customer, with rate increases up almost 50 
percent in many cases. That is just in the Houston area, which I am 
talking about. Obviously, the 105 percent in 2016 is a nationwide 
number. We know that nationwide, as well, only one in three counties 
has only one insurer on the ObamaCare exchange as of 2017. This is just 
simply unsustainable, and it is irresponsible.
  That is why my colleagues and I are committed to doing something 
about it. Our friend, the Democratic leader, was in here claiming that 
the instability in the market and the fact that premiums are so high 
and insurance companies are leaving are as a result of the instability 
created by political uncertainty now. Well, that is clearly not the 
case. ObamaCare has been with us since 2016, and it has been a terrible 
failure for the people who buy their insurance on the individual 
markets. That is why we are committed to doing everything we can to 
replacing it with patient-centered options that actually work to help 
people get the type of coverage they want at a price they can afford.
  I yield the floor.
  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.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the 
nomination of Courtney Elwood to be CIA general counsel. This is an 
important job that got even more important in the past week. As I will 
explain, this position may play a crucial role in determining whether 
history is erased or preserved for generations of Americans to come.
  As Senators know, last week the current chair of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee demanded that several key government agencies 
get rid of their copies of the torture report prepared by Senator 
Feinstein and her colleagues. I am going to take a few minutes to 
describe what this has to do with Courtney Elwood.
  In short, it starts with the CIA's history of torture, which was 
carefully documented and sourced by the Intelligence Committee under 
Senator Feinstein's leadership. This is the issue that is being 
debated--the CIA's history of torture. That is why it is critically 
important that the CIA get back its copy of the report. If Courtney 
Elwood is confirmed, the decision on whether to do so may be up to her. 
Here is why: The CIA Director, Mr. Pompeo, who said at his confirmation 
hearing that he would read the report, has gotten rid of the CIA's 
copy. He did so despite the fact that the current chair of the 
Intelligence Committee had no authority to demand that of him. Mr. 
Pompeo got rid of the report despite a personal promise to read it, and 
he did this even though it may have violated the law. It certainly 
violated a fundamental principle important to the American people that 
in this country, we don't erase history.
  Now, this can be fixed. The CIA can get the report back. It can do 
what Senator Feinstein told the government to do back in 2014, which is 
to distribute this report, read it, and learn from it. Will Director 
Pompeo get the report back on his own? There is no reason to think so. 
But if there is one thing Director Pompeo said again and again in his 
remarks during the confirmation process, it is that he told the Senate 
Intelligence Committee repeatedly that he is going to rely on the 
advice of his lawyers.
  That is exactly where Courtney Elwood comes in. What will her advice 
be to Director Pompeo? What will she advise him about whether to allow 
this attempt to erase history to stand or whether it is going to get 
fixed and the report is going to be brought back? The Senate doesn't 
have any idea this morning. We do know that Ms. Elwood's responses to 
questions on the torture issue were troubling and that we need to look 
at those responses in a whole new light based on what happened last 
week.
  Ms. Elwood said that she read the unclassified executive summary of 
the torture report, but based on her responses to questions, the 500-
page executive summary was not adequate for her. It was not sufficient 
for her to conclude whether the CIA's interrogation techniques violated 
the law. Clearly, she needed to read the classified report. Ms. Elwood, 
in both her written answers and at her hearing, said that she would 
read the classified report. But now, because of what the current chair 
of the Intelligence Committee and the Director of the CIA have done, it 
is not going to be available. It is not going to be available for her 
to read.
  Many Members of this body have spoken out about the torture report 
and the need for its lessons to be learned so this country never again 
engages in the kind of illegal, damaging program that Senator Feinstein 
has documented. But now there is an issue that goes beyond what the 
Senate has thought this was all about. Now there is an individual 
nominee for whom these lessons are critical. This nominee told our 
committee that she had not yet studied whether the CIA's torture 
techniques were legal. She told us she would read the report, and now 
the report is gone. What could be more troubling than that?
  What is at issue here is one of the most disturbing and undemocratic 
events ever to take place in the U.S. Senate. The current chair of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee has told the executive branch to get rid 
of its copies of the report, and at least some of the agencies have 
sent their only copies to the committee. I am going to be clear: The 
current chair does not have the authority to do this.
  First, in December of 2014, the full, final, classified report was 
filed as a Senate report. It is therefore not a committee document. 
Second, no one can retroactively change the status of a historical 
Senate report. The report was finalized, filed, and transmitted to the 
executive branch during the 113th Congress. Only in the 114th Congress 
did the current chair assume the chairmanship and begin to assert 
control over the report.
  Think about the implications here. How can this body allow Members of 
Congress who don't like what a previous Congress has done to 
unilaterally try to erase history? How many other congressional reports 
would be at risk? There are other reports that have not yet been fully 
declassified. Should the Senate worry about whether or not they will be 
protected? Should Americans be concerned that the country's historical 
records are going to be erased before the public ever sees them?
  My view is that this effort by the current chair of the committee is 
an assault on one of the fundamental values of our democracy. In this 
country, we don't eradicate the historical record just because we find 
it uncomfortable. There is a reason insecure dictators do it, and there 
is a reason this kind of thing has never happened here. It is because 
we are a confident democracy that has always looked to our own history 
and all our flaws as we seek to build a better Nation.
  We are better than this. I urge my colleagues to defend these 
principles. I

[[Page 8659]]

urge them to vote against this nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I wish to add my support this morning for 
Courtney Elwood as the next general counsel of the CIA--not that she 
really needs it. In her many years of public service and private 
practice, Courtney has earned the esteem of her colleagues across both 
parties and two administrations. David Kris, an Obama appointee, calls 
her ``a first-class lawyer.'' Ben Powell, a Bush appointee, calls her 
``one of the finest lawyers of her generation.'' Caroline Krass, 
another Obama appointee, calls her ``an excellent choice.'' And Wan 
Kim, another Bush appointee, says she is ``careful, brilliant, and 
highly accomplished.''
  In other words, you don't need me to tell you Courtney Elwood is a 
first-rate attorney. In fact, you don't need anyone to tell you that 
because her accomplishments speak for themselves.
  She graduated from Yale Law School in 1994 and went on to clerk for 
both Judge Mike Luttig on the Fourth Circuit and then-Chief Justice 
William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court. After spending some time in 
private practice, she worked for 6 years in the George W. Bush 
administration, rising from associate counsel to the President, to 
deputy counsel to the Vice President, to Deputy Chief of Staff and 
Counselor to the Attorney General.
  We are not talking about a rookie lawyer who is inexperienced in the 
ways of Washington or in the corridors of power. Her commitment to the 
law is unquestioned and unquestionable. She is just the person we need 
for this position.
  The general counsel of the CIA will help Director Pompeo navigate the 
many twists and turns of the thorny legal terrain as our intelligence 
community defends our country against a wide range of threats: 
terrorism, cyber warfare, and good, old-fashioned espionage. We need 
people of the highest caliber serving at our national security 
agencies, and there is broad agreement that Courtney Elwood fits the 
bill.
  I am happy to support her nomination, and I thank her and her family 
for answering the call to serve once again.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cotton pertaining to the introduction of S. 1297 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, in the critical debate about the 
balance between national security and rights to privacy, the truth must 
be paramount. Time and again, President Trump has misled the American 
public about national security matters, including torture, 
surveillance, and intelligence. Trump has claimed that ``torture 
works'' and that ``we should go much stronger than waterboarding,'' 
despite widespread evidence that enhanced interrogation techniques are 
not effective in acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from 
detainees. Without any evidence, President Trump alleged that President 
Obama illegally wiretapped the phones of Trump Towers. Former FBI 
Director James Comey soundly rejected this conspiracy theory, a 
statement that likely played a role in his firing. President Trump 
repeatedly dismissed intelligence that Russia interfered in our 2016 
elections and derided our intelligence community for its assessments. 
His rejection of truth, to stoke fear and resentment in the American 
public, is unethical and dangerous. It is a threat to American 
freedoms.
  In this extraordinary environment, the CIA's leadership must not only 
provide objective and sound intelligence assessments to the President, 
it must faithfully ensure that the President is adhering to the law. 
The role of the General Counsel is particularly critical at this 
moment, when our sitting President has openly denounced or displayed 
alarming ignorance of existing laws on intelligence matters. As the CIA 
General Counsel's guidance is provided entirely in secret, with no 
public transparency, it is imperative that the American public have as 
clear an understanding as possible of the nominee's prior record of 
legal interpretation.
  On this point, Courtney Elwood's history under President George W. 
Bush is troubling. At the Department of Justice, Ms. Elwood was 
involved in discussions regarding the legal justification for the 
``warrantless wiretapping program,'' in which the Bush administration 
collected telephonic and email communications of U.S. persons on U.S. 
soil without a court order. The Bush administration, in memos that are 
now declassified, argued that the President has inherent constitutional 
power to monitor Americans' communications without a warrant in a time 
of war. Given the perennial nature of America's war footing, this 
argument afforded the President a virtually unlimited authority to 
surveil Americans. When asked for her views on this legal justification 
in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Ms. 
Elwood asserted that the program was ``carefully reasoned'' and that 
the Justice Department was ``thorough in its analysis.''
  Ms. Elwood's record on torture is also cause for concern. While I was 
pleased with Ms. Elwood's testimony that the reinstatement of torture 
would be illegal under existing law, I am concerned with her prior work 
on cases involving the detention of enemy combatants, military 
commissions, and the constitutionality of national security programs 
under President Bush. For these reasons, I cannot support her 
nomination.
  Mr. COTTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about a topic which, 
wherever I go, people speak about--the replacement of the Affordable 
Care Act or ObamaCare, as people call it. Clearly, we need action.
  I had a Facebook post maybe a week or two ago from Brian in 
Covington, LA. He said: My family plan is $1,700. The quote goes on to 
say how his family cannot afford that $1,700.
  Rates are going up, which I have said time and time again. My friend 
back in Baton Rouge, he and his wife are 60, 61. The quote for their 
insurance last year was $39,000--for 1 year. That is clearly not 
affordable. This is not just in Louisiana; it is in Washington, DC, it 
is in California, it is across our Nation where individual market 
quotes are going up that they cannot support.
  Most recently, Connecticut insurers--there are two--are proposing 
rate increases that are 15.2 percent and 33.8 percent, on average, 
respectively. They are quoting 22 percent over 2017. In Maryland, some 
insurers are going to raise rates as much as 59 percent for those 
individual plans.
  I am a physician. I learned a couple of things in my 20 or 30 years 
of practice. One, to lower costs, the patient must have the power; and, 
two, the insurance must be affordable; and, three, that the insurance 
they receive must be adequate. President Trump totally got this. On the 
campaign trail, President Trump said time and again--what I call his 
contract with the voter. He wanted folks to maintain coverage with 
lower premiums, care for those with preexisting conditions, and 
eliminating mandates. I think President Trump just knew it. I shorthand 
this, if you will, saying, if we focus on lowering premiums and making 
sure it passes the Jimmy Kimmel test. The late-night comedian, when his 
child was born with a terrible heart problem, immediately got the care 
that child needed. So if we can have insurance that passes the Jimmy 
Kimmel test--lowering premiums, taking care of the rest of President 
Trump's goals, then I think we can accomplish it. We need to talk to 
experts, actuaries, those who design insurance plans, to make sure we 
come up with something.
  There is something else the President said that I want to focus on. 
This is

[[Page 8660]]

just before he took the oath of office. He said people covered under 
the law--meaning the Republican replacement--can expect to have great 
healthcare. ``It will be much simplified.'' One of the complaints about 
the Affordable Care Act is it is so complicated. Even online, 16 pages 
online, with your W-2, if you don't get it, you get booted out. The 
President said we must have a much simpler way of going about this--
much less expensive and much better.
  What could this look like? Let me propose some conservative solutions 
that could be in a Republican plan that would achieve the President's 
goal. First, the patient has to have the power. In my 30 years of 
practice, I found that if the patient has the power, the system lines 
up to serve her. One example is price transparency. If we can put in 
that a provider has to publish the provider's price, so the patient 
getting the blood test knows the cost of the blood test at that moment 
and can compare it to someone down the street, we will lower cost.
  One example just came up in a newspaper out of New Orleans. Nola.com 
is their website. A woman went in and got blood tests. She received a 
bill weeks later and her bill was for $324. She found she could have 
gotten the same blood test for $34 right down the street. A woman from 
Texas came up. She said she heard me speak of price transparency--the 
power of negotiating, if you will. The doctor ordered an MRI on her 
son's shoulder. She called up the different places where she could have 
it done and she got a price of $667. On my Facebook page is a little 
video of her speaking: I got it for $667. Then I remembered what you 
said: If you pay cash, you get a discount. I called them back. I said, 
if I pay cash, will you give me a lower price? They said: Pay us cash, 
we will cut that $667 to $400. The patient had the power. So she ended 
up paying far less for the procedure the doctor ordered. That is one 
conservative solution, give the patient the power.
  Secondly, let States innovate. We need to take all of this power that 
ObamaCare brought to Washington, DC, and push it back out to the 
States. If we do that, we are going to accomplish something. Let's just 
acknowledge that there are 700,000 people or so in Alaska. If you took 
a map of the State of Alaska and put it over the lower 48, it would 
stretch from roughly Georgia to the Pacific Ocean. Washington, DC, has 
almost the same population as Alaska, and you can walk across the city 
in a morning. Clearly, you need different solutions for an area you can 
walk across and an area you cannot fly across in the same time that you 
would walk across Washington, DC. We have to return power back to the 
patients. We have to engage doctors and patients so those patients with 
complex conditions get their healthcare managed. I use the example of a 
diabetic. She perhaps developed childhood diabetes, and now she is 35 
years old. If a doctor is managing her condition, she works, stays at 
home, her complications are minimal, and her life is much better. If 
her condition is not managed, she comes to the emergency room three 
times a month with diabetes out of control. That just shoots a hole in 
the bucket of fiscal responsibility and also in her health. Instead of 
working, keeping a family, she is coming to the hospital, getting care 
through the emergency room, which she cannot afford to pay for, and 
that cost is shifted to everyone else. That is not the way to manage 
that. We need to engage doctors with patients.
  Another conservative solution is we need more competition between 
insurers so there is not just one insurance company in the market that 
can therefore set prices but rather we have multiple. So if we give the 
patient the power by giving the patient a tax credit that she can use 
to purchase the insurance she wishes to have, that will create 
competition as more insurers enter the market. If we have that 
competition--those market forces--prices come down.
  When the President said we have to make things simpler, I think that 
also includes how we enroll people in insurance. We figured that out on 
Medicare. Under Medicare, if someone turns 65, they are on Medicare. It 
could not be simpler. They get a letter. They are on Medicare. If they 
don't want to, they can call: Hey, I don't want to be on Medicare. But 
as a rule, they are on Medicare.
  Fortune 500 companies have figured out the same thing. In order to 
enroll people into retirement plans they say: Listen, you are in the 
401(k) plan unless you choose not to be. That makes it simpler to get a 
95-percent enrollment in retirement plans. Now, you could say: Hey, 
listen, you have to fill out a bunch of forms. If you don't fill out 
these forms, you are not going to be enrolled. But that would not work 
for Medicare. It would not work for 401(k)s. It has not worked under 
ObamaCare.
  We need to take those same sort of solutions we have found for both 
Medicare and enrolling people in their retirement and do it for the 
Republican alternative.
  The Republican alternative would say: We make it easy to enroll. You 
are in unless you are out. So if you are eligible for a tax credit, you 
would receive it. You would then have the insurance. If you were 
passive about it, you would have a default policy. But if you are 
active, you could do more with it. But by doing so, you actually 
increase the number of people insured.
  Now, when you increase the pool of those insured, you lower premiums. 
We had Blue Cross look at our proposal to make it easy to enroll: You 
are in unless you are out. That would lower premiums by 20 percent, 
just by expanding the number of those who are insured--20 percent.
  So when President Trump says he wants to continue coverage, caring 
for those with preexisting conditions without mandates and lowering 
premiums, doing this feature where you are in unless you call us and 
tell us you don't want to be and making it simple achieves all four 
goals.
  We would increase coverage. By that, we would lower premiums, taking 
care of those with preexisting conditions. Now, again, it is using the 
mechanism that is already used in Medicare and in Fortune 500 
companies, making it easy to enroll. There are some who don't want to 
give States the options. They don't want to give patients the options. 
They don't want to make it simple to enroll. They want to replace, if 
you will, the tyranny of ObamaCare--where all of this power is taken to 
Washington, DC, and States and people were told what they had to do--
with a different sort of tyranny, telling States what they can't do.
  I think we ought to give as much power to the States, as much 
latitude to the patients to come up with the solutions that work for 
them. That is the conservative way to go.
  But I will say, in speaking with conservatives, that I very much 
invite our Democratic colleagues to come to the table. There are some 
of my Democratic colleagues who have said they just want Republicans to 
work through this, thinking that it might be a political train wreck 
that would work to their advantage. But in those States there are 
Americans whose premiums are becoming unaffordable.
  I mentioned earlier that in Connecticut premiums are rising 15 and 34 
percent this year. In Oregon, it is as high as 22 percent, and Maryland 
is as high as 60 percent.
  Now, who cares if the person is a Democrat or a Republican? If her 
premium is increasing 60 percent, she cannot afford it. So I challenge 
my Democratic colleagues to get off the sidelines and engage. Try to do 
something not for political purposes but for the purpose of that person 
who is at home struggling to pay the bills and deciding that she can no 
longer afford insurance, but, perhaps unbeknown to her, she has a 
cancer brewing inside her. Just when she decides she can no longer 
afford coverage because premiums have risen 60 percent, that is when 
her cancer is discovered.
  We have to address this. It will take us on either side of the 
aisle--both Democrats and Republicans--to work together. I will finish 
with a quote from a fellow from Covington, Brian, on my Facebook page. 
He said that his family plan is $1,700 a month, for him, his wife, and 
his two children. The

[[Page 8661]]

ACA, the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, has brought him to his 
knees. I hope we can get something done. The middle class is dwindling 
away. Can everyone just come together and figure this out?
  This is a cry for help. It is a challenge to Republicans and 
Democrats to come up with a plan that is not a red plan or a blue plan 
but an American plan to address his needs, his wife's needs, and those 
similar to him across the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                        Honoring the Ghost Army

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, thank you and Senator Cassidy. We just 
came back, as we all know, from the Memorial Day recess. I wanted today 
not to only reflect on that but also to reflect on our anniversary of 
D-day and the day that our Allies invaded France in 1944. In doing so 
today, I would like to speak and pay tribute to all of those--
including, but not limited to, Americans, but especially Americans--who 
risked their lives to defend our freedoms.
  In particular, I come today to recognize a special group of dedicated 
soldiers. You probably have not heard of them, but they are referred to 
as the Ghost Army--the Ghost Army. This is a unit that served in World 
War II. It was comprised of the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops and 
the 3133rd Signal Service Company. The personnel of this U.S. Army unit 
were handpicked. They were handpicked for their artistic and creative 
characteristics, and you will see why in just a moment.
  They handled top secret information, and they were among some of 
America's most promising artists, engineers, and signals professionals. 
The mission of the Ghost Army was very simple: Fool Adolph Hitler--fool 
Adolph Hitler by using what was called tactical deception. The Ghost 
Army's deceptive creation of fake battles, inflatable tanks, theatrical 
props, and other inventive equipment falsified troop movements, and had 
our enemies chasing ghosts--hence the name the Ghost Army.
  Beginning in Normandy 2 weeks after D-day and ending in the Rhine 
River Valley, the Ghost Army staged over 20 fake battles--fake 
battlefield deceptions. The German Army did not know whether they were 
coming or going, thanks to the Ghost Army. These performances, of 
course, were illusions. They were called illusions by the soldiers. 
They occurred in the most dangerous spot in the war, on the frontline 
of battle.
  Now, without the Ghost Army's dedication and fearless perseverance, 
Allied successes at the Battle of the Bulge and the final battles in Po 
Valley, Italy, would not have been possible. The 23rd unit was composed 
of only 1,184 men--1,200 men. They put themselves at risk every day at 
the forefront of danger, and they fought tirelessly. They used 
ingenious, innovative methods to mislead the enemy, ultimately leading 
the Allies to many victories in Europe. Because of their bravery, 
because of the bravery of the 1,200 men in the Ghost Army, up to 30,000 
American soldiers and 10,000 German soldiers were able to return home 
alive.
  So why are we waiting until today to honor these 1,184 brave 
Americans? Because until recently the Ghost Army's mission was 
classified. It was top secret. Nobody except the members of the Ghost 
Army knew anything about it. This has finally changed. That is one of 
the reasons I am here today. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Ghost 
Army soldier bill, a bipartisan effort led by Senators Markey, Collins, 
and King. This long overdue legislation will award a Congressional Gold 
Medal to the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops and the 3133rd Signal 
Service Company.
  It is a privilege to share that, in my home State of Louisiana, the 
Ghost Army is being recognized at the New Orleans Museum of Art. 
Soldier's art is on display depicting many watercolor portraits, as 
well as graphite portraits, of civilians, soldiers, and refugees during 
World War II. It is a legacy that our great State now gets to honor.
  Specifically, I want to recognize six brave men from Louisiana, my 
State, who were members of the Ghost Army. Hilton Howell Railey of New 
Orleans is a prominent journalist and the author of ``Touch'd with 
Madness.'' He recruited several of the handpicked 23rd. Mr. Railey 
trained and deployed the 3133rd Signal Service Company, which served in 
Italy.
  There is Jim Stegg of New Orleans, a longtime faculty member at 
Tulane. He was an artist; in fact, there is a retrospective of his work 
at the New Orleans Museum of Art's Ghost Army exhibit.
  Also, there is Mr. Murphy P. Martin, of St. Martinville, LA; Mr. 
Thomas L. Raggio, of Lake Charles, LA; Mr. Roy L. Ravia, of Calcasieu 
Parish, in my State; Mr. Alvin J. Picard, of Vermilion Parish; and last 
but certainly not least, Mr. Anderson B. Wilson, of Slidell, LA.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson is the only Ghost Army solder still alive 
in Louisiana. I had the rare privilege and the rare honor of speaking 
with Mr. Wilson this morning. In December of 1943, President Roosevelt 
authorized the Ghost Army unit. Only 2 weeks later, in January 1944, 
Mr. Wilson was on his way to Camp Mack Morris, TN, to join the Ghost 
Army. Who says the Federal Government can't move quickly when it wants 
to?
  Mr. Wilson trained there until May, when his unit was shipped out of 
New York to Liverpool, England. It was the largest convoy that at the 
time had ever crossed the Atlantic Ocean. From there, Mr. Wilson and 
his team traveled more than any other unit. From England they went to 
France. They went to Belgium. They went to Holland. They went to 
Luxembourg, and they went to Germany.
  Mr. Wilson and his comrades fought fearlessly through the war's end 
as members of the Ghost Army. In July 1945, Mr. Wilson finally came 
home. However, while he came home safely, he could not even disclose, 
he couldn't even talk about--even to his own family--the honorable 
service unit he was a part of. Now, it is humbling to me to hear a 
man's sacrifice, to go through what he went through and not even be 
able to talk about it with his family, but he kept his word out of 
honor to his country.
  The willingness of Mr. Wilson and his fellow soldiers to risk their 
own lives to defend the freedom we have today--well, it, too, is 
humbling.
  Mr. Wilson returned home in 1945. And I hope he is listening right 
now. He has been a little under the weather. He was in the hospital 
when I spoke to him today. It wasn't until the 1990s, when Mr. Wilson 
was married with two grown children, that he could ever talk about his 
service to this great country, share his stories, share his 
experiences, share his fight to keep the freedoms all of us take for 
granted every day.
  Mr. Wilson's story only gives a snapshot of the sacrifices and 
honorable work these men of the Ghost Army gave to the Allied forces 
victory. And I, for one--and I know all Americans join me--thank them 
for their service and for the freedoms they protected.
  I am proud of this Ghost Army legislation, and I hope to see it move 
forward and pass so that these fine Americans can receive the 
recognition they have long deserved.
  God bless the members of the Ghost Army. And if you are listening, 
Mr. Wilson, God bless you.

                          ____________________