[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11368-11375]
[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 Bernhardt 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of David 
Bernhardt, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, July 24 marks a significant milestone in 
the history of my home State of Utah. On this day, 170 years ago, 
Brigham Young and the Mormon pioneers first entered the Salt Lake 
Valley. Facing violence and discrimination at every turn, Utah's early 
settlers crossed the Nation in search of a land where they could 
practice their religion free from prejudice and abuse. In the cradle of 
the Rocky Mountains, they found a home.
  Each year, we remember the sacrifice of these courageous men and 
women and the miraculous events that led to the founding of our State 
by observing Pioneer Day. This special holiday is a celebration of the 
pioneer spirit, that unique mix of industry, ingenuity, and innovation 
that transformed an arid desert plain into one of the most prosperous 
States in the Nation.
  Pioneer Day is a perennial reminder of how a people--left to their 
own devices and empowered to follow their dreams--can accomplish 
incredible things. It is a testament to what westerners can achieve 
when the government steps out of the way and allows the human spirit to 
flourish.
  It seems only fitting then that on Pioneer Day I speak in support of 
David Bernhardt, a man who immediately understands the western way of

[[Page 11369]]

life and has dedicated his career to defending it.
  As my colleagues know, Mr. Bernhardt has been nominated to serve as 
the next Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Today, I 
wish to express my support for his confirmation in the strongest 
possible terms.
  Mr. Bernhardt has a distinguished record of public service, having 
served for nearly 10 years in the Department of Interior as Solicitor, 
Deputy Solicitor, Deputy Chief of Staff, and Director of Congressional 
Affairs. Now that Mr. Bernhardt works in private practice, Mr. 
Bernhardt is regarded as one of the Nation's most experienced and 
authoritative legal minds on natural resource policy.
  Broad support for Mr. Bernhardt's confirmation is a testament to the 
sterling reputation he has built over an accomplished career in both 
the public and private sectors. State wildlife management agencies, 
Native American Tribes, environmental conservation and wildlife 
protection groups, and the Congressional Western Caucus are among the 
many organizations that have strongly endorsed Mr. Bernhardt's 
nomination. He has also garnered the support of hundreds of 
recreationists, sportsmen, anglers, agricultural producers, and 
ranchers.
  Nominating Mr. Bernhardt is in keeping with the President's promise 
to restore trust between westerners and the Federal Government. After 
just 6 months in office, our President has already made tremendous 
progress in repairing the broken relationship between local communities 
and the executive branch.
  Of course, significant challenges remain, especially in my home State 
of Utah, where reduced access to Federal land has hurt the rural 
economy. Fortunately, as a former Interior Solicitor, Mr. Bernhardt has 
the legal and political background necessary to tackle some of the 
greatest challenges facing Utah and the West. He is well-equipped to 
improve sage grouse management practices, streamline permitting on 
Federal lands, and increase recreational access.
  Mr. Bernhardt is also committed to fostering cooperation between 
Interior agencies and State and Tribal governments, in addition to 
reducing the National Park Service's backlog. Reducing the maintenance 
backlog is critical to tourism in Utah, which is home to the Mighty 5 
national parks.
  I applaud the nomination of Mr. Bernhardt. His breadth of experience 
makes him uniquely qualified to serve as Deputy Secretary, and I look 
forward to working with him and Secretary Zinke to further the 
important work of the Department of the Interior.
  In that regard, I also praise Secretary Zinke, who, I think, is doing 
a terrific job in that Department, understanding the needs of the West, 
especially the needs of all those areas that we know are supervised by 
the Interior Department. He is a terrific human being, and I have a 
great deal of respect for him. The reason he is so good is because he 
has had all the experience working in the West and living in the West 
and doing the things that really have made the West a great place to 
begin with.
  Mr. Bernhardt is going to be a great addition to our government, and 
I want to applaud Secretary Zinke for helping to push him forward.
  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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, as soon as tomorrow, we could be voting 
on a motion to proceed to the Republican healthcare plan. What that 
plan is, I am not sure anybody really knows. My friend the majority 
whip, when reporters asked him if his own Members would know what they 
would be voting on, said: ``That's a luxury we don't have.''
  We have been on the topic of healthcare for 7 months. Republicans 
have been talking about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act 
for over 7 years. Yet here we are, 1 or 2 days from a vote on the 
motion to proceed, and we don't even know what the Republicans plan is 
to vote on. We are potentially 1 or 2 days away from a vote on a bill 
that would reorganize one-sixth of the American economy and impacts 
tens of millions of American lives, and no one knows what it is. It is 
sort of like ``Alice in Wonderland'' around here. It comes down to this 
bizarre game where the Republican leader has basically said: Let's spin 
a wheel and see what we are going to vote on. This is no way to treat a 
matter as serious as healthcare--so near and dear to the lives of so 
many Americans.
  I don't know how a single one of my Republican friends can in good 
conscience vote to proceed to a truncated debate on something as 
important as healthcare without knowing what bill they will ultimately 
be voting on. Isn't this the same party that shouted ``Read the bill, 
read the bill'' from the rafters when the Affordable Care Act was 
debated? It is completely bewildering.
  Maybe we will be voting on the Republican repeal-and-replace bill, 
which will cause costs to go up and care to go down, which will cause 
22 million Americans to lose their insurance, and which will so cruelly 
exchange healthcare for millions of working Americans for another tax 
break for the wealthy and the special interests. Maybe we will be 
voting on repeal without replace, which is even worse, which will cause 
our healthcare system to implode, creating chaos for 32 million 
Americans who would lose their insurance and chaos for millions more 
who would see their coverage diminish or their premiums rise. No one 
knows what we will be voting on. We know one thing: All the options are 
bad.
  There is no good way out of this. The truth is, the Republicans are 
completely stuck when it comes to healthcare. Every single version of 
their repeal-and-replace bill is rotten at the core. Repeal without 
replace is even worse. The American people don't want tax breaks for 
the wealthy or the slashing of Medicaid. They don't want to repeal all 
the progress we made in healthcare without any plan to put in its 
place.
  It is time to start over. It is time to go back to the drawing 
board--abandon tax cuts for the wealthy, abandon cuts to Medicaid, 
abandon repeal and run--and come together, both parties, around a set 
of nonideological proposals to improve our healthcare system. That is 
what we Democrats want to do.
  I have called several Republicans. Some in their leadership are 
saying: Leader Schumer doesn't want people to talk to each other and 
won't let that happen if the bill fails. Well, first, I couldn't 
prevent it if I wanted to, and second, I don't want to. I want us to 
sit down and come up with ways to improve ACA. No one said it is 
perfect.
  So if the bill fails tomorrow, we will start right away trying to 
work with our Republican colleagues to stabilize the marketplace and 
improve the cost and quality of healthcare. Whether they join us in 
that effort is entirely up to them.


              Economic Policies to Help American Families

  Madam President, on another matter, today in Berryville, VA, the 
Democratic Party began presenting our vision for the future of the 
country. As I have traveled New York State, from upstate, rural, 
Republican areas, like Sodus Bay, where I was Friday, to suburban Long 
Island, to the inner-city Bronx, I have found one thing in common: 
Average families feel they have been pushed around by large economic 
forces, and they are losing that traditional, American faith in the 
future. Too many families in America feel as though rules of the 
economy are rigged against them. They feel as if they are getting a raw 
deal. And they are right. American families deserve a better deal so 
this country works for everyone, not just the elites and special 
interests. Today, Democrats started presenting that better deal to the 
American people.

[[Page 11370]]

  There used to be a basic bargain in this country that if you worked 
hard and played by the rules, you could own a home, afford a car, put 
your kids through college, and take a modest vacation every year, while 
putting enough away for a comfortable retirement. I should know. I grew 
up in that America. My father was an exterminator, and he worked very 
hard but managed to--not making a whole lot of money--build a good life 
for his family. But things have changed.
  Today's working Americans are justified in having greater doubts 
about the future than almost any generation since the Depression. 
Corporate interests and the superwealthy are allowed to spend 
unlimited, undisclosed money on campaigns and lobbying so they can 
protect their special deals in Washington. And for too long--far too 
long--government has played along, tilting the economic field in favor 
of the wealthy and the powerful, taking the burden off them and putting 
it on the backs of hard-working Americans. The result is an economy 
that has created enormous wealth at the top, while producing less work 
and less pay for average Americans. Incomes and wages have flatlined 
while everyday costs are skyrocketing.
  Democrats, frankly, have too often hesitated from directly and 
unflinchingly taking on the misguided policies that got us here--so 
much so that Americans don't know what we stand for. Well, not after 
today. Democrats are showing the country that we are the party on the 
side of working people and that we stand for three things: First, we 
are going to increase people's pay; second, we are going to reduce 
their everyday expenses; and third, we are going to provide workers the 
tools they need for the 21st-century economy.
  Today we announced three new policies to advance these goals.
  Right now, there is nothing to stop vulture capitalists from 
egregiously raising the price of lifesaving drugs without 
justification. We are going to fight for rules to stop prescription 
drug price gouging and demand that drug companies justify price 
increases to the public. And we are going to push for empowering 
Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors.
  Right now, our antitrust laws are designed to allow huge corporations 
to merge, padding the pockets of investors but sending costs 
skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to 
beer, food, and healthcare. We are going to fight to allow regulators 
to penalize big companies if they are hurting consumers and to make it 
harder for companies to merge if it reduces competition.
  Right now, millions of unemployed or underemployed people--
particularly those without a college degree--could be brought back into 
the labor force and retrained to secure full-time, higher paying work. 
We propose giving employers--particularly small businesses--a large tax 
credit to train workers for unfilled jobs, with a requirement to hire 
that worker at a good wage once the training is complete.
  In future weeks, we will offer additional ideas, from rebuilding 
rural America to fundamentally changing our trade laws to benefit 
workers, not multinational corporations. Now, we are in the minority in 
both Houses of Congress. We know that. We cannot delude anyone that 
this Congress will begin passing our priorities tomorrow, but this is 
the start of a new vision for our party. This set of economic policies 
will form the backbone of our agenda, and we welcome our Republican 
colleagues to join with us in any of these ideas they might find 
acceptable.
  ``A better deal'' is not just a slogan; it is a mission. It is about 
reorienting government to work on behalf of people and families. It is 
not going to be the work of only one Congress. It shouldn't be the work 
of one party. As I said, we welcome any Republicans willing to work 
with us on these issues because there is an American imperative and a 
moral imperative to do what we are doing here.
  If that torch, held by the lady in the harbor of the city in which I 
live--that symbol of optimism and hope for the future--starts 
flickering, it is a different America, an America no one will like.
  American families deserve a better deal, a government that has their 
back and helps make the economy work for them. That is how we will 
restore the fundamental optimism that defines the American spirit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, let me thank the Democratic 
leader for his statement on a better deal for all Americans.
  I had a chance over the weekend to travel throughout my State, and I 
heard over and over again the people of Maryland talking about what we 
need to do on a better deal. I had an interesting forum on healthcare, 
and Marylanders want a better deal on healthcare. They want to make 
sure healthcare is affordable, that they can get access to quality 
care, and they can make sure we maintain the highest quality 
healthcare.
  What they don't want to see is us moving in the wrong direction. I 
heard over and over again their concerns about what is happening with 
the consideration of the bill the Republican leadership is anticipating 
having a vote on later this week. That bill would proceed on 
legislation that would eliminate healthcare coverage for, at least, 22 
million Americans, maybe as high as 33 million Americans. I must tell 
you that is not a better deal for Americans on their healthcare needs. 
We could do much better moving in the opposite direction and making 
healthcare more affordable, not cutting people out of healthcare 
insurance.
  In my State of Maryland, in 2018 alone, 221,000 people in my State 
would lose coverage under the proposals the Republican leadership is 
suggesting, including 4,200 veterans, 164,000 people in the Medicaid 
system, and 62,000 people in the individual marketplace. That is going 
to hurt. These are people today who have healthcare coverage who would 
lose their healthcare coverage. It would hurt our seniors in the 
coverage they get under the Medicaid system for long-term care. It 
would hurt those who are working to try to end this opioid drug 
addiction issue.
  Under the current law, mental health, behavioral health, and drug 
addiction is covered under the essential health benefits. It is covered 
under private insurance. It is covered under the Medicaid system. That 
is in danger of being lost under the legislation being considered.
  I heard from public health and law enforcement over the weekend how 
that would move our community in the wrong direction if those bills 
were considered.
  I also heard from the majority leader that all he wants to do is get 
on this bill, and then we can offer amendments. Well, that is not 
accurate. You can't offer any amendments you want on a bill that is 
under reconciliation instructions, and we certainly aren't going to get 
a fair shot at trying to make this bill a better bill under the 
restrictions we are operating under: We had no committee hearings. We 
had no committee markups. That is not the way legislation should be 
considered.
  The other issue I heard about from people in Maryland--I think you 
will hear this from people around the country--is they want to bring 
down the cost of their healthcare coverage. They want to bring down the 
cost of their healthcare. They want to reduce the high growth rate in 
healthcare costs in this country. Yet the Senate Republican bill 
increases the average premium by as much as $1,700 in Maryland by 2020 
and preserves what we call the age tax--a 5-to-1 difference.
  So if you happen to be 55 years of age, you are going to pay a lot 
more than that in increases in your health insurance premiums. That is 
not what people in Maryland want to see. That is not what people in 
this country want to see. They are concerned that we should be building 
on the Affordable Care Act to bring down the cost of their premium 
increases, not to increase it by that dramatic amount of money.

[[Page 11371]]

  The increase in deductibles in Maryland could be as high as $3,300 
for a person making $42,000 per year and $5,600 for a person making 
about $18,000 a year. Those are increases in deductibles. They can't 
afford that. The concerns we have--people like the Affordable Care Act, 
and they want us to improve it. They want us to improve it. They don't 
want us to add to their costs, and the bill the majority leader is 
asking us to consider would have people in Maryland and around the 
country paying more--not less, which they want.
  The people in Maryland and around this country like the consumer 
protections we have under the Affordable Care Act. They like the idea 
that there is no annual cap or lifetime cap. I had several people who 
came up to me to tell me about their own personal circumstances. One 
father explained to me that his child was born with serious issues and 
that they reached their cap within a matter of months. Without the 
protection in the Affordable Care Act, they would have had no other 
insurance coverage. Yet, under the bill being considered by the 
Republican leadership, that family could lose that protection because 
you could see the imposition of caps.
  All of us know of people who are very concerned about preexisting 
conditions. The bill that is being considered under the Republican 
leadership weakens those protections against discrimination of 
preexisting conditions.
  Let me just remind my colleagues of what we saw before the Affordable 
Care Act in discriminatory practices by private insurance companies. We 
had reined much of that in under the Affordable Care Act. All of that 
could be lost if we proceed on legislation--and move it forward--that 
doesn't provide the consumer protections, allows the elimination of 
caps, allows discriminatory practices in regard to preexisting 
conditions, restricts the amount of money going into the Medicaid 
system so our States are forced basically to cut back on the Medicaid 
system. We lose the expanded coverage--the Congressional Budget Office 
has already told us that--and we go back to the days of job lock. I 
want to talk about that for one moment because I think this is one of 
the untold stories. We haven't had a lot of discussion on the floor.
  If you go in the wrong direction and you do what the Republican 
leadership is talking about doing and repeal the Affordable Care Act 
and either repeal and later replace or replace it now with a program 
that will eliminate a lot of coverage and once again eliminate these 
consumer protections we have in health insurance, what you do is people 
get locked into employment. They are afraid to leave their job because 
they have insurance that covers their family--they have a spouse with 
cancer or they have a child with a major disability. Yes, they would 
like to do what this country is best known for, and that is set out 
with an entrepreneurial spirit, start a company or go and take risks, 
but they can't do it because they know they are jeopardizing their 
family's healthcare because they can't get the type of insurance they 
need to cover their risks. That is called job lock and that works 
against the growth of our economy.
  There are so many reasons to be concerned about what the majority 
leader is asking us to do--to proceed on this bill that all the options 
we have seen will cost tens of millions of people their coverage, take 
away a lot of the consumer protections we have seen in the law, and 
discriminate against our elderly, discriminate against minorities and 
women. That would be returning to our old healthcare system. No, that 
is not the right way to do it.
  I am frequently asked: Well, what should we do? The Affordable Care 
Act, doesn't it have problems? Doesn't it need to be fixed?
  The Affordable Care Act has done a lot of good. It has given people 
coverage who never had coverage before. It has reined in the 
discriminatory practices of health insurance companies. It has made a 
dramatic improvement on dealing with minority health and health 
disparities. It has provided essential health benefits so we deal with 
mental health and addiction. It has done a lot of really good things, 
but, yes, we could improve it. There has never been a major law passed 
without us going back and revisiting.
  Why haven't Democrats been part of this process? Well, we could not 
get engaged in this process because the way this bill came to the 
floor, it didn't come through the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee, it didn't come in through the Finance Committee, 
the two committees of jurisdiction that deal with the healthcare system 
in this country. Instead, it came in through the majority leader using 
the rule XIV process to bring out a reconciliation bill that can be 
jammed through, with limited time and no open amendment process, from 
the point of view that amendments have to be germane to the 
reconciliation instructions so we don't have an opportunity to fix this 
bill.
  We weren't part of the process to develop the bill. You are not 
giving an opportunity for the democratic system to work. There was no 
on-ramp for Democrats to get engaged in the process.
  About 2 weeks ago--maybe 3 weeks ago now--I filed legislation and 
sent letters to my Republican colleagues telling them: I want to work 
with you. I do. I have worked with Republicans in the Finance Committee 
on healthcare bills. We have gotten some good things done. Democrats 
and Republicans want to work together, so let's work together.
  The legislation I filed dealt with the two major problems that I hear 
about, as I travel throughout Maryland, regarding what we need to fix 
on the Affordable Care Act and how we can make it better.
  Problem No. 1, we need more stability and competition within the 
individual marketplace. Yes, we have seen large proposed increases in 
premiums in the individual marketplace--not in the group plans where 
most Americans have their insurance but in the individual marketplace. 
Why? Because we don't have enough people who have signed up in the 
exchanges. Younger, healthier people, because there really hasn't been 
a penalty imposed, have chosen not to join. They will say: Look, we 
will join if we have a need.
  We have also found that with President Trump indicating he may not 
fund the cost-sharing provisions that go directly to the insurance 
carriers that keep the premiums low and the deductibles and copays low, 
this also has a lot of insurance companies nervous. As a result, the 
premium increases are larger than what we had anticipated. We need to 
do something about it.
  How can we keep those premium increases at a more reasonable growth 
rate rather than what we have seen? One way we could do it is a 
proposal that, I believe, has bipartisan support; that is, deal with 
what is known as reinsurance. Reinsurance is a way we spread the risk 
over a greater group of people, therefore dealing with those high-risk 
pools in a way in which their premium costs are much more affordable.
  Another way we can do it is by Congress mandating that the President 
fund the cost-sharing with the insurance carriers so we don't have the 
threat that they are going to pull out those funds that are used to 
keep copays and deductibles low.
  Another way we can do it is to increase our support for those who are 
of modest income and the funds they have to lay out for their premiums 
because we know you can make a good salary, but because of the cost of 
healthcare, if you don't have an employer providing part of those 
benefits, it is very hard for you to be able to afford that without 
some help. We can do all of that.
  Another thing we could do is bring more competition into the 
individual marketplace. We have had those who have suggested a Medicare 
for all. We have had those who have suggested Medicare for the near 
elderly--the 55 to 65 age group or something similar to that. We have 
others who have suggested that we have a public option under the 
exchanges. All those, to me, make sense because it just brings in more 
competition. There is no additional government cost here because

[[Page 11372]]

they are not subsidized any differently than any other insurance plan, 
but it gives more options, more choice, more competition, and therefore 
more stability in the individual marketplace. We could do all that and 
all that can help.
  The other thing we really need to deal with is to deal with the 
overall cost of healthcare. Here, again, Democrats and Republicans have 
had ideas. Why don't we take on the pharmaceutical industry? Why do 
Americans pay twice what Canadians pay for the same medicines that are 
manufactured here in the United States? Why don't we have rebates in 
the Medicare system like the rebates we have in the Medicaid system? 
Why don't we organize our purchasing power in a larger pool so we can 
get greater discounts for the government taxpayers? All those things 
will bring down the cost of prescription medicines. The President has 
talked about it. Democrats and Republicans have talked about it. It is 
time we act.
  We have acted in several areas to try to deal with more value-based 
reimbursements in our healthcare system, recognizing we should treat 
the person, not the particular disease. Many people have more than one 
ailment, and they have to go back to the doctor multiple times. Why 
don't we have a more coordinated, integrated care model?
  I talked on the floor about 2 weeks ago about the coordinated care 
model between Sheppard Pratt Hospital in Baltimore and Mosaic, which 
deals with behavioral health issues and how they deal with it in an 
integrated, coordinated care model, which saves money. It saves money. 
There are fewer tests, more timely interventions.
  How can we use telemedicine? They are using telepsychiatry. How can 
we use that to bring down the cost of care? When I am asked in my 
district, asked in my State as to what I can do--where is my plan, and 
how can we fix the Affordable Care Act--my answer is quite simple: I am 
proud of the progress we have made under the Affordable Care Act. I 
invite Democrats and Republicans through our committees to work 
together to improve it. Yes, we can improve it. We can provide more 
stability in the individual marketplace. We can bring down the high 
annual growth we have seen in premiums in the individual marketplace. 
We can continue to bring down the growth rate of healthcare costs by 
working together on some of these commonsense approaches in order to 
deal with healthcare in America. All of this I think we can do, with 
Democrats and Republicans working together. But the first order of 
business--and I urge my colleagues--the first order of business is to 
stop this process of trying to jam a repeal of the Affordable Care Act 
and a replacement that would cost tens of millions of people in this 
country their health coverage and would move in the wrong direction on 
how we should improve healthcare in America. Let's get that off the 
table.
  Let's reject this motion to proceed that the majority leader is 
talking about voting on later this week. Let's do what Senator 
Alexander, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee has suggested. Let's have hearings in our committees. Let's 
work together, and let's bring legislation that stabilizes the 
Affordable Care Act and deals with the two major problems that the 
people in this country are talking about; that is, bringing down the 
growth rate of premium costs and bringing down the overall growth rate 
of healthcare costs in America. I believe we can do both by working 
together. There are suggestions I have made, and I am sure other 
Members have. Let's work on those. Let's work together and get it done. 
Let's do what is in the best interest of the people in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Montana Wildfires

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, it has been a long, hot, dry summer in 
Montana. That is why I rise today to honor the brave men and women in 
Montana who are fighting wildfires throughout our great State, the 
families who are facing devastating losses due to drought and fire, and 
to call on Congress to do their job and help these folks.
  Due to the drought and high temperatures, Montana has turned into a 
tinderbox. Unfortunately, fires have sparked all across our State, some 
24 of them--which changes by the hour, I might add. Across Montana, 
over one-quarter million acres have already burned, and many of these 
fires continue to rage. Montana is burning, and our heroic firefighters 
are protecting lives, our lands, our homes, our way of life.


                        Honoring Trenton Johnson

  Madam President, I would be remiss if I didn't mention one 
firefighter in particular, Missoula's Trenton Johnson. Trenton lost his 
life last week while he was on the fire line. Trenton's bravery and 
sacrifice will not be forgotten.


                         Lodgepole Complex Fire

  Madam President, communities across the State are coming together to 
protect their homes and livelihoods, and families are concerned about 
their homes, property, and health. The largest fire is the Lodgepole 
Complex fire in Garfield County. This afternoon, 30-mile-per-hour winds 
ballooned the Lodgepole Complex to more than 230,000 acres. Over the 
weekend, the fire jumped the highway, and as of today it is nowhere 
near containment.
  The Lodgepole Complex fire is made up of three different fires that 
have turned Eastern Montana's farm and grazing land into an ashtray, 
leaving an unknown number of farms and ranches with an uncertain 
future, forcing families to evacuate and communities to join local fire 
departments, with anyone willing and able to join in the firefight.
  Sadly, Montana is used to this. Fire season has been as common as the 
autumn and the spring. As I stand here, nearly two dozen uncontained, 
large fires are raging in Montana. It has taken more and more resources 
to fight fires, and these resources are becoming more and more 
difficult to come by.
  Places like Garfield County are being forced to ask for donations to 
get volunteer firefighters the fuel they need to save lives and protect 
property, and this is unacceptable. Protecting our communities from 
disaster and coming to help our fellow Americans in their time of need 
is a fundamental pillar of government.
  I was pleased to see Governor Bullock declare Montana a fire 
emergency, which will go a long way to bring much needed resources into 
our State. Last night, the regional director of FEMA denied emergency 
assistance for the Lodgepole fire, so this afternoon, I called 
Administrator Brock Long of FEMA to make sure he heard from me about 
the situation on the ground and asked him to cut loose much needed 
relief into Montana.
  Firefighters from all levels of government have bravely fought fires 
across our State. Folks across Federal, State, and local agencies have 
been working around-the-clock to contain the havoc. Montana's 
communities are strong, tight-knit, and they always persevere, but they 
expect the government to have their backs. Congress can assist these 
communities by changing the way we fund fighting wildland fires. Fires 
are a devastating natural disaster and should be treated that way. We 
need to raise the disaster cap so that we can budget for the real cost 
of fighting fires, making sure the folks on the ground have the 
resources they need to keep our communities safe.
  As an example, Forest Service resources are already stretched thin. 
When a fire starts, they are forced to take money they use for managing 
the forest and use that for fighting fires. Twenty years ago, 
firefighting took up about 20 percent of the Forest Service budget. In 
2016, more than half of the Forest Service budget was spent on fighting 
fires. This is not sustainable.
  When Montana's communities are burning, I don't want a bureaucrat in 
Washington, DC, weighing the pros and cons of sending help to these 
communities. We want the fire to be contained. As Montana burns, 
Congress cannot afford to wait. We need to act and allow catastrophic 
wildfires to be treated as what they are--natural disasters. It is the 
least we can do for the

[[Page 11373]]

rancher in Jordan who lost his cattle, the rancher in Sand Springs who 
no longer has a fence around his pasture, or any Montanan who is forced 
to leave the home they have known because a fire may be descending upon 
them.
  Fire season is always a testament to the strength of Montana's 
communities. Everyone works together, they put aside their differences, 
and they play their part to achieve a common goal. Neighbors open their 
homes to displaced families; churches and community centers turn into 
places to get food and other essentials. Congress can learn a thing or 
two from these Montana communities. These communities and firefighters 
work around-the-clock. Now is the time for Congress to help out. We can 
do that by fixing how we fund firefighting.
  In the meantime, I hope you all will join Sharla and me in sending 
thoughts and prayers to all the Montanans who have been changed by 
wildfire. Our thoughts and prayers are with those heroes on the 
frontlines.
  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.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Healthcare

  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, it is unconscionable that the U.S. 
Senate will soon be voting on a measure that would force between 22 and 
32 million people to lose their health insurance. This vote is 
particularly unconscionable when you consider that each Member of this 
Chamber has high quality health insurance that will be there whenever 
we need it--and we all will, as I recently found out.
  I know as well as anyone that we are all one diagnosis away from a 
serious illness. When I was diagnosed with kidney cancer not too long 
ago, I had the peace of mind of knowing that I was covered and that 
insurance would make the cost of treating my illness more manageable. 
Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have found comfort in 
having high quality health insurance as they confront serious illnesses 
and injuries of their own.
  Every American deserves that same peace of mind. That is why I am 
fighting for universal healthcare that is a right for every American, 
not a privilege reserved only for those who can afford it. This is 
something we can and should be working on in a bipartisan fashion. 
There are a lot of great ideas we could be debating and considering to 
move us toward this bipartisan goal.
  Instead, the majority leader and his allies are forcing a vote on 
TrumpCare, a mean, ugly bill that will deprive tens of millions of 
people across our country of the healthcare they deserve.
  Although some have argued over the past week that this vote is doomed 
to fail, we can't be complacent. We have to keep fighting because if 
TrumpCare becomes the law of the land, it would be devastating for tens 
of millions of people across the country, harming the poorest, sickest, 
and oldest members of our society. It would undermine protections for 
Americans living with serious and chronic conditions, who could face a 
reimposition of yearly and lifetime caps on their care. It would impose 
an age tax on people 50 to 64 years old, which would allow insurance 
companies to charge them up to five times more for insurance because of 
their age. I could go on.
  For hundreds of thousands of people in Hawaii and tens of millions 
more across the country, TrumpCare is not an abstract proposal that 
would have no relevance to their lives. I have heard literally from 
tens of thousands of people from across Hawaii about the devastating 
consequences TrumpCare would have on their lives. Hawaii is a small 
State. To think that literally over 20,000 people in Hawaii have 
contacted my office to tell me the devastation that TrumpCare will 
bring to their lives--this is because insurance is personal. They have 
spoken out against this bill loudly and clearly because healthcare is 
personal.
  Keith Moniz from Maui has a particularly compelling story to tell. 
Keith's brother, Lester, after working as a custodian for more than 40 
years at St. Anthony School, lost his job and his health insurance. 
Only a few short months later, Lester had a debilitating stroke that 
left him permanently disabled. Fortunately, Keith's brother was able to 
obtain Medicaid coverage and is now a long-term resident at Hale Makua 
Health Services on Maui, where nearly 80 percent of all patients and 
residents rely on Medicaid to pay for their necessary care.
  Keith was very clear about what would happen if TrumpCare succeeded 
in making large cuts to Medicaid.
  I quote Keith:

       It would be devastating. We had a difficult time taking 
     care of him--

  His brother, Lester--

       when he was at home, and he's gotten the care that he needs 
     at Hale Makua. It would be a big loss . . . I don't know what 
     we would do, where we would be able to move him to.

  Alvin, another resident at Hale Makua, was paralyzed in a car 
accident in 2006. Alvin lived with his aunt and uncle for a short time 
after his accident, but the complexity of his care was too much for 
them to handle on their own. Alvin has lived at Hale Makua for almost 
11 years now. He gets daily physical therapy and receives the 
supportive, life-sustaining care he needs. He would not be able to 
afford to live at Hale Makua without support from Medicaid.
  When asked, Alvin had a simple message for people in Washington, DC, 
who are trying to make huge cuts to Medicaid.
  I quote Alvin:

       I'm not a politician, but I know that these programs really 
     help those who are in need. I really hope that they would 
     take a longer look at it and realize that these are programs 
     the elderly and disabled need.

  People like Lester and Alvin are depending on us to keep up the fight 
against this mean, ugly bill until it is defeated for good. As we 
contemplate what is next, I hope we can come together across party 
lines to stabilize insurance markets and continue our work to provide 
universal healthcare for every American.
  I should think that each and every one of us who represents some 
800,000--well, our entire State. I used to be in the U.S. House. There, 
you have districts, and I represented about 800,000 people. Of course, 
as a Member of the Senate, I represent the whole State. I should think 
that all of us who represent literally the 300 or so million people all 
across our country would care about the healthcare of every single one 
of our constituents, and TrumpCare is not the way to ensure that.
  The fight continues.
  I yield the floor.
  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. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  North American Free Trade Agreement

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, it has been 2 months since Ambassador 
Lighthizer notified Congress of the administration's intent to enter 
into negotiations with Mexico and Canada on the North American Free 
Trade Agreement. During that time, I launched something called NAFTA 4 
AZ, which is an initiative to allow Arizonans to share their stories 
about how NAFTA has changed their lives for the better.
  I have heard from Arizonans across the State who work in a multitude 
of industries--from dairy farmers to call center employees--and the 
responses I have received are overwhelmingly positive. For example, 
Matt Mandel, who serves as chief operating officer for SunFed, a 
company based in Rio Rico, shared his personal story.
  Matt wrote:

       Fresh produce trade has kept my family working here in the 
     State of Arizona for three generations. Arizona imports over 
     17 billion pounds of fresh, healthy fruits and vegetables--
     bilateral trade between the United States and Mexico 
     representing over $40 billion. Let's modernize NAFTA.


[[Page 11374]]


  Mignonne Hollis with the Arizona Regional Economic Development 
Foundation tweeted:

       NAFTA and our trade partners in Mexico have allowed us to 
     grow the aerospace industry in southern Arizona, which is key 
     to our economic development.

  Dairy farmer Jim Boyle notes:

       Most of our customers are local--right here in our State--
     but our biggest customer outside of Arizona is Mexico. We 
     ship daily loads of cheese, powder, and tank loads of cream 
     all the way through Mexico. Please, let's keep NAFTA working 
     for the American farmer.

  Other comments I have received through my website include statements 
like ``I have enjoyed a constant supply of fresh fruits and vegetables 
in these years of NAFTA. I have also noticed . . . how relatively 
inexpensive many household items have been since'' and ``We supply 
parts that cross the border multiple times before they reach final 
assembly in the U.S. Free trade is vital to our success and the success 
of our customers who not only get us where we need to go but protect 
our shores and vital interests.''
  The Arizona Chamber of Commerce noted in its comments on NAFTA:

       Agreement is central to the State's economic prosperity.

  The NAFTA agreement, that is.

       Mexico is Arizona's leading trade partner. Canada is the 
     State's second leading trade partner.

  In an interview focused on the NAFTA renegotiation process, the CEO 
of Arizona's Hispanic chamber stated: ``We know that Mexican nationals 
spend over a billion dollars a year in just Pima County.'' That is just 
one county.
  It is hardly surprising to hear such overwhelmingly positive support 
for NAFTA, considering the benefits it has had on Arizona's economy.
  NAFTA 4 AZ has helped to put on paper what Arizonans know all too 
well: NAFTA plays a critical role in supporting jobs, opportunity, and 
economic growth. It has been great to hear from people all over the 
State talking about how NAFTA has helped them and asking the 
administration to modernize NAFTA, not to end it.
  NAFTA 4 AZ submissions, as well as comments submitted to the USTR 
from Arizona stakeholders, share one common plea: Do not harm the 
trilateral structure and the reciprocal market access of NAFTA.
  Earlier this week the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative made 
public its negotiating objectives for NAFTA. Based on what the USTR 
released, it appears the administration has recognized the importance 
of this central tenet of NAFTA. I am pleased that it appears that the 
administration will seek to modernize NAFTA along the well-worn lines 
of what was negotiated for the now defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership 
Agreement.
  I think we can all agree that addressing the issues of digital trade 
and intellectual property in the agreement, which is more than 20 years 
old, is the key to NAFTA's continued success. Let's modernize it, not 
end it.
  However, these negotiating objectives mark the next step in a long 
process that will have tremendous impact on Arizona's economy, for 
better or for worse. Unfortunately, the path forward for NAFTA remains 
uncertain and there is a long road to travel before we get to a place 
where the United States, Mexico, and Canada can all agree to an updated 
NAFTA.
  From the vegetable fields of Yuma to the warehouses in Nogales, to 
the small retailers along the southern border, to the hotels throughout 
the valley, to the ranches up north where I grew up in Snowflake, NAFTA 
is important to all Arizonans.
  I will review the administration's objectives closely as I continue 
to talk to Arizonans about what they need to ensure vibrant cross-
border trading.
  I look forward to continued consultation between Congress and the 
administration as this process to modernize NAFTA moves forward.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak this 
evening in support of the confirmation of David Bernhardt to be Deputy 
Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
  The Deputy Secretary is the department's COO, or chief operating 
officer. This is the individual who holds the position to really 
execute the strategy and oversee the initiatives that are undertaken by 
thousands of employees as they carry out their statutory duties and the 
administration's agenda. It is a very key position.
  I believe very strongly that Secretary Zinke has chosen a strong 
individual for this position of Deputy Secretary. Mr. Bernhardt is a 
fellow westerner. He comes from the small town of Rifle, CO. He 
understands the management of Federal lands and how it affects those 
who live near them, the implications of Federal policies, and the need 
for balance between conservation and development.
  David is an avid sportsman. He likes to hunt. He likes to fish. He 
likes to get outside and enjoy the outdoors.
  Mr. Bernhardt also has extensive experience at the Department of the 
Interior. He previously spent several years as its solicitor, and this 
is a position for which he was confirmed by this Senate Chamber by 
voice vote. So he has gone through this process before and was endorsed 
strongly at the time.
  Throughout his time at the Department of the Interior, Mr. Bernhardt 
gained expertise about a range of Alaska and western issues. He also 
has a strong reputation as a manager which, of course, is critical for 
a Deputy Secretary.
  Mr. Bernhardt's nomination is supported by dozens of Members of this 
Chamber and by dozens of stakeholder groups. He has been endorsed by a 
broad coalition of sportsmen's groups as well, including Ducks 
Unlimited, the Safari Club, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
Partnership. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the 
National Water Resources Association, the Family Farm Alliance, NCAI, 
or the National Conference of American Indians, and the Southern Ute 
Indian Tribe are just a few more that have weighed in favorably on his 
behalf.
  Mr. Bernhardt also fared well throughout the confirmation process, 
proving again that he is a good choice for this role. We held a hearing 
on his nomination on May 18. We reported him favorably from the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support. We moved that 
out on June 4. So we have had about 6 weeks now where others have had 
an opportunity to review him and review his credentials. It is 
unfortunate that he has had to wait 6 weeks. I know that Secretary 
Zinke is anxious to put him to work. He is now ready this evening to be 
confirmed by the full Senate.
  I would like to thank David Bernhardt for his willingness to return 
to Federal service. I think he will be a very capable second-in-command 
for Secretary Zinke, helping to steer the Department in a positive 
direction. Alaskans, especially this one, are looking forward to 
working with him.
  I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Bernhardt's confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  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. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, David Bernhardt is a well-qualified 
nominee to serve as our next Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
  The Department of the Interior is charged with managing our wildlife, 
our public lands, including our national parks and refuges, and our 
Nation's rich natural resources, which are key to American energy 
independence. They are charged with the sacred responsibility of 
protecting the Federal Government's trust responsibility to Indian 
Tribes.

[[Page 11375]]

  Managing the Department of the Interior is a complex balancing act. 
We need someone who is able to balance these competing interests, and 
we need someone who understands the importance of our public lands.
  David Bernhardt has spent his life balancing competing interests, 
weighing the stewardship of our natural resources and wildlife with the 
letter of the law. His relationship to our lands and the western way of 
life is not second nature; it is first.
  Mr. Bernhardt was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 2006 as the 
Solicitor of the Department. As Solicitor he proved he was capable of 
upholding the law, even under difficult situations. My colleagues may 
remember that he wrote the opinion that decided to list the polar bear 
and drafted a workable rule. As we know, Secretary Salazar then upheld 
this rule.
  As Solicitor, he prioritized establishing a robust ethics team at the 
Department. That ethics team still exists today.
  Mr. Bernhardt has proven to have the highest level of integrity and 
work ethic. For heaven's sake, he is a westerner. He is from Rifle, CO, 
and the importance of our public lands and wildlife flows through his 
veins like a lot of us who live out West. I have confidence that he 
will be a dedicated servant to our western way of life, where we love 
to hunt, to fish, to hike on our public lands. I have confidence in 
this because I know he loves this way of life as well.
  I am not the only one who has this confidence. Listen to this list of 
support from groups across our country that support his appointment: 
the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; Ducks Unlimited; the 
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Boone and Crockett Club, and others 
that many Montanans are members of, including the Mule Deer Foundation, 
the NRA, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
  While the U.S. Senate confirmed Ryan Zinke as Secretary of the 
Interior, he became the first Montanan, my friend Ryan Zinke, to serve 
on the President's Cabinet since our statehood in 1889. It sent a 
message that the Department of the Interior would have our Montana 
values and our western values, and the confirmation of David Bernhardt 
as Deputy Secretary would make good on that promise.
  While Montanans and westerners highly value access to our public 
lands and wildlife, Montanans are also pleading--pleading--for our land 
management agencies to be better partners, to work alongside our 
States, and to work alongside our landowners.
  Secretary Zinke needs a right-hand man to make sure we uphold our 
commitment to Indian Nations. Secretary Zinke promised to rebuild trust 
in our Federal land and wildlife management agencies and strengthen the 
government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes. He needs a 
deputy in place who can help implement this vision to restore trust and 
balance to the Department of the Interior for Montanans.
  My colleagues, it is time Secretary Zinke has a Deputy we can all 
count on, and I look forward to casting my vote for David Bernhardt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is expired. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the 
Bernhardt nomination?
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from West Virginia 
(Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 166 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Alexander
     Capito
     McCain
     Toomey
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with 
respect to the Bernhardt nomination the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________