and wait, delaying the process from the day one inauguration day of the administration. now, how much of the 30 hours did the democrats actually spend debating this person's qualifications to be head of the c.i.a.? less than two hours. waste 30 hours of the whole time. only two hours was used in debate. that's how long the democrats spent on this floor giving their reasons why they wanted to vote against the nominee. nothing to do with mr. pompeo. it was just so democrats could waste three more days allowing nothing else to happen, blocking other activities in the senate. and the rules allow the democrats to stall, and they took full advantage of the rules. mr. president, it is time, in my opinion, to end this partisan spectacle. we have 78 more nominees for various jobs who made it through their committee hearings and are waiting for a vote on this

floor. most of these people have bipartisan support. they can be and will be confirmed easily. the administration still has to waste time to get their team in place, and yet democrats aren't using the rules for debate. they're not using the rules for deliberation. it is only for delay. it hasn't always been this way, and there's no reason it should continue this way, mr. president. the senate had a different standard for executive branch nominations a few years ago. in 2013 and 2014, the rules said that we would have a full 30 hours of debate only for cabinet secretaries. for all other executive branch presidential appointees, only eight hours of debate. today we allow 30 hours on every nomination. and democrats have shown that in most cases it's far too much time. mr. president, we need a fair debate on every nomination. the procedure from 2013 and 2014

was fair. the way democrats are wasting time today to keep us from doing work is not fair. it's time to return to the rules for debating nominations that the senate used four years ago. now the rules that we used in 2013 and 2014 were the result of a compromise. democrats controlled the senate at the time, and a democrat was making the nominations. that was president obama. republicans agreed to a fair time limit on the amount of debate. it was a bipartisan group that worked on this compromise. four republicans, four democrats. mr. president, i was part of that group. i was one of the four republicans. senator schumer who is now the democratic leader was part of the group as well. there was overwhelming support for these changes on both sides of the aisle. it's time to change the senate rules and go back to that process that senator schumer supported in 2013 and 2014 when democrats were in the majority.

today democrats deliberately delay in ways that limit us to a couple of nominations in a typical week. we go back to the 2014 standard, we could clear multiple nominations in a single day. we should have this process back in place by the time we take up mike pompeo's nomination to be secretary of state when we get back in april. mr. president, the world's a dangerous place. we have serious concerns about russia, iran, china. important trade issues that we need to be working on. the president will be meeting in, with the north korean leader kim jong un. america needs tpof a full slate of -- needs to have a full slate of people helping the president on these issues, and we need them to be correct, very talented people that a president needs. and we're fortunate to have mike pompeo as the likely nominee to be secretary of state. he's the right person for the job. he knows the issues, he knows the people.

he has the intelligence, he has the integrity and he has the experience for the job. we'll be having hearings in the committee in april. let's have a hearing, fair debate and then let's vote. let's not have continued stalling tactics, pointless obstruction that democrats have engaged in ever since the first day that president trump took office. mike pompeo's nomination to be secretary of state will still get 30 hours of debate. and after that we'll need to confirm a new c.i.a. director. last year we allowed 30 hours of debate on that nomination, and democrats used only 2 of the 30. under the compromise rules that i think we should return to, we would allow up to eight hours of debate. it's clearly enough, more than most people would think would be needed. we have more than 100 other qualified people who have been voted on and approved by the appropriate senate committee, and they're waiting to do important jobs. with all of the threats that our

country is facing around the world, it's time for democrats in the senate to stop wasting time, stop aubg -- abusing the rules. it's time for democrats to join republicans and the president to do all we can to keep america prosperous, safe, and secure. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i come to the floor to talk about h.r. 58 -- i'm sorry. h.r. 4851, legislation that just recently passed the senate in the last hour or so, and hopefully is on its way to final reconciliation with the house and hopefully becoming law later today. but before i talk about that, i just wanted to take a second to recognize some work that is in the omnibus that we're also going to be voting on in the next few hours, two provisions very important to the pacific northwest. one a final, finally a fix on

fire borrowing that is so important to the entire northwest but particularly the state of washington, who has seen the great impact of forest fires in the last several years. this will end the fire borrowing that we have seen that has prevented us from doing the kind of fuel reduction that we would like to see to protect our communities. and it will help us better manage with stewardship contracts and release the funds that should be going to recreation management within our forests. so this fire funding fix has been long in the making, and i want to thank my colleagues, senator wyden, and crapo for their hard work on this and to thank brian batite in my office. we are starting a new day on how we treat our forests and hopefully one that will reduce the risks in many communities. i want to thank our colleagues for working on including a

provision on affordable housing. this is the first affordable housing increase in a decade. and i want to thank specifically senator schumer and senator mcconnell and senator hatch, my cosponsor on this legislation, to helping us get this done. this is not everything we would like to see in affordable housing, but certainly it is starting to point in the right direction. i want to also thank anna taylor, artie mendell, laura mulldoon and jay kosola for working so diligently in trying to make the housing crisis something we have to deal with here in the united states senate. for us in the pacific northwest, the homelessness crisis, our returning veterans, our aging population, workforce housing have become the number-one issue. and for seattle and the whole northwest, starting to put more resources on the table to build affordable housing is the right direction, and we need it

desperately now. and this legislation will help us. now i come with my colleagues, senator young -- and i know that senator donnelly wishes he could join us -- to talk about the legislation that representative andrei carson has sent to the senate, and we just recently passed back to the house. this bill designates the landmark for peace memorial, which is located in a park in indianapolis, the martin luther king jr. park, and designate it as a commemorative site as the kennedy-king national commemorative site. this legislation provides that this site shall be part of the african american civil rights network which congress established last december, and it will be the only second commemorative site in our beloved national park system. the other designation went to charleston, arkansas, the

location of the first public school in the south to be fully integrated. this commemorative site which will remain as part of a city park, it's not going to be part of a national park system although i'm happy to discuss that with my colleagues moving forward, this national park service is to authorize a cooperative agreement to help provide for education and interpretation of this site. the young-donnelly amendment removes language in the bill authorizing the park service to conduct a special resource study and assess whether its potential for its inclusion in the national park system. i know my colleague, senator young, is here on the floor, and i thank him for his leadership. and i hope that someday he and i can continue to, with senator donnelly, expound on this and revisit this issue. the original legislation passed, i think, almost unanimously out of the house of representatives. i know senator young worked hard to clear the one objection on our side. but i don't think that one

objection should delay us from furthering our interest in this area. i would like to, mr. president, enter into the record at this point in time the full text of robert f. kennedy's speech in indianapolis on april 4, 1968, the 50th anniversary coming up next week, if i could. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, someday and some days we need a reminder of what perspective in the face of crisis really accomplishes. we know that 50 years later from this historic speech, we have an understanding about how incredibly magnificent this moment was. so i am so glad to join my colleague in commemorating it. it was about holding the consciousness of a society and how to respond to an

unbelievable, unbelievable tragic, violent event and to hold the consciousness of a society with words. just words. just words. and that's the point, that words matter. that words matter to a society. and it is what holds us together. it is what creates unity. it's what creates perspective. and in this case, it is also what created history. senator kennedy spoke to a crowd in indianapolis and announced the death of martin luther king. an unbelievable responsibility. and if you watch now in a video, you will hear the gasp of the audience who was unaware that that moment had taken place.

and yet he spoke to the crowd about why violence and retribution should not be pursued. he created calm among chaos. he created a moment where everybody realized that they were commemorating the life of dr. martin luther king, that his life had been about a nonviolent response to tragedy and to the challenges that we face. when we commemorate this moment with a national plaque, we are commemorating a moment, in my opinion, of the human spirit. we are commemorating a moment about what incredible pain robert kennedy must have felt knowing that martin luther king

had just been assassinated, but yet he spoke to the crowd about keeping the peace and remembering the lessons of dr. king. we will never know what kind of presidency r.f.k. might have given our nation, but we know this from this speech. we know what kind of man he was, and we know what kind of human spirit and soul can communicate in that moment of tragedy the direction of a nation. it's so important at this moment of our history that we reflect on this 50th anniversary. at a time when it's better to take words and speak calm and confidence in the face of tragedy, i hope that here in washington we will remember one of the greatest political speeches of all times. i thank the president.

i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: mr. president, earlier today the senate passed the kennedy-king national commemorative site act, an effort that i was pleased to lead here in the senate alongside my colleague, senator donnelly. this important legislation commemorates the landmark for peace memorial in indianapolis and establishes the site as part of the african american civil rights network. the act would not have passed without the support of both chairman murkowski and ranking member cantwell, and i want to thank both of them and their hardworking staff for their

assistance in this effort. i also want to extend my sincere gratitude to representative brooks, senator donnelly, and representative carson for working with me to pass this measure that recognizes a significant moment in indiana and our nation's history. two weeks from now on april 4,tl commemorate the 50th anniversary of senator robert f. kennedy's timeless speech in the circle city. on that fateful evening in 1968, senator kennedy was scheduled to be in indianapolis for a campaign event. as senator kennedy arrived in indianapolis late that evening, he learned of the tragic death of martin luther king jr. in memphis, tennessee. senator kennedy decided to speak to the assembled hoosiers who had come to see him and inform them of the tragic news of king's death. he confirmed the terrible rumors many were beginning to hear that evening in the course of his words. now, cities throughout america

were erupting in rights in many instances as they learned of martin luther king jr.'s assassination. however, in indianapolis, senator kennedy spoke to the grief-stricken crowd and he inspired them. he inspired them to replace the hatred they felt with compassion and love. to this day, hoosiers warmly remember senator kennedy's moving speech, and we recognize his heartfelt words as a reason why indianapolis remained calm and peaceful while riots swept much of the nation. i'd like to close today wit wita quote from senator kennedy's speech, powerful words which still ring true. these words will forever mark senator kennedy's grave in arlington national seem tariff what. we need in the united states is

not division. what we need in the united states is not hatred. what we need in the united states is not violence and lawlessness but is love and wisdom and compassion toward one another and a feeling of justice towards those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, the senator from maine will arrive in just a moment, and i would like to ask consent for up to an hour for me to address the senate, followed -- within that hour -- by senator collins from maine, senator graham, senator rounds, the four of us and others who wish to speak on the health insurance issue would

like to take that hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i'm here today to talk about the plumber making $60,000 whose health insurance is $20,000 and he pays for all of it. and about the fact that the bill we're about to vote on today could have had in it bipartisan legislation supported by the president of the united states, the majority leader, and the speaker of the house that would have reduced that plumber's health insurance bill from $12,000 to $8,000. that's according to the oliver wyman health consulting experts, who have evaluated the bipartisan legislation that we proposed to do that. and the only reason, mr. president, it doesn't have that in there is because democrats have objected to

putting on this bill we're voting on today the traditional hyde amendment, which governs how dollars are spent when an abortion is involvement the traditional hyde amendment is a compromise that's been on every appropriations bill -- and this is an aopenings pros bill -- since 1976 that democrats have voted for hundreds of times, republicans have voted for it hundreds of times, and, mr. president, on this very bill we're voting on today more than 100 times the hyde language applies to other programs. so democrats are scrambling and embarrassed coming up with excuse after excuse trying to explain to the self-employed businessperson, the farmer, the songwriter, the plumber who might be making $60,000 or $70,000 and paying $20,000 for their insurance and paying it all with no government subsidy, why they're blocking a 40%

reduction in their health insurance while they want to apply the hyde language to the health insurance rate reduction, and they will apply it to 100 other programs -- not just in past voting but, mr. president, today, every single democrat today who votes for the omnibus bill will be voting to apply the hyde language restricting abortion to at least 100 other programs. for example, how will they explain to the plumber, the farmer, the self-employed businesswoman, i will apply the hyde language and restrict federal funding for abortions to the national institutes of health but not to reduce your health insurance rates 40%? i will apply the hyde language to community health centers today but i'm going to block -- i'm going to block the bipartisan proposal to reduce your health insurance 40% that's supported by the president, the majority leader, and the speaker

of the house? i will vote today to apply the hyde lon language to the federal employment health insurance but i won't -- i won't vote for a health insurance program to reduce your rates by 40% because i won't apply the hyde language to it? mr. president, how are they going to explain today and next october when the insurance rates are announced for 2019 and 2020 and 2021 that they had an opportunity in march of this year to reduce rates in 2019, 2020, and 2021 by 40% and they refused to do it because they said we will not apply the traditional hyde language to health insurance even though we're going to apply it to indian health programs, to v.a. women's health medical care, to global health programs, to the ryan white hiv-aids program, to 100 programs that democrats will

be voting on today to apply the hyde language to. they'll do that, but they're going to block bipartisan legislation supported by the president, the majority leader, and the speaker that will reduce the health insurance rates of the plumber making $60,000 from $20,000 to $12,000. mr. president, i want to speak about that plumber. i want to speak ahead to october 1 when the rates for 2019 are announced. i want to talk about marty the farmer in tennessee who i met at the cic filet. i can't afford health insurance. i said i have a christmas present for you. then i thought i had a valentine present for her. then i thought i had an easter present for her because we got bipartisan legislation supported by the president, the majority leader, and the speaker.

and i said, we can put that in the omnibus bill. we can pass it by the end of march and we can reduce your rates. there are 9 million americans, mr. president, who don't get insurance on the job. they don't get insurance from the government. they buy it themselves. they're hardworking americans. they're the plumber, the farmer, the small businessperson. they're making $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, $90,000 a year. their insurance costs are $15,000, $20,000, 25,000. they're rapidly approaching a point where they have to go without insurance because they can't afford it and we have a way to do something about that. it's happening in my state of tennessee. rates went up another 57% last year for those people. that's thousands of dollars. yet we could have today reduced their rates by thousands of dollars. here's how. we've developed two bipartisan bills beginning in the fall. our committee, the health,

education, labor, and pensions committee held forelegs. we had round tables to which we invited all the senators. senator murray and, the ranking member, presided over all of this. we tried to see what we could do and came up what we call the alexander-murray benefit it had two parts to t the first part was regulatory reform. we took the 13432 innovation wavered and made it possible for states to streamline it and use it. we also added a few other things. we changed the law so that minnesota and new york could use the basic health plan, could tap into the subsidies in the way those states wanted to do t that's $1 billion in new york. democrats are blocking that today. $130 million in minnesota, $1 billion in new york. democrats are saying no to that today. because why? they won't apply the hyde

insurance to the health insurance rate increase even though they're going to apply it to 150 other pieces of legislation in this bill. so we did the regulatory reform. then, mr. president, we did something many republicans didn't want to do and the president didn't want to do to start with. we extended the cost-sharing subsidy payments for three more years. these are payments to reduce rates for low-income people on their co-pays and deductibles. we agreed to do that. and then senator collins and senator nelson, republican, democrat, came up with a plan. the house did, too, representative costello, to add reinsurance. reinsurance is something is that in ourerings who in our meetings, virtually every senator of both parties said, we need to do that because the reason the individual market is in such trouble is it has so many of the sickest americans in it and they're soaking up all the money. so the reinsurance program that wwe suggest and have in our bil, senator collins, senator

nelson's bill, three years, $10 billion a year, would give states funds as well as planning money to set up those invisible risk pools, those reinsurance programs that will remit the sickest americans to have their needs taken care of and you'll lower the rates for everybody else. so we have regulatory reform three years of cost-sharing subsidies, three years of reinsurance, $10 billion a year. the congressional budget office says, if you score it based on real spending, it actually saves the government money. -- by reducing the premiums that taxpayers have to pay for. $1 billion advantage for new york for each of the next three years. $130 million for minnesota, each of the next three years. we fix the problem in new hampshire to allow new hampshire -- both senators and the republican governor -- senators

democrat, republica governor a n -- saying please do this. we say, yes, you can do that. so can every state. within the affordable care act we did what democrats having saying to do. we said we'll work with you to fix it. the part that needs fixing is the part causing the plumber who makes $60,000 to pay $20,000 for his health insurance and we have a way to fix it to reduce it by 40% according to the oliver wyman consulting, by 20% according to the congressional budget office, yet the democrats are blocking it today because they won't apply the traditional hyde language that they voted for every single year since 1976 in the omnibus bill and that they believe voting today for 100-plus times. how do you explain that to the phrurpl?

how do you -- to the plumber, how do you explain that to the nine million americans who see their rates going through the roof? let's don't make any mistake about who's doing this. we're big boys and girls here in the united states senate. when we take a stand, we ought to admit it. what the democrats are doing is they're blocking a 40% rate decrease for one single reason. one single reason. the president of the united states supports it, the speaker supports it, the majority leader supports it, we're ready to put it in the bill, and they say no. now let's look down the road to october. all the insurance companies will announce their rates for 2019 and we'll be looking ahead to 2020 and 2021. rates will be going up instead of going down. the farmer, the self-employed person, the songwriter, they're going to be saying how am i going to be able to afford this? nothing is more important to americans than health care. nothing is more frightening to

americans than the prospect of not being able to afford to buy health care. and that, mr. president, is what we're doing here. what we're doing here. i'm greatly disappointed by this. i've spent hundreds of hours on this since september. i've had, we had a piece of legislation introduced on this floor by 12 republicans and 12 democrats that the democratic leader said every single democrat would vote for and the national democratic chairman said was great bipartisan legislation. mr. president, that's two-thirds of our bill. what's the other third? the other third is the collins-nelson bill that adds $10 billion a year for reinsurance. the governors like this. the state insurance commissioners like this. the plumber and songwriter like it. who doesn't like it? a few democrats who are saying that the hyde language which says, let's be specific what it says, it says you can't use federal funds for elective

abortions but you may use any other funds. that's exactly the law we, that we have in our bill. the hyde language is in the bill we're going to be voting on later today. it was put there in 1976. it's adopted year after year. it's on page 1036 if anybody wants to look it up. then there's language in the bill we're going to be voting on today restricting federal employee health benefits. hyde-like language. it's on page 588. you're going to be voting for it today. then there's the title x family planning legislation. that's in the bill you're going to be voting for today. that's hyde language. there's the mexico city legislation. you're going to vote for that today but you're going to tell the farmer, the songwriter, the employer that they're not allowed to have a 40% health insurance decrease. they're go the to have to not be able to afford health insurance for their families. federal funding for the d.c. government, you're going to vote for that today. using funds for elective abortions is restricted in the

bill that we're voting on today. so, mr. president, senator collins, the senator from maine, is here. the senator from south carolina is here. they worked hard on this. we are a group of senators who i think are seen as trying to get results around here and we are greatly disappointed by this. not just for this institution but for the people we serve, because the hard, simple fact is we have legislation that could be in this bill that will reduce your health insurance rates by 40% starting in 2019 and continuing for the next two years until it gets up to 40. we have the support of the president. we have the support of the speaker. we have the support of the majority leader. but the democratic leader said you can't have it in the bill. we're going to vote 100 times to apply the hyde language to everything from the national institutes of health to community health centers, but we're not going to let you reduce health care rates.

that's why democrats are scrambling coming up with excuse after excuse. they're going to have to really come up with scrambling and excuse after excuse on october 1 when the rates are announced. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i'll be very brief, but the first thing i want to do is thank senators alexander and collins for trying to work very hard to solve a problem that we can fix. there are a lot of things about health care that can't be fixed between now and tomorrow. this is not one of them. health care is very come flex. i think there's a better way to do health than obamacare. most republicans want to replace it. most democrats want to repair it. we're not talking about that. we're talking about an island of agreement that will matter between now and october. so what senator alexander and

murray came up with, you had bipartisan support. there's two provisions that allow flexibility in terms of the 1332 regulations and to continue payments to make sure that that person who makes too much for a subsidy but not enough to be self-sufficient when it comes to health care gets a little bit of help is the plumber and the other people that senator alexander described. president obama took care of these people through executive action. that has been found to be unconstitutional by our courts. so legislatively we're trying to continue this program to help somebody whose premiums are going through the roof that are not eligible for the statutory subsidies but create a new level of help that will keep their premiums from skyrocketing, actually decrease their premiums in october by 40%. so there's a lot of things we can agree on.

there's a lot of things we can accomplish when it comes to health care. but this is not one of them. and i can only imagine how these two senators feel. senator collins, working with senator nelson from florida, added a third provision to the alexander-murray concept that makes eminent sense. i doubt there is one governor in the country that would oppose what senator collins is trying to do, allow states to petition for federal funding to help the states with the sickest people in that state by coming up with innovative high-risk pools, allowing states to experiment with what works best for the sickest people in their state, by accessing federal funding. you can't spend it on roads and bridges, but you can use it for the high-risk population, the people that drive the most cost. and i doubt if there's any governor in the country that would say that's a bad idea.

senator nelson thinks it's a good idea. our most conservative members in the house think it's a good idea. we've taken alexander-murray and added a third component that i think is an excellent idea. when you combine the three things, you can lower costs by 40% for that self-insured person who makes over $45,000 and lower their premiums by 40% by october. so it matters a lot to the people described, and there are millions of these people that are going to get a 40% -- won't get a 40% reduction. they're going to get a 10% or 20% increase, and already they're paying about 25% to 30% of their income just for health care. so it's just mind-boggling that we are where we are. i just add this and turn it over to senator rounds. how did we get here? i think the desire to control the house and take back the senate is overwhelming the

policy. somebody on the other side believes that if we can block this proposal, the collins-nelson proposal, the alexander-murray proposal, if we can keep that from coming law, these premium increases that are surely to come will fall upon the republican party and will give us yet another tool to take back the house and regain the majority in the senate. the reason i say that is because i've come to believe there is no other explanation. and that is sad. that, to me, is a real dropping of the democratic party in terms of the role they play around here. we work together where we can. sometimes we're wrong. sometimes they're right. sometimes it's the other way around. but this is the one occasion where we seem to have been right up until now.

now why is it not in the omnibus bill? because of democrat objections. last saturday we spent an hour on the phone with the president of the united states. senator collins, senator alexander, and myself, and congressman wall den, talking about this proposal, about how it would lower premiums, how it's good policy, and this is the right way to continue to help the people in question. at the end of the hour discussion, the president said count me in. i want to help. i agree to the concept. what would you like me to do? it never crossed our minds to call a democrat. our concern was the house, that we needed the president to call speaker ryan. senator mcconnell was enthusiastically for this. we honestly believed that the problem would be in the house with our freedom caucus friends.

and we asked the president to call the speaker of the house, kevin mccarthy, and he did. and the speaker told him, we're for it. and i thought home run. between last saturday and now what happened is that nancy pelosi, the minority leader in the house, and senate democrats have objected to this proposal, and the rationale is abortion. the language that is in law is exactly the same language that would apply to this legislation. so the stupak language applying to the affordable care act dealing with federal funds and abortion is still the law of the land. but under the omnibus approach, we're going to run the subsidies through the labor-h.h.s. bill

where hyde protection would apply. no more, no less than any other federal dollar dealing with health care. and senator alexander has done a very good service to the body. in the bill that we will vote on here soon, there are over 100 applications of the hyde language to health care spending at the federal level. apparently these dollars don't make the cut. why? they know that if we don't get this relief in march, in october premiums are going to go up, and they're literally making up a phony excuse based on hyde protections. the reason i know it's phony, if they really believe what they're saying about hyde language, they wouldn't vote for this bill at all. because every other federal dollar runs through the same system we're proposing this go

through. so if you really cared about the abortion issue the way you claim, you could not support this bill or any other piece of legislation that's been around since 1976. so clearly the hyde problem is not much of a problem when it comes to every other federal health care dollar. it's only a problem here. and the only reason it's a problem here is you don't want us as republicans working with you to fix a problem that needs to be fixed because you're thinking of october in terms of your political future. you're not thinking of october in terms of people. and here's what i hope happens to you. i hope you lose votes. now we've got our problems on our side. we'll probably pay a price come november about some of the things we've done wrong. all i can say to my democratic

colleagues, is if the reason you're stopping this provision from becoming law is that you think it gives you a political advantage in november because of premium increases in october, and this is exactly why the american people hate politics so much. and i want to be on record in march as being a member of the senate who works with the other side when i can, surrounded by people on my side of the aisle who historically are seen as is en terrorists when it comes to -- as centrists when it comes to trying to solve problems. there is nobody on this floor with the reputation of being an ideologue. senator collins is a pro-choice republican and she is okay with sending these dollars through hyde protections because they have been around so long. lisa murkowski is a pro-choice republican. she was saying yesterday she's dumbfounded about this argument about abortion. so play the tape later on.

when the premiums go up 10% to 20%, for hardworking people and there's a debate about why that happened, i want somebody to play this tape. because we've got 24 hours to stop that. and every expert who's looked at this says the following, that if you do lockbox-murray-collins-nelson, you will prevent a premium increase of 10% to 20% and you will lower premiums in the next couple of years by up to 40%. i don't know what the day is -- it is some day in march; i have lost which day it is. but when that day comes about in october, i want to play this tape because we had a chance today to fix this problem and the only reason we're not going to do is to because of our

democratic colleagues' decision to play politics with this issue rather than solve a problem. the president of the united states is for this. the majority leader of the united states senate is for this. the speaker of the house is for this. every republican leader is for this. the senators on the floor who were democrats are for this. we're urging our colleagues before it's too late to change your mind and get this into the omnibus in a fashion to lower premiums, not sit on the sidelines and watch them go up so when the debate happens in october, play this tape. i yield. a senator: plop? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. rounds: thank you, mr. president. first of all, let me offer my thanks to senator alexander and senator collins and let me add my support for what senator

graham has just indicated in terms of the importance of this particular amendment to the omnibus bill. look, i'm a pro-life republican, and by allowing the hyde amendment to prevail in this particular case, like it does with all of the other funding that we send back to the states so that it cannot be used to fund abortions -- and that's what this is all about -- then it allows us to still continue on to provide with a clear conscience the dollars necessary to provide health care for individuals that otherwise may not get it. what this particular proposal allows is for states to once again take charge of part of the health care that we want to see delivered at the local level. by taking section 1332 and expanding what states can do, we actually provide more local control, which is a conservative approach. it's also one more opportunity

to reduce the impact of what many of us have said was a mistake with obamacare in the first place. now, for conservatives, a lot of us campaigned on the fact we wanted to repeal and replace obamacare. when you repeal it and you replace it, you would have to have 60 votes here to do so. in this particular case what we've said is, let's take those parts which are the most onerous and let's take those parts which are adding to the part of health care and take those out. but let's provide and continue to provide the protections that some people feel that obamacare was responsible for -- guaranteed renewable products. that was included in south dakota's law before obamacare every came along. the opportunity for everybody to apply for a policy and to be accepted one way or another. what this allows, this particular piece of legislation, is for perhaps as many as 3.2 million americans to actually be

able to afford the policies that today they can't afford. i believe senator alexander uses the example of someone making $60,000 a year and has a bill of $20,000. -- for their health care. the reality is, that person is simile not buying health care. so let's allow those folks the opportunity to have a reduction in the premiums that otherwise they just simply can't afford to have, that they can't afford to pay. what this also allows is for the states on a very responsible basis to do what senator collins, who was a former insurance commissioner, understands so clearly. what we've done with obamacare is we've forced individuals who have no place to go into what is called the individual market. when we force all of the individuals or the vast majority of the individuals who have health problems into the individual market to get coverage, that drives artificially the cost of that individual policy up. now, that only makes up that individual -- that individual market makes up 6% of the total

amount of the people who are covered. but that 6% of the premium going in picks up an unfairly large number of individuals who have no place else to go to get insurance. that drives the cost of the premium up for those individuals making it in many cases more costly than they could ever afford. what this provision allows with a reinsurance provision for the states is for a state to say, look, issue the policies, but then allow us to expand the base over which we spread those losses. let those state dozen that. this works successfully before obamacare was ever bad dream. what this allows for is for us to take a larger base of people to share and to spread that risk. when you do that, when you do that, you make that market more stable and you start to invite carriers to step back into the market. that's what this is all about. now, i'm not going to try to assign the intention of our colleagues on the other side of

the aisle. i'm a pragmatist. i really do believe that we've got some very sincere colleagues on the other side of the aisle who understand how important this is. what i would invite is this -- i'm a conservative republican. i want to see this move forward. i think for the good of the american people, this is the right move to make. i would simply ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the good this would do for people across this entire country and to find a way to work through this process in such a fashion that they can comfort bring come forward and help us get this to the finish line. if we can do this, we will make things better, not just for those 3.2 million americans who would be able to qualify for insurance once again and be able to pay for it, but we honestly believe that somewhere between -- and this is the congressional budget office, which is suggesting this -- 20% of the premium that would otherwise pay solidly would be reduced. and in some cases, according to

health care professionals in the private market, these are the people that actually suggest and work with the insurance companies, they're saying as much as 40% of that total cost could be reduce. this is not a part sang issue. this is a matter of trying to actually make an impact on the lives of real americans who need our help. remember that the american people did not ask for obamacare, but they're the ones that are suffering because of the premium increases caused by this law in the first place. what we're trying to do and what is hopefully an acceptable fashion, find colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will once again join us in this legislation which they had previously supported to find a way to step forward and to actually help fix a problem for real americans. i once again would thank the senator from tennessee for all of the hard work he's done. as a former governor, he

understands that once in a while you reach across the aisle, you find ways to get things done. in the senate, it requires 60 votes to make this a i thank senator collins for her work. she's a former insurance commissioner. she gets it. she understands it. we want to find the common ground that it takes to actually fix a problem for the american people. this is not and should not be a partisan issue to fix a problem that we all agree exists today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. colorad-- ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today we have the opportunity to take immediate

action to lower the cost of health insurance by as much as 40% and to increase the affordability of insurance for millions of americans who purchase plans in the individual market. i want to commend senator alexander, the chairman of the senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee, for his extraordinary leadership and hard work in this area. i'm also very pleased with the work that has been done by representative gregg waldon, the chairman of the house energy and commerce committee and representative costello. we have come back along with a substantial number of our colleagues, including senators graham, rounds, isakson and

murkowski, among many oh, on this very important insurance stabilization and rate reduction package. let me begin by outlining the major provisions of what it is that we are proposing, flaws has been -- because there has been, unfortunately, mr. president, a lot of misunderstanding and, tear i say, misinformation. first, our legislation based on the alexander-murray bill would fund the cost-sharing reductions subsidies for three years. these are vital for americans who have incomes that are below 250% of the poverty level. c.s.r. provides government assistance to help them pay for

their deductibles and their co-pays. second, our proposal also improves the ability of the states to take further steps to lower insurance premiums for their citizens. we provide meaningful flexibility for states by revising section 1332 of the affordable care act, which authorizes state innovation waivers. and, third, based on a bill that i authored with senator bill nelson, our proposal provides a total of $30 billion over three years for states to the have reinsurance or invisible high high-risk pools by applying for a waiver under the section 1332 program i just mentioned. now, mr. president, as i know

you wel well know, reinsurance a proven method for dealing with high-risk, expensive claims. it reduces uncertainty and has benefits not only for those who have preexisting conditions and need expensive health care but for the entire individual market. and it's been proven to work in states like maine and alaska. we have also included $500 million to assist states with planning for their design of their own reinsurance or invisible high-risk pools. and the costello bill in the house also had a federal fallback, recognizing that we're late in the year, that we want to provide help immediately,

which we have included for 2019 to give states time to apply for waivers under section 1332. so what does our bill not do, mr. president? our proposal does not change the affordable care act essential benefit requirements. it does not change the guarantee that an individual will be able to buy insurance. it does not change the protections for people with preexisting conditions. and it ensures that the federal funding directly benefits consumers and not insurance companies. in considering this plan, congress faces a fundamental question -- do we want to take action to

reduce significantly the cost of health insurance for millions of americans, or are we just going to sit back, say no, and let this opportunity pass us by? and time is short, mr. president. if congress fails to act, insurance rates in the individual market will skyrocket this fall. this will directly harm the 9 million americans who pay for their own insurance without ghast or employer assistance. -- without government or employer assistance. that's, for example, the fisherman in my state who is self-employed, the electrician, the plumber, the carpenter. there are so many -- the hair

stylist. they're already paying far too much for their health care costs. well, all of them will be facing another double-digit premium increase if they are to be insured. and rates can only be expected to continue to climb. health care premiums are already too expensive under the affordable care act. that is one of the problems with the affordable care act that i had been committed to fixing. last year the average price of the affordable care act's silver plans, which are the most popular plans, increased on average 34%. a growing number of counties in

our country are at risk of having no insurer or only one insurer, leaving hardworking individuals for few or no choices nor health care. inaction will only exacerbate the premium spikes and the market instability that we have already experienced. mr. president, when our country is confronted with such a serious problem, i mean, what is more important than health care to people? americans expect us to come together. they expect us to work constructively. they expect us to provide real relief from the rising costs of

health insurance that makes health insurance unaffordable to far too many americans, and that is precisely what our plan would do. let me be crystal clear. our proposal is the last opportunity -- the last opportunity to prevent these rate increases which will go into effect, which will be announced on october 1, and our package will help to stabilize the insurance markets and make them more competitive. every study has shown that our bill would make health insurance more affordable. according to the leading health care experts at oliver wineman, our bills would lower individual

health insurance premiums in the individual market by as much as 40% compared to what people will otherwise pay if congress fails to act. according to oliver wynneman, it would also expand coverage to an additional 3.2 million americans. now, mr. president, i want to touch on a complicated but important issue that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have raised as a reason not to pass this bill. thf been -- there have been two reasons, one was the application of the hyde amendment, which has been law for decades, which i will talk about subsequently, but the first has to do what is referred to as silver loading

and zero premium bronze plans. first a little background. the affordable care act is designed to provide two key subsidies for enrollees who purchase coverage on the exchange and qualify from an income standpoint. the first is premium tax credits to help cover the costs of premiums for individuals earning between $100 and -- 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. the second are cost-sharing subsidies, or c.s.r.'s to help cover the costs of deductibles and copays and other out-of-pocket expenses for individuals who are very low income. they are earning between 100% and 250% of the federal poverty

level. now, despite the fact that congress never appropriated the funds to pay for the cost-sharing reductions, the obama administration paid them anyway. the house sued to block this strategy and won in federal district court. lacking in appropriation from congress, president trump stopped making these payments last year. that concerned many of us. in response, but let me make clear he was following the court's decision, in response insurance companies came up with the silver loading strategy under which they increased the price of their silver plans to compensate for the cost-saving

reduction payments that they were no longer receiving. in essence, the insurers have created the silver plan that mimic the enrollees. because the tax credits are tied to the silver plan premium, the tax credits ballooned in size producing credits so large that they are often sufficient to cover the premiums on the bronze plans for lower income enrollees. by the way, greatly increase the cost to federal taxpayers which is why that the bill that we put put together by right sizing the market and avoiding the games that were played actually pays for itself. we all remember the old saying

that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. well, free bronze plans for low-income individuals sound too good to be true and they are. and i really hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are listening to this explanation. the fact is that free bronze plans are only a good deal for low-income americans who never get sick, who never get hurt, who never need to use their insurance. if they do, they will pay hundreds of even thousands of dollars more out-of-pocket. while these plans might have lower monthly payments or even be free, they have much higher deductibles and copays.

based on publicly available data pulled from the main exchanges, i'm going to describe an example illustrating that individuals with free bronze plans will face much deeper costs when they try to access care than if they paid the small premium for the silver plan. let's take the example of chris and caroline, ages 34 and 32, living in portland, maine. they bought coverage for themselves on the exchange and their two young children for 2018. they make about $24,500 a year, that's about 40% of the federal poverty level. they saw that they could get a

free bronze plan or they could choose to buy the cheapest silver plan for $54.83 a month. they chose the free bronze plan not realizing that the silver plan would have given them access to subsidies which provide lower deductibles and copays to low-income people. now, if caroline gets pregnant this year and they are under the free bronze plan, guess what they are going to have to pay out-of-pocket, $7,350 -- $3,750, and they make $34,500 a year. have they picked the least

expensive -- had they picked the least expensive silver plan, they would have had to pay $500. or consider a hypothetical couple in their early 30's, jacob and emma with two young children living in seattle, washington. they are making just under $35,000 a year. when they were shopping for coverage on the exchange, they too saw that they could get a free bronze plan or they could buy the least expensive silver plan for about $84 a month. now jacob and emma chose the free bronze plan which doesn't come with the subsidies included in the silver plan to help low-income families with deductibles and copays. if someone in this young family

faces a serious illness this year, the silver plan in washington state would cap emma and jacob's additional expenses at $of 66 -- at $660. but unfortunately they have the free so-called bronze plan that some of my colleagues have been touting. they would face up to $7,210 in out-of-pocket expenses, hardly an affordable option for this low-income family. now, it used to be well understood by the aability add -- afford ability advocates in and out of the senate that low-income americans struggle to meet low deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses.

just one year ago today the kaiser family foundation issued a report arguing against a house reform bill because it did not contain c.s.r.'s, noting that, quote, cost-sharing reductions are a key part of the financial support currently provided to low-income enrollees, and that without such support, deductibles, quote, are often out of reach for people with lower and modest income. end quote. a prior kaiser family foundation report from 2015 showed that only one in ten individuals earning between 100% and 250% of the federal poverty levels, those are the individuals who will be eligible for c.s.r.'s under our bill, have savings or

other assets large enough to coverage a $6,000 deductible. in other words, mr. president, without c.s.r.'s, 90% of these individuals will have to wipe out their savings to cover their medical expenses before they even meet their deductible. those who can't meet their deductible won't get reimbursed. for these americans a zero premium plan will really mean a zero benefit plan. i do not believe that silver loading and free bronze plans is a credible long-term strategy. first, i would also note in addition to the examples i've given that c.b.o.'s assessments from last year were that the silver loading strategy would

cost the federal taxpayers $194 billion over the budget window, and, second, because low-income individuals will struggle to meet their deductibles, they will be unable to secure reimbursement of expenses. sooner or later taxpayers are going to be asking, why are they paying nearly $200 billion more to subsidized policies that deliver such poor benefits? to be clear, the amendment we are offering prevents this strategy, protecting lower and modest income enrollees, low-income families and individuals and the taxpayers. now, let me discuss the hyde

amendment. i am disappointed, to say the least, that democrats who should have embraced this proposal have instead rejected it because its funding is subject to the hyde amendment. as as the pro-choice republican, i must say this puzzles me. the amendment has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortions for more than 40 years. it is not new policy. the entire labor h.h.s. title of the omnibus before us today is subject to the hyde amendment. there are variations in other titles of the omnibus spending bill. it applies to a long list of

federal programs, including medicare, medicaid, chip, tricare, veterans affairs, indian health service, the peace corps, bureau of prisons, immigrations and customs enforcement. mr. president, i've heard it said it doesn't apply to commercial insurance that is offered by the federal government. that's just not true. it applies to the federal employees health benefits program. through which 8.3 million employees, retirees, and their families get their health insurance coverage. and i have not seen my democratic friends make any effort to change the applicability of hyde to that insurance program. together these programs account for more than $1 trillion in

government spending each year, all of which is covered by the hyde amendment. that's 100 times of the amount we are proposing in our amendment. a trillion dollars of federal health care funding is already covered by the hyde amendment which has been policy for 40 years. so how is this in any way a radical departure from current policy. i find it frustrating that some on the other side of the aisle are choosing to block this important package that will provide relief to those who need it most because of the

application of the hyde amendment. and let me say they cite the stupak amendment which is section 1303 of the affordable care act. we leave that in place. we don't touch it. and we do not change the hyde amendment's exemptions found in section 507 which allows private entities, state governments, or individuals to use their own funds to provide coverage for abortion. in other words, mr. president, this is nothing radical or new and it is baffling and gravely disappointing that this should be used to block this package. mr. president, dozens of health care consumer and business

groups as well as the national association of insurance commissioners, those state commissioners whose job it is to look out for consumers, have called upon congress to take action to lower premiums for millions of americans and their families. these groups include the american hospital association, blue cross blue shield, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the american medical association, the american cancer association, the american academy of family physicians, the federation of american hospitals, a wide range of groups representing people with diseases, such as arthritis, cancer, epilepsy. the united way is backing this.

the cystic fibrosis foundation, the american lung association. mr. president, just today the national association of insurance commissioners put out a new letter endorsing this package. and i would ask unanimous consent that these three letters be entered into the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: mr. president, how incredibly disappointing it would be if some members derailed this serious effort to reduce the cost of health insurance for millions of americans. while members may disagree with certain provisions, the time has come for each and every senator to decide. are you for lower rates and more affordable coverage for the 18

million americans who get their insurance from the individual market? or are you content to just sit back and let their insurance rates soar once again this fall making health insurance even less affordable than it already is? in my view, the answer is clear and obvious. we must not lose sight of our goal, and that is making health insurance more affordable for millions of americans, including our insurance package in the omnibus funding bill is the right thing to do and it is urgent that we do it now.

thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from maine for her lucid and heartfelt description of what's before us. she has been an exceptional leader. and she continues to be. she looks for ways to get results. she sees people, the plumber i talked about making $60,000, the stylist, the farmer. the person who is working and paying all of his or her insurance with no subsidy help and who sees the real prospect coming that when the rates are announced october 1, they may not be able to afford any insurance. and they can see that we have a solution for that. this isn't a republican solution. or democratic solution. this is a solution that began to be developed almost the day republicans failed to repeal and replace obamacare.

i walked across the aisle to see if we can do what the democrats were asking. let's fix what we have temporarily so nobody is hurt. and as we've explained this afternoon, we did that. we have a probably. that's the original alexander-murray proposal developed in four hearings in which more than half the senate participated, which at one point the democratic leader said every single democrat would vote for. that takes an existing part of the affordable care act and makes it work. that's the innovation -- the innovation waiver. gives states more flexibility to create more choices and more lower-cost choices without changing the essential health benefits, without changing the guarantee for a preexisting condition. it's really a modest change but it's a significant change. then three years of cost-sharing subsidies. remember, the president said he did not want to pay those but he supports this. and then three years of

reinsurance so we can help the sickest people who are in the individual market, take them out, pay their needs and reduce the rates for everybody else. these are the best republican and democrat ideas that have been put together in a package and as senator collins has said, virtually everyone who's looked at this starting with the oliver-wioliver-wyman health cos who say it reduces rates up to 40%. the congressional budget office says 20%. mr. president, that's thousands of dollars. if you're paying $20,000 for your insurance, if we do nothing, you might be paying $24,000. if we do this, you might be paying $16,000. that's a lot of money. in we do this you might be paying $12,000. that's thousands of dollars less. that's a big tax cut for you and it's a big tax increase. and why are we not doing this? let's not kid ourselves.

there's a lot of scrambling and embarrass -- running around on the other side of the aisle to come up with an excuse for this but let's be honest about it. the democrats are blocking this for one reason. they have convinced themselves that they do not want to apply to the health insurance rate reduction in the omnibus bill the same law that applies to more than a hundred other programs in this omnibus bill. so every single democrat over here who says i can't vote for a 40% rate reduction for you, mr. plumber or miss hairstylist or miss farmer. i can't do that because i can't put the hyde amendment on it but i am going to vote to put the hyde amendment on the national institutes of health. i am going to vote to put the hyde amendment on community health centers. i'm going to vote today to put it on federal employee health benefits and family planning grants under title 10 and a hundred other programs that

democrats are going to vote to put the hyde language on. yet they say we can't put the same language on a 40% health insurance reduction that is composed of three sections of bipartisan legislation that the democratic leader has said, at least on two-thirds of it, that every single democrat support it. what is that? what is that? i mean, this should not be a partisan issue. and i'm not surprised there's scrambling and embarrassment on the other side of the aisle. i don't know how they're going to explain this to the american people. i know a lot of people in tennessee are desperately hoping we succeed. i hear it every time i go home. health insurance is the number one concern of the people in my state and most frightening prospect if they can't pay their bills and they can't buy insurance. and they might get sick and have no way to take care of it. so, mr. president, i ask consent to put into the record a few

items. the first is a list of 20 programs that are included in the omnibus bill that we're likely to vote on today that have hyde protection. now, remember what the hyde protection is. it's a compromise that was created in 1976 that said federal funds may not be used for elective abortions but basically you may use any other funds and you may create a contract or arrangement to do that. so that's what we do with medicare. that's what we do with medicaid. that's what we're voting today to do at the national institutes of health. and in the community health centers and voting today a for e federal employee health benefits program and family planning and the v.a. women's health care and global programs and the h.i.v. program and health centers. we're voting to put the hyde amendment on the national health

service corps but we can't put hyde protection on health insurance. a 40% rate reduction on health insurance. a bipartisan proposal that has the support of the president, the majority leader, and the speaker. they're all willing to put it in this bill, but you say no. you say no. and there's no good reason for that. there's no good reason whatsoever. we're going to vote to put child -- hyde amendment on child care community development block grants. i ask consent to put a list of 20 of those programs in the record, although, mr. president, there are more than 100 that we'll be voting on today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i ask consent to place into the record a short summary of the three-part bipartisan proposal that will produce the 40% rate decreases in the individual market according to oliver wyman and up to 20% according to the congressional budget office over the next three years. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent to place into the

record a -- the oliver wyman analysis entitled a proposal to lower a.c.a. premiums by more than 40% and cover 3 boy 2 million more -- 3.2 million more americans. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask consent to put into the record the congressional budget office estimate. it looks at this proposal two different ways, but it says that if -- if we base it on real spending, that is, if congress actually passed this bill, the alexander-murray-collins-nelson proposal that reduces insurance rates 40% saves the federal taxpayer money. in other words, it doesn't cost anything. so, mr. president -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: as a united states senator who came here to get results, who enjoys more than anything working across party lines to cause that to happen because it takes 60 to get a result, who admires

senators like senator collins who spends her time doing that, i am very disappointed. i'm ex-- not just for me, not just for senator collins who spent hundreds of hours on this, not just for the senate as an institution. i think of people who come up to me, marty at the chik-fil-a who said i was paying $3000 a month and -- bdz 300 a month and -- $3 hown a month and now $1,300 a month. i have a christmas present for you. i have a valentine's present for you. i have an easter present for you and now i say i can't do it because the democratic party voted to put the hyde protection on more than a hundred programs today as it did for every year since 1976, but it refused to put hyde protection on a 40% rate increase -- decrease that was developed across party lines and long hearings that were tended by -- attended by more than half the senators, all of

them coming in saying oh, this is a wonderful thing. they said, this is so good. we wish the senate would act like this more. we like the fact that you're having open committee hearings. why don't we do more of this? this is why we don't do more of it. we come up with a partisan end that hurts people. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. lankford: mr. president, i want to talk a little bit about election security, but on a day like today, i have to at least mention where we are on the giant omnibus bill that got dropped on us at 8:30 last night. it's legislative text to deal with all of discretionary spending. if people don't know what an omnibus is, we're supposed to pass 12 individual bills dealing with 12 different topics of our spending. an omnibus is when you take all 12 and do it at once. it's supposed to be the exception to the rule, but for the last 17 years we have done some version of an omnibus. today's vote will be 18. 2,300 pages, less than 24 hours to be able to go through it. technical legislative language. there's no way to discover what all is in it. it's another historic event that happened this past week that i

think connection to this omnibus. last friday the treasury department announced that we just crossed over $21 trillion in total debt -- $21 trillion. i've had some folks that have caught me that have said, well, now that we've gone over $21 trillion, and it looks like we could rapidly approach $1 trillion in the deficit in this year alone, which means that we will go from $21 trillion to $22 trillion, i hear, this is terrible. it has to be the republican tax plan that is causing it. there will probably be some deficit spending with the tax plan because it will take a couple of years for it to be able to accelerate with it. but this omnibus alone is $300 billion of additional

spending, just this. so we go to over $600 billion in deficit spending this past year, this omnibus will add another $300 billion to that, the disaster relief funding that has been done this year was $140 billion on top of that, and the interest payment increase, just the increase from last year to this year, was $54 billion. it's not just some republican tax plan that made this change. this is a very rapid acceleration and overspending that's happening right in front of our ayes, and the -- eyes, and the omnibus isn't slowing it down. it's accelerating it. we've got to change how we're doing budgeting and the trajectory that we face. there's 16 of us that started missing last month, eight democrats, eight republicans, half from the house, half from

the senate, to evaluate how we do budgeting. the 1974 budget act that we're currently operating created this complicated system that hasn't worked in decades, but every year we try to do it again and every year we end up with an omnibus package and none of us have an amendment, none ever us can read it, see it, go through it, it's just here's the numbers, vote yes or no. we have to fix that process. there's no long-term strategy, there's no regular order, there's no opportunity to make changes. there's no plan. my hope is by the end of the year this bipartisan group will have the opportunity to be able to present a different way of doing budgeting. that's not trying to be partisan, but just to be table to put a neutral process in place that we can actually be strategic about where we're going because we're accidentally stumbling into more and more debt every single month, and it will happen again today.

i want to chat with this body about election security, just to give a quick update. as many of you know the department of homeland security have been actively doing what they can to secure the election. i have zero doubt that the russians tried to meddle in our election in 2016. they started in 2014 trying to strategically plan for how they would interfere with our election with social media, false news to able to get out misinformation. they started the process early. they planned and executed well, quite frankly, but they exposed a weakness in our system. we're an open society that's exceptionally trusting of each other, and we're not used to having a foreign entity reach in and try to influence us like that. what the russians exposed in 2016 we should be able to push

back against in 2018 and 2020 and not be caught off guard again. the russians reached in and scanned -- scammed multiple states, looking at voter rolls. they can't change votes by looking at voter registration, but they could go in and if they could look at it and download the files, they could change the files, edit names and aaddresses, and people show up to vote and they are not registered to vote. they could create chaos on election day just by going in and editing those things. they can go into secretaries of states unofficial websites and during the day of the election put up false election results or changing out numbers so that when numbers are added they actually count wrong just to create uncertainty in the process so when the actual election day comes, the results

come out, they are not reliable and everyone doubts the system itself. it doesn't change votes, it doesn't change outcomes, but it certainly destabilizes the system. we should be aware of that. we have multiple states. there's not many. there's around 10 to 12 states that they cannot audit their election when the election day comes and goes. that means they are completely counting on the machine to keep an accurate count. that machine is not attached to the internet. in fact, there is no state that has their election equipment attached to the internet, but almost every one of them does a software update before election time. if any entity were able to get into any one of the third-party software company before the update is done and put in a code that messes up the machine, you would not know if that election result was reliable or not. now, did that happen last time? no why the russians looking for

the different software companies and the different makes and models that make those election machines? yes. that's a warning shot. last time they were looking, next time they could change it. we should be well prepared for that. we have a piece of legislation. it's a very straightforward piece about secure elections. myself, amy klobuchar, lindsey graham, susan collins, multiple of us to say, how do we stabilize our election system? elections are run by states and should be run by states. there's no reason to federalize elections, but the federal government should walk along side states and say simple things, we're going to have quick communication between the state and federal government, so if a foreign entity messes with your system, we can quickly let you know about it and help you

in the process of helping your state. the last time it happened in 2016, it was months before the department of homeland security was able to actually engage with those states and let them know it was a foreign actor and help them with their security. we've got to be faster on that. we want to streamline that communication. we want to encourage states when they buy election equipment that they can audit their election on the day of the election. now, the federal government should not pick their equipment. those states should because it's a state responsibility, but we should incentivize them to lean in and make sure their equipment is good because at the end of the day on a presidential election, we're all counting on every other state to make sure their election systems are good, and if they are not, it's a problem for all of us. we want to make sure that there is not only streamlined communication, that there is not only good, audible equipment, but we give classifications to individuals so they can deal with classified information. that didn't happen last time and

so, again, it was months before there was contact because the federal government wanted to notify the state but no one had clearance. let's fix that. d.h.s. in the process of fixing that. we would like to put in legislation that remains so so in the future we don't lull ourselves to sleep again. next time it could be the iranians or domestic activist group that is mad at somebody for something and learned of the vulnerabilities that the russians pointed out. in the days ahead we knee to secure our system or the election. it's knots a partisan issue. it shouldn't be a partisan issue. we are quickly learning the lessons about cybervulnerability in our pipelines and electric good and internet fiber and election systems and banking and multiple other areas.

we should learn this lesson and learn it well. there are people who mean to do us harm, but they are not necessarily going to attack us bodily, but they don't like our growing economy and they don't like our values. they don't like our openness and they want to use our openness against us. we can't imagine doing that to someone else, they practice doing that to us. we need to put up a basic guard and communicate to nation states around the world, if you come and attack us, this is going to be our response so they clearly know what they are facing if they -- when they come after us. if happened once, it will happen again. let's pass this issue about safe elections and get our elections secure and so we can trust the results year after year after year as we have in the past. with that, i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, my home state of michigan has the best and most productive workers in the world. michigan workers developed the middle-class industry. our farmers and agricultural producers deliver an incredible diversity of fresh products to american families day in and day out. our cars, our trucks, crops, timber, furniture and more are shipped across the united states and exported all across the globe. in america we believe that if you work hard and you play by the rules, you will be able to support yourself and your family and prosper. unfortunately, our nation's workers and businesses are too often facing unfair competition from foreign competitors. our businesses that play by the rules and pay their workers a fair wage for a hard day's work too often lose business to foreign competitors that cheat.

it is one thing to lose a sale to competitor that has the right product at the right time or is better positioned in the market, that certainly happens, but it is another thing all together to lose because an international competitor is being subsidized by a foreign government or deliberately dumping goods below cost to drive american companies out of business. this needs to stop and it needs to stop now. large companies are able to directly combat these practices by hiring teams of lawyers to enforce international trade rules. but what about family farms, small auto parts suppliers, and other small manufacturers that don't keep international trade lawyers on their payroll? american small businesses, family farms and the workers who show up every more important can out compete anyone on this planet if they are given a level playing field. mr. president, it is time to give them that level playing

field. we should be using the expertise and strength of the federal government to stick up for these small businesses and give them a fair fight. under current law, the commerce department has the authority to start their own straight investigation into these harmful trade practices but they barely ever use it. that's why i've introduced the self-initiation trade enforcement act with my colleague senator burr. this bipartisan legislation will strengthen protections for small businesses and their workers by creating a permanent task force within the commerce department to support proactive investigations into unfair trade practices by foreign competitors. this task force will research trade data, spot abusive unfair trade practices and start formal investigations. this task force will also focus on cases impacting small and medium size businesses, the exact businesses that need the

support but may not even know how to ask for it. additionally, putting the weight of the commerce department behind these efforts shields these businesses from foreign retaliation. if a small business is able to track international trade data and if they are then able to hire a legal team necessary to successfully prosecute their claims, and believe me, these are two big if's, they could still face retaliation from foreign governments that could make it harder for them to export after they win their case. an individual cherry grower in northern michigan, for example, faces nearly impossible hurdles in taking on a foreign government, but the commerce department can look out for these small growers across the nation and be their champion. a recent bipartisan trade policy meeting that i was at, i was able to speak with president trump and commerce secretary ross about this bipartisan

legislation. they both expressed their strong support, and i will continue working with them and my colleagues in congress until this legislation is signed into law. michigan workers and businesses just want a fair chance to compete, and i will never stop fighting for them so that they can compete fairly and so that they can win. i urge my colleagues to support the self-initiation trade enforcement act that will help small businesses and family farms all across michigan and all across the united states. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, after two years of hard work and because of the determination and strength of david and kate grubb of charleston, west virginia, jesse's law will finally pass by congress and signed into law and i want to thank each and every one of us. it's different from other pieces of legislation. jesse's law which actually save lives and prevent parents from

experiencing the heartbreak of losing a child. jesse's story is known to enema of you already and for those of you who have never heard it and don't know, i want to go over some of the highlights. after years of struggling with heroin addiction, she had been doing very well. she had been sober for six months. she was focusing on making a life for herself in michigan and was training for a marathon. she had surgery for an infection related to her running injury and died the day after leaving the hospital. and all of her hard work was ruined because of a careless mistake. jesse's death is particularly heartbreaking because it was 100% preventable. her parents, david and kate, traveled to michigan for jesse's surgery. both jesse and her parents told her doctors and hospital personnel that she was a recovering addict. it was reflected in her medical records in eight different places. however, it was not highlighted

the same as it would when you have any type of an allergy or if you go in and say that -- the question is usually asked are you allergic to penicillin and it's highlighted to the point that that mistake would not be made. this was not done. after jesse's surgery, the discharging doctor who said he didn't know she was a recovering addict sent her home with a prescription for 50 oxycodone pills. she should never have been given a prescription for opioid medication in the first place as she had asked when she entered the hospital. and now with the passage of jesse's law, we have taken a critical step towards saying that this will never happen again. jesse's law will establish new standards for health care providers to ensure that when a patient provides information about their opioid addiction, that information is shared with her doctors and nurses and is flagged just like we would flag a drug allergy. having the critical information will help ensure that health care providers can make

medically appropriate decisions about pain management for recovering opioid addicts. this simple step could save -- could have saved jesse's life and we owe it to her memory to make the change and keep other families from experiencing the same pain. it's been over two years. you would have thought this would have been done within two weeks. it's such common sense. and i don't think anyone realized before that they could not or did not or were not responsible for or were not by law supposed to basically make sure that every record, every transcript she had in that hospital should have been marked and highlighted so nobody could have missed it. jesse's story and her family's pain are all too common in west virginia and throughout this nation. in 2016, 884 west virginians lost their lives due to overdose. we have the highest loss of life per capita in the nation. the highest in the nation. every hour five people die from an opioid overdose.

with continued support and tireless work from everyone, we can beat this epidemic once and for all. jesse's legacy will save people's lives and will prevent parents and families from dealing with the pain and tragedy of losing your child. david and kate, the parents, have been determined from day one to make sure jesse's death wasn't meaningless and i'm honored to say jesse's legacy will live on for a long, long time. long after we're gone. i talked to david and kate today and i can't tell you how elated they were that it finally passed and it's in the piece of legislation we'll be voting on shortly. it is going to save a lot of heart airk and a lot of pain and the tragedy that families suffer. this was a beautiful young lady as you can see, very, very intelligent, very, very athletic, just happened to fall into the pits of this horrible epidemic that we have. and we thought when we first heard it it was just an oversight. but there's the hipa laws and

all the different concerns that people have for privacy that we weren't able to change it. mr. president, you being a physician knowing how the hospitals work and how the information is treasured and guarded. but this was one we thought, my goodness, if an allergy and if you're allergic to penicillin and i come in as a patient and tell you i'm a recovering addict, please make sure everybody in this hospital knows that i've had an addiction and i still have an addiction problem which i'll have all my life, but i'm recovering six months sober, and for some reason it was not dent fifed. -- not identified. so jesse's legacy will live on and the courage her parents have had to fight this fight so that we all can share it with the rest of the country and maybe save countless lives throughout the country in each one of our states and all the parents that suffer through this. david and kate, their life will forever be changed but they have the beautiful memory of this

beautiful young lady, 30 years of age. jesse grubb. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be dus spended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, we are in the process of considering an omnibus budget bill. it's over 2,000 pages long. in fairness, it includes many provisions of legislation that's been worked on by many of us for months. so it isn't a surprise package by and large. there are elements in it that are new, that have been recently negotiated, but the underlying bill, the appropriation bills included in it have been the subject of committee hearings and negotiations literally for months. i know that because since last year, we've been working on the defense department appropriation which is included in the bill. my reason for coming to the floor, though, is to address an issue that is not included in the omnibus bill, one that i believe should be, one that is

timely and compelling and there's no reason why it's not included. it relates to those young people brought to the united states by their parents when they were infant, toddlers, children and ended up in undocumented status in this country. now, some of them, a very small number of them, may have been smuggled across the border into the united states. more likely the most common situation is they came here on a visitor's visa with their parents. the visa expired and they stayed. that's about -- accounts for almost half of those who are currently undocumented in the united states. the difference is obvious. we're talking about children, children who really had no voice in the parents' decision about coming to this country and who literally grew up here, many times believing they were legal in the united states. it wasn't until later in life, usually when they were 10 or 12 years old that their mothers or

fathers sat down and said to them, we never filed the appropriate papers. you're undocumented in america. and it means that your life is different than all the other kids you go to school with. these kids may be worried about making the football team or getting an a in math. you also have to be worried about somebody knocking on our front door and deporting our family back to some other country. your life in the united states could end at any moment. be careful. be careful not to violate the law. be careful to keep your head down. whatever you do, don't tell people that you're undocumented because it could subject you and members of your family to automatic deportation. that's what they grew up with. through no fault of their own, brought to the united states, living in this country, standing in classrooms in our schools, pledging allegiance to that flag every single day and yet not being legal, not being documented in the united states. they were undocumented.

16 or 17 years ago i introduced a bill called the dream act and said those young kids deserve a chance, a chance to earn their way to legal status, earn their way to citizenship, if they become part of drug gangs or criminal enterprises, so be it. they forfeited any right to become part of america's future. but if not, if they finished school and they're prepared to either continue their education, enlist in our military, get a good job, we'll give them a chance. that's what the dream act said. and for 17 years i've been trying to make it the law of the land, and i've fallen short. president obama when he was a senator here from illinois was my colleague, and he was my cosponsor of the dream act. so when he became president and it was clear we couldn't pass the dream act in congress, i asked him as president, can you do something to help and he did. he created daca program.

and under the daca pam, these young people -- daca program, these young people could come forward and pay about a $500 filing fee and go through a criminal background check to make sure they were no danger to this country. and if they passed it, they would be given permission under president obama's executive order, under the daca order, to live in the united states for two years at a time, then to renew their status. and during that two years they couldn't be deported and they could legally work. it was a big decision for a lot of these young people. remember what i said earlier? their parents had warned them, don't tell the government who you are, don't tell them where you live. they could use that information against you. but 780,000 young people came forward trusting this government, trusting that if we invited them to be part of the united states on a renewable temporary basis, it would not

ultimately hurt them. 780,000. what did they end up doing? most of them went to school. but going to school as an undocumented person in america is a different challenge. you don't qualify for one penny in federal assistance. no pell grants. no government loans. so getting through college under those circumstances means borrowing money from some other source or working jobs to pay for your education, which many of them did. over the years, these daca recipients ended up graduating school. there are 20,000 of them teaching in schools across america. they are the teachers in the grade school and middle school and high school classes, and they have daca protection. 900 of them volunteered to serve in our military. think about that for a moment. they stood up and took an oath to serve the united states in the military and to literally

risk their lives for a country that does not recognize their legal status. 900 of them are in that circumstance. many of them have done amazing things in their lives. i've come to the floor and told i think over 100, i think maybe 110 stories of these dreamers. they're amazing young people. they're resilient. they're talented. they're promising. they're exciting. and yet they're not legal in the eyes of the law in america. so we tried. we tried to make sure that there was a way to protect them when the new president came to office. president trump had said very clearly in his campaign that immigration was a big issue. ep said a lot of things -- he said a lot of things. some of them were inflammatory. but interestingly enough, he said several times the dreamers are different. these young people are different. he told me personally, senator, don't worry about it. we're going to take care of those