John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, if cloture is invoked on the Combs nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Combs nomination at 1:45 p.m., Wednesday, June 5. I further ask that following disposition of the Combs nomination, the Senate vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the Holte, Alston Jr., and Hertling nominations in the order listed; finally, that if cloture is invoked on those nominations, the confirmation votes on the nominations occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader and that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 230, submitted earlier today.

Mr. BARRASSO. I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 5; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Schenker nomination under the previous order.

Mr. BARRASSO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor again today to discuss Washington Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare scheme. Every American needs to know about this very radical plan. Democrats essentially want Washington, DC, to take over all of healthcare in this country and to abolish private health insurance that 180 million Americans get through their jobs. Incredibly, this proposal offered by Senator Bernie Sanders has the backing of many leading Democrats running for President and 109 Democratic Members of the House of Representatives. So I want to continue the debate today by focusing on the terrible impact this radical scheme will have on all of the fine men and women who provide healthcare to people across the country. Of course, the impact on them will impact the patients for whom they provide care and services. I am talking about the Nation's dedicated medical professionals, especially those who serve in our community hospitals. I actually know many of these healthcare providers because I am one of them. For many years I practiced orthopedic surgery in Casper, WY. I was a medical doctor, a physician, and chief of staff at the Wyoming Medical Center. When practicing medicine in Casper, WY--or anywhere in the Presiding Officer's home State of Nebraska--you really treat patients from all over the State. That is because many people in Wyoming live in small towns. I am talking about patients in towns like my wife's hometown of Thermopolis, WY. My wife's parents are there. When they need specialty care, they go to Casper. For those who haven't traveled in Wyoming, it is about a 2-hour drive one way when the weather is good. My point is, when you work in the Casper hospital, you are actually covering a large area in our State, and that is often the case in many States. So when I hear that Washington Democrats want to have a one- size-fits-all healthcare plan, I wonder if they have given any thought to people in the Nation's heartland, to people out west. Are they considering people in rural communities at all? I will state that I think about the people of Wyoming every day. I am there every week. The staff at small hospitals who serve rural communities like Thermopolis, Rawlins, Lusk, Kemmerer, and at the Lovell hospital, where I attended a health fair this past Saturday, talking to all of the folks there--their needs are things I am not convinced Washington Democrats have any knowledge of or care for at all. The people at these hospitals work hard just to keep the doors open so that they can continue to care for patients right there. So alarm bells go off when I see headlines like the one from the Washington Post that said: ``Who's going to take care of these people?'' As emergencies rise across rural America, a hospital fights for its life. That is the headline in the Washington Post, referring to a community hospital in Osage County, OK. The hospital has a sign out front that reads: ``A small community is only as healthy as its hospital.'' That is the truth. Hospitals across rural America are struggling. Many are, in fact, fighting for their lives. Still, Democrats are offering a plan that will destroy private health insurance in America, which is the lifeblood of our Nation's healthcare system; 180 million Americans get their insurance this way. Democrats want to drastically reduce provider payments which, of course, would drive many doctors from practice and shutter many small hospitals. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator has said a one-size-fits-all system ``would decimate physician networks, creating a permanent physician shortage.'' So how can rural hospitals survive with no financial cushion if Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare plan passes? Just ask the New York Times, of all people. Last month, the Times ran with this headline: ``Hospitals Stand to Lose Billions Under `Medicare for All.' '' Hospitals stand to lose billions. The Times cites a study from George Mason University that found Medicare provider reimbursement rates are more than 40 percent lower than private insurance rates--40 percent lower. At these payment rates, the Times says, ``[s]ome hospitals, especially struggling rural centers,'' like those in the Presiding Officer's home State and mine ``would close virtually overnight.'' There would be an overnight closure of hospitals under Bernie Sanders' and the Democrats' one-size-fits-all scheme for medicine in America. I am sure a lot of people listening out there are thinking, maybe it is all a mistake; maybe Democrats don't really mean to threaten hospitals. Well, the fact is, Democrats have long argued that hospitals need to close. That is what they have said. Look at what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who is an architect of ObamaCare and a professor in Philadelphia, said on the subject. He actually wrote a book outlining all of this. It is titled, ``Reinventing American Health Care.'' He predicted that 1,000 U.S. hospitals would close by 2020. Well, we are approaching that year. We haven't closed 1,000 in this country, but over 80 have closed, and those are rural hospitals. Last year he published an op-ed in the New York Times--the same Dr. Emanuel--ominously titled, ``Are Hospitals Becoming Obsolete?'' He writes: Hospitals are disappearing. While they will never completely go away, they will continue to shrink in number and importance. This is inevitable and good. Well, not in rural America--``good,'' he says, that thousands of hospitals and patients who rely on them are forced to close their doors for good. I disagree fundamentally with this principle and what he is saying. Of course, all people who practice medicine in small towns want to keep the doors open because they know the impact on the lives of the people who live in those communities. Just last week I had a chance to visit with Dr. Mike Tracy, a family physician in Powell, WY. He is past president of the Wyoming Medical Society. He is passionate about caring for his patients, and guess what. He doesn't participate in Medicare at all. Instead, he provides his services privately by charging his patients a set, transparent monthly fee. He does what he does to keep his practice open. His focus is on his patients, not on Washington paperwork, and his patients are very happy. His practice is successful. The patients are happy with the time he is able to sit and be with them and look at them and focus on them, instead of the mandates of a Washington computer screen. So you see, there are doctors like Mike all across the country who don't want a one-size-fits-all healthcare system. Many doctors and many small community hospitals cannot afford it, and they will not survive it. Certainly, many rural communities can't survive it. As the Presiding Officer knows better than most, as he has traveled his State and as I have traveled mine, if a small community loses a hospital, it is harder to attract doctors, nurses, teachers, businesses--all of the things that are vital for a community to have. So the threat is very real in terms of what the Democrats and what Bernie Sanders and the one-size-fits-all healthcare plan would bring to our country. Let me just tell people who are watching the debate right now: Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare--what this will mean for you is that you will pay more to wait longer for worse care. That is what it means. That is what it means to you. You will pay more to wait longer for worse care. That is what is at stake. We all need to make our voices heard loud and clear: no to Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare scheme, yes to real reforms that improve healthcare and bring down the costs for all Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor as part of Military Appreciation Month. It is a time, clearly, to remember our brave service men and women, to reflect on their faithful service to this country and to recall the many sacrifices our troops and their families have made and continue to make in defense of this great Nation. Many of us will be heading overseas for the 75th anniversary of D-day to commemorate the efforts of an incredible group of allies on the fateful day and the weeks and the months that followed. As I stand here today, I think of those soldiers, and I think of my wife Bobbi's dad, Bob Brown--currently 92 years old, living in Thermopolis, WY, longtime postmaster. He still drives Meals on Wheels, as he says, ``for the old folks.'' He was called to Europe in World War II, and he is one of those few who was in World War II in the European theater as well as in Japan as part of that first occupation and then called back to Korea as part of the 2-300 who continued in the fight for our freedoms. He continues today to serve our United States. His wife, Jerry, who went through all of this in Thermopolis, WY, knows the sacrifices he and so many have made. My dad, World War II, Battle of the Bulge. I still carry his dog tags from the Battle of the Bulge with me. I have them with me today on the floor of the Senate, and I carry them with me when I go to see our troops overseas. He is the guy who had to quit school in ninth grade because of the Depression. In World War II--and I have gone through some of his old papers--I found pictures of him and a number of members of the artillery who were part of the liberation of France. From the time I was a little boy, he would say: John, you should thank God every day because you live in America. You don't know how fortunate you are. We are so blessed to live in this great country, and it is to the men and women who continue to protect this land, who fought for our freedoms--my dad, his wife, Louise, the sacrifices they have made on behalf of all of us. Today we honor all of our Armed Forces, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the Marines, the National Guard. In particular, today I want to salute the members of the Wyoming Army National Guard because they are now deploying to the Middle East. Some 300 Wyoming soldiers from six units will be sent to the Middle East between January and September--the largest Wyoming deployment in nearly a decade. The deployments began in January with the G Company of the 2nd Battalion, 211th Aviation, a medical evacuation company--the most deployed unit in the Wyoming Guard. The medevac unit that was sent to Afghanistan includes Wyoming soldiers from Bear River, from Casper, from Carpenter, from Guernsey, from Cheyenne, Laramie, and Wheatland. This past week, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon participated in a sendoff ceremony in Casper for 130 Wyoming National Guard troops headed to Texas ahead of a 9-month deployment to the Middle East. The Wyoming troops from the 2nd Battalion of the 300 Field Artillery, the ``Cowboy Cannoneers,'' the group my father-in-law, Bob Brown, was part of--they are from more than two dozen communities from Casper to Lovell, to Cheyenne, to Moorcroft. This Guard unit will serve under the U.S. Central Command covering Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Wyoming and the entire Nation owe an incredible debt of gratitude to these fearless fighters for our freedom. God bless the U.S. Armed Forces, God bless our troops, our veterans, and God bless the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor to address again today the Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare scheme. It is a radical plan to take over all of healthcare in America and to take away health insurance from millions of Americans. Still, nearly every Senate Democrat running for President and 109 Members of the House of Representatives, Democrats all, have backed one-size-fits-all healthcare. Last week, former Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota had words of wisdom for her fellow Democrats. She writes in the Washington Post: ``Most Americans are satisfied with the healthcare they receive and do not want their coverage options taken away and replaced,'' as she said, ``with a one-size-fits-all government program.'' I agree. The fact is, according to the Census Bureau, 90 percent of Americans have healthcare coverage. Of those, 200 million are covered by private health plans, and 180 million have employer-provided healthcare coverage. Most say that their current plan works well for them. The 180 million Americans covered through their jobs work hard. These people go out every morning and support their families. According to a survey released last year, the vast majority of people with employer- provided coverage--71 percent of them, to be precise--like their current healthcare plans. So who exactly are those workers on employer-sponsored plans? Well, many are union members. They negotiate their health coverage through their union representatives. Many are public employees, Federal and State employees, people who serve this country. So why do Democrats who support one-size-fits-all healthcare want to outlaw proven, popular, and predictable health coverage for millions of these working families? Democrats certainly seem to be putting politics above principle. What is more, they clearly believe that Washington knows best. But shouldn't we be asking what these hard-working Americans who have good private health insurance want? Well, shouldn't we ask them what is best for them and what is best for their families? Let's take the Teamsters Union, for example. In an article published in 2017, the Teamsters said: The availability of high-quality health care has been a top selling point for those who belong to unions. It is a benefit these workers have bargained for, and oftentimes they have sacrificed higher pay for these excellent insurance benefits. Let me underscore this point: The Teamsters Union believes their health benefits are excellent, and maybe Democrats should ask the United Steelworkers about their insurance coverage. If you go to the steelworkers' website, you will find their answer: ``The Steelworkers Benefit Plan . . . provide[s] high-quality, affordable health and welfare benefits to USW [United Steelworkers] members and their families.'' Basically, if you are a union worker watching this debate right now, you need to know that Democrats in Washington are coming for your hard- earned healthcare benefits. Make no mistake. Under the one-size-fits- all healthcare legislation offered by Senator Bernie Sanders and so many Democrats running for President, this high-quality health insurance program and their insurance will cease to exist. It is no wonder that last year some high-profile public sector unions started sounding the alarm about losing their health benefits. When New York State debated a Sanders-like proposal to take over healthcare, who raised the loudest objections? Well, it was the public sector unions, of course. So again, we have millions of union workers, Federal and State employees, and their families, all with excellent healthcare benefits that are on the Democrats' chopping block. Instead of helping fix the Nation's healthcare problems, Democrats are looking to destroy what is actually working. Remember, it is more than union workers and public sector employees who are threatened. Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare plan is gunning for retired military members' health insurance as well. We are talking about the TRICARE health insurance program for military families. There are more than 9 million military families enrolled in TRICARE. Our servicemembers have earned their TRICARE coverage through years of faithful service defending this Nation. I believe one of our greatest responsibilities is to provide for those who protect this Nation, both those who currently serve and our retired servicemembers. Back home in Wyoming I talk with servicemembers, with veterans, nearly every weekend. These proud Americans want me to make sure that TRICARE works for them and to protect and strengthen benefits that work and that they have earned through their service. Still, far-left Democrats don't want to listen to reason. They are hell-bent on a one- size-fits-all approach to healthcare. It is especially ironic that Democrats even want to ban ObamaCare plans--the plans they voted for and put in place. It has been less than a decade since Democrats passed ObamaCare, and now they want to repeal it and replace it, basically saying that ObamaCare has failed. For years I have come to the floor to discuss the shortcomings of ObamaCare. Every time Republicans have offered to improve healthcare, we have heard from the Democrats that ObamaCare is off-limits and they can't possibly make any changes to that law. Now that the Democrats are running for President, suddenly they are singing a different tune. They are done defending ObamaCare. In fact, Democrats are happy to repeal ObamaCare so they can replace it with a one-size-fits-all healthcare plan for America. Senator Heitkamp is actually warning them not to cast aside ObamaCare and start all over again with a one-size-fits-all plan. Well, let me just say as a doctor, as a physician who has taken care of patients for decades, my focus continues to be on improving healthcare for American patients and their families. Americans want to focus on real healthcare reforms that make a difference for them and their families in terms of the cost and in terms of the quality of their care. These are the issues that Republicans are working on right now: protecting patients with preexisting conditions, lowering prescription drug costs, and ending surprise medical bills. Surprise medical bills are bills patients receive that come out of nowhere. These bills are an unfair financial burden on many families, completely unexpected medical costs that they can't afford and aren't expecting. Just last week I was at the White House with President Trump announcing a plan to help patients by ending these surprise bills. Republicans also remain committed to protecting patients with preexisting conditions and to lowering the cost of prescription drugs. Democrats have a choice to make. They can follow the far-left Democrats pushing their radical one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare. Again, this extreme scheme will mean the loss of health insurance coverage for millions and millions and millions of hard- working people, union workers and their families, our veterans, people who helped protect and save this country, Federal and State employees and their families, and all of the Americans who are currently enrolled in ObamaCare plans. The better option for Democrats is to work with Republicans on commonsense, bipartisan solutions, real reforms that improve healthcare for all Americans. Let's reject one-size-fits-all healthcare that will make Americans pay more to wait longer for worse care. That is the key. One-size-fits-all healthcare, I will tell people listening in today, means that you will pay more to wait longer for worse care. It is time to reject one-size-fits-all care for Americans. Let us work together to give all patients the care they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it is rare to find Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and USA TODAY editors all in agreement, but they are all on the same page when it comes to Senator Sanders' radical scheme for a complete takeover of healthcare in America. All three papers say that the Democrats' single-payer plan--a one-size-fits-all plan for America--is a bad idea. Remember, it is not just Senator Sanders' plan; nearly every Senate Democrat who is running for President has supported this extreme proposal, as have 180 Members of the House of Representatives. Post, Journal, and USA TODAY editors are citing last week's report by the Congressional Budget Office as raising a number of alarm bells. USA TODAY calls it a pipe dream. The Post charges Senator Sanders with deeply misrepresenting how difficult it would be to adopt single-payer healthcare for America. They called it costly. They called it complicated and expensive. The CBO projects in its report on a single- payer plan that government spending on healthcare would increase substantially. They go on to say that to cover the massive cost of government-run care--the Journal says that income taxes of American families would have to at least double. Added to the expense is the shock of banning virtually all private insurance in this country. There are 180 million working Americans who receive their health insurance through work. Outlawing private health plans would cause a serious disruption, forcing 180 million Americans-- working families--from their employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. The Washington Post notes that these employer-provided plans cover most Americans under the age of 65. The Journal says that any savings would have to come from where the money is, which is cutting payments to doctors and restricting care--restricting care. That restricts treatment as well as new technologies. Lower reimbursement rates could drive many doctors from practice and shutter many small hospitals in my rural communities and in your rural State, Mr. President. We are talking about problems in our rural communities all across America. The result would be longer wait times and lower quality of care. To quote the Post, ``No matter what Senator Sanders says, there is no Medicare for all without tradeoffs.'' Mark my words--Medicare for all would soon become Medicare for none. Democrats' one-size-fits-all healthcare plan--a one-size-fits-all healthcare plan would mean that you would pay more to wait longer for worse care. You would pay more to wait longer for worse care. That is what one-size-fits-all healthcare looks like for Americans, for people all across the country. This single-payer plan means major tax hikes to cover massive costs. It means much longer lines for lower quality care. It means the elimination of private health insurance for Americans. It also means the end of the Medicare Program that seniors rely upon and so many depend on, on a daily basis. That is where I want to focus some of my remarks today--our seniors' healthcare needs and why it is so important to protect their Medicare benefits that they have paid into over their entire working lives. For seniors today, there are 60 million of them who rely on the Medicare Program. Medicare is nothing less than a medical lifeline. Yet, if the Democrats impose socialized medicine on the entire country, seniors will quickly find Medicare replaced by a massive, new, government-run, one-size-fits-all program--a system that lowers the quality of care for them and makes it harder to get the care they need. These older Americans worked hard their entire lives, put in the effort, and each month or each week had money deducted from their paychecks that went into paying for Medicare. They have paid into this Medicare system for decades. The average for a couple in America--they have paid in about $160,000 in terms of withdrawals from their paychecks over the course of their working lives. They deserve nothing less than what they paid for, that they paid into. For more than 50 years, Medicare has helped countless seniors live healthier, more productive lives. Does Medicare face challenges? Absolutely. There is no question about that. But ending Medicare as we know it would not solve our healthcare problems; it would simply make them much worse--certainly for the 60 million Americans currently on Medicare. I have seen Medicare's value as a doctor. While practicing medicine in Wyoming for decades, I saw firsthand how effective Medicare is in helping patients receive the care they need. Now, as a Senator, I talk with seniors back home in Wyoming all of the time and listen to their healthcare concerns. The week before last, I was at two different health fairs in Wyoming, where people can go for low-cost blood screenings and learn more about diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and proper diet. I visited with people in Rawlins, WY, and Mountain View, WY. Hundreds of people came out. There were 1,500 people at the Rawlins health fair. People in Wyoming actually know me as a doctor first and as a Senator second, and above all, they count on me to protect their Medicare. That is my concern with this one-size-fits-all approach the Democrats have been proposing. People in Wyoming want to make sure that I keep Medicare strong, keep fighting for them, because the current system allows them to get to the doctor they need. In Wyoming, where people live far away and the hospitals are few and far between, we know that with a program like this--and certainly from the CBO report last week--small hospitals will very likely close. Almost 90 percent of Medicare patients say that they like the program and that it works well for them. There is nearly 90 percent approval. Members of the Senate would be astonished and happy with those sorts of approval numbers for themselves. It is a program that is working for them, and now what is being proposed by the Democrats is going to absolutely have devastating effects on Medicare and our patients on Medicare. We need to do more to lower the cost of care for all Americans, but we need to protect Medicare. To put all of these new people on a Medicare Program is going to make it that much harder for our seniors who are currently on Medicare. Medicare partners with private health insurers to provide seniors with better, more affordable care. It is a program called Medicare Advantage. There are 22 million American seniors who are on this Medicare Advantage Program. Nobody forces them to sign up; they choose it simply because, as the name implies, there are advantages to participating in Medicare Advantage in terms of preventive care and in terms of coordinating care. Our seniors look at these plans and say: You know, that is right for me. It provides value for my money. I enjoy what I get. So it is no surprise that since 2010--things came along, and ObamaCare was passed--the number of seniors in Medicare Advantage has more than doubled, because it is a good program for them. Nevertheless, all 22 million people currently on Medicare Advantage would lose Medicare Advantage if the Democrats' one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare--which 180 Members of the House have cosponsored and which the Senate Democrat candidates for President are cosponsoring--were to pass. But that is what the Democrats are proposing--taking Medicare Advantage away from 22 million Americans. In January, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators in sending a letter to the Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services urging support for Medicare Advantage. Ironically, 6 of the 22 Democrats who signed this letter have now flip-flopped back to this far-extreme-left proposal to outlaw private health insurance in America. That is what they are running for President on and promoting today. Medicare works with private insurers to make seniors' prescription drugs more affordable as well. This program is called Medicare Part D. More than 43 million seniors participate in Part D plans. Again, it is voluntary. How do we know it must be a good program? Because that many people see value in the program, and they have signed up for it. Can we improve the prescription drug program? Absolutely. We are working right now to lower prescription drug costs. We have already eliminated the gag order, where pharmacists couldn't talk to patients. We have done the right thing there. So why are the far-left Democrats attempting to destroy private health plans? I mean, it is astonishing. Why do they want to end Medicare as we know it? Why do they want to turn Medicare for our seniors into Medicare for None? Well, while ``free healthcare'' may make for a catchy campaign slogan, it is unfair to deceive the American people, especially our seniors. To quote the editor of the Wall Street Journal, ``Voters should know Sanders is promising miracles when what he'll deliver is poorer care for everyone.'' So here we have it. The Congressional Budget Office came out with its study about what the impacts will be. The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA TODAY--all of them say this is not right for America. Let's be clear. All Americans will pay a high price for Democrats' one-size-fits-all, government-run healthcare scheme, and I actually think seniors may suffer the most. It is clear to me that with a one- size-fits-all healthcare plan, people will pay more to wait longer for worse care. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays, please.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Jordan for his hard work as an intern in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Jordan is a native of Georgia. He is a graduate of Kenyon College, where he studied political science and French. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Jordan for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Annie for her hard work as an intern in the Senate Republican Conference. I recognize her efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Annie is a native of Ohio. She is a student at Marymount University, where she is studying politics. She has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made her an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of her work is reflected in her great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Annie for the dedication she has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have her as part of our team. I know she will have continued success with all of her future endeavors. I wish her all my best on her journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Trey for his hard work as an intern in my Cheyenne office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Trey is a native of Casper. He is a student at the University of Wyoming, where he is studying economics and political science. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Trey for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

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

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to David for his hard work as an intern in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. David is a native of Massachusetts. He is a student at American University, where he is studying interdisciplinary studies. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank David for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Ian for his hard work as an intern in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Ian is a native of Nevada. He is a student at George Washington University, where he is studying business economics and public policy. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Ian for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Tyler for his hard work as an intern in the Environment and Public Works Committee. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Tyler is a native of West Virginia. He is a graduate student at American University, where he is studying political communication. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Tyler for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Brendyn for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Brendyn is a native of New York. He is a student at American University, where he is studying international relations and French. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Brendyn for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity to express my appreciation to Jefferson for his hard work as an intern in my Washington, DC, office. I recognize his efforts and contributions to my office, as well as to the State of Wyoming. Jefferson is a native of California. He is a graduate of UCLA, where he studied history. He has demonstrated a strong work ethic, which has made him an invaluable asset to our office. The quality of his work is reflected in his great efforts over the last several months. I want to thank Jefferson for the dedication he has shown while working for me and my staff. It is a pleasure to have him as part of our team. I know he will have continued success with all of his future endeavors. I wish him all my best on his journey.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, during the last week I was home in Wyoming, traveling the State, visiting with people, talking to constituents, listening to what they had to say. I had the chance to attend a couple of health fairs in Rawlins, WY, and Mountain View, WY. The health fair is a gathering of the community. It is based on prevention and early detection of problems as ways to help lower the cost of care. For many years, I was the medical director of the Wyoming Health Fairs bringing low-cost health screening to people of Wyoming. At the fair, people come out. There are booths from the heart association, diabetes association, the American Cancer Society. People learn information about diseases, how they work, and how they affect their bodies. It can aid in early detection of problems. People can get their blood drawn and visit with healthcare providers from the community to go over blood results. All of this is aimed at prevention, early detection, and early treatment. It is interesting that during the same time Democrats running for President have been traveling the country talking about healthcare as well, and specifically Senator Bernie Sanders has talked about ``BernieCare''--Medicare for All. To me, Medicare for All is going to drive up costs for Americans in terms of taxes, and it is also going to take away the kind of choice people look for when I talk with them at Wyoming health fairs. I come to you today to talk on the floor about the real problems I see with this so-called Medicare for All, and I come to it as a doctor who has practiced medicine in Wyoming for 25 years, taking care of patients for decades. When I go to health fairs, more people refer to me as Dr. Barrasso rather than Senator Barrasso. I also want to talk as the husband of a breast cancer survivor. My wife, Bobbi, has had three operations, chemotherapy twice, and is now disease-free for 15 years, but I know how critically important it is as a doctor as well as a husband to make sure that people with preexisting conditions are protected. I also speak as the son of a 96-year-old mother, and she is a motivating force in our lives. She is a constant reminder to me that we must do everything we can to care for our seniors. So as I have been listening to the Presidential candidates talk about this Medicare for All proposal, whether it is Senators Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, or Booker, all of them back what Senator Sanders has been proposing. I am just not sure most Americans understand what Medicare for All means and what it would mean for them personally. Maybe some of the Presidential candidates don't even want people to know what it means. Senator Sanders has claimed that Medicare for All is, as he said, ``a struggle for the soul of who we are as a nation.'' Let's be clear. Americans are facing a critical choice. It is a choice between a big, government-run healthcare system and a system that gives Americans access to quality, affordable care that they can choose that is right for them and their families. That, to me, is the choice we are facing. Medicare for All essentially means a complete government takeover of all healthcare in this country. Central planners in Washington, DC, would then be in control of the healthcare for all of us. Medicare for All would enroll every American in a government-run healthcare system. It will take away America's healthcare choices. Senator Harris talks about, perhaps, a supplemental plan, but the legislation I have read that has been introduced is crystal clear-- Medicare for All outlaws private health insurance plans. The only exception, Senator Sanders says, is some limited insurance for cosmetic surgery--he says procedures like nose jobs. With about 180 million Americans getting insurance through work, currently covered through their employers, people who get insurance through work like the insurance they have. All of them will lose their coverage under what is proposed under the Medicare for All legislation. All of them will be forced onto this new government program--every one of them. Never mind that 71 percent of Americans covered through their employer actually say they like their current plan. A single-payer Medicare for All proposal says, basically, if you like your current healthcare plan, you cannot keep it. The government will take it away and make it illegal. Seniors are going to suffer, too, and, actually, I think seniors may end up suffering the most. I am talking about people who are already on Medicare because this legislation threatens the 60 million Americans who currently get their healthcare as part of Medicare. They get their healthcare today through Medicare. Medicare is already expected to run out of money by 2026. It was confirmed by last month's trustee report, but the Democrats' proposal will even outlaw Medicare Advantage, a program that 22 million Americans currently use for their healthcare. It is called Medicare Advantage because there are advantages to being on this program in terms of preventive care and coordinated care. There is a reason people sign up for Medicare Advantage. All 22 million would lose that as well under the Democrats' Medicare for All plan. Healthcare programs benefiting military families and children will also be eliminated. Democrats plan to abolish servicemembers' TRICARE and the Children's Health Insurance Plan. All of that goes away under what the Democrats' radical proposal is talking about. Perhaps the greatest deception of Medicare for All is the suggestion that government-run care would be free. Let me say to the American people: Do not be deceived. Do not be deceived. Americans will pay a very high price. Medicare for All has been estimated at a 10-year pricetag of $32 trillion. There is only one way to even try to pay for this massive plan and that is to dramatically raise everyone's income taxes to the point where they may need to pay double. That is what is being proposed. So the result will be less freedom, lower quality of care, and longer lines as people have to wait to get to a doctor, because Washington will be controlling the doctor-patient medical decisions--and, mark my words, Washington will ration care. Rationing means delays and delay means denial of care. Government-run healthcare is notorious for producing long lines, long waiting periods, delay in care--even urgently needed care. The government-run system has failed where they tried to put it in place in Vermont, in Senator Sanders' home State. They started it and ended up having to eliminate it. They couldn't afford it. It wasn't working. It was too complicated. That is in one State. We also have the situation of what is going on both in England and Canada right now in terms of costs and limits of care, the denial of treatment, the delay in treatment. I think people watching may have seen the stories as a result of what is happening in England, where elderly patients are going blind in Britain right now. Why would they be going blind? Because the government is rationing cataract surgery. People can Google ``going blind in Britain.'' It is the British healthcare system that is causing it because of the rationing of care. So Democrats are promoting this Medicare for All. Basically they are saying that ObamaCare needs to be repealed and replaced because it has failed the American people. The solution they are offering is not one that I think would make things better, but it is one that I think would make things worse. Republicans, at the same time, are working for meaningful, workable solutions that lower the costs of prescription drugs, solutions that increase healthcare choice and transparency, and solutions that expand all Americans' access to affordable care. We want to make sure patients can get the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. So instead of proposing higher taxes, which is what the Democrats are proposing, instead of proposing healthcare rationing, which will come with Medicare for All, Democrats need to begin working with Republicans to improve healthcare for all Americans, and they should start by rejecting BernieCare. Thank you. I yield the floor.