Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 305(b)(2) of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, this amendment simply raises a point of order on any legislation that modifies or eliminates State and local tax deductions. I know there are many States that have tax deductions from their Federal obligations on property, but I am specifically talking about States like Washington, Wyoming, Nevada, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee. We have had the ability to itemize and deduct our sales tax from our Federal income tax. That has resulted in a savings to the taxpayers. Under the President's proposal of increasing the standard deduction, even for households between $50,000 and $70,000, if you repeal their ability to continue to itemize, even with the standard deduction, you are raising taxes on them. It will not be covered. The standard deduction is only $12,000. For that bracket in my State, they are deducting up to $23,000. Please do not raise taxes on our constituents without a due process and a budget point of order that says that we are all going to be a part of this process and discussion before you take away a way for our citizens to save money. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, there is wide support for PILT from both Democrats and Republicans, as witnessed by this last vote. What we need to do now is to make sure that it works fairly for counties and is not done arbitrarily. The CRS found that taking the approach in Senator Lee's amendment would break the PILT Program. Not only would calculating each county's payments be nearly impossible, the program would not be fair. In fact, the CRS cited a 2010 study that found that the approach in Senator Lee's amendment would result in two-thirds of all of the counties that receive PILT funding receiving lower payments than they do now. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the most pristine areas of the United States, and we have been protecting it for decades for a reason. The notion that tonight, after 60-plus years, we would give up what is a biologically important area, that is a critical habitat for polar bears, a breeding ground for caribou, migratory birds, and over 200 species--for what? For oil that we don't need. We have had record oil production in the last 10 years--a 77-percent increase. The oil that we would get, we wouldn't get until 10 years from now, and it would supply oil for only 1 year in the United States. It is not worth it. As Representative Mo Udall said in 1980: ``If we have to drill at the White House or Arlington Cemetery or the Capitol grounds for oil, we might have to drill in the Arctic Refuge. But let us go there last.'' We don't need this oil. We have plenty of supply. The Interior Secretary is trying to open a billion acres, including on-shore and outer continental shelf waters. Vote no and protect a unique special place that has been protected for 60 years.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 1141, as provided under the previous order.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to talk about amendment No. 1141, which would raise a point of order against any provision that would strike State and local tax deductions. As we talk tonight about how our country moves forward economically and as we talk about what are the best ways to have tax fairness in America, I guarantee you, my constituents want to make sure they continue to be able to deduct their sales tax, their mortgage deductions, and there are important policies that other States have for tax deductions. The State of Washington has been a leader--and I would match our State, as it relates to our tax code and efficiency, with just about any other State. For a long time, Washington and Oregon have had the most unique tax codes in the United States of America. Yet our economies have grown faster than the national average every year since World War II. So we are doing something right. So the fact that we don't have an income tax in Washington State and the fact that Washingtonians, for many years, have been able to deduct our sales tax from our Federal tax obligations for income is something we are not interested in losing. What we are interested in is a fair debate about our Tax Code, an open process, and important discussion points of order if anybody tries to strip from us these very important tools. State and local tax deductions have been an important way in which our taxpayers make sure they are treated fairly. For us in Washington, as I said, many of our citizens use these itemized deductions because of the fact that we don't have an income tax and we are able to deduct our sales tax from our Federal tax obligations. In fact, 30 percent of Washington resident taxpayers--1.1 million--itemize their taxes and claim an average State and local tax deduction of $7,402. These deductions put an average of $600 back into the pockets of Washingtonians each year. So any attempt by legislation to try to erode that--particularly at a time when we also get a deduction on our property taxes as well--is something critically important to our State. If legislation continues to move forward that repeals these deductions--I know our colleagues think they are doing good work by trying to simplify the Tax Code. In fact, they are saying: We are going to increase the standard deduction as a way to simplify the Tax Code. But for my Washington residents--and, my guess is, for many other States that are in the same boat that don't have an income tax--you literally are going to penalize them and the efficiency of their tax code, which is so important. For example, 40 percent of tax filers who make between $50,000 and $75,000 claim this deduction, and 53 percent of taxpayers who make between $75,000 and $100,000 claim this deduction. So when my colleagues talk about doubling the deduction from $6,000 to $12,000 or from $12,000 to $24,000 for families, I am sure they would like us to believe that somehow is going to make the residents of Washington State and our taxpayers whole. That is not the case. On average, Washingtonians in those brackets could actually end up paying more. Why? Well, first of all, we should realize that there are over 250,000 Washingtonians--that is the estimate--who make more, in a joint filing, than $150,000. So right there, these Washingtonians would be in a situation where, under this tax proposal, they would be paying more than they are currently paying because they are not allowed to itemize and they are not allowed to deduct. I don't want to raise taxes on Washingtonians. In tight economic times, I don't want to see them continue to see these deductions eliminated and have their tax bills go up. Washingtonians work very hard at trying to make and keep the efficiency. I know there are other States--such as Texas, Alaska, and Florida--that also don't have an income tax. I know those States are probably struggling with the same policies and want to make sure they are making the same kinds of efficiencies. What we don't want is the current Republican proposal to raise taxes on working families in Washington State. We want to make sure these families continue to see the deductions they have had in the past. So how would this work exactly in Washington? Well, one of the things we are concerned about is the impact on the housing market. Without the deduction for property--we do not want to see an increase in the price of housing and fewer people being able to afford home ownership because they are no longer able to take this deduction. That would be something of grave concern to Washington residents. Also, we want to make sure that we continue to have these deductions for both singles and families of four, who would be impacted by this. For example, an average individual taxpayer making between $50,000 and $100,000 has an average total deduction of about $22,000. So this taxpayer would not benefit from increasing the standard deduction to $12,000. The difference is that they now get $22,000 in their itemized deductions, and under this proposal, they would only be able to deduct $12,000 of that. Take a family who is making over $100,000. As I said, we have 250,000 filers in our State who make between $150,000 and $200,000. This income bracket on average claims a deduction of $30,000 from various State, local, mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and medical expenses. This family also would not benefit from increasing the standard deduction to $24,000. As I said, they are already deducting about $30,000. Literally, we are raising taxes on thousands and I would say probably hundreds of thousands of Washington residents. That is why I am offering this amendment. I want us to have a point of order and true discussion about any policy that would raise taxes on my residents in Washington State. We have to have a tax discussion that is about a fair and open process, a continued dialogue about how to make sure that working families get a fair deal in a tax policy. But one policy that is jammed into a budget proposal and that then comes back to us for 51 votes, that literally eliminates our ability to itemize and deduct and gets rid of our sales deductions that we have fought so hard for, that we are so proud of as it relates to the individuality of how our State operates--we should not, with just 51 votes, cast a vote increasing the taxes on thousands and thousands of Washingtonians and, I would say, on many other States in our Nation. I hope our colleagues will take a close look at this. I hope they will help us in trying to make a point. Let's not rush through a policy when we don't know what the impacts are. Let's get specific about what the impacts are and recognize that some of our States are the most ingenious as it relates to delivering great services at lower costs. I know some of my colleagues would like to say: There are these big States in the East, and here is how they operate. Here is what they do in collecting various forms of revenue. Well, this Western State operates with a great deal of efficiency. Our residents have come to expect these sales tax deductions and these mortgage deductions, and they want to keep them. They do not want to hear that there is a sleight of hand at the eleventh hour, not by a broad debate but a tactic that would jam them into a reconciliation bill because of instructions and thereby have these thousands of dollars of tax increases foisted on them. I hope my colleagues will join me in this very important point of order that we will be offering in this amendment. Let's have this discussion in broad daylight and not penalize innovative States that have different tax codes but have grown faster than the national average and continue to do so. Let's make sure that we have tax fairness for all residents of our country. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak against the budget resolution's containment of language that might direct our colleagues in the future to open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue and for being on the Senate floor tonight to talk about how important it is that we continue to maintain this Wildlife Refuge as it exists. Our public lands have been under assault from this administration. It comes in all forms. It certainly comes in the form of trying to use the Antiquities Act in reverse and, basically, to say: You can open up public lands for drilling. This really caused a controversy in Utah with the Bears Ears National Monument. There are Tribes, sportsmen, fishermen, and hunters who value the public lands in this national monument and who don't want to see it turned over to companies or individuals who want to mine or drill for oil and gas to the detriment of the monument resources. Now the budget resolution will allow for a ``for sale'' sign on some of our public lands to give a tax break to millionaires. It is not that this is the only issue. As I said, there is the notion that the administration is taking our public lands and trying to turn them over to be developed, the notion that they are giving land to coal companies so they can harvest coal off of Federal lands and then not charging them a royalty rate which is compensatory and fair to the American public. We tried to fix that. Obviously, this Secretary of the Interior is trying to roll that back and give coal companies a sweetheart deal. Now we have an EPA Administrator who, basically, has had a mining company CEO walk into his office and say: By the way, we want to develop a mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay in Alaska, home of the largest salmon run and probably responsible for 50 percent of sockeye salmon around the world. Immediately after the mining executive left the EPA Administrator's office, the EPA Administrator sent out a letter saying: Let's toss aside Clean Water Act safeguards to protect Bristol Bay, move forward on this idea of allowing the mine application to proceed. So much for due process, so much for preserving what has taken the American public more than a hundred years to put together so that the public can recreate on public lands--so, yes, hunting, fishing, Native American, and recreational communities are all upset. What is the latest play? Let's stick in the budget resolution language providing for the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development--something that has been so precious to the United States of America--basically a Serengeti for wildlife, an intact arctic ecosystem that doesn't exist in other places in the United States. Yet people are trying what I call a sneak attack, just like they did 12 years ago, just as people tried to open up the Arctic refuge for development before and on its own merits couldn't get it enacted into law. They put it in the Defense appropriation bill, thinking that there is no way people could vote against money for the troops--that is how we can get the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge open for mineral development. But it didn't work then, and it is not going to work now. The American people are not for legislative sneak attacks, backdoor ways to move legislation that could never pass on its own merits. I know the President wants to get a big budget package together, get healthcare in there, throw in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, hope that people can't vote no, and move forward. I would say, if this is such a wonderful idea, let it stand on its own merits. This area, as we can see, is a very pristine part of the United States. And now some people are saying: Oh, well, we could do some sort of drilling. Why do you want to have drilling in a pristine wildlife refuge? When people say: Oh, well, there are refuges that have had drilling--if that was prior to it being declared a refuge, yes, but this is a pristine area that we decided to set aside. Why? Because, as I mentioned, it is a Serengeti, it is an arctic Serengeti of caribou and other wildlife, over 200 different species of birds that come to the area, to say nothing about the population of polar bears in the region. Why do we want to destroy this? It is not that we are somehow thinking that we are going to get oil reserves out of it for our Nation. In fact, the issue is really, with the price of oil and the oil export market that has now been created, oil produced here is going on to the larger world market. So why is it that we think this is going to help us in the United States? People are trying to use a budget process to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion to pay for tax cuts for wealthy people. They are willing to degrade the environment as a way to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. I don't agree to it. I don't think the American people agree to it. They know that this iconic wildlife refuge has been attacked many times. They know that every time, someone has had to come up with some backdoor way of trying to get the refuge opened. I think my colleagues should understand and take note that these have all failed. They failed in the past because this idea is not the brightest, most brilliant idea in America. It is not the thing that is going to turn the U.S. economy around. It is not the thing that is going to help us get tax reform. It is not an idea that is even going to help us with the bipartisan effort to move forward on an energy package. If you think about it, we passed an energy bill out of here last Congress with 85 votes. If this was something that could be done in that package, it would have been done in that package. I know that we are going to have more oil and gas exploration in Alaska. I know there is going to be more exploration in many parts of the Arctic. There is going to be a rush of Arctic nations to look at oil drilling off of our coast and in the Arctic Circle. The United States should get ready and participate in those discussions. I am first in line to say that we need a fleet of icebreakers to be prepared and be ready for the advent and the change in the Arctic. There will be many discussions about where responsible drilling should take place. I guarantee you, even if you opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it would not stop this debate about more drilling in Alaska. Let's remember that we set aside this pristine area for a very specific purpose: to keep the uniqueness that has existed in this part of the world--just a very small piece of it. Continue to have the debate in other parts of Alaska and in the Arctic about what the development of oil resources are going to be. I encourage my colleagues not to fall prey to another backdoor attempt at trying to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Don't fall for a cynical bill where somehow somebody is going to try to cram everything in it and say: You can't vote against it because it has too many things for your State. Let's do the work that it takes to do bipartisan work--work together, agree on the things that we can agree on, and move forward. I guarantee you, our energy policy will be better in America for doing that. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak about the vote we will have at 5:30 p.m., but I want to give my condolences to those who have been impacted by the horrific shooting in Las Vegas and to the families and the victims of this horrible incident. I want them to know that our thoughts and prayers are with them as the whole Nation turns to this situation. My thoughts and prayers also go out to at least one Washington family who was impacted and was at this event. We may find out that there are others. We are thinking and praying deeply for their recovery, and I hope everybody will take the time to say some thoughts and prayers for those who have been impacted by this incident. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in opposition to the nomination of Ajit Pai to have a second term as the Chairman of the FCC. The reason why we are speaking about this vote that will happen in a short period of time is because we are concerned about the future of innovation, the future of where consumers play in the decision making of how they access content, and the future of our economy. What I am worried about is that, in the short period of time that Chairman Pai has been at the FCC, instead of the policies that would have enabled consumers, he has taken actions that, I think, will have consumers paying more for less access and with which media concentration will be more enabled and plans to protect net neutrality in an open internet will be reversed. This, in and of itself, is the biggest issue that I and the economy of Washington State could possibly see with this renomination; that is to say, the State of Washington and the internet and innovation that exists there could be greatly impacted by the rolling back of protections that we have now, which say that you cannot artificially throttle or slow down internet activity and hold consumers hostage to paying more. The mission of the FCC is to promote the use and deployment of communications in the public interest, and it is the job of the Chairman to make sure that mission is carried out. Undoing the existing net neutrality laws on the books, I do not think, is in the public interest, and it will not promote the access we need. Dismantling this rule that would preserve the diversity of content will negatively impact our marketplace for a long time. When we think about some of the issues that we have already seen and what we could see in the future, more consumers will have to pay a toll to use the internet. What we will see is that, if you want to get in the fast lane or if you want to have rapid access, you have to pay more. Today consumers are using mobile apps to preorder coffee, to get access to healthcare information, and to make sure that we protect ourselves from attacks on everything, from our electricity grid to people's homes and security systems. I am very worried that, if the internet's arteries are officially slowed down or clogged, critical information could arrive too late to help protect consumers. We are living in a world where people are seeing things happen then using their smart phones to collect and share information that can keep all of us safe. So this is another reason why we want to make sure that consumers can get access to and share information and are not slowed down or throttled in any way. When we think about this and the app economy that exists in Washington State, these are the fastest growing businesses. It is part of a large organization, where, today, 1.7 million Americans' jobs are because of these apps, and nearly 92,000 of them are in the State of Washington. They have grown at an annual rate of 30 percent. The average growth rate for all other jobs is 1.6 percent. Why would we confirm someone who has already pledged to roll back the rules of an open internet, which basically will create throttling and slowing down of content that will hurt the app economy and small businesses? Nobody wants to develop a new application that connects consumers-- whether it is in healthcare or protecting people in cyber or education or, for that matter, even the Senate--if they are going to have to pay a toll to get faster access to information or to get faster access to their customers. Dismantling net neutrality puts our economy in jeopardy. While I know some would say that it is necessary for investment, I would say that instead what we have seen in the last several years, while the open internet rules have been in place, is the type of increased investment in the internet infrastructure that is needed to support its growing importance. I do not agree with my colleagues who think this reversing the open internet rules is necessary to grow our investments. That's just what the large cable companies tell you they need so that they can build fast and slow lanes and charge consumers more if they want access to those fast lanes. I encourage my colleagues to vote no on Ajit Pai for a second term as FCC Commissioner. Let's get focused on making sure we protect an open internet. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose the nomination of Ajit Pai to serve a second term as Chairman of the FCC. Since taking over the FCC leadership in January, Chairman Pai wasted no time moving the agency away from its key mission to promote the use and deployment of communications in the public interest. For example, he has been involved in dismantling the rules that preserve the diversity of content in media ownership, potentially negatively impacting forever the number and variety of voices in the media market. In addition, his confirmation to this important position will also have a negative impact on one of the most important issues, I believe, of our time; that is, preserving net neutrality. A strong and open internet is key to an economy of the future--to promoting an environment for innovation and facilitating the creative jobs that are going to come along with an open internet architecture. Chairman Pai is poised to undo the bedrock principles that are already in place to protect an open internet. Even in the face of evidence that these rules are important to an internet economy and millions of jobs, he is determined to try to rewrite them. On Monday, the Senate will vote on whether to confirm Ajit Pai for another term as Chairman of the FCC. As I have said, I think his leadership has shown that on net neutrality, he believes the rules should be changed. As long as he continues to hold that position, I cannot support his nomination. As the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, he has demonstrated disdain for the important public interest principles he is supposed to be upholding. He shows a disregard for the innovators in America that are striving to build the economy of the future. The public interest mission of the FCC is encoded in the agency's DNA. The law that created the FCC clearly states that the agency's mission includes promoting equal access to communications networks for all people around the United States. This means the FCC has the responsibility to promote the expansion of communications networks and to ensure they have the incentive and ability to compete fairly with one another in providing broadband services. The mission does not include letting a big telecom company or cable company run over small businesses or consumers and saying to them: Unless you pay me more, I am not going to give you essential services. Imagine if that happened to the telephone industry decades ago, if you couldn't get access because someone had decided, ``I'm going to let the highest bidder rule the roost.'' The President's nomination of Pai and his desire to have him continue as Chair continues to show a desire to undermine the internet and the internet economy. As soon as he was appointed, Chairman Pai announced his intention, as Chairman, to go against the demands of American consumers and reverse the rules that are already on the books to protect consumers. Chairman Pai wants to make it possible for those big telecom and cable companies to erect toll lanes that would further burden the nature of the internet and innovation that its economy supports. He plans to go against more than 10 million American consumers and innovators who have told him to keep the internet open and free. Recent studies have shown that the internet economy is now over 7 percent of U.S. GDP, it employs 7 million people and is worth a trillion dollars. Our strong, robust internet rules, without question, have helped keep that economic growth. Our economy is in a massive technological transformation. It is in an information age, and in an information age, making sure you have an open internet is going to be key to continuing to grow business. Every business plan of every startup relies on the ability of consumers to get equal access to content. Largely, as a result of the innovations, the open internet has created hundreds of thousands of tech jobs in the United States. The internet economy is almost a trillion dollars, and at 7 percent of GDP, it is growing faster and stronger than many other sectors, including construction, mining, utilities, agriculture, education, and entertainment. It is disturbing to me that Chairman Pai has made it clear he wants to rewrite the rules that protect those businesses and create an artificial fast and slow lane and ``if you want out of the slow lane, you better pay me more money.'' We can't afford to do that for all the internet applications and all the small businesses that are continuing to work on growing our economy. We need to make sure that instead of shedding jobs in the United States, as we did in the last economic downturn, that we are creating jobs and creating power for consumers. We have seen what has been termed the ``app economy,'' which consists of everybody who makes money has a job thanks to a mobile app that was also powered by the internet. Today, 1.7 million Americans have jobs because of that economy. Nearly 92,000 of them are in the State of Washington. Over the past 5 years, that app economy and those jobs have grown at an annual rate of 30 percent. The average growth rate for all other jobs is 1.6 percent. So, literally, Chairman Pai is trying to clog the arteries of one of the fastest growing economic opportunities in America. By 2020, the app economy is estimated to grow to over $100 billion. This demonstrates that the internet economy is a dynamic, supercharged, job-creating engine, with economic growth that should not be artificially slowed down because some industries believe they have the right to do so. These facts, and making sure we protect an open internet, are why we should not support Chairman Pai. The slow lanes and the fast lanes are not like a highway where a consumer or business can take another route or plan another course. Here, you are creating barriers that are wedges between businesses and their consumers, between doctors and their patients, between industry solution providers and the customers they are trying to serve. The growth of the internet platform for economic activity is something we do not want to see destroyed, and Chairman Pai's dismantling of that robust internet architecture and the support it gives to innovators is extremely troubling to me. I think about all the internet applications that I have seen in my State, whether it is a business like McKinstry that provides building efficiencies to school districts all over our State and in Puget Sound. Let's pretend now that McKinstry, which is trying to tell North Shore School District that they are using too much power could reduce their costs by just doing three simple things--but now, all of a sudden, because the net neutrality rules go away, McKinstry has to charge that school district more if they want to get that information to them on time. A clogged artery will not get the information to that school district when it is needed in time to make an adjustment. Let's talk about a doctor in a rural area who receives information about a patient who comes into their emergency room but wants a consult with a doctor in Seattle, and all of a sudden, now their connectivity is slowed down unless they pay more money. I also think about this issue in the context of just some very everyday ways we experience the impact of an open internet. Like people going to get coffee. In my State, they will now preorder. They go online, and then they show up to get their coffee--all so they can avoid the long lines. But now, all of a sudden, if net neutrality goes away, is that going to mean another charge or, an extra toll, just to get consumers connected to the coffee shop so they can avoid a long line? Are cable companies and internet service providers going to say to the consumer: You have to pay more if you want a fast lane. What Chairman Pai doesn't realize is that the internet is now a full- blown ecosystem with many attachments; that the internet is like the artery system that connects it all and connects it in so many ways beyond even our imagination. Yet he is proposing to clog those arteries, to hold us ransom if only we will tell a cable company it is OK to charge the American consumer more. We cannot afford to ruin the internet economy by doing this. We need to have an open internet architecture that allows everybody to access this information at the same time and the same rate so that we can continue to innovate. There are ways to grow the internet and grow internet investment in the delivery system. In fact, during the time period of the open internet rules, we have seen just that--a continued investment. So we do not now have to rewrite these rules. We do not now have to throw a roadblock, a hurdle, a clogging of the arteries at the small business and internet economy that is growing so rapidly with all its devices. God forbid that one of our colleagues would be on the other side of town and get a delayed message about when a vote started just because we in the Senate hadn't bought a higher, faster speed lane, and maybe they would miss a vote. It is hard to say what slowing down the internet artificially would do because it is so connected to everything we do today, and that is why we have to stop this from happening. I would be happy to hear that Chairman Pai has decided to drop his insistence on trying to change the rules of an open internet. If he did that, I might think differently about his nomination. But until then I will continue to fight for my State's economy, which depends so greatly on net neutrality, and continue to fight for the millions of consumers around the United States who are trying to grow what are smarter, more intelligent, more cost-effective businesses. Even the healthcare debate we just had is instructive on the issues of net neutrality--I believe in home healthcare. I believe we can implement it and drive down costs. But if you are telling a patient that they might not get the information back from their doctor for days because he can't afford a fast internet connection that the cable companies are charging, then I guarantee my colleagues we are not going to reduce our healthcare costs. So, please, I say to my colleagues, you will not have another chance at this. You will hear from your constituents about this issue, and you will not be able to take back this vote. Please make sure you understand that Chairman Pai is marching ahead on a very different anti-consumer road, and because of that, I am not going to vote for someone who is going to slow down and clog the internet. I urge my colleagues to vote no on Chairman Pai's nomination. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, my colleagues have been here on the floor over the last few minutes, last night, this morning, and this afternoon to talk about our distress about people trying again to push the repeal of the Affordable Care Act without a successful strategy to move our Nation forward with more affordability. We just received a letter from 10 Governors basically telling us the same thing, to slow down and work on a bipartisan basis. They are basically telling us the proposal people are trying to rush through without regular order is not the kind of thing which will help us in making the necessary reforms. I think these bipartisan Governors--from the Governor of Colorado to the Governor of Ohio, to the Governor of Alaska, the spectrum of Democrats, Republican, and Independents is something people in the United States of America should listen to because it is important we get this right because the affordability of healthcare is so important. What I don't like about the proposal now being pushed by my colleagues--even though they want the States to have some flexibility and play a larger role--is that it basically ends the 52-year State- Federal partnership we know as Medicaid today; that is, it changes the dynamic in saying that the States and the Federal Government are in business together to take care of a population that is the most vulnerable of citizens in our country and that giving them affordable access to healthcare is a priority because it actually reduces everybody's healthcare costs. When people think about the expense in healthcare, ask any provider, and they will tell you that 1 in 5 dollars spent on the Federal system drives the cost of everybody's insurance. If you leave people uninsured, they go to the hospital, they raise the cost to everybody. It is not a good strategy. We have seen States that have covered people on Medicaid actually raise people out of poverty, help their economies, and reduce the costs at individual hospitals, thereby driving down the cost of private insurance. Why would we want to destroy that by authorizing in legislation the end of this 52-year relationship between the Federal Government and States, trying to make sure our populations are covered; that if a State spends a dollar, they can count on the Federal Government to spend that dollar as well and to continue the partnership that works cost-effectively. What I also don't like is it sunsets Medicaid for 15 million people. If you are going to sunset Medicaid for these 15 million people, when are you going to sunset Medicaid for the rest of the Medicaid population? When are you going to try, by legislative action, to curtail the opportunities for millions of Americans who use Medicaid as a stabilizing force for health insurance in America? In our State, 600,000 people--most of whom were previously uninsured--would be in that sunset of Medicaid. The legislation my colleagues are pushing would basically end the funding for this block grant program in 2027, which would leave States with an unfunded bill for those individuals of about $300 billion. I doubt States have the money. I doubt the individual market is going to take care of those individuals as cost-effectively as we are taking care of them through Medicaid. States will then cost shift these resources back to the public, raising everybody's rates again. Our job has to be about affordability. It has to be about driving down costs. It has to be about driving down costs in the individual market and driving down costs of the delivery system overall. There is nothing innovative about kicking 15 million people off Medicaid and sunsetting it in this bill. I also object to the notion, in this bill, of literally advocating the privatization of Medicaid. They are advocating that what you do with this population is take them off the current program and shift them onto the private individual market. Some people who are following this might say: Well, wait. Then they can go to the private market--and, yes, there is support to make sure we have affordable health insurance. No, because the legislation also says you stop that support by 2027. So this is just one more sneak attack by our colleagues at kicking people off Medicaid. To start the process and agree to privatize Medicaid, where is it going to end? I am the first to say we can improve our delivery system, that we can save money. I have advocated I think one of the most cost-effective ideas of the Affordable Care Act; that is, to move the population of our citizens who need care in the later years of their life off nursing home care and into community-based care. It is one-third the cost. Our State, the State of Washington, saved more than $2 billion doing this over a 15-year period of time. If other States would do this, we could save $100 billion or more by having States give people the opportunity to age at home and have a long-term care delivery system which works in our communities. It is one-third the cost. That is innovation. Those are cost savings. That is improvement on our current delivery system, hopefully covering an aging baby boomer population that will reach retirement and a population of Americans who are going to live longer. There is nothing innovative about just privatizing Social Security, privatizing Medicaid, and kicking people off by shifting them over to an exchange and then cutting the resources for the exchange. I hope our colleagues will stop the notion that somehow this is innovation. It is not innovation. It is sunsetting, it is privatization, and it is cutting people off care. That is why we have heard from these Governors and others about why it is so important not to take this bait. We need to make sure we are continuing our bipartisan discussions, continuing to work together about what will drive affordability into the market. Bundling up a population and giving them clout to negotiate on rates and giving a State the ability to negotiate on rates--either on drug costs or on insurance--yes, this can save dollars. It is being done right now in New York and Minnesota, and it can be done in other places. Cost-shifting to the States this $300 billion or then making States make the draconian decision of, ``Wait. I already shifted that population onto the exchange. Oh, my gosh. The Federal Government just cut the funds we are going to get,'' and the next thing you know, this population is left without care. Privatizing Medicaid is not the way to go. I hope our colleagues will continue to discuss, on a bipartisan basis, the aspects of the Affordable Care Act that could be expanded to drive down costs and increase affordability. I hope they will continue to make sure things like basic health--the essential elements of what should be covered in a basic plan--are there for our consumers; that we are not going to take the bait in thinking that by cutting essential services to people, somehow that is the way to get a private insurance plan. We have the ability to work together. My colleagues and I have been working and discussing these ideas. My colleagues Senator Murray and Senator Alexander are working on various ideas in their HELP Committee, as we are working in the Finance Committee, in making sure we expand and fund the affordability of insurance for children and their families under the Children's Health Insurance or CHIP program. Let's not make this worse. Let us not end this 52-year relationship that has successfully covered a population of America, and let's not fall for the bait and think that somehow this is going to save the American taxpayer money. It is not. It is going to cost shift right back to the private individual, raise individual rates, and we can't afford it. Let's not privatize Medicaid. Let's fight to make it a more cost-effective program for the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Colorado to come to the floor to talk about the President's misguided decision earlier today to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. This program, put in place by the last administration, gave the certainty and predictability to so many young children who were brought to the United States through not their own actions but through others' actions. As my colleague talked about, there is story after story of young people who have literally applied for college aid only to find out they were not here legally and could not pursue that kind of financial assistance. That is why, since 2001, I have been a supporter of the Dream Act. Tonight, I cannot believe this is the message from this President. In a remarkable act of courage and trust, 17,500 young DACA recipients are working and contributing to the economy in my State, the State of Washington. These recipients must submit biographical information and biometric information, and allow State Department, Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies to complete background checks. They have never committed a felony, and they must have a job, be in school, or have served in the military. So ending this program is literally taking workers out of our State, taking the gross domestic product of over $1 billion that it will cost our Nation over the next several years. The President's decision to end DACA runs counter to the longstanding and proud history in our State of welcoming immigrants. Dreamers invest in their communities. They pay State and local taxes. In fact, the Chamber of Commerce supports this program as does a majority of Americans, and over 300 business leaders agree that Dreamers help us build a better and more prosperous America. Just today, one of the key Microsoft executives--one of our key companies--said he would rather have legislation to protect these individuals in immigration reform than to have tax reform. That is how important it is to our State. I am glad my colleagues Senators Durbin and Graham held a bipartisan press conference to talk about supporting this important legislation to move forward. Tonight, as we are returning to the U.S. Senate, with lots of priorities, we need to make sure we are giving young people--young people who have benefited from the security of participating in our economy--the certainty that they will continue to be here in the United States and to serve in our military. I hope my colleagues will take this seriously and move toward legislation. We have worked on a bipartisan basis on this legislation for more than a decade. Yet it is simple. You either want to protect these young individuals or you do not. I hope my colleagues will give us a chance to rectify this as soon as possible.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would also like to say a word about the World Trade Organization's announcement that was just made yesterday, one in which the World Trade Organization said that the Boeing 777X Program did not receive prohibited subsidies. This is a huge win for 80,000 Boeing employees in the State of Washington as well as for the 1,700 suppliers and individual businesses across our State who support our strong aerospace economy. It is also a loss to the European Union in its efforts to retaliate against the United States for our challenge to illegal launch aid to Airbus that began more than 10 years ago. This shows it was right to raise these concerns by the United States and that the retaliation by Airbus was wrong. Last year, the WTO ruled that the EU had not taken steps to comply with its previous ruling regarding $17 billion in illegal launch aid to Airbus, and that it had given another $5 billion in illegal launch aid to the A350 Program even after these kinds of subsidies had been declared illegal. We need an aerospace market that is truly competitive, one that is not distorted by illegal subsidies. So these cases matter because the outcome impacts jobs here in the United States, and aerospace is one of the biggest manufacturers in the United States. We know in our State that there are lots of challenges and there is lots of competition, but we want that competition to be on a level playing field. We want to make sure that, in the aerospace industry, people are playing by the rules. This is the third time the WTO has said that the massive illegal subsidies the EU has provided to Airbus are wrong, that they have failed to take the steps to comply, and that they need to change their behavior. If the EU will not play by the rules, then we should take the necessary steps to force an end to these anti-competitive schemes. I say this because the WTO's ruling today--while I know many of my colleagues think this process played out all too long--did resolve the issue as it related to the EU gave Airbus. Enforcement of these trade rules is important to U.S. competitiveness. I want to continue to strengthen our ability to enforce these kinds of rules and continue to make sure that the U.S. Government has all the resources and personnel it needs to make sure our trading partners meet their commitments, and our aerospace workforce in the United States is second to none. I want to continue to fight every battle to make sure they can be competitive. I thank everyone at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for working so hard on this case for more than a decade. It is finally time to move on and to make sure that the EU is in line with these past WTO rulings and that we continue to fight for a fair and competitive aerospace market. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam President. I come to the floor--I know my colleague from Indiana, Senator Donnelly, is going to be down here to talk a little bit about his motion, and I want to support him in that, along with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Casey, because we are here to say we need to stop this war on Medicaid. Throughout this healthcare process, it has been very clear that there are many on the other side of the aisle who just want to cut or gut Medicaid. What we are saying is, if you are serious about protecting Medicaid and stopping the war on Medicaid, then you should support the Donnelly-Cantwell-Casey amendment, which would recommit the bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to strike the language about Medicaid. It would make sure a state can expand Medicaid Program, and it would say: Don't cost-shift to the States. With this motion, we are saying to our Republican colleagues: We don't want to cut people off of Medicaid. We want the committee to do exactly what the Republican Governors are saying, which is, quit beating up on Medicaid and focus instead on fixing the individual market. The individual market is 7 percent of the overall market for health insurance. What we have found with the expansion of Medicaid that has been done by both Democratic and Republican Governors is great success. I hope my Republican colleagues will heed the warnings of our Nation's Republican Governors and Democratic Governors. In June, a letter from seven bipartisan Governors was sent to Senate leaders. This is a letter by the Governors of Ohio, Montana, Nevada, Louisiana, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. It shows the diversity of both our Nation and political parties. It says: We believe that, first and foremost, Congress should focus on improving our nation's private health insurance system. Then they say: Medicaid provisions included in this bill [that has been proposed by the House] are particularly problematic. Instead, we recommend Congress address factors we can all agree need fixing. So the message was clear from these Governors, including Republican Governors, and I hope my colleagues will listen to them. The Nation's Governors know because they have had to provide and be a partner on Medicaid for their citizens. They know how it affects their economy, and they know what it does when families in their States get access to healthcare. It reduces the bankruptcy rate. It helps people stay employed. It boosts GDP. All of these things are benefits of Medicaid expansion that we have seen in Washington State. It cut the uncompensated care cost in half. It also resulted in the creation of new jobs. A nonpartisan study found that if the current bill we are debating, the House bill, is passed, state economies will shrink by $93 billion. So pulling the rug out from under Medicaid recipients would hurt jobs and hurt economies in Nevada, Alaska, and West Virginia. West Virginia would lose more than 10,000 jobs, more than $1 billion in gross State product, and more than $1.7 billion in business output. Nevada would lose 3,300 healthcare jobs and Alaska would lose 2,600. So all of these things are ways for us to say: If you are serious now--before you go home for the August recess--about protecting Medicaid and stopping this ridiculous war on Medicaid, vote for our motion. Stand up and say you understand that we may have challenges in the individual market, but it doesn't mean that we should cut people off of access to healthcare through Medicaid. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I saw the remarks of the President of the United States in Youngstown, OH, and it has brought me to the floor this morning because the focus of some of his speech was on the economy and job creation. Well, I can tell the President right now that we need his urgent attention to making sure that we create jobs right now. It is not about something in the future; it is about right now. There are over 40 projects worth $30 billion being held up because the Export-Import Bank does not have a quorum. It is incredibly important to get a functioning bank and to get a board that supports having the support of a credit agency to work with the private sector to finance the sale of U.S.-made products. The President seems to embrace the notion that we should make things in America. I think we should make things in America, but I don't think that we sell them only in America. I actually want to sell the great manufactured products of the United States of America to overseas markets, to the 95 percent of consumers who are outside the United States. But because this administration has not shown the leadership to get a functioning Export-Import Bank, we continue to struggle. Those $30 billion in projects are being held up because we don't have a functioning quorum. GE Aviation in Ohio--I wish he would have visited them because they decided to move part of their operations to Canada and Brazil, instead of expanding in Ohio, to take advantage of countries that actually have a credit agency. GE Aircraft Engines decided to open a turbine prop engine facility in Europe for the same reason. We are losing jobs simply because we don't have a tool to work with private-sector banking to make sure that the sale of U.S.-manufactured products actually gets done to countries and organizations in those countries that don't have the proper financing. GE supposedly said that they weren't going to move their corporate headquarters to Ohio because they did not support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Between 2012 and 2016, the Export-Import Bank supported more than 255 export deals in Ohio from all sizes of companies, such as Haltec, which exports auto parts, and Anglo American Hardwoods, which exports wood products to the GE Aviation that I mentioned and GE Aircraft Engines. These deals were worth more than $2 billion. What I am so frustrated about is that this administration has not kept its word in support of the Export-Import Bank. We continue today with the folly of having our Trade Ambassador show up before the Finance Committee and say that the Export-Import Bank is controversial. I reminded him that it was actually supported by a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans in the U.S. Senate. It was also supported by a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Democrats in the House of Representatives. So how could it be so controversial if we reauthorized it? But the White House has continued to have a double-edged strategy, pretend that they support the Export-Import Bank, and yet send up the name of a nominee to chair the bank who wants to destroy the bank and has made that intention clear. If we want jobs in Ohio, we need to get the Export-Import Bank approving deals from manufacturers that are ready to close sales and create more jobs, so let's focus on the task at hand. I hope the President will stand up and clearly articulate the need and support for an Export-Import Bank and stop sending us the name of someone who just wants to destroy it. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for being here. We have been out here many a night, talking about the importance of Medicaid. I so appreciate his leadership in the Senate on this very important issue. He has been a champion of the Children's Health Insurance Program and has been a voice amongst all Senators in making sure that people have access to healthcare. I so appreciate being out here with him tonight. I don't really appreciate being here right at this moment. I am really flabbergasted. Why are we here at this moment? Why are we here? I am pretty sure that President Trump, when he was candidate Trump, put in a tweet that he would not cut Medicaid. Yet that is the proposal we are talking about. No matter what the proposal is--repeal, the House bill, the proposal scored by CBO or some Senate alternative on junk insurance--they all are a cut to Medicaid, so I am not sure how we are here. I am not sure how we are here when the Vice President at the time campaigned, I am sure, against the Affordable Care Act and then became Governor of Indiana and implemented Medicaid expansion in his own State. After saying that he was against the Affordable Care Act, he implemented Medicaid expansion. I am sure people in his home State said: If you want to take care of people, if you want to raise our standard of living, if you want to keep down the costs of healthcare delivery and private insurance, put people on coverage so that they aren't driving up the cost of uncompensated care. So how are we here? How are we here when our House colleagues came up with a proposal that basically cuts 23 million people off of healthcare--including 15 million people on Medicaid--after working with the President, who said that he didn't want to cut Medicaid, and the Vice President, who basically campaigned against it and then went ahead and expanded it? I can't believe how many times I have been on the Senate floor, and I haven't seen one of my colleagues come down here and talk about solutions that they are proposing. I just hear them come and talk about the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and kicking millions of people off of the healthcare they currently have. Tonight, I can imagine there are many people across the United States of America who are like me, thinking, how could this be happening? How could we be sitting here tonight, not knowing what the Senate is going to vote on, not knowing whether they are going to repeal their health insurance, not knowing where their Senators stand or even if the Senator knows what proposal they are voting on? Yet I can tell you this: More than 70 percent of the American people think the ideas that have now been put forth by the House and the Senate Republicans and the President do not work. They are not the way to increase access to healthcare and drive down the cost of private insurance in the insurance market. You don't have to take my word for it. I am looking at a statement by Ohio's Republican Governor, John Kasich. I worked with John Kasich in the House of Representatives. He was a budget hawk. He wanted to figure out how to make things work. So I trust that, as Governor, he is a fiscal steward about how to get things done when he says: ``Until Congress can step back from political gamesmanship and come together with a workable, bipartisan plan, it is a mistake for the Senate to proceed with a vote on Tuesday and force a one-sided deal that the American people are clearly against.'' So why are we here? Why are we here when a President promised that he wasn't going to cut Medicaid, a Vice President said that he was against the bill but then went and did Medicaid expansion? The people in the United States responded very clearly that they are not interested in cutting millions of people off of health insurance because they know that, even if it doesn't affect their family, it doesn't make common sense for keeping down the costs of healthcare. So I ask my colleagues to stop and think about the people in the United States of America who are clearly scared to death about what is going to happen tomorrow. They are scared that someone in their family or that they, the provider for their family, are not going to be able to provide insurance. If you are so brave, come down here and volunteer, as an amendment, to cut all of us--cut the Senate off of our access to health insurance until we come up with some idea that you think is so terrific. I doubt you will come and propose that. You wouldn't want your family cut off of healthcare. I meet people like Emily Talbot, who came to visit me from Seattle Children's Hospital, who at age 6 was diagnosed with a condition that affected her brain tissues and spinal canal. She was from Idaho, and she was referred to Seattle Children's because it is the pediatric referral center for our region. Thanks to Medicaid, she saw 11 different pediatric subspecialists and had 13 brain surgeries and 7 back surgeries. Her mom told me that without Medicaid and without the prohibition on lifetime caps, she wouldn't have access to healthcare today. Is that what my Republican colleagues want to say tomorrow, that ``we don't really know for sure how we are going to do this, we don't really know what works, but even though we said we weren't going to cut Medicaid, we are going to cut people off of health insurance who currently have coverage?'' I think the reason why people like these Governors from Republican States have been willing to speak out against this proposal and raise their concerns is because they have to be a steward of Medicaid, and they have to be fiscally responsible. So they know there are better ways. When I talk to the regional hospitals in my State, they tell me that covering more people under Medicaid has created downward pressure on price in the individual market. It has helped us. So our solution cannot be decimating the Medicaid market. Our solution has to look at those in the individual market who don't have as much clout as a big employer or somebody who can buy in bulk and drive down their price. There are ways to address that issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues on those solutions, but that is not what is being recommended tomorrow. Those solutions haven't been put forth, nor are they part of any of these proposals. So I ask my colleagues to not proceed. The President promised he was not going to cut Medicaid, and now it is like you want somebody to jump off the cliff tomorrow, and you are saying: Oh, by the way, I will throw you a parachute on the way down. It doesn't work. As my colleagues have said here tonight, it is time to give certainty to this population that we have a proposal that will help continue to give them access to care. I would say to my colleagues that taking a vote on politics when it is the lives and the healthcare access that so many millions of Americans seek--don't play politics with healthcare. Let's get a solution that works and works on both sides of the aisle. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. What is the pending business?

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the Bernhardt nomination to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior. The Deputy Secretary plays an important role in forming and carrying out the administration's policy on a broad range of issues. These issues include our Nation's public lands, our national parks, our national wildlife refuges, our water resources, mineral and energy development on public lands and Federal waters, carrying out our trust responsibilities to our Tribal nations, and working with our territories and Freely Associated States. The Deputy Secretary also performs very important functions as it relates to the Secretary or in the Secretary's absence. In virtually all matters, the Deputy Secretary has the authority of the Secretary. That is why I look at this position with such an important critique, because we know in past positions there have been conflicts, and we know we have important policies to discuss, and we need to make sure we have no conflicts of interest. I have made no secret that I have concerns about this nomination. Mr. Bernhardt is no stranger to this body and he is no stranger to the Department of the Interior. He held a number of senior political positions in the Department during the Bush administration beginning in 2006. After leaving the Department in 2009, he returned to a successful private practice. For 8 years, he has represented a wide range of clients, including oil and gas companies, mining companies, and water supply interests in California, just to name a few. If he is confirmed, he will oversee the same companies at the Department of the Interior; that is, he will be making decisions on the same things that he lobbied for at the agency, and now he will be on the other side of the table and be able, after a short period of time, to make decisions in those areas. So, as I said at his confirmation hearing--I'm not suggesting that just working for the private sector disqualifies someone, but when you have a wide range of issues that you have worked on in the private sector and now you are going to be on the other side of the table, it brings up concerns. The President of the United States traveled the country when he was campaigning and said he wanted to drain the swamp from special interests, and he has repeated that many times over the last few years. But with Mr. Bernhardt's nomination, I am afraid he is not draining the swamp, he is actually helping to fill it. The nominee's private sector experience as a registered lobbyist for companies whose main public policy focuses are in the Department of Interior creates an appearance of a conflict of interest. Also, the nominee wants to lead the Department that he sued four times. It is true that Mr. Bernhardt has considerable experience. We saw another nominee come to this same post in a past administration on the same basis. People thought he had a lot of experience in a lot of these cases, but he obviously didn't follow the law and ended up going to jail because of his overreaching within the agency and organization. So these are very important public policy issues, public lands issues--interests that the American people need to make sure are aboveboard and no conflicts of interest. Mr. Bernhardt served in the highest levels of the Department of the Interior at a time when the inspector general called it ``a culture of ethical failure.'' I know that at the hearing he told us he tried to help change that failure of culture within the agency. The Inspector General also testified that ``ethics failures on the part of senior department officials--taking the form of appearances of impropriety, favoritism and bias--have been routinely dismissed with a promise `not to do it again.' '' While Mr. Bernhardt has given testimony about the fact that he tried to help change and get away from that culture, I still have concerns that his private sector client base poses a significant problem. The nominee's extensive client base in the area, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, creates at least an inherent appearance of conflict. He and his clients have lobbied extensively on such matters as the Cadiz pipeline in California, opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, and weakening the Endangered Species Act. He has advocated in favor of expanding offshore drilling and lifting the moratorium in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. He also represented Westlands Water District, the Nation's largest irrigation district, as a registered lobbyist. His law firm represented Westlands in four different lawsuits against the Department of the Interior. In November 2016, he joined the Trump transition team, and Mr. Bernhardt deregistered as a lobbyist for Westlands yet continued to work for them in some capacity. As the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I raised concerns about these issues with the nominee during his confirmation hearing. He has submitted required financial disclosure and ethics forms, but there are specific questions we want to make sure are addressed. He has declined to comment on recusing himself beyond just the 1-year minimum that is required by the ethics rules. I know Mr. Bernhardt says he will comply with whatever the organization and agency requires, but we don't have the time, given the long list of conflicts of interest and given that past case representation, to constantly know every issue and every meeting and every oversight to make sure that undue influence is not being pressured at the Department of Interior. The President of the United States, who nominated Mr. Bernhardt, told the Times just yesterday in a conversation about the Attorney General: ``If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked someone else.'' Well, I hope that is not the issue here. I hope the agency isn't running fast toward somebody who just won't recuse themselves in hopes that they will get someone who will do the bidding of these interests and not take into consideration the complexity, the legal structure, and the challenges that dealing with these issues takes. In fact, as late as March of this year, Mr. Bernhardt's firm was submitting invoices to Westlands for lobbying charges with itemized expenses. Documents show he was engaged in regular contact with congressional offices and working on legislation and efforts to inform administration policy at the same time he was serving on the Trump transition team. Even the appearance that Mr. Bernhardt was still lobbying on behalf of clients that do business with the Department of the Interior at the same time he wants to help lead it validates some of the concerns we have been expressing. I remain concerned about his record on behalf of these corporations at the expense of the environment and his tenure at the Department of the Interior and many other challenges. The Department's responsibilities and jurisdictions are just too vast. They are too important to the American people to just green-light someone who I believe will be very challenged in doing this job. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination. Just today, a complaint was filed with a U.S. Attorney about this nominee's alleged lobbying activities based on new records available pursuant to California public records law. I want answers from the nominee. We are going to continue to ask questions. In the meantime, I ask my colleagues to oppose this nomination. Make sure we get the answers we need before the nomination of David Bernhardt can continue. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. I know my Republican colleagues are working on versions of the healthcare bill they have been talking about today, and I know my colleagues are going to try to say they are protecting the sickest of Americans, and they are saying they do want to ensure that people with preexisting conditions don't have to pay through the nose when they need care. I think the President called the House version of this attempt a mean bill, and I think the original Senate bill was just as mean, if not meaner, with the number of people who would be cut off of Medicaid over a period of time and left without access to care. Today's bill also includes an amendment or a package of ideas by my colleagues from Texas and Utah--a provision that allows insurers to sell junk insurance on the individual health insurance market. As long as they offer at least one plan that is real insurance, insurers could offer a bunch of plans that, as CBO has said, are not really insurance; that is, they just cover one or two things. Yes, they would be cheaper, but if CBO doesn't consider these types of plans insurance, how are they insurance? I think the whole notion of junk insurance being invested into this bill is very problematic. Under junk insurance plans, they can limit or deny coverage of essential benefits, including hospitalization, maternity care, preventive care, prescription drugs, laboratory care, and substance abuse treatment. That is what they can limit. We wouldn't want those limited. This is why CBO says that if you can't go to the hospital and get care, then it is not really insurance. I have to agree with them on that. These plans could charge people more or simply deny them based on preexisting conditions, and these plans could pay out less than 60 percent of the healthcare expenses, leaving the beneficiary with unbelievable, insurmountable deductibles that would be hard to pay. These plans could also impose an annual or lifetime cap on insurance. I had a young woman come to my office today who was treated at Seattle Children's Hospital in our State. This family actually lives in a neighboring State, but Seattle Children's Hospital is such a regional entity in the State of Washington, in Seattle, and we are so proud of that. They told me about the debilitating disease this young child was born with and how many surgeries she has had. Literally, with the brain treatments she has had to receive, she and her mother told me that if there had ever been any lifetime caps, they would have exhausted them in the first few years. I am so proud that she came to see us today and is continuing to talk about why capping healthcare plans would be so devastating to somebody like her. We don't want to create two markets of insurance. We don't want the one that is the real plan, real insurance, and the one where everybody goes and buys insurance that even CBO says is not real insurance. I know that probably in the last few days of discussion, people have said: Ok, we will put a bunch of money in to help the real, or regulated market. I talked to my insurance commissioner in the State of Washington, and he said: Listen, when you don't spread out risk, you are not going to have a market and you are going to create problems. So the notion that you think that catastrophic out-of-pocket costs won't be borne by these individual patients, I think, is wrong or that these higher premiums and deductibles could be paid by these individuals. It turns out that these junk plans, as I said, do not even count as insurance, and everybody who is in the real insurance market would then end up having to pay more. The bill explicitly states that non-compliant plans will not count as creditable coverage for the purpose of individuals demonstrating that they have insurance. I am checking with my staff. Is that right? Is that what is in the proposal? Yes. The bill explicitly states that noncompliance plans will not count as credible coverage for the purpose of individuals demonstrating that they have insurance. Under this bill, if someone gets one of those junk plans--if somehow you see that marketed and you buy into it because you think it is cheap and you think it is the greatest thing ever--and then you try to enroll in a comprehensive plan, there is a good chance that you will get a lockout period of 6 months before you can get coverage. Why am I here talking about this? Because the State of Washington tried this. We tried this approach in the 1990s. After our State had passed a major healthcare reform bill in the 1990s, a group of State legislators allowed these junk plans to be sold along with compliant plans. Guess what happened? Nearly all of the insurers in our State pulled out of the individual insurance market, and a death spiral ensued. Why? Because the cost then of that individual market was so high and so great that they could not service it. They said: Oh my gosh, if I have to offer a compliant plan along with this junk insurance, I cannot make the compliant plan work because it costs so much. We are not staying. This very important experience taught us that that is not the way for us to spread risk. I am concerned--and I have heard from a number of patient advocacy groups, not just the young woman from Seattle Children's Hospital who came to see me today but consumer groups and health insurers themselves, like America's Health Insurance Plans, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, AARP, American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Heart and Lung Association, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, March of Dimes, National MS Society, National Health Council, and the National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease. All of these organizations do not like this idea of junk insurance, of saying you can have a compliant plan that is real insurance and a marketplace in which there are things that are not really insurance, because then people are going to go buy a bunch of things that are not really insurance and then not have the ability to get cost and care and run up uncompensated care. Then you are going to make the real market unsustainable and unsupportive, and the rates are going to go so high that people are just going to pull out. A group of 10 of those leading patient advocacy groups wrote: Under the amendment, insurance companies would be allowed to charge higher premiums to people based on their health status--in addition to opting out of other patient protections in current law, such as the guarantee of essential health benefits-- Those are the things I was going over a few minutes ago-- and the prohibition on annual and lifetime coverage caps. They go on to write: Separating healthy enrollees from those with preexisting conditions will also lead to severe instability of the insurance market. This is unacceptable for our patients. Yesterday, America's Health Insurance Plans wrote: Allowing health insurance products governed by different rules and standards would further destabilize the individual market and increase costs for those with preexisting conditions. That is the largest health insurance group in the country, and they are writing this. If they are telling us in advance that this is going to really destabilize the market and cause problems, we should listen because right now what we have had is an expansion of Medicaid and covering more people, raising the GDP and helping areas of our States and country and creating more stability. We have had some challenges in the individual market. We should fix that. We should definitely drive down the cost of the delivery system by continuing to improve it. But the notion that this is the fix for the individual market when the providers are telling us it is going to destabilize the market and drive us out--we should understand what the result of that is going to be. Yesterday, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association wrote: The result (of Cruz/Lee) would be higher premiums, increased Federal tax credit costs for coverage available on the exchanges, and insurers exiting the market or pricing coverage out of reach of consumers. I believe our goals should be trying to drive down the cost of insurance. We have lots of ideas about that, and I want to work with our colleagues on that, but I am very concerned that this approach to try to get people supporting a Senate proposal is the wrong approach and will drive people out of the market. I think the bill is still a war on Medicaid. The bill still permanently cuts and caps the Medicaid Program. I have said numerous times that we saved $2 billion in the State of Washington by rebalancing people off of nursing home care and on to community-based care. It is a great concept. Look, we have a lot of people who are going to live longer. We have baby boomers who are reaching retirement. The number of people who are going to demand services, whether from Medicaid or Medicare, is going to be increased just because of the population bubble. We should be doing things to drive down the costs of care. There are great ideas, and I was able to get some of those in the bill. We ended up passing those things, and some States are actually working on that. More than 15 States are actually working on that concept of rebalancing to community-based care and making long-term care more affordable under this provision. I guarantee you that we have to do that, but if you permanently cap or cut Medicaid, you are going to have veterans who use access to Medicaid for care who are not going to get care. You are going to get people who need opioid treatment. I find it interesting that we would have this program over here. I see that my colleague from Michigan is on the floor. We call it the Saginaw Health Clinic. One would say: OK, Saginaw Health Clinic, there is a bunch of money in this bill. Apply for opioid help. They would say: OK. We are going to get $10 million. When you walk in the door of the opioid Saginaw Health Clinic, the first thing they will ask is if you are on Medicaid. If you are not on Medicaid, you are not going to get any opioid help. So the notion that we would cut people off of Medicaid but put more money in the opioid problem is not what we need to do to solve our challenge. What we need to do is make sure we are delivering the most cost-effective care as possible and make sure people are getting access to care. That is why I have been all over the State of Washington. I have met so many people. I have met people at healthcare facilities who have told me that some of their highest costs were from a patient who continually came to see them in the emergency room, maybe 30 times a year, because he did not have coverage, so he drove up the cost for everybody. They said they finally got this person on the Medicaid expansion. Guess what. They do not have those costs anymore in their hospitals and facilities. It has driven down the costs. I do not want to see people kicked off of Medicaid. I do not want to see it cut in a declining budget. I want us to improve Medicaid and make it more cost-effective and more utilized and supported. Estimates by the CBO of the original Senate bill are that the Medicaid cut would be $772 billion over the next decade and that the Federal investment would be cut by 35 percent within the next two decades, relative to current law projections. That is a lot of consequence for the Medicaid population. I think that is why we have so many groups and organizations here that are anxious about this proposal and where we go. We definitely want to talk to our colleagues. One former CBO Director said, the junk insurance idea is ``a recipe for a meltdown.'' This is someone who served in past Republican administrations, and I take his word seriously. I think what we need to do is work together to make sure we get a program that addresses our most fundamental issues--the challenges in the individual market, keep addressing how we keep and stabilize a population on the most affordable rates there are, and keep the things we know have worked very well, like the Medicaid expansion. It has worked. It has supported people, and it has helped us stabilize the market. I will remind my colleagues, too, that the State of New York took one provision of the Affordable Care Act and has 650,000 people in New York on a very, very affordable insurance plan. We think that if you are an individual in the individual market, you should be able to get the same clout as somebody who works for a large employer. You should be able to go in and buy in bulk as a class, as a group of people, and when you buy in bulk, you should get a discount. That is what we think will help us in the individual market to drive down these costs for what is about 7 percent of the marketplace. I urge my colleagues to reject this latest proposal. Let's get serious about fixing the things that we know we can fix and improve upon, but for the over 22 million Americans who are very nervous about this proposal because they know they are going to get cut off of care, let's not do that to them. Let's improve where we need to go in affordability in the healthcare arena and not think that a junk insurance program or cutting people off is the solution for the future. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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