Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first thank Senator McCain and Senator Reed for their leadership, a model of bipartisanship at this incredibly important time with the rest of the world and the need to have a strong military. We know that. I think that is why we see this bill proceeding, but this bill will be so much stronger if we make sure that we not only defend our shores and stand by our troops but if we also defend the security of our democracy. I so appreciate Senator McCain and Senator Reed supporting this amendment I have with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. This must be included in this bill. We are having a situation where one or two Members on the other side of the aisle are not allowing it to proceed. The timing is critical. The 2018 election is only 400-some days away, which is why you see us pushing this bill and doing everything we can to get it either included in the managers' package or to get a vote. This amendment is supported by the Freedom Caucus, and in the House is led by the head of the Freedom Caucus. You may ask why. There are a lot of Republicans who would like to see States be able to keep running their own elections. I agree with that. I like the fact that we have decentralized elections, but the hacking was so real in this last election that our intelligence agencies have now established there were 21 States where there were attempts made to hack into their election software. We know this is going to happen again, and we must stand ready. We must protect our democracy. Instead of having a successful hack attack in this next election, why don't we prepare ourselves so we can keep the decentralized nature of our elections? That is why we see such broad support for this amendment. I came to the floor yesterday to fight for a vote--a simple up-or- down vote--on the bipartisan Klobuchar-Graham amendment. I also thank Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, as well as Senator Harris of California, for their bipartisan work and support for this amendment. This amendment has support, but one or two Members are blocking it--an amendment which has the support of the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee because they understand that election security is national security. This provision simply says that it is the policy of the United States to defend against and respond to cyber attacks on our democratic system. You have to have your head in the sand if you don't know that this has been a problem, whether you are in business and have had information stolen, whether you are someone who has been scammed or have had stuff sent to you on your email, or whether you are a voter who is concerned simply that when you are exercising your freedom to vote, someone is going to come in and steal your own private information or--worse yet--change what you did and change the result of an election. In the words of Bruce Fein, a former Reagan official, ``Passing the Klobuchar-Graham amendment is imperative because public confidence in the reliability of elections is a cornerstone of national security.'' I am stunned we weren't simply able to include this amendment. I still have hope that we can. I am here to fight for this amendment so vigorously today because we need to get this done now. We need to get the authorization done now so we can start the process of putting grants out to States so they can upgrade their election equipment, have backup paper ballots, and simply employ the best practices that we believe we need to protect ourselves from the perpetrators in Russia or in any other foreign entity. We need to make sure our election equipment in every big city and in every small town in America, in every county is as sophisticated as the bad guys who are trying to break into it. That is all this is about. I don't think anyone can go home to their constituents and say they blocked this. How on Earth can we pass a bill which authorizes billions of dollars in spending and refuses to simply authorize a relatively smaller amount of money to upgrade our election equipment? Predictions are that this would cost about the same amount of money we spend on military bands every year--bands--music bands. I love military bands. There is nothing I like better, and I want to keep our military bands strong, but all Senator Graham and I are saying is, I think maybe the protection of our entire election--guaranteeing the freedom of Americans to pick the candidate they choose, whether Republican or Democratic or Independent--is just as important as the music they hear celebrating our democracy. You can't have music celebrating our democracy if you don't have a fair democracy. U.S. national securities have been sounding the alarm that our voting systems will continue to be a target in the future. The idea that we would pass the Defense authorization bill and not address this threat is mind-boggling. It is literally congressional malpractice. According to the Department of Homeland Security, now run by the Trump administration, Russian hackers attempted to hack at least 21 States' election systems in 2016. Earlier this year, we also learned that Russia launched cyber attacks against a U.S. voting software company and the emails of more than 100 local election officials. The former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, recently testified that Russia will continue to interfere in our political system. This is what he said: I believe Russia is now emboldened to continue such activities in the future both here and around the world, and to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it. Vigilance, that is what we need right now. This is not about one party or the other. I think Senator Rubio said it best when he said, well, one election it might affect one party and one candidate; the next election, it is going to affect the other. No one has any idea, when you are dealing with outside foreign entities that are trying to interfere with our democracy and trying to bring down our democracy in the eyes of the world--you don't know who they are going to affect. You just know they are trying to do it. So what do we do? We put in the necessary money in the Defense Authorization Act, an authorization for that to stop this from happening. In order to safeguard future elections, State and local officials must have the tools and resources they need to prevent hacks and safeguard election infrastructure. They don't need those resources in 2 years. They don't need us debating this for 3 years. They need these resources now. Ask the secretaries of States--Democratic and Republican--who are supporting this bill all over the country, ask the local election officials, and they will tell you they need it now. The next Federal election in 2018 is just 419 days away. As we know, it takes time for them to plan, it takes time for them to get the right equipment, and it takes time for them to get the information from cyber experts to make sure whether their systems are secure. Experts agree that if we want to improve cyber security ahead of the 2018 election, we must act now. That is why I am fighting so hard for this amendment. I don't think we can just wait around and see if there is another bill we can attach it to next summer. No, that will not work. In order to protect our election systems, we need to do three things. First, we must bring State and local election officials, cyber security experts, and national security personnel together to provide guidance on how States can best protect themselves. These recommendations should be easily accessible so every information officer and election official in every small town can access them. As we know, a lot of the States themselves still don't have full information about the hacking in the 21 States. That is a problem. Many State officials I have talked to say they are still in the dark about threats to their election systems. That can't continue. We need our national security officials to be sharing information about the potential for attacks--not the day before the election, when they can't do anything, when they have a system that doesn't have paper ballot backups. No, they need that information now, and we need to help them not just get that information but make the changes they need. This means creating a framework for information sharing, which acts as an alarm system against cyber intruders. Our amendment would simply establish that alarm system. Second, the Federal Government must provide States with the resources to implement the best practices developed by States and cyber security experts. A meaningful effort to protect our election systems will require those resources. As I mentioned before, predictions are that it is about the same amount of money that we spend every year on military bands. I think that is a bargain when you are looking to protect our democracy. I think most Americans would agree with me--Republicans or Democrats, which is why there is such widespread support for this amendment--when I say that protecting our democracy from foreign cyber attacks and letting Americans have the freedom to decide who they want to elect, instead of someone in Russia, are probably money well spent. Finally, we need better auditing of our elections. That means voter- verified paper ballot backup systems in every State. That is fundamental to protecting our elections and improving public confidence in the reliability of elections. Our amendment would accelerate the move to paper ballots by providing States with the resources they need to get there. The vast majority of our States simply don't have that system in place. In short, our amendment would help States block cyber attacks, secure voter registration logs and voter data so that people don't get their addresses in the hands of a foreign government--or maybe even the data on whom they voted for or what party they belong to--upgrade auditing election procedures, and create secure and useful information sharing about threats. I am not alone in this fight. As I mentioned, Senators Graham, Lankford, and Harris are also pushing for the Senate to do its job and include this provision. Representative Meadows, the leader of the House Freedom Caucus, and Democratic Congressman Jim Langevin have introduced companion legislation in the House. Again, why is the Freedom Caucus strongly behind this bill? They are behind this bill because they want to preserve States' elections. They want to preserve the rights of States to have their own elections, and they are concerned enough because they have looked at the intelligence reports and have seen that this next election could blow it all up. Are we just going to look back at it then? People who are holding this up, whose names will be revealed--are they then going to say ``Oops, I guess we made a mistake''? No, it is going to be on their hands. It is going to be on their hands. This is the moment to do it. I repeat: We need to get the authorization in place, so we can get the grant money out to the States so that they can upgrade their election equipment. Dozens of former Republican national security officials are pushing for the Senate to pass this amendment. They have written op-eds, called their representatives, and worked to inform the public about the need to take action now. Michael Chertoff, who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, published a piece this month in the Wall Street Journal, calling on Congress to take action and pass the Klobuchar-Graham amendment. He noted that our amendment would address the cyber security challenge in a way that is ``fiscally responsible, respectful of states' policy-making powers, and proactive in dealing with the most pressing vulnerabilities.'' As I noted, Bruce Fein, a Reagan Department of Justice official, said: ``The amendment would enormously strengthen defenses against cyber-attacks that could compromise the integrity of elections in the United States and undermine legitimacy of government.'' A bipartisan group of former national security officials sent a letter to Senate leadership pushing for a vote on this amendment. They noted that attacks on U.S. voting systems threatened the most basic underpinnings of American self-government. These attacks are growing in sophistication and scale. As we all know, States administer elections. If you talk to the local election officials--call any of them up--you will find that they are adamant about protecting States' rights in this area. We want to help them. A bipartisan group of 10 Secretaries of State sent a letter urging the Senate to pass this amendment. They want this amendment to pass because it would provide vital resources. How do you truly expect someone in a town of 1,000 people to be up on the latest cyber security attacks from some sophisticated hackers in a warehouse in Russia? Really? I don't think so. That is why we want to keep the decentralized nature of our elections. In some ways, one, we like it; two, it gives us protection because it is not all in one system. We know we have to realize that in these small towns and in these rural areas, they are not going to have the updated, sophisticated cyber security protection equipment unless we tell them how they can do it and give them help to get there. The National Association of Counties, a group that unites America's 3,069 counties, also endorses this amendment. Why? Because in our country, most of our elections are run by county officials. As I noted, our decentralized system is both a strength and a weakness--a strength because we have multiple systems, so all of our information isn't in one place. American elections are increasingly an easy target because many local election systems are using election technology that is completely outdated. A survey of 274 election administrators in 28 States found that most said their systems need upgrades. Forty-three States rely on electronic voting or tabulation systems that are at least 10 years old. Whoa. Do you think the Russians and those other foreign entities that want to mess up with our democracy are not aware that this equipment is 10 years old? I am not telling them anything new right now. Of course they are aware of it. What are we doing? We are letting people in these small towns in Alaska or in Iowa sit there and wait to see if it happens. Guess what. If they get into one locality or if they get into one State, do you think that doesn't undermine the integrity of our whole democracy in our country? Of course it does. Local election officials who are passionate about keeping the Federal Government out of State elections support our amendment because it strikes the balance that our Federal system demands when it comes to the administration of elections. As I said, despite the strong bipartisan support for this amendment-- the strong support and leadership of the Freedom Caucus--there are Members of this body who are still blocking a vote. They happen not to be on my side of the aisle, so I implore my friends the other side of the aisle to figure this out and let this either be included in the managers' package or come up for a vote where I know it would pass. Republican and Democratic Senators support this amendment. Cyber security experts support this amendment. Republican and Democratic former national security officials support this amendment. State and local officials support this amendment. I ask you, why is this not included? We don't have an answer. Actually, there is no good answer, except for a bunch of procedural gobbledygook, which, of course, if it had gone through the regular order and had been allowed a hearing--which it was not--then we would have had a hearing. We were blocked from having a hearing. Now, as is my right, I am bringing this before this body. The integrity of our election system is the cornerstone of our democracy. The freedom to choose our leaders and know with full confidence those leaders were chosen in free and fair elections--that is something Americans have fought and died for since our country was founded. Obstructing efforts to improve election security is an insult to everyone who has fought for freedom and those who work every day to protect our democracy. Members standing in the way of this bipartisan amendment to protect our election infrastructure are literally committing democracy malpractice. Our attitude must be to roll up our sleeves to get this done. The American people deserve nothing less. I see my friend Senator McCain is on the floor. Again, I appreciate his support and his and Senator Reed's work, not only on this bill but their work to try to include this amendment in the package. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a very important amendment that has broad support. That is the Klobuchar-Graham amendment on election cyber security. It is an amendment that Senator Lindsey Graham and I are working to include in the National Defense Authorization Act. Senator McCain is supportive of this bill, and I understand why he is, and that is because he understands that our election infrastructure is a major part of our national security. If we can allow foreign countries to influence our elections, to hack into our local, State election equipment, then we do not have a secure America. As we know, recent reports show there were 21 different States in which Russians attempted to hack into their actual election software and their equipment. This is not the focus on fake news right now. This is not the focus on emails. This is a focus on actual attempts to hack into State election equipment. It is very straightforward, and that is why there is bipartisan support to pass this amendment to help States to simply strengthen their election equipment. This is not a partisan amendment. Some that come before this body are. As you will soon find out, this has broad support on the Republican side. I am asking my colleagues to help me pass it, to overcome the objections from one Senator. First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Kamala Harris, and Senator Lankford for their work on this important issue. Senators Harris and Lankford have been working with us, with Senator Graham and me, and I really appreciate their work on this issue. Senator Schumer mentioned this bill in his remarks yesterday. He said securing our election infrastructure is a top priority, and I am thankful he is a champion for this amendment. As I mentioned, Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed, who are the two top Senators on the Armed Services Committee--that should matter--I appreciate their work for our Nation's defense and their work on the NDAA and the fact that the legislation today includes an important provision championed by Senator McCain. That provision says it is the policy of the United States to defend against and respond to cyber threats to our democratic system, to our system of democracy. Senator McCain understands that election security is national security. They are forever intertwined. If the people of this country do not have the freedom to have their say in who should be elected-- Democrat, Republican, Independent--then we have a breach to our national security. That is why we have such broad support to simply authorize State grants so they can upgrade the security of their election equipment. I am here to fight for a vote, a simple up-or-down vote--which, yes, I am well aware this will pass--but a simple up-or-down vote, supported by this amendment, both Members who lead this committee. Our election systems have been under attack. They have been under attack, and it will happen again. If this body wants to sit here and pretend it didn't happen, pretend not to believe 17 intelligence agencies and everything else, that is up to them, but I am not going to go home and tell my constituents I didn't try everything I could to get this amendment included. According to the Department of Homeland Security, Russian hackers attempted to hack at least 21 States' election systems in 2016. Earlier this year, we also learned that Russia launched cyber attacks against a U.S. voting software company and the emails of more than 100 local election officials. Last month, the Chicago Board of Elections reported that names, addresses, birth dates, and other sensitive information from about 1.8 million registered voters were exposed. U.S. national security officials have been sounding the alarms that our voting systems will continue to be a target in the future. The former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, recently testified that Russia will continue to interfere in our political system. As Senator Rubio noted, maybe one time it was one party and one candidate and the next time it will be another. This is what former Director James Clapper said: I believe Russia is now emboldened to continue such activities in the future both here and around the world, and to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it. Vigilance--that is what this is all about. In order to safeguard future elections, State and local officials must have the tools and resources they need to prevent hacks and safeguard election infrastructure from foreign interference. They don't need those resources in 2025, they need these resources now. The next Federal election is just 419 days away. No, we cannot wait another year to do this. We cannot wait 2 years to do this. We cannot see if some of our States that have less money and less resources are able to do this on their own. This is a national issue. Four hundred and nineteen days might sound like a lot of time to some people, but it isn't. It takes time for State and local election officials to come up with plans for their best practices, to shore up their cyber security, to buy new election equipment, to hire cyber experts to make sure their systems are secure. Do you want to go vote and not know if the Russians are hacking into your elections, into your data, and finding out your address and whom you voted for? I don't think so. Time is of the essence, if we want to improve election cyber security ahead of 2018 and 2020. That is why I am fighting so hard for a vote on this amendment. It is that simple. If we do not act now, we leave State election officials--the people on the frontlines of our democratic process--without the resources they need to combat cyber attacks. That is not just wrong, that is unconscionable, and it is against the very principles of our Constitution. We are supposed to be a government for the people, by the people, not by a foreign entity. In order to protect our election systems, we need to do three key things. First, we need to bring State and local election officials, cyber security experts, and national security personnel together to provide guidance to our States on how they can best protect themselves from cyber attacks. Just try to picture a local official in Deep River Falls, MN, or Lanesboro, MN. Are they supposed to have the most updated data on how they protect their elections and what they are supposed to do? No, they need guidance from the Federal Government. Those recommendations should be easily accessible so that every information officer and election official in the country can access them. Many State officials I have talked to feel as though they are in the dark about threats to our election system. That can't continue. We need our national security officials to be sharing information about the potential for attacks with State officials in real time. By the way, a lot of those States that were hacked into still don't know it. They still don't have the information. I was just talking to Senator Warner, ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, about this, and that information still is not out there as it should be. So this means creating a framework for information sharing that acts as an alarm system against cyber intruders. We put alarm systems in our homes but not on our election equipment. Our amendment would establish that alarm system. Second, the Federal Government must provide States with the resources to implement the best practices developed by States and cyber security experts. A meaningful effort to protect our election systems will require some resources. I think most Americans would agree with me when I say that protecting our democracy from foreign cyber attacks will be money well spent. Think about the money we put into our national defense. It is important. We want to have a strong defense. We want to have those aircraft carriers. Think about that and how important that is and how much money that costs, and then just think about these ballot boxes in local places where, literally, a foreign entity can just hack in--like that Finally, we need better auditing of our elections. That means voter- verified paper ballot backup systems in every State. This is fundamental to protecting our elections and improving public confidence in the reliability of elections. Our amendment would accelerate the move to paper ballots--a backup--by providing States with the resources they need to get there. In short, our amendment would help States block cyber attacks, secure voter registration logs and voter data, upgrade election auditing procedures, and create secure and useful information sharing about threats. This is a bipartisan amendment. I keep saying that because so often this discussion of the elections has turned partisan on both sides. This is bipartisan. I am doing this with Senator Graham, and we are not alone. Senator Harris of California and Senator Lankford of Oklahoma are also pushing for the Senate to do its job and address election cyber security. Representative Meadows, the leader of the House Freedom Caucus, and Democratic Congressman Jim Langevin introduced companion legislation in the House--the leader of the Freedom Caucus. Why do you think they are interested in this bill that I am doing with Lindsey Graham? Because they believe in the idea that States should be able to have their own elections, and it shouldn't be federalized. They believe we should have safe and secure elections. There is strong bipartisan support for this effort outside the Halls of Congress as well. Dozens of former Republican national security officials are pushing for the Senate to pass this amendment. They have written op-eds, called their representatives, and worked to inform the public about the need to take action now. Michael Chertoff, who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, published a piece this month in the Wall Street Journal calling on Congress to take action. He noted that our amendment, the Klobuchar-Graham amendment, would address the cyber security challenge in a way that is ``fiscally responsible, respectful of states' policy- making powers, and proactive in dealing with the most pressing vulnerabilities.'' Bruce Fein, a former Reagan Department of Justice official said ``the amendment would enormously strengthen defenses against cyber-attacks that could compromise the integrity of elections in the United States and undermine legitimacy of government.'' A bipartisan group of former national security officials sent a letter to Senate leadership pushing for a vote on this amendment. They noted that attacks on U.S. voting systems threaten the most basic underpinnings of American self-government. These attacks are growing in sophistication and scale. States administer elections. If you talk to a local election official--and I have done this throughout my State--you will find out they are adamant about protecting States' rights in this area. Guess what. No surprise--we have their support too. A bipartisan group of 10 Secretaries of State sent a letter urging the Senate to pass this amendment. They want this amendment to pass because it would provide vital resources to States to support the growing security demands of our Nation's election infrastructure. The National Association of Counties, a group that unites America's 3,069 counties--these are county governments big and small that serve people on the grassroots level, that know what it means to be having people sitting at those election booths, doing their job for little pay, just making sure that we have free American elections. They support this too. They need resources and cyber expertise, and they need them now. Our decentralized election system is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because we have multiple systems and all of our information isn't in one place. Right? So if there is a hack in Ohio, maybe you don't have a hack in Minnesota. If there is a hack in one State, one city, maybe you don't have it in another. But we don't want to have a hack anywhere. American elections are increasingly an easy target because, on the other hand, many local election systems are using election technology that is completely outdated. Forty-three States rely on electronic voting or tabulation systems that are at least 10 years old. Think about it. We want to have these decentralized elections. That is what we want, but we simply have to make sure that when citizens are voting in both State and Federal elections for Senator, for Governor, for their local mayor, for their school board, their State's election equipment is safe and secure. That is where we come in. We don't run their local elections. I think a lot of Americans wouldn't want us to run their local elections, but what we do is make sure that elections are safe because those hackers over there in Russia or wherever they are--the thousand people who were operating in that warehouse to try to influence our election--don't know jurisdictional boundaries. Right? They will commit crimes across State lines, across county lines, across Federal lines, across international lines. They don't care. So we have to allow our State and local elections and the people who run them to be as sophisticated as the Russians who are trying to break our backs. That is what this is about. The fact that we have so many security experts supporting this, so many local election people supporting this, and the fact that Senator McCain is more than happy to have this included in his bill because he sees it as a national security issue--how can one Senator stand up and say no to this amendment? That is what the American people should be asking. Local election officials are the place to start. They are passionate about keeping the Federal Government out of State elections, and they support our amendment because it strikes the balance that our Federal system demands when it comes to the administration of elections. Despite the strong bipartisan support for this amendment--again, I ask the people or person that is blocking this vote to allow this bill to go forward. I am simply outraged by this. I think this is an embarrassment to this body if we allow this to continue. Republican and Democratic Senators support this amendment. Cyber security experts support this amendment. Republican and Democratic major national security officials support this amendment. The Freedom Caucus supports this amendment. This is a bipartisan amendment in the House, so why is it being blocked? I actually can't tell you. It is not one of those things where someone says: Oh, it isn't worth putting millions of dollars into this. No, when you look at all the money we are spending on other forms of defense, this is dwarfed by that. No one can actually in good faith say that is the reason, and they are actually not saying that is the reason. They are giving me no reason. I think they need to come out and tell us why they are against securing our elections. I think the American people deserve an answer for that. The integrity of our election system is the cornerstone of our democracy. The freedom to choose our leaders, knowing with full confidence that those leaders were chosen in free and fair elections, is something that Americans have fought and died for since our country was founded. That is why our country came into existence. We didn't want to have another country control our citizens' economy. We didn't want them to control where they went to school. My relatives came over from Slovenia and other places because they wanted to be able to choose where their kids went to school. That is the freedom of voting, and that is what this amendment is about. Members standing in the way of this bipartisan amendment to protect our election infrastructure are literally committing malpractice on our Constitution. They will have to explain to the American people and to the Freedom Caucus and all the supporters we have across the aisle why they didn't just stand up, why they didn't just do something, why they stood idly by and ignored the warnings of our intelligence officials. Do you know what? They are not going to, next summer, be able to say: I guess I was wrong. I will do something now. It will be too late then. This is the time to authorize this and then to get the money in place by the end of the year. It is the only legal way we can do this. When it comes to our election infrastructure, we are only as strong as our weakest link. A threat to one county, to one city, to one State's election infrastructure is an assault on our entire system because it fundamentally threatens the very foundation of our political system. We must be a united front in fighting against those who interfere with our democracy, and we must do everything in our power to prevent foreign interference from ever happening again. In the 21st century, our adversaries will continue to use cyber warfare. Everyone knows that. Anyone who has had an account at a store hacked into, anyone who has had someone get into their account with spam or send them some fake address, a fake link--everyone knows this is happening. In the 21st century, our adversaries will use cyber warfare, and we need to be prepared to defend our networks against this growing threat to our democracy, especially the most fundamental part of our political system: our elections. Our attitude must be to roll up our sleeves to get this done. Whoever is blocking this bill better come forward and explain why because the American people are going to demand an answer now, but they are really going to demand an answer when things go bad. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the DACA Program, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, which is very important in my State. We actually have 6,000 kids who have gone through that program. As we all know, 800,000 young people who have lived in the United States since childhood are included and affected by this recent action by the administration, which I strongly oppose. These Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own and are working hard to educate themselves and contribute to our Nation. In fact, more than 97 percent of DACA recipients are now in school or in the workforce, and all DACA recipients are required to meet the program's education requirements. One recent study found that 72 percent of all DACA recipients who are currently in school are pursuing a bachelor's degree or higher. According to the American Association of Medical Colleges, more than 100 students with DACA status applied to medical school last year. The young people who have benefited from DACA have often been in our country almost their entire lives after having been brought here as children. They are valuable members of our community, and they have contributed to our economy and to the fabric of our society. In fact, one recent study estimated that ending this policy would cost the country over $400 billion over the next 10 years. Ending DACA, which has been in place since 2012, would create tremendous uncertainty and risk deportation for nearly 800,000 Dreamers who are studying and working across our Nation. When I think of the Dreamers, I think of, first of all, the night that the Judiciary Committee, on a bipartisan basis, passed comprehensive immigration reform. There were Dreamers there. They were there late at night and had tears streaming down their faces. Then I think about the time that President Obama put DACA into place and made it so that they could come forward, sign up, and legally work. Now we are going to turn our backs on those same people, those people who were brought here through no fault of their own. Whether or not the current administration disagrees with the past administration, our country made a commitment to them that they could sign up for this program. Back when we passed comprehensive immigration reform, I felt that our committee--the Senators who voted for that bill, both Democrats and Republicans--made a commitment to them that day that we were going to work on their behalf. That is why this is so wrong. I do appreciate that this morning the President said that he wants to work to pass this bill and that he said the DACA young people do not have to worry over the next 6 months about any actions taken against them. Those are, of course, good things. I just wish this had not happened in this way, but it did. I am also not surprised that so many people have stood up in support of Senator Durbin and Senator Graham's bill, that so many Republicans, Democrats, leaders in business, leaders in labor, and religious leaders have stood up. As we discuss the fate of these young people under DACA, I am reminded of someone who is not young--Joseph Medina, who is a decorated Army veteran and an immigrant who just celebrated his 103rd birthday this July. He is 103 years old. When I found him, he was a young 99 years old. The reason I found him was that we were talking about this very issue--about DACA and about kids, actually, today who want to serve in the military. As we know, through various ways, some of the DACA kids are courageously serving in our military right now. Of course, they will not be able to if they are deported, but just think that we are actually considering deporting people who are currently serving in our military. In any case, let's go back 103 years ago or so--actually, maybe a little before that. Joseph Medina came to the United States from Mexico when he was only 5 years old. He did not actually know he was born outside of our country. He had been brought across the border as an orphan by his aunt and his stepfather, and he did not know that he had been born outside of the United States. He had lived his whole life in Sleepy Eye, MN, until he was in an Army boot camp in 1944. At that time, Joseph Medina wanted to serve our country, but he found out that he actually was undocumented. In his own words to me, he said: Well, back then, the Army really wanted us. The Air Force wanted us. The Navy wanted us. Everyone wanted us. So what did they do back then? He said: We would go over to Canada under, actually, the guidance of our military for 1 night. He said he got to stay in a nice hotel. Then he came back, and he was a legal citizen. I have not looked into how they did this, but that is how they did it. That was, simply, back then. Then what did Joseph Medina do? He went and served our country. He served under General MacArthur in the Pacific. That is what he did. When he came back after bravely serving our country, he got married, and he had a boy. I met that guy. That guy served in the Vietnam war. So we have a dad who served our country in World War II, and we have a son who served our country in Vietnam, all because at that time there were people who said: Do you know what? You were not brought over with any knowledge that you were even being brought over. You were only 5 years old. They did not deport him when he wanted to serve in our military; they made him a citizen. Joseph Medina came out here to Washington, DC, at the age of 99 to see the World War II Memorial for the first time. I stood there with him as he looked proudly as that memorial, along with two Dreamers, who were high school students, who actually wanted to sign up and serve in the Air Force, but they were barred from doing that under the way our laws worked at the time. I am proud of Joe's service, but I even want more. Joe's spirit and his devotion to our country can continue on and be passed on to other generations. That is what this Dream Act is really all about. It is about other kids who were brought into this country without their knowledge and without their even understanding what was happening and allowing them to be part of that American dream. America is a country created by immigrants. Immigrants have been part of our Nation's greatest achievements. We need to fix our broken immigration system. Of course we do. That is why I supported comprehensive reform so that we would have had money for order at the border, which would have created a very, very long glidepath to citizenship, but there also was a moral compass to that bill. It has been 4 years since we passed that bill, and as we all know, despite the bipartisan support in the Senate, the House failed to act. By the way, despite reform being good for our economy, I always like to point out to people that of the Fortune 500 companies, 70 of them in America are headed up by immigrants. Of our U.S. Nobel laureates, 25 percent of them were born in other countries. We literally cut off talent when we cut off immigration. In my own case, my great-grandparents on my dad's side came over from Slovenia to work in the iron ore mines. When he was in about the sixth grade, my grandpa had to quit school to go work to help raise his eight or nine brothers and sisters, but he always had this immigrant spirit. He never even graduated from high school, but he saved money in a coffee can so he could send my dad to college. On my other side, my mother's parents--my grandparents--came over from Switzerland. My grandma came over when she was very young--I think at 3 years old. My grandpa came over when he was about 18. He was detained at Ellis Island because they had reached their quota of Swiss immigrants, so he put on his form that he was going to Canada. He did go to Canada, but he did not stay in Canada. He somehow got through to Wisconsin and was there as an undocumented alien, and he lived that way for 20 years. He married my grandma, had my mom and her brother. When World War II came along, they required those aliens to register, so he had to register. That is when they found out how he had come in, and they still said that it was OK, that he could register. Then he was kind of emboldened, so he decided to sign up for citizenship. That was when they really looked into it, so he had to have a hearing. He made his case that he had lived here forever and had been there, had had two kids, worked his entire time at a pie shop, and they gave him citizenship. I still have that picture of his shining face with that bow tie. I wonder what would happen to him today if he were to come forward. I am not sure he would be made a citizen despite the long time he had spent in our country. Now it has happened on both sides of my immigrant family. My dad ended up being a newspaperman and got to interview everyone from Ginger Rogers, to Ronald Reagan, to Mike Ditka. My mom became a teacher and taught second grade until she was 70 years old. And I stand before you as the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Minnesota. That is the immigrant story. That is a story of a family who came in, not in an easy way, with my grandpa in an uncertain status, clearly, when he came into the United States. So you ask me why I support these Dreamers? Because I had Dreamers in my own family. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have spoken out in support of DACA, and it is essential that we now pass this legislation to protect these Dreamers. I stand ready to work with my Republican colleagues. I thank Senator Durbin and Senator Graham for their leadership. Let's get this done. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 10th anniversary of the collapse of the I-35W bridge and to pay tribute to those who lost their lives on that tragic summer day, as well as all the first responders, healthcare workers, and ordinary citizens who did extraordinary things on this day 10 years ago. First, I want to acknowledge one other topic; that is, this evening we will be voting on the nomination of Christopher Wray to serve as the FBI Director. I was proud to join all of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee--now, it is not an ordinary thing to have happen on its own that we all agree on something--from both sides of the aisle to support Mr. Wray's nomination in committee on July 20 with a unanimous vote of support. In his hearing, Mr. Wray showed that he has integrity, that he will follow the law, and that he believes in the importance of an independent FBI. Senators on both sides of the aisle asked him strong and tough questions. Given this important time in our Nation's history for law enforcement and for the FBI, I don't think you would expect anything less. Mr. Wray handled the questions well. He was knowledgeable, but most importantly for me, he showed respect for the agents, and he showed respect for his predecessors, both Mr. Mueller and Mr. Comey. He showed respect for the law, and he understood the somber time in which he comes in to take this job. In particular, Mr. Wray said that if he were asked to do something illegal or unethical, he would urge the President not to proceed with such a course of action, and he would resign if necessary. Mr. Wray also responded to Senator Graham that he did not consider Special Counsel Mueller to be on a witch hunt, and he agreed that anyone running for elected office should notify the FBI if a foreign government offers assistance on a political campaign. Mr. Wray also agreed with the concerns I raised that are posed by organized criminals, including those from foreign governments or who work for foreign governments, hiding their money in shell companies. He said that we had to ``follow the money.'' With news reports that the eighth person in the meeting with Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort, and a lawyer connected to the Russian Government was a Russian who has been linked to money laundering, this issue is as important as ever. In addition, Mr. Wray pledged to continue the FBI's efforts to work with the Election Assistance Commission and to address cyber security threats to our election infrastructure, so it is not just investigating things backward. A lot of what fighting crime is about--and I certainly knew this in my time as county attorney in Hennepin County--is making sure you protect people going forward. The FBI has enormous responsibilities going forward with cyber security, not only for our elections but for our government and also for business and for individual citizens. Importantly, Mr. Wray promised to be responsive to requests from the Judiciary Committee as it carries out its oversight responsibilities. Those were questions posed to him by the committee's chairman, Senator Grassley. This is a tough time to take this tough job. The previous FBI Director, as we know, was fired because of the Russia investigation. The former Acting Attorney General was fired, and we have had a slew of other firings throughout the government over the last few months. Well, I believe Christopher Wray is someone who will come in there with the integrity that is needed to do the job for those brave agents who go to work every day, not wearing a political button. They just go to do their work to protect us. I also believe he is the right choice at this time for our country. I am very proud of the work the FBI in Minnesota has done, especially in the past year, with the stabbing we had at the shopping mall. The police chief there often talks about how there was so much going on at that moment, and the FBI was able to come in and help with that investigation in a significant way, so the police chief could not only work on the investigation with his officers but also calm the community, work with them, and do the other work that had to be done in the aftermath of that tragic stabbing. That is just one example of our FBI in Minnesota, but I think every Member in this Chamber has examples in their own communities, and that is why it is important to have someone of the caliber of Christopher Wray take charge. I look forward to voting for his confirmation this evening.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for that really good and detailed description of how we got to where we are because I think it is really hard to explain to Americans at home who are watching this what a debate really is. I don't see my friends from the other side of the aisle right now, but watch what is happening here today because what I have seen in my State the last few months is extraordinary. Families are coming up in the middle of a Fourth of July parade with their child with Down syndrome, bringing him over and saying: He is not just a preexisting condition. He is our child whom we love. This last weekend, I was with a family with two identical twins, Mariah and Evelyn. One is the catcher and one is the pitcher on their 11-year-old softball team. Just in the last few years, one of them found out that she has a severe case of juvenile diabetes. The other one is perfectly healthy. What the mom told me is that they can hardly make it, paying for the cost of the insulin that has gone up astronomically over the years, paying for the testing strips and everything involved in this. Yet, now, instead of seeing a bill which reduces the cost of prescription drugs by including some of the provisions I have long advocated for--from ending pay for delay, where big pharmaceutical companies are paying off generic companies to keep their products off the market, or bringing in less expensive drugs from other countries or allowing for negotiation under Medicare Part D--instead of doing some of those innovative things we need to bring costs down for regular Americans, what we see here is going to make it worse. When I met with these two girls, I told them and their family that I had their back and that I would tell their story on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Never once did I think I would be saying it, even this last week, when we are facing this kind of onslaught to this family-- because what I would tell these girls now is that this bill, from what we have learned--we have not seen it, we don't know exactly what is in it--but from what we have heard, what would happen is, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would kick 16 million people off of healthcare. I would ask those girls: Do you know how many people that is, girls? It is 14 States' worth of people. It is the combined population of 14 States in the United States of America. What we have learned about this bill is that it would increase premiums by over 20 percent, again, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. What I would tell them is that is more than their school clothes, it is more than their softball clothes, it is a good chunk of their college education. This is real money for real people and this reduces coverage and it makes it more expensive. We can do so much better. A few months ago, we went to that baseball game where the Republican men's team played the Democratic team. I was there in the stands, and I watched at the end this beautiful scene when the Democratic team won and they took the trophy and they gave it to the Republicans' team, and they said to put it in Representative Scalise's office. Why did they do that? Because they were saying we are all on one team. That is what this should be. When we are dealing with one-sixth of the American economy, we shouldn't be at night passing a bill that one of our most trusted colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a Republican, has just called ``a fraudulent disaster.'' That is not what we should be doing. We should be working on the fixes that so many people have been working on for so many years--bringing drug prices down, making the exchanges stronger with reinsurance and cost sharing. These are things we actually can do together. I ask my colleagues to work with us. We have opened the door. We want to work together on these changes and not to pass this fraudulent disaster.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my motions to commit be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for her good words and her advocacy. I rise to join her and my colleagues on the floor in sharing the concerns I continue to hear every single day in my State, whether it is just simply walking the parades, as I did in Stillwater, MN, where people would come up off the sides, or, on the Fourth of July, when a family with a child with Down syndrome just came off the side of the parade and grabbed me and said we need healthcare for our son, that we cannot cut him off, that we cannot make these drastic, draconian reductions to Medicaid--because he is the face for Medicaid. Right now, as far as I know, we have many versions of this healthcare bill. I think I heard this version referred to as option C. I was thinking that is not really correct because we have had options A and B. Those were the two House healthcare bills. We had options C and D, which were the two Senate healthcare bills. Then we went to option E, which was back to the idea of repealing without having a replacement. Now, as far as I know, after doing A, B, C, D, and E, we are at plan F. My mom was a teacher her entire life, and I learned from her that you cannot get much lower than F, right? I think it is time to set a new course, and that is to work together for a better grade for the American people and for a better healthcare plan, which means working across the aisle to make changes to the Affordable Care Act. The Minnesotans whom I have heard from do not like A, B, C, D, E, or F. On Friday, in fact, I received a letter that was signed by 121 different Minnesota healthcare organizations, and it talked about these past proposals. They wrote this: Minor changes or amendments will not change the ultimate impact of these bills and their deep and devastating impact on Minnesota and its citizens. What were these groups? They were pretty mainstream groups, those being the AARP Minnesota, our children's hospitals, the Autism Society of Minnesota, our nursing homes, the Minnesota Hospital Association, the Minnesota Nurses Association, Mental Health Minnesota, our Catholic Health Association, our addiction treatment professionals, and many more. As different as these groups may be in their missions and in the work they do and who belongs to them and where they live, what they have in common is that they are dedicated to taking care of the health and well-being of Minnesotans. They are scared about what would happen if any of these proposals--A, B, C, D, E, or F--were to pass. They have seen that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that with a number of these bills, it would mean that over 20 million people, if not all of them, would lose their health insurance, that Medicaid would get cut by more than $700 billion, and that out-of- pocket costs would skyrocket. Deductibles for a benchmark plan could reach $13,000 by 2026. They have seen that the Congressional Budget Office has found that a repeal bill without a replacement would be even worse, as 32 million people would lose their coverage, and premiums would double. I understand why these Minnesota healthcare organizations are scared about these bills, but the people who are even more scared are the citizens of my State who depend on the Affordable Care Act for their healthcare. As I said, we all knew, on the day it passed, that the Affordable Care Act was a beginning and not an end. You cannot pass a major piece of legislation like that without making changes over time. Unfortunately, with the exception of a few minor things, we have been, basically, blocked from making changes because we are always having thrown at us this idea of simply repealing everything and causing chaos. After the sentiment of the American people has been made quite clear--and you do not have to look at a poll to know that; all you have to do is walk down the Main Street during any parade in our State--now is the time for us to work across the aisle and make some positive changes. What are those changes? For one, we know we must bring some certainty to the exchanges and stabilize the market. I see the Senator from New Hampshire here who is the former Governor of New Hampshire. She knows, along with her colleague Senator Shaheen, we need to have more certainty in the marketplace. That is why we support the bill that would do that. We should vote on that bill. I also support Senators Kaine and Carper's legislation--the Individual Health Insurance Marketplace Improvement Act--to reestablish a Federal reinsurance program. This bill would lower premiums by providing support for high-cost patients. Now, the Republican legislature in my State--both houses are Republican--joined with the Democratic Governor in our State and passed a similar State-based reinsurance program. I know Alaska, which, by all accounts, is a red State, has passed a reinsurance program that recently got approval from this administration. Just last week, as Senator Hassan knows, New Hampshire announced its plans to pursue one as well. So we can and we should come together to pursue this as one change we can make positively for the Nation. Another is, it is long past time to do something about the rising cost of prescription drugs. I have a bill--and I see my colleague from Minnesota here as well, Senator Franken. We have worked on this issue together on both bills, which is similar to this issue of harnessing the negotiating power of 41 million seniors who are on Medicare in order to bring drug prices down. Right now, Medicare is literally banned from negotiating on behalf of 41 million seniors. The last time I checked, the senior citizens in my State had a lot of power, and 41 million people, especially seniors, is a lot of negotiating power. Let's harness that because it will not just help to bring drug prices down in the Medicare Program, but it will help down the line for all citizens. There is the bringing in of more competition. One way you do that is by dangling the prospect of competition from other countries. You can do it with a trigger that is based on the number of competitors you have in a certain market. You can do it based on an increase in price or you can just do it. I and Senator McCain, who is certainly in our thoughts and prayers this week, have long had a bill to allow Americans to bring in safe, less expensive drugs from Canada. That is very similar to that of the U.S. market. As I have often noted when I talk about this bill, we can see Canada from our porch in Minnesota. We can see those lower prices right across the border. When we have developed so many lifesaving drugs, when we have done the research, when we have put government money--taxpayer money--into the research, why in this country do we have the most expensive drugs in the world? I can tell you why. It is that we have not done anything about it here because, for too long, the pharmaceutical companies have been able to have their way when it comes to legislation. This is the end of that. Finally, the American people are starting to see this as not just campaign rhetoric but as a real problem when 4 out of the top 10 best selling drugs have gone up over 100 percent in just the last 10 years. Here are some more ideas. Senator Lee and I have a bill--bipartisan, across the aisle--that would again allow the temporary importation of safe drugs that have been on the market in another country for at least 10 years when there is not healthy competition for that drug in this country. Generics. I and Senator Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, have a bill to stop something called pay for delay, which is when big pharmaceutical companies actually pay off generic companies to keep less expensive products off the market. That is an outrage. I would challenge any Senator to vote against that. I do not think one will. That is why we need a vote, and that is a perfect example of a bipartisan bill that could be included in a package of measures that could be improvements on the Affordable Care Act. How about this one? It is the CREATES Act, which is another bipartisan bill with me, Senator Grassley, Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Lee, and many others that would put a stop to tactics in which pharmaceutical companies refuse to provide samples that the generic companies need to develop new drugs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would save taxpayers $3.5 billion, and the one I just mentioned on pay for delay would save taxpayers $2.9 billion. Why would we say to the taxpayers of this country that we will not do that, that we will not even allow it to come up for a vote? These are votes the Senate should and must take. Bringing up a bill that devastates the Medicaid Program or that repeals big parts of the Affordable Care Act, without having a replacement, does the opposite. It does nothing. These bills--A, B, C, D, E, or F--do nothing in terms of bringing down pharmaceutical prices. What is this really about? It is about the identical twins whom I met yesterday from Cambridge, MN, which is a small town--a town similar, I am sure, to the towns the Presiding Officer would find in his State or to the towns in New Hampshire or to the towns Senator Whitehouse would see in Rhode Island. This is about identical twins. One of the twins is a pitcher, and one of the twins is a catcher on their softball team. One of the twins found out, just in the last year, that she has juvenile diabetes. It is a very dangerous, dangerous thing to have at that young age. The other twin is perfectly healthy. Of course, the family had to go immediately to the doctor. They bought insulin, and the insulin had gone up three times what it should have in just the last few years. It is very difficult for them to afford now. They got the strips. They had to do all of this, and the price kept escalating. To add to everything else, now this mom is worried that one of her daughters, not two, will have a preexisting condition and be kicked off of the insurance. Think about that. They are identical twins. It could be either one. You do not know which one. Is it the catcher? Is it the pitcher? It is a lottery. If you do not have healthcare like the Affordable Care Act in place, it is like a lottery. You do not know which one of them is going to be kicked off the insurance, not have insurance, and get very sick and possibly die. That is what we are talking about here. That is not what this country is about. It could happen to anyone--to anyone in this Chamber, to anyone up in the Gallery, to anyone at home. You do not know when it is going to happen to you or your sister or your brother or your neighbor or your dad or your mom or your grandma or your grandpa. That is why we have affordable healthcare insurance. This debate is also about our seniors and our rural communities. As Senator Franken knows, we have heard time and time again from our rural hospitals--from Aurora to Gilbert, to Tower. I was up there recently, and that is what I heard about--the rural hospitals and how difficult it is going to be for them if any of these bills pass. I know it is something our Republican colleagues, all of whom are from rural States--Senators Collins, Capito, and Murkowski--have expressed real concerns about with regard to the impact of some of the proposed Medicaid cuts and what they would do in their States. Opioids. Both the Senator from New Hampshire who is here with me today, Senator Hassan, and certainly Senator Whitehouse have been leaders in this area. That is why we passed the Cures Act. That is why we put a bunch of funding from the Cures Act into opioid addiction treatment. That is why we passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act on a bipartisan basis--one of the few bills that made it through last year. You cannot just run TV ads on it, and you cannot just put it on campaign brochures and then go out 6 months later and cut Medicaid, which provides the treatment for 32 percent of opioid medication- assisted treatments we have in our State. You cannot do that. You cannot give beautiful speeches and go to press conferences and then make those kinds of cuts. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand this. This is a time when we can chart a different path forward, when we can end up where we should have begun but still standing, and that is by working together to find some positive changes to the Affordable Care Act for the American people. Again, I said it on the day it passed--it is a beginning and not an end. Let's seize this moment, open the door, and work together for the American people. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership, and I am proud to be one of the cosponsors of her bill with her commonsense approach--which I believe is the one that will rule the day--to work together on changes to the Affordable Care Act that will help the American people. I join my colleagues on the floor in sharing the concerns I have heard from so many people in my State and across the country about the bill that has been introduced by our colleagues. I also heard their desire to have us work together to bring down the costs of healthcare and to make fixes to the Affordable Care Act. Healthcare leaders in my State have come out strongly against the bill released last week because it would be devastating to the people of our State, especially in our rural areas--rural hospitals--and especially to our seniors who rely on Medicaid funding for nursing homes and assisted living. Last night we heard that we will not be proceeding to that bill, and, instead, the majority leader wants to bring up repealing big parts of the Affordable Care Act without a replacement. I just want to remind my colleagues that the Congressional Budget Office has already looked at this repeal without a replacement, and it is just as bad. Instead of 22 million people losing their insurance by 2026, the CBO has estimated that about 32 million would lose insurance under the repeal approach, and premiums would double. So this repeal effort doesn't help the host of Minnesotans who, according to the Minnesota Medical Association, would be harmed by what they call draconian Medicaid cuts. It doesn't help our children's hospitals. I met with several last week, and they were very concerned that Medicaid cuts would wreck their ability to provide healthcare to our kids. This was something, by the way, that I heard repeatedly on the Fourth of July. During the parades, people would come out of the blue, out from the sides of the streets, mixed in with the hot dogs and American flags, and there were these families--predominantly families with kids with disabilities--and they would bring children over to meet me and would say how important this Medicaid funding is for their entire family. I remember that once, when the mom brought her child over with Down syndrome, all of the people on the parade route, on that block, cheered for that family. We know that we are all in this together, and we know that what happens to one family could, next year, happen to another family. You can have a child with a disability. You can suddenly have a disease that could be debilitating to your family's finances. Basically, we never know what is going to happen to our health or to the health of our family members. That is why we have health insurance, and we must make sure that it is affordable. In addition to that, we have had the CEOs of our healthcare system stand up and say that these approaches would lead to major job losses in our State. As I mentioned before, for seniors, AARP has said that, in my State, nearly half of all of the adults who receive tax credits under the Affordable Care Act are 50- to 64-year-olds and these subsidies would be eliminated under the repeal bill. This could make healthcare unaffordable, especially for the more than 350,000 people in my State who are aged 50 to 64 who have preexisting conditions. Now, it does not have to be this way, as Senator Shaheen has so articulately pointed out. I know that several of my Republican colleagues have said that they cannot support legislation that would take away insurance for tens of millions of Americans, and I agree. Instead of making these kinds of draconian cuts and moving backward, I think we have to move forward to actually help make healthcare in America better and more affordable. We can and we should make changes to the Affordable Care Act. The day it passed, I said this is the beginning and not the end. You simply cannot have a major piece of legislation like that and go for years without any significant changes. That is just not how it has worked with major legislation in the past, but every time we have tried to make changes, we have heard back that we have to repeal it. Maybe the result of all of this chaos in the last month has been that people have finally come to realize what the American people want, as Senator Shaheen has pointed out, as well as what is the best policy, and that is to make changes. I support Senator Shaheen's Marketplace Certainty Act because it would stabilize the individual market and protect and expand the vital program that reduces out-of-pocket healthcare costs for consumers. I also support the bill of Senator Kaine of Virginia, who is here with us today, and Senator Carper, which is the Individual Health Insurance Marketplace Improvement Act, which reestablishes a Federal reinsurance program. By the way, this idea of reinsurance is something that our Republican legislature in Minnesota just passed on a State basis and is supportive of. So I see these as not just some pie-in-the-sky ideas. I see these ideas as things that we can work on across the aisle. I just want to end by talking about some of my ideas, many of which have bipartisan support. Again, I throw them in a package of things that we could be working on. I have a bill that would harness the negotiating power of 41 million seniors who are on Medicare in order to bring drug prices down. Right now, by law, Medicare is banned from negotiating prices with all of those seniors. Think of the better bargain that those seniors could get if their marketing power were unleashed. Senator McCain, the Presiding Officer's colleague, and I have a bill to allow Americans to bring in safe, less expensive drugs from Canada, which is, by the way, very similar to the American market. As I have often noted, we can see Canada from our porch in Minnesota. We see right across the border the kinds of prices they are able to get. Senator McCain and I and several Republicans voted for a similar measure, and we think we should be allowed to bring in less expensive drugs from Canada and, perhaps, from other countries. You could also tie to it a trigger, if there is no competition or if prices have ballooned like they have for 4 of the top 10 selling drugs in this country. Senator Lee and I have a bill that would allow for the importation of safe drugs from other countries when there is not healthy competition. Senator Grassley and I have a bill to stop something called ``pay for delay,'' which is when big pharmaceutical companies pay off generics in order to keep their products off the market. It would be $3 billion in savings for the U.S. Government by just passing that, and I would challenge my colleagues to vote against something as simple as that. Lastly is the CREATES Act, and Senators Grassley, Leahy, Feinstein, Lee, and I have that bill, which makes sure that we get the samples so that we can get generics on the market, create more competition, and bring prices down. This debate is about the patients of a nurse practitioner who provides psychiatric care in my State. She wrote to me: Please, please, do all you can to prevent these people from losing the health insurance coverage for medical and mental healthcare that is so vital to their lives. In Minnesota, one-third--32 percent--of the funding for our State's mental health agencies comes from Medicaid, and across the country, Medicaid expansion has helped 1.3 million people receive treatment for mental health and substance abuse issues. This debate is about the mom in Minnesota who has private insurance and who has colon cancer. She is working full time, raising two school- age boys and going to chemo every single week. She said she fears she will not be able to afford the care she needs to stay alive. This debate is about the rural constituents whom I noted come up to me at parades, like the Fourth of July, at nearly every other block, and tell me their stories of how they are concerned about their kids with disabilities and how they are concerned for their rural hospitals. We have things we can do to make this better, and now is the time when we must get them done. We have bipartisan support for these changes to the Affordable Care Act. Let's work together on them across the aisle, and let's remember that this is about one team, one country. We can get this done. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am honored to be here today with Senator Heitkamp, from North Dakota--my friend from across the border, the prairies--and also Senator Shaheen, from the Granite State. I don't think it is a coincidence that the three of us are here today. We have worked on a number of bipartisan issues over the years. As I was sitting here, I was remembering when Senator Collins stood during the government shutdown and asked for people who would be interested in working with her on a bipartisan plan to get ourselves out of that mess. And all three of us were involved in that effort, which was, I note, half women in the group. I think it is time to do that again when it comes to healthcare. I appreciated it when last week Senator McConnell said it may be time to work to strengthen the exchanges and to work across the aisle. Like Senator Shaheen, I didn't see it as a last option, I saw it as a first option. I certainly appreciate the work my colleagues have done to propose some smart ideas that could help us improve the Affordable Care Act, including the Marketplace Certainty Act. When I talked with our small businesses and our citizens in Minnesota, they want that kind of certainty to help with cost sharing. The idea of doing something more with reinsurance, which we just passed on a State basis in Minnesota with a Republican legislature and a Democratic Governor--we are awaiting a waiver from Health and Human Services here in Washington. We think we should do it in a bigger way on a national level, so I also support the Kaine-Carper bill. The work that I have been doing on prescription drugs--much of it across the aisle with Senator Grassley--to stop this unprecedented practice of big pharmaceutical companies paying off generics to keep their products off the market--it would save billions of dollars for our taxpayers if they stopped that practice. Unleash the power of 41 million seniors who are currently barred from negotiating for less expensive drug prices. Bring in less expensive drugs from Canada--a bill that I have with Senator McCain. There is nothing in this new proposal we have seen today that would help in any way with prescription drug prices, and that is just wrong. That is why we are here to welcome our colleagues to work with us on some improvements in a bipartisan way to this bill, because the bill we saw this morning would again not do anything--minor tweaks but nothing about these major Medicaid cuts that have brought so many people together against this bill. Minnesota seniors organizations have said that these proposals we are seeing that are not bipartisan--it feels like we are pulling the rug out from underneath families and seniors. That is why we have seen AARP so strongly opposed to a number of the proposals that have been circulating around with no Democratic input. Many, many people have come up to us across our States. I was in northern Minnesota over the Fourth of July and was there among the Lawn Chair Brigade in one of my favorite units in the Ely parade and the clowns and the Shriners and everything else in the five parades that I did. I was so surprised, as I know my colleagues were, at the number of people who came up--especially parents of kids with disabilities--in front of a whole crowd on the side of the road and said: This is my child. He needs Medicaid. He needs help. We need you to stand with us. So it is about people like that mom with that child with Down syndrome who needs Medicaid. It is about the senior who knows they are going to need nursing home help. Thirty-two percent of our seniors use Medicaid funding for their nursing home help. A woman told me about her mom, who died 2 years ago at 95 after suffering from dementia for more than 20 years. She had worked her whole life, but she couldn't afford that nursing home and needed that help. It is about our seniors, who don't want to see the age tax. It is about our rural hospitals that know how important it is to have healthcare not an hour away but 15 minutes away. That is what we are talking about. So we would welcome any efforts to work on these commonsense bills we have out there, many of which have had Republican support in the past. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for her good idea and for her passion for this issue and for her correct statement that when people sign up for these exchanges, they don't have to go by train, plane, or automobile to Washington, DC, to get their insurance. I heard, when I was home this weekend, over and over, concern from people whom I was surprised to see come up to me. Several people in Winona, MN, came up to me and said: We are Republicans, but we don't think it is fair if seniors have to pay more when tax cuts are going to the wealthiest. I heard from people in Lanesboro, MN, small business owners who were worried about what was happening with the proposal from the other side. In Northfield, MN, the town of ``Cows, Colleges and Contentment,'' I can tell you that they were not very content at the Northfield Hospital as they saw the devastating impact this bill would have on rural hospitals. So that is why I so appreciate my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, bringing people together today to talk about the fact that there is another way forward. There is another way forward, and the people in this Chamber have done this before. Senator McConnell negotiated with Senator Boxer on a major transportation bill. The last time we had an issue with doctors' fees, we were able to get that done on a bipartisan basis. So what we are simply asking our colleagues to do is to start afresh and to look at what we could do together to help the people of this country without sabotaging the current healthcare delivery system and without taking this out on the most vulnerable through Medicaid cuts. Here are some ideas. As to prescription drug prices, why would we not allow the 41 million seniors in this country to use their bargaining power--to harness their bargaining power--as my friend Senator Nelson from Florida understands because he knows there are a lot of seniors in Florida--to harness that bargaining power to negotiate for lower costs on prescription drugs. The current law bans us from doing that. So all we want to do is to lift that ban and let our seniors negotiate. That is not in this bill we are considering from the Republican side. This is something we can come together and work on. We can get less expensive drugs in the form of generic drugs. Yet, right now, we have a situation where major prescription drug companies are paying generic companies to keep their products off the market. It is called pay for delay. Senator Grassley and I have a bill to eliminate that. We can bring in less expensive drugs from other countries if, in fact, we have a situation where the prices have ballooned, as they have for the top 10 selling drugs in America. Four of them have gone up over 100 percent. The exchanges are another area where we have agreement. Senator Collins has been working on this. Senator Kaine and Senator Carper have a bill on this, and Senator Shaheen is working on the cost-sharing issue. We can work together to make insurance more affordable for people who are in the exchange. As to our small business rates, we must work on that. I truly believe we can come together. I will end with this. I got to be at that baseball game in the crowd with the 25,000 people who were watching the two teams play each other. Senator Donnelly of Indiana was on the field. At the end of the game, after the Democratic team won, they didn't keep the trophy. They handed the trophy to the Republican team and asked them to place that trophy in Congressman Scalise's office. We are not two teams. We are one team, and that is for our country, for America. So let's work together on this bill. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his words. I rise today to give voice to the concerns I am hearing from so many people in my State and across the country about this repeal bill. First, I want to recognize my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Hirono, who spoke earlier tonight about her personal battle with kidney cancer, as she is an example to all of us of determination and grit when the going gets tough. She not only is going to the hospital for surgery tomorrow--which isn't an easy surgery--but she decided she wanted to spend the night before she went into the hospital here because she is so passionate about this issue. I know she is going to fight this disease and win and come out stronger than ever. I have been so moved by how she has taken on her personal fight against cancer at the same time that she has kept this fight going in the Senate. She is doing it not just for herself or for her State but for people all over the country. As Senator Hirono has said, her experience shows how quickly a routine visit to the doctor can turn into a serious diagnosis--a diagnosis that becomes a preexisting condition. Everyone who faces a serious illness, no matter who they are, should be able to focus all of their energy on getting better, not on how they are going to pay their medical bills. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering doesn't allow everyone to do that. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted earlier today, this bill could mean the return of annual or lifetime limits on what insurance would cover for people with expensive conditions like cancer or Alzheimer's, and some key healthcare benefits might be excluded from insurance coverage altogether. It is no surprise that the Minnesota Hospital Association has said that this proposal ``creates a lot of chaos.'' I was just at Northfield Hospital this weekend. It is a college town, but it is in the middle of a very rural part of our State, with a lot of farms surrounding it. In fact, they call the town ``Cows, Colleges, and Contentment.'' In that town and in that hospital, there wasn't a lot of contentment during my visit. The CEO of the hospital told me that he was worried that this bill could drive more of his patients to bankruptcy. I met with a number of people who were on the board and work at the hospital, and they were all very concerned about what the bill would mean. This did not mean that they didn't want to see changes to the Affordable Care Act. They do. They see the issues with premiums in our State. That is why our Republican legislature worked with our Democratic Governor to pass a bill for reinsurance, to try to use something to leverage the risk for the people in the exchange. We could do something similar on the Federal level, and we should, but that is not what this bill is about. The head of another hospital in my State said: ``They are shortening up the money, but they're not giving us the ability to manage the care.'' A Minnesota seniors organization said that this bill ``feels like we're pulling the rug out from underneath families and seniors.'' That is why AARP strongly opposes the bill as well. According to the CBO report that we got today, this bill would cause 22 million people to lose their coverage over the next 10 years--22 million people. On Friday, my Republican colleague Senator Heller said that he ``cannot support a piece of legislation that takes insurance away from tens of millions of Americans.'' I agree. I hope our Republican colleagues will come to the negotiating table in a bipartisan way. I hope this administration will not sabotage the bill that we have now and will work with States like mine that want a waiver to be able to do the kind of cost sharing and the reinsurance that I just described. During that time, we can work together to actually make healthcare in America better and more affordable. We need to think about the real and devastating impacts on people's lives that this piece of legislation would have because that is what this debate is about. It is not about all of us going back and forth and citing facts and figures. In the end, it is about how this will affect people. It is about the lives of people like the mom in Minnesota who has a child with Down syndrome. She told me how she has seen Medicaid help parents of kids with disabilities avoid bankruptcy and how it helps school districts pay for the therapy children like hers need. She said that this bill is ``unconscionable''--that is her word--because of what it would do to adults and kids who have disabilities. We have more than half a million children in Minnesota who rely on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. This includes kids like the students of a retired teacher from Northwestern Minnesota, right across from the North Dakota border. The teacher wrote in, saying that the bill is ``cruel and mean,'' especially for the families of special needs students. A lot of us have talked about how the President called the House bill mean and how we hoped to avoid a bill like this in the Senate. In fact, this last weekend, he did admit that he had called the House bill mean after he had celebrated its passage. That is behind us. The President is the one who is known for speaking his mind and speaking directly. He didn't need a poll or a focus group or an accountant to look at the House bill. He just called it what it was-- mean. In Minnesota, people don't mince words either, and that is why that teacher told me exactly what the impact of this Senate bill would be. In fact, today the Congressional Budget Office--the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--confirmed it earlier today with its estimate that millions of people, 22 million people, would lose their Medicaid coverage because of the bill. Our debate today is about the lives of people like the retiree with Parkinson's in Minneapolis, who told me she is ``scared and worried.'' She is not just worried about the cuts to Medicaid but also about depleting the Medicare trust fund to pay for tax cuts for the very wealthy. As she told me, the future of these vital programs that so many Americans depend on is on the line. This healthcare bill is also about the people who are worried about taking care of their baby boomer parents at the same time that they are caring for their children. One woman told me about her mom, who died 2 years ago at 95 after suffering from dementia for more than 20 years. She had worked her whole life, but as she got older, she couldn't afford the nursing care she needed so much. Luckily, she was able to rely on Medicaid to pay for it. More than half--54 percent--of nursing facility residents in Minnesota rely on Medicaid. I think when this House bill first came out, people thought, well, Medicaid--what does that have to do with my life? Then they started talking to their parents, their grandparents or they started talking to their neighbors, and that is when they realized, whoa, over 50 percent of people who go into assisted living and nursing homes end up relying on Medicaid. This woman's daughter told me she is worried that this bill's cuts would put those vital services for seniors at risk for so many other parents and their kids. And even for older people who don't use Medicare or Medicaid, this bill could put health coverage out of reach. That is because it has an age tax for seniors, allowing older people to be charged five times as much as younger people for insurance. As AARP has said, that is just not right. These are the concerns I have heard from seniors and their families in Minnesota. They are shared by people across the country, especially by people in our rural areas, where they tend to have a little older population. One reason for that is because the Senate bill, actually more than the House bill when it comes to Medicaid, makes even deeper cuts over the long term that will hurt seniors and rural hospitals along with children, people with disabilities, and people suffering from opioid addiction. We actually have a strong bipartisan group working on the opioid addiction problem. Four of us--two Democrats, two Republicans--were the chief authors of the bill that passed last year, which set the framework for the Nation. We then put billions of dollars into treatment last year, and we shouldn't blow it up now by passing a bill that, because of the Medicaid cuts, would--in my State, one-third of the people who get opioid addiction treatment get it from Medicaid. Actually, it would be moving ourselves backward. I know my colleagues Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski have expressed real concerns about these kinds of Medicaid cuts in their States of Maine and Alaska, which also have big rural populations. In my State, Medicaid covers one-fifth of our total rural population, about 20 percent of our rural population. These cuts could cause the rural hospitals that serve this population to close. This doesn't just threaten healthcare coverage; it threatens the entire local economy. That is a big deal for rural hospitals, which often have operating margins of less than 1 percent. These rural hospitals are on the frontlines of the opioid epidemic that is hitting communities across the country. In my State, deaths from prescription drugs now claim more lives than homicides. They claim more lives than car crashes. While there is more work to do to combat the epidemic, I want to recognize our progress. Yes, we passed the blueprint bill, which I just mentioned, with the help of Senators Portman, Whitehouse, and Ayotte. Unfortunately, we are moving ourselves backward. Medicaid expansion has helped 1.3 million people receive treatment for mental and substance abuse across the country. I know this bill's cuts to these important services for people struggling with addiction have real concerns in States like West Virginia and States like Ohio. The problems with this bill, of course, go beyond Medicaid cuts, as a mom from Belgrade, MN, told me when she wrote about her daughter who died way too young from cancer. She asked me to oppose this bill in honor of her daughter and the thousands of other children diagnosed with cancer each year. She is worried that the waivers in this legislation would undercut protections for people with preexisting conditions, threatening to make health insurance unaffordable for families like hers who have children or children with cancer. One man from Minneapolis told me that what this does is ``downright scary.'' Those were his words. He is scared because he is self- employed. He has a preexisting condition, and he gets his insurance on the individual market. He is worried that under this bill, his costs-- which are already high--would skyrocket. I am the first to say that we need to fix the individual market. In fact, I started out by talking about the fact that we have done some work in our State, and I would like to bring that out nationally. This bill is not the way to do it because--as the CBO said earlier today--it would actually cut assistance and increase deductibles for many people on the individual market. Based on CBO's projections, the Joint Economic Committee estimates that average premiums in Minnesota would go up substantially next year, even more than they have gone up already. People across the country are making their voices heard about these types of problems. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation poll that came out just last week, only 30 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the House bill, and these concerns go across party lines. Only about half of Republicans--56 percent--supported the House bill. I know this bill has some differences from the House version, but as Speaker Ryan said last week, the two are very similar. I hope that hearing from Americans on both sides of the aisle prompts my colleagues to start working together to make our system better in a bipartisan way. Here are some ideas. I would love to include, if we worked on a bipartisan basis together, not only the work that needs to be done on the individual market, but on the exchanges, on the rates, and for small businesses. But I would also like to work on prescription drugs. I have a bill that would harness the negotiating power of 41 million seniors on Medicare to bring drug prices down. We have a number of Senators on the bill. Right now, Medicare is absolutely banned from negotiating with 41 million seniors. That is just wrong. Our seniors should be able to use their market power to negotiate. I would also love to see more competition in this market. There are several ways we can do it. One is by bringing in less expensive drugs from other countries when we have drug shortages now in this country. Senator Collins and I worked on this, and the bill passed this Senate and got signed into law. Now the Secretary of Human Services can actually bring in drugs that are safe from other countries when we have a drug shortage. We refined some of the language where the rules already allowed the Secretary to do that. They could do the same thing right now, but we can make it even more clear if this Congress got behind it. Senator McCain and I have a bill to bring in less expensive drugs from Canada, which is very similar to the American market. We have a provision in the bill so they would be safe. Many people in my State are doing this now. We once had bus rides of seniors going up there to get less expensive drugs. We could do it with other countries, as well, as long as they were certified as safe. For one of the ways you could do it, Senator Lee and I have a bill that looks at this. Again, this a bipartisan bill. If you have less competition in the market and you have less competitors, that would trigger the ability to bring in more drugs. You could do it based on the price. If it goes up high and the Secretary or someone else that we could put in that place finds that it is not because of input costs, you could allow this competition to come in from other countries. It would be a trigger. I would bet you right now that if you did that, it would create incentives on American drug companies not to jack up the prices like they have been doing. The top 10 selling drugs in America have gone up over 100 percent. Things like insulin are up three times. Things like naloxone, which we rely on for overdoses from opiates, have gone up astronomically. It feels like when these drug companies get a monopoly in their lap, they go for it. That is what is happening. A second way to bring in competition is by encouraging more generics. Senator Grassley and I have a bill to stop something called ``pay for delay.'' This is unbelievable to me, when I describe this to people-- that big pharmaceutical companies are actually paying generic companies to keep their products off the market. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that this would save something like $3 billion over a number of years if we passed our bill. That is for the government and taxpayers, but you could save an equal amount of money for consumers who are paying for this in premiums. How could you ever explain that pharmaceuticals are actually paying generics to keep their products off the market? That is a vote I would like this Senate to take. I would like to challenge anyone to explain why they would vote against that. We also have another bill called the CREATES Act, with Senators Grassley, Leahy, Lee, and me, which makes it easier to get generics to market by sampling and other things. These are just a few of the examples of bills that I think would be very good if we would consider them, but so far, we have done nothing. We banned seniors from negotiating. There is nothing in the House or the Senate repeal bills that does anything about these pharma issues. Again, that is one reason alone to be concerned about these bills. I was at that baseball game a few weeks ago and saw firsthand that incredible bipartisan spirit, and at the women's softball game, as well. At the men's baseball game, the players played together, and, at the end of the game, when one team won--the Democratic team--they took their trophy and they gave it to the Republican team, and they asked them to put it in Representative Scalise's office. That is what we need to see more of--not just two teams but one team. Certainly, on an issue as complex as healthcare, we just can't be playing in our separate ballparks. This is the time to come together. We have changes that we must make to the Affordable Care Act. I said that the day it passed-- that it was a beginning and not an end. I always thought it was unfortunate that it was more of a Democratic bill than it was a bipartisan bill. So we have an opportunity now to fix that, to make fixes to the bill, and to work together. But this bill is not the answer--this bill that we were not allowed to take part in, where the doors were closed, not only to Democratic Senators but to Americans themselves. So I hope, as we go forward, that our colleagues on the other side will work with us on a truly bipartisan bill that would make some of the changes we need to bring down healthcare costs, instead of moving forward with this bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to speak out and ask for a normal process, for hearings, and for debates. The Presiding Officer and I have talked about this issue. I know the Presiding Officer has many good ideas to contribute, and I am hopeful that we can start over with a bill that would consist of a number of changes in our existing healthcare system. That is what I think we need to do, instead of this repeal bill that came to us without hearings. It is just not the right way to do this. I have already gotten reactions from my State. Just to use some quotes from an article in the Minneapolis StarTribune that was just posted--we have our health plans saying that what matters is Medicaid, and they are the leaders in our healthcare community, calling this bill disappointing because of the continued insistence on significantly cutting Medicaid, the federally paid health insurance program for those who are the most vulnerable. They have said things--the big story has been, What is it going to do to Medicaid? But, in fact, what our experts in our State are saying-- our health plans--is that this is really more of the same from what we have seen in the House bill, but over a different time period. There is an argument that in the end, it involves even deeper cuts. The Minnesota Hospital Association came out and has already, in just the last few hours, said that the last of the guaranteed benefits discourages preventive care and that this proposal ``creates a lot of chaos.'' One of the heads of one of our major hospitals said: They are shortening up the money. But they're not giving us the ability to manage the care. I have long advocated for changes to the Affordable Care Act-- significant changes. I think seniors should be given the ability to harness their marketing power and negotiate for lower prices under Medicare for prescription drugs. They are currently prohibited from doing that. I think that is wrong. I said that when the Affordable Care Act passed. I think there are many good things we could do to help with the exchanges and with small business rates, including doing something federally on reinsurance. My State legislature, which is a Republican State legislature, joined with our Democratic Governor and worked out an agreement on insurance. We are currently awaiting word from the administration on a waiver, but we think that is a good idea, and there are things we can do to bring that out nationally. I don't see that happening with this bill. In the end, what matters to me is how this bill affects individual people in my State. Laura from North St. Paul wrote to me about her concerns about the very similar House bill. Laura recently retired, but she will not be eligible for Medicare until next year. She has a daughter with several chronic health conditions. She is concerned that if these proposals get passed, she will end up paying far more for her health insurance, and her daughter might lose her coverage altogether. Take Mike from Grand Marais--that is in the far corner of Minnesota, right up at the tip. He has been self-employed his whole life and is now approaching retirement. He told me that just as he is about to retire, he will not be able to afford health insurance because of the way this proposal works. Like the House bill, it would increase premiums for older Minnesotans. A woman from Andover, MN, wrote to me that she is worried about this slam dunk attempt to check off a box on a to-do list, when, in fact, she is squarely in the middle of that box. She asked me to put a face on the type of person who is affected by rushing through this checklist, and that would be her 28-year-old son. She said that Medicaid coverage has been a lifesaver for her son because it helps him afford the treatment he needs to strive for an independent, productive life. I have heard from so many people from all of the corners of my State, from the old, the young, the middle-aged. I have heard from many people from the rural parts of my State about the House bill, which, of course, is very similar to the Senate bill that has been proposed here. They were especially worried about the billions in cuts to Medicaid, which is the lead part of the concern from the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. The Senate proposal, as I mentioned, would make even deeper cuts over the long term to Medicaid. Medicaid covers more than 1.2 million Minnesotans, including more than one-fifth of the people in the rural part of our State--20 percent of our rural population. This funding is vital to the ability of our rural hospitals and healthcare providers in those parts of our State to stay open and serve their patients. Many people who work in rural hospitals and who are served by rural hospitals have deep concerns. Even after seeing the Senate proposal for just these few hours, it is clear that this healthcare legislation would have massive life-changing implications for families all over the country. We know the President of the United States is not known for mincing words, but we also know he used very direct language when he talked about the House bill. The reports are that he called it mean, and there has been no denial that he said that. He didn't need a poll or focus group. He didn't need to know every detail of the bill. But when you hear that millions and millions of people could lose their health insurance, the wealthiest would get tax cuts, and then the people who need help the most would be forced to pay more, you can see why that would be a good word to describe a bill like this--``mean.'' What we don't want to have come out of the Senate is the ``son of mean'' or ``mean 2.'' Most of us agree that we must make changes to the Affordable Care Act, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. I would love to see those changes to prescription drug prices, not only with the Medicare negotiation I just mentioned, getting rid of that prohibition that stops 41 million seniors from negotiating for lower prices for prescription drugs by passing the bill that I have led for years to allow for that negotiation, but I would like to see more competition in two other ways. One is bringing in safe drugs from other countries like Canada. Senator McCain and I have a bill that would allow that to happen. The second is allowing for more generic competition and making it easier to have generic competition--again, not in the House or the Senate bill. Senator Grassley and I have a bill that would stop ``pay for delay.'' That is where companies pay generics to keep their products off the market. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has assessed that we would not only save billions of dollars for the government but also for taxpayers if this passed. I would like to have that bill come up for a vote, maybe in the form of an amendment, because I believe it would pass. We could make improvements in the exchanges with the idea of reinsurance. There are many ways we could come together to make sensible changes to the Affordable Care Act. We can never have a bill that big without making some changes, and I think the time has come. Instead, we see a bill that was drafted behind closed doors. Yes, Democratic Senators were not a part of that; that is it the way it is. But I don't think those doors should be closed to the American people. Last week I attended the men's baseball game between Democrats and Republicans. It was an amazing event with over 25,000 people. At the end, when the Democratic team won, they took their trophy and gave it to the Republican team, and they asked them to put it in Representative Scalise's office. We should take the spirit that we saw at that congressional baseball game. We should take that spirit, and we should bring it into this Chamber, and we should start working on a bill together--not this bill. We should start working on a bill that makes some major changes to the Affordable Care Act. We have ideas on both sides, and that is what I think we should do. With that, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, one of the things that I would most like to work on is the cost of prescription drugs. I think we should be making sensible changes to the Affordable Care Act, but the bill that came over from the House does not really do that at all. Whether it is bringing the cost of drugs down for seniors by having negotiations under Medicare Part D or whether it is allowing for less expensive drugs to come in--probably generic drugs or from other countries--the bill just does not do that. Now, supposedly, a bill is being considered here, but it is being done in secret. So I cannot have my say. For any bill in the Senate, committees meet and debate and vote on amendments that are offered by Senators on both sides of the aisle. We need to hear ideas from Members of both parties as to how to fix this bill--in the HELP Committee, for starters. I ask that we agree today that the bill will not come to the floor until the HELP Committee has had an open meeting and has considered amendments from both parties. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, be in order until the bill has been the subject of executive session meetings in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, during which amendments from the majority and minority will have received votes and the bill will have been reported favorably from the committee.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, to speak out, and to ask for a normal process here and to ask for hearings, to ask for debate, and to ask for amendments because the healthcare repeal bill is a major step backward, throwing over 20 million people off of health insurance. It is strongly opposed by AARP. We don't know what is being concocted here in the Senate, but clearly something is going on, and we would like to have a say, and, most importantly, the people of my State would like to have a say. Look at Laura from North St. Paul, who wrote to me about her concerns about that health bill. Laura is recently retired, but she will not be eligible for Medicare until next year, and she has a daughter with several chronic health conditions. Laura is worried that if the proposal goes through this Chamber, she will end up paying far more for her health insurance, and her daughter might lose her coverage altogether. Like so many others, Laura asked that we work across the aisle to make improvements to the bill that her family needs and that so many families across the country need. Take Mike from Grand Marais, which is in the far corner of Minnesota, right at the tip of our State, not too far from Canada. Mike knows the kind of healthcare they have across the border in Canada. He knows what the prices are for the prescription drugs there, but here in America that healthcare bill doesn't do anything to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. Mike has been self-employed his whole life and is now approaching retirement. He told me that he is very worried that, just as he is about to retire, he will not be able to afford health insurance because the premiums that are under that bill for older Minnesotans like him would skyrocket. Take a woman from Andover, MN. She wrote to me to say that she is so worried ``about the GOP's slam dunk attempt to check off a box on their to do list'' with the healthcare proposal. She asked me to put a face on the type of person that will be a part of that checklist on that to- do list, and that would be her 28-year-old son. She says that Medicaid coverage has been a lifesaver for her son because it helps him afford the treatment he needs to strive for an independent, productive life. The truth of the matter is that I have heard so many people like these three, from all corners of my State, from the old to the young to the middle-aged. I have heard from so many people from the rural parts of my State about this bill. They are especially worried about the $834 billion in cuts to Medicaid. Medicaid covers more than 1.2 million Minnesotans, including more than one-fifth of our rural population. That is 20 percent of our rural population. This funding is vital for our rural hospitals and the healthcare providers' ability in those parts of our State to stay open and serve their patients. Many people who work in rural hospitals and those who are served by rural hospitals have come up to me to talk about their concerns. These hospitals are not like big urban hospitals. I see the Senator from Hawaii here. I thank him for organizing this along with Senator Murray. Our rural hospitals actually treat a lot of accidents, people out snowmobiling or on ATVs. In fact one of them has a chart every summer showing all the places where they had to remove fish hooks from people's hands. They usually have over 100 of them by the end of the summer. You wouldn't see that in an urban area--that is for sure--but it just shows that different parts of our country, different parts of our State have different issues they are dealing with. Rural hospitals are particularly concerned about these cuts. These drastic cuts would cause many of our rural hospitals to close, forcing families to drive 60, 70, 80 miles or more when they need the healthcare the most. The other issue that this bill brings up to me, when looking at rural areas, is the opioid epidemic that is hitting communities across the country. In my State, deaths from prescription drug use now claim more lives than homicides or car crashes. While there is more work to do to combat this epidemic, I want to recognize that we have made meaningful progress so far in a bipartisan way. We passed the framework bill, the CARA bill. We passed the Cures Act last December, as well as money to fund treatment. Unfortunately, just as we are starting to move forward on this issue, the healthcare repeal bill passed by the House would put us at the risk of moving backward. There is money in that bill for opioid treatment, but guess what. Medicaid and children's health insurance covers 3 out of every 10 people with an opioid addiction. But according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, mental health and substance abuse benefits could be cut under the House bill, increasing out-of-pocket costs. It is clear that this healthcare legislation has massive life- changing implications for families all over this country. Yet we haven't even seen a draft in the Senate. What we do know is that, just last week, the President of the United States, who is known for not really mincing words and known for using direct language, called the House bill ``mean.'' He called it ``mean.'' He didn't need a poll or a focus group. He didn't need to know every detail of the bill, but when you hear that 20 million people can lose health insurance, that is a pretty good word to describe it--mean. What we don't want to have in the Senate is that we bring forward the Senate mean, or mean 2. But guess what. We don't even know what we have because we haven't seen it, because the legislation is being drafted behind closed doors. Most of us agree that we must make changes to the Affordable Care Act. I certainly think so. I would love to pass my bills or include them in amendments to the Affordable Care Act to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. My bill would allow 41 million seniors to harness their negotiating power to bring drug prices down. Right now they are banned to do that. That is wrong. I would love to see more competition come into the market in the form of less expensive drugs from other countries, like Canada--a bill I have with Senator Kaine or a bill to make it easier to get generics on the market, like the bill Senator Grassley and I have to stop something that is called ``pay for delay.'' I think the American people would be surprised that the big pharmaceutical companies are paying their generic competitors to keep their products off the market. These are improvements to the bill. We can make improvements to the exchanges. Just as we have done some of that work in the State of Minnesota, we can do that nationally. We can make improvements to small business rates. Those are things we can do, but we cannot do it if we can't get through the door because the door is closed. When the door is closed, it is not just closed to the Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, but the door is closed to the American people. What it all comes down to is that we need to work in a bipartisan way to make healthcare better and less expensive for the people in our country. Last week, we all came together. I was at that Congressional Baseball Game. It was an amazing moment, with 25,000 people in the stands. All four leaders were out there looking like they actually liked each other. There they were, and there our teams were--two teams, a Republican team and a Democratic team. In the end it was a hard fought game. One team won. The Democratic team won, but do you know what they did with their trophy? They handed it to the Republican team, and they said: Put it in Representative Scalise's office. We want to take that spirit and go even further--instead of two teams, one team for America. That is the way we make the changes to an issue that has been long fought on both sides. I know Republicans weren't happy with everything that happened during the debate on the Affordable Care Act. They have made that clear. But now we have a moment in time where we could come together and make some sensible changes and make things better for the people of this country. Let's do it. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Corker and Senator Cardin, for their fine work on the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act, of course, and then this Russia amendment that so many of us have been pushing for so long. I especially thank Senator Cardin for his leadership on that, as well as Senator Brown and Senator Crapo--and the work that Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer did, as well as a lot of members of the Foreign Relations Committee, who care a lot about this. As I look at this, I look first at the Iranian part of the underlying bill. We have had many disagreements in the last few years on the Iranian nuclear agreement, but it is now critical. This is the time for those who opposed the agreement and those who supported it to come together to ensure that all of the parties to the agreement are upholding their obligations. When the United States and our allies agreed to the Iranian nuclear agreement, we made it clear that we will continue to hold Iran accountable for its nefarious activities outside of the four corners of the agreement. We must hold Iran accountable for missile tests, for financing terrorism, and human rights violations. That is our job, and that is why I was an early cosponsor of the legislation before the Senate today. The Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017 imposes mandatory sanctions on those involved with Iran's ballistic missile program, as well as those who fund terrorist organizations and commit human rights violations. Iran's ballistic missile program is a threat to regional and global security, and United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 makes it illegal for Iran to develop ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear weapon. Any person or business involved in helping Iran obtain illegal weapons should be banned from doing business with the United States, have their assets immediately frozen, and their travel restricted. Minimizing the threat Iran poses also means holding it accountable for funding terrorist groups that threaten Israel and seek to destabilize the region. We should be doing everything in our power to better track terrorist financing so we can stop the flow of money that funds suicide bombers and illicit weapons. Our mission here is clear: We must protect our own citizens and our allies by enacting strong legislation to ensure that Iran does not cheat on its international commitment. Iran must know that if it violates the rules, it will be held accountable. Democrats and Republicans have come together to get this done, and it is my hope that we can pass the legislation this week, including the amendment imposing strong sanctions against Russia, which is essential to protecting our democracy from foreign interference. Seventeen United States intelligence agencies have confirmed that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election. That is not all. We know Russia is using covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful propaganda to try to undermine our democracy. They launched cyber attacks against local election systems, a U.S. voting systems software company, and the emails of more than 100 local election officials. Russian-backed criminals hacked into Yahoo and stole data from 500 million accounts. They repeatedly harassed American diplomats in Moscow. The former Director of Intelligence, James Clapper, recently testified that Russia will continue to interfere in our political system. This is what he said: I believe [Russia is] now emboldened to continue such activities in the future both here and around the world and to do so even more intensely. If there has ever been a clarion call for vigilance and action against a threat to the very foundation of our democratic political system, this episode is it. Vigilance--that is what we need right now. That is why I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce the Countering Russian Hostilities Act, legislation that would impose strong sanctions against Russia. These sanctions would address Russia's cyber attacks, its human rights violations, and its illegal annexation of land in Ukraine and Georgia. I am also the cosponsor of the Russia Sanctions Review Act, bipartisan legislation that would require congressional review if sanctions against Russia are rolled back. The Russia sanctions amendment offered today contains essential portions of both of these pieces of legislation. After those 17 intelligence agencies confirmed that Russia interfered in our elections, President Obama enacted important sanctions against officials in the Russian Government and hackers conducting malicious cyber activity on behalf of the Russian Government. The amendment before us today would codify those sanctions. The amendment also strengthens sanctions against Russia's energy sector, corrupt Russian officials, and those who supply weapons to the Assad regime. The day the Obama administration was imposing these additional sanctions on Russia, I was actually with Senators McCain and Graham in Eastern Europe. The goal of our trip was to reinforce support for NATO and our allies in the face of increased Russian aggression. On the trip, we went to the Baltics, Ukraine, and Georgia, countries on the frontlines of these fights. They know Russia's playbook well. In our meetings with Presidents and Prime Ministers of these countries, it was increasingly evident that if we don't stop Russia now, cyber attacks against governments, political parties, newspapers, and companies will only get worse. We heard about websites being shut down and internet access limited when one government--the Government of Estonia--simply had the audacity to move a bronze statue from a public square to a cemetery. It was of a Russian fighter. The Russian Government didn't like it, so they cut down their internet access. Also, there were members of the Ukrainian Parliament who were invited to Lithuania. What happened to the Lithuanians in the Parliament? They were hacked into. Ukraine itself was targeted by Russian hackers more than 6,500 times over a 2-month period. Most recently, Russia tried to undermine elections in France. For years, our allies have been subjected to Russian aggression and invasion. But they are undeterred, unwilling to give up on that which they fought so hard for--independence, freedom, democracy. So this is not just about defending our own democracy, as we look at these Russia sanctions that are before us today, as we look at the investigation that is ongoing and looking into the interference into our election. It is about defending a democratic way of life and democracies across the world. It is not just about the simple word ``election'' or the simple word ``democracy.'' It is not just about one candidate or one political party. As Senator Rubio has noted, the next time it will be the other party. No, this is about our Constitution. It is about our own independence from foreign powers. It is about freedom and the rights guaranteed to us in our own Constitution. If that is undermined, if foreign governments are allowed to come in and handpick who their candidate is based on either propaganda or cyber attacks, then we lose our constitutional rights because we the people are no longer determining who our representatives are. Other countries are. The world continues to look to America for our steadfast leadership. The United States--a beacon for freedom and democracy--must continue to stand up against Russian aggression, not just in word but in deed. That is why it is so important that the Senate is coming together today to pass strong sanctions against the Russian Government. We want the Russian people to be able to have a democracy. We want them to be able to have a democracy that doesn't do things like bring down planes in Ukraine, that doesn't do things like try to influence other countries' elections. That is why these sanctions are so important. We know that the Russian Government today is actively working to undermine our democracy and hurt American businesses. This is part of the cyber war. We know that this unprecedented interference has been orchestrated by the Kremlin so that Americans actually lose faith in our own political system. Over time, Russia has grown more determined in its effort to weaken democracies in its expanded sphere of influence. Now, more than ever, Americans are looking to the Senate for leadership. We must stand strong and united so that Russia and other nations know that attacks against our democracy must not go unchecked. The amendment before us on the sanctions is an important step in doing just that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, while I join Senator Stabenow in her remarks, I want to thank her for her tremendous leadership on the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and for working across the aisle with Chairman Roberts. The two of them, I have no doubt, will be able to come to an agreement and keep working on getting an even stronger farm bill. It took some Herculean efforts to get the last farm bill done, and it would not have happened without her. I appreciate what she said about the importance of the farm bill and the USDA. I would also add another important pillar of strong rural economics, and that is job training. Starting with high school, I think we all have to come to grips with the fact that not every kid wants to get a 4-year degree. In fact, we have so many openings across this country--millions of job openings-- whether it be on a plant floor, whether it be as a plumber or as a welder, that can be obtained with a 1-year or a 2-year degree. My own sister did not graduate from high school. She went on, years later, and got her GED, and then she went on to get a 2-year degree. After that, she got 2 more years of training and became an accountant. There is not just one path in America. Part of this is investing in STEM--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--and doing it early so that kids get a jump start on the jobs of tomorrow. By the way, this is not just your Ph.D.s and Silicon Valley jobs. This also includes blue-collar jobs. I call it blue STEM. There is a shortage, as I said, of welders and auto mechanics, and those can be good-paying jobs. We need to talk about them with dignity, and we have to realize that this is where the openings are. The other piece of this, in addition to training kids in high school, is to make sure we have apprenticeship programs available. This year, a report came out in my State that 68 percent of Minnesota manufacturers found it was difficult for them to find workers with the right skills and experience. That is up from 40 percent in 2010. I see that Senator Heitkamp is here. As they are starting to add some more jobs in the oil patch in North Dakota, it is going to become even harder to find Minnesotans to fill some of our jobs because some of them like to go over to North Dakota. Senator Collins and I have introduced a bill called the American Apprenticeship Act, which would expand tuition assistance for pre- apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs. The President has talked about workforce development as being a priority. Yet we have seen a cut of 15 percent in Department of Education grants for career and technical education, as well as a 36-percent cut to Labor Department funding for training and employment services. As I noted before, there is this disconnect between the rhetoric we hear and what we are reading in the black and white of this budget. I know there are people on both sides of the aisle here, including the Senator from North Dakota, who want to work on bridging that difference and getting a good budget done that really helps rural America. I see Senator Heitkamp is here, and I thank her for coming. Senator Heitkamp serves on the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. She was an integral part of the last farm bill and will be an integral part of this as well as in really understanding the economics within a rural State.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Heitkamp for her understanding not just of farm policy but also the importance of keeping towns strong, manufacturing strong, and transportation strong. I will note that the infrastructure portions of this budget are very concerning. The point has been made by others that right now, under the proposed budget, at a time when our deteriorating infrastructure is costing our economy a lot of money--not just congestion, not just potholes, but in delaying getting goods to market--unfortunately, this budget proposal would cut funding for vital transportation programs. It will eliminate funding for the TIGER Grant Program. Currently, the program provides $500 million per year to help fund local transportation priorities. It eliminates funding for Essential Air Service, which helps support commercial air service to rural airports. It eliminates the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant Program, which funds light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, street car, and bus rapid transit projects. We can't wait any longer to make critical investments in our infrastructure. Probably right up there with any of these infrastructure needs in rural America is broadband. Internet access is a great equalizing force for creating jobs and leveling the playing field. There is a big digital gap when it comes to rural America. I know the percentages; close to 40 percent of Americans in rural areas do not have access to high-speed broadband. It used to be that slow speed would be OK if someone were trying to email their kid in school maybe 10, 15 years ago, but this is not true anymore. Now, if you want to do your work, if you want to go to the hospital--whatever you want to do in rural America, you are going to have to have high-speed internet. I think about the doctor in Brainerd, MN, who for so long could look at x rays in the hospital but couldn't look at them in his home. If he had some emergency and wanted to talk to someone when he got home that evening, he had to go to the McDonald's parking lot to be able to do that. There was a student at one of our reservations who got Wi-Fi in his house, looked out the window, and all of a sudden all these kids were doing their homework in his front yard. That is just not right. Rural Americans deserve equal footing so they can launch new businesses, export their goods, or just Skype with their loved ones. This is about the farm bill, yes, but it is also about this budget and making sure this budget works for all Americans and leaves no one behind. Sadly, these cuts are specifically targeted at rural America. That is why we are going to fight to make sure, hopefully on a bipartisan basis with colleagues on the Republican side, we produce a budget that is fair to everyone. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to speak about the need to ensure that the policies that we make in this Chamber work for and support rural America. Senators Stabenow, Heitkamp, and I are all from the Midwest--the heartland. We represent the people who are truly in the middle of this country--the middle of the country economically, politically--and who are often middle-income people who need representatives who are focused on what matters to them. Each year I visit all 87 counties in my State, and I hear a lot. I hear about dads who can't be sure their sons or daughters will have the support they need to take over the family farm when the time comes, small business owners who can't get a broadband connection, moms who can't figure out how to pay for their kids' prescriptions when the costs go up, and manufacturers who can't find workers to fill jobs. Rural America has been left behind. The poverty rate in their areas for kids is higher than it is in urban areas. Businesses may not invest when they can't get reliable internet access or they can't get the right people to support their operation. Housing is hard to come by. We should be focused on supporting our farmers and ensuring that people can raise a family in a small town and have the healthcare they need. We should be making sure that high-quality education is attainable and that job training options are available and affordable. We should be able to provide every person in this country with a clear path to a good job. Unfortunately, from the administration we have seen a disconnect between rhetoric and policy. We have seen a budget that hits the heartland with 21 percent cuts in the Department of Agriculture--cuts to grant programs that support rural homeownership, provide clean drinking water and wastewater systems, and promote access to critical services such as rural hospitals. It eliminates rural business programs that help create hundreds of thousands of jobs. If enacted, these cuts would have a damaging impact on rural communities throughout the country. Rural communities help our country get ahead. They are the backbone of our country. We need to work to find common ground on these issues, and we need a budget that helps and not hurts the heartland. I see my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, is here as well.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in speaking about the opioid crisis that has devastated families in States across the country. I thank my colleague, Senator Manchin, for organizing the speeches today. In my State, deaths from prescription drug abuse have now claimed the lives of more Minnesotans than have homicides or car crashes. We lost our beloved Prince because of an opioid overdose, which is still being investigated. Just as importantly, we lost a student in Duluth and a mom in Rochester, MN--over 400 people in just the last year. We continue to see dangerous synthetic opioids shipped across our borders in increasing amounts--a trend that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection expects to continue, as we heard in a Judiciary Committee hearing last week. Today, I joined Senator Portman in his subcommittee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and we talked about what is going on from that perspective as well. While there is more work to do to combat this epidemic, first, I recognize that we have made some meaningful progress on a bipartisan basis. We passed the CARA Act, which is something that was led by Senators Portman, Whitehouse, Ayotte, and me. We set a framework up for the Nation, and I look at it in three ways. The first way is that we have to do everything we can to prevent addiction. That means changing some of our prescription practices across the country. Do you really need 30 pills when you get your wisdom teeth out? It is about asking those questions and changing those practices. The second thing would be to look at prescription drug monitoring. Senator Portman and I have a bill that would make it mandatory for States to share their data across State borders. I found a guy in Moorhead, MN, through his rehab counselor, who had 108 different prescriptions for opioids from something like 80 different doctors in 50 different cities. He went from North Dakota to South Dakota, to Minnesota, to Wisconsin. That is why sharing that data would greatly reduce that doctor shopping. I see here the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. Senator Cornyn and I led a bill years ago to make it easier for people to throw away their leftover prescription drugs so they would not get in the hands of those who should not be taking them. Those are ideas for reducing that demand. Then you go to the next area, which, of course, is that of trying to reduce the illegal drugs from coming in, like with the STOP Act, which Senator Portman and I introduced, making it harder to get these drugs in through the Postal Service, and doing more with law enforcement. By passing the SALTS Act, which is a bill that Senator Graham and I introduced, it will make it easier for prosecutors--the Presiding Officer is a former prosecutor--to prove up cases with analogue drugs, which is when perpetrators basically take a substance, change it a little, and then say: Hey, it is a new drug. Then it makes it harder for the Feds to go after it, and you have to prove it up in court. So we are making some changes to our law to make it easier, especially in rural areas, where they are not going to be able to get a medical doctor in to prove up what the substance is in order to make it easier to prove these cases. These are all very good ideas, but what we are here to talk about today is the issue of the funding and what will happen if we do not have the funding for treatment. We did a good job with the Cures Act last December, in which we made $1 billion available over 2 years, as well as the work that was done on a bipartisan basis with the budget for the rest of the year. I consider those good signs. Unfortunately, the budget and the CBO score of the healthcare repeal bill that was released this week--the bill that came over from the House--shows us that we are at risk of working backwards on this issue. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, mental health and substance abuse benefits could be cut under the healthcare bill, which would increase out-of-pocket costs by thousands of dollars for those who need these vital services. This is on top of the $839 billion in cuts to Medicaid under the bill and additional cuts in the President's budget of more than $600 billion to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, even though these programs cover 3 out of every 10 people who have an opioid addiction. This would be devastating for so many, if these budget cuts took effect. I would like to do more. I would, actually, like to pass the LifeBOAT Act, which Senator Manchin introduced and I am a cosponsor. That would simply put an extra fee on some of these opioids so that the people who have been reaping the profits from these drugs would be helping to pay for the treatment. I think that is a great idea. Unfortunately, this budget takes us the other way. It eliminates programs that help rural communities build hospitals and get access to vital telemedicine services. It cuts critical medical research that is happening at the NIH--just when, at the end of last year, we added that money to the NIH's funding. It was shown just in the last month that, with the budget for the rest of the year, we have continued that positive trend. The budget also doubles down on other cuts that would hurt small towns and rural communities, which would impact jobs and opportunities. It eliminates rural business programs, which have helped to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It cuts rural housing programs and infrastructure grants and loan programs. Altogether, these cuts not only threaten the progress we have made in fighting against the opioid crisis, but they also threaten the prosperity of the rural communities, which have been the hardest hit. We need a budget that helps and not hurts rural America. We have a lot of work to do. I appreciate, again, the work of our Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate. As we have shown with the budget--from last month through the rest of this year--we have put some common sense in there and have done a good job and have gotten a lot of bipartisan support. My hope is that we will do the same thing here and make a smart budget and reject the one that has been proposed by this administration and come up with something much better that helps and not hurts the people of our States. I yield the floor.