Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Again, I conclude by asking our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us. Eighteen Democratic Senators stood together with a track record of working across the aisle, asked them to join us to work on a bill that would actually help the American people, that wouldn't add this big lump of debt into Americans' stockings, but that is not what this bill is. This bill is about debt, it is about special interests, and it doesn't help the middle class. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, another troubling aspect of this bill is the inclusion of a provision to repeal a key part of the Affordable Care Act that would kick 13 million--13 million--people off of their insurance by 2027 and increase the individual market premiums by 10 percent. We should be helping with the premiums, not increasing the premiums. This means less money in the pockets of American middle-class families--less money to save for retirement, less money for college. That is what we are talking about here. The American people, in fact, want us to work together to make fixes to the Affordable Care Act. That is what we did just about a month and a half ago. The Alexander-Murray bill--12 Republicans, 12 Democratic cosponsors, and I am one of them--that bill is sitting out there. Yet, without even considering that, what does this bill do? It gets rid of the individual mandate. Senators Alexander and Murray held a series of hearings and discussions on commonsense solutions. They actually had a hearing on their committee. They had Governors come in, Democrats and Republicans together, and that is how they put that product together. It is a model for how we can put a bill together. Instead of that kind of bipartisan approach, this tax bill not only repeals an important part of the Affordable Care Act, but it would lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, hurting our seniors. Both Minnesota and Oregon have significant rural populations, and those hospitals are just hanging on the edge as it is. Now, what do we do? We sock them with this: getting rid of the individual mandate which will, in the end, raise rates and hurt the Affordable Care Act as opposed to making some commonsense changes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Merkley for his leadership. Mr. President, this current Tax Code--I would love to see tax reform. I have long advocated for it. I actually would like to see the business rates go down. I would like to see the money come in from overseas and some incentives put in place. But this bill is extreme. This bill puts a $1.4 trillion hole in the debt. That is what it does--additional debt. In fact, just yesterday, the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said that even when you account for any economic growth--and this is the umpire here--that would add $1 trillion to the Federal budget deficit over the next decade. So what I would like to see--and what I thought we were talking about at the beginning of the year--is a bipartisan effort. Seventeen of us who are willing to cross the aisle and who have had a track record of working on bipartisan bills stood up just this week and said: Work with us. Instead, what we have is a partisan bill that blows up the debt. We have a partisan bill that would be devastating to our economy. No one has even had a hearing. No one has even looked at what the consequences would be in this bill. Literally, on the hour, we are getting calls in my office from small businesses, from regular people, from Main Street businesses that have no idea what is going to happen to them under this bill. All they know right now for sure is that it adds over $1 trillion to the debt. Where is the transportation funding we thought we could do with this bill? We brought the money back from overseas and tied that into infrastructure funding. That didn't happen. What is missing from the bill? Where is getting rid of the oil giveaways? Where is implementing the Buffett rule? Where is getting rid of something the President said he wanted to change; that is, the carried interest rule. None of that is in there. Instead, what we have, what our constituents are going to get here at Christmas, is a stocking full of a big lump of debt. One of the things that we know is an issue with this bill is the double taxation we see in the bill.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank Senator Blunt for his leadership. We have worked side by side on these issues for so many years, and I am really pleased--as he noted--that there has been a lot of focus on this issue of the adoption tax credit and not only how it needs to be fixed in any tax bill and make sure it is maintained, but, in fact, it should be expanded on. I thank him. We have both been advocating for that. One of the reasons I am so involved in this issue is, in my State of Minnesota, we have historically had a lot of adoptions. One is international adoptions. We have one of the highest rates of international adoptions in the country. We have families who have opened their hearts to kids from Vietnam to Guatemala, to Nepal, to Haiti. I have had the opportunity to witness the power of adoption firsthand when I served for 8 years as the Hennepin County attorney--which is the largest prosecutor's office in our State. We also have civil jurisdiction so one of the things I worked on was speeding up the amount of time it took for foster kids to get out and into permanent homes. I was able to see firsthand those loving parents who would do anything to bring these kids into their families. When you see it internationally, it just breaks your heart if it goes on for years and years and years. Right now, domestically, over 425,000 children are living without permanent families in our foster care system. Over 110,000 of these kids are eligible for adoption. One of the reasons Senator Blunt and I came together today is to make people aware that, yes, there is international adoption--it is so important--but there are also kids right here in America who would love to be taken in by a family. That is part of the theme of our Adoption Month for the country. We have tackled a number of issues over the last few years, along with former Senator Landrieu of Louisiana. One of them was the International Adoption Simplification Act, which was a big help in terms of making sure that older children weren't left behind when younger siblings were adopted. I worked on that bill with Senator Inhofe; then, Senators Blunt and Landrieu and I introduced the Accuracy for Adoptees Act, which helps greatly to ensure that families don't have to fight with foreign authorities to get their kids' documents changed. We are also working on some of the international issues now because of the slowdown in international adoptions and the work that we can do there. We look forward to working with the State Department and other agencies on that. One of the best parts of our job is helping a family in our home State with an adoption. Recently, I got to visit a family in the western suburbs of Minnesota. For years, they had been waiting to adopt two Ethiopian boys. We worked really hard on this, as the halt of adoptions out of Ethiopia affected more than 200 American families; one of them was David and Katie Norton. Because of the work that was done and the push that was made, a number of these kids came home to their families. I got to swing on a tire swing with these two rather fun boys who, every day, like to put on their bicycle helmets just because they think that is cool, and they wear them around the backyard. We had a great time with them. There are other children, and it makes you realize how close to home this is and how pleased we are to welcome these kids to American families. That is what National Adoption Month is all about. We want more kids to be able to swing on tire swings, so we will continue to work with the foster care system, as well as the international adoption system, to make this a reality for more and more orphans across the world. I thank Senator Blunt for his leadership, and we look forward to working on this issue for many years to come.

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, last month, President Trump said that pharmaceutical companies are ``getting away with murder.'' Those were his words, not mine. It is not the first time he has said it, and there is some truth to it. So it is time to get specific and then question why he just announced that the person who will be running the health department for the United States of America has spent 10 years running a pharmaceutical company. Look at what is happening. When a company hikes the price of a lifesaving drug by 5,000 percent overnight, he is right--that is getting away with murder. When the price of 4 of the top 10 bestselling drugs in this country goes up by 100 percent in the last few years--we are not talking about one specific drug, a rare drug; no, we are talking about 4 of the top 10 bestselling drugs going up 100 percent in just the last few years--that is getting away with murder. When Americans are forced to skip doses or split pills because they can't afford their prescription, that is getting away with murder. When the administration repeatedly delays penalties for drug companies that intentionally overcharge hospitals for prescription drugs, that is getting away with murder. So what do we find out today? After the President has said that these companies are getting away with murder, we find out that he has nominated the former president of one of the country's biggest drug companies as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, someone who has been in that industry for 10 years running the biggest company. It is happening again. They are getting away with murder. In the United States--the biggest economy in the world, the frontier for capitalism--drug prices are higher than any other developed nation. That is outrageous. So, yes, they are getting away with a lot. So here is my question: Why are we letting them? Why are we literally putting former pharma executives in charge of healthcare policy for our country? Why can't we get anything done to actually lower drug prices in America? I have often said that the pharmaceutical industry owns Washington. Now, with this announcement today, they will actually be running it. Lowering prescription drug costs is my top priority. Healthcare is one-sixth of our economy, and prescription drug costs account for over 15 percent of all healthcare spending. This has a big impact on families, on communities, on our economy, and on our country. For most Americans, this is deeply personal. Everyone has their own story. My daughter has a severe nut allergy. She keeps an EpiPen with her at all times. So when the price of that particular prescription drug went up and up and up, like parents across the country, I noticed. I took action. I spoke out, moms and dads all across the country spoke out, and we saw some reduction in those prices. But we shouldn't have to have a social media campaign, a write-in campaign, and Members of Congress giving speeches on the floor for every single drug to see a reduction in prices. Abigail just graduated from college. I don't want her to have to think about this for the rest of her life when she is filling a prescription. But what about the thousands of others like her, young people just starting their careers who can't afford to pay these skyrocketing prices? I don't want parents to worry about how to afford the inhaler their kid relies on to get through the day. I don't want seniors to worry about how they will be able to put food on the table and pay for the insulin they need. But that concern for so many-- for too many--is constant. As prescription drugs keep rising, so does the worrying, so does the concern. Over and over again, that is what I hear from my constituents. I don't think one of them would tell me that they think the solution is to do nothing legislatively and then put the head of one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in our country into the job of running healthcare policy. No, I don't think they would think that is going to fix everything. It is not fair, it is not right, and we need to do something about it. Look at the numbers. Why is it happening? Last year alone, the drug companies spent $152 million lobbying Congress, and it is getting worse. They are doubling down on their bets by betting on an administration with big ties to pharma. There are more than 800 lobbyists working for the pharmaceutical industry, meaning that almost every Member of Congress is double-teamed by the lobbying force. Every Member of Congress now, when you look at the registrations, has two lobbyists assigned to them from pharma. Is it no surprise that now we are going to have the nominee as head of HHS, Health and Human Services, someone directly out of pharma? I don't think so. In my first run for the Senate, in 2006, I talked about how Medicare should be able to negotiate drug prices on behalf of millions of seniors. It was such common sense. In each Congress since 2011, I have introduced bills to allow Medicare to do just that. Right now, Medicare is barred by law from negotiating directly with the drug companies. That seems pretty crazy to me. I think 41 million seniors would have a lot of power. They are good at getting bargains. They want to get some bargains on their prescription drugs. You harness that bargaining power and allow the U.S. Government to negotiate on their behalf with the pharmaceutical companies. By the way, that would not just bring drug prices down under Medicare for seniors; it would bring drug prices down for everyone because that is such a large chunk of the people who are using prescription drugs. This bill has not passed year after year. Why? Is it because the people don't want it? No. A recent poll found that 92 percent of people want the Federal Government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. Ninety-two percent of the public supports the bill, and we have a growing number of sponsors. Right now, they are just on my side of the aisle, but we have over 30 sponsors on that bill. We want to bring that bill up for a vote. My bill to allow Medicare to negotiate for prescription drugs, however, has never been brought up for a vote. I introduced these bills in 2011, 2013, 2015, and in 2017, and each time there was not a vote. President Trump says he is a good negotiator. He says he is in favor of this negotiation. He said it not just once, not just twice on the campaign trail but many times. So I thought this is great. He is coming in, and we are immediately going to see support for my bill and support for negotiating prices under Medicare part D. No, we do not see that. We have seen no action at all. Instead, what do I find out? When I woke up this morning, I found out that he is putting the head of a big pharmaceutical company in charge of Health and Human Services. For those of us who have been doing this work for a long time now, it is unsettling, but it is not that surprising. It is not just the President literally nominating the head of a big drug company to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services--we see this kind of thing all the time--but since 2000, at least 56 officials from the DEA and the Justice Department have gone to work for the pharmaceutical industry. Basically, the industry buys the expertise they need to then gum up the works so we can't get anything done. Former lobbyists and execs are popping up all over this administration. Joe Grogan works at the Office of Management and Budget. He led a working group on pharmaceuticals that this administration convened. He helped draft an Executive order on prescription drugs. The catch? Until March of this year, he was a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. What does this mean? What this means is, you have this revolving door where this is going on. You have two lobbyists for every Member of Congress; just talk, talk about it. What does it really mean? Let me tell you what it really means. Insulin--the price of insulin has tripled in the last decade. A form of insulin that was listed at $17 per vial in 1997 costs nearly $138 in 2016. That is a 700-percent increase. We have seen major companies jack up their prices in near harmony. In November 2015, NovoLog increased to $236.70. Within 14 days, Humalog jumped to $237, and Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk have raised their prices for both even higher within the last year. Of course, one of those companies is the company this HHS nominee ran in North America. Healthy competition usually doesn't involve price increases in almost perfect sync among competitors. That is why I demanded an explanation from these companies. I demanded answers on behalf of people like Kim from Plymouth, MN. She just retired. She has diabetes. She keeps the pen injectors after she uses them because they have small amounts of insulin left, and she says it is too precious to throw them out. This is in America, in 2017. Older people are keeping their insulin injectors because there are a few drops in them--a drug that historically has been incredibly inexpensive and cheap. There are not new developments with this drug. It is insulin. There is no reason you would see this dramatic price increase, except that it is price gouging. It doesn't have to be this way. Pharma often argues that these high prices are necessary for research and development. As I mentioned, insulin is an old drug. It is cheap to make. It has been around for years. In fact, when insulin was discovered in 1921, the original patent was sold to a university for just $3, for the whole patent. The researchers who worked hard to develop this life-sustaining drug wanted to make sure--are you ready for this--that no one else would turn its production into a profitable monopoly. So those researchers, knowing they had this incredible lifesaving drug, wanted to keep the prices down and sold the patent for $3. So then what happened? Well, they jacked up the prices over and over again. As I mentioned, it was $17 per vial in 1997 to $138 in 2016--a 700-percent increase for insulin. They didn't need to jack up those prices to develop a new form of insulin. It is the same insulin. They did it to make money. This isn't just a hit on consumers' pocketbooks. It is also becoming a threat to public safety. One drug company, Kaleo, increased the price of a two-pack of a device containing naloxone that treats life- threatening opioid overdoses. We passed a bill last year, with strong bipartisan support, to be able to have a blueprint for this country to deal with opioid overdoses. The President just declared this a public health emergency, but what is going on with the one drug that we know saves people from overdoses? Guess what. The drug companies said: Well, here is something. More people are using this drug so let's jack up the prices. This form of naloxone from Kaleo has gone from $690 to $4,500 during the last 3 years. This is what they did for these opioid addicts. The drug companies get people hooked to begin with. We all know those stories are coming out right now. Then, when people get hooked and they overdose, they increase the price of the drug you use to help them. What a racket. All of us know the opioid epidemic is becoming a bigger and bigger public safety issue. In other words, there isn't a worse time to hike the price up on a drug that helps first responders deal with the national public health crisis. When I called the drug company out on this earlier this year, that company used the same old playbook. Sure as clockwork, they claimed that the prices you and I see might be high, but they have special programs to make sure people don't actually pay these absurdly high rates for lifesaving medicine. You know what, I have heard from Minnesota law enforcement officials--sheriffs, police chiefs--who are shocked because the cost of naloxone increased by more than 60 percent in a single year. I have heard from doctors who have told me their patients recovering from addiction can't afford the medication. So I can promise you that the special discount programs and rebates don't apply to everyone, despite what the drug companies say. The role the drug companies are playing in the opioid epidemic doesn't end with naloxone. That is just the beginning. In just the last couple of weeks, we have seen report after report about how the greed of the pharmaceutical companies, as I mentioned, led to the rise of the epidemic to begin with. In Minnesota, 637 people died from opioid and other drug overdoses last year alone. That is more than homicides and car crashes combined. By the way, it is not just our States, it is States all over the country. Ninety-one people die from this overdose each day in our country. That is the reality of this crisis. Getting away with murder? Well, now it is actually true. Two weeks ago, The New Yorker and Esquire pulled back the curtain on Purdue Pharma. The Sackler family, the family behind Purdue, is well known for its generous donations to cancer research, medical schools, art museums, universities. What is less well known is the role that Purdue Pharma has played in the spread of OxyContin and opioid addiction. OxyContin, the drug at the heart of the U.S. opioid epidemic, is regarded by many public health experts as one of the most dangerous products ever sold on a mass scale. If people have not read this article in The New Yorker, you can get it online. You can read it, and you better read it so you will understand why I am so mad while I am giving this speech today and why I am so angry that the administration has just put a pharma executive in charge of the HHS. It is not a pharma executive, from Purdue Pharma, but this whole culture where they have been allowed to do whatever they want and no one is holding them accountable is what has led to where we are today. Purdue Pharma aggressively marketed OxyContin to physicians as a painkiller and claimed that the drug's delayed release mechanism would limit the risk of addiction. Instead, OxyContin led to many new addictions, and, as we all know, many addicted patients eventually turned to heroin. Here is what is so stunning and what is so obvious in this well- researched article. The company knew OxyContin was addictive all along. It knew its marketing campaign was misleading people. Steven May started at Purdue Pharma as a sales rep in 1999, and years later went on to allege fraud against Purdue in a whistleblower lawsuit. He was trained to market the drug as one ``to start with and to stay with,'' despite knowledge of its addictive potential. The hits just keep coming--but that happened. When you read that article, you find out there were so many signs that this was addictive; that they were seeing it all over the country and they kept selling it. They kept telling people it was good for them, they should have no pain, and it would be fine if they took this drug, even if they were getting one wisdom tooth out, whatever it is. That is what happened in our country. That is how people got addicted on opioids. Now we see lawsuits. Yes. OK. That will hold them accountable, to a certain degree, but do we see any action from Congress at all to reduce the pharmaceutical prices or to do anything about this? Are there any votes in this Chamber? No, there are not. CNN just released an investigation on how Endo Pharmaceuticals prioritizes profits over people's lives. One of their best selling drugs was an opioid called OPANA ER. The drug was often abused. Addicts would crush it and snort the pills, which could increase the risk of an overdose, so Endo Pharmaceuticals had to pull the drug off the market, but that is not the whole story. Endo made a newer, more addictive version of the drug, which President Trump has called ``truly evil.'' The FDA got involved, for one of the first times ever, to force Endo to stop selling the new truly evil drug earlier this year. What did Endo then do? The company then cut a deal with a generic drug company to split the profits on the sales of the original version of the drug--you know, the one with the history of abuse. It is unbelievable the company will now profit off a highly dangerous opioid it once pulled from the market for being unsafe. The FDA has linked Endo drugs to serious public health problems, such as outbreaks of HIV and hepatitis C, in addition to addictions and overdoses, but the company doesn't think those risks are good enough reasons to stop selling these opioids. I don't think there are better examples of how greed trumps everything else. That is what we are talking about here. There are good people who work in the pharmaceutical industry. We have always been proud to have innovation in America. Innovation is great, but greed unchecked is not. You can literally trace this opioid epidemic, where now four out of five of those people who originally got hooked on legal pharmaceuticals are now turning to heroin. You can literally trace it back to these very companies. That happened. Then, just when the epidemic gets bad and we figure out that at least you can stop drug overdoses with naloxone, those companies jack up those prices. This is not a free market right now. This is a monopoly market that is getting people sucked into their products, either with advertising on TV or with addictions to drugs, like opioids, then getting them into their nets, and then charging them enormous amounts of money. That is what is happening right now. The examples do not end. The price of Daraprim, a drug that treats malaria and other infections, went up 5,000 percent overnight. The price for a multiple sclerosis drug went up 21 times in a decade. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals raised the price for a leukemia drug four times in 1 year alone. Now it costs nearly $199,000 a year. The only people who can afford that drug are the executives at the company. It is no wonder that people like President Trump are starting to say a little bit more about the rising costs of prescription drugs. OK. That is good. That is a start in talking about it, but we need action. For years, the pharmaceutical lobby bought Washington's silence, but now, in being faced with a nationwide crisis brought on by that silence and in being confronted by constituents who all agree that this is a problem, many are feeling that they have to do more than just talk about it. Talking and tweeting are different from doing, and actions speak louder than words. There is a saying that you cannot just talk the talk; you need to walk the walk. Well, it is time to walk the walk. By the way, putting someone who ran a pharmaceutical company for 10 years in charge of HHS, the Nation's healthcare Department for the entire United States of America, is not called walking that walk. There are actions we can take right here, right now, because the solutions are right here on the table. Here we go. First and foremost, let's finally take up that bill that would harness the negotiating power of 41 million seniors who are on Medicare and bring drug prices down. My bill would repeal the law that bans Medicare from using that market power to negotiate prices. Literally, Medicare is banned by law from negotiating prices. There are 33 Senators who have joined me on this bill. We could pass this if we could just get a vote. Second, as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, I cannot stress enough that competition is the best way to ensure that prescription drugs are affordable. Where there is a lack of competition, price increases often follow. A recent poll found that 87 percent of the public agrees that we need to increase competition. Senator Grassley and I, the Republican of Iowa, have a bill that, for years, we have tried to push ahead. It calls for a stop to this outrageous play called pay for delay, where big pharmaceutical companies actually pay off generic companies--their competitors--in order to keep their products off the market. So the pharma companies go to a generic and say: Hey, I know that you are going to compete with me, but I will give you a little money so that you can keep that product off the market for a little while, and that will be better for both of us. We will give you more money than you will make off the product. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, putting an end to this ridiculous practice would save taxpayers $2.9 billion over 10 years. Guess what. That is just the government's piece of it. It would also save consumers because they are paying the copay money as well. Once again, I cannot imagine any of my colleagues voting against this legislation if it were to actually come to a vote on the Senate floor. So let's let it come for a vote and see how people vote. I also have a bipartisan bill with Senators Grassley, Leahy, Feinstein, Lee, and several others called the CREATES Act. It would put a stop to other pharmaceutical companies' tactics, like refusing to provide samples or to share important information about how to distribute a drug safely, which delay more affordable generic drugs from getting to the market. The FDA has received over 100 complaints about these tactics, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would save $3.6 billion. Even if the drug companies are not headline grabbers like Martin Shkreli, many pharmaceutical companies are using tactics to prevent competition. It is not just one bad guy who goes to jail. It is a common practice. In fact, it is legally allowed right now for them not to share those samples, for them to make payments to their competitors to keep the products off the market. We need to end those practices, and we do it by having a vote on these bills. Finally, we should look beyond our borders. We should know that our friends right across the border in Canada often pay less--much less-- for prescription drugs than we do. For example, in the United States, a 90-day supply of an anti- inflammatory drug called Celebrex can cost more than $1,000. Canadian pharmacies sell it for only $220. That is just one example. I could spend all night giving examples of where the prices in the United States are more than double what they are in Canada. Senator McCain and I have a bill to allow Americans to bring in safe--they have to be safe--and less expensive prescription drugs from Canada. Our neighbors to the north have similar quality and safety standards as those in the United States. Our bill has strong safety measures, too, so as to make sure that we protect American consumers from scammers or counterfeit drugs. Senator Sanders has also been a leader on this issue. Why do we care about this, Senator McCain, Senator Sanders, and I, in our coming from such different perspectives? We know that we only allow importation from pharmacies that have existed for 5 years, so they are safe, and then have a brick-and-mortar store, not just some fly-by- night website. Just like Medicare negotiation, the public is overwhelmingly on our side, with 72 percent of people who support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs that are imported from Canada, including 66 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Independents, and 75 percent of Republicans. So why can't we get it passed? We need to. Beyond Canada, Senator Lee and I have a bill, another bipartisan bill, that would allow for 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. We have all heard the drug companies and others say that the FDA approval process can take a long time, and that results in a lack of options in the marketplace and higher prices. When it comes to drugs that have already been sold safely in other countries for years, why should we force American consumers to wait for the same options? It doesn't make sense. This bill would let patients access these safe, less expensive drugs at the same time that they are going through the full FDA approval process. So the idea is to, one, allow negotiation for our biggest negotiating bloc--41 million seniors. That would bring prices down. The President said that he knows the art of the deal, that he is the negotiator. Well then, let's get that negotiation in place and get some big-time lobbying for this bill instead of putting pharmaceutical executives in charge of Health and Human Services. The second set of ideas is about bringing in more competition. You can do it with safe drugs from overseas. I think that if some of the drug companies that have a monopoly on our consumers' drugs knew that competition might come in, maybe they would want to bring those drug prices down. In fact, I know that they would because that is how capitalism works. A high school economics class could tell you that. The other idea is more generics. Keep competition going by making it easier for generics to get their products out to market, and please stop the practice where the big pharma companies are paying their chief competitors, the generics--great for both of them--to keep their products off the market. Who are the losers? Americans are the losers. The administration actually has the authority to take action now. Under current law, we could allow for the temporary importation of less expensive drugs from Canada tomorrow. What are we waiting for? I urge the administration to act now. If the administration will not act, Congress must. We need to have those Medicare negotiations. There is so much that we could do here if we could just get a vote. Yet we cannot stop with just passing legislation to lower pharmaceutical prices. We have to stop pharmaceutical companies from rigging the system in the first place or else we are just going to get back to where we started. We have to give ethics watchdogs in Washington, like the Office of Government Ethics, real teeth. We need to overturn Citizens United and undo the outside influence of special interests on our elections. We have given them this carte blanche to come in and influence people, and look at what is happening. There is an opioid epidemic; the price of insulin has gone up multiple times; four of the top 10 best-selling drugs in America have gone up over 100 percent in the last 10 years. All of that has happened because we have said: Come on in with all of your special money. Influence people. Hire two lobbyists for each Member of Congress. Guess what we have. That is what we have. I will just remind my colleagues to talk to their constituents because I can tell you what you will find. You will find what I found-- a woman in Duluth who chose not to fill her last prescription because that one medicine would cost a full 25 percent of her income; someone in Saint Paul who even with Medicare cannot afford $663 a month for the drug; a woman from Crystal, MN, who told me ``I am practically going without food'' to pay for her prescriptions. It is heartbreaking that this is happening in America. Washington has to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry. It took a while and a lot of lawsuits and some brave people coming forward, but eventually, Washington stood up to Big Tobacco, and States stood up to Big Tobacco. They started suing. They started requiring labels. They started doing more for kids so they wouldn't get hooked. It made a difference. It is time to take this on. There are a lot of good things that pharmaceuticals can do to save people's lives. We know that--that is important--but what we cannot do is let them wreak havoc on people's budgets. What we cannot do is give them unfettered monopoly power to jerk us around with prices to start an opioid epidemic and then increase the prices for the very drugs that can help prevent people from dying. If we work together, we can get this done. Most of the bills that I have mentioned are bipartisan. In fact, every one that I mentioned on the Senate floor is bipartisan except for the negotiation of Medicare Part D, and that is the one that the President wants to see happen. So I don't understand. This is not just my standing here alone on this side of the aisle. There are people of good faith who want to move on this, but I can tell you that you don't move on it by putting a pharmaceutical executive in charge of the biggest health Department in the United States of America. 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 want to turn to two topics today. First, the good news is that all of the members of the Senate Rules Committee have come together on a mandatory sexual harassment training resolution that has been submitted with broad support, including from the two leaders and every member of the Rules Committee. I thank Senator Grassley for his leadership, Senator Shelby for his leadership, as well as Senators Capito and Cortez Masto, who were a big help. We are all too aware that sexual harassment continues in our workplaces. A recent study found that one in four women has been sexually harassed in the workplace and that three-quarters of individuals who have experienced sexual harassment at work have not reported the incidences. Civil service is actually among the top five industries with the highest sexual harassment incidences. We know that it will not stop on its own, and we will not be complacent bystanders who expect workplace cultures to change on their own. That is why today, with a bipartisan group of 19 of our colleagues, we took a major step forward with this resolution. Once it is adopted by the full Senate, which we hope will be shortly, this resolution will simply require that all Senators and staff receive sexual harassment training, as well as on other forms of harassment, at least once every 2 years--in addition to that, 60 days after it passes. What happens if Senators do not receive this training? The American people will know. In one part of this bill--and I appreciate the broad support from Senator McConnell, who has long been someone who has taken leadership in this area for many years, and from Senator Schumer, who has also taken leadership in this area--all offices will have to certify to the Secretary of the Senate that they and their employees here in Washington, as well as those working in our home States, have, in fact, taken the training and complied with the resolution. These certifications will be posted online for the public to view. I thank Senator Grassley, again, as well as Senator Shelby. Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was the author of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. I want to thank as well Senators Cortez Masto and Capito and all the members of the Rules Committee for coming together, on both sides of the aisle, on this commonsense resolution. I urge my colleagues to support the Senate Anti-Harassment Training Resolution of 2017. There is more work to be done with regard to the reporting process, and that is something we are going to be working on in the next few weeks through the Rules Committee, but I do want to thank them. Senator Gillibrand has also been working in this area, and I want to thank her. Overall, it is a good effort in which everyone came together and agreed on a plan for mandatory training.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, for his leadership. He has never given up on this, and he will never give up. We have many important issues ahead, one of which I am going to address--climate change--about this nominee and the fact that every country in the world now, including Nicaragua and Syria, have pledged to be part of this international climate change agreement, which is so important for reducing greenhouse gases. I thank Senator Whitehouse for carrying the torch on this for so long. I join him today in rising to speak about the nominee who the Senate is currently considering to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation. If confirmed, Mr. William Wehrum will be tasked with carrying out and managing critical Agency functions related to controlling airborne pollution, improving air quality, monitoring greenhouse gases, and overseeing energy efficiency standards. By the way, I was always proud that the first bill I introduced to the U.S. Senate when I got here was a bill with Olympia Snowe, who is my Republican mentor. That bill required the Agency to start collecting data on greenhouse gas emissions. I take this very personally. The Agency ended up deciding to do it itself, as Senator Whitehouse is aware. But it was my first bill, and I decided that was a good first bill. It was bipartisan, and it got to the core of this issue that our country needs to take responsibility, that we need to work with the rest of the world. But most importantly, this is a long-term issue, shared by my businesses in Minnesota, shared by everyone from hunters to snowmobilers, to ice skaters in our State--the concern of our changing climate and the effect it will have on our way of life. There are two specific issues that Mr. Wehrum will be involved in directing from the EPA that I wish to discuss: first, the renewable fuel standards and, then, circle back to this issue of climate change. Minnesota's agriculture is very important to me. We are the fifth biggest ag State in the country. It is why I sought a seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee and why I have consistently pushed for a strong renewable standard. I believe we should be working in this body to help the farmers and the workers of the Midwest, not the oil sheikhs of the Middle East. Recently, I led a letter with Senator Chuck Grassley, which was signed by 38 Senators, calling on Administrator Pruitt to ensure that the final rule for 2018 and 2019 sets blending targets that promote growth in the biofuel sector and in our economy. The final rule for 2017 followed congressional intent and required a record amount of biofuel to be mixed into our transportation fuel supply. The final rule this year should do the same. Reducing the blend targets of advanced biofuels could shortchange the growth of clean energy innovation and stifle the growth of the market for new biofuels. So far the response from the administration in backing off these plans, thanks to Senator Grassley's leadership, has been encouraging, but the proof will be in the pudding when the rule is released before the end of the month. I appreciate the work of Senator Grassley, Senator Ernst, Senator Thune, and Senator Durbin--who is here with us right now in the Chamber--and others who have worked on this Renewable Fuel Standard, as well as my colleague Senator Franken. Renewable fuels have become a homegrown economic generator for our country. They reduce the environmental impact of our transportation and energy sectors and cut our reliance on foreign oil. Every time a new study is released on this subject, I become more and more convinced that investments in renewable fuels are investments in our economy and in the health of rural America. Last year, a study conducted by ABF Economics showed that the ethanol industry generated $7.37 billion in gross sales in 2015 for Minnesota businesses and $1.6 billion in income for Minnesota households. Here is a big one: The ethanol industry also supports over 18,000 full-time jobs in Minnesota. I see the Presiding Officer is from the State of Alaska. Just as he knows that the oil industry is important in our State, the ethanol industry is important in the Midwest, and I believe they can both coexist. Just last weekend, I visited the Green Plains ethanol plant in Minnesota to see one of the operations behind these impressive figures and meet firsthand with some of the 60 people who are employed there. One of the things I heard while in Fairmont was how policy instability and delays have chilled investment over the years. Delays in releasing the RFS rule in previous years has undercut the Green Plains' ability to acquire necessary investments and create new employment opportunities. The need for stable policy and the forward-looking administration of the RFS is key to providing certainty for producers, employees, and manufacturers, while unlocking billions of dollars of investment in the biofuel sector. We have to continue to build on the progress we have made of expanding production capacity more than threefold since 2005 with biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, recycled waste, and other advanced biofuels. This is no longer some kind of a niche industry. This is 10 percent of our fuel supply. That is why I am concerned with some of the statements that Mr. Wehrum has made and some of the clients he has represented in lawsuits against the EPA, many of whom sought to undermine and weaken the RFS. He was the counsel of record in several challenges to the RFS, including the E15 waiver, which allows for blends of up to 15 percent of ethanol in gasoline, something Senator Thune and I have worked on. Yet most concerning was his role in a 2015 challenge to the requirement that diesel fuel sold in my State of Minnesota contain at least 10 percent of biodiesel, or B10. Let me say that this kind of principle and this policy were supported by Democratic, Republican, and Independent Governors in Minnesota--from Tim Pawlenty to Jesse Ventura to Mark Dayton. My State has been a leader when it comes to the use of renewable fuels. We were the first State in the Nation to pass a biodiesel blending law and the first State in the Nation to require gasoline to be blended with 10 percent of ethanol. We continue to be a national leader in the use of E85. In 2008 the State legislature amended the Minnesota mandate--that is when Tim Pawlenty was Governor--to gradually step up the required biodiesel blend from 2 percent to 5 percent and eventually to 20 percent from 2012 to 2018. Now, according to the statute, the B10 mandate will double to B20 starting on May 1, 2018. With bipartisan support and individual State responsibility, it is something that our State did because we knew it could work. Despite Mr. Wehrum's best efforts, the U.S. district court upheld Minnesota's mandate on renewable biodiesel, which has been in the best interest of rural economies and consumers. These advances are going to help ag producers and rural manufacturing plants do even more for the regional economy. The further ethanol and biodiesel take us the less dependent we will be on foreign oil and the less of an impact our transportation and energy sectors will have on the environment. I have already discussed the climate change issue, and I see that Senator Durbin is here. Again, I will just reiterate that I am a former prosecutor. I believe in evidence, and every week seems to bring fresh evidence of the damage that climate change is already causing. Minnesota may be miles away from the rising oceans, but the impacts are no less of a real threat to my State. I did not like Mr. Wehrum's answers that he gave to these questions during his hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee, especially when I asked if he believed that human activities were the main driver of climate change and his response was: ``I believe that's an open question.'' I do not think this nominee should be running this part of the Agency, and we cannot sit back and ignore the evidence. We need to wake up, take action, and turn the corner on the devastating effects of climate change before it is too late. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to call for bipartisan action on healthcare. I think it was interesting to learn that the citizens of Virginia who voted yesterday listed as their top issue healthcare. There was obviously an issue there where there had been no Medicaid expansion, and they were unhappy with the way it had been handled by the legislature there as well as Republicans who were in charge of the legislature, and they appeared to be pushing for a change. We have an opportunity here to make a bipartisan change. I think it is exactly the kind of message that we got yesterday. In my State, we have a Republican legislature and a Democratic Governor. They came together to do something about some of the rates, particularly in our rural areas. They focused on reinsurance, cost sharing--some of the things in the bipartisan agreement reached between Senator Alexander and Senator Murray. We have 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans cosponsoring that bill. Support includes the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Society, the March of Dimes, and the Arthritis Foundation--and those are just the A's. The American people want us to work together to make fixes to the Affordable Care Act. The day it passed, I said that it was a beginning and not an end. Unfortunately, we have been stymied in trying to make those kind of changes, and this is one bipartisan big opportunity to do it. I think it is a sensible bipartisan approach. As we all know, both Senator Alexander and Senator Murray held a series of hearings and discussions on commonsense solutions to bring down insurance costs with Senators on both sides of the aisle. There were Governors and insurance experts, and we worked hard to make sure there was some agreement on this bill. I fought for provisions that would help States apply for and receive waivers to give them some flexibility to construct their healthcare system and to bring down the costs without losing Federal funding. That is something my State did. As I mentioned, my State, with a Republican-led legislature and a Democratic Governor, came together to apply for a waiver and a reinsurance provision. The bill would also expedite the review of waiver applications for proposals that have already been approved for other States that are experiencing certain circumstances--emergency circumstances--where they need to make changes. The legislation also shortens the overall time period that States would have to wait for the Federal Government to decide whether to approve their waivers. All of these are good fundamental concepts--this idea that States should have some flexibility, that they should be able to apply for waivers, and that they should be able to get their answers as soon as possible from the Federal Government. That is what this bill is about. Not only does the bill improve the process for waivers and flexibility for the States, like we have seen in Minnesota, where already the projected numbers brought the rates down something like 20 percent, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Murray-Alexander bill would actually cut the deficit by $3.8 billion over the next 10 years. That is hard to argue with. It is clear that this legislation could get support from both sides of the aisle to make healthcare better for Americans. We have a majority of Senators supporting this bill. So we need to get it done because the longer we wait, the more the markets don't know what is going on, the more confusion that is created, and the more the administration is doing things that sabotages the Affordable Care Act. We need this stability in the system. Passing the bill would be an important step forward, but we still must do more to bring down the costs for middle-class families. A big part of that is addressing the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. I have heard from people across Minnesota who are struggling to afford the medicine they need. This is about the woman in Duluth who told me that she chose not to fill her last prescription because that one drug would cost a whole 25 percent of her income. It is about a woman in St. Paul who, even with Medicare, couldn't afford $663 a month for the medicine she needs. It is about someone from Crystal, MN, who told me: I am practically going without food to pay for the prescription. It is heartbreaking that this is happening in America. Reducing the cost of prescription drugs has bipartisan support in Congress, and the President has said he wants to get something done. He has said: The drug companies are ``getting away with murder.'' Those are his words. That is what he said. So what can we do? Republicans and Democrats could come together and act right now. I have a bill that has 33 cosponsors that lifts the ban that makes it illegal for Medicare to negotiate prices for prescription drugs for 41 million seniors. I think 41 million seniors are pretty good at getting bargains and deals, and they deserve to have someone negotiating on their behalf; that is, the government negotiating for Medicare. Except, why don't we negotiate, like we do for the VA, and like other countries do? We don't negotiate because there is a provision in law that says that the government is not allowed to negotiate on behalf of 41 million seniors with the drug companies. They are just set. Guess what that means. That is a big part of the reason why our drug prices are double the cost of those in Canada--because we are just taking it and we are not negotiating. Another idea, bringing up Canada, is that Senator McCain and I have a bill that would allow less expensive drugs to be sold in the United States. To me, that is a way of putting pressure on our own drug companies to put out better prices if they know there is going to be competition. Senator Grassley of Iowa and I have a bill to stop something called pay-for-delay. That is when big pharmaceutical companies actually pay off generic companies to keep less expensive products off the market. This bill would save taxpayers $2.9 billion. Do you know why? Because right now there is no competition or very little competition, and they are actually paying their competitors to stay off the market. The competitors have decided: Well, I get more money to be paid to stay off the market than if I actually competed. Think about what a rip-off that is for the American people. We are allowing this to go on while the consumers are paying the price. How much? We know the government alone is going to save $2.9 billion if we stop this practice. Consumers would save most likely around that same amount because they are paying all the copays. Both the government is ripped off and the consumers are ripped off, and the only ones making money off of it are the drug companies. Another idea is, Senator Lee and I have a bill that would allow temporary importation of safe drugs that have been on the market in another country for at least 10 years when there isn't healthy competition in our own country. Again, if your drug companies that are messing around, charging high prices and not allowing competition in-- if you know there might be foreign competition coming in, that is an incentive because you want to then make sure that doesn't happen because you know that if you keep your prices high and you do things to disallow competition, you are going to have some major competition. I don't know how else we bring the prices down without allowing more competition. I also have a bipartisan bill with Senators Grassley, Lee, Feinstein, and Leahy, which is called the CREATES Act, to put a stop to other pharmaceutical company tactics, such as refusing to provide samples to generic companies that are supposed to be allowed to compete with them. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would save approximately $3.6 billion. As we hear about tax reform and hear about the debt we might be seeing expand if something like this goes forward, then we ask yourselves: What is not in those bills? Why aren't we saving some money for the American people and reducing the debt by allowing for this competition, by allowing for the samples, by allowing for more generics, by stopping this practice of companies paying each other to keep their competitors off the market? What this healthcare debate has been about for the last year, where repeatedly there have been attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act-- it has been about that. The American people made it really clear, they want to make it about something else. They want to make it about improvements to the system we have now to make it easier for them. One way is the Alexander-Murray bill, which I strongly support. I am one of the cosponsors. It is smart. It works with the States, both Democratic and Republican States--blue States, red States. We want to see that kind of flexibility. The other way is to take a stand, be willing to take on the pharmaceutical industry, and take on some of the cost issues when it comes to prescription drugs. Let's come together in the Senate, as an initial move, and pass the Murray-Alexander bill. We must do that, and we must do it by the end of the year. Then we can go on from there to actually do something about the cost of prescription drugs. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I also note that a justice from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania also testified on that day as the Republicans' witness. Even though he did not agree with everything in the bill, he also said: I absolutely agree that we should have boyfriends, dating partners as a part. We have it in Pennsylvania, OK? It is important. As the sheriff said, they can shoot, and they can beat up people just like anybody else. He was, actually, the Republicans' witness at the hearing. That is why I am happy that in the House of Representatives it is a bipartisan bill, but I would like to see it as a bipartisan bill here in the Senate. Maybe they will reconsider this now. Just as the NRA has said that it was looking at the bump stock issue, maybe they would be willing to look at this issue because they wrote kind of a fast memo on this--it is only a page long--back when we had the hearing and when we were gaining support for the bill. Remember that this is very narrow legislation that is focused on making sure that dating partners are covered and also people who are not charged but convicted of stalking. They wrote that the legislation ``manipulates emotionally compelling issues such as `domestic violence' and `stalking' simply to cast as wide a net as possible. . . .'' I want to make this very clear--and I have never addressed this on the floor before--that this was really focused narrowly so that we could gain Republican support. I didn't really think the NRA would support it, but I thought that maybe they would be neutral, and, sure enough, their witnesses at the hearing supported it. We have had Republican Senators support it in the past, and we have also had Republican House Members support it. In going after the bill by saying that it manipulates emotionally compelling issues, well, I would agree in that I am sure that a lot of people shed tears when watching what happened in Texas, and I am sure that they have shed a lot of tears when they have heard the stories from people in their own communities of the victims, of the women who had died at the hands of domestic abusers after years of abuse. So if they want to call that emotionally compelling and manipulative, that is up to them, but I call it the truth. The other thing they said about this bill--and this was even more interesting--is the part about the stalking, which is a major part of the legislation as well. That part of the bill, as I mentioned, just takes what we know as a signal for trouble in the future and violence in the future, and you would actually have to be convicted of stalking to have the gun protections apply. The example they used--as I said, it did not make any sense to include this, and it is the only example they used--was of two men of equal size, strength, and domestic status, joined by a civil union or merely engaged or formally engaged in an intimate social relationship, being subject to this prohibition for conviction of simple assault arising from a single shoving match. Actually, this part applies to the domestic partners. I think they are really taking this in a way that has surprised me since whom we are talking about are boyfriends and girlfriends and domestic violence, but they have changed it into a shoving match in a bar with people who might have some kind of social relationship. I just do not think this is a valid reason for my Republican colleagues to oppose this bill, and I am going to keep bringing this up because it does not make sense to me. They end by saying that, whatever the case may have been 30 years ago, domestic violence is now taken seriously by the legal and criminal justice systems. That was the reason they gave for opposing the bill. Really? Look at what we just found that happened in the last week when this was not just a minor example of domestic assault but was a felony. The person was court-martialed, and the person was, basically, detained for a year. Yet, somehow, this was not taken seriously enough through our entire system to show up on a record check. How about all of the reports that had been made by previous girlfriends and other people about his behavior, and nothing had seemed to come up then? As I mentioned, of the many cases that we had had in our office, even when the victim had gotten scared and decided that she had not wanted to pursue anything, we had felt that we had an obligation to her and to the other women we knew would come after her to pursue those cases, and, many times, we had done that if the police had been trained and they had been able to get the evidence at the scene. Sometimes there had been child witnesses and others, and we had been able to pursue those cases and win them, and we did. So to say that you don't want to support my bill because you think this system is so great, is working so well, and is being taken seriously by the legal and criminal justice systems after you saw what just happened in Texas, I do not think is true. This memo was written 2 years ago. So I hope they will look at this again and consider supporting my bill. I conclude my remarks by sharing another story about yet another tragic shooting from my State. In this one I truly got to know the widow. She is the widow of a police officer in Lake City, MN. This was a case in which the officer, who was a wonderful man in a small town police department, responded to a domestic violence call from a 17- year-old girl who was being abused by her ex-boyfriend. He went to the scene in the middle of the winter. He had a bulletproof vest on and everything because the domestic violence cases can be much more dangerous than people think, and officers know this. He was shot in the head, and he was killed. The 17-year-old girl lived. This officer literally gave his life to save another. There was a big funeral, and there were law enforcement people there from all over our State. I will never forget that funeral. I was sitting there in the aisle, and I had learned that the last time that officer had been in that church was to see his own kids--three young children, two boys and a girl--in a Nativity play. He had been sitting right in the front row of that same church, so proud of them at Christmas. Shortly after that, he was shot. At his funeral, there were those three children walking down the church aisle--the two young boys and the little girl in a blue dress that was covered with stars. I always think about that little girl in that blue dress that was covered in stars. This was domestic violence gone bad. He was a police officer who had shown up at the scene. When you look at these cases--we can look at the numbers; we can look at the stories; we can look at what has gone on on TV--you see this connection between domestic violence and stalking and then, later, either mass shootings or violence against one person, which happens much more often. It is not a coincidence. It is something that has been well documented. As we extend our sympathies and prayers to all of those who were affected by that tragedy in Texas and, of course, not too long ago in Las Vegas and in so many other communities and to all of those, of course, who were also victims of that act of terror in New York--we think of all of them--we also think: What can we do to make this better? In this case, when it comes to domestic violence and this specific issue that I know a lot about from my past job, we can do something. So let's pass this bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to call attention to the tragedies that have been caused by gun violence across our country, including the most recent attack, which left at least 26 dead after a lone gunman opened fire at a church in Texas on Sunday. I join my colleagues in mourning for the victims and their families. Our thoughts are with them and all those affected by what happened in Texas. At the same time, we remember that these heartbreaking events came just 35 days after the deadliest mass shooting in our Nation's history, when 58 were killed and hundreds were wounded in Las Vegas last month. But as we look ahead, we cannot escape the fact that we can, and must, do more to keep our communities safer. While no one policy will prevent every tragedy, we need to come together on commonsense proposals that would save lives. I appreciate the words of my colleagues about mental illness and funding for mental illness. I think that is very important. I come from Minnesota, where Paul Wellstone was one of the leaders in making sure that mental illnesses got covered by insurance, and I think we need to do that and more. Another area where we have found some consensus in this Chamber is improving background checks. My colleagues Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey have made that clear, and I supported their background check legislation in 2013. But the fact remains that we didn't pass that bill in the Senate. We fell short, and it was a disheartening day. I remember having the parents of some of the Sandy Hook victims in my office that morning. Yet what happened that day--you have to contrast it with where the American people are. Consistently, whether it is with public opinion polls or whether it is when you talk to people you meet when you are at home, we have seen that Americans from across the political spectrum support commonsense proposals to require background checks, such as requiring background checks at gun shows. And they support that by wide margins. By the way, I look at this from a State that has a lot of households that have guns. We are a proud hunting State. And with every proposal I look at, I always think of my Uncle Dick and how he used to love hunting and sitting in his deer stand. I think: Does this hurt my Uncle Dick and his deer stand? And I don't think that the Manchin-Toomey bill would in any way. When I look at these things, I have to evaluate them that way because I know how many proud and law-abiding gun owners we have in our State. But I don't see that closing this gun show loophole by doing something more about background checks would hurt that hunting tradition in any way. When I talk to law enforcement around Minnesota, they stress the importance of having effective background checks to stop felons, domestic abusers, and people who are prohibited from having easy access to guns from having that access. If you remember, part of the Manchin- Toomey proposal was to do more on sharing data and getting the data out there. These efforts should not and do not have to infringe on Americans' rights to own guns. Another sensible measure that came out of the tragedy in Las Vegas, which we should take action on, is Senator Feinstein's legislation to close a loophole that allows bump stock devices to convert semiautomatic firearms into weapons that work like fully automatic guns. Law enforcement recovered 12 of these devices from the hotel room of the shooter in Las Vegas last month. I hope we can find some common ground. Some of our colleagues across the aisle have voiced some interest in this, and I hope we can do something when we know that would have been helpful in that shooting. Another area where we can find common ground is in taking action to protect those who are at risk of gun violence from domestic abusers. We were reminded of how important this is again this week, as reports have revealed that the gunman in the Texas shooting had a history of domestic violence, having been court-martialed for assaulting his wife and child in 2012. He was sentenced to 12 months of confinement and received a bad-conduct discharge from the Air Force. There are also reports of ex-girlfriends and others who reported similar conduct. I am sure the facts will be unveiled, but what I do know, regardless of what the facts show right now, is that this connection between domestic violence, stalking--those kinds of activities--and some kind of homicidal behavior is something that has been well established. According to recent research, more than half of mass shootings between 2009 and 2016--that is 54 percent--involved some kind of domestic or family violence. Before I came to the Senate, I spent 8 years as the top prosecutor for Minnesota's largest county, so I have seen that connection. And I have seen the connection between a history of domestic violence or stalking that later leads to a more serious crime. That is why it is so important that we have protection orders, and that is why it is so important--as I look at the record of the shooter--that these cases be taken seriously, so you actually get that misdemeanor conviction on the record or you actually get a felony conviction or you do something about the stalking behavior when it is reported to law enforcement. When I was the county attorney in Hennepin County, we would have cases we would sometimes pursue when a victim had reported it and the police had gathered evidence--even if the victim later backed away and was afraid to testify--because we knew it had happened, we had the original testimony, and we had the evidence at the scene. We trained the police on getting the evidence at the scene so that we were able to actually make those cases. And you think about, in that instant, making those cases; no matter how hard it can be sometimes when you have a scared victim, it is really important. When I was in the county attorney's office, I made prosecuting felons in possession of firearms one of my top priorities. They weren't supposed to have guns, and when they did have guns, we had to take it seriously. I will tell you, some of the most disturbing cases that we saw involved people with a documented history of harassment--of stalking, of domestic violence--because you would see it building and building, and sometimes it would be against one victim, but often we would find out that there were others and that it was a pattern of behavior, and one horrible case would erupt into homicidal violence. There was one case I had heard of where a woman was shot to death by her boyfriend. He killed her and then killed himself while both of his kids were still in the house. It was ultimately his 12-year-old daughter who went to the neighbors for help. The worst part of the story is that it could have been prevented. In the 2 years leading up to the murder-suicide, the police had been called to the boyfriend's residence at least five times to resolve domestic disputes. Yet somehow the man, with a history of violence like this, was able to have a gun in his hand on the day he killed his girlfriend. I wish I could say that it was a rare tragedy, but the truth is, studies have shown that more than three women per day lose their lives at the hands of their partners, and over half--this is an average--of the women murdered by intimate partners in the country are killed with guns. Many times these tragedies begin with incidents of stalking. Research has shown that one in six women has experienced stalking sometime during her lifetime, and 76 percent of women murdered by intimate partners were first stalked by their partner. It is for this reason that a number of years ago I introduced a bill called the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act to close some of these loopholes in our existing laws. My bill would make sure that those who are convicted of misdemeanor crimes of stalking are not able to buy guns. It would also expand the definition of a domestic abuser to include dating partners. The second part--when we had a hearing on this bill on these issues in the Judiciary Committee, even the Republican witnesses who were called supported the dating partner idea because so many States have started to do that. I introduced the legislation this time. It has been bipartisan in the past, but the Republican Senator on the bill is no longer in the Senate, although it is bipartisan in the House. But this time I introduced it with Senator Hirono and Senator Feinstein, the only other two women on the Judiciary Committee of 20 members. Congresswoman Debbie Dingell from Michigan is leading the same bill in the House, and her bill, as I noted, is bipartisan. In 2014, we had a hearing on my bill. As I said, even the Republican witnesses agreed that a major portion of the bill was a good idea. At that hearing, we heard from Sheriff Christopher Schmaling of Racine County in Wisconsin. He testified about the connection between stalking and guns being used in violence against women. In his testimony, he told the story of one woman from Wisconsin who, he said, had changed his career. This woman had endured 3 years of a violently abusive marriage before divorcing her husband. She then took out multiple restraining orders against him over several years. That horrible day in 2004, he threatened her with a handgun, beat her with a baseball bat, bound and gagged her, and left her in a storage unit to die. Through what he described as some good breaks and some great luck, the Sheriff and his partner rescued Teri before she died. As a result of the ordeal, she had a miscarriage and had to have her toes surgically removed. In his testimony, the Sheriff talked about the importance of my bill's provision to extend the protections in current law to include dating partners so that abusers would not be able to buy a gun if they are convicted of beating up their girlfriend or boyfriend, regardless of whether they lived together or had a child. As the sheriff said, ``Dangerous boyfriends can be just as scary as dangerous husbands; they hit just as hard, and they fire their guns with the same deadly force.'' This is a simple point that you would think we could all agree on. Sadly, we still have not been able to pass this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the sheriff's written testimony be printed in the Record.

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 wish to explain my vote today in opposition to the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to serve as a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit. In Professor Barrett's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I focused my questions on Professor Barrett's views and previous writings on the circumstances under which judges must adhere to precedent and on the doctrine of originalism. It was on the basis of her responses to those questions that I have concluded that I am unable to support her nomination.

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, today I wish to discuss the vote in the Senate last night to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule regarding forced arbitration that would protect consumers and make sure they get their day in court when financial institutions violate the law. The floor schedule did not allow me to give these remarks before the vote, so I am giving them today. This rule would have restored the ability of servicemembers, veterans, and other consumers to join together and seek relief through class action lawsuits. I opposed this rule repeal. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act included a provision instructing the CFPB to study mandatory arbitration and write a rule based on what they found. After several years of careful study, the CFPB released a 728-page report in 2015. This year, the CFPB finalized its arbitration rule mandating that consumer financial product contracts no longer include language barring class actions. This rule was an important step forward in protecting consumers from the fine print arbitration clauses included in all sorts of contracts, including contracts for credit cards, debit cards, prepaid bank cards, payday loans, and even cell phones. The 2015 CFPB report found that 93 percent of consumers whose credit cards included forced arbitration clauses did not know that they could not sue their credit card companies. The CFPB rule enhanced protections for consumers in the military. That is why the American Legion, the Nation's largest wartime veterans service organization, which represents 2 million veterans, and the Military Coalition, which represents 5.5 million current and former servicemembers and their families, supported the protections provided under this rule. I have cosponsored the Military Consumer Protection Act led by Senator Reed, which would put the enforcement of the Servicemember Civil Relief Act under the CFPB so that the agency responsible for protecting servicemembers and their families is also able to enforce those protections. Our servicemembers and veterans face challenges that are different from civilian consumers, especially during deployment. We need to make sure that they have all the protections they earn through their service. That is why I voted against H.J. Res. 111, the resolution of disapproval with respect to the CFPB arbitration rule, and I will continue to fight for our servicemembers, veterans, and consumers to get the protections they deserve.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to speak this afternoon to honor the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone. Today marks 15 years since we lost Paul and Sheila, their daughter Marcia, and staff members Tom Lapic, Mary McEvoy, and Will McLaughlin. Because Paul was such a memorable and incredible person, it is hard to believe that it has been 15 years since we lost all of them. For me, as for so many Minnesotans, it is impossible to forget the moment that we first heard about their plane going down. It is impossible to forget the wait to get the final news that there were no survivors. That is how much Paul and Sheila meant to the people of our State. I get my own special reminders every day. First, I get a reminder from the employees at the Capitol who were around when Paul graced these hallways. They remember him because he treated everyone with dignity. Whether it was the tram operator, the elevator operator, or the police at the front door, he treated them as though they were Senators. I also have the flags in my office from his Senate office. Every day, they are a reminder for me of Paul and all that he did for the people of our State. Paul and Sheila were always on the move. They were full of joy. They were persistent in their fight against injustices, small and large. During his lifetime as an educator, as an activist, and as a U.S. Senator, Paul Wellstone touched the lives of people throughout Minnesota and across the country. That is because his philosophy was simple. A lot of people, he said, would have people paid to represent them in Washington, but he was going to represent the other people. As he said in one of his famous campaign ads, he wasn't there to represent the Rockefellers; he was there to represent the ``little fellers.'' If you go to any local mental health group, they remember Paul. If you go to any Somali event in our State, they remember Paul. If you go to any community on the Iron Range in Minnesota, they remember Paul-- both the man and then what he did. Paul was my friend and mentor. He told me that I should run for office, and, as he did with so many others, he taught me that politics should have a purpose. He also taught me how to campaign on city buses. This is how he would do it. At Nicollet Mall--being from a nearby State, the Presiding Officer is aware of Nicollet Mall in the city of Minneapolis. We would get on a city bus at one end of the mall, and we would work it as though we had just got on the bus: Meet everyone on the bus, go to the end, get off, and then get on another bus going the other way and meet a whole group of people. I have no idea what the busdrivers thought after an hour of this, but that is what we did. Paul Wellstone worked it bus by bus, block by block, precinct by precinct, and he made a lasting impression on people in a way that made them believe and know that getting involved in politics could make a real difference in their lives. He had an unending sense of optimism-- optimism that maybe people he didn't agree with in this Chamber would eventually change their views. He made a lot of friends here, on both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. That was the message Paul took to new citizens, new voters, and everyone looking to get involved. He told them that working in public service can make a difference, and he showed them through his actions. He had many passions. He fought for everything from campaign finance reform to improving our rural economies. He fought against veteran homelessness, to protect the environment, and, of course, he fought for the rights of workers. He truly believed, as he famously said, that ``we all do better when we all do better'' and that politics is simply about improving people's lives. Anyone who ever met or talked with Paul found out that he had a special passion for helping those struggling with mental illness. That was shaped by his own family. As a young child, Paul watched his brother Steven's traumatic descent into mental illness. In college, his brother suffered a severe mental breakdown and spent the next 2 years in hospitals. Eventually, he recovered and graduated from college with honors, but it took his immigrant parents years to pay off the hospital bills. Paul would always talk about how, when he grew up, his house was dark because no one wanted to talk about mental illness back then because it had so much stigma. He wanted to get it out in the sunlight. He knew that there were far too many families going through the same experience, too many devastated by the physical and financial consequences of mental illness. He knew that we could and we should do better. For years as a Senator, he fought for funding for better care, better services, and better representation for the mentally ill, and he fought for mental health parity in health insurance coverage. Even years after his death, Paul's voice was heard loud and clear. Congressman Ramstad from Minnesota, a Republican Congressman at the time, took up the cause in the House. I helped. Ted Kennedy led the way and, of course, Pete Domenici, who had paired up with Paul on this important bill. Finally, in 2008, we passed the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. The bill requires insurance companies to treat mental health on an equal basis with physical illness. For Paul, this fight was always a matter of civil rights, of justice, and of basic human decency, and that landmark legislation is one fitting way we honor him. Sheila, of course, also dedicated herself to helping others, especially survivors of violence. I had the opportunity to work closely with Sheila when I served for 8 years as Hennepin County Attorney. She focused on domestic violence and was instrumental in creating and getting the funding for the Hennepin County Domestic Abuse Center. That center is an international model for serving victims of domestic violence by bringing together a full range of services and resources in one central location. Victims of domestic violence don't have to go through the redtape that would be difficult even for a lawyer to figure out. Of course, one of Paul's greatest legislative achievements was the work he did, along with Vice President Biden and others, to pass the original Violence Against Women Act. It was a team effort, and Sheila was right there on the frontlines with Paul. Together, they accomplished so much. Their commitment to others never wavered, and neither did they. It was just a few weeks before that tragic crash that I last saw Sheila and Paul. Sheila and I had been asked to speak to a group of new citizens, immigrants from Russia. It was a very small group, and we were there to talk about our own immigrant experiences, our own relatives. I remember she talked about her relatives in Appalachia, and I talked about my relatives on the Iron Range coming over from Slovenia. The event was winding down. It was a small, small event in a synagogue with these new immigrants, and, all of a sudden, a big surprise--in walked Paul. He wasn't supposed to be there. It was just a few weeks, a month away, from one of the biggest elections he had ever faced in the U.S. Senate. But he had gotten on an early flight and had come home from Washington. There he was--he and a group of immigrants and us--with no press, no TVs, not even a big crowd, all just a few weeks before his election. He came for two reasons. He loved Sheila, and he wanted to be there to support her. But he was also there because he loved the immigrant experience. He embraced it. His family, like so many Minnesota families, was an example of how you can come to America, succeed in America, and then, in turn, help America succeed. That is my last memory of Paul as he stood before those immigrants, telling about his own story, embracing them. I will remember him in that way, but I will also remember the joy he felt for politics, how he would run around that green bus of his, with people running alongside him on the parade routes. In the last year of his life, he told the public he had MS, and he couldn't run like that anymore. So he would stand in the back of the bus with Sheila and wave. What was so amazing about it was that he had energized so many people in those green Wellstone shirts to run around that bus that you didn't even notice he wasn't running. He had given them the energy and the hope to carry on his work, and they were doing it for him. Now, 15 years after we lost Paul and Sheila, it is our job to carry on and run around that bus. That is organizing, that is politics, and that is the gift of joy in improving people's lives that Paul, Sheila, Marcia, and those other beloved staff members left for us. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would like to begin by talking about the recent tragedy in Las Vegas, the largest mass shooting in U.S. history, with at least 59 dead and more than 500 injured, including one Minnesotan who was injured and another who lost his life. So I join my colleagues in mourning for the victims and their families. They are and should be our focus at this time, as well as making sure those who were hurt get the best medical care this country can give. As we look ahead, these events underscore the urgency to continue fighting for funding to better treat mental illness but also for sensible gun safety legislation, and I joined with some of my colleagues the day after the tragedy in Las Vegas to call for those changes. No one policy will prevent every tragedy, but we need to come together on commonsense legislation to save lives. One place we discussed this week where we could come together-- because we have in the past--is on background checks. My colleagues Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey, who are two A-rated NRA Senators, have already demonstrated that we can find bipartisan agreement on something as straightforward as background checks. I was very pleased they came together on this legislation, but the fact remains, the Senate's failure to pass that bipartisan compromise was disheartening-- one of my more disheartening days in the Senate because I began my day that day with the families of the Sandy Hook tragedy, with the parents who had lost their little kids, with the parents who had come to this building to advocate for a bill, the background check bill, that they knew wouldn't have saved their child's life, but they knew it would have saved others. What we have seen with expanded background checks is they reduce suicides and they reduce domestic homicides by a fairly large number. Our constituents agree that we should be able to find some agreement here, as the numbers have consistently shown that Americans across the political spectrum, including gun owners, support proposals to require background checks by wide margins. I have a State, like the Presiding Officer's, where there are a lot of hunters. It is a proud tradition in Minnesota so I look at all these proposals and I say to myself: Does this hurt my Uncle Dick and his deer stand? For many of the ones I have looked at, the answer is clearly no, including the background check bill. When I talk to law enforcement in my State, they stress the need to have effective background checks to stop felons, people with severe mental illnesses, and others prohibited under current law from accessing guns. These efforts do not have to infringe in any way on Americans' lawful right to own guns. Another sensible measure is Senator Feinstein's legislation to close a loophole that allows bump stop devices to convert semiautomatic firearms into weapons that work like fully automatic guns. Law enforcement officers have now recovered 12 of these devices from the Las Vegas shooter's room. I am a cosponsor of that bill, and I am encouraged that some of my Republican colleagues have agreed to look at this. I hope we can find a path forward in the weeks ahead, not only with regard to this particular focus, the bump stock device legislation, but also on some of the other bills like the background check bill.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first rise today to thank my colleague for his comments. I am very pleased that this process may now move forward--the one that was stymied because of a bill that, as my friend from Colorado just pointed out, would kick millions of people off of healthcare, jack up their premiums, and really was an effort to pass the buck to the States without the bucks. I think that is one of the reasons we saw our Republican Governors in Nevada and in Ohio opposing this effort. I thank him for his leadership on the relevant committees and his passion for this issue. I would agree with him that people in my State, the State of Minnesota, just like the State of Colorado--we have a lot of independent sorts in both our States, and they want to see us get things done. We now have the opportunity to do that.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Is there a question?

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. As we wait for those bipartisan negotiations--and we hope we will get something soon, because I have seen reinsurance be a positive force in my State for bringing some of the rates down in the exchange. The average for the preliminary rates was 20 percent when our Republican legislature joined with our Democratic Governor to get this passed--20 percent reduction. We would like to see that rolled out on a national basis. (The remarks of Ms. Klobuchar pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 268 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my resolution, S. Res. 268, calling on the Senate to formally recognize September 26 as National Voter Registration Day. National Voter Registration Day is a celebration of our democracy and our Nation's most fundamental right--the right to vote. Today, thousands of volunteers and organizations in all 50 States are hitting the streets to register voters. Their goal is to create awareness about the registration process and register people who may not register on their own or don't have the time or don't know how to do it. It is really to reach out to people way ahead of an election. Last year, their hard work paid off, and more than 750,000 Americans registered to vote on National Voter Registration Day. These volunteers understand that voting is a fundamental right, but not everyone agrees. There are still people who seem to see it as a privilege that not all eligible voters should enjoy. That is not the way we should see this. The right to vote is clearly under attack in the United States. We have seen discriminatory voting laws spring up across the country, and those who want to prevent people from voting are making it harder and harder for people to get to the polls. I do not see this as a partisan issue. My State last year had the highest voting rate in the country. And we have seen a number of States that do things like have same-day registration, mail-in ballots, things like that, and they tend to have higher voting rates. They are not just Democratic States or Republican States; they are Independent States. And when you look at the list, it doesn't necessarily mean that a certain party is going to win. We had Independent Governor Jesse Ventura win in our State; Governor Tim Pawlenty. But what our States share is a higher voter turnout. What does that mean? Well, it means that people have some trust in their government when they participate. Even when their candidate doesn't win and the other candidate wins, at least they know they had a say and that it mattered and that they went to the voting booth. That is what I am talking about today because in some States, we have seen discriminatory voting laws spring up, and they have literally made it harder for people to vote. We have heard reports of problems with equipment. We had 3-hour lines in Arizona. We had 100 miles to the nearest polling station in Nevada and Utah, photo ID requirements in Wisconsin, where we now know it can really be hard to get an ID in the first place. In North Carolina, a Federal court found that the State's laws to prevent voter access--and this is a more conservative court, the Fifth Circuit--they said the voter laws had been crafted with ``surgical precision'' to discriminate against minorities. Now we have an administration that is abandoning efforts to uphold voting rights. In many States, this is a truly bipartisan effort. The Commission on ``Election Integrity'' looks to be making it harder, rather than easier, to vote. States are reporting that some Americans are actually unregistering to vote because of the Commission's request for personal data from across the country. We have had Democratic and Republican secretaries of state band together to say this is something they don't want to do. Taken together, these efforts to suppress the vote represent a concerted strategy to ensure that fewer people make it to the polls. This is not about one party or the other party; this is about our democracy. Our very freedoms are built upon the freedom to vote. So what else do we see? Well, we see attacks from without on our election. I remember the Presiding Officer had an excellent quote on this matter when he said: One election, it will be one candidate in one party; and the next election, it could be the other candidate from the other party. That is why, when we look at interference from foreign governments, we must also protect the sacred right to vote, and that means everything from the amendment I have with Senator Lindsey Graham, which is now a bill, to make sure our cyber security is strengthened as we head into the 2018 election and make sure that our States have the ability to protect their own voting equipment. The reports now--I just found out that in my own State, an attempt had been made to hack it. In 21 States, we have seen attempts at hacking. All our bill does is say: Let's help the States to shore up their equipment, to make sure they have backup paper ballots and other commonsense measures. This bill in the House--the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act--was carried by Mark Meadows, the head of the Freedom Caucus. That is right. It is a bipartisan amendment across both the House and the Senate to protect our State election equipment. Our country is stronger when everyone participates, and that is why we must protect the election equipment. We must make it easier to vote. I have one idea: Why don't we just automatically register eligible voters when they turn 18, maybe when they get their driver's license or Social Security number. Our States have that data. They also have a way to crosscheck with criminal records and other things to make sure these are eligible voters. Wouldn't that be easier than going out and trying to get everyone to vote? It doesn't mean you have to vote, but you automatically get registered to vote, just like you get your Social Security number. There is momentum for this idea at the State level. Last month, Illinois became the 10th State to pass automatic voter registration. Experts project that it will result in 1 million people being added to the registration list. Estimates show that as many as 50 million eligible voters would be registered if we moved to automatic registration. Another thing we can do to increase turnout is to allow same-day voting. In February, I introduced the Same Day Voter Registration Act, a bill that will allow people to register to vote on election day. This reduces the burden of voting and ensures that anyone who forgets to register can go up there to prove who they are and they can get registered. Fifteen States have this--not just blue States, but red States and blue States. And they always tend to be up at the top in the number of people who vote. We need to restore Americans' confidence in our election process and our democracy, and we do that by welcoming people to vote. A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to go with Congressman Lewis on his yearly pilgrimage--his trip where he takes people to the site of the march to Montgomery. The weekend I got to go was actually the moment 48 years to the weekend later. The White police chief of Montgomery handed his badge to Congressman Lewis and gave him that badge and apologized. He apologized because their police department at that time, 48 years before, had not protected the African-American marchers and those other citizens who were there marching with them. It took 48 years, but it happened. It was an emotional trip, and it made you think about those marchers and everything they had done just to get the right to vote. You see it in other countries where people will wait in line for a day just to be able to have their say in their own government. That is really what this is about. It is about a freedom--the freedoms that are guaranteed in our Constitution. One of those is that we can all participate. As long as we make the rules, as long as we are eligible, we can all participate. Today on National Voter Registration Day, I hope that people will join me in celebrating the work of those who are out there encouraging people to vote and, of course, get out there and register yourself so your own voice can be heard.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues on the floor to share concerns I have been hearing from people in my State about the latest healthcare repeal bill. Minnesotans and patient groups, such as AARP, oppose this bill because eliminating the Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act's help for millions of people means they would lose coverage, and it would increase their out-of-pocket costs. People in my State are concerned about this bill's impact on rural hospitals, especially--as are the rural hospitals--because it makes deep cuts to Medicaid, and the new block grant in the bill would end completely by 2027. I am very concerned that this bill would reverse the progress we are making in addressing the opioid epidemic by putting a cap on Medicaid, a program that has been critical for substance abuse treatment for people struggling with this addiction. A few months ago, I pointed out that we were on plan F in the Senate. Plans A and B were the two House versions of a repeal; plans C and D were the two Senate versions of the repeal; plan E was the repeal bill without a replacement plan; and then we were presented with plan F. That, of course, went down after the Senate Democrats were joined by three Republican Senators in voting it down. I actually thought we couldn't get lower than F, but apparently we can because now we are here. Many of the Minnesotans I have talked to don't like A, B, C, D, E, F, or the plan we are discussing that has been proposed. I have heard from people all over my State. At the Minnesota State Fair, I heard from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. I heard from people from our cities and people from our rural areas. There are a lot of people-- nearly 2 million people--at the Minnesota State Fair, which is the biggest State fair in the country. A lot of people stopped by my booth. I heard from the old and the young, from men and women, cancer survivors, people with disabilities, and many more. None of them wanted us to keep going down a partisan path when it comes to healthcare. That is why I was so happy to tell them over the recess that new work--bipartisan work--was being done with Senator Alexander and Senator Murray, two Senators who proved that they could work across the aisle on the education bill, which they did last year. They are the leaders on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and they have been moving forward together with truly bipartisan hearings and discussions. I have attended a number of them with Governors and with experts on this issue to figure out the best ways to strengthen the individual markets and to reduce costs. That is something we have done successfully in our State with an all-Republican legislature and a Democratic Governor. We worked on it in our State, so I figured we could maybe bring this out on the national level. But it isn't enough that the work that is going on with Senator Alexander and Senator Murray on a bipartisan basis could be imploded in favor of another version of a repeal bill that hasn't even gone to a hearing before the HELP Committee in regular order, as we would expect--the regular order Senator McCain spoke up for in the incredible speech he gave when he came back to the Senate. If that isn't enough, we heard yesterday that we will not even be able to get a full Congressional Budget Office analysis of this bill this month. Why would we rush to take a vote before we have that critical information? I have repeatedly heard my colleagues criticize moving forward with bills when we don't know their impact. Our constituents are owed this. This is the entire healthcare system of America. Why would we be taking a vote on a bill when we don't even know the full impact--when we do not have a full score of the bill--either financially or, most honestly, the impact it would have on people's healthcare? Our constituents are owed this. It is their healthcare and their money we are messing around with. When I talk to my constituents, none of them ask me to do what we already know this bill does. It cuts Medicaid, eliminates the Medicaid expansion, threatens protections for people with preexisting conditions, and kicks people off their insurance coverage. Instead, they want us to work together on bipartisan solutions to fix what we have when it comes to healthcare: to strengthen the exchanges, support small businesses, reform delivery systems, and lower the cost of prescription drugs. I don't see anything in this bill that would lower the cost of prescription drugs--nothing. I have heard the same message from senior groups and the Children's Hospital Association, which are strongly opposed to this bill. I have heard the same message from the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Cancer Society, and several other patient groups that have said this ``proposal just repackages the problematic provisions'' of the bills that were voted down earlier this summer. This bill, the Graham-Cassidy bill, is not the only option. Instead of making these kinds of cuts and moving backward, Senator Alexander and Senator Murray have invited all Senators, as I noted, to participate in their process. They have had dozens of Senators show up at early morning breakfasts or, as Senator Alexander calls them, coffees, with 30, 40 Senators showing up. I know because I was there. Why do they show up? Because they know we must make changes to the Affordable Care Act. They also know, based on the work we have seen in Minnesota and other places, these changes can be made across the aisle. In these hearings and discussions on bipartisan solutions, we have talked about the State-based reinsurance program passed in Minnesota. While we are still waiting for the Federal waiver--I will make a pitch for this at this moment--from the administration, even passing it alone helped us to bring promised rates down. I know Alaska has a State-based reinsurance program and recently got approval from the administration, and New Hampshire and other States are pursuing similar plans. That is why I support Senator Kaine and Senator 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. Another topic we have discussed frequently as part of the HELP Committee process over the past few weeks is the cost-sharing reduction payments. These are crucial to stabilizing the individual market and reducing uncertainty. That is why I support Senator Shaheen's Marketplace Certainty Act. It is clear that this type of legislation could get support from both sides of the aisle to improve the system, but beyond these immediate fixes, it is long past time that we come together to pass legislation to address the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. I have a bill that would harness the negotiating power of 41 million seniors on Medicare to bring drug prices down. Right now, Medicare is actually banned by law from using their market power to negotiate for better prices. I would bet on 41 million seniors for getting better prices, but we are not giving them that chance. Senator McCain and I have a bill to allow Americans to bring in safe, less expensive drugs from Canada. Senator Lee and I have a bill that would allow temporary importation of safe drugs that have been on the market in another country for at least 10 years when there isn't a healthy competition for that drug in this country. This would let patients access safe, less expensive drugs. Senator Grassley and I have a bill which would stop something called pay-for-delay, where big pharmaceutical companies actually pay off generic companies to keep less expensive drugs off the market. That bill would save taxpayers $2.9 billion and a similar amount for individual consumers. Are those bills in this latest proposal from our Republican colleagues? No, they are not. Instead, what does this bill do? While it devastates the Medicaid Program, it repeals big parts of the Affordable Care Act that help people afford insurance and, instead, puts in place an inadequate block grant which completely goes away in 10 years. This bill does the opposite of what the people came up to me and talked to me about in my State over the August break. So before we rush through a vote on it, before we even know the impact of it, before it has even gone through the committee process as it is supposed to do, before we even give an opportunity for Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Patty Murray--the two leaders on the committee that matters for healthcare--to come up with their plan, no, the proposal would be to rush the vote on this, and that is just wrong. What is this in real terms? It is a woman from Pine Island, MN. Her husband has struggled with mental illness for years, but she told me she felt so fortunate that he was able to get mental health treatment through their insurance coverage. She is worried that if these types of repeal efforts succeed, people like her husband will go back to being desperate for help. This debate is about people with preexisting conditions who would see their costs skyrocket under this bill. Teri from my State has ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, it is not the first time she has had it. She said that when she was diagnosed back in 2010, she ended up declaring bankruptcy due to the cost of her treatment. Teri said bankruptcy was ``just a reality for a lot of people with cancer.'' Luckily, under the Affordable Care Act, Teri can afford insurance and is currently responding well to treatment, which, by the way--I see Senator Durbin here--is based on NIH-funded research. It is treatment based on that research, which, unfortunately, we cut back on in the bill, and Senator Durbin will continue to fight to get that treatment through the Department of Defense included. But the bill we are facing now, the Graham-Cassidy bill, would allow insurers to charge sick people or those with preexisting conditions much more than healthy people. Teri is worried that it would make it difficult, if not impossible, for people like her to afford health insurance. This debate is about all the parents whom I have spoken to over the last few months who have children with disabilities. These parents would literally come up to me at parades over the summer, bring their kids over in the middle of the parade route, and introduce those children to me--kids in wheelchairs, kids with Down syndrome--and say: This is a preexisting condition. This is what a preexisting condition looks like. That is why they oppose repeal. In Minnesota, one out of four children get their health coverage from Medicaid, and 39 percent of our children with disabilities or special healthcare rely on Medicaid or children's health insurance. We should be spending our time this week reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program before States like mine run out of money at the end of the month, before debating another repeal bill for which we don't even have a Congressional Budget Office score on the impact. That word ``score'' sounds technical, but it is about what the bill would mean to people like those kids who came up to me in the parades with their parents and to people, like Teri, with ovarian cancer. This debate is also about our seniors and our rural communities. Our hospitals are essential to rural communities. They don't just provide health services; they employ thousands of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other healthcare workers. These rural hospitals often operate at margins of less than 1 percent. That is one reason Senator Grassley and I introduced the Rural Emergency Acute Care Hospital Act a few months ago to help rural hospitals stay open. But cutting Medicaid by billions of dollars and repealing the Medicaid expansion would move us in the opposite direction. In my State, Medicaid covers one out of five people living in rural areas. I know my colleagues, Senators Collins, Capito, and Murkowski, have previously expressed real concerns about the impact of Medicaid cuts in their States, which also have big rural populations. Cutting Medicaid and eliminating the Medicaid expansion doesn't just threaten healthcare coverage for these populations; it threatens the local communities where these hospitals are located. These rural hospitals are on the frontlines of one important fight; that is, the fight against the opioid epidemic. We just found out that in our State last year, over 600 people died from opioid and other drug overdoses--over 600 people. That is about two per day. It is more people than we see die from car crashes in our State. It is more people than we see die from homicide. Deaths from prescription drugs now claim more lives than either of those two issues. This epidemic affects our seniors too. One in three Medicare part D beneficiaries received a prescription opioid last year. While there is much more work to do to combat the epidemic, I want to recognize the progress we have made with the CARA Act and the Cures Act, with all the work that has been done, but making cuts to Medicaid will move us in the other direction. We have all heard the voices, not just of those on the frontlines of the opioid crisis but from doctors and hospitals, patients, seniors, nursing homes, and schools saying that this bill is not the way forward. Instead, let's do what we all heard people wanted us to do in August; that is, to work across the aisle on actual solutions that help people afford healthcare. I yield the floor.