Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, today we remember Richard Dudman, who passed away this August in Blue Hill, ME, at the age of 99. Throughout his long and illustrious career as a journalist, Richard was never one to turn away from a good story, even if chasing it meant putting himself in danger. After college, Richard served his country in the Merchant Marine and the Navy before becoming a reporter for the Denver Post. In 1954, he moved to Washington, DC, to work for the St. Louis Port-Dispatch's Washington bureau. In this position, he would cover the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the Watergate Scandal, as well as war and revolution all over the world. Richard will perhaps be most remembered for the time he spent in Cambodia as a prisoner of the Viet Cong. He and his colleagues were mistaken for CIA operatives and were kept captive for 40 long days. Towards the end of their captivity, once it had become clear that the journalists were not, in fact, working for the CIA, their captors began to refer to them not as prisoners of war, but as ``travelers who lost their way.'' It was this experience that inspired Richard to write the well- received ``Forty Days with the Enemy.'' Even after retiring, Richard did not stop reporting. In fact, on his last day at the Post-Dispatch in 1981 Richard raced out of his own retirement party to cover the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. From his home in Ellsworth, ME, Richard continued to contribute to the Post-Dispatch and wrote editorials for the Bangor Daily News until 2012. In retirement, Richard and Helen, his wife of 69 years, were active and constructive members of the Maine community. Ellsworth City councilor Gary Fortier, a friend of the couple, described them as ``true givers,'' saying that ``Ellsworth is a much better place because they have been part of it.'' Richard and Helen received the Golden Eagle Award from the Boy Scouts of America in 2014 in recognition of their outstanding community service. Richard's dedication to covering the news, regardless of how far from home it occurred, won him the prestigious George Polk Award in Journalism in 1993. In 2014, in recognition of that same dedication, Richard was inducted into the Maine Press Association Hall of Fame. I am pleased to be just one of many to remember and praise the many achievements of Richard's career. The State of Maine was incredibly lucky to have him for the time that we did. He will be deeply missed.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise not in opposition to the amendment but to compliment the Senator for bringing this issue forward. I intend to support the amendment, but I just want to make the point that this is a broader issue in that we are going to have to address the child and dependent tax credit. One of issues is making it refundable so the tax credit is available and useful to lower income families, who are the hardest hit by high child care costs, and also making it available to those families who use these funds to care for perhaps an aged relative or an injured relative. I agree with the amendment, and I support it, but I think we need to make the point that there is more work to be done. I have introduced a bill with Senator Heller, Senator Burr, and Senator Collins on this subject, and I look forward to bringing that forward for consideration at an appropriate moment. I urge support for Senator Rubio's amendment.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania, and as always he was articulate and thoughtful and made a strong case. I would like to speak to the issue we are going to be addressing over the next few days, the next few weeks, and probably the next few months, not necessarily to be unalterably opposed but to talk about how we can get where we all want to be, which is lower taxes, higher growth, and a stronger U.S. economy. I think it is important to emphasize at the beginning, just so we all know, what we are talking about the next couple days isn't the budget. As the Senator from Pennsylvania noted, it is really a vehicle for a massive tax cut. My problem with the tax cut is not necessarily that we are going to have one, but the question is, How is it structured? Who gets the benefits? How to pay for it? As the Senator pointed out, we still don't know what the plan is. We have an outline; we have principles; we have bullet points; we have lists, but we don't have a plan. Therefore, it is difficult to analyze. We do have some particulars that have been released. You don't need to be an economist to understand that if the rate for the lowest taxpayers is being increased and the rate for the highest taxpayers is being decreased, that the overall effect will be loaded toward those at the upper income level. The only analysis we have from the tax policy foundation, an outside nonpartisan group, is that under the plan, as it has been described by the White House and by Members of Congress, about 80 percent of the benefits of this proposal go to the top 1 percent of wage earners in this country. Eighty percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent. It may be that as the details of the plan are more well known and more thoroughly described, we will find it is slightly different than that. One of the things that really bothers me about this budget resolution we are going to be voting on is, it explicitly waives a longtime budget rule that before you can vote on issues such as this, there must be a Congressional Budget Office score 28 hours prior to the vote. It waives that provision. That is not a good sign. That doesn't reassure me that we are going to have a clear idea of what we are voting on. When you combine the cuts proposed to Medicare and Medicaid, which go into paying for these massive tax cuts, it looks to me like the biggest losers in this whole process will be seniors. When you look at what we know about the structure of the tax cuts and the fact that there is a one-half trillion-dollar cut in Medicare projected over 10 years and a $1.5 trillion cut in Medicaid, seniors are going to take the most serious hit. Why do I say that? Well, we all know Medicare specifically applies to seniors, so that is pretty easy. If you are cutting Medicare, you are hitting seniors. Secondly, though, what a lot of people don't realize about Medicaid is that 70 percent of the nursing home beds in America are paid for by Medicaid. By definition, who is in those beds? Seniors. When you cut Medicare and Medicaid, you are going to be impacting seniors. The provisions of the tax plan, as we know it--and I keep emphasizing ``as we know it'' because we are voting on something today to clear the path for a major tax cut, and we don't know what it is, but it appears it will impact seniors disproportionately. I want to touch on a couple of other points. One is the argument that the cuts to Medicaid and Medicare aren't really cuts; they are just reductions in growth. Well, that argument applies if you are talking about the NASA budget, for example. If the NASA budget is projected to grow 5 percent a year, and we cut it to 4 percent a year, that is a reduction in growth; that we are going to do one less trip into space or whatever the policy outcome of that cut is. Medicare and Medicaid are different, however. They have to pay costs in the real world as they come up when necessary. The increased growth that is projected in those two programs is based upon two unalterable facts. One is demographics. We are getting older, and that means more work, more demands on the medical system. It also is based on medical inflation, which everyone knows in recent years has proven to be higher than the ordinary rate of inflation. This is the best projection we have, but if you project that the current level of medical costs today, 8 years from now or 10 years from now are going to cost what they cost today, plus medical inflation, plus the impact of demographics, people getting older, that is a real cost. If you cut that, fewer people are going to get services. Rural hospitals will close. There will be undeniable impacts on both the economy of our rural regions of the country and real people. This argument that cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are just a cut in growth--it is not really a cut--is just not true. That may be true in some areas, but it is not true here because these are real costs that are going to be incurred. If the costs go up and fewer dollars are there to meet them, somebody is going to get hurt. These are real cuts to real people. The other thing I want to touch on is the deficit and debt. I have to say, I am sort of puzzled by this whole process because as I have been here over the past 5 years and as I have lived my life over the past 25 years, the majority party in the Senate has been focused on the debt and on the deficit and the dangers of the debt to our country, to our economy, and how bad it was that we were mortgaging our children's future, and all of a sudden it is no big deal. All of a sudden it is OK to knowingly, consciously, deliberately talk about a $1.5 trillion increase in the debt over the next 10 years. That assumes, by the way, that the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid take place and that other cuts that are in the budget, exemptions and deductions, take place. It could be that the effect on the debt and the deficit will be much greater. I remember 2 or 3 years ago, when we were in a recession and people were trying to get jobs and we had millions of people unemployed, there was a motion to extend unemployment benefits for 6 months. I can't remember the cost. I think it was $5 or $6 billion. Oh, no, point of order. We can't do that. It will increase the deficit. We are talking about $1.5 trillion that we know of, but that is OK. That is OK. I think we need to understand this. What this really is, if we pass unfunded tax cuts, they aren't really tax cuts. They are simply a deferral of the tax from us to our kids. We don't have to pay the tax, but the money to be spent is still going to be spent, so the hole gets deeper. We borrow that money, and our kids and our grandchildren are going to have to pay it back with interest. That is called shift and shaft. That is not a tax cut. We are just shifting the tax and shafting our kids. It is as if on your deathbed you call your children over and say: I have some final words for you. The kid leans over, and you say: Here is my credit card bill. I had a wonderful trip to Acapulco. I hope you don't mind paying for it. That is what we are doing. We are indulging ourselves and stealing from the next generation because we are not willing to pay the costs of the programs we all support and think are important. I think there is another fact that needs to be realized. As we build up this deficit and debt, eventually the bill is going to come due, and because we have used up all of our resources, the only place to go to cut them is going to be Social Security and Medicare because the discretionary budget is essentially going to be all gone. It is really simple to make the interest rate calculation. We now owe $20 trillion. Seventy-seven percent of our annual GDP we owe. The interest rate calculation is simple: 1 percent, $200 billion a year. I think it is more a question of when than if. When interest rates return to a more normal level of 5 percent, that is $1 trillion a year in interest, just interest. That happens to be very close to the entire discretionary budget of the U.S. Government--$1.1 trillion--this year, defense and nondefense. We will be paying almost as much in interest as the entire discretionary budget. How are we going to manage that situation? The only way it can be managed is to start talking about Social Security and Medicare. So this is a long-distance, slow-motion diminution of the value of those programs that are so important to so many Americans, particularly senior Americans. The final point I wish to touch on relates to the Senator from Pennsylvania basically predicting: Don't worry, these tax cuts will pay for themselves. I have been hearing that all my adult life; I have never seen it work. It didn't work in the middle of the last decade during the Bush tax cuts. All those tax cuts were going to pay for themselves: Don't worry, the stimulus of economic growth will be such that there will be more income, more revenues, and we will, in fact, as the Senator said, reduce the deficit. The problem is there is no evidence that it has ever worked in the history of mankind. The best economic research I have seen says that maybe the economic growth will offset about 20 percent of the cost of the tax cuts, but 80 percent is going to go straight to the debt. So to make the assumption that somehow this is all going to pay for itself, I believe, is irresponsible. I have a modest suggestion for those who are making that argument. Will my colleagues accept a friendly amendment which says that if the growth does not occur, then the taxes--or certain taxes--are automatically retriggered in order to fill the gap? If my colleagues are right, that will never need to happen, but if you are not right, that will protect our kids. I think that is a reasonable solution. I don't think it is going to happen. Why? Because it hasn't happened. It hasn't happened in Kansas. It hasn't happened here. I have never seen it happen. I have looked at the economic research and, as near as I can tell, there is no data that indicates an automatic correlation between tax cuts and economic growth. I suspect there are tax cuts that can stimulate economic growth; it depends on where they are and what they are. But there is no evidence that is the case regarding tax cuts in general. So those of our membership who believe this rosy scenario--the temptress, rosy scenario--is going to occur, fine. But if it doesn't, let's put language in the whole tax program which says that insofar as the growth does not occur as projected, the deficit will be maintained at no worse than current levels by automatically triggering tax increases to fill the gap. Then we are being honest. Then we are being honest to the next generation. I believe there are important areas where tax cuts are necessary in order to make us more competitive, in order to help to grow our economy. However, I don't think what I have heard so far is the answer, and there are many problems with what has been described. I am willing to hold my fire and see what the Finance Committee comes up with and see whether, as the Senator from Pennsylvania said, it will be an open and bipartisan process, with amendments. If that is the case, we, I think, could come up with, on a bipartisan basis, a reasonable tax change--tax cuts, tax reform--that will strengthen our economy without adding to the deficit and without requiring massive cuts to programs such as Medicaid and Medicare that are so important to millions of Americans. It can be done right. In 1986, it was done right. That was true tax reform. That was the last time we did tax reform. And I think it is very interesting that over the last several months, the language that describes what we are about to do has migrated from ``tax reform'' to ``tax cuts.'' Tax reform means you change the Tax Code, get rid of the inefficiencies, simplify it, take away some exemptions and deductions, lower rates, but we end up revenue neutral and we have a stronger economic base from which to proceed. Tax cuts simply add to the deficit or are based upon unrealistic and, indeed, cruel cuts to people in the future. I think we have an opportunity to do this right. I think there is more consensus here than perhaps people realize on the question of doing tax reform in a way that will benefit the entire country. I don't think the Members on this side of the aisle are categorically opposed to tax cuts under any circumstances. When I was the Governor of Maine, we cut taxes--I can't remember, 10 or 15 times--overall by about 15 percent. We cut the income tax. We cut the sales tax. We cut the property tax. So it can be done. That was done on a bipartisan basis with a legislature that went back and forth between Republican and Democratic control. They had this sort of strange Independent Governor, but we made it work. It can be done, and it can be done on a bipartisan basis. It certainly looks as though this is about to be railroaded. It is about to be shoved down our throats without adequate analysis and without fully understanding it. I deeply hope that is not the case. I hope we learned something from healthcare, that we can do good things when we work together. When we don't, it rarely ends well. So I understand that the votes are probably there to pass this budget, but the real question will come: What happens next? What does the plan look like? How responsible is it? What kind of assumptions is it based on? What kind of analysis do the Joint Taxation Committee and the Congressional Budget Office provide us on a nonpartisan basis as to what it will really do? Then we can have a real debate. Then we can talk about what is best for America. I think, between the group of us who work here and down the hall, we can find a good solution. But if the solution is thrust upon us, if it is ill-conceived, if it is skewed toward the wealthy, if it balances the budget on the backs of seniors, on Medicare, and Medicaid recipients, if it is based upon unrealistic assumptions about growth, then we are going to harm our country, not help it. Eventually, if we keep going down the road we are traveling in terms of the national debt, the piper will have to be paid. It may not have to be paid by our generation, but it is going to have to be paid by these young people and by their peers all across America. I don't think that is right. That is not the legacy I came here to leave to my children and grandchildren. Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a path forward that is responsible and responsive to the needs of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a subject that has been on our minds in recent weeks and months and, in fact, years; that is, healthcare--one of the most complex and confusing but important topics that we have to consider. Before I get into the bulk of what I want to address, I want to make the point once again that as we are debating healthcare and debating who pays, how much they pay, whether it is the ACA or Medicare or Medicaid or private insurance or private pay, we also have to begin a serious discussion about the underlying cost of healthcare. Regardless of who is paying, it is going to break us. If healthcare continues to grow in cost as it has over the last 20 years, it is going to eat the Federal budget, family budgets, individual budgets, and it is going to be something we absolutely have to address. Usually around here we don't address something until it is a crisis. I would argue, as we are approaching 20 percent of GDP, with $1 out of every $5 in the country being committed to healthcare costs--more than twice as much as most other countries in the world, far more than any other country in the world--we have to address this issue. Arguing about who pays is not going to solve the problem. That is important because in the interim, that is what is going to protect our citizens' coverage and what is going to protect our citizens from a healthcare disaster, a healthcare crisis. I want to preface my remarks with--I think this is something we all need to be thinking about--how do we move beyond the discussion we are having now, not that it is unimportant, but we also need to move beyond the discussion and start talking about the underlying cost and why is it that Americans are paying virtually twice as much as anyone in the world for healthcare per capita--or as a percent of GDP or however you want to calculate it--without noticeably better results? In fact, most worldwide studies indicate the results of our healthcare system are not as good as those in many other countries. It would be one thing if we were paying a lot of money and getting absolutely superior care across the board in our country, but that is not the case. In measurements such as infant mortality, longevity-- standard basic healthcare indicators--we are not doing very well. Yet we are paying twice as much. There is something wrong with that, and we have to address it. I want to talk about the Affordable Care Act. I want to start with the point that it is the law of the land. It is the law of the land. I am rising today in sadness but also in anger because there is a lot of talk about the Affordable Care Act collapsing, imploding. It is not collapsing. It is being mugged. It is being stabbed in the back. It is being sabotaged deliberately and consciously by the actions of the administration. I want to emphasize that this isn't about ideology. It is not about politics. It is not about who wins and who loses or which party is up or who voted or who didn't. This is about people. It is about people in Maine. It is about people, many of whom got care for the first time under the Affordable Care Act; lobstermen, small farmers, small businesspeople, individuals finally had a shot at reasonably priced healthcare. It is not perfect by any means. I would never argue that. In fact, I have been working on proposals since the day I got here on how to improve it, how to fix some of the problems, how to make it better, how to have the effects be less intense on some parts of our economy. It is the law of the land. The impacts of what we do here or don't do here fall on real people--real people, in my case, in my home State of Maine. The Affordable Care Act is not collapsing; it is being sabotaged. Here is a partial list. In January, during the period of the last open enrollment, one of the first acts of the new administration was to cut the advertising on television, advising people that they had this healthcare option. Cut the ads, that is No. 1. That was in January. Then they announced they were going to minimize the enforcement of the personal mandate. If you tell somebody you are not going to enforce something, that is an invitation to not abide by it, to not pay any attention to it. People can argue about whether that is desirable, but that is the law. To announce that administratively you are not going to enforce it, again, what does that do? It reduces the number of people who are going to get healthcare. That, in turn, undermines the individual market, and that, in turn, makes it less financially viable. That is a deliberate act that will undermine the viability of this law. In April, there began a series of what turned into seven different threats from various people in the administration to not make the legally mandated CSR payments--the cost-sharing reduction payments-- which are not bailouts to insurance companies but which were designed as part of the law to hold the rates down and to hold the deductibles down for those people buying coverage under the Affordable Care Act. Continuously threatening the reduction or the elimination of these payments has created an uncertainty in the marketplace that is now coming home to roost. Just last week, Anthem announced they are leaving the Maine marketplace. They cited a number of reasons, but one of the chief reasons was the uncertainty created by whether these payments are going to be made. Recently, the HELP committee had a series of hearings on this subject. They had a bipartisan group of Governors. They had a bipartisan group of insurance commissioners, health experts from across the country. I was at all but one of those hearings. I believe I am right in saying it was unanimous that we must ensure the continuation of the CSR payments in order to stabilize the market and reduce premiums projected to increase this coming year. The number nationally is estimated to be about 20 percent--a 20- percent increase attributable to the failure to ensure that the CSR payments will be made because an insurance company, if they are setting rates, has to factor into their rates the risk of these payments not being made. The testimony is--it depends somewhat on the State, but roughly a 20-percent increase is attributable to just this fact. If we could pass legislation here--unfortunately, we missed the deadline, but we may be able to work on that because the deadline was just last week. But if we could simply ensure those payments are made, that in itself would lower rates by 20 percent next year on a silver plan. By the way, if those CSRs aren't made and the rates go up, ironically, that means the mandatory payments of subsidies to individuals under the Affordable Care Act will also go up. So it will cost the Treasury money--additional money not accounted for, roughly $200 billion over the next 10 years. What else has gone on? In May, there was another one from the head of the Office of Management and Budget. The administration has not decided whether to pay the CSRs. That is a big red signal to the insurance companies: You can't count on this, so you better raise rates. In May, the budget was released. In the budget, there were drastic cuts in the call centers for the Affordable Care Act, in the in-person assistance, and in marketing. And just for good measure, they announced they were cutting the enrollment period in half, from 3 months to 6 weeks. What possible reason can there be to do that, except that you want fewer people to sign up? That is called sabotage--reducing from 3 months to 6 weeks. Then, all along, the Health and Human Services Department has been monkeying around with the website, taking down explanatory material about the Affordable Care Act, taking down material indicating why this would be a good deal for people and, instead, putting up critical material. On August 31, the administration announced reductions in outreach of 90 percent and cuts in assistance to people trying to navigate this system by 40 percent. This is complicated material. Any of us who have signed up for insurance--we all have the Affordable Care Act. Most people don't know that. But we had to go on the website and choose a policy for ourselves. It is hard, it is complicated, and to take away the people who are in the communities helping people work through these various decisions and weigh the different policies, the deductibles, and how to compare them is the same as taking away the coverage. It is an act of sabotage. The most recent one I just learned about this morning. This is amazing. The Affordable Care Act is based on a website, healthcare.gov. We all know it had terrible problems when it started. There is no excuse for that. I was critical of it at the time. Those were problems that were not intentional. Now intentional problems are being created. This is the one that really gets me. I just learned this morning that every Sunday during the bobtail enrollment period, the 6-week enrollment period, the website is going to be closed for 12 hours for maintenance. Isn't that amazing? For 12 hours on the one day of the week when many working people are going to have an opportunity to try to understand this system and enroll, they are going to be down from midnight Saturday night until noon on Sunday, the middle of the day on Sunday. I want to go back to the beginning. This isn't about ideology. This is about seeing that the laws are faithfully executed. That is why they call it the administration. The administration is supposed to administer the laws, not unadminister them. We are talking about people. Why does anyone want to have fewer people with insurance? I am at a loss to understand the motivation. I can understand if you don't like the ACA. If you don't like the ACA, let's work together and find ways to improve it and change it, but figure out how to keep people with health insurance. The uninsured rate in America has fallen 50 percent because of the Affordable Care Act. That is an enormous achievement. It is one that should be celebrated, not sabotaged. That is what is so puzzling to me about this: fewer people with coverage and higher costs to the Treasury. We can do better than this. These are all things the administration in good faith can say: OK, we don't like the ACA, but we are going to move beyond the politics of this and try to help people get the coverage they desperately need. This is about real people's lives. This is about lifting the threat, the cloud of a healthcare disaster, both physically and financially, from families across America. We are talking about millions of families--not tens of thousands but millions of families. I don't get why we are deliberately trying to undermine and sabotage something that is so meaningful to so many people. As one can tell, it makes me angry. Mostly, it makes me sad because I know people in Maine who have benefited, who have gotten coverage, who did not have it before and who will not have it if this is taken away--people who need those navigators to help them, people who need to be able to use the website on a Sunday morning, people who need to have rates that are lower because the CSRs have been funded, and we are not continuously raising the uncertainty of that piece of this law. We can do better. This is about the health of our people. I cannot think of anything more important. We can have different ways of getting there, but right now we have a law that is in place, and until we change it--and we should change it; we should fix it--we should administer it straight up, straightforwardly, as it was written and as it was intended. This is too important for politics, and it is too important for ideology. This is all about people and their health. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the service of an extraordinary individual in northern Maine. Mr. Stephen M. Farnham, of Mapleton, has been a driving force behind the Aroostook Area Agency on Aging. Steve began with the Aroostook agency in its infancy in the mid-1970s and is stepping down after having led the agency for the last 40 years. Steve attended the University of Maine in Presque Isle, where he earned his bachelor of arts and went on to earn his master of public administration degree from the University of Maine in Orono. He also received a number of certificates and attended specialized courses that helped him continuously improve services and collaboration at the agency. While serving as an adjunct professor, he taught courses at public and private institutions in Maine, as well as health and safety courses with the American Red Cross. He also held many different positions with the Katahdin Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America, for which he has been recognized with multiple awards. As chief executive officer of the not-for-profit corporation Aroostook Area Agency on Aging, Steve oversaw its expansion to 140 employees, an annual budget of $3.4 million, and the responsibility for a congregate housing project which the agency developed, owned, and managed. His professional appointments and boards on which he served insured that the State of Maine, as well as the Nation, were able to capitalize on his expertise on aging related policies. These ranged from being a delegate to the White House Conference on Aging three times, serving with the Federal Council on Aging, and helping incorporate, lead, and direct the Aroostook Regional Transportation System. In addition to the entities already mentioned, Steve also served his hometown on the budget committee and has received a number of meritorious awards, including the Presque Isle Area Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year Award, the Maine State Bar Association John Ballou Distinguished Service Award, and was named a Rotary International Paul Harris Fellow. Despite all the very public recognition for a job well done at work and beyond, the most telling recognition is the strength of the programs and the high praise by clients and collaborators. Steve is universally respected, well-loved, and will be greatly missed, but the solid structure that he put in place and strengthened over the years will stand. I thank Steve both for his work at the helm of the Area Agency on Aging and his work serving communities across Aroostook County.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, first I want to join the Democratic leader in his comments about the devastation of these hurricanes. This has been truly a malign visitation on our country over the last several weeks. Florida, Texas, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico have really suffered and are suffering. I know that the administration is working hard on this, and I commend them for the efforts that they have made. I think that now much of our attention is turning to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in order to mitigate what is really a humanitarian disaster. One difference between those islands and Florida and Texas is the fact that they are islands. It is harder to get there. It is harder to get aid there. I understand that just this morning the San Juan airport was open for the first time, and it has opened in a limited way. So this is clearly a responsibility that we have as Senators, as Members of Congress, and as Americans to reach out to our neighbors in a situation such as this. When a crisis hits, it often calls forth the best of America, and I believe that is happening right now. Opioid Epidemic Mr. President, I want to talk about a different kind of hurricane, a slow-motion hurricane. It is a slow-motion hurricane that is sweeping our entire country, not just the Southeast. It is sweeping through our small towns, our cities, our families, and our schools. It is taking lives on a scale that is unprecedented and almost unthinkable. I am talking about the hurricane epidemic of opioid abuse and overdose deaths. Many of us this week are watching with rapt attention Ken Burns' magnificent study of the Vietnam war. We are losing more people per year to overdose deaths than were lost in the entire Vietnam war. That is one way to think about the magnitude of this catastrophe that is striking our country. The problem is that it strikes here and there. It strikes a family here and a family there, a community here and a community there, but it doesn't strike all in one place. So it is not so apparent. If we were losing a small city in America of 63,000 people once a year, we would be turning ourselves inside out to solve the problem that was causing those deaths, and 63,000 people were killed last year through overdose deaths. It was almost 400 in my State of Maine. That is more than one a day. All indications are that it is increasing--one a day. Now, 63,000 is about 7 people an hour--24 hours a day, 365 days a year--who are succumbing to this plague. That is the right term for it. It is a medieval plague that is afflicting people all over our country. Lives are lost, families torn apart, and our communities compromised. It is a huge cost. I hesitate to talk about things like dollars when you are also talking about lives, but it is a cost in both ways. Not only are lives being lost and families being torn apart, but the estimates are that it costs our society something over $400 billion a year in everything from medical costs and criminal justice costs to lost economic and lost productivity in our society and our economy. But I am here today because all hope is not lost. Contrary to what some people hear--and you hear sometimes that this is hopeless and that there isn't anything we can do about it--there is ample evidence that treatment can work. This is not a death sentence. Opioid abuse is terrible, and from talking to people who have suffered from it, it literally changes your brain, and it becomes almost impossible to escape. But it can be escaped. The reason we know that is that there is data from across the country, but the reason I know that is because of my friends in Maine--Andrew, Matt, and Chris. These are people whom I know, with whom I have interacted, and with whom I have sat down. Andrew is a guy who is at the University of Southern Maine. He was trapped in the throes of addiction. He went through treatment, and now he is in recovery. Indeed, there are 25 million people in this country who are in recovery, and they will tell you that they will always be in recovery because they can never shake this disease, whether it is alcohol or the really destructive one that we are focusing on right now, which is opioids. Andrew has made a new life. He is at school. He is at the University of Southern Maine. He has helped form a student-centered community to help people who are in recovery or who are working on getting there. Matthew is a young man who, in 2009, again was trapped by this horrible scourge. Now he is hoping to go to medical school. Chris is a guy who sat in my office. He worked in the White House. He was in it up to his neck and above. He had criminal justice problems. He was in jail. He was convicted. But now he is a member of the Maine State Bar Association. He got himself through school, and he got himself through law school. There was an important moment that I think all of us should think about when we think about people who are in this situation. When he went to apply to law school, the people at the law school said: Well, we don't know if we can take you because you have this record. His question, which was brilliant and indicates to me that he is going to be a pretty good lawyer, was this: What was my sentence when I was convicted? The response was 3 years. He said: You are putting me in for life. If you don't let me move forward with my life, you are making that a life sentence, not a 3-year sentence. He was accepted to law school. He graduated, and this year he passed and was accepted in the Maine State Bar Association. He is making a contribution to his community. Treatment can work. It doesn't always work the first time. Anybody that has been through this, whether it is alcohol or even quitting smoking or anything else, will tell you that it doesn't work the first time necessarily. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it will take multiple trips through the recovery and treatment process, but it can work. We know it can work. I have 25 million reasons to tell you that it can work and 3 that I know. I am going to be introducing a resolution later today--I hope the Senate can take it up and pass it--designating next month as National Recovery Month, honoring and recognizing the people who are in recovery. So if it works, what is the problem? Why is this hurricane still sweeping our country? Why does 2017 look like it is going to be worse than 2016? Well, the sad truth is that, out of all of those millions of people who are addicted, who are stuck, who are trapped, only 1 in 10 has access to treatment--only 1 in 10. Now, what do we have to do to deal with this problem? Of course, it is like most other problems. There is no single answer. It involves law enforcement. It involves interdiction, and let me pause for a moment on interdiction. The Presiding Officer and I are both on the Armed Services Committee, and we have heard testimony in our committee that we only have the Coast Guard and Navy resources to interdict one-fourth of the drug shipments that we know of coming up from South and Central America by sea. In other words, we have intelligence where we know of 100 boats, and we can only stop 25. There is no excuse for that. So, yes, law enforcement, at the source or along the way in our States, is an absolutely essential part of this process, but it is not the whole answer. We also have to work on prevention. Frankly, I have been talking to groups around Maine and around the country on this. We are all still trying to figure out how to make prevention work. What will work? I haven't yet heard a really strong answer to that question. I guess it varies from person to person, but prevention has to be part of it. Treatment can work, but if only 1 in 10 people have treatment available to them or have access to treatment, that means 9 are sentenced to life and maybe to death. Last year, a year and a half ago, we passed CARA, the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act. It is a great bill, with lots of good things in it, but no money. That is like sending the fire department to the fire and saying: Fight that fire, but we are not going to give you any water. We know this costs money, and it is something we have to commit to. It has to be part of it. Whatever we do around here about healthcare and about budgets, we have to realize we are losing our people, and these aren't bad people. These aren't people over there. I sat at a roundtable in a small town in South Paris, ME. Next to me was a deputy sheriff. He lost his daughter. These aren't strangers. These are often middle-class people. These are people whose kids or sometimes parents--this is not age specific--are caught up in this scourge. I guess I want to leave us today with two points. One is, treatment works. The second is, we need more of it. If we know something works, but only 1 in 10 people have access to it, shame on us for not remedying that situation. To me, the most tragic case--and I have talked to people in Maine about this--the saddest moment, the most tragic case is when someone who is in the throes of opioid abuse is ready to ask for help and they have to be put on a waiting list. That is tragic and inexcusable. It is hard to get to that point. It is hard to admit that you are trapped and that you are no longer in control of your life. Once you are willing to do that and say, ``I need help,'' then it is up to us to be sure the help is there. That is what we are talking about today. So this is a different kind of hurricane, but it is a hurricane, nonetheless, that is destroying our families, destroying our communities, and wrecking the lives of our friends, but it is no act of God. We can't stop the winds of Maria or Irma, but we can mitigate the effects, ameliorate the effects, soften the effects. That is exactly what we need to do for those who are victims of the hurricane of opioids that is sweeping our country. I hope and believe we will respond to this challenge as we have at other times in our history, and, indeed, as we are this week to the hurricanes of the Caribbean. I want to respond also to the hurricane that is sweeping America that we can, indeed, ameliorate, mitigate, and soften. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today we remember the life of Alan Hutchinson, who passed away earlier this year at the age of 70. As a beloved family man, veteran, author, and tireless environmental advocate, Alan dedicated his life to preserving Maine's most precious land, water, and wildlife. Future generations of Americans will enjoy all that the Maine outdoors has to offer thanks in part to Alan's dedication to conservation. Originally from Rhode Island, Alan first came to Maine as a student at the University of Maine at Orono, where he earned his bachelor and master's degrees in wildlife management. During the Vietnam war, he served his country as a biological research aid at Walter Reed Medical Hospital in Washington, DC. Upon returning to Maine, he began an illustrious career in environmental conservation, as a civil servant and leader of one of the largest land trusts of the United States, the Forest Society of Maine. In his career as a civil servant, he led the acquisition and conservation of 250 coastal islands and headed Maine's newly formed Endangered Species Group. With leadership, patience, and perseverance, he worked with diverse partners to protect our coast and wildlife. In 1997, Alan became the first executive director of the Forest Society of Maine, FSM. During his tenure, the FSM grew from a one-person operation into a national leader in forestland conservation, helping to conserve over 1 million acres of forestland. Just as he did leading the Endangered Species Group, Alan achieved this success by bringing together diverse groups under a common purpose of protecting our forests. His notable conservation achievements include the 20,000-acre Nicatous Lake easement, protecting 6 miles of the beautiful Moosehead Lake shore, the 329,000-acre West Branch Project, and the unprecedented 360,000-acre Moosehead Region conservation easement. In addition to his conservation work, Alan also authored two books, ``Just Loons: A Wildlife Watcher's Guide,'' 1998, and ``Just Eagles: A Wildlife Watchers Guide,'' 2000. These books reflect his passion for Maine's outdoors that embodied his life's work. Alan will be remembered for his thoughtful leadership, dedication, and passion. Above all that, nothing exceeded his deep love for his family and his devotion to his friends. Alan will be sorely missed by all, and we owe him an enormous debt of gratitude.

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING. Mr. President, over the past several weeks, there have been real discussions--bipartisan discussions about fixing the problems in the Affordable Care Act, about controlling the growth of premiums, about being sure that there is some certainty in the market to prevent the collapse of the individual market, which, by the way, will not only affect people who are participating in the Affordable Care Act exchanges but will affect all those in the individual market, and we could stop that. The Senate HELP Committee had 4 days of hearings, roundtables, coffees with other Senators to talk about what the problems are, what we can do to solve them, and we were making some real progress. Then, all of a sudden, up comes TrumpCare 4.0 or 5.0--I have lost track-- another bill to essentially repeal and not replace the Affordable Care Act. On July 21, 1861, there was an occurrence at the beginning of the American Civil War. It was the First Battle of Bull Run. The Union troops were routed that day, and there was a disorganized retreat back to Washington. That has been known historically as the Great Skedaddle, and that is exactly what is happening again today. This is the great healthcare skedaddle because what the Senate majority is doing is avoiding responsibility. You don't want to be discriminated against because of preexisting conditions? Well, that is not our decision. We are passing it on to the Governor. The Governor can make that decision; it is not we who are doing it. You don't want to have the bands for the differential between young people and old people changed so that elderly people pay twice, three times, four times, five times as much as young people for health insurance? You don't want responsibility for that? Fine. Pass this bill and give it to the Governor. That is what we are talking about--a copout. It is the Senate majority once again trying to jam down the throats of the American people a change they don't want. They don't want it. Everywhere I went in Maine in July and August after our vote back at the end of July, people said thank you. They said thank you, and they said to tell Susan Collins thank you for the vote to preserve our healthcare. Yet here we are, back at it again. I think we need to understand what this bill does. Essentially, it does two things. It shifts all the responsibility for the healthcare provisions for the most vulnerable Americans entirely to the States, with very little in the way of guardrails or protection, and it gives them less money in order to provide that kind of healthcare. That is called shift and shaft. Shift the responsibility, and shaft the people who have to try to meet that responsibility. I have been a Governor. What we are talking about here is cutting off the support and the dollars that are needed to meet those responsibilities. Everyone says: Well, this is all flexibility. We are providing flexibility--flexibility to make agonizing decisions between providing healthcare to seniors or to children, to people who are disabled or to people who are just trying to get on their feet and go to work without the specter of a healthcare disaster hanging over them. I suspect we will have more to say about this next week, but it is a travesty. I understand there is going to be a little hearing on Monday. I call it a figleaf hearing. There is going to be a hearing. We don't know who is going to be there. We don't know exactly what the testimony is going to be. It is going to be a hearing so people can say, yes, we had a hearing. Well, come on. This is not a responsible way to legislate, and the people of this country expect more of us. I hope both parties--both parties--will recognize the folly of what is being proposed here and say no. Then, let's go back to talking, on a bipartisan basis, and fix the problems with the American healthcare system which certainly need to be addressed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 100th anniversary of Bridgton Hospital. Over the past 100 years, Bridgton Hospital in Bridgton, ME, has consistently provided high quality, personal patient care for local communities in western Maine. Nationally recognized for its excellent performance, I am pleased to honor this hospital for its century of service and commitment to our State. Bridgton Hospital was originally founded in 1917 after Bridgton resident Clara Fogg left a bequest for the creation of the facility. Since then, Bridgton Hospital has grown tremendously due to the diligent efforts and commitment by community leaders. In 1999, Bridgton Hospital became a subsidiary of Central Maine Medical Center, making it a crucial part of the integrated regional healthcare system. During this past decade, Bridgton Hospital has taken a number of steps to expand its services, facilities, and operations, giving patients access to high quality care close to home that they once had to travel miles to receive. The exceptional team of physicians, professional clinicians, nurses, staff, and volunteers who work together to make Bridgton Hospital truly unique have garnered a number of awards for its care. In 2016 alone, it was one of 21 hospitals to be awarded ``Top Rural Hospital'' in the country. Bridgton Hospital was also selected as one of the top 20 hospitals in the categories of overall performance and quality outcomes out of 1,400 small and rural hospitals in the U.S. The hospital was the only hospital in Maine to achieve top performance in all categories, including overall, quality outcomes, services scores, and financial results, as awarded by Maine Health Access Foundation. In past years, Bridgton Hospital has also been named one of the Best Places to Work in Maine. Additionally in 2016, Bridgton Hospital CEO David Frum was recognized as a ``Top 50 Critical Access CEOs to Know'' by Becker's Hospital Review magazine. Frum was recognized for his leadership and commitment to excellence. In January 2017, I had the privilege to personally visit Bridgton Hospital and speak with their healthcare experts and providers. This hospital stands as a shining example of how strong leadership and compassion for the community results in a successful organization. Bridgton Hospital has played an instrumental role in ensuring safe and quality healthcare in Maine. I wish to join the entire Bridgton community in congratulating Bridgton Hospital on their centennial achievement and thank them for their immeasurable service to the State of Maine.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and thank Col. Kelley Kash for his exceptional service to our Nation while serving in the U.S. Air Force, as well as his leadership as the CEO of Maine Veterans' Homes, MVH, a post he has held since 2007. Colonel Kash grew up in a military family. His father was a career Army officer and flew helicopters in Vietnam. While not a native of Maine, Colonel Kash first moved to the State of Maine to attend Colby College in Waterville, where he graduated in 1981 with a bachelor of arts in classics. He then went on to earn his master of science in hospital and health services administration from Ohio State University, before earning a commission in the U.S. Air Force in 1984. As deputy commander of an air transportable hospital, he provided medical support to deployed U.S. forces in support of Operation Provide Comfort, as well as medical care to over 5,000 indigent Haitian patients. In his final assignment, he served as commander of the 18th Medical Group, the largest U.S. Air Force medical unit in the Pacific. Upon his retirement from Active Duty in 2007, the veterans community of Maine was fortunate to gain a profound leader when Colonel Kash was hired as the CEO of Maine Veterans' Home. During his tenure as CEO, he directed a successful national effort that inspired Federal legislation to correct serious underfunding problems with the new VA program for severely disabled veterans receiving care in State veterans homes. While his efforts and achievements both in the Air Force and with MVH are notable, a few highlights that illustrate his leadership are MVH Scarborough became the first nursing home in Maine to achieve the rare Gold Excellence in Quality Award by the American Health Care Association and one of only 31 awarded nationally since 1997. Not only have all six facilities in Maine been recognized for providing quality customer services, but they have also achieved the elite Silver Achievement in Quality Award. Four MVH facilities are currently at the highest five-star overall rating by the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services for survey results, staffing, and quality indicators. Colonel Kash has prepared Maine Veterans' Home for long-term success by completing a strategic master plan for all MVH campuses with the goal of better delivering resident-directed care in ``home'' environments using small-house model design principles. His plan includes over $200 million worth of funding spanning over the next 15 years. His plan is already underway with modernizations projects occurring at various MVH locations in Maine, including a state-of-the- art therapy and rehab addition at Bangor, a multipurpose room addition at Machias, and decentralized dining projects at Scarborough, Bangor, and South Paris. Colonel Kash's leadership has led Maine Veterans' Homes to remarkable transformations and major success in providing better care for Maine's veterans. On behalf of veterans communities across the State of Maine, I want to thank Colonel Kash for his commitment to providing excellent care and access to services for our veterans.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the 30th anniversary of the Department of Veterans Affairs Community Based Outpatient Clinic, CBOC, in Caribou, ME. Aroostook County in northern Maine is known as the Crown of Maine. It is not just a delineation of the geography of Maine, but a designation of leadership. That leadership is nowhere more apparent than in the story of the Caribou CBOC and the veterans who fought for years to bring it into existence. Meo Bosse, John Rowe, Raphael ``Ray'' Guerrette, Percy Thibeault, Wesley Adams, Walter Corey, and Leonard Woods, Sr., did not necessarily imagine that their vision would grow from a first in the Nation clinic to a network of nearly a thousand CBOCs assisting millions of rural veterans; they just saw a need that they could help fill. Since 1987, the Caribou CBOC has been providing veterans with physical, mental health, and administrative services. When it was established, it was the first of Togus's community based outpatient clinics and the first rural VA clinic in our Nation. It is the commitment of individuals like these veterans in rural Maine and countless others that have carried the standard alongside and after that has helped the VA extend its reach and care to rural veterans across the country. CBOCs and changing models of care for veterans have become vital in how the VA more seamlessly delivers care to those that have answered the call of duty. The partnerships with rural hospitals like CARY Medical Center have enabled more responsive care to our Nation's veterans and deepened ties within these communities. It gives me great pleasure that the Crown of Maine showed the way for hundreds of other sites around the country and that CARY and the veterans of northern Maine continue to support new opportunities to strengthen the networks of care for our veterans.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 130th anniversary of Bar Harbor Bank & Trust. Based in Bar Harbor, ME, Bar Harbor Bank & Trust now has 14 branches in Maine and 35 branches in New Hampshire and Vermont. Known for supporting and understanding the unique people, organizations, and culture of northern New England, Bar Harbor Bank & Trust has not only achieved a strong reputation for providing quality service, but it has also cultivated employees who are dedicated to bettering their communities. Since its founding in 1887, Bar Harbor Bank & Trust has fostered the personal and professional growth of its employees while serving its customers with the highest level of care and concern. Over the years, Bar Harbor Bank & Trust has expanded to New Hampshire-based subsidiaries: McCrillis & Elredge Insurance, Inc., and Charter Trust Company. It recently acquired Lake Sunapee Bank to make it one of the largest community banks in New England. It been recognized as a leading bank nationwide and ranked among the best places to work in ME. Bar Harbor Bank & Trust has demonstrated a commitment to supporting the communities it serves. Each year, its employees volunteer thousands of hours to local community organizations. This commitment is sustained by their volunteer pay program that allows employees to get paid time off for volunteering each month to local causes they are passionate about. Furthermore, it allows them to contribute money from their paychecks to the Bank's Community Commitment program each month, and with every donation matched by the bank, the program donates over thousands of dollars annually to local nonprofit organizations, including Maine Veteran's Project, Girls and Boys State, Knox County Homeless Coalition, and dozens more. In addition to volunteerism, Bar Harbor bank & Trust employees actively participate in many community fundraisers, such as the Annual Hancock Relay for Life for the American Cancer Society. The bank also hosts an annual charity golf tournament that raises money for a local organization. This year, the tournament raised money that was donated to the Acadia Family Center to sponsor a year's worth of treatment for two individuals battling substance abuse. Additionally, Bar Harbor Bank & Trust employees teach local children lessons about saving money through the ABA's Teach Children to Save Day and explain how to use credit wisely to teenagers in the community. In 2016 alone, this bank provided over 450 children with lessons in savings education. I wish to join the communities all around Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in congratulating Bar Harbor Bank & Trust for this remarkable achievement on its 130th anniversary. I look forward to following its continued growth and service, and I applaud the bank for its dedication to its employees, customers, and local communities.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Maine Lobster Festival on its 70th anniversary. On this date, the people of Maine celebrate our rich history in the valuable lobster trade, as well as the continuing commitment by our coastal communities to support and perpetuate our great maritime heritage. Since 1947, The Maine Lobster Festival has provided the people of Maine and tourists with exciting events, entertainment, and Maine seafood. The festival emerged out of a community-based effort at reviving summer activities that Camden, ME, established prior to World War II. A small group of citizens and summer visitors came together to revel in their coastal marine community. Their small gathering, which lost money in its first year, moved to Rockland the following year and immediately became an annual staple of the coastal area's summer schedule, creating the Maine Lobster Festival to operate as a nonprofit corporation that is responsible for the festival to this day. This nearly weeklong engagement in August is attended by both internationally recognized as well as local musicians and entertainers, who fill the concert stage with enthralling performances. A midway provides excitement for children of all ages. King Neptune and his court attend the event every year and a highlight is the crowning of the Maine Sea Goddess. The festival also boasts a wide range of Maine artistry, from craftsmen to painters, as well as one of the region's largest and most popular parades. In addition, there is often a U.S. Navy ship that offers unique tour opportunities to festival-goers. As the highlight, there are fresh lobster dinners prepared in the world's largest lobster cooker for the thousands of hungry attendees. While you may no longer be able to get ``all the lobster you can eat for $1,'' the festival promises to have more than enough lobster to go around. Year-in and year-out, the combined effort of more than a thousand volunteers generously donate their time makes the festival possible. Volunteers are committed to improving and showcasing midcoast Maine communities to the thousands of festival-goers that come from different parts of Maine, from across the country and around the world. Not only do they donate their time and effort, but they also donate all profits of the festival to Maine communities to provide needed support to local institutions such as food pantries, community service groups, emergency services, and college scholarships. The Maine Lobster Festival is recognized nationwide as one of the best events in the country, and this distinction could not be bestowed on a more deserving enterprise. I wish to join the greater Rockland community, as well as the State of Maine, in congratulating the Maine Lobster Festival on its 70th year of being an historic and cherished Maine institution.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Haley's Metal Shop, Inc., in Biddeford, ME. Spanning five generations, Haley's Metal Shop has successfully persisted through challenging economic swings and rapid technological advancements. In their 100 years of operation, Haley's Metal Shop has been an exemplary family-run small business. As such, I am proud to celebrate their 100 years of service in the Biddeford community and the State of Maine. Haley's Metal Shop began in 1917 when Robert Jordan founded his tinsmith business in Biddeford. Jordan trained his son-in-law, Joe Haley, in the trade, and together, they formed Jordan and Haley. When Jordan retired in the 1950s, Joe Haley took on his son, Tom. Joe and Tom expanded the business's scope to incorporate new innovations, like air conditioning, and changed the company name to Haley's Metal Work, Inc. When Joe's children, Joyce and Brian, came of age, they elected to join the family business too. The brother and sister made advancements in both the technical and administrative branches of their business. Today Brian, and son Matthew continue the five-generation family tradition of running the business together. Over the past 100 years, Haley's Metal Shop has grown and modernized to specialize in customized temperature regulation systems, including HVAC, central air, and geothermal heat and cooling, in addition to metal fabrication and sheet metal installations. In the State of Maine, where winter temperatures make home heating especially critical, Haley's Metal Shop's 24-hour emergency service helps keep the heat on in Maine homes. I applaud Haley's Metal Shop for its emphasis on employee development and supporting local communities. Haley's Metal Shop employs over 40 people, including four father-son pairs. They support their staff by providing on-the-job training to help employees develop new and important skills in this technical field. Haley's Metal Shop has made it their commitment to give back to the community by contributing to various organizations over the years, such as the United Way of York County, Biddeford's Community Bike Center, the Maine Cancer Foundation, and the Biddeford Free Clinic, among others. These commendable efforts both in the shop and in the community help make Haley's Metal Shop a great part of Biddeford and of Maine. I am pleased to join the Biddeford community in congratulating the Haley family and the dedicated employees of Haley's Metal Shop for this remarkable centennial achievement. I look forward to following their continued growth, and I thank them for their innovation, entrepreneurship, and hard work serving communities in the State of Maine.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I intend to move, with the support of Senator Blumenthal, that H.R. 1628 be committed to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days with changes that will direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish 10 pilot projects in 10 States that have experienced high rates of opioid substance use disorder and neonatal abstinence syndrome to further research the efficacy of early intervention and case management model of care for mothers and babies. Success to be evaluated by determining the rate of child protective services intervention, foster care for minor children and successful long term recovery. At least five projects are required to be granted for projects focused primarily on rural populations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I intend to move, with the support of Senator Blumenthal, that H.R. 1628 be committed to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days with changes that will require tax rebates to individuals who, through no fault of their own, received lump-sum Social Security disability insurance settlements which resulted in loss of advance premium tax credits for that year and not include as income retirement and savings drawdowns used to pay medical bills. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I intend to move, with the support of Mr. Blumenthal and Mrs. Shaheen, that H.R. 1628 be committed to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that preserve, maintain, sustain, and expand the Prevention and Public Health Fund established under section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 USC 300u-11. I request unanimous consent that this motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I intend to move, with the support of Mr. Blumenthal and Mrs. Shaheen, that H.R. 1628 be committed to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that will support the preservation, maintenance, sustenance. and expansion of the National Health Service Corps and public health nursing programs by preserving such programs and their funding. I request unanimous consent that this motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I intend to move, with the support of Mr. Blumenthal and Mrs. Shaheen, that H.R. 1628 be committed to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that will protect, preserve, maintain, sustain, and expand all programs related to addressing, identifying the causes of, and reducing infant mortality. I request unanimous consent that this motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. KING. Madam President, I intend to move, with the support of Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Coons, that H.R. 1628 be committed to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that will support the promotion of maternal and child health, including the reduction of infant, child, and maternal mortality, through the use of home-visiting services by extending funding for maternal, infant, and early childhood home- visiting programs under section 511 of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 711, through the 10-year budget window. I request unanimous consent that this motion to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. KING

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

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I want to talk about the healthcare bill, the healthcare issue, and talk a bit about how we can find a solution and then what the solution should look like. For the last 2 days, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have been in our markup. In that markup, we considered somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 to 300 amendments. Of those 250 amendments, approximately 210 of them were either compromised--an agreement was worked out between the proponents of the amendment and those who had reservations--and they were either withdrawn or became part of the bill by unanimous consent. Of the 25 or 30 that were left for votes, however, we had good debate. The members talked about their point of view. The people who opposed them gave their points of view. We had a vigorous discussion and debate and then we voted. The important thing to me--and I am pretty sure I am right about this, I kept a mental note as we went through the votes--I don't believe there was a single party- line vote in the Armed Services Committee on any amendment. The votes were sometimes more Republicans, more Democrats, but there wasn't a single party-line vote. In other words, the process worked as it was intended to work, as it should work, and as it can work. So I have a radical suggestion for those who are seeking a solution to this healthcare issue; that is, submit a bill and put it before the requisite committees, have hearings, have debates, have information, get information from around the country, from experts, from people who know about the topic, and that is how we make good laws. A bill that doesn't go through any of that process, that is concocted in secret and sprung on the Congress at the last minute, almost by definition will not be a good bill. Bad process--bad bill, and that is what we had happen in this case. I think this is a time--we are going into a recess at the end of this week. Let's take a deep breath, and instead of trying to tinker around and attract a few extra votes and find something that will barely pass by the skin of its teeth, let's step back and submit this issue to the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee. Let's try to work through to find a real solution involving both parties, involving all of the wisdom that has been accumulated in this country on this incredibly complex and difficult and incredibly important issue. We don't have to try to do it in the dark. Let's do it in the light of day. Let's have open hearings and considerations, votes and amendments, discussion and debate, and then as our system is designed, we can come to a good result. Let's talk about the bill that is currently before us. I guess it is before us. It hasn't really been submitted to any of the committees, but I am told it is coming to the floor. It was going to be this week. Now it is going to be the week, I guess, after the recess--at least that is what we were told yesterday. Why is this a bad bill? I have been watching some of the commentary on this bill, and there is a lot of discussion about the Congressional Budget Office analysis: Is it correct, did they use the right baseline, are they good at projecting how many people are going to sign up for healthcare, and all of those kinds of questions. People are questioning the Congressional Budget Office. I happen to think they tend to be pretty nonpartisan, straightforward, good, scientific, and quantitative analysts of these kinds of issues. They issued their report saying 22 million people lose their healthcare. This is about people. It is not about ideology. It is about real people. There is a really easy way to cut through all of the questions about whether they analyzed it properly and who is going to lose and who is going to win; that is, to look at a simple chart that is on, I think, the third page of the Congressional Budget Office analysis. This is really all you need to know about this bill: Medicaid loses $772 billion over the next 10 years, and the tax credit and selective coverage provisions--that is the ACA--loses $400 billion. It is $1.1 trillion out of the healthcare system. You cannot take $1.1 trillion out of the healthcare system and not hurt people. You can't do it. We don't have to argue about how many here, what age, and all of that kind of thing. We are talking about a massive cut to the support that is enabling American people to get healthcare. In Maine, if you cut all these numbers back, as near as I can tell, it is about $400 to $500 million a year. I was the Governor of Maine. I know that $400 and $500 million a year is huge. People talk about: Well, we are going to cut Medicaid back. We are going to trim the growth rate. We are going to lower the way it is calculated and make it a per capita cap, all of these things, and we are going to give the States flexibility. The magic word ``flexibility''--as if the flexibility enables you to somehow conjure up $1 trillion. What you are really giving the States is the flexibility to decide between the elderly and the disabled or children. That is what this is all about. There is another option, by the way. The States can always raise taxes to make up for this difference, and that is one of the most frustrating things to me, again, as a former Governor. We are talking about this reduces the Federal deficit by $330 billion over 10 years. Yes, because you shifted almost a trillion dollars to the States. That is nice work if you can get it. That is balancing the Federal books on the backs of the States. If we want to make the Federal budget look better, why don't we just let the States pay for the Air Force? That is a Federal expenditure. Shift that to the States. That will help us with our budget deficit, but it is a fake balancing of the budget because you are simply shifting the cost over to somebody else--another level of government. The shorthand for that is shift and shaft. That is what we are talking about, either the State government is going to be shafted because they are going to have to raise taxes or the people who are going to lose the support are going to be shafted. We are talking about real people. Let me talk about Medicaid for a minute. Medicaid is sometimes characterized--and I have even heard some of my colleagues use Medicaid and welfare in the same breath, as if Medicaid is a welfare program. It is not. It is a critically necessary support for healthcare for people who need it, many of whom are not welfare people--as we would denote them--not welfare recipients. They are getting a lifeline, a true lifeline that is actually keeping them alive. In Maine, 70 percent of the people in nursing homes are on Medicaid. Nationwide, the number is 62 percent. So when you talk about Medicaid and cutting Medicaid, you are talking about Aunt Minnie in the nursing home. You are not talking about some welfare recipient who is ripping off the system. You are talking about your relatives who are in nursing homes, and 70 percent of the people in nursing homes are being supported by Medicaid. In Maine, we call it MaineCare. So you can't shrink this amount of money and think it is not going to have impacts on people, and that is why this bill is so pernicious. Here is what the bill is all about: a one-half trillion-dollar tax cut to the top 2 percent of wage earners in America. Let's be clear what is going on here. There is an equation of one-half trillion dollars of tax cuts and more than one-half trillion dollars of cuts to benefits--money to the wealthy; healthcare away from those who need it. That is the equation. That is what this bill is all about. This isn't a healthcare bill. This is a tax cut bill dressed up like a healthcare bill, and it is also an ideological bill because people don't like Medicaid. Here is the problem: Our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world. We pay the most per capita for healthcare as anyone on the planet, by far--just about twice as much as most other countries. If you do the math and you take the annual healthcare bill and divide it by the number of people in America, you get about $8,700 a year per person. That is what we spend on healthcare. So for a family of four, that is $35,000 a year. That is what healthcare costs us. By the way, that is the real problem. When we are talking about Medicaid and Medicare, Anthem and private insurance, and all of those things, we are really talking about who pays. The deeper issue is how much we are paying. The problem is--and the reason we need Medicaid and the reason we need Medicare and the reason we need the Affordable Care Act-- American people can't afford it without help. It is as simple as that. They can't afford it. The government has to provide some support. If it doesn't, it would break every family in America. We have to have the support. Right now, in the private sector, it is breaking our companies that are trying dutifully to keep up with the increase in costs of healthcare. Don't fall for this idea that somehow the Affordable Care Act caused all the increases. I remember--again, harking back to when I was the Governor of Maine in the late 1990s, early 2000s--healthcare costs were going up 6 percent, 8 percent a year--10 years before the Affordable Care Act went into place. The private--the individual market for health insurance was already on a drastic upward climb. So to blame it somehow on the Affordable Care Act just doesn't wash in terms of the history. The deep problem, as I say, is the overall cost of healthcare. We have to start talking about that issue. That is a separate issue from what we are talking about here as to who pays. We have to talk about different kinds of delivery systems. We have to talk about a huge increase in preventive care. We have to talk about helping people stay out of the hospital, stay out of the medical system. The cheapest medical procedure of all is the one you don't have to perform. So many of our diseases--our chronic diseases like diabetes--are based upon the choices people are making and their lack of adequate care early in the disease. That is a separate discussion. I think that is one we really have to look at. However this debate is resolved in the next few weeks or few days, we have to talk about the deeper issue of the overall cost. If we don't get a handle on that, then all of this other stuff is going to be--it is not going to solve the problem because the deeper issue is the enormous cost we pay in this country, which is almost twice as much as anybody in the world per capita. You could say: But we have the best healthcare in the world. Yes, we do, for the people who can afford it. But for millions of people who can't afford it, who have either no or skimpy care, it is not the best healthcare system in the world. There are no statistical indicators that tell us we are doing very well. On things like longevity, prenatal care, infant mortality, we are way down. We are like 17th, 20th. You would think that if we are spending the most money in the world, we ought to have great results. We don't. So that is something we have to talk about. The cost of pharmaceuticals, the cost of drugs is higher here than anywhere else in the world. Why is that? That is a problem we have to discuss. I had a tele-townhall Monday night. It was sponsored by the AARP of Maine. At the peak, they tell me there were 10,000 people on that call. I took questions, and the questions from seniors in Maine were full of concern--``fear'' may be too strong a word, although in several cases it wasn't, but very deep concern about what the effect of this will be on them, on their mothers, on people who are depending on Medicaid for their care. One lady who called pays $8,000 a month for her chemotherapy drugs. If it weren't for her support under the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, she said on the phone, ``I'd be dead.'' That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about real people. The final sort of general point I want to make before I talk about some of the people who are going to be affected by this is that I hear sometimes the proponents saying: The free market is going to solve this problem. The free market is miraculous; it can solve all problems. I am a huge believer in the free market. I am a thoroughgoing capitalist. I started a business. I ran a business. I understand the free market. The problem is that healthcare is not a free market. If you go to buy a car, that is a free market. You can go online and compare. You can test drive. You can find the prices at the four dealers that are in your neighborhood. You can do all of those things. That is a free market. You don't have that in healthcare. No. 1, you don't know the price. You call your local hospital and say: What will it cost me to get my knee replaced? Nobody can tell you. You don't know the price. No. 2, it is very hard to compare products. You can do it if you can really dig and get word of mouth on who is a good doctor and who isn't. No. 3, you don't say what you want; the provider tells you what you need. Imagine going into a car dealership and the car dealer saying: I am going to tell you I think you need this Mercedes over here. I think that is what you need, and by the way, you pay for it. Our system is set up such that providers are paid for delivering a service, not keeping you well. They get paid by procedures, fee-for- service, not for keeping you well. There is no money in prevention. We have to change that. We have to change that. Now let me talk about people. These are some people I have talked about before, and I just want to sort of go through them. You know who this is. This is a Maine lobsterman. This is a guy; his name is David Osgood. The ACA gave them a chance to get insurance. It gave them an opportunity to get insurance where before it was practically impossible. He said it has given them some comfort, some reassurance. He said: ``We'll be okay.'' That is the Maine way. ``We'll be okay.'' This is one of the most independent, toughest professions there is in this country, but he is not part of a big corporation, and he doesn't have somebody to pay part of his healthcare. He has to make it work, and the ACA gave him an opportunity that he didn't have before to give some confidence to his family and to his life. By the way, there are about 75,000 people in Maine just like him who got coverage under the ACA, many of them for the first time, and those are the calls we are getting in my office. This is Jonathan Edwards and Jen Schroth. This is sort of a funny story; it tells you what Maine is like. I know Jen's mother. I worked with Jen's mother in the early eighties. Maine is a big small town with very long roads. We all know each other. And it just happens that here we are, 25 years later, and I have become acquainted with Jen. She and her husband are farmers. They are small farmers in coastal Maine. She thinks it is irresponsible to go without health insurance, especially when you have a family, but it was so expensive, they couldn't get it. They couldn't acquire health insurance in the individual market because they are not a member of a big corporation. The ACA gave them access to insurance for the first time--real insurance that covers what they need, not skinny insurance that only covers certain things and doesn't cover other things and just gives you the illusion of coverage until you go to make a claim. Jonathan Edwards and Jen Schroth are farmers in Brooklin, ME--that is the real Brooklin, by the way, Brooklin, ME. Forget about that place in New York; this is Brooklin with an l-i-n. They are farmers in Maine to whom the ACA gave an opportunity to get insurance for the first time for their family. Cora and Jim Banks from Portland raised four boys. This is amazing. They raised four boys, and every single one was an Eagle Scout. That is amazing. I mean, to be an Eagle Scout is a real achievement in this day and age. Cora worked at her home. She developed Alzheimer's in her late fifties. That is a tragic disease. When Jim could no longer care for her safely at home, she went to a nursing home, and Medicaid helped her be there. Medicaid helped her be there. If you start taking away Medicaid, what will become of Cora? What will become of Jim? He took care of her as long as he could. If she has to go home, if she has to leave that home, that will be a tragedy for her and for her family. Again, as I mentioned before, 70 percent of the residents in nursing homes in Maine are on Medicaid. That is the kind of difference it makes in real life. Here is Dan Humphrey. Dan Humphrey is a young man with autism who volunteers at local soup kitchens and delivers Meals on Wheels in Lewiston, ME. He depends on a Medicaid waiver to support his independent living. If it weren't for Medicaid, Daniel would be in an institution, or he would be with his parents. They wouldn't be able to work because he would need care 24 hours a day. He does need care and support 24 hours a day. Under Medicaid, he is able to lead a real life and feel good about it. You can tell he is a great guy; look at his smile. Medicaid is a lifeline. I talked about Dan 2 or 3 weeks ago, and since then, I have had an outpouring from people across the country and especially in Maine, people who have children or relatives or friends with disabilities, on what this has meant for them and how terrifying it is that anybody wants to take three-quarters of a trillion dollars out of Medicaid, which is providing an opportunity for Daniel to lead a decent life. Why would anybody want to do that? I don't get it. I don't get it. Of course it can be made more efficient. Of course the ACA can be made more efficient but not three-quarters of a trillion dollars more efficient. That is a huge amount--$450 million a year in Maine. Daniel waited 8 years, under the current program, for the services he gets now. And if we put in caps and block grants--that sounds good in Washington: We are going to put in caps. Caps mean Daniel may not get his services next year or the year after or another guy like Daniel in Peoria or Philadelphia or San Francisco. That is a tragedy. These are real people. We are not talking ideology; we are talking real people. Here is Lydia Woofenden. She lives near where I live. She just graduated from Mount Ararat High School in Topsham. Two of my boys graduated from Mount Ararat. She even has a job she was offered after years of volunteering. Everything she has achieved has been accomplished with help from her family and dedicated teachers and therapists almost exclusively funded through special education in the public schools and Medicaid. By the way, having a child with disabilities has nothing to do with your income. You could be high income, low income, middle income. It has to do with the luck of the draw. It has to do with bad fortune, and it could hit anybody. So, again, this idea that Medicaid is some kind of welfare program is just not true. It is not true. So, Mr. President, the reason I am here is because of these people. The reason I am here is to stand up for these people because they can't be here to do it themselves. We can do better. The failure to get the votes to vote on this bill this week gives us all a chance to take a deep breath, to step back and say: Sure, there are things wrong with the Affordable Care Act. There are things we can debate. There are things we can argue about. We can have amendments. We can do what we did in the Armed Services Committee over the last 2 days and have a real discussion and debate. I know it is possible because I sat there and saw it happen. It can be done, and we can do it here. Let's take a week not to try to browbeat and push and make special deals to try to get 51 votes or 50 votes and then the Vice President breaks the tie. It goes to the House, and they don't even look at it--they will pass it. And then we will be embarked on a path that is really going to hurt the American people. We have to have help. Healthcare is too expensive, and regular people in this country can't afford it. We have to have help, and this is the place where people are looking to find that help. Let's try to work together. I am certainly willing to work with anybody who will listen. But if they are starting from a premise of gutting Medicaid and giving somebody else a huge tax cut, that doesn't work. Let's talk about the real problem. You want to talk about healthcare, let's talk about it. Let's talk about how we can lower the cost of healthcare, how we can lower the cost of deductibles, how we can lower premiums, and how we can provide new options to people in the health insurance system. But let's not talk about what we are going to do that is going to have such tragic results on individuals and families and on the fabric of our society. Mr. President, I believe we can do better. I believe we can do better, and we have an opportunity to do so. It sort of dropped into our laps this week. We have 10 days to work on this, to think about it, to try to come up with a solution or at least begin the process of a solution. There is no deadline here next week, but let's begin the process. As we begin, I have this radical idea of referring these bills to committees here in the Senate, having hearings, getting expert opinions, listening to the country, listening to the hospital association that says this is a terrible bill. The American Medical Association says this bill violates the basic principle of the medical profession: First, do no harm. This bill will do harm. There is no group whom I have heard of who is for it--only people who have an agenda to cut Medicaid because they don't like Federal support or people who have an agenda to change the Affordable Care Act because it has Obama's name on it. That is not a good enough reason to strike at the heart of our people, our communities, and our society. One final point. I have been talking about people; let me talk about jobs. In Maine, in 8 of our 16 counties, the hospital is the largest employer. I talked to a hospital director an hour ago. They are desperate about what is going on down here because it is going to make it difficult for them to survive and serve their communities--the rural hospitals especially. I have met with them across Maine--in Farmington, Bridgton, Skowhegan, Lincoln. Maybe you haven't heard of those towns because they are small towns in Maine, but they have a hospital that is the heart of the community and the biggest employer in the community. They all told me the same thing. This idea of this bill, this approach, is going to kill them. It is going to cause them to at least shrink their services or close. In Maine, because we are a rural State with far-flung communities, that means people are going to be a long way from available care--1 hour, 2 hours--and that is a tragedy for our communities in terms of economic development, in terms of jobs, but mostly, as I keep saying, because of people. People say: Why are you so impassioned about this, Angus? It is because this is what the people of Maine sent me to do. They sent me down here to help them, not hurt them. They sent me down here to speak for them, not stifle their voices. They sent me down here to do the right thing, to do the ethical thing, to protect them when nobody else will. That is why I am here, and I believe that this Senate, this Congress, this government, can do better, and I hope we will. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 225th anniversary of Bucksport, ME, an active town set along the banks of the Penobscot River. The town has a long and proud history dating back to the late 1700s, and I am pleased to join with Mayor David Keene, town officials, members of the Bucksport Historical Society, and residents as they gather for a founder's day celebration to honor the town's history. First settled in 1763, Bucksport was incorporated in 1792 and named for its original surveyor, Colonel Jonathan Buck. However, Bucksport's history begins long before the 18th century. The town's first known inhabitants were the prehistoric ``Red Paint People'' who were discovered through an archaeological dig in the late 19th century. Originally known as the territory of the Penobscot Abenaki Native Peoples, the town of Bucksport today encompasses an area surveyed by Colonel Buck in 1762. After returning in 1763, Colonel Buck built the first sawmill, store, and home, and by 1775, there were a total of 21 families living there. During the Penobscot Expedition in 1779--notably one of the greatest defeats in American naval history--the British overtook and burned the town. As a result, in 1783, the town was resettled and named Buckstown Plantation, later changed to Buckstown, and finally renamed Bucksport in 1817. Bucksport's history is deeply engrained in the papermaking industry. In 1930, Bucksport's Maine Seaboard Paper Company opened its doors as the first paper mill on the Penobscot River. The mill and the town have experienced significant changes as the paper industry has declined, with the paper mill finally closing its doors in 2014. Despite these hardships, the town of Bucksport has opened new doors both through creative uses of the former mill site, as well as by capitalizing on the town's deepwater port, rail service, and location at the intersection of two loops of the ``three Ring Binder'' broadband network. The resiliency of the town is a testament to its residents' hard work, innovation, and commitment to Maine. Bucksport is home to nearly 5,000 people and continues to grow. Bucksport is centrally located 18 miles from three major employment centers and is also home to numerous cultural and arts organizations like Northeast Historic Film, the Alamo Theater, and the Lighthouse Arts Studio. The town also features the Downeast Waterfront Walkway, a mile-long walkway along the Penobscot River with views of Fort Knox and informational panels that detail Bucksport's important past, as well as its potential for the future. I am proud to commemorate 225 years since the incorporation of Bucksport, a town that has greatly contributed to Maine's economic prosperity and a community known for providing the unique Maine experience.