Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bipartisan, noncontroversial, technical provision pertaining to two proposed hydroelectric projects at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dams in Virginia. This bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, authority to extend commence-construction deadlines for the 3.7 MW project at Gathright Dam, FERC Project No. 12737, and the 1.8 MW project at Flannagan Dam, FERC Project No. 12740. The timelines for these projects have been set back due to challenges with securing Army Corps permits. FERC does not oppose this legislation, as the requested extensions are still within the overall 10-year window for extension of licensing deadlines. There is no known local opposition. This provision was passed by the Senate last year as part of the Energy Policy Modernization Act, S. 2012. It was also introduced in the House by Representative Morgan Griffith and passed the full House separately. I am pleased to reintroduce the bill again today and hope the Energy & Natural Resources Committee and the full Senate will consider it soon.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bipartisan, noncontroversial, technical provision pertaining to two proposed hydroelectric projects at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dams in Virginia. This bill would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, authority to extend commence-construction deadlines for the 3.7 MW project at Gathright Dam, FERC Project No. 12737, and the 1.8 MW project at Flannagan Dam, FERC Project No. 12740. The timelines for these projects have been set back due to challenges with securing Army Corps permits. FERC does not oppose this legislation, as the requested extensions are still within the overall 10-year window for extension of licensing deadlines. There is no known local opposition. This provision was passed by the Senate last year as part of the Energy Policy Modernization Act, S. 2012. It was also introduced in the House by Representative Morgan Griffith and passed the full House separately. I am pleased to reintroduce the bill again today and hope the Energy & Natural Resources Committee and the full Senate will consider it soon.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. I am pleased to reintroduce the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2017. Indian Affairs previously voted our bill out of committee in the 113th Congress and by voice vote in the 114th Congress, and we remain hopeful that the full Senate will finally vote to recognize our Tribes in the 115th Congress. This month marks the 400th anniversary of the death of Pocahontas, the famous daughter of Chief Powhatan, whose tribes were among the first to make contact with English settlers in the 17th century. Today, as we introduce this bill, a delegation from the Commonwealth, including Chief Stephen Adkins of the Chickahominy, Chief Anne Richardson of the Rappahannock, and Chief Emeritus Ken Adams of the Upper Mattaponi, is in England to commemorate the anniversary, including a presentation and ceremony at St. George's Church, Gravesend to honor Pocahontas. The ceremony reflects the sovereign recognition that the British Government grants to our Virginia tribes, which the United States has yet to acknowledge. This legislation is critically important because it strives toward reconciling an historic wrong for Virginia and the Nation. While the Virginia Tribes have received official recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, acknowledgement and officially- recognized status from the Federal Government has been considerably more difficult due to their systematic mistreatment over the past century. More specifically, Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, a State law in effect from 1924 to 1967, stripped the identities of the Tribal members of Virginia's Indian Tribes. The act changed the racial identifications of those who lacked White ancestry to ``colored'' on birth certificates during that period. In addition, five of the six courthouses that held the vast majority of the Virginia Indian Tribal records were destroyed in the Civil War. Those records were crucial for documenting the history of the Tribes for recognition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Federal Acknowledgement. Furthermore, Virginia Indians made peace too soon when they signed the Treaty of Middle Plantation with England in 1677. This predated the creation of the United States of America by just short of 100 years, and the Founding Fathers of the United States never recognized the treaty. Therefore, unlike tribes that received Federal recognition upon the signing of a treaty with the United States, the Virginia Tribes did not receive Federal recognition because they made peace with England prior to the founding of our Nation. I am proud of Virginia's recognized Indian Tribes and their contributions to our Commonwealth. The Virginia Tribes are not only part of our history, but they remain ever present today. We go to school together, work together, and serve our Commonwealth and Nation together every day. These contributions should be acknowledged, and this Federal recognition for Virginia's Native peoples is long overdue. Virginia's Indian Tribes contributed to the successful founding of our country and continue to help define our national identity. Their members have attended our schools, worked next to us, and served in every American war since the Revolution, all while maintaining a unique identity and culture. I am hopeful the Senate will act upon my legislation this year, to give these six Virginia Native American Tribes the Federal recognition that is long overdue.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. I am pleased to reintroduce the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2017. Indian Affairs previously voted our bill out of committee in the 113th Congress and by voice vote in the 114th Congress, and we remain hopeful that the full Senate will finally vote to recognize our Tribes in the 115th Congress. This month marks the 400th anniversary of the death of Pocahontas, the famous daughter of Chief Powhatan, whose tribes were among the first to make contact with English settlers in the 17th century. Today, as we introduce this bill, a delegation from the Commonwealth, including Chief Stephen Adkins of the Chickahominy, Chief Anne Richardson of the Rappahannock, and Chief Emeritus Ken Adams of the Upper Mattaponi, is in England to commemorate the anniversary, including a presentation and ceremony at St. George's Church, Gravesend to honor Pocahontas. The ceremony reflects the sovereign recognition that the British Government grants to our Virginia tribes, which the United States has yet to acknowledge. This legislation is critically important because it strives toward reconciling an historic wrong for Virginia and the Nation. While the Virginia Tribes have received official recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, acknowledgement and officially- recognized status from the Federal Government has been considerably more difficult due to their systematic mistreatment over the past century. More specifically, Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, a State law in effect from 1924 to 1967, stripped the identities of the Tribal members of Virginia's Indian Tribes. The act changed the racial identifications of those who lacked White ancestry to ``colored'' on birth certificates during that period. In addition, five of the six courthouses that held the vast majority of the Virginia Indian Tribal records were destroyed in the Civil War. Those records were crucial for documenting the history of the Tribes for recognition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Federal Acknowledgement. Furthermore, Virginia Indians made peace too soon when they signed the Treaty of Middle Plantation with England in 1677. This predated the creation of the United States of America by just short of 100 years, and the Founding Fathers of the United States never recognized the treaty. Therefore, unlike tribes that received Federal recognition upon the signing of a treaty with the United States, the Virginia Tribes did not receive Federal recognition because they made peace with England prior to the founding of our Nation. I am proud of Virginia's recognized Indian Tribes and their contributions to our Commonwealth. The Virginia Tribes are not only part of our history, but they remain ever present today. We go to school together, work together, and serve our Commonwealth and Nation together every day. These contributions should be acknowledged, and this Federal recognition for Virginia's Native peoples is long overdue. Virginia's Indian Tribes contributed to the successful founding of our country and continue to help define our national identity. Their members have attended our schools, worked next to us, and served in every American war since the Revolution, all while maintaining a unique identity and culture. I am hopeful the Senate will act upon my legislation this year, to give these six Virginia Native American Tribes the Federal recognition that is long overdue.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. I would like to recognize the George C. Marshall Foundation's museum and library as the National George C. Marshall Museum. General George C. Marshall was born in Uniontown, PA to a Virginia family. He is a distant relative of Chief Justice John Marshall, the fourth Supreme Court Justice of the United States. General Marshall graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in 1901 as senior first captain of the Corps of Cadets. General Marshall served in a variety of posts in the Philippines, the United States, France, and China, distinguishing himself as a military leader. In 1939 he was named Chief of Staff by President Roosevelt and was responsible for building, supplying, and deploying over 8 million soldiers. Marshall also urged military readiness prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. After World War II, President Truman sent General Marshall to China to broker a coalition government between the Nationalist allies under Generalissimo Chaing Kai-shek and the Communists under Mao Zedong. In 1946, General Marshall received the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. President Truman appointed Marshall Secretary of State in 1947. In what became known as the Marshall Plan, as Secretary of State Marshall oversaw the postwar European economic recovery strategy. In 1953, General Marshall received the Nobel Peace Prize for his postwar work, the only career officer in the U.S. Army to ever receive this honor. The George C. Marshall Foundation was established in 1953 and officially opened in 1964. The foundation's museum is located in Lexington, Virginia and is dedicated to educating the public and the military and diplomatic career of General George C. Marshall. The foundation has devoted its mission to educating the public about the important contributions of General Marshall through its museum and research Library. The Museum has five extensive exhibits and houses General Marshall's Nobel Peace Prize. I am proud to introduce this resolution which will recognize and honor General George C. Marshall.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, 6 years ago, the Syrian people rose up against the tyranny of the Assad regime and hoped that the international community would stand by their side in this monumental endeavor. Nearly half a million Syrians have been killed by this conflict. More than 13 million Syrians have been forced to flee their homes and continue to face starvation and sieges by pro-Assad forces. Assad's barrel bombs and Russian airstrikes still target hospitals and schools. Syria's neighbors have provided refuge to nearly 5 million, mostly women and children. At the same time, many Syrians continue to risk their lives in an attempt to find safety on Europe's shores. In the vacuum left by Assad's devastation, extremist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida have found fertile ground. Ankara, Baghdad, Beirut, Brussels, Paris, San Bernadino--these are just a few of the places impacted by ISIS. As long as the Syrian conflict continues, violence and extremism will continue to spiral out of the region. It is time for the United States and international community to hold the Assad regime and its backers accountable for their actions. The Trump administration should take an active role in resolving this conflict. The Syrian conflict has many dimensions--leaving this to the Russians and hoping that they can end this war is not a strategy. American leadership, along with support from regional actors and the international community, is the only meaningful approach towards bringing peace to Syria and its citizens and justice to the Assad regime for its brutal actions. I am pleased to introduce this resolution with Senators McCain and Rubio and Murphy that condemns the Assad regime's blatant disregard for international law and human life and asks the Trump administration to pursue a strategy that can help bring the brutal conflict to a peaceful conclusion. The resolution also denounces Iran and Russia for their political and military support of the Assad regime and calls for protection of civilians and humanitarian workers.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the development of a skilled workforce is essential to maintaining a robust economy and driving forward innovation throughout society. Investments in education remain more important now than ever. Today the United States is 12th in the world in the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds achieving post-high school degrees. We need to make changes that help keep students engaged in their futures while also ensuring our educational programs are adequately preparing students for the jobs of the 21st century. I firmly believe that a strong congressional commitment to strengthening career and technical education, CTE, throughout the country will help us achieve this goal. Career and technical education programs provide students with a valuable educational experience that benefits them during high school and throughout their careers. Student participation in CTE programs is linked to greater levels of student engagement and higher graduation rates. The U.S. Department of Education announced that the average U.S. high school graduation rate is 83 percent, while the graduation rate for students in CTE concentrations is higher than 90 percent. Eighty-one percent of high school dropouts say real-world learning opportunities would have kept them in school. CTE programs prepare students for fulfilling careers in a number of high-growth, skill-intensive industries including information technology; science, technology, engineering and math; human services; transportation; and architecture and construction, among others. Through a combination of academic enrichment and job-specific training, CTE programs are developing postsecondary and workforce-ready graduates equipped to meet the needs of employers in current and emerging industries. The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act is a major source of Federal support for the development of career and technical skills among secondary and postsecondary students. Last reauthorized in 2006, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act needs to be modernized to meet the demands of the 21st-century workforce and ensure that students have access to the highest-quality CTE programs. This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Young, the Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act, which would amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act to raise the quality of CTE programs. The bill allows States and localities to use Perkins grant funding to establish CTE-focused academies. The legislation defines what constitutes a rigorous CTE curriculum and requires Perkins grant recipients to incorporate key high-quality elements in their programs including credit-transfer opportunities; academic and technical skills assessments; training tools that align with today's industries; CTE- focused professional development for teachers, administrators, and counselors; and CTE curriculum alignment with local, regional, and State workforce demands. Additionally, the bill improves links between high school and postsecondary education to help ease attainment of an industry recognized credential, license, apprenticeship, or postsecondary certificate to obtain a job in a high-demand career field and promotes partnerships between local businesses and other community stakeholders to create pathways for students through work-based learning opportunities. I am proud to introduce this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to raise quality and access to CTE programs so that students develop the skills they need to meet the needs of 21st-century employers.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the development of a skilled workforce is essential to maintaining a robust economy and driving forward innovation throughout society. Investments in education remain more important now than ever. Today the United States is 12th in the world in the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds achieving post-high school degrees. We need to make changes that help keep students engaged in their futures while also ensuring our educational programs are adequately preparing students for the jobs of the 21st century. I firmly believe that a strong congressional commitment to strengthening career and technical education, CTE, throughout the country will help us achieve this goal. Career and technical education programs provide students with a valuable educational experience that benefits them during high school and throughout their careers. Student participation in CTE programs is linked to greater levels of student engagement and higher graduation rates. The U.S. Department of Education announced that the average U.S. high school graduation rate is 83 percent, while the graduation rate for students in CTE concentrations is higher than 90 percent. Eighty-one percent of high school dropouts say real-world learning opportunities would have kept them in school. CTE programs prepare students for fulfilling careers in a number of high-growth, skill-intensive industries including information technology; science, technology, engineering and math; human services; transportation; and architecture and construction, among others. Through a combination of academic enrichment and job-specific training, CTE programs are developing postsecondary and workforce-ready graduates equipped to meet the needs of employers in current and emerging industries. The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act is a major source of Federal support for the development of career and technical skills among secondary and postsecondary students. Last reauthorized in 2006, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act needs to be modernized to meet the demands of the 21st-century workforce and ensure that students have access to the highest-quality CTE programs. This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Young, the Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act, which would amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act to raise the quality of CTE programs. The bill allows States and localities to use Perkins grant funding to establish CTE-focused academies. The legislation defines what constitutes a rigorous CTE curriculum and requires Perkins grant recipients to incorporate key high-quality elements in their programs including credit-transfer opportunities; academic and technical skills assessments; training tools that align with today's industries; CTE- focused professional development for teachers, administrators, and counselors; and CTE curriculum alignment with local, regional, and State workforce demands. Additionally, the bill improves links between high school and postsecondary education to help ease attainment of an industry recognized credential, license, apprenticeship, or postsecondary certificate to obtain a job in a high-demand career field and promotes partnerships between local businesses and other community stakeholders to create pathways for students through work-based learning opportunities. I am proud to introduce this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to raise quality and access to CTE programs so that students develop the skills they need to meet the needs of 21st-century employers.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. Presidents, a skilled workforce is essential to addressing the growing cyber security challenges in the United States. The Department of Defense, DOD, Cyber Strategy, issued in April 2015, cites building the cyber workforce among its objective's for achieving the essential strategic goal of maintaining ready forces and capabilities to conduct cyberspace operations. In Virginia, it is estimated that 36,000 cybersecurity jobs remain unfilled. Beginning in 2001, DOD funded the Information Assurance Scholarship Program, IASP, vhich boosts the Nation's cyber workforce through scholarship and capacity-building grants to colleges and universities designated by the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security as Centers of Academic Excellence, CAE. Scholarship recipients are required to fulfill a service obligation by working in a cyber security position at DOD upon graduation. According to a DOD report from February 2015, the IASP Program had employed 593 students and awarded 180 capacity-building grants to CAEs. However, due to budget constraints, DOD reduced funding for the IASP beginning in 2013 and stopped recruiting new students. The IASP received its peak funding level of $7.5 million in 2005--for fiscal year 2017, it received $500,000. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Rounds, the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program Act of 2017. The DOD Cyber Scholarship Program Act of 2017 would reinvigorate the IASP to boost our Nation's cyber workforce. The bill would rename the IASP as the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program and express the Sense of Congress that the program is an important tool for boosting our cyber defense workforce. The DOD Cyber Scholarship Program Act would also modify the program by expanding scholarships to students pursuing Associate's Degrees. There are currently 46 two-year institutions designated as CAEs, which would be eligible to apply for grants. Associate's degree programs could provide a valuable source of technical personnel, at a lower cost, to DOD. The bill would require that at least 5 percent of scholarship funds go to 2-year program students. The DOD Cyber Scholarship Program Act would authorize the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program to receive $10 million in fiscal year 2018. At its peak in 2005, the IASP received $7.5 million. Since then, the cost of tuition has increased considerably and the need for skilled cyber professionals has never been greater. Ten million dollars is an appropriate funding level to reinvigorate the program, expand it to associate's degree recipients, and allow for manageable program execution from DOD and the National Security Agency. The DOD Cyber Scholarship Program is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help students succeed in today's economy and strengthen our national security. There are good-paying jobs in Virginia and across the country in the cyber field that are going unfilled, and it is clear we must make it easier for students to access the programs that prepare them for these roles. Expanding scholarship funds so they're available to community college students will help put more of our nation's students on a path to success and support our national security needs.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. Presidents, a skilled workforce is essential to addressing the growing cyber security challenges in the United States. The Department of Defense, DOD, Cyber Strategy, issued in April 2015, cites building the cyber workforce among its objective's for achieving the essential strategic goal of maintaining ready forces and capabilities to conduct cyberspace operations. In Virginia, it is estimated that 36,000 cybersecurity jobs remain unfilled. Beginning in 2001, DOD funded the Information Assurance Scholarship Program, IASP, vhich boosts the Nation's cyber workforce through scholarship and capacity-building grants to colleges and universities designated by the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security as Centers of Academic Excellence, CAE. Scholarship recipients are required to fulfill a service obligation by working in a cyber security position at DOD upon graduation. According to a DOD report from February 2015, the IASP Program had employed 593 students and awarded 180 capacity-building grants to CAEs. However, due to budget constraints, DOD reduced funding for the IASP beginning in 2013 and stopped recruiting new students. The IASP received its peak funding level of $7.5 million in 2005--for fiscal year 2017, it received $500,000. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Rounds, the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program Act of 2017. The DOD Cyber Scholarship Program Act of 2017 would reinvigorate the IASP to boost our Nation's cyber workforce. The bill would rename the IASP as the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program and express the Sense of Congress that the program is an important tool for boosting our cyber defense workforce. The DOD Cyber Scholarship Program Act would also modify the program by expanding scholarships to students pursuing Associate's Degrees. There are currently 46 two-year institutions designated as CAEs, which would be eligible to apply for grants. Associate's degree programs could provide a valuable source of technical personnel, at a lower cost, to DOD. The bill would require that at least 5 percent of scholarship funds go to 2-year program students. The DOD Cyber Scholarship Program Act would authorize the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program to receive $10 million in fiscal year 2018. At its peak in 2005, the IASP received $7.5 million. Since then, the cost of tuition has increased considerably and the need for skilled cyber professionals has never been greater. Ten million dollars is an appropriate funding level to reinvigorate the program, expand it to associate's degree recipients, and allow for manageable program execution from DOD and the National Security Agency. The DOD Cyber Scholarship Program is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help students succeed in today's economy and strengthen our national security. There are good-paying jobs in Virginia and across the country in the cyber field that are going unfilled, and it is clear we must make it easier for students to access the programs that prepare them for these roles. Expanding scholarship funds so they're available to community college students will help put more of our nation's students on a path to success and support our national security needs.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act that is being considered by the House. In December, I was informed that I was going to get one of my dreams to come true in the Senate. I had asked to be on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee when I came in, in January of 2013, and I was not on the committee. I had no complaints because I had other good committees, but I was told in December that, for this Congress, I would be added to the committee, and I am thrilled to serve on it. When I found that I was going to be added to the committee, I knew one of the first issues we would be tackling is what to do about the Affordable Care Act. So I have started to pay visits around the State to as many stakeholders as I can, including patients, doctors, medical students, hospitals, behavioral health facilities, allied health training programs in regions all across the State, military families in Hampton Roads just last Friday, as well as patients and their families in Chesterfield County last Friday. In all of these visits, my question has been: We are going to be tackling the Affordable Care Act; tell me what works, what doesn't work, and what we can do better. That has been the goal. Today's committees in the House, two committees, are considering a plan that House Republicans have put on the table and are touting as a replacement of the Affordable Care Act. I just want to talk about what it would mean, if passed, to Virginians and Americans. This plan will reduce the number of Americans with insurance. We dropped the uninsurance rate to a historic low, but the gains that we made would be reversed and the numbers of Americans with insurance would go down. It would raise healthcare costs, particularly on seniors, which I will discuss in a minute. It would dismantle the Medicaid Program at the service of tax cuts for the wealthiest. It is not an adequate replacement; in fact, it would be a dramatic retreat, and it would be a retreat that would violate promises that had been made by the President and other leaders. Republicans--and I will get into this--have made a number of promises about what a replacement would look like, but this plan falls far short of that. That is why, within 36 hours of it being put on the table, stakeholders across the spectrum, including the American Hospital Association, AARP, the American Medical Association, nurses, nursing homes, and Republican Governors have come out to either dramatically and flatly oppose this plan or suggest significant concerns with it. The bill has yet to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, but the House is trying to push it through committee, and even through the floor, if they can, before the CBO tells the American public what this plan would cost and, every bit as importantly, what it would cost Americans in terms of the number of people who would lose their health insurance. A very poignant comment about the plan that was in the paper this morning was from the Republican Governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval, who said: We Republican Governors have talked to Congress and said please pay attention to what we have to say. States bear a huge burden on these programs, especially Medicaid. He said: We gave ideas to the leadership, to the majority about the replacement, but none of our ideas are in this plan. Without a CBO score, the American public and this body are completely in the dark about how many people will lose coverage and about how this will affect the American economy. Why would we move forward? Why would we try to push a vote even in a committee, much less on the House floor, before the CBO has given us this score? We don't serve the American public well by doing that. What does the replacement bill do? One, it ends the expansion of Medicaid that was a core component of the Affordable Care Act--the expansion that has been embraced by more than 30 States. Then, it takes the traditional Medicaid Program and really dismantles it, instituting a per capita fee for enrollees, and moving it more towards a block grant program. That is the first thing it does. Second, with respect to seniors, this plan would repeal a provision in the Affordable Care Act that says seniors cannot be charged more than three times the premium of a young person; it would repeal that, and it will allow insurers to charge older customers five times as much as younger customers. It would also give States the ability to set even more unfavorable ratios for seniors. This will have a significant impact on the premium of older Americans. Third, the plan repeals the income-based subsidies, premium assistance, and cost-sharing reductions in the current Affordable Care Act and substitutes less generous tax credits that will not be adjusted to average costs of plans in particular markets. So if you are a middle-income individual in a high-cost market, you are really out of luck with this plan. Let me give an example of how insurance would be affected in particular communities all over Virginia if the House plan were adopted. If you are 60 years old and you make $30,000 per year, under the House plan, here is what happens. First, the cost of your insurance can be dramatically raised because you are not, at age 60 now, limited to three-to-one over a young person's premium; they can charge you five-to-one over a young person's premium. So the premium cost, if you are a 60-year-old making 30,000 bucks, goes up significantly. Now, you get a tax credit, just as right now you get a subsidy, but the tax credit is much less generous. So the cost of your policy goes up, but here is what happens in communities all over Virginia--tax credit compared to the subsidy they currently get. In 2020, in Augusta County, VA, in the Shenandoah Valley, the tax credit you get is worth only about half of the subsidy you would get if we continued the Affordable Care Act. So the price is up, but your tax credit is less generous by half of the current subsidy. In Fairfax, your tax credit is 41 percent less than the subsidy; in Bedford, 51 percent less than the subsidy; in the city of Norfolk, 51 percent less; in Rockingham, 50 percent less; Pittsylvania, 49 percent less, and Pulaski County in far Southwest Virginia, 54 percent less. So if you are a senior, your costs go up, but the assistance you get in the tax credit is dramatically less generous than the assistance you currently get with the premium subsidy. The bill establishes a penalty if you don't have continuous insurance. An insurer can charge you 30 percent more in premiums if you go 2 months or more without insurance. So if you are unemployed, you lose your insurance. If you forget to pay a premium for two months, you lose your insurance. If you have any gap of 2 months, that is an opportunity for insurers to come in and sock you with a massive penalty. The bill repeals funding to a healthcare provider of choice for millions of American women: Planned Parenthood. It is really important to be specific about this. There is not in the Federal budget a line item that says Planned Parenthood gets axed. What Federal funds go to Planned Parenthood? Well, first, the Hyde amendment says no Federal funds can go to any organization for the provision of abortions-- Planned Parenthood or anybody else. Planned Parenthood receives Federal funds because it provides healthcare to women who are eligible for Medicaid. So when Planned Parenthood treats a woman who is Medicaid- eligible for a medical service that is eligible for a Medicaid reimbursement, then Planned Parenthood is able to bill Medicaid just like a doctor's office is. And Planned Parenthood is the healthcare provider of choice for millions of American women to do annual checkups, pap smears, cervical cancer tests, and all kinds of basic healthcare provisions. But under this bill, Planned Parenthood will be disbarred from the Medicaid Program, even when they are providing services to Medicaid-eligible women--services that are covered by Medicaid. The one thing about this bill that I would say--if you were going to say: Well, who is a guaranteed winner in this bill because there are a lot of losers, and I have tried to summarize them--the guaranteed winner is that this bill overwhelmingly repeals the provisions that raise revenue. This bill is a big tax cut bill. The biggest revenue raisers in the Affordable Care Act were tax cuts on the wealthiest citizens. There is a tax increase for nonwage income by the top earners in the United States and an additional hospital insurance tax that also affected individuals of high income. What this bill does is cut taxes that almost exclusively benefit the wealthy, while the bill is taking away these coverages and provisions that protect middle and lower income Americans. The tax cuts in this bill would save the top 0.1 percent of earners in the United States about an average of $195,000 a year. So if you are in the top 0.1 percent and this bill passes, you are going to get an average of a $195,000 tax break. Millionaires get 80 percent of the value of the high income tax cuts in the House bill, with the elimination of the hospital insurance tax on high earners and the Medicare tax on investment income. In fact, a family who is going to do incredibly well under this bill is the family of our President, Donald Trump. As high earners, they are going to get a huge tax cut with this bill. I have to ask: Is this bill a healthcare bill or is it basically a tax cut bill? You could look at this bill as basically being that the driver of it is who benefits from it. It is a tax cut on the wealthy, paid for by slashing Medicaid, slashing healthcare coverage, slashing Medicare's trust fund, slashing Planned Parenthood, taking protections like preexisting conditions that really matter to people and reducing them. So I have a real question about whether this bill is a healthcare bill at all or whether, under the guise of a repeal and replace of ACA, it is a tax cut for the wealthiest, financed by slashing the healthcare safety net. Let me read to my colleagues what certain Republican leaders have said about this bill in the past. The deputy leader here in the Senate--a friend--from Texas, Senator Cornyn, said to Republican Governors--Governors have a lot at stake in this. I was a Governor. I know how much Governors depend on Medicaid and healthcare programs. Here is what he said on January 19, 2017: ``Nobody is going to lose coverage.'' No exception, no qualification. ``Nobody is going to lose coverage.'' That is what he said to the Republican Governors. We were awaiting the CBO score suggesting potentially how many millions will lose coverage. Many people will lose coverage. That is not what was promised. But, more importantly, probably, what did the President say? When the President was campaigning as a candidate, this is what he promised the American people: ``I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.'' That was the test that he set for himself about an ObamaCare replacement--that no one would be worse off and that many would be better off. This does not meet that promise. It fails that promise. At a December press conference the majority leader, Senator McConnell said: ``Surely, we can do better for the American people,'' and ``we will work expeditiously to come up with a better proposal than current law.'' Again, the promise was, we will take where we are right now and we will make it better. Nobody will lose coverage; everybody will be taken care of better. We will come up with a better proposal than the current law. This is not that proposal. Turning Medicaid from a Federal guarantee to a per capita cap on spending doesn't mean everyone is covered; it means cuts to the States that would force States to cut eligibility, reduce benefits or provider payments. That is why providers, like the hospital associations and nursing homes, and the Republican Governors, like Governor Sandoval, are deeply opposed to this particular version. It is not better for the American people. Protecting people with preexisting conditions, which the current bill does, but only if they have continuous coverage--that is not better for the American people because what if you lose your job or you can't afford benefits or you have a break in coverage for two months, and then you suddenly find that you are not protected, and your preexisting condition can be used against you to bar you from insurance for the rest of your life. If you are unemployed and have a break in coverage, how do you afford a 30-percent surcharge on health insurance premiums like this plan proposes that insurance companies can sock you with? That is not better for the American people. In closing, I will repeat something that 13 Democrats put into a letter to the Republican leadership in January: We want to work together to try to make healthcare better. We are willing to sit down at a table. We have ideas for how to improve not just the Affordable Care Act but prescription drug prices under Medicare Part D, something our citizens are deeply concerned about. We need to work together on affordability. We need to work together to make sure small businesses are able to afford coverage. We have to bring prescription drug pricing down. I know Republicans have ideas about how to do that and Democrats do too. The time is now to sit down and try to figure that out. Passing a precipitous repeal, trying to rush it through before the CBO scores it--a precipitous repeal that would take health insurance away from many, that would jack costs up on seniors, that would punish so many Virginians by reducing the subsidies they get now and replacing them with a less-generous subsidy--that will break a promise the President made. That will break a promise other leaders have made. We had a HELP Committee hearing recently where we had witnesses who had been called by Democrats and Republicans before us, talking about things we need to do to fix and improve the Affordable Care Act. They all agreed we needed to find improvements and fix it--all of them. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, they all agreed we need to find improvements. They all agreed a repeal of the Affordable Care Act would be a catastrophe. There were four witnesses. I asked them this question: If we need to make improvements, what is the best way to do it? Should we do it fast, carelessly, and secretly or should we do it slowly, deliberately, and publicly transparently? They all said: Of course, there is only one answer to that question. We are talking about people's health. We should do it deliberately, carefully, and transparently, rather than fast, carelessly, and secretly. We are proceeding right now in the fast, careless, and secret mode. This particular plan comically was locked in a room and nobody was able to see it last week. One of our Senate colleagues went over and tried to get in to see what was in the plan--a Republican colleague, the Senator from Kentucky. Now that the plan is out in the light of day, I think we can see why they were hiding it--because it has so many elements that are frightening so many people. We can get this right. We can get this right by sitting down and having a discussion about what I have been talking to my constituents about: in the healthcare system right now, what works, what doesn't work, and what we should change. If we bring constituents around the table--individuals, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, businesses that are trying to buy insurance, doctors and nurses--if we get people around the table, they will break us out of the ``them versus our'' thing. We listen to them. We ask them those questions--what works, what doesn't, what can be fixed. We will find a path to meet the promise the President made, to meet the promise Senator Cornyn made, which is not make anything worse but taking the system as it is right now and making it better. We will only do that if we engage in a dialogue rather than trying to rush. That is what I encourage my colleagues to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, our Nation's continued economic competitiveness relies on the education and skills of the American workforce and its ability to meet and adapt to the 21st-century economy. Career and technical education, CTE, programs are a critical component to every student's education, creating diverse pathways into further education and developing careers. Today, approximately 11.5 million students are enrolled in CTE, encompassing every State through nearly 1,700 two-year and thousands more secondary CTE centers, comprehensive high schools career academies and CTE high schools. According to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Career, Technical and Adult Education, in 2012, the average high school graduation rate for students concentrating in CTE programs was 93 percent, compared with the national average of 80 percent. These students gain real-world skills through applied learning, and integrate their academic curriculum with technical and employability skills. In addition, our Nation's continued economic competitiveness relies on the skill of the American workforce and its ability to meet and adapt to the 21st-century economy. CTE prepares students with education and training leading to industry-recognized credentials, including certifications, licenses, certificates and degrees, in a wide variety of fields. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, of the top three fastest-growing occupations, all will require real-world skills that can be mastered through CTE-- none require a bachelor's degree and all have median salaries above $50,000 per year. By increasing opportunities for students to obtain postsecondary skills training and meaningful credentials, CTE can spread economic opportunity to all students who are willing to work for it. Today with my Senate CTE Caucus cochairs Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Young and other colleagues in the Senate, I am introducing a bipartisan resolution to designate February as Career and Technical Education, CTE, Month. CTE Month provides a chance for students, counselors, educators and administrators to learn more about the educational opportunities available in their communities and recognize the importance of CTE in preparing a well-educated and skilled workforce in the United States. This year's resolution also marks the 100th anniversary of the Smith-Hughes National Vocational Education Act of 1917, the Nation's first major federal investment in secondary CTE. By formally recognizing CTE Month through this resolution, it is our hope that we can build greater awareness for the importance of strengthening access to high-quality CTE for millions of America's students and our nation's continued economic competitiveness.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise to oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. To summarize--and then I will go into some detail--Virginians are pro-science people. The political figure we most venerate is still Thomas Jefferson, who was the preeminent scientist of his day. We are pro-science people. Second, the evidence from Mr. Pruitt's career demonstrates he is anti-science in the climate area and possibly others. Third, there is no position in the Federal Government that more relies upon accurate science and scientistic judgement than EPA Administrator. I think the President is afforded significant discretion in appointing members of the Cabinet, and I have voted to confirm a number of President Trump's nominees even if I wouldn't have nominated them myself because I think they meet the basic test of competence and integrity. But I have voted against individuals if they can't satisfy me that they meet our ethical standards or that they are qualified for the position or that they are able to do the job fairly and objectively. The ability of the EPA Administrator to do this job fairly and objectively requires an acknowledgement of the scientific reality of climate change and other science. This isn't an abstract matter for Virginia, and it is not an abstract matter for the EPA Administrator. Next only to coastal Louisiana, Virginia is the most susceptible State to sea level rise. Hampton Roads, VA, with 1.6 million people-- our second largest metropolitan area--not only is it a busy and thriving metropolitan area, but it is the center of American naval power and the largest base of naval operations in the world. It is the homeport for the U.S. Atlantic fleet. What we are seeing throughout Hampton Roads, VA, is that neighborhoods where you could sell and buy a house 15 years ago, you now can't because normal tidal action renders the homes impossible to sell. It affects businesses. By 2040, the main road into the largest naval base in the world, Norfolk, will be covered 2 to 3 hours a day just by normal tidal action, not by storm surges, which make it more significant. So now the cities of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Chesapeake, Newport News, and Hampton are all trying to figure out ways to make resiliency investments to protect against sea level rise, and the Department of Defense is having to contemplate the same kinds of investments to protect our naval operations in Hampton Roads. The EPA's mission and its entire existence revolve around science. To enforce the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, to set limits on pollutants that are stringent enough to have measurable benefits but reasonable enough to avoid negative economic impacts to the degree we can, and to pore over reams and reams of data and analysis and figure out whether a chemical in a consumer product is harmful takes science. To analyze whether fracking or some other method of extracting energy is dangerous to drinking water or not dangerous or somewhere in the middle or what the right limits should be takes science. In an earlier iteration, I was the mayor of Richmond. My city has a river in the middle of it that was so polluted--the James River--you couldn't swim in it and you couldn't fish in it. There was no bird life in it because it had been polluted over such a long time. Today, go to Richmond, VA, and you will see people canoeing and kayaking. You will see people fishing and taking the fish home to eat. You will see people swimming. It has gone from the sewer of our city to the front yard of our city, to the thing that has helped bring population back into downtown Richmond and grow our population, and it happened because of the Clean Water Act. There is always a question in regulation--too hot, too cold, or just right. But my city would not be what it is today had there not been a Clean Water Act that required us--in some ways that were painful at times--to save the river, and now it has herons, bald eagles, fish, kayakers, and canoeists, and everybody's quality of life and the economy are better too. Mr. Pruitt has been asked repeatedly about his views on climate science. Just 4 months ago, he stated: We've done a lot [in reducing carbon emissions], and that's not even addressing, guys, the fact that there's a tremendous dispute, as you know, that's going on in the marketplace about how much this global warming trend that the [Obama] administration talks about, if it's true or not. Is it truly man-made and is this simply just another period of time where the Earth is cooling, increasing in heat? I mean is it just typical natural type of occurrences as opposed to what the Administration says? That was just 4 months ago. This kind of skepticism--we don't know whether humans cause it; we don't know whether it is natural--is exactly the kind of thing we have seen in Congress before. There was a famous hearing in Congress that was sort of emblazoned on people's memories of a whole bunch of witnesses standing up and swearing to tell the truth and saying: We don't know that there is a connection between cigarette smoking and cancer. This kind of denial of the scientific consensus from an Administrator of the chief agency that needs science in this country is deeply troubling. I don't think it should be going out on a limb to declare that climate change is happening, driven largely by the burning of fossil fuels, and is a problem we have to deal with in some way. How to deal with it, how quickly to deal with it--those are tough questions, but acknowledging the science should not be tough. That acknowledgement of the science was the policy of a predecessor of mine, Virginia Senator John Warner, a Republican, who introduced one of the first climate bills in Congress with Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman in 2006. This policy that we recognize science was the policy of the George H.W. Bush administration, which negotiated the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change more than 25 years ago. It was the policy that underlay the Presidential campaign of one of our colleagues, Senator John McCain, in 2008. Acknowledging the science of climate change isn't a matter of political views; it is a matter of science and reality. We can discuss and debate what to do about it, and I think those are challenging discussions to have. That is fair game. Differences of opinion about what to do about--that is fair game. But denying an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change exists and that it is driven by human activity in the burning of fossil fuels--something ExxonMobil scientists were agreeing to in papers written in the 1980s, not 4 months ago--denying that is a denial of science. I worry. If Mr. Pruitt denies science on this matter, what other science will he deny? His record as attorney general in Oklahoma bears me out on my worry to some degree. In virtually every decision, the attorney general's office defended the interests of oil and gas, of Big Agribusiness, and basically the interests of polluters against the interests of clean air and water, which are the interests of our families and our kids. A New York Times article from 2 years ago--before Mr. Pruitt was nominated for this position--identified that when the EPA was looking at the potential impacts--potential, not guaranteed; we are trying to determine if there are impacts--of fracking on water quality and seismic instability, Attorney General Pruitt submitted comments on behalf of the State of Oklahoma that expressed skepticism that fracking was causing any problems. Well, why not do the investigation? Why not get to the bottom of it? Was the opinion that he expressed backed by science? Was it backed by a deep analysis that had been done by scientists or smart attorneys in Mr. Pruitt's office? No. In this instance, good investigative journalism determined that the comment expressing skepticism about fracking having any effect on water quality was actually written by an energy company, copied, and pasted onto official Oklahoma letterhead and submitted to the EPA as representing the views of Oklahoma public officials. Would it be appropriate for the attorney general of Oklahoma--a State that has significant oil and gas--to take into account the views of oil and gas producers on something as important as fracking? Absolutely. In fact, you would not be doing your job if you didn't take the views of those companies into account. But considering industry views is very different from taking their views and portraying them as coming from you, a holder of a public trust who is supposed to be working for everybody and not just one company or one industry. Here is one more example I will give before I conclude, because I take it personally. Virginia is one of the six States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I worked on this matter as Governor of Virginia, along with colleagues in the other States and the District of Columbia, and we worked together with the EPA on how to clean up the bay. This is a treasured resource for Virginians. It is about as bipartisan a thing as there is in Virginia. Probably next to support for veterans, support for the Chesapeake Bay would be a close second in bipartisanship. As public officials, we worked out with the EPA a strategy we thought would be conducive to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay--which is not just about enjoyment, not just about water quality, but also about traditional Virginia industries, like watermen's industry tourism, which is a big industry in our State. We worked it out to our satisfaction, but when we did, there was a lawsuit filed against this particular regulation by the Farm Bureau. The attorney general of Oklahoma--not one of the six States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed--the attorney general of Oklahoma intervened and filed a friend-of-the-court brief to try to strike down the regulation that the EPA and Virginia officials had worked on in tandem for the good of the Chesapeake Bay, for the good of our Commonwealth, for the good of our citizens. I contend: Why would an attorney general in Oklahoma care so much about a Chesapeake Bay rule that we had worked out together? I contend that he and some other attorneys general who joined in this were worried that if the EPA succeeded, then the EPA might try something in other large watersheds, including those in their States. The matter did go to the Federal appellate court. The Federal appellate court upheld the Chesapeake Bay plan. The attorneys general and others tried to take it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court wouldn't take the appeal, and so the Chesapeake Bay plan is in operation. We were all struck about why an Oklahoma attorney general would be going after something affecting the Commonwealth of Virginia, and there is a point there. The point was this. EPA scientists working in tandem with State officials had analyzed the water quality in the bay, and they had followed the State's progress, or lack thereof, over time, and they finally said, again, working in tandem with many of us: The pollution levels are so bad that we are never going to return the bay to what it can be unless we need to take action. It was that scientific consensus that Mr. Pruitt as attorney general of Oklahoma was challenging. Science is the pursuit of truth. Science is supposed to follow where the facts lead, no matter what the scientist's initial views might be. Mr. Pruitt's record does not tell me he will follow the data wherever it leads. It tells me that whenever there is a menu of options, he is going to take the option that is most beneficial to polluters rather than beneficial to public health. I will conclude with the point at which I started. There is no Federal agency that needs to have somebody who accepts science and scientific consensus more than the EPA. It matters deeply to Virginia, but I don't think Virginians are unique to this. I think it matters to the citizens of 50 States. EPA regulations are not all wise, and some need to be dialed back. I have seen the positive effects of wise EPA regulations in my city and in my State. I am going to vote no on Mr. Pruitt because I don't believe his first duty will be to follow science and enforce just laws and regulations, appropriately governing the water we drink and the air we breathe. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the National Capital Region relies on DC Metrorail. Hundreds of thousands of commuters take it every day, including the Federal workforce. Visitors use it when they come to our Nation's Capital on vacations, school trips, or events of national significance. Yet for too long, critical safety maintenance has been neglected, at the cost of countless lost hours and frustration for riders, and tragically, several fatalities. That is why I and my colleagues from Virginia and Maryland--Senators Mark Warner, Ben Cardin, and Chris Van Hollen--and our bipartisan House colleagues are today introducing this compact creating the new Metro Safety Commission. This measure is introduced in concert with the Virginia and Maryland General Assemblies and the Council of the District of Columbia, to build momentum to encourage all three jurisdictions to enact this compact as quickly as possible, to get Metro back to safe reliable operation. After fatal incidents on Metrorail in 2009 and 2015, the Federal Transit Administration took the unprecedented step of assuming direct safety oversight over the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority WMATA, stating that it would not return control until it certified that a robust safety oversight body was in place. The safety commission envisioned by this compact is that body. There are many WMATA matters on which different stakeholders have different opinions, but everyone agrees that safety must be our top priority. Upon enactment of this compact by the three jurisdictions, I urge my colleagues to take swift action to approve this measure so that daily commuters and visitors to Washington, DC, can regain confidence that Metro will take them safely to their destinations.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the 400 Years of African American History Commission Act. We are 2 years away from a key anniversary in American history. August 2019 will mark 400 years since the first documented arrival of Africans who came to English America by way of Point Comfort, VA. This historic and tragic moment, when ``20 and odd'' Africans, as it was recorded were the first recorded group of Africans to arrive involuntarily and were sold as involuntary laborers or indentured servants in the colonies. This indelible mark in American history should not pass without recognition. During my tenure as Governor of Virginia, I presided over the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, VA, by the English colonists in 1604. Two years ago I attended the 450th anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine, FL, which celebrated Hispanic heritage. Both commemorations included activities sponsored by Federal commissions, which were voted on and passed by Congress. Having commemorated the English and Spanish heritage of our founding, there is no reason it should be any different for the arrival and continuous presence of Africans and African Americans in the English settlements in 1619. There is no dispute that the beginning of African and African-American presence in what is now the United States was both heartbreaking and regrettable. Although in 1619 slavery was not yet an institution, the involuntary status of those first Africans was the impetus to slavery. Slavery as an institution broke up families, resulted in the deaths of thousands, and caused irreparable damage to our American psyche. And though we should never forget that period of stain on our history, slavery is not the only part of African-American history. I have had an opportunity to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The museum makes a tremendous effort to tell the complete story of African Americans and it is important that we remember the whole story. African Americans have contributed to the economic, academic, social, cultural and moral well- being of this Nation. Their impact and influence has shaped this nation to what it is today. So today, with my cosponsor Senator Mark Warner, I reintroduce the 400 Years of African American History Commission Act, which would establish a commission that would plan programs and activities across the country to recognize the arrival and influence of African Americans since 1619. It is my hope the establishment of a ``400th'' commission would create an opportunity to bring continued national education about the significance the arrival of African Americans has made to the United States and the contributions that have been made since 1619. Additionally, the commission would create space to discuss race relations in America and focus on dismantling the institutional systems that have adversely hindered African American progress.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the 400 Years of African American History Commission Act. We are 2 years away from a key anniversary in American history. August 2019 will mark 400 years since the first documented arrival of Africans who came to English America by way of Point Comfort, VA. This historic and tragic moment, when ``20 and odd'' Africans, as it was recorded were the first recorded group of Africans to arrive involuntarily and were sold as involuntary laborers or indentured servants in the colonies. This indelible mark in American history should not pass without recognition. During my tenure as Governor of Virginia, I presided over the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, VA, by the English colonists in 1604. Two years ago I attended the 450th anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine, FL, which celebrated Hispanic heritage. Both commemorations included activities sponsored by Federal commissions, which were voted on and passed by Congress. Having commemorated the English and Spanish heritage of our founding, there is no reason it should be any different for the arrival and continuous presence of Africans and African Americans in the English settlements in 1619. There is no dispute that the beginning of African and African-American presence in what is now the United States was both heartbreaking and regrettable. Although in 1619 slavery was not yet an institution, the involuntary status of those first Africans was the impetus to slavery. Slavery as an institution broke up families, resulted in the deaths of thousands, and caused irreparable damage to our American psyche. And though we should never forget that period of stain on our history, slavery is not the only part of African-American history. I have had an opportunity to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The museum makes a tremendous effort to tell the complete story of African Americans and it is important that we remember the whole story. African Americans have contributed to the economic, academic, social, cultural and moral well- being of this Nation. Their impact and influence has shaped this nation to what it is today. So today, with my cosponsor Senator Mark Warner, I reintroduce the 400 Years of African American History Commission Act, which would establish a commission that would plan programs and activities across the country to recognize the arrival and influence of African Americans since 1619. It is my hope the establishment of a ``400th'' commission would create an opportunity to bring continued national education about the significance the arrival of African Americans has made to the United States and the contributions that have been made since 1619. Additionally, the commission would create space to discuss race relations in America and focus on dismantling the institutional systems that have adversely hindered African American progress.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the National Capital Region relies on DC Metrorail. Hundreds of thousands of commuters take it every day, including the Federal workforce. Visitors use it when they come to our Nation's Capital on vacations, school trips, or events of national significance. Yet for too long, critical safety maintenance has been neglected, at the cost of countless lost hours and frustration for riders, and tragically, several fatalities. That is why I and my colleagues from Virginia and Maryland--Senators Mark Warner, Ben Cardin, and Chris Van Hollen--and our bipartisan House colleagues are today introducing this compact creating the new Metro Safety Commission. This measure is introduced in concert with the Virginia and Maryland General Assemblies and the Council of the District of Columbia, to build momentum to encourage all three jurisdictions to enact this compact as quickly as possible, to get Metro back to safe reliable operation. After fatal incidents on Metrorail in 2009 and 2015, the Federal Transit Administration took the unprecedented step of assuming direct safety oversight over the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority WMATA, stating that it would not return control until it certified that a robust safety oversight body was in place. The safety commission envisioned by this compact is that body. There are many WMATA matters on which different stakeholders have different opinions, but everyone agrees that safety must be our top priority. Upon enactment of this compact by the three jurisdictions, I urge my colleagues to take swift action to approve this measure so that daily commuters and visitors to Washington, DC, can regain confidence that Metro will take them safely to their destinations.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to speak on the nomination of Representative Mulvaney to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the matter currently pending before us. I will vote against the nomination because of Representative Mulvaney's opposition to bipartisan budget accords, targeting of Federal employees, and his willingness to use the full faith and credit of the United States as negotiating leverage. Background. This is a really important position and I am on the Budget Committee that oversees OMB and its opportunities. The OMB Director is a primary adviser to the President on budgetary matters. The OMB Director is in charge of preparing the annual budget submission to Congress, and the management function of the OMB is a very important one in terms of management of the Federal workforce and the work of the executives. We have seen OMB Directors in the past deeply involved in fiscal negotiations of national importance, most notably in the time I have been here on deals to address the across-the-board sequester cuts and even the shutdown of government in October of 2013. So it is very important that in this position the Director have a proven record of public service. One side or the other is fine, but there has to be a recognition of the value of bipartisan compromise, putting the country first, putting pragmatism ahead of ideology, and a commitment that is rock solid to maintaining the fiscal credibility and integrity of the country. I worry about Representative Mulvaney in each of these areas. With respect to bipartisan compromise on budget matters, I was a budget conferee in 2013 after the government shutdown. The Senate and House each had a budget. There was a refusal to sit down to do a budget conference. That led to the absence of a budget and the shutdown of the government for 16 days--the greatest government on Earth. As we came out of that, there was a recognition and an agreement that we would sit down and try to hammer out a budget compromise. People didn't give us a lot of odds that we would do it, but because of the leadership of then-Budget chairs, now the current Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and Patty Murray, the Budget chairs enabled us to reach a compromise that was for the good of the country by the end of calendar year 2013. At that point, the nominee was a Member of Congress and played a very active role in opposing the budget compromise. He voted against the deal we needed to get following the shutdown of the government, and his quote was: It seems, yet again, that Washington cannot wean itself from its spending addiction. Indeed, what we saw today is another example of how we got $17 trillion in debt: we can have lots of bipartisanship, as long as we spend more money. The unwillingness to embrace a bipartisan compromise, even after the Government of the United States shut down, troubles me significantly. I worry about his pragmatism on these matters. He has supported using government shutdown and the threat of government shutdown as a lever-- as a lever to defund Planned Parenthood, as a lever on other matters that he thinks are important, and that is fine, but to use those as a lever--to use the shutdown of the Federal Government--that government that Abraham Lincoln said was a government by, of, and for the people and it should not perish from the face of the Earth--I view that as we shouldn't shut the Federal Government of the United States down--but he has used debt ceiling and shutdown as a leverage to gain his way on points of lesser importance than whether the government stays open. He has continued to support the sequester, which I believe is bad policy for the United States: ``We want to keep the sequester in place and then take the cuts we can get.'' There is also a significant issue that matters to me in my State. I asked him about it during the hearing that demonstrates an ideology over pragmatism, which is, Does he accept the science behind climate change? Why does that matter for an OMB Director? Well, we are investing money in storm relief. We are investing money in emergency relief. We are investing money when we rewrite the flood insurance program. In Hampton Roads, Virginia, in the State where I live, 1.6 million people--the biggest center of naval power in the country--deeply affected by sea level rise. If you are a Budget Director, some of what you do is make recommendations for how to spend money on things like resilience to sea level rise, but if you do not believe that humans are affecting climate change, then your budgets are not going to show that you think that is a priority. In questions before the committee, Representative Mulvaney challenged the notion that humans are affecting climate change. Finally, I worry about his effect on the Federal workforce. There are more than 170,000 Federal employees in Virginia, a large part of my constituency. They do a great job. There is going to be some challenging employees in any entity, whether it is in the Senate or whether it is in a private entity. On balance, our Federal employees are people who deserve our thanks for the job they do. The House took an action at the beginning of January--the Senate did not take this action, but the House took an action that reinstated something called the Holman rule. The Holman rule is a longstanding, but for a long while unused, doctrine that allows the House, in an appropriations bill, to target an individual employee and reduce their salary to as low as $1 a year. They couldn't fire someone without violating civil service rules, but the House voted to be able to target individual employees and reduce their salaries to $1 a year. This, together with a Federal hiring freeze and other actions, is causing a great deal of angst among the Federal workforce. Congressman Mulvaney supported the notion of bringing back the Holman rule so individual employees could be targeted. I asked him about that when we visited in the office, and he did not have an answer that I found convincing or credible. Finally, the debt ceiling. We are going to confront within a few months the debt ceiling of the United States--our willingness to honor the obligations of the debt that has previously been incurred. The full faith and credit of the United States shall not be questioned is something that is very important. I think it is in the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Certainly, that has been our example that we have set around the world; that we have strong credit and no one can ever question whether the United States will stand behind its debts. Congressman Mulvaney has often taken the position that the United States could default on debt and then prioritize which debts it would pay. That happens in the commercial space sometimes. Sometimes it is an intentional tool and sometimes it is an accidental tool and we have bankruptcy laws to allow the prioritization of debt. The United States does not repudiate its debts, and we should not flirt with something like a debt ceiling and suggest that we are going to repudiate our debts. In closing, I am troubled by the nominee's opposition of bipartisan budget efforts. I am troubled by an ideological position that says we could potentially default on our debts or flirt with shutting down the government to achieve my way on this or that issue. For those reasons, I would oppose him. His public service in Congress is something I respect, and I respect the fact that he has been returned to the body multiple times by his voters. That should be worthy of respect as well, but in terms of being the chief budget official for the United States, I do not think he has demonstrated the ability to do that and to keep America's fiscal policy and reputation sound. For those reasons, I will oppose him. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson shared a combined 95 years of experience in the field of aeronautics and space exploration. Katherine Johnson worked as an aerospace technologist from 1953 until she retired in 1986. Dorothy Vaughan worked as a mathematician and programmer from 1943 until her retirement in 1971. Mary Jackson also worked as a computer and an engineer from 1951 until her retirement in 1985. Over the course of their careers at NASA, Johnson, Vaughan, and Jackson coauthored more than three dozen scientific papers. In her role as a ``computer,'' Katherine Johnson calculated the trajectory for Alan Shepard, the first American in space. Even after NASA began calculating trajectories with electronic computers, John Glenn personally requested that Johnson recheck those calculations before the Friendship Seven flight in which he became the first American to orbit the Earth. ``If she says they're good, then I'm ready to go,'' Glenn said during the preflight check, and once he got the word from Katherine Johnson, Friendship Seven roared off a launch pad and into American history. Katharine Jackson later would play key roles in the success of America's Apollo and space shuttle programs. Dorothy Vaughan left her job as a math teacher at Prince Edward County, Virginia's segregated Moton High School in 1943 for what she thought would be a temporary job with the agency that would later become NASA. Vaughan became NASA's first African-American manager in 1949 and the first African-American supervisor at the fledgling space agency. When NASA transitioned to electronic computing, Vaughan transitioned with it, becoming an expert FORTRAN programmer and training others within her department on the early computer programming language. Mary Jackson was first hired at NASA by Dorothy Vaughan, and after 2 years in the segregated computing pool, she was provided an opportunity to work with internationally recognized engineers in Langley's wind tunnels. That exposure led to her interest in engineering, and she successfully petitioned Hampton City Council for permission to enroll in graduate level coursework offered only at night and only at the then-segregated Hampton High School. Not only did she successfully complete the coursework, Mary Jackson became NASA's first Black female engineer in 1958. Twenty years later, she would cap her career by working to further improve hiring and promotion opportunities for women across the entire space agency.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. I will suspend and return following the swearing in.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise to speak about the nomination of Congressman Price as HHS Secretary. I will oppose his nomination, principally because he has been an opponent of virtually every program that provides health care access to people with modest means in this country: Medicare, Medicaid, the S-CHIP program--which he called socialism--Planned Parenthood, which is the primary health care provider of choice for millions of women, and the Affordable Care Act. There is much to talk about, but I am going to focus my comments today on his repeated promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act would be very unwise. It would be heartless, and it would be economically foolish. The Virginia stats are instructive. In Virginia, 179,000 Virginians have been able to enroll in Medicaid since the ACA was passed--an additional 179,000--and nearly 380,000 Virginians have been able to get coverage through the marketplace. We have not done the Medicaid expansion program. If we did, another 400,000 could receive care through the ACA. Nearly 4 million Virginians have protection against discrimination on the grounds of preexisting health conditions. They have such conditions, and they could be turned away from insurance companies, as they have been in the past, as my own family has been. Before the ACA, only those with employer coverage got tax benefits to help pay for health insurance. Now, 320,000 moderate- and low-income Virginians get tax credits averaging $275 a month to help. In addition, there are nearly 5 million Virginians with employer-sponsored insurance, and over 800,000 Virginians would lose access to free preventive care under Medicare if the ACA were to be repealed. Nationally, a repeal of the ACA--under an estimate of the Urban Institute--would cause 30 million people to lose their health insurance. That is the combined population of 19 States. We had a hearing last week in the Senate HELP Committee about the Affordable Care Act. It was called, by the majority, ``ObamaCare Emergency.'' I asked the witnesses, Democratic, Republican, and of no political identification--I asked them: Would a repeal of the Affordable Care Act with no replacement be an emergency? All of the witnesses agreed that it would. One of the witnesses said it is more than an emergency, it would be a catastrophe. So then I asked those witnesses--again, bipartisan witnesses: OK. We shouldn't repeal it. That means we should fix it or repair it or reform it or improve it. Should we do a fix or improvement hastily, carelessly, and secretly or should we do it openly, publicly, carefully, and deliberately? They all said: Of course, we should not rush. We should get this right. That is why many colleagues on our side have asked Republicans to sit down with us and let's make improvements, but don't push people off of health insurance. It would also lead to a significant economic catastrophe for hospitals, for providers, to have a repeal and not know what comes next. Remember that health care is one-sixth of the American economy. If you inject uncertainty into that, you have consequences that we could not now predict that would be negative. The real story is not any of these statistics, and I will pick up on what my friend, the Senator from Arkansas, said. The real story is about individuals, patients, and what happens. Three weeks ago, I put on my Web site a little section, kaine.senate.gov/acastory. I asked people to submit what it would mean to have a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. To date, I have had 1,654 submissions of what it would mean to them. We have been able to follow up on some of them and get permission from some so I could read their stories on the floor. So during the remainder of my speech, I am just going to tell you what a repeal of the ACA would mean to people all over my Commonwealth. Michael Dunkley lives in Alexandria VA. I was diagnosed with advanced Stage 4 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer in October of 2013 and was put immediately on an extremely powerful 5-component chemotherapy treatment program that would conclude in late January, 2014. My medical insurance coverage at the time of my diagnosis was under the terms of COBRA, and my monthly premium was $875, with a $7,500 deductible and a $15,000 out-of-pocket limit. My COBRA coverage expired at midnight on December 31, 2013, and was immediately [able to be] replaced [because of a] plan that I had been issued through the provisions of the . . . Affordable Care Act. Because of the new law, I could not be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition (advanced cancer), and I was issued a new plan that was far superior in coverage and cost me only $575 a month, with zero deductible and an $1,850 out-of-pocket limit. 3 days after receiving my new health insurance coverage, I was infused with my 5th- round of chemotherapy, for which I was charged $35,000. Near the end of January, 2014, I received a 6th-dose of chemotherapy and was billed another $35,000. . . . I was given a PET-CT nuclear scan that cost $5,000, and 1 week after that, on February 14, 2014, my wife and I were told by my oncologist that my advanced cancer [was now in] complete remission. As I am the sole caregiver for my wife, who has advanced Multiple Sclerosis, the news of the cancer's remission was a life-saver for her as well as myself. Had it not been for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I would not have been able to purchase [my] health- care insurance, for any price, due to my pre-existing condition of having cancer. Had it not been for the income subsidy, I would have not been able to afford to pay the premium for a superior plan, a plan which saved my life. Thank you, President Obama, and thanks to every member of Congress that voted in favor of the lifesaving Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Patricia Mills, Virginia Beach. My daughter, who has Lupus, and her husband, who has juvenile diabetes have been struggling for the last six years to keep their conditions under control. They have a gifted seventeen year old daughter who has been in the IB academy in Virginia Beach, and have had to sell their home to pay off debts due to complications from their illnesses. My husband and myself have made our home their home, but their struggles have continued because of the enormity of their medical expenses. Since they have been able to enter the Affordable Care Act for their insurance, they have been able to stabilize their lives financially. If the Affordable Care Act is repealed, I don't know what will happen to them. Insulin is extremely expensive and so are the supplies to inject and check blood sugar to keep my son in law alive. There is NO option for a diabetic to turn to to get life saving insulin a diabetic individual needs who works hard every day, but falls above the Medicare threshold. We are living in terror at the thought of a repeal. Justine Jackson, Radford: As I type this, I am currently sitting in the office of the Community Health Center of the New River Valley. I am 25 years old and the last doctor I had seen until today was my pediatrician. Like many struggling Americans, I cannot afford insurance and rely on low income/free clinics to receive preventive care. The ACA helped programs like the one at the Community Health Center [clinic] with funding. We cannot afford to lose clinics like this one with cuts to funding public health. Americans should not be denied health care. We should not have to file for bankruptcy for becoming sick or avoiding a doctor all together because it costs too much. The Affordable Care Act should be revised, not repealed. If Congress repeals the ACA, 20 million Americans risk losing insurance. That's 20 million Americans that may stop going to doctors because they can't afford it. I plead to Congress to care about your fellow Americans and give us health coverage that is affordable or, better yet free. Seeing the doctor should not revolve around a choice between going hungry or not. Gabriella Falco, Alexandria, VA: Senator Kaine, my name is Gabriella, I'm a 26-year old full-time student studying what she loves. I work part-time in my field of study and make some money to live on, but my school expenses are all covered by student loans. When I was 22, fresh out of college and unemployed, I was diagnosed with hyperparathyroidism and many severe kidney stones. To prevent kidney failure or worse, I required multiple surgeries, all of which were covered by my parents' insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Ever since, I have had twice yearly check-ups and ultrasounds, as well as some scares with my kidneys. There is no explanation for my medical history. All the doctors can do is monitor and treat it when troubles arise. When I turned 26, I chose my own healthcare plan through the ACA. As I am a student, I have no way of working full time for benefits. The ACA has allowed me to live and safely and affordably monitor and treat my kidneys while finishing my master's degree. Were it not for the ACA, I fear my health would become a choice between death or bankruptcy. I don't know what I'll do if I lose my health care. I could not afford it without the ACA. I will fight for you, Senator Kaine, and please fight for me and my health in Washington. Corwin Hammond, Williamsburg, VA: Senator Kaine, Before the ACA, my wife and I did not have nor could we afford medical insurance. My wife is a business owner and I'm a pastor of a small church in Toano, Virginia. I left my . . . state job that provided full benefits, because the ministry needs in my community were so great. I am grateful for this legislation that has allowed us to have peace of mind in knowing that we are covered and able to visit the doctor without going bankrupt. Why not just fix the components that need repairing; instead of throwing millions of hard-working Americans to the wolves. We deserve better. How about the congress and senate repealing their health care and leaving ours alone? Thank You, Corwin Hammond. Sarah Mullins-Spears, Prospect, VA: Senator Kaine, I have one perfectly imperfect child. He has not one but two ``pre-existing'' conditions. . . . He was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome . . . and he was also born with a unicameral bone cyst, a hollow bone. . . . That affects one in four children. This year we were able to purchase our lifelong dream. . . . A family farm. . . . 18 PERFECT acres of peace and promise. This summer we endured a medical ordeal we could have NEVER imagined. . . . My son broke his arm, due to the cyst, for the 4th time in less than 3 years. . . . And we were finally approved for surgery to place a titanium rod through the cyst that would prevent any further breaks. On July 26th the surgery was successfully completed and the next day we were released with instructions on pain management and to not remove the surgical bandages for 3 days. On July 30th we removed the bandages to find a hot, swollen, bright red nightmare. We were readmitted to the hospital. . . . I wasn't truly afraid until I saw the face of the same nurse that discharged us that night. . . . she was fighting back tears. . . . Over the next 3 days there were 2 additional surgeries including a PICC line, and after 6 days we were released to home health care. . . . Suddenly I was a health care provider, every 8 hours a dose of antibiotics had to be attached to the PICC line, it took approximately 90 minutes to administer, and then the line had to be cleaned and prepped. There was NEVER a 6 hour window that I could be away from my child. . . . Which meant I was not able to work the 6 hour schedule at my part time job. Which means after the second week I was let go, told I could reapply when I was ready to come back to work. . . . On August 26th my son slept for almost 20 straight hours and then woke up vomiting and with a fever. . . . So by lunch we were readmitted to the hospital again. . . . The next day while in the hospital he broke out in a mystery rash from head to toe, and had a white blood cell count of a chemo patient. For me this was the worst, because no one, not even the consult from UVA infectious diseases, knew why. After 3 days, with the WBC count trending up and more research, the leap of faith was decided to end all antibiotics and see if they were the cause for the reactions. They were and by October my child was declared healed and eligible to start school. . . . Almost 5 weeks after he should have started his first day of middle school. . . . By then the bills had also begun to arrive . . . Daily. The first bill from the hospital was $105,547.12 before insurance and over $12,000 with benefits. We are still receiving bills and our pre insurance totals are well over $750,000 before insurance. . . . BUT because of ACA we were capped at $7,500 out of pocket. This means $231 a month for 24 months which has an impact on our family but it also means we can still afford our mortgage. I wake up every morning thankful for my healthy child and amazed that we live on this tiny piece of heaven. ACA made that possible for us. I have kept all bills, x rays, and documents related to our journey. Sasha Baskin, Richmond: When I was seventeen I discovered I had a rare and highly aggressive tumor in my jaw. It took three experimental surgeries to remove and replace the tumor with a metal implant and bone graft. I was fortunate enough to be dependent on my parents' insurance when this medical event first took place. With the Affordable Care Act I have been able to stay on my parents' insurance into college and graduate school and maintain my health status through regular doctors' visits. I require a yearly check-up to make sure that the medical implant is intact and that the bone graft is growing successfully. Within the next 5-10 years I will need another surgery to replace the metal implant with new technology. If the implant breaks or I have any kind of accident that injures my jaw I will require emergency surgery and most likely to have my jaw wired shut. I will turn 26 in October and no longer be eligible to be on my parents' insurance. Thanks to the affordable care act I can rely on being able to maintain affordable insurance and feel comfortable about my health. I can trust that I will not be turned away due to my pre-existing condition of a metal jaw and history of aggressive tumors. I can be sure that I will not reach a lifetime limit of coverage when I need another surgery, (or if the worst happens and I need to have emergency surgery). When the doctors first found this tumor when I was seventeen, they told me not to go to college because I needed so many surgeries. I was planning to attend art school in Maryland, my parents lived in Connecticut and my doctors were in Boston. I was determined not to let a medical problem control my life. I went to and graduated from college in Maryland and am now enrolled in graduate school pursuing masters of fine arts in Richmond Virginia. I rely on the affordable care act for safe and reliable access to doctors all over the country. I have been able to live my life independently because of the freedoms and access to healthcare it has provided. I am a recent Virginia citizen, but I love it here. I am proud of my representation and I hope that my story will help you work towards saving health care in our country.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for allowing me to retake the floor to speak about the nomination of Congressman Price to be HHS Secretary, and to read stories from Virginians who are afraid about repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Mark Priest, Alexandria, VA: I am a self-employed entrepreneur and consultant. Since I work for myself I do not have access to a special pool from an employer that would make health insurance more affordable. Starting in 2014 I was insured through the ACA and I was able to find an affordable policy to cover myself. I think that there is a mistaken notion that if you are employed, you automatically have access to affordable health insurance. The ACA isn't just for the unemployed. I work hard and I am a small business owner. The ACA makes it possible for me to afford health care. Constance Burch, Fort Valley, VA: I am a 53 year old single female who is self employed as a Voice and Piano teacher. I have always prided myself on being able to care for myself and provide the basic necessities. Before the ACA I had to pay over $450 a month for health care on a net income of $19,000. This meant some months having to use credit cards for other necessities such as food and gasoline to get to my lessons. Thanks to President Obama, that all changed and based on my income, my fee was reduced to $33 a month. I literally cried for joy that someone finally did something to help those of us who work hard and deserve the same quality health care that the more fortunate are able to have. It is fair and quite honestly it was the first time in my life that I truly felt that the government actually did something to help me personally and those in the same position. Deb Fuller, Alexandria, VA: I rely on the ACA for my health insurance because otherwise, I would not be able to get it. My job, writing K12 textbooks and other educational material, has largely been outsourced, and full-time permanent positions with benefits are nearly nonexistent these days. The majority of the work is as a ``flexible workforce'', which is the fancy term for a freelancer or contract employee. Having the ACA means I can continue working these contracts instead of trying to figure out how to completely change professions because I need a job that provides health insurance. Before the ACA, my saint of a doctor went back and forth with health insurance companies trying to convince them that I wouldn't cost them too much money in the long run. They literally looked for anything to deny me coverage. One rejection letter mentioned cold sores in the litany of reasons why I was completely uninsurable. Ninety percent of the population has cold sores. Now, insurance companies make back their money on me because I pay them vastly more than they cover because I don't get sick that often or visit the doctor that often outside of routine checkups. I also have peace of mind that if I am out on horseback riding or hiking on a trail, I won't be put in the poor house because I landed in a heap and had to go to the

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to resume my remarks following the swearing in. I also offer my congratulations to my new colleague. Ann Odenhal, Richmond, VA: On New Year's Eve, 2013, we were informed that our youngest son, Patrick, 18 years old, had Type 1 Diabetes (T1D), an incurable disease that comes with a lifetime of insulin dependence, injecting oneself six to eight times a day. The cause is unknown, it is not a lifestyle disease and there is no escaping it once diagnosed. The beta cells on our son's pancreas just stopped working. T1D is extremely dangerous and when not managed can cause blindness, kidney failure, limb loss, other issues and death. We were knocked off our feet, numb, confused and overwhelmed by the danger and the medical requirements to stay within an acceptable insulin range. People with the disease must balance insulin doses with eating and other activities throughout the day and night. They must also measure their blood-glucose level by pricking their fingers for blood six or more times a day. Our son still can have dangerous high or low blood-glucose levels, both of which can be life threatening. He will die without insulin; he could die from too much insulin. In the midst of our fog of sadness and confusion, we remembered the ACA. ``At least the ACA will be there when Patrick is on his own. He will be able to get health insurance regardless of his prior condition,'' was our mantra. One day, Patrick came home and announced, ``Great news! The ACA allows me to stay on your health insurance until I'm 26!'' I changed my retirement schedule. I can do that. I have watched and worried as insulin prices soar. Pat takes two types of insulin, a single carton of which costs between $400 and $500 retail. I run the math in my head and I worry some more about lack of insurance. We are covered by my employer's insurance, which pays for most of the drugs, equipment and the additional health care he needs, but what would happen if we found ourselves without insurance? What if I lose my job? Public service runs deep in our family. My husband is a retired teacher and our older son is a policeman. It appears Pat may be moving toward nonprofit or public service work as well. Will he have health insurance? Will he have it without the ACA? I can promise anyone reading this that you know someone whose life has been or will be positively impacted by the ACA. There are 20 million people like our son, Patrick. Don't allow a repeal of the ACA. Fix the problems, work the issues, but don't play politics with our son's life. Linda Crist, Lynchburg, VA: I had employer provided health care for 38 years. In 2013 I lost my eyesight to macular degeneration and could no longer work. An insurance company covered me for $695 a month (just me). With the lost income, I could no longer afford insurance. I contacted them and was told there was a new plan I could apply for. I applied and was denied due to a ``pre- existing condition.'' You see, in 1984-- Decades before-- I was diagnosed with kidney disease. I was treated and, according to my physician, cured. The insurance company didn't care. I applied for insurance under ACA and got a silver plan that cost me $345 a month. I was given a tax credit of $500 monthly and I chose to only use a portion of it. The ACA saved me while I was waiting for Medicare to kick in after receiving Disability. I am sure my premium would have gone up with the ACA but it saved me when I needed it.'' John Carl Setzer, Winchester, VA: My son was born in 2009 with a severe congenital heart defect, called Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome (HLHS). Basically, he was born with half a heart and required three open-heart surgeries. All of his treatment is considered palliative. In 2009, he had the first two heart surgeries, in addition to another on his diaphragm. He was hospitalized for many weeks. He had insurance under my employer-based coverage. Clearly he had a pre- existing condition. But the other issue is that he almost maxed out his insurance coverage in the first year of life. My understanding is that the ACA eliminated the lifetime caps on insurance coverage, and my wife and I blew a major sigh of relief. Otherwise, we would have had to switch his coverage from my insurance to hers. However, he required another surgery a couple years later and will at some point likely require a heart transplant. Thus, the insurance games would have continued. The ACA eliminated that burden on us, at least until he is an adult. The lifetime cap is not something I hear debated much these days, but it is something to consider for people that have major health complications. Please consider this in future legislation, in addition to coverage for pre-existing conditions. I will read one more story and then cede to my colleague. I have so many more that I want to read, and this is just 1 or 2 percent of the 1,654 stories that my office has received in 3 weeks. Jennifer Smouse, Midlothian: In 2008, my husband started his own construction company after the national home building company he worked for pulled out of Richmond. It was our first time being self-employed and along with adjusting to the idea of not receiving a paychecks on the 15th and 30th of each month, we needed to secure our own healthcare coverage for our family of 5. We submitted our applications for insurance, and were notified a short time later that we would not be offered coverage for our oldest child. He is on the autism spectrum and they were denying him coverage based on his Autism diagnosis. We were shocked--our son was high functioning and was not in need of any special medical services. . . . And he still received this denial. With the passage of the ACA, we no longer had to worry about being denied coverage due to a medical diagnosis. The system is not without its flaws. Our premiums were extremely high in addition to the high deductible, and it was a stretch to afford the plans even with the credits available to us. But at least we felt on even ground. That in addition to parenting a child on the autism spectrum, we didn't also have the challenge of securing healthcare coverage for him. I have other stories. I may resume my seat, but I will now cede time to my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson.