Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to my longtime staff member and friend, Bill Sweeney, who will be moving on to a new challenge in his career after nearly 20 years of service on my team. Bill actually started working on the campaign November 1, 1999, and we were sharing stories of his being up in a crowded little space changing my ``Stabenow for U.S. Congress'' signs to ``Stabenow for U.S. Senate'' signs with little stickers that we used because we didn't have very much money at the time. Bill has been with me a long, long time, and after so many years, it is tough to know what to say because there is so much to say. Bill Sweeney has worn more hats on my team than anyone ever has. He started working on my campaign, as I mentioned, for the U.S. Senate as a fundraiser. After the campaign, I hired him as my systems administrator, and he played an integral role in setting up my new Senate office. By the way, we are still today using the systems he set up, and I truly believe they are the best the Senate has. After a short time, I promoted him to director of information technology. Then, Bill's gift for messaging and writing led to more promotions as my director of outreach, speechwriter, and then senior communications adviser. Eventually, he took on a broader role on my team as deputy chief of staff, chief of staff, and his position now as staff director of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. But these are just Bill's official titles. He has been a key strategist, writer, crisis manager, event planner, grammarian, computer programmer, and graphic designer. From directing key communications initiatives to designing floor charts, no job has been too big or too small for Bill, and I will be forever grateful. He has drafted and edited countless speeches, columns, releases, constituent letters, statements, and talking points over the years. Born and raised in Michigan, he has always been able to capture the values and the heart of Michigan in his writings. His attention to detail is impeccable. He is an expert on proofreading and has impressively planned and organized our annual caucus retreats and has provided us with extraordinary experiences and speakers. Bill is also one of the most creative people I know, from designing logos to inventing the Velcro ``countdown'' floor chart, like the one you see here, which shows how many days Bill has worked for me in the U.S. Senate. It is actually very cool. I have to show you: They come off. That is pretty inventive. Whenever you see these on the floor of the U.S. Senate, you can think of Bill Sweeney. So we had to make sure Bill had his own chart before leaving. He is someone who has always been able to make something look good and function well at the same time. He has a passion for organization. He designed many of the systems that my office relies on to run efficiently today. As I said earlier, we literally are using integrated systems that Bill has designed over the years. Bill is also one of the smartest people I know. I will miss his sharp wit and his sense of humor. With all of the hats Bill has worn, he is leaving very big shoes to fill. I will always be incredibly grateful for his loyalty, his work ethic, his friendship, and his passion for service. Bill will be joining the team at AARP and continuing to work on so many issues we have championed together over the years. I wish him incredible success and happiness in his new chapter in his career. I apologize, but I am so happy he is moving on to a big challenge and yet so sorry to lose him. Thank you, Bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to once again talk about the truly obscene cost of prescription drugs and the No. 1 thing we can do to lower prices. It is spelled out right here: Let Medicare negotiate. It is very simple. Let Medicare negotiate to bring down the cost of prescription drugs. Prescription drug costs are a huge issue for people, frankly, of all ages who need medication in my State. Whether I am talking to farmers in Western Michigan, retirees in the Upper Peninsula, working families in Wayne County or Macomb County, families are feeling the effects. When you look at the numbers between 2008 and 2016, prices on the most popular brand-name drugs went up over 208 percent. Just ask those farmers in West Michigan and those working families in Macomb; their income did not rise 208 percent. Perhaps nobody has been hurt more than our seniors who tend to take more medications and live on fixed incomes. In 2017 alone, the average price of brand-name drugs that seniors often take rose four times faster than the rate of inflation. In 1 year, it rose faster than the rate of inflation. Again, I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of the seniors in my State did not see their incomes go up four times faster than the rate of inflation. I can tell you that seniors in the Upper Peninsula didn't see their pensions or Social Security checks increase that much. What do families do? What do seniors do? We all know the stories. Some people are forced to cut back on other things like food and paying their bills. Some folks cut their heart pills in half or take their arthritis medication every other day instead of every day--which, by the way, is not OK to do. Some families stop filling their prescriptions altogether simply because they can't afford it. This is wrong. I have always believed healthcare is a basic human right, and that includes prescription medications. How do we lower the cost of prescriptions so families can afford the medications they need to get healthy and to stay healthy? The No. 1 way to do that is to let Medicare negotiate. It is very straightforward: Let Medicare negotiate. The VA is allowed to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, and the VA saves 40 percent compared to Medicare. In fact, if Medicare paid the same price as the VA, it could have saved $14.4 billion on just 50 drugs if it paid the same prices as the VA. It could have $14.4 billion in savings if Medicare could negotiate for seniors the way the VA is able to negotiate for veterans. So what is stopping us? Republicans in Congress and pharma lobbyists are standing in the way of getting this done. In 2018, there were 1,451 lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and health product industry. That is almost 15 lobbyists for every 1 Member of the Senate. Their job is to stop competition and keep prices high, and they are doing a very good job. Back in 2003, when Medicare Part D was signed into law, they blocked Medicare from harnessing the bargaining power of 43 million American seniors. Those 43 million American seniors together could see negotiating power, but it was blocked by language that was put into Medicare Part D. Let me just say that again. It is very simple. Take that language out and let Medicare negotiate. Sixteen years later, pharmaceutical companies are still boosting their bottom lines on the backs of our seniors. As if putting that language in Medicare Part D wasn't enough, we constantly see efforts to look for an advantage to block competition, to do something to protect prices, to keep prices high, and they are at it again. The name-brand industry that is a huge supporter of the new trade agreement, NAFTA 2.0--some say NAFTA 1.5, some people call it the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement--but this deal with Canada and America that has been put together and negotiated by the administration has something in it to protect the pricing for Big Pharma. The provisions could stop competitors from getting cheaper generic versions of biologic drugs on the market sooner. If you stop the competition, you stop the ability for generic, no-brand names. They are the same drug most of the time but just without a brand name on it. If you stop that competition, even though that competition brings down prices, you can keep prices and profits high. Biologics are some of the most expensive drugs out there. For example, Humira, the world's top-selling prescription drug, treats conditions including Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis, and it can cost up to $50,000 a year for one prescription drug. How many people do you know who can afford to pay $50,000 a year for their medication for just one drug? At least three companies have developed generic versions of the drug, but they will not be available in the United States until at least 2023. We have at least three companies with a lower cost generic version that could bring down prices. They will not be available in the United States until at least 2023. Humira isn't a new drug. It has been around since 2002. When we had a hearing in the Finance Committee--and I want to commend our chairman for doing that and bringing in the top drug company CEOs-- the CEO that puts Humira into the marketplace indicated they have over 130 different patents that protect them from competition. Here we are, in the middle of a trade agreement, where they are wanting to put language in concerning the length of patents in order to protect their position. By the way, shortly after the President signed the USMCA at the end of last year, the drug companies decided to begin 2019 with price increases on more than 250 prescription drugs, including Humira. So they feel more confident their position is protected; there is not going to be competition. So what happens? They raise the prices again. Pharmaceutical companies like to argue that they need special giveaways--like they got in Medicare Part D and that they are trying to get in the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement--because they invest so much in research and development. However, it is also true that when given the opportunity to invest in research and development, many companies chose, instead, to put more money in the pockets of CEOs and shareholders rather than using the big tax cut they received to put more into research and development. I am a huge supporter of research and development. Most of the primary, basic research is done by all of us as taxpayers. In fact, last year, the 500 biggest U.S. companies spent $608 billion on research and development, which is great. That might sound like a lot, but they spent $806 billion buying back their own stock to keep the prices up on the stock. That also makes you wonder why pharmaceutical companies didn't use their tax giveaway to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. The pricing of prescription drugs in this country is the ultimate example of a rigged system. It is time to come together and unrig it. That is what we should be doing. Our job is to unrig the system. First, we need to allow Medicare to harness the bargaining power of 43 million American seniors. One recent poll found that 92 percent of voters support allowing Medicare to negotiate. Let Medicare negotiate. That is 92 percent of voters who believe in this. Second, we need to prevent the pharmaceutical companies from receiving additional sweet deals that keep drug costs high. I think it is about time we make a deal that benefits Michigan farmers and businesses and seniors and working families. That should be our focus. We should not be in a situation where, time after time, there is special treatment, protective language that bars the pharmaceutical industry from negotiating under Medicare or that allows them to protect their patents longer so they don't have competition from generic drugs to bring down prices. Let's unrig this system and address the highest driver, the biggest driver in raising the costs of healthcare in this country, which is the cost of prescription drugs. We can do something about that, and we need to do it soon. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to talk about something I have talked about many times on the floor and to reiterate over and over again that healthcare isn't political; it is personal. It is personal for people in Michigan. It is personal for every person, every child, and every family all across our country. It affects each of us, regardless of our political affiliation or the State we live in or what kind of car we drive. Hopefully, you are driving a car made in Michigan. At some point, just about all of us will need to take at least one prescription medication in our lifetime. The question is, Will we be able to afford it? Brian Hose knows this struggle very well. He owns Sharpsburg Pharmacy, an independent drugstore in Sharpsburg, MD. He joined me and some of my Democratic colleagues at a press conference last week on the rising cost of prescription drugs. As a pharmacist, Dr. Hose works hard every day to make sure the customers he has have access to the medications they need to stay healthy and, in many cases, to stay alive. However, that task keeps getting harder and harder. Between 2008 and 2016, prices on the most popular brand-name drugs rose 208 percent--208 percent during that timeframe. Dr. Hose's customers didn't see their incomes rise 208 percent during that same time. Certainly people in Michigan didn't see their incomes rise 208 percent during that same timeframe. According to AARP, the average price of brand-name drugs that seniors often take rose at four times the rate of inflation in just 1 year-- four times the rate of inflation in 2017 alone. That is unsustainable for people. Dr. Hose's most vulnerable customers are seniors, of course, especially those who live on Social Security. As the price of medications keeps going up and up, Dr. Hose's customers find it harder and harder to pay for the medications they need. Dr. Hose said this: ``In no way is the current system looking out for the best interests of the patient, who ultimately needs to buy their medications to stay alive.'' Just ask anyone who takes insulin. Insulin is not a new drug. In fact, it has been around since 1922--almost 100 years--when Canadian scientists treated the first diabetic patient. Those scientists sold the patent to the University of Toronto for three Canadian dollars. They said they didn't believe they should make money off of something that was so important to people's lives. Imagine. They knew how important their discovery was and how many lives would be saved. But somewhere between 1922 and 2019, insulin has become less about saving lives and more about making money. In fact, over the past 15 years, insulin prices have tripled, putting people's health and lives at risk. Last summer, I met Nicole Smith-Holt, who lives in Richfield, MN. She came to Washington, DC, to testify during a hearing on prescription drug prices. Her son, Alec, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was 24 years old. Alec worked hard to keep his diabetes under control, but one thing he couldn't control was the rising cost of his insulin. When Alec turned 26, he was no longer qualified to be under his parents' insurance plan, as we have under the Affordable Care Act. About 20 days later, he went to the pharmacy to buy his monthly supply of insulin. The bill for his insulin and supplies came to $1,300. It was a week from payday, and he didn't have $1,300, so he started rationing his insulin. Alec never made it to payday. Nicole said: I received a call that no parent ever wants to receive or expects to receive. I was told that my son was found dead in his apartment, on his bedroom floor all alone. She added: We lost an amazing young man. He had so many hopes and dreams. He left behind a 5-year-old daughter who now has to grow up without her father. His little brother lost his idol, his sisters lost a best friend, and my husband and myself lost our child. Affordable medication is a life-and-death issue for millions of Americans like Alec. Unfortunately, we have a pharmaceutical industry that is more interested in profits right now than in people. In 2018, there were 1,451 registered lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and health product industry. That is almost 15 lobbyists for every Senator. Their job is to stop competition and keep prices high, and they are doing a very good job. It is the ultimate example of a rigged system. It has to change. The No. 1 way we can bring down costs is to let Medicare negotiate the best price. From the beginning, Medicare Part D has been prohibited from harnessing the bargaining power of 43 million American seniors to bring down costs, which is absurd. That didn't make sense back in 2003, when it was passed as part of Medicare Part D's protectionist language, and it doesn't make sense today. We know how negotiation can work. We know how negotiation can work because it works for the VA, which saved 40 percent compared to Medicare. We have the VA system for veterans, and we have Medicare for seniors and people with disabilities. The VA negotiates. Medicare is stopped by law from negotiating best price--which, by the way, keeps us with the highest prices in the world. In fact, according to a recent AARP analysis, Medicare could have saved $14.4 billion on just 50 drugs in 2016 if that program had paid the same prices as the VA--$14.4 billion. By the way, cut that down, that is hundreds of dollars-- thousands of dollars out of the pockets of seniors and people with disabilities and, more broadly, people across the country in every family. A recent poll found that 92 percent of Americans support allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. I would love 92 percent agreement on anything. We should be able to act quickly on something that 92 percent of the American public thinks we ought to do. So what is stopping us? The pharmaceutical lobby and my Republican colleagues in Congress. It is time to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who want to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies. It is just plain common sense. Negotiating a bulk price is not radical; it is actually something that is done in industry after industry after industry. Dr. Hose said: Seniors in Medicare Part D are one of the largest purchasers of medication in the world. Yet they are unable to leverage their buying power to decrease their costs. It makes no sense. It makes no sense. It is past time that this should be changed. But we certainly, as we are talking about ways to lower prices right now--and I commend the chairman and ranking member of Finance for working on this issue and the chairman for bringing the top drug company CEOs and the pharmacy benefit managers into committee. I commend him for that. But this is the moment we need to be totally focused and totally serious about bringing down prices in the most effective way. If we want to do it right, we need to allow Medicare to negotiate on behalf of the American people and put people first. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I was looking to my colleagues because I think we all understand and are trying to accommodate each other's schedules and have the opportunity to speak on the floor. So I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words. I first thank Senator Casey for organizing this very important discussion on the floor, and Senator Cardin and Senator Wyden for their passion, and I want to join them in speaking out about protecting Medicaid. We are talking about people, the majority in nursing homes. We have three out of five seniors in Michigan who have nursing home care and get that through Medicaid, which is critically important, as well as children and families. So I want to lend my support to them, and then I wish to expand the talk about another very important piece of healthcare and how we bring down costs for people. I have always believed that healthcare is a basic human right and everyone should be able to afford the medicines they need. We have seniors in nursing homes that are there. We talked about Medicaid. In fact, they are more likely than not going to be involved in needing prescription drugs, some kind of medicines, and I am deeply concerned that people are not able to get their medications at a price they can afford to get what they need. Unfortunately, that is certainly happening in Michigan right now. As we know, over the past decade or so, the costs of medications have really skyrocketed. It is actually shocking to see the numbers going up. Between 2008 and 2016, prices on the most popular brand-name drugs have gone up over 208 percent. I know that in Michigan most people's salaries haven't gone up 208 percent. And if someone is living on a pension or Social Security, that certainly hasn't gone up 208 percent. So these are huge increases. And according to AARP, the average price of brand-name drugs that seniors often take rose at four times the rate of inflation just in 2017--four times the rate of inflation. So even if you are getting a small little increase, an inflationary increase in your salary or in a pension, your medicines could have gone up four times higher. I hear from seniors all over Michigan about what a struggle this is. I know we all hear this. Some people are forced to cut back on other necessities, like groceries or paying their bills. Others cut their pills in half or skip doses. You know, this has gone on and on for too long. Some folks stop filling their prescriptions altogether, risking their health. Suzanne lives in Howell, MI. She takes several medications, including insulin, and she shared her story with me. Unfortunately, for Suzanne, the price for insulin has gone from $21 a month to $278 a month to $410 a month--the same medicine. The same medicine was $21 a month and now is up to $410 a month. Suzanne isn't alone. In fact, insulin prices overall have tripled in the past 15 years, and let me just add that insulin was discovered over 100 years ago by two Canadian doctors who felt they should not be reimbursed for their patent because this discovery was so important for changing people's lives and the quality of their lives. They actually gave the patent to the University of Toronto for three Canadian dollars over 100 years ago, and yet we are now seeing the price triple just in the past 15 years. This places a real burden on people with diabetes and their families. Suzanne said this: I don't even take the amount that I'm supposed to take. . . . We can't put money into our retirement. My husband has to work past [retirement age] because we can't afford to live. She added: This is a life or death drug. I have to have this drug to live. Suzanne doesn't take insulin because she wants to. She takes insulin because she will die without it. Nobody should be forced to risk their health or their life by cutting back on the medications they need to survive. Unfortunately, the pricing of prescription drugs in this country is the ultimate example of a rigged system. In 2018, there were 1,451 lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and health product industry. That is almost 15 lobbyists for every Member of the Senate. Their job is to stop competition and keep prices high. Our job is to unrig that system and bring prices down. The No. 1 way we can bring prices down is to let Medicare negotiate. Currently, Medicare is prohibited, as we know, from harnessing the bargaining power of 43 million seniors in America to bring down prescription drug costs. Why aren't we harnessing the market price through negotiation? That doesn't make any sense. When Medicare part D became law in 2003, that language was put in there to stop negotiation. It didn't make sense in 2003, and it doesn't make sense today. We know negotiation can work because it works for the VA, or the Veterans' Administration. The Veterans' Administration negotiates prices, and they save about 40 percent compared to Medicare. In fact, according to a recent AARP analysis, Medicare could have saved $14.4 billion on just 50 drugs--$14.4 billion on just 50 drugs--if they had had the same prices as the VA, and this was in 2016--$14.4 billion. In 2016, Medicare Part D plans spent $3 billion on a hepatitis C treatment, HARVONI. Under VA pricing, that cost would have been $1.7 billion. These are differences that are related to real money coming out of people's pockets when they are trying to just put food on the table and live their lives and be able to survive in many cases. Medicare Part D plans spent $1.8 billion on REVLIMID, which treats multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer. Under VA pricing, Medicare Part D and American taxpayers could have saved more than half a billion dollars. Given the potential for such huge savings, it is no surprise that the American people support allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. I hear it everywhere I go: Why can't Medicare just negotiate and get a better deal--commonsense? One recent poll showed that 92 percent of voters support allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies. Only Republicans in Congress and pharma lobbyists are stopping negotiation from moving forward. We need to change the system and put people before profits. We need to put people before profits. The best way to do that is to allow Medicare to negotiate with the drug companies. That could make a big difference for people like Jack, who lives in Constantine. Jack was diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer late last year. His oncologist wanted him to start taking a drug called Zytiga. It was going to cost an astonishing $15,000 for the first month. A generic medication had become available, but after Medicare and supplemental insurance, Jack still would have to pay $3,400 the first month and more than $400 each month after that. In his letter to me, Jack wrote this: I just retired in June, moving back to Michigan to be closer to my family, and this cost . . . is an extreme hardship. He added: Getting pharmaceutical companies to reduce their price so an average retiree can afford to use them would be a great place to start. I hope and pray you and your colleagues on both sides of the aisle would be able to get something done so people who need the medication that they need to thrive and survive are able to get it. Jack is right. He and Suzanne and other people like them across Michigan and across the country deserve better than what is happening right now. I could go on, and I will not, through price after price after price. The reality is prices are too high. We pay the highest prices in the world. Every other country gets involved in negotiating prices on behalf of their citizens. The drug companies told me at a hearing that they make a profit in every other country but they make more here. They charge more here. Why? Because they can. So it is time for us to work together to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and put people before profits. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, I want to congratulate the senior Senator from Iowa and say what a wonderful story that is about his mom. And to see a picture like that--it is such an inspiring story. He certainly has a lot to be proud of in many, many ways. I say to the Senator, now I know more about you, knowing that you had such a smart and strong mom. That tells me a lot. Thank you for sharing that. I rise with two short topics today. First, I, too, want to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote. Even more so, I rise today to celebrate the brave and determined women who fought so hard and for so long for our right to make our voices heard. I remember coming into the U.S. Senate in 2000 and finding out that it wasn't until 2001--the first year I was here--that we actually had enough women in the Senate to have one woman on every committee, a woman's voice on every committee. It is incredible, actually, that it took until 2001. But this was an important milestone at the time, as together we have been able to achieve many different milestones for women's voices, and we see that continuing to happen. I want to speak specifically about Catharine Fish Stebbins, a woman from Detroit who was one of those women who fought so hard at the very beginning and on whose shoulders we really stand. She may not have been as well known, but she was a suffragist and an abolitionist. She signed the Declaration of Sentiments at the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls in 1848. One of the resolutions in that document said: ``It is the duty of the women of this country to secure to themselves their sacred right to elective franchise,'' and she took that very seriously. In 1871, accompanied by her husband, Catharine tried to register to vote. She was told no. She tried again, this time accompanied by a friend who lived in another ward. That friend, Nannette B. Gardner, argued that she was a widow and a taxpayer and that she should be allowed to register. But Catharine was once again told no. In 1872, she tried to register again. This time, she was told no, but she did get election officials to admit that, in their words, ``Mrs. Stebbins would have all the required qualification of an elector, but for the fact of her being a woman.'' Catharine never did get to cast a ballot before she died in 1904. Yet I believe she would be extremely proud of how far we have come as a country and how far we have come in Michigan. Last November, Michigan elected a woman Governor--our second woman to be elected Governor--a woman secretary of state, a woman attorney general, reelected a woman to the U.S. Senate, and elected three new women Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. It was extraordinary. That is progress, but in my mind, the real progress was that being women wasn't the story. We didn't win because of the novelty of having all of these women running for statewide office. We didn't win thanks to some ``pink wave'' that was talked about in the press. We didn't win because we focused on ``women's issues'' because, as we know, every issue is a woman's issue. Instead, each of us won because we were strong and qualified candidates who earned our nominations and ran forward-looking and positive campaigns focused on issues important to Michigan families. Everyone was judged on their own. People weren't talking about our gender and whether it was OK to have women in all of these top positions; instead, they were talking about our qualifications and who was the best candidate. To me, that is truly historic. There is no question we still have a long way to go. Women now make a quarter of this Chamber. We are one out of four--a historic high. I think Catharine would agree with me that it should be at least 50 percent. That would be a good goal. I think we are maybe 54 percent of the voting population; that is good too. On this 100th anniversary of women's right to vote, I am celebrating how far we have come and the women, like Catharine, who worked so very hard to get us here. Even more important, I think we all should recommit ourselves to the fight to move forward.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am proud to be here on the floor today to join with Senator Baldwin and Senator Jones on their resolution with Senator Murphy. I have to say to Senator Murphy, before he puts that down, I have to look at that list and tell you that, before the Affordable Care Act, I would get calls like this, and I am sure you did, too. Someone calls me and would say: I paid into healthcare all my life and never gotten sick, and then I finally needed surgery. What do you mean it only pays for 1 day in the hospital? Well, it never paid for more than 1 day in the hospital, but they didn't know it because they didn't get sick. So folks buy the junk plans--and thank you for the list--but they buy the junk plan being healthy and then will never know that it doesn't cover those things unless they get sick. When they find out, it will be too late. So that is why we are here because we know that healthcare isn't political. It shouldn't be political. It is personal for every one of us. It is personal for ourselves and our families. It affects all of us, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, vote, don't vote, urban, rural from any State in the Union. In fact, when people tell me their healthcare stories, they don't start by telling me their political affiliation. They talk to me about what has happened to them, what has happened to their mom and dad, what has happened to their children. Political affiliation doesn't matter. People in Michigan simply want to know that the healthcare they depend on will be there for them and be affordable for them and their family today and into the future, and that is the fight that we have as Democrats. We will continue that fight. Unfortunately, they have reason to be worried about the rise of short-term, limited duration insurance plans. They should be worried about what these plans don't cover--junk plans, as we are calling them. As Senator Baldwin said so well, they are junk. They don't really cover anything. They make you feel good, as long as you are healthy, that you have got insurance, but then you find out, when you get sick, that your child is not covered or you are not covered. The fact many of these plans are medically underwritten, which means that the insurance company--by the way, junk plans are about putting decisions back in the hands of the insurance company, instead of you knowing that you and your doctor can decide what you need and that it will be covered. The insurance companies can charge whatever they want based on somebody's health, gender, age, or other status. Remember when being a woman was considered a preexisting condition? I do. These plans are bringing that back. One recent study found that none of these plans that have been approved by the Trump administration so far cover maternity care--none of them. We fought hard--I fought hard--as a member of the Finance Committee to make sure that women's healthcare and maternity care were covered. Our healthcare is as basic a healthcare as any man's healthcare and ought to be covered the same. I want to repeat this. We have a maternal health crisis in this country, and the administration is pushing plans that don't cover basic coverage for women. On top of that, these junk plans can exclude people with preexisting conditions--yes, they can--and impose yearly or lifetime caps on care. Remember when you had to worry about how many cancer treatments the insurance company would pay for? Now, there aren't caps so that you can decide and your doctor can decide with you on what it takes to put you in remission and put you on a healthy path. It is estimated about half of Michigan families include somebody with a preexisting condition-- about half--with everything from heart disease to asthma to arthritis. I met with some of them earlier this month during the National Brain Tumor Society's Head to the Hill event. Tiffany, who is from Livonia, was just 17 years old when she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. Since then, her tumor has reoccurred six times. She has been through seven surgeries, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments. The location of her tumor means that Tiffany has also lost some of the use of her left arm and hand. Tiffany doesn't have a choice. Her life depends on having comprehensive health insurance. Unfortunately, that kind of insurance is getting less and less affordable. So when our Republican colleagues come to the floor and say that we just want to raise prices, let me tell you what has really happened in the last year. The sabotage by the Trump administration, the unravelling of the Affordable Care Act, the junk plans, now the instability and going into court to try to totally repeal the Affordable Care Act, all of that instability--everything that has been done--means that comprehensive health insurance costs have gone up 16.6 percent this year, so somebody buying insurance is paying an average 16.6 percent more than they did last year because of all of this effort to sabotage, undermine, and unravel the healthcare system. Tiffany should be able to focus on getting the treatment she needs and living her best life possible, not how she will pay for the insurance she needs. We all know Tiffany isn't alone. It is estimated that 130 million people in our country are living with preexisting conditions--130 million people. That is 130 million people who could be hurt either directly or indirectly by these short-term junk plans. Two weeks ago, I had the chance to speak at the Detroit Race for the Cure, which raises money for breast cancer research and services. As I stood on the stage and looked out at over 10,000 people, a lot of beautiful pink all surrounding us in downtown Detroit, I saw people with preexisting conditions. One woman, who was standing on the stage near me, asked me the question: Why is it that I have to worry about whether or not I will be able to get insurance in the future? Why do I have to worry about that? She added: Why don't President Trump and other Republicans understand this is my life? It is not political for her. It is personal. It is her life. I think that is a very good question: Why don't Republicans understand that people like Tiffany and those women in pink deserve healthcare protections? Protecting people with preexisting conditions isn't about politics. It is about saving lives. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and the efforts of Senator Baldwin and Jones.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to Michigan residents who have given their lives while serving in our Nation's Armed Forces and their families. As long as Michigan has been a State--and even before--our people have been willing to put their lives on the line in defense of this Nation. From the War of 1812, to the Civil War, the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the fight against terrorism, the people of Michigan have raised their hand when called upon and stood to the very end. That was never more true than on December 7, 1941. That morning, 2,341 American servicemembers lost their lives when Pearl Harbor was attacked. More than 30 of those who died were from Michigan. This spring, I had the opportunity to honor their sacrifice in person when I visited Pearl Harbor with Senate colleagues. It is difficult to explain just how moving it is to see Battleship Row and to gaze down at the USS Arizona, so quiet and still in those clear blue waters. I thought about what it must have been like that Sunday morning, a day that began like any other, but which would live in infamy. Imagine being barely out of high school, far from home, and on the, threshold of war. Imagine being aboard a ship that is coming under attack. Imagine the fearful realization that this might be where your story ends. These veterans gave everything for us. It is our solemn duty to keep the promises we have made to them. My own father served in the Navy during World War II. Being there at Pearl Harbor reminded me of his sacrifice and the sacrifices made by all of our veterans, especially those we have lost. On Memorial Day and every day, let's give them our heartfelt thanks, surround their families with love, and honor their sacrifice. Thank you.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this coming Sunday, mothers and other special women who are mother figures and caregivers for our children across the country will be honored for the important work they do to nuture the next generation. Many moms will receive cards and flowers. Some will enjoy breakfast in bed or dinner out. A few lucky ones might get plaster handprints or handmade mugs--I love those. These gifts, no matter what they are, will be treasured because when it comes right down to it, all moms really want are a couple of things. They want their children to be happy, and they want their children to be healthy. Unfortunately, thanks to this administration's continuing attacks on our healthcare, a lot of mothers can no longer count on that. Just ask Rachel whose daughter Alice was born in Detroit with a heart condition called Shone's complex. When Alice was only 1 day old, she had her first open heart surgery. Think about that. She was 1 day old. Four years later, she has an artificial heart valve, a love of dancing, and the biggest grin you have ever seen. She also has what the insurance companies call a preexisting condition. She will have to take heart medication for the rest of her life. Alice's mom, Rachel, writes: Her hospital stays and medications cost well over a million dollars--closer to two million. Without the (Affordable Care Act), our family would be bankrupt, worrying about how to pay for her life-saving medications. No mom should have to worry about going bankrupt because her child was born with a heart condition. It could happen to any of us. No family should go broke paying for the medication that is keeping their child alive. Alice deserves better, and Alice's mom deserves better too. I have said it before, and I will say it over and over again: Healthcare is personal. It is not political. We should be working across the aisle to expand access to care, improve quality, reduce costs, and we should be doing something to resolve the maternal and infant mortality crisis that is happening right now in the United States of America so Mother's Day is a day of joy instead of a day of sorrow. Instead, we find ourselves fighting an administration that will not stop trying to take away the protections that people like Alice count on and that thousands, millions across the country count on. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice last month agreed with a Federal judge in Texas who said the entire Affordable Care Act must be struck down, and that includes coverage for those with preexisting conditions. Not to be outdone, the Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution out of committee that includes repeal of the Affordable Care Act with no replacement. What would that mean for Michigan families? Our Healthy Michigan Program that provides healthcare to more than 650,000 Michiganders, gone. Children staying on their parents insurance until age 26, gone. Lower drug prices for seniors, gone. Protections for people with preexisting conditions, gone. That would be horrible news for Alice and every other Michigan child born with a heart condition or any other health challenge. So what is the Republican alternative to the ACA? They don't have one, but don't worry. President Trump says Republicans will unveil a ``really great'' healthcare plan after the 2020 election--after the 2020 election. In the meantime, the Affordable Care Act could be struck down in the courts, with the support of the Trump administration, and Alice and her mom could really be out of luck. In honor of Mother's Day, here is what we should be doing together. We should reaffirm the Affordable Care Act's protections for Alice and all people with preexisting conditions. We should, once again, guarantee that every insurance plan covers prenatal and maternity care--by the way, instead of the junk plans the administration is approving right now that don't cover prenatal and maternity care. We should also strengthen healthcare for moms and babies through the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid, which cover about half of the births in our country. A few years ago, the Finance Committee reported out a bipartisan bill that I led with Senator Grassley. It was called the Quality Care for Moms and Babies Act. This bill would create a set of maternal and infant quality care measures in the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid. The goal is simple: improving maternal and infant health outcomes. It is amazing that we don't have uniform quality health standards across the country. The Quality Care for Moms and Babies Act will help make sure that every mom gets the best pregnancy care possible and every baby gets a healthy start. That is what we should be passing. In America today, that is, unfortunately, not the case. Our maternal mortality rate is climbing. African-American women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than are other American women, and our infant mortality rate ranks a shameful 32 among the world's 35 wealthiest nations--32 out of 35 in our great country. We need to change this so more moms and their children will enjoy a happy Mother's Day. Moms like Rachel shouldn't be spending their Mother's Day worrying about what will happen to their children if the Republicans succeed in undoing the Affordable Care Act. In thinking back on Alice's diagnosis, Rachel said: I cannot express how stressful and gut-wrenching a time this was for my family. I am thankful every day for the Affordable Care Act. Moms deserve more than flowers and a card. They deserve the peace of mind that comes from knowing their children are born as healthy as possible and will have the healthcare coverage they need. Our moms gave us life. This Mother's Day, let's pay it forward. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the Honorable Damon J. Keith, a civil rights icon and one of the greatest jurists in our Nation's history. Judge Keith was born on July 4, 1922, in Detroit, to parents who had relocated from Atlanta so his father could work for $5 a day in a Ford Motor Company plant to create a better future for their family. Judge Keith's father encouraged him to attend college, and he went on to graduate from West Virginia State College, a historically Black college and university, in 1943. Upon graduation, he served his country in a segregated Army unit during World War II. After his military service, he received his J.D. from Howard University Law School in 1949, passed the Michigan bar in 1950, married Dr. Rachel Boone in 1953, and received his master of laws degree from Wayne State University School of Law in 1956. It was during his time at Howard when Judge Keith found a mentor in future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Justice Marshall told Judge Keith to ``use the law as a means for social change.'' That is precisely what Judge Keith did throughout the Civil Rights movement, standing up for justice and equal rights for all citizens. He spent more than 20 years in private practice in Detroit. He served as a cochair of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission with John Feikens in 1964 and helped heal the community during and after the Detroit Uprising of 1967. That same year, President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated him to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Keith, a grandson of slaves, would go on to serve more than 50 years on the Federal bench, becoming the longest serving Black judge in the nation. Judge Keith gained national prominence for his ruling against President Nixon's Attorney General John N. Mitchell in the United States v. Sinclair case. Judge Keith's decision was later upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. It is now seen as a landmark decision upholding our Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In 1971, Judge Keith ordered that Pontiac, MI, develop a new school bus policy to help integrate its schools. Shortly before the order took effect, five Ku Klux Klansmen firebombed 10 Pontiac school buses and threatened Judge Keith's life. But Judge Keith persisted, ruling in 1975 that the town of Hamtramck must provide new, affordable housing for 500 African Americans after they were displaced by federally supported urban renewal projects. He served as chief judge from 1975 through 1977. While serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Judge Keith ruled against another President, this time President George W. Bush's secret deportation hearings after 9/11. Writing for a unanimous panel of judges, he coined the memorable phrase ``democracies die behind closed doors,'' which inspired the Washington Post's motto: ``Democracy Dies in Darkness.'' He remained active into his 90s. He issued a blistering dissent in a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals voting rights case in 2016, in which the majority upheld extremely strict voting requirements in Ohio. Above all, he was a patriot who deeply loved this country. One of his proudest roles was serving as the national chairman of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, when he led efforts to promote the document our nation was built upon. Over the years, he mentored countless lawyers, including Michigan's Secretary of State Jocelyn F. Benson, circuit court Judge Eric L. Clay, and Lani Guinier, the first African-American woman to gain tenure at Harvard Law School. Guinier, who served as Judge Keith's law clerk, once said this: ``Judge Keith has been my second father, someone who presided at my wedding, stood by me during some of the most difficult professional challenges of my life, and guided me with his wisdom,'' she said. ``And I am far from alone.'' Professor Guinier is right. With Judge Keith on their side, the people of Michigan were never alone. We knew that we had someone fighting for us and for justice for all. He used the law as a means for social change, and I think Justice Marshall would be very proud. My deepest condolences go to his three daughters, Debbie Keith, Gilda Keith, and Cecile Keith Brown, his two granddaughters, and his many friends.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a true humanitarian crisis. This is a crisis that is close to my heart, and that is because it is close to the hearts of so many wonderful people in the State of Michigan. Michigan is home to a large and welcoming Yemeni American community-- one of the Nation's largest--and we are so proud and happy that they are part of our community. Right now these Michigan residents are horrified to watch what is happening to a country where many of them have family members and friends. More than 4 years ago, war broke out in Yemen. Imagine 4 years of going to bed every night, wondering if this will be the night that a bomb or rocket will hit your home and destroy everything you have, including your family; 4 years of being unable to send your children to school because it is simply not safe for them to be outside; 4 years of deadly disease outbreaks with little access to medical care or even safe drinking water; perhaps worst of all, 4 years of sending your children to bed hungry every night because there is simply not enough food. It is bad enough to think about being a parent under those circumstances. Imagine what it is like to be a child. You are 4 years old. You don't understand what is going on. You just know that you can't go outside, you can't sleep at night, and you are hungry all the time. There are 4-year-olds in Yemen today who have never lived in a country that wasn't at war. Sadly, there are 4-year-olds in Yemen today who will never see their fifth birthday. About 1.2 million children are living in active conflict zones, meaning that a stray bullet or rocket could end their life at any moment. It is estimated that a child in Yemen dies every 10 minutes--the length of my speaking today on the floor, every 10 minutes--from a lack of food or diseases that can be prevented with adequate medical care, including vaccinations. Overall, the United Nations estimates that no matter what we do at this moment--no matter what we do--250,000 Yemeni people will die within the next year due to malnutrition, dehydration, and by diseases like cholera. That is astounding and horrible--250,000 people in addition to the estimated 60,000 people whose lives have been cut short due to bombings and violence. If you are having trouble picturing 250,000 people, it is as if a fully loaded jumbo jet crashed every day for a year and then kept crashing, one per day, until late August. If these dire circumstances don't change soon, that number could reach 10 million people by this time next year--10 million people. It is astounding. We should all feel a sense of urgency about the United States playing a positive, not a negative, role in stopping this. I want to say again that 10 million people could die from a combination of famine, dehydration, and disease. That is like the entire populations of New York City and San Antonio being wiped off the map. We simply cannot sit by and let this humanitarian disaster continue. I was pleased back in March when the Senate passed the bipartisan resolution to direct the U.S. Armed Forces be removed from hostilities in Yemen. I have supported this resolution since the very beginning, the first time it was on the floor. It has been gaining momentum, gaining more and more support from the Senate, and I am thankful that it finally got to the Senate. Unfortunately, the administration chose to veto the resolution and allow the suffering to continue. Taking action to end this suffering is more than just the right thing to do; it is our moral obligation as fellow human beings. That is why I am calling on all of the Members in the Chamber, all of the Members in the Senate to stand together to override the veto and end the U.S. support for this conflict. We need a clear strategy on how to take an active role in deescalating the conflict and addressing the accompanying humanitarian crisis. We should be leading the international response--leading the international response and working with international partners to find a solution, not contributing to the problem. We should be supporting peace talks that involve all parties, all of which are contributing to this horrible, horrible humanitarian crisis. We know who not to blame for all of this--those scared and hungry 4- year-olds who have spent every day of their lives just trying to stay alive. Can you imagine how their parents are feeling about this situation that their children are in as well? Ending this conflict and humanitarian crisis is where we should be focusing our policies and our political might. I will be voting to override this Presidential veto, and I encourage every Member of the Chamber to join me--join us, together, in doing the right thing. It is time to do the right thing for those 4-year-olds, for all of the people in Yemen who just want to be able to feed their families, send their children to school, have a safe home, and be able to carry on with their lives. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, today I wish to pay special tribute to Olivet College in Eaton County, which this year is celebrating 175 years of educating the people of Michigan. Let's think back to 1844. Michigan had been a State for only 7 years. The very first women's rights convention at Seneca Falls in New York was still 4 years away, and it would be another 19 years before President Lincoln would sign the Emancipation Proclamation. It was an era marked by gender and racial inequality; yet a group of leaders led by ``Father'' John J. Shipherd had a different vision: a college founded on the values of inclusion, mutual respect, honesty, and integrity, a Christian institution where neither gender, nor race, nor lack of financial resources would prevent people from attaining an education. This was a radical idea. Coeducation--women and men learning alongside one another in the same classrooms--was rare at the time, so was admitting Black students alongside White students and poor students alongside the affluent. It was so controversial, in fact, that Olivet College wasn't formally chartered by the State until 1859. Then in 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, the college honored its first graduating class: Mary N. Barber, Sara Benedict, and Sophia A. Keys. One hundred seventy-five years later, a lot has changed, but Olivet College's core values remain the same. Those values include diversity. Comets come from all across Michigan and the United States and nine other nations around the world. Half are the first person in their families to go to college, and half come from low-income families. About 1 in 3 Comets are students of color. Those values include inclusivity. That is a special focus of the Olivet College Women's Leadership Institute, which helps young women from middle school through college recognize and cultivate their unique strengths and abilities and become Michigan's and America's next generation of leaders. Those values include community. Comets aren't just responsible for their own education. Whether they are sharing perspectives in the classroom, working together to score a goal on the soccer field, or combining their voices in the Olivet College Gospel Choir, students are committed to the growth of others. Those values include service; 100 percent of Comets take part in service learning, where students use what they have learned in the classroom to solve real-life problems both in the community and around the world. Just as it did in 1844, Olivet College understands that the future of humanity rests in the hands, hearts, and minds of those who will accept responsibility for themselves and others. The founders of Olivet College once wrote this: ``We wish simply to do good to our students, by placing in their hands the means of intellectual, moral and spiritual improvement, and to teach them the divine art and science of doing good to others.'' Doing good to others--since 1844, Olivet College has been doing just that. Congratulations to students, faculty, staff, and alumni on your first 175 years. Thank you.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it seems that every week now, I come to the floor to say the same thing, which is that healthcare is not political; it is personal. There is no part of healthcare that is more personal than the decision regarding if, when, and under what circumstances to have a child. And that certainly is the case when things go terribly wrong, which they sometimes do. These reproductive health decisions need to be made by women in consultation with their doctors, their families, and their faith. That is what the Supreme Court has ruled. They should not be made by politicians--mainly men-- looking to score political points from women's personal tragedies. Yet, once again, that is what the Republicans are doing right now. I have a question. How dare you pretend to care about the health of women and babies when all of your actions suggest otherwise? Unfortunately, Republicans haven't noticed, but we have a real healthcare crisis involving women and babies in this country. In most of the world, fewer and fewer women are dying from childbirth--not here in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is climbing. More women are dying. Our infant mortality rate ranks a shameful 32 among the world's 35 wealthiest nations. That means we have more babies who aren't surviving through the first year of their life because of lack of healthcare, nutrition, and other issues. The Republican majority should be working with us and taking action to improve health outcomes for moms and babies. Instead, they are busy trying to take away their healthcare. Between 2010 and 2018, the Republican majority in Congress voted to repeal or weaken the Affordable Care Act more than 70 times--7-0. Now the Trump administration has stepped in to help. Last June and August, they expanded access to association health plans and short-term plans. We just call them junk plans because they don't cover so many basics, like prescription drugs, mental health care, and--you guessed it-- maternity care. Let me remind everyone that before the Affordable Care Act, most insurance companies did not cover prenatal care and maternity care as a basic part of healthcare. Women had to go out and pay extra, get a rider to cover something that is a basic part of our healthcare. Thanks to these junk plans that don't cover maternity care, and other sabotage, it is estimated that right now comprehensive health insurance costs 16.6 percent more than it otherwise would because of these efforts to undermine, sabotage, and take away healthcare. Does that sound like the Republican majority cares about moms and babies? Now the Department of Justice has announced that it agrees with the Federal judge in Texas who said the entire Affordable Care Act must be struck down. This is something the President has enthusiastically embraced. The entire Affordable Care Act is at stake, including Medicaid expansion for low-income workers who want to work but now have to choose between working and having healthcare coverage, children staying on their parents' plans until age 26, and protections for people with preexisting conditions. In other words, if a baby is born with spina bifida, a heart defect, a genetic condition, or any other health problem, insurance companies would once again, under these plans, be able to deny them coverage or subject them to lifetime limits like we used to have. Does that sound like policies that care about moms and babies? By the way, to emphasize that they support President Trump 100 percent, 2 weeks ago Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution out of committee on a party-line vote that once again has language to repeal the Affordable Care Act with no replacement. Sorry, moms and babies, you are on your own. And don't go looking to Medicaid for health coverage either. The Trump budget would cut $1.5 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years--trillion. That is the same Medicaid that covers half of all babies born in America. When you gut Medicaid, you are keeping moms and babies from getting the healthcare they need. Does that sound as though Republicans care about moms and babies? If our Republican colleagues really care about the health of moms and babies, here is what they should be doing and joining us to do: They would pass a bill to guarantee that every insurance plan covers prenatal and maternity care, like what is available under the Affordable Care Act. They would reaffirm the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with preexisting conditions, not just saying the words but actually making sure people with preexisting conditions are covered. And they would strengthen healthcare for moms and babies through the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid. A few years ago, the Finance Committee reported out a bill that I led with Senator Grassley called the Quality Care for Moms and Babies Act. This bill would create a set of maternal and infant quality care measures under CHIP and Medicaid--the Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid. The goal is simple: improving maternal and infant health outcomes. We need quality standards across the country. Right now, half the births are through Medicaid. There are not consistent quality standards across the country to make sure there are healthy opportunities for prenatal care and maternity care. The Quality Care for Moms and Babies Act would help make sure that every mom gets the best pregnancy care possible and every baby gets a healthy start. If our Republican colleagues care so much about the health of moms and babies, instead of politicizing issues around reproductive health and women's ability to make their own choices-- instead of politicizing what is happening around reproductive health, they would join us in making the Quality Care for Moms and Baby Act a reality. It is time to stop the cynical, political stunts. It is time to trust women to make the best reproductive healthcare decisions for themselves, their families, and their futures. It is time to take action to resolve the maternal and infant health crisis in this country. It is also time to ensure that every mom and every baby has the healthcare they need for a healthy life. This is the United States of America; we can do better for our moms and babies than is currently being done. Democrats are ready to take real action to join with our Republican colleagues. It is time they join us in protecting the health of moms and babies. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I have come to the floor many times, and I come to the floor today to say something straightforward. Healthcare is personal, not political. Despite all the debates, everything that has gone on around healthcare, for every family in Michigan and across the country and for every one of us, healthcare is personal, not political. If your child gets sick in the middle of the night and needs to be taken to the emergency room, you don't care who the doctor voted for in the last Presidential election. If you are diagnosed with cancer or a chronic condition, you are more interested in receiving the care you need than the ins and outs of the insurance plan that provides that care. If your mom or dad needs to move into a nursing home, you want to make sure they are happy and that they are treated well, regardless of the specific Medicaid reimbursement rate. Healthcare is personal to each and every one of us, not political, and it affects each and every one of us, whether we watch MSNBC, CNN, FOX News, or don't turn on the television. That is why, when this administration and Republicans in Congress try to take away people's healthcare over and over and over again, I take it personally. You know who else takes it personally? The American people. Certainly, I know the people of Michigan do. Back in November, they sent a message at the ballot box. Unfortunately, the administration and Republicans in Congress missed the message. They could be working across the aisle right now to expand access to care and improve quality and reduce costs. This is something I work to do all the time. Instead, they are, once again, trying to take away your healthcare. If you don't believe me, just take a look at President Trump's budget. This administration wants to pay for a huge tax giveaway for the wealthiest among us by taking away people's healthcare. Let me say that again. They are asking us to pay for a budget-busting tax giveaway for the wealthy by taking healthcare away from people who depend on Medicare and Medicaid. Many of us, when this tax bill passed, said that when they were creating almost $2 trillion in deficit, watch out because the next thing will be a discussion to say: Oh. Oh my gosh. We have a big deficit. We have to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and the other things that directly affect people, with healthcare at the top of the list. So what happens? Well, the Trump budget would cut $800 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years. That is taking away healthcare from our seniors, people with disabilities. The Trump budget would cut $1.5 trillion from Medicaid over the next 10 years. That is taking healthcare away from half of all the babies born in America who are covered by Medicaid--them and their moms. That is taking healthcare away from two in three seniors who get their nursing home care from Medicaid healthcare. That is taking away healthcare from everyone who has benefited from expanding Medicaid, including low-income, minimum- wage working people, working families, including more than 650,000 people in my State of Michigan covered by a very successful program called Healthy Michigan. Ninety-seven percent of Michigan children can see a doctor when they get sick or hurt now because of what has happened with Michigan, with Healthy Michigan and other coverage, and the number of people treated without insurance has dropped 50 percent, which means instead of folks dropping into the emergency room who can't pay and everybody else's insurance rates go up to pay for it, people now have their own insurance, and those costs have dropped by 50 percent--the number of people walking in without insurance. What has that meant for the State of Michigan? Taxpayers had more than $400 million back into the budget in the State of Michigan last year because of the savings because of Healthy Michigan. We should be building on this progress. Instead, Republicans are, once again, trying to take your healthcare away. Between 2010 and 2018, the Republican majority in Congress voted to repeal or weaken the Affordable Care Act more than 70 times--70--with no replacement. Now the Trump administration has stepped in to help because they weren't successful in Congress. We were able to stop that because people rose up and said: My healthcare is personal not political. People from across the country engaged and we were able to stop it in Congress. So now the Trump administration has stepped in to do a number of things to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. Look at what has happened in the last year. Last February, the Trump administration announced it would provide funding to States that want to let insurance plans cover fewer services, encouraging fewer services to be covered. Last April, they issued a rule that, among other things, allowed insurers to hike premiums 15 percent without justification. In June and August, they expanded access to Association Health Plans and what are called short-term plans, which we also call junk health plans because they are a lot cheaper, but they don't cover much, and people don't realize that until they get sick. These plans don't have to cover prescription drugs or mental health or maternity care. By the way, as the person who led that fight in the Senate Finance Committee, I can tell you that the vast majority of insurance plans prior to the Affordable Care Act did not cover maternity care and prenatal care, which is pretty basic as part of healthcare for women. Remember when being a woman was considered a preexisting condition? That is what we meant. These plans are bringing that back, which means if you are a woman, you have to pay more to be able to get basic healthcare, and that is wrong. We did away with that 10 years ago. In July, the Trump administration slashed funding for programs that help people enroll in health insurance coverage and began steering people toward the junk plans. So instead of giving people information through healthcare.gov and encouraging people to find out what would be the cheapest plan that would be effective and cover what they need, they made it harder to sign up for comprehensive coverage and pushed people toward these junk plans. In October, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that healthcare.gov would be shut down for 60 hours during open enrollment season for ``maintenance,'' so you couldn't even get online to be able to sign up for more affordable, comprehensive insurance that actually would cover things you and your family need. In November, the Trump administration released information for States on how they could use waivers to undermine consumer protections. Consumer protections are things like not getting dropped if you get sick. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, so many times people said to me: I have paid for insurance all my life and never needed it. I finally need it, and I got dropped after I got sick. What do you mean it only covers 1 day in the hospital or doesn't cover maternity care? What do you mean the insurance company can cap the number of cancer treatments I need? Isn't that up to my doctor? Well, it is now, and it has been under the Affordable Care Act. Instead, we are in a situation where they are trying to get States to waive consumer protections and put decisions back in the hands of insurance companies. Thanks to all of this sabotage, it is estimated that comprehensive health insurance costs 16.6 percent more this year than it otherwise would. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my statement, which will be about 2 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much. It is estimated that comprehensive health insurance costs 16.6 percent more this year than it otherwise would because of all of this sabotage, upheaval, and chaos in the healthcare markets. In case those sabotage attempts were too subtle, last week the Department of Justice announced that it agrees--the Trump administration now agrees with the Federal judge in Texas who said that the entire Affordable Care Act must be struck down. There would be no more coverage for preexisting conditions, no more consumer protections, no more capacity to have your child on your insurance until age 26, no more capacity to be able to expand what we are doing for minimum wage workers, et cetera. In other words, if they can't take away your health insurance through the legislative process, they are trying to do it now through the courts, which also goes to what is happening now in terms of changing the rules so they can more quickly put judges through and pack the courts with folks who will agree with taking away people's healthcare. What is the Republican alternative to the ACA? Unfortunately, these folks still don't have one. Don't worry. President Trump now says that he is going to have a ``really great'' healthcare plan after he is reelected in 2020. Just wait. By the way, to emphasize the fact that Senate Republicans support what President Trump is doing, they passed a budget resolution out of committee last week through a partisan vote--only Republican votes-- that includes repeal of the Affordable Care Act with no replacement in place. In the meantime, the Affordable Care Act could be struck down by the courts, and more than 20 million people who gained health coverage through the Affordable Care Act could be out of luck. Let me say, in conclusion, that just this week I heard from one of those 20 million people. Lisa from Norton Shores graduated with a marketing degree in the middle of a recession and worked a low-wage job at the local hospital for 8 years. When a part-time, temporary job opened up at a local marketing agency, the Affordable Care Act allowed Lisa to take the job and get the experience she needed for a career in her field. She was able to get healthcare separately from her job. That job led to another marketing job with a local company--this one with benefits. A few years later, the original marketing agency offered Lisa a full- time job. Once again, the ACA allowed her to take it. Lisa wrote this: It was only through the Affordable Care Act that I have been able to pull myself up to be a contributing member of society. It has allowed me to rise to my capabilities. She added that if the ACA is overturned, ``I will have to leave this job for a position that includes health insurance. It would kill this awesome small business I work for. . . . This will be a top priority for me when I vote in 2020.'' Lisa and millions of other people are sending a message. The only question is, Are folks listening? Thank you. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Maryland for his powerful words, as well as all of my colleagues who are here for their leadership on this incredibly important issue. Climate change is real. Carbon pollution is real. It is having a real effect in my State of Michigan. We can and must take real action to do something about it. It is not a time for playing political games. Frankly, the stakes are just plain too high. We should be coming together around a resolution that our entire Democratic caucus has put together that simply says this: Climate change is real; climate change is caused by humans; Congress must act on climate change. Let's start there. We can't even get bipartisan support for this, which is so basic. Let's start there and then take specific action. I was very encouraged a few weeks ago when Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Manchin on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on climate change. It was the first one since I have been on the committee. It may be the first one ever to talk about the incredibly disastrous impacts of what is happening in Alaska, as well as around our country. We should be working together across the aisle to solve this big problem and to come together with specific actions after the hearing. I am looking forward to that. Instead, the Republican leader is playing ``gotcha'' politics with an issue that is hurting real people from Bristol Bay to the Missouri River Basin to the Great Lakes. Frankly, it is insulting, and the people who are having their livelihoods upended deserve better. You don't have to spend much time in Michigan to see the effects, unfortunately. The Great Lakes Basin has warmed more over the last 30 years than the rest of the contiguous United States. That is not a position we want to be in. Precipitation is up 11 percent since 1900. That means more flooding. Flooding is worse. Between 2040 and 2060--which actually is not that far away, particularly when we are looking at our children and grandchildren--Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula could see 500 percent more 100-year floods. Heat waves in Michigan have tripled compared to the long-term average. It is estimated that by 2040 the dangerously hot days could cause 760 people in the Detroit metro area alone to die each year when they otherwise wouldn't. Rising energy demands will require more than $6 billion in infrastructure improvements. Cold water fish species could simply die off, threatening our $5 billion per year sport fishing industry. Agricultural productivity could fall to 1980 levels by 2050. Keep in mind that by then, our planet's population will be double what it was in 1980. If agricultural productivity is falling at that point, that will be a disaster, not only for the United States and our people but for around the world. These changes are already hurting our people in Michigan and our economy. Just talk to a cherry grower who has lost an entire crop because of warm weather in February--which causes his trees to bloom too early, and then the freeze comes and wipes out all the cherry trees--or a family whose fishing and boating business is threatened by invasive species and toxic algal blooms or the family who lost their 12-year-old son when flooding caused the basement of their home to collapse. Perhaps you are more motivated by the bottom line. If that is the case, you should just talk to insurance company executives. Their companies paid out a record $135 billion from natural disasters in 2017 alone. That is nearly three times as much as the historic annual average. By the way, after we finish voting on this resolution that the Republican leader is bringing up, we are going to be asked to vote on a disaster package to help States and communities that have been impacted by carbon pollution and climate change. We will only see more of that if we don't take real action. It is not time for words. It is time for action. It is time to focus like a laser on reducing carbon pollution, reversing the damage that has already been done and creating good jobs at home. I am so pleased that Michigan right now is leading in green new jobs in the Midwest. We need to ensure that the United States--not China--is the global leader on advanced transportation technologies like electric and hydrogen vehicles. We need to invest more in renewable energy and the research that is making it more affordable all the time. I realize my time is up. Let me just say, in closing, we can do something about this. We have done this before. When we discovered acid rain about 40 years ago, we put together a market-based program and were able to fix that issue. CFCs, chemicals that break down into chlorine and eat away at the ozone layer--today, that hole in the ozone is closing because of actions we took together. Now is the time to take real action on carbon pollution, agree to these basic principles, and then move forward together on behalf of our children and grandchildren.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Would my friend from North Dakota pause for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. Will my friend from North Dakota be willing to yield for a question?

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am here on the floor to ultimately speak regarding Mr. Readler's nomination, but I do want to respond to my colleagues. It is hard to know where we begin because so much is said that doesn't make any sense. It is made up. It is ridiculous. What I wanted to address as my colleague was speaking was where it said in the Green New Deal that we couldn't have ice cream. I have looked everywhere. I like ice cream, and I was shocked that we weren't going to have ice cream. Sure enough, there is nowhere where it says that they are outlawing ice cream. For people who like cheeseburgers and milkshakes, I don't see anything in there about that either. As the lead Democrat in the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, who works with farmers every single day and appreciates the great work they are doing to stop carbon pollution, I would just have to say that it is pretty silly, if it weren't so serious, how the Republican majority and the Republican leader are mocking what is probably the most serious issue of our time. There are many things that I care about and the people in Michigan care about, but if we don't get a handle on what is happening on this erratic and dangerous weather, it is going to affect every part of our economy and every part of our way of life. So if the majority leader or others want to say that we are declaring a war to outlaw air travel or the military or ice cream, that is absurd and would be funny if the whole subject weren't so serious. By the way, in addition to that, the Republican majority leader said that we want to end air travel and cow farts. By the way, just for the record, cows don't fart; they belch. The fact is that this mocking the serious, serious issue of our time, where we can't get the majority to join us on a simple resolution to say that climate change is real, that it is man-made, and that we need to act and that we have a responsibility to our children and our grandchildren to act. Let's start there. I don't want to hear that somehow the world is coming to an end if there is a proposal that passes and not have something in its place that addresses what is actually happening in terms of the threats to all of us, our families, our States, and our economy. This is real. This subject is real. It needs a real discussion. We can have differences. We will have differences on how to address it, and that is fine--but to mock the whole subject of what is happening right before our eyes. We have to make up new names now for weather events in Michigan. Not only do we have polar vortexes where the cold is rolling down because of the warming in the Arctic, but we have cyclone bombs or bomb cyclones--I am not sure which it is--but it is weather, wind events, that come at 60, 80 miles an hour into a community like a cyclone bomb. We are having to make up new terms for what is happening right in front of us. So I would hope that when it comes to this discussion on what happens with the weather and climate change, that we would put aside the games, stop making stuff up, and have a serious discussion about how we can come together, create new jobs, move the economy, stop carbon pollution, and make sure our kids and grandkids actually have something to be proud of.

Ms. STABENOW

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