Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the University of Michigan, one of the world's premier universities, which is celebrating its bicentennial this year. Whether it is leading-edge manufacturing, lifesaving advances in medical science, or groundbreaking leaps in technology, the University of Michigan is a world leader in innovation and creativity. I can tell you that there is no group of students or alumni in America that is more passionate and committed than our Michigan fans. Founded on August 26, 1817, in Detroit, the University of Michigan was the first public university in the Northwest Territory, moving to Ann Arbor in 1837. With 63,000 students on three campuses and more than 572,000 living graduates, including my son, the university has one of the largest alumni bodies in the world. They include artists, astronauts, athletes, entrepreneurs, humanitarians, business and government leaders, and Nobel Laureates in economics, medicine, and science. The university is known for many firsts that make it among, as its fight song states, the ``leaders and best.'' Michigan was the Nation's first university to build a chemical laboratory, open and operate its own hospital, and teach science-based medicine. In 1879, the university created the chair of the science and the art of teaching, the first permanent professorial chair at an American college or university devoted to teacher preparation. Michigan offered the Nation's first collegiate aeronautics classes in 1914. In 1949, it established the Institute of Social Research, now one of the oldest and largest academic survey organizations. Michigan is one of the world's leading research universities, spending $1.39 billion on research in 2016. It produces, on average, 400 new inventions each year and launches a new startup every 4 weeks. Faculty and graduates have played a leadership role in developing the polio vaccine, identifying the gene for cystic fibrosis, creating the worldwide computing backbone that led to the internet, protecting the Great Lakes, and exploring space. The groundbreaking research continues today as the university works on autonomous vehicles and is home to M- City, a one-of-a-kind urban test facility for vehicle deployment. The university is known for the beauty of its natural surroundings and architecture, including some 16,000 trees and such landmarks as Angell Hall, Burton Memorial Tower, and Hill Auditorium, all designed by Albert Kahn. It is home to more than 20 libraries, several museums, art galleries and collections, and performing arts venues, including the Arthur Miller Theatre, named in honor of the playwright and U-M alumnus. Michigan also is renowned for its athletic tradition, dating back to 1865. It boasts 56 national championships in 12 sports and two Heisman Trophy winners. I am extremely proud to congratulate the University of Michigan for its 200 years of leadership in higher education and outstanding contributions to the State of Michigan, the Nation, and the world. ``Go Blue!''

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I know we are in the middle of a discussion and certainly a debate right now about a budget resolution, and, obviously, I participated in discussions of how concerned I am about the priorities in the budget resolution. I think the people of Michigan and the country deserve a better deal. But while we are doing that, the clock is ticking on some very, very important programs where we actually have bipartisan support in committee. I want to thank Chairman Hatch and the Finance Committee, working with me and working with our ranking member, Senator Wyden, for moving forward last week on a 5-year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, or what we call CHIP. The problem is this. Even though we passed it with only one negative vote and we had a strong bipartisan vote coming to the floor, my concern is that we have gone on to tax cuts. We are going on to a bill that includes Medicaid cuts and Medicare cuts and other debates. Yet we have this bipartisan effort that needs to get done because the funding ended September 30. It has been 18 days and counting. We will be counting these days because it has been 18 days since the Children's Health Insurance Program was stopped being funded. I am very concerned about this. I assumed that once we had agreement, we would be able to move something very quickly. It is deeply concerning to me that we are now in a situation where it is 18 days. Tomorrow it will be 19 days, and then we go into the weekend, and yet we are not seeing the Children's Health Insurance Program funded. There are 9 million children in our country. These are low-income working families who are not able to have the confidence of knowing that health insurance will be there for them. CHIP has been an extremely successful program. In Michigan we call it MIChild, and we have about 100,000 children who are able to get health services because of MIChild. This means moms and dads go to bed at night and don't have to say a little prayer--please, God, don't let the kids get sick-- because they know they are going to be able to take them to the doctor. This has traditionally been a bipartisan bill. As I have said, we have had great support on both sides of the aisle, but it is now out of committee, and we need to move it, and we need to make space on the calendar to be able to get this done. We also have something else that ended on September 30, and that is funding for our community health centers. This is something else that has bipartisan support. I want to thank my friend Senator Roy Blunt. He and I joined together. We have 70 Members of this body who have signed a letter to continue the funding for community health centers. The problem is, the funding ran out on September 30. The Federal funding ended on September 30. We are talking about 25 million families, children, 300,000 veterans, 7.5 million children all across the country. In many parts of rural Michigan, that is the primary way people are getting their healthcare, as well as in urban settings. Again, we have an agreement. We have talked about, now that the children's health insurance bill is out of committee, having it on the floor and then having an amendment for health centers, moving that together, which is something we have done in the past. We have strong bipartisan support to do it, but it has been put to the side in favor of what is a very divisive process on a budget resolution and tax cuts and other issues. So I am imploring the leadership in the Senate to focus on something on which we all agree--at least the majority of us agree, the overwhelming majority of us agree--and that is making sure the Children's Health Insurance Program and community health centers get funded as quickly as possible. This is something done through the States, this is locally driven, it meets all the tests that people talk about, and both of these programs are extremely effective. In 2016 alone, Michigan's community health centers diagnosed coronary heart disease in more than 21,000 people. There were 21,000 people who, if they hadn't gotten that diagnosis, probably would have ended up in the emergency room--if they had been able to get to an emergency room before something fatal happened. Because we have community health centers from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to our urban areas, people were able to get the diagnosis and the help they needed. Nearly 34,000 Michigan residents learned that they had asthma and could treat that asthma, and children could get the treatment they need. Nearly 140,000 people were diagnosed with diabetes and could begin to manage that so it didn't become something incredibly serious and life-threatening. Health centers play a very important role. If we aren't treating these kinds of things, they can be deadly if undiagnosed or untreated, so it is very important. I am worried that there is not the sense of urgency there needs to be here to continue the Children's Health Insurance Program and the community health centers. I know that my Democratic colleagues feel that we are ready and willing to, at any moment, stop the debate on a divisive budget resolution, focus on something that has bipartisan leadership and bipartisan support, and let's get that done. In Michigan, our 100,000 children who are able to see the doctor through MIChild get the medical care and dental and vision care that they need to be successful--to be successful in school, to be able to see the blackboard, to be able to read, to be able to hear, because they are getting the basic healthcare they need. Children shouldn't have to strain to see the blackboard and get bad grades because they can't get a simple eye exam, and that is what MIChild helps make happen. Children shouldn't have to struggle to ignore a painful tooth because the family can't afford to see a dentist. We have heard of horrible situations where, because of abscesses, children have actually lost their lives. It is not necessary. This is something that is preventible, and we have a bipartisan program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, created with bipartisan leadership years ago, that can be continued and needs to be continued. Mr. President, I understand the debate on the floor about the budget. I understand the debate on tax reform. I want to see tax reform that simplifies the code and puts money in the pockets of hard-working families and small businesses and creates jobs. I mean, that is what I want to see happen. I also want to make sure, as we are debating right now how to do that and the differences in doing that--I would argue that what is in this budget bill does not do that, and I want to work on something that does. We have the clock ticking on 9 million children and their families whose health insurance funding stopped 18 days ago and community health centers from small towns in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to the city of Detroit whose health center funding stopped 18 days ago. So I am going to keep counting. I hope I don't have to count too high before we can get this done because I know there is support here. I know there is support to do it, but it has to be a priority. There has to be a sense of urgency. Just like a parent who is up at 3 o'clock in the morning with a sick child has a sense of urgency about what they need to care for their child, we need to have that same sense of urgency here and do what I know we can do if we would just take the time, just take a few minutes to get it done. Mr. President, I hope that will happen very soon. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for two minutes to speak, please.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, let me say that the people of Michigan and our country deserve a better deal than what is in this budget. There are a number of concerns I have, but I want to mention three big ones, and I am proud to join with colleagues on amendments that would address them in votes that will be coming up. The first is the fact that this budget would take $473 billion out of Medicare. I offered an amendment in committee to make sure that would include privatizing Medicare, but that was voted down. That is certainly something that could happen. There is $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts as well. In Michigan, three out of five seniors in nursing homes are there with the help of Medicaid health insurance. This is children, families, and senior citizens. There will be an amendment offered that Senator Nelson, Senator Sanders, and I offered to take out this cut from Medicare. There will be one offered for Medicaid, with Senator Sanders, Senator Casey, and me, to strike that. Second, 80 percent of the tax cuts built into the assumptions of the budget go to the top 1 percent. What does that mean? Well, it is $1.5 trillion that goes to folks making $700,000 or more. That is at least a $200,000 tax cut per person. We commonly call this trickle-down economics. So far it has never worked. People in my State are still waiting for it to trickle down. We have an amendment, as well, to remove this provision and to put the tax cuts into the pockets of middle-class taxpayers. Finally, this plan overall increases the deficit. Even though it cuts Medicare and Medicaid, it also increases and explodes the deficit by $2.4 trillion. We also will be addressing that as well. Overall, unfortunately, in terms of the big tax cuts, this budget proposal is paid for by our senior citizens and single parents who are affected and middle-class families. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we need tax reform that helps small businesses close these tax loopholes that are taking jobs overseas. Instead, we need to create those jobs at home. We need tax reform that puts money in the pockets of middle-class families in Michigan and all across the country, and we need an American budget that shows what we value as Americans. Too often, we think of budgets as sterile numbers on a spreadsheet. In reality, budgets are about people. They are about the middle-class Cass City parents who are sitting down to do their taxes and feeling as if it is they, not the wealthiest 1 percent, who are carrying the heaviest burden. They are about helping small business owners in Pontiac, MI, family farmers in Cadillac, and Michigan companies that are creating good-paying jobs. They are also about ensuring that the most vulnerable among us--our children, senior citizens, people with disabilities--are valued and protected. We cannot consider a budget without considering people. Will it help middle-class families thrive? Will it help small business owners grow? Will it help protect people who cannot protect themselves? Unfortunately, the Republican budget and tax plan suggest that we do not value people, plain and simple. There are 47 million Americans who depend on Medicare--seniors and people with disabilities. Yet the budget resolution we will be considering tomorrow in the Budget Committee will cut $473 billion from Medicare. For the low-income children, parents, seniors in nursing homes, and people with disabilities who depend on Medicaid, in that budget resolution, Medicaid would be cut by $1 trillion. We just went through this debate twice in efforts to gut healthcare, to gut Medicaid, which would take away healthcare from tens of millions of people. The American people said no, and the Senate said no--twice. Yet we are right back again. Here they go again on the budget resolution, putting forward huge--even bigger--cuts in Medicaid. This time, it is not just Medicaid, it is Medicare, which was not in the last two proposals that we rejected, because they hurt too many people by taking away their healthcare. Now we have a budget resolution that will be coming to the floor of the Senate. I am assuming they will have enough votes. They certainly will not have mine or those of my Democratic colleagues, but if every Republican in committee votes for it, we will have on the floor a budget resolution that will cut Medicare by $473 billion and Medicaid by $1 trillion. Why is that being done? It is being done to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. In fact, 80 percent of the tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent. It would be 80 percent who would receive a cut of about $200,000 a year--a cut. The majority of people in Michigan do not make $200,000 a year, but this would be a tax cut of $200,000 a year, on average. This is not what I was talking about before in our helping small businesses and middle-class families and closing tax loopholes that are taking jobs overseas. This is a straight-up, trickle-down tax cut that has not worked before in creating jobs. It creates a lot of deficits but not jobs, and people in my State are still waiting for it to trickle down to them. Republicans are asking seniors, people with disabilities, children, and families to give up healthcare in order to fund a huge tax cut for the richest 1 percent, which will cost more than $2 trillion. To me, that sounds like backwards budgeting for sure. I do not often quote my friend from Kentucky, but Senator Paul was absolutely right yesterday. He tweeted this: This is a GOP tax plan? Possibly 30 percent of middle-class families get a tax hike? I hope the final details are better than this. I do too. I hope that the final details are a lot better than this if it is going to be something that the people of Michigan will support and benefit from. Under the Republican plan, a senior citizen in Saginaw, MI, who is making $20,000 a year would get a tax increase; a married couple with two kids and an income of $70,000 in Gaylord, MI, would get a tax increase; and a single mom with three kids in Battle Creek, MI, who works really hard every day in juggling and caring for her kids and who earns $50,000 a year, which never seems to stretch far enough, would actually pay $1,000 more in taxes because, under the plan, if you have more than one child, you will actually see your taxes go up because the personal exemption for each child will be taken away. Senator Paul is right. This is just plain wrong. I do have to give Republicans credit, though. They keep upping the ante. It wasn't even a week ago when they were trying to take healthcare away from people in Michigan and across the country with a plan that would increase costs and reduce healthcare. Now they are trying to take healthcare away from people who need it most by raising taxes on middle-income families and cutting Medicare, as well as Medicaid. We do need tax reform. I would like very much to see the code simplified, but any tax proposal needs to meet three basic requirements to get my support. First, tax reform needs to be bipartisan, rather than coming up with this proposal in the budget resolution which, once again, just like healthcare, would be jamming something through on a partisan vote. It needs to be bipartisan. It needs to be thoughtful. Those of us on the Finance Committee are thoughtful people. We worked for 2 years in bipartisan working groups on each section of the Tax Code, getting ready to have a thoughtful discussion and negotiation on real tax reform that would help small businesses grow--by the way, they are creating a majority of the new jobs--as well as making sure families in America who are struggling would be able to have a simplified Tax Code and a tax cut. So I am all for doing a bipartisan approach, but that is not what is happening here. That is not what will be put into the budget resolution tomorrow, and, unfortunately, it doesn't appear that it is what is going to happen in the Finance Committee. The other reason for wanting to do this in a bipartisan way is that it is the only way to make sure it is permanent. If you use these truncated processes of reconciliation to try to jam something through, it is not permanent. I know from businesses in Michigan, large and small, as well as families, that to be able to plan, they want to see some permanent changes, and doing it this way is not permanent. Second, tax reform needs to help businesses create jobs right here at home. Over the last year, I visited more than 120 small businesses in Michigan, and I have seen for myself how they are driving my State's economy. I also know how challenging it can be for them to navigate the complex Tax Code. The owner of a small business shouldn't have to spend hours with an accountant instead of with her customers. We can fix that. At the same time, tax reform needs to preserve important incentives for manufacturers that are creating jobs here in Michigan and in our country. I don't believe we have an economy unless somebody makes something or somebody grows something. We need to make sure that the tax policy that supports capital intensive companies remains intact, and we need to close the gigantic loopholes that incentivize our jobs going overseas. I have one simple proposal. It is not everything, but it is a symbol of how bad the situation is. I have been trying to get it passed now for over 10 years here, and it keeps getting blocked and filibustered. It is called the Bring Jobs Home Act. It is very simple. The Tax Code right now allows a company moving overseas to write off all their moving costs. So the workers losing their jobs help pay for the move through their taxes. The community pays for the move through their taxes. It makes no sense to do that. My Bring Jobs Home Act would stop that and say that you don't get to write off the costs when you are leaving our country. However, if you want to come back, if you want to bring jobs home, we are happy to let you write off those costs, and we will give you an extra 20 percent tax credit to bring those jobs home. If you want to leave, you are on your own. That is what our Tax Code should say to businesses that are moving our jobs overseas. The third important measure in tax reform is that it needs to put money in the pockets of hard-working families. Michigan families are working hard every day to make ends meet. For too long, working-class and middle-class families have watched as all of the benefits seem to flow to the wealthiest among us over and over and over. Middle-class families are stretched to the breaking point, and it is time they get a break. That is what the President originally said. This was going to be a middle-class tax cut. Yet, when we run the numbers, it is just not true. For too many, they are going to see a tax increase. As I said before, 80 percent of the Republican tax cuts go to the top 1 percent. You can even break that down more with 0.1 percent, and it is shocking that those individuals are going to get a million-dollar tax cut. When you look at the majority of people in Michigan who work hard every day and don't earn $200,000 or more, and you look at the fact that there would be a tax plan brought forward that would actually give a tax cut of $200,000 a year, and someone with three children or four children would actually see their taxes go up--wait a minute--what is wrong with that picture? Unfortunately, this budget and tax proposal falls short in a number of ways, beyond Medicare and Medicaid cuts and what is happening in terms of families. As I said before, it is far from bipartisan. As with healthcare, Democrats have been locked out of the process. Republicans have been meeting in secret--no Democrats allowed. The Republicans are having to use this reconciliation process to force something that will not be permanent. There is little reason to believe that this will help American workers. As I indicated before, it will not close loopholes that are taking jobs overseas. It doesn't benefit hard-working people and working families that are working really hard to make it every year, every week. It does not benefit them. The Republican budget and tax proposal targets the most vulnerable. It isn't bipartisan. It will not stop offshoring. It will not benefit the middle class. There is one thing that it will do. There is one thing that those who analyze this agree upon. It will explode the deficit. The independent analysis shows that these proposals would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion. So there is $2.4 trillion in lost revenues that would go to increasing the deficit. Our friends across the aisle scoff at that. These tax cuts, they say, will pay for themselves. Although in our Finance Committee hearing today, when we asked both the Republican and Democratic experts who were testifying, no one said it would pay for the tax cuts--no one. President Trump said this huge tax cut will be rocket fuel for our economy. But when you look at the 2001 tax cuts, there was no rocket fuel there. In the 2003 tax cuts, there was no rocket fuel there. In 2012, the State of Kansas had tax cuts that almost caused them to have to go to a 4-day school week for children because of the huge deficits. There was no rocket fuel there. There are two things to remember about rocket fuel. It is unstable, and, if you are not careful, you will get badly burned. Budgets aren't about numbers; they are about people. They are about middle-class parents wondering why the wealthiest get all the breaks and they get the bill. It is about a small business owner wondering why she can't run a bakery without hiring an accountant. It is about seniors on disability wondering if Medicare and Medicaid will be there for them while they watch the 0.1 percent get tax breaks and there are future generations being stuck with the bill for tax cuts that will not pay for themselves. Budgets are about people, and this budget fails them. It is time to work together across the aisle to do what is right, to make sure that the budget and tax proposals work for everybody, not just a privileged few, and that they help companies create jobs here at home and focus on policies to benefit our working families. 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. Mr. President, first of all, I rise with a sigh of relief that the decision has been made not to go forward with a vote on a very divisive healthcare bill. More importantly today, I rise to say this is really an opportunity for us to work together to get something done--something very positive--as it relates to healthcare costs and healthcare coverage for the people whom we all represent in our States and the people across the country. I am hopeful we will see action soon, and I am hopeful it will be this week when we can come together around very good work that is being done in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee with our two great leaders--Senator Alexander and Senator Murray. They have been holding a number of committee meetings and forums, and I am very pleased to have participated in those. We have had great bipartisan participation in focusing on how to stabilize the current insurance marketplace. We know that has to be step one if we are going to bring down rates, bring down costs, and create a path forward so more insurance companies are participating in the current system. I have great confidence that we can come together and get that done. It needs to get done immediately because decisions are being made about rates this week, and I am hopeful we can take action on that this week. Mr. President, we have two other things that are very important--open dates that are looming by the end of the week. One is for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which covers 9 million American children across the country. In Michigan, we call it MIChild. We have children today who can go to the doctor and parents who can take their children to the doctor because of the MIChild Program. The Federal funding for that ends on September 30, this weekend, if we do not take action. This is another piece of good news because the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch; the distinguished ranking member, Senator Wyden; others; and I have introduced a bipartisan bill that will extend that program for an additional 5 years. It needs to get done this week. It is a bipartisan effort, and I am hopeful that can get done as well. We have community health centers in our country--our federally qualified community health centers--whose funding runs out, again, this weekend. Funding health centers has strong bipartisan support. Senator Roy Blunt and I, along with a total of 70 out of 100 Members of the Senate, have joined in a letter to continue the funding for health centers. That needs to get done right away. In addition to that, there are what we call certain health extenders or policies that are bipartisan that can be done together as well. We see a picture of important efforts of stabilizing the insurance markets to bring down costs, creating more opportunity for competition in the marketplaces, continuing the Children's Health Insurance Program, continuing the funding for health centers, which are so critical in communities in every one of our States, where people are getting the care they need at their local health centers. Bringing those things together can be done. Now, it is a lot of work to do that in a couple of days, but these are bipartisan efforts that can be done together to show that in fact we can come together and get things done. I know the people in Michigan want us to do that. They want us to work together to get things done. They want us to focus on lowering costs for healthcare and increasing coverage, and they are anxious to see that we can come together to do that. I am hopeful. It is only Tuesday, and I am hopeful, with the remaining days of the week, given the bipartisanship that is there and the agreements that have been made on legislation already, that we could go into high gear in the next few days and come together and have a positive story, a good news story to tell at the end of this week about what we are able to do, working together, to be able to fix problems in the healthcare system and to be able to continue very important programs that provide healthcare for children and for families in local communities around the country. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act before us is more than just an important defense policy bill; it shows what we value as a nation. In Michigan, we value our freedom. We cherish the rights we enjoy as citizens of this great country. Above all, we honor those brave men and women who are willing to lay down their lives to protect our freedom and defend our rights. We also value our workers and our businesses. You put Michigan's workers and entrepreneurs on a level playing field, and they will out- work, out-build, and out-imagine anybody anywhere. I am standing here today because within the NDAA is an important opportunity to not just meet the needs of our national defense but also to help create good-paying American jobs in Michigan and across the country. It is true that we can't have a strong economy without a strong military, but it is also true that when we invest in businesses that are creating good-paying jobs here at home, we are improving our own security. I have seen evidence of this in Michigan. In 2015, I was honored to lead the first-ever instate Michigan delegation to tour all of our State's military installations. We started at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, which has just celebrated 100 great years of service to our Nation. We then went to TACOM/TARDEC, which--both are the people on the front lines for our Army with research as well as making sure they have the vehicles and the supplies and everything they need to be able to do their jobs and protect us. We went to Camp Graying, Battle Creek, and Fort Custer. We saw firsthand how critical their work is, not just for our national defense but also to Michigan's economy and jobs. During the past 2 years, I have had the opportunity to visit over 120 small businesses all around Michigan. That is a very inspiring thing to do--talking with people who put their own dollars and sweat and tears into creating a business, products and services they care deeply and passionately about. One of those visits really stood out to me--the connection between our defense and jobs. R.A. Miller Industries--RAMI for short--is a Grand Haven manufacturer of high-tech products for our military, including very high-tech antennas. Clear communication--the kind provided by RAMI's talented workforce--is critical to the success of military missions. RAMI's CEO told me that the Buy American Act--a law passed in 1933 that gives priority to American companies when the Federal Government purchases goods--was no longer working. We checked into it, and it turns out that he was absolutely right. This is no small deal. The U.S. Federal Government is the single largest purchaser of goods and services in the world, spending some $450 billion annually on everything from file folders to fighter jets. ``Buy American'' rules exist because we as a nation believe that when we invest taxpayer dollars to buy products, we ought to be supporting American companies that are creating good-paying American jobs. It is simple common sense, but over time, we seem to have lost some of that sense. Thanks to loopholes and waivers, American workers are missing out on a whole lot of jobs they could be doing, things they could be making. The biggest of these loopholes allows the Department of Defense to waive ``Buy American'' rules for products used overseas. Yes, the DOD uses a whole lot of products overseas. In fact, between 2001 and 2016, the Department of Defense spent more than $35 billion on over 150,000 items--including motorcycles and radios and even airplane engines--that didn't meet ``Buy American'' rules. That is 150,000 motorcycles, radios, airplane engines, and more that could have been made by American companies like RAMI and by American workers in Michigan and across the country. That is not right. It is not smart. It makes no sense for American workers--certainly not for the people I represent in Michigan, where we know how to make a lot of different kinds of things very well--and it makes no sense for American taxpayers. That is why I am introducing three amendments to toughen up our ``Buy American'' requirements so that American workers and businesses come first, where they belong. The first amendment is simple. It would stop the overseas exemption in the Buy American Act and require the Department of Defense to prioritize products made in the United States. We know there are from time to time reasons why maybe we need a waiver, but we should not have this gigantic hole in ``Buy American'' provisions by having these overseas exemptions. In Michigan, our defense industry supports more than 105,000 jobs. It is only right that we should invest in American companies, not the competition. My second amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to review ``Buy American'' training practices so that contracts and personnel can better comply with current law. The third amendment would require the Department of Defense to work with the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which I was pleased to help create years ago, to identify more small- and medium-sized manufacturers that can provide products that comply with ``Buy American'' standards. I know we have the businesses and the workers. We need to be paying attention to this and making it a priority. When a mom and dad in Saginaw sit down to do their taxes, I want them to know the hard-earned money they are spending for our national defense is creating jobs here at home--preferably in Michigan. At the same time, I want businesses and workers from Mackinaw City to Macomb County, Muskegon to Grand Marais, to have the opportunity to contribute to not just our economy but our national security. We all talk about how America's workers are the best in the world. It is time to prove that we mean it. The father of a former Member of this Chamber had a great way of saying this, and I would like to end by quoting him. This is former Vice President Joe Biden: ``My dad used to have an expression. Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.'' Unfortunately, loopholes like the overseas exemption suggest that we don't value American jobs, American workers, American businesses. They suggest that we think it is no big deal to buy products from a company in another country that can be made in Battle Creek, MI, or Detroit or Flint or Grand Rapids or anywhere across Michigan or anyplace in the country, for that matter. They suggest that we think it is fine to create jobs for workers in Munich when we have workers in Marquette, MI, who are just as talented, just as able, and just as ready--I would argue more so--to get to work to keep us safe. Michigan workers--American workers will out-work, out-build, and out- imagine anyone. It is time to make sure that they are at the front of the line for good-paying jobs, that we are focused on making sure they have jobs, and that we are putting them to work. I am hopeful that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support these amendments to move us a step forward in that direction. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut for his thoughtful words and thank all of my other colleagues who come to the floor to speak up for young people who need our voices right now. ``Through no fault of their own'' has been repeated over and over again. These young people, oftentimes babies, were brought to this country without documentation, but they were brought here. They didn't know what was happening to them, a 1-year-old, 2-year-old, 5-year-old, 7- or 8-year-old. It wasn't their choice and yet they are paying the price for what happened. There is no question, we need immigration reform--no question at all. I was very proud and pleased to support a major effort a few years ago, a bipartisan effort in the Senate to do comprehensive immigration reform. It is something we need because our system is broken. There is no question. It hurts families, workers, businesses, and farmers in Michigan every single day, but targeting these almost 800,000 young people does nothing to solve that problem. I am anxious to work with colleagues across the aisle to address comprehensive reform so we have a legal system that works, but we have, again, about 800,000 young people right now who stepped forward and are covered by something called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or DACA, who were told, if they would step forward, provide the government all of their personal information, information about their families, that they--as long as they were following the rules, they were going to school, they were going to college, they were serving in the military, they were doing the right thing--would be allowed to stay and be successful in our country. In Michigan alone, 10,000 young people have been approved for DACA. Those are some of the numbers, but we are not talking about numbers, as we know. We are talking about people's lives. We are talking about 10,000 young people in Michigan who are attending college, who are working as nurses or doctors and buying homes and building their own businesses. Maybe they are reaching out in some other way to be successful in the economy. They are serving in our military right now. Somebody serving in our military right this minute could lose their life for our country, the country they love, at the same time the President--and his administration--has turned his back on them. These are people raising American children of their own, with American family members around them. These children aren't numbers. Frankly, they are our neighbors. In Michigan, we care about our neighbors. One of our neighbors is named Wilfredo. He is a Dreamer who was brought to the United States when he was only 9 years old. Wilfredo works hard. He is a restaurant supply salesman. He owns a home. He is crazy about soccer, and he says he is crazy about his girlfriend. He told Michigan Bridge Magazine that they hope to get married one day, but a future that seemed so bright just a few days ago now has a dark cloud hanging over it. Wilfredo is scared. His girlfriend is scared. His family is scared. Will he be sent back to a country he barely remembers? What will happen to his sister who is an American citizen? Will he ever see her again? Another one of our neighbors in Michigan, Juan, shares that fear. He was only 1 year old, just a baby, when his parents brought him to the United States. For many years, Juan lived in the shadows, but that changed in 2012 when our country made a promise to Juan and to others to suddenly step forward and change their future. He was able to get a job, go back to school, drive, even buy a house. Juan told the Detroit Free Press: ``I know of no other place.'' He was brought here when he was 1 year old. It is not about sending him back somewhere. There is no going back. He doesn't know any other country. He said: ``We love this country and want to make this country a better place.'' Wilfredo, Juan, and so many other young people are great examples of why we need comprehensive immigration reform to happen in the House and Senate, with the White House--not using them in a way that certainly does not show the best about America. Right now, though, until we can get comprehensive immigration reform, we need to pass the bipartisan Dream Act to protect the young people who have been hurt by this administration's actions. I know we have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who want to work together to do something, to prove that America does keep its promises. These Dreamers have done nothing wrong. They have done everything right. We need to show them we do care about them and make sure our country keeps its promises to them. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to my longtime friend and former legislative colleague, David Hollister. On August 14, 2017, the city of Lansing will be renaming their city hall the ``David C. Hollister City Hall,'' a very fitting tribute to this dedicated public servant. Over the years, Dave Hollister has been a mentor, a colleague, and a friend to me. I first met Dave when I was a student at Michigan State University, working at the Cristo Rey Community Center in Lansing. As a teacher, he encouraged my first run for office: the Ingham County Board of Commissioners. I later served with him for over a decade in the Michigan House of Representatives and have worked closely with him over the years in his various public service roles. In today's divisive political climate, Dave Hollister represents the very best of public service. He has selflessly served in State and local government. Without acclaim, he has worked tirelessly to do what is right for people. Able to bring people together to forge solutions on the most difficult problems, he is a community organizer in the truest sense of the word. Naming the Lansing City Hall after Dave Hollister is not only a fitting tribute to him, but a tribute to the kind of public service his life represents. After serving in the Michigan House of Representatives, Dave was elected mayor of the city of Lansing in 1993. While mayor, he inspired and led what is known as the ``Lansing Works! Keep GM!'' movement. Dave brought together community leaders in government, business, and labor and convinced General Motors to stay and invest over $1 billion in the Lansing area. This effort saved thousands of jobs and prevented a crisis in the region. Dave's leadership serves as a model of teamwork for leaders and communities across our country. Keeping General Motors in Lansing is just one example of Dave's leadership. After serving as mayor, he was appointed director of the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth in 2003. Subsequently, Dave served as president and CEO of Prima Civitas, a nonprofit economic and community development organization based in East Lansing. Congratulations to my dear friend, David Hollister, on receiving this special distinction from the city of Lansing. It is my hope that the newly renamed city hall will serve as a lasting testament to your brand of public service to the people of the city of Lansing and the great State of Michigan.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to support what my colleagues have been saying on this floor. The reason we haven't seen a bill, the reason we have no idea what is coming is that this is a political exercise by the Republicans. It is about winning and losing. But for people in the country, for people in Michigan, it is personal. This is not a political game. This is personal. For everyone who cares about their children and wants to make sure they can take them to the doctor; if you have a mom with Alzheimer's and you might lose the ability to have nursing home care; if you have cancer and know you may not be able to get the full treatments that you need, this is personal. And, as has been said, every single proposal of theirs is higher costs and less coverage. So we voted on what was behind door No. 1, which would gut Medicaid healthcare. Three out of five Michigan seniors get their nursing home care from Medicaid. Half of the people we see with Medicaid healthcare are children. All of the funds in the first proposal would go to tax cuts for the wealthy few and pharmaceutical companies and destabilize and undermine and raise costs for everybody else. So that is door No. 1: higher costs, less coverage. Then, when that didn't go forward, it was door No. 2. Door No. 2: Repeal everything that was passed under the Affordable Care Act and then say to folks somewhere down the road, we will figure out how to replace it. That is higher costs and less coverage. Now we are at door No. 3, and we don't know what is behind door No. 3. All we know for sure is that it will be higher costs and less coverage. Now, we as Democrats want just the opposite. We want to work together with our Republican colleagues to lower costs--by the way, starting with the outrageous increases in prescription drug costs. And we want to increase coverage options, increase health insurance. That is what we are all about. I believe--I know in Michigan--that is what people want me to be focused on. Are there problems in the current system? Of course, and we should fix those, but we don't have to rip away healthcare and raise everybody's costs 20 percent a year as is being talked about now in order to fix the problems that are there. I want to quote Senator McCain, who said that it is time to ``return to regular order,'' work to reduce ``out-of-pocket costs,'' and learn to ``trust each other'' again. It is pretty tough to trust colleagues, to trust the majority, when we aren't even given the respect of knowing what we are going to be voting on. And it is not just--it is not about us. It is not about us as individuals; it is about the fact that every person who is getting cancer treatments right now needs to know what the U.S. Senate is going to be voting on and have a chance to respond. Every person who cares about their child, who cares about their parent in a nursing home, who cares about their future has the right to know and to read a bill and know what is going on. I want to say in conclusion--I want to close with the words of Margo, who manages a health clinic in Kent County in the western part of Michigan. Margo knows the benefits of increased access to healthcare because she sees it every day. She knows it is not political; it is personal. There is nothing more personal than being able to take your child to the doctor and get the healthcare you need or care for your parents. Margo wrote: Seeing working people who have struggled all of their adult lives to manage their chronic health conditions finally have access to regular doctor visits, health education, and prescription medications has been a tremendous relief. It is amazing how different the lives of our patients are today compared to what they were a few years ago. She added: ``You can't imagine the sense of dignity the people I see feel.''

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.

Ms. STABENOW. It is time to bring back some dignity to the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I wonder if the Senators are aware that in Michigan-- and I share in the deep concerns of the Senator from Vermont about those opportunities that people have paid into, by the way. This is not free. This is not an entitlement. People pay into Medicare, pay into Social Security, which has lifted a generation of seniors out of poverty and allowed seniors and people with disabilities to live longer because of Medicare, and it has created a better quality of life-- Medicaid, as well. There is a great success story in Michigan that I would share on the Medicaid front. Of course, three out of five Michigan seniors in nursing homes with Alzheimer's or other kinds of challenges get their healthcare from Medicaid. In addition to Medicare, Medicaid is there for middle-class seniors, for low-income seniors, and so on. When our distinguished Senator from Oregon talks about dollars-- saving dollars or costing dollars--an interesting thing has happened by setting up Healthy Michigan and expanding Medicaid healthcare to minimum-wage working people. We are actually saving money. Ninety-seven percent of our children can now see a doctor in Michigan. That is great. They have cut in half the number of people who walk into the emergency room who can't pay. We all pay if somebody walks in and gets the most expensive treatment through the emergency room. The State of Michigan will save $432 million in taxpayer money next year because they are focusing on children going to a doctor, people getting preventive care, not using the emergency room. It saves money. Instead of doing these tax-cut provisions for the wealthiest and for the pharmaceutical companies that take dollars away, actually doing the right thing on healthcare in Michigan is a great success story for saving taxpayer dollars.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Booker, Baldwin, Blumenthal, Brown, Carper, Casey, Coons, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Hassan, Hirono, Markey, Menendez, Peters, Shaheen, Van Hollen, and Warren.

Ms. STABENOW. Will the distinguished Senator from Oregon allow me a question? This is a very, very important debate. On the point that my colleague just made, isn't it correct that there is nothing in any of these versions that lowers the cost of prescription drugs, which is the No. 1 issue for people in this country, as it relates to healthcare, or for businesses? I hear it all the time. There is nothing in here to lower the cost of prescription drugs, but there are tax cuts in here for the prescription drug companies. Is that correct?

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Cardin, Murphy, Durbin, Baldwin, Blumenthal, Brown, Coons, Duckworth, Feinstein, Franken, Heinrich, Klobuchar, Markey, Menendez, Nelson, Peters, Shaheen, Van Hollen, and Warren.

Ms. STABENOW. If I might ask one final question, would my colleague agree that rather than this approach, in which we don't even know, moment to moment, what we are voting on here--unlike what we did in the Finance Committee in 2009, where there were 100 hearings in the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee before we even voted on anything on the Affordable Care Act. Rather than that process, we are looking at a situation where everything coming before us will take away healthcare for tens of millions of people and raise costs on everyone. Would my colleague agree that it would be better to stop this process and go back to a bipartisan effort to lower costs and increase healthcare coverage? Would my colleague agree, as well, that we know that there are people paying too much for copays and premiums, and that needs to be addressed? In the private marketplace, there is not enough competition among insurance companies. In some places, there are none in the individual market. We need to work together to lower costs, starting with prescription drugs, and to also continue to increase the opportunity for people to get healthcare coverage. That is what we ought to be doing together and doing it in a thoughtful way and getting input and actually solving the real problems.

Ms. STABENOW. There is nothing to go further to use the buying power with Medicare to negotiate prescription drugs or to allow, with safe FDA approval, for people in Michigan to be able to drive across a bridge to Windsor and be able to get the very same prescription drugs for 40 percent less. There is nothing in there about that, is that correct?

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I intend to offer the following motions to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to Monroe County, MI, which is celebrating its bicentennial this year. Located on the shores of Lake Erie, Monroe County was founded on July 14, 1817. It is named in honor of President James Monroe, who visited the Michigan Territory in August 1817, shortly after the county's founding. The county has the proud distinction of being the second county founded in Michigan. The people of Monroe are proud of their history. This history has inspired generations of hard-working and fiercely independent people who are committed to preserving their history, protecting their natural resources, and innovating for their future. Monroe County is home to the River Raisin National Battlefield Park, which commemorates the January 1813 battles of the War of 1812. The battles marked one of the greatest defeats for the United States during the war, and the rally cry, ``Remember the Raisin'' inspired support for the rest of the war. I was honored to help lead the effort in Congress with Congressman Dingell and Senator Levin to pass the legislation that made the park part of the National Park System. The park has now become an economic driver, attracting economic development to the surrounding area. Monroe County is also home to La-Z-Boy Furniture, the inventers of the world's first reclining chair. The company was founded in 1927 and employs more than 6,300 people nationwide. The corporate headquarters is still based in Monroe. One of the most famous Monroe County residents is General George Armstrong Custer, who spent much of his life in Monroe. One of the youngest Americans to ever be promoted to brigadier general, Custer is known for his successes during the Civil War and his death at the Battle of the Little Bighorn, also known as Custer's Last Stand. As a leader of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am especially proud of Monroe County's agricultural heritage. The county has over 270 historic farms--the most of any county in Michigan. Numerous events and celebrations have been planned in the county throughout the year to mark this special milestone. Congratulations to Monroe County on 200 years of impressive history, growth, and success.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, due to a family related matter in Michigan, I was unable to attend today's rollcall vote on the nomination of John K. Bush to be a United States circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit. Had I been able to attend, I would have opposed his nomination. I also was unable to attend today's rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of David Bernhardt to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior. Had I been able to attend, I would have voted no on the cloture motion.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I want to thank my friend from Washington State, who has been such a leader on healthcare. In looking at her chart, at the junk insurance amendment and all of the groups opposing it, it reminds me of the calls I used to get prior to the Affordable Care Act from someone who was healthy and young and had a policy for years that was only $50 a month. He thought it was great. Then, all of a sudden, he got sick or his child got sick. He called me up and said: I paid into insurance all of these years, and they only covered 1 day in the hospital. I remember having that conversation with somebody--or no days in the hospital. That is what you call a junk insurance plan. This latest version of the healthcare bill would allow that to come back so that somebody will have the false confidence in paying $30, $40, $50 a month and thinking he has insurance. Then, if something happens, he will find out it is just a bunch of junk and that it does not cover anything. That is going to be legal again. Right now, it is not legal to do that. With health reform, we stopped that. But that would be legal again under this proposal, and I am deeply concerned about that. I am obviously rising to talk about the Republican healthcare bill. I do not believe it is a healthcare bill, but that is what we are debating, is healthcare or whether healthcare will be taken away. What I would rather be doing is working with my friend who is in the chair on lowering the cost of prescription drugs. We have worked on many things together--mental health and addiction services. I would rather be doing that than debating what we are debating. I would rather be focused on how we lower the cost of prescription drugs, which is the cost I hear about the most from my constituents, or about other out-of- pocket costs for people who are in the private insurance system, the individual insurance market. We do have situations in which copays and deductibles are too high in the private insurance market. Gutting Medicaid will do nothing about that--nothing. It will just take away healthcare from tens of millions of people. It will not change the private insurance market at all, which is where I believe we need to focus, and I am anxious to do that and work across the aisle in order to do that. I want to make sure we are talking about building on healthcare coverage, lowering costs, and tackling prescription drug costs. Instead, this bill would take away healthcare from millions of Americans. We know that from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. We don't know yet how many millions under the current version, but we know that at some point, we will get a score on that from the Budget Office. We know it will be a lot of people who are going to lose their insurance, and they don't need to lose their insurance in order to tackle bringing down the cost of insurance. So what do we know about this proposal? The versions keep changing, but it is the same old song over and over again--a little bit of change, a little bit of different refrain, but it is the same old song in the end. What we know is that doctors don't like it and nurses don't like it, hospitals don't like it, insurance companies don't like it. People in Michigan don't like it. They have called and written and told me in person, people approaching me in Fourth of July parades. People are scared. They are concerned. A woman's mom is in a nursing home who has Alzheimer's disease, and she is panicked. Three out of five seniors in nursing homes in Michigan are there with the help of Medicaid health insurance. Others are deeply concerned about their family members, their children, themselves. This is called the Better Care Act, but there is nothing better about it. Democrats have ideas to actually make our healthcare system better, by stabilizing our insurance markets and making premiums more affordable. My friend Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire introduced the Marketplace Certainty Act. It would ensure cost-sharing payments that were part of healthcare reform, that they would actually remain in a stabilizing way so they could be counted on. This would offer peace of mind to families and stability to the market. Senators Carper, Kaine, Nelson, and Shaheen introduced the Individual Health Insurance Marketplace Improvement Act, which would create a permanent reinsurance program, which we had before--before it was changed 2 years ago--to stabilize the market and bring down premiums. There have been things that would happen to destabilize the markets. Two years ago, there was an action, and now with a new administration we need to stop that and reverse it and stabilize the markets. Senator Heitkamp has a proposal that helps more families afford health insurance by smoothing out the individual market tax credit cliff that is there--the tax credits that help low-income, moderate- income people be able to afford insurance--to fix that in a way that is more beneficial to families. Senator McCaskill's Health Care Options for All Act would allow people who live in a county without an insurer on the exchange--they don't have anybody in the private individual marketplace exchange, no insurance company--to sign up for the same exchange plans we have. There are people being covered. We hear a lot about Iowa, for instance. Even though there may be no private insurance companies doing a private marketplace option, Senators, Representatives, our staffs who are required to be in, as they say, ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act, have an exchange. So to help people immediately, we could allow the people of Iowa to get the same option that their Members of Congress in Iowa have and that their staffs have. That would be possible, as a way to address this issue in the short run and to help people. I don't know why somebody who is in Iowa or Michigan or anyplace else shouldn't be able to get the exact same coverage a Member of Congress can get. Here is what we do know in terms of the ideas in the bill. Our Republican colleagues know how unpopular the bill is. A new poll found that only 12 percent--12 percent--of Americans support this bill. It is so unpopular they have been trying to rewrite it and get enough votes to pass it. We keep hearing about changes, but unfortunately none of these amendments make it better. In some cases, like the junk insurance policies that will be allowed, they actually make it worse. Now, the proposal that would provide $45 million to tackle the opioid epidemic, even Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich said it would be like spitting in the ocean. It is not enough, he said. I appreciate the focus on that. It is a horrible epidemic. It is an epidemic in Michigan and across the country, but it is certainly not enough to make up for the huge cuts to Medicaid insurance--healthcare insurance, as the Senator from Washington State indicated. The other proposal that we understand is in the new bill, as I mentioned before, would give insurers the freedom to once again refuse to cover basic health services like maternity care or addiction treatment, as long as one plan they offer, among many, would include essential health benefits. So everything else could be junk, and there would be one high-cost plan that would actually cover things families need. Insurance companies themselves know this is a terrible idea. In a letter to Senator Cruz and Senator Lee, Scott Serota, president and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, wrote that their plan ``is unworkable as it would undermine pre-existing condition protections, increase premiums and destabilize the market.'' That is what is viewed as this great new provision in the bill. He added: ``The result would be higher premiums, increased federal tax credit costs for coverage available on exchanges, and insurers exiting the market or pricing coverage out of reach of consumers.'' In other words, premiums would skyrocket for older people, people who take prescription drug medications, people with chronic conditions. Everyone else would be left with the junk insurance policy that doesn't cover really anything, and they feel OK unless they get sick. We would all be stuck with a fragmented, destabilized insurance market. Remember preexisting conditions? This would bring them right back. This bill is wrong for many, many people, but let me mention Felicia. In 2011, she was an AmeriCorps member serving in Lansing who didn't have health insurance. When she started feeling tired all the time and losing weight, she went to the Center for Family Health in Jackson. Felicia was diagnosed with stage IV Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Center for Family Health helped her get coverage through Medicaid and care at the University of Michigan, including chemotherapy and later a stem cell transplant. Felicia writes: Now I am feeling awesome. I am cancer-free, and I am working part time while I am finishing up college. I feel that I owe my life to the Center for Family Health. Felicia knows the importance of comprehensive health coverage. It saved her life. Nick and Chelsey know it too. They and their three young children are covered by Healthy Michigan, our State's Medicaid expansion. Nick and Chelsey are both employed full time. Chelsey also attends college full time. During a routine visit, doctors discovered that her oldest son was born with an obstructed kidney, which had lost one-third of its function by the time he was 5 years old. Thanks to the Medicaid expansion, he was able to have surgery before his kidney lost all function. Without the Medicaid expansion, which ends under the Republican bill, these working parents and their three children couldn't afford healthcare coverage, let alone surgery. Margo knows this because she sees it every day. She manages a clinic in Kent County on the west side of the State. She said the lives of patients are much different today than they were a few years ago. Margo wrote: Seeing working people who have struggled all of their adult lives to manage their chronic health conditions finally have access to regular doctor visits, health education, and prescription medications has been a tremendous relief. You cannot imagine the sense of dignity our patients feel. She added: Please see it in your heart to care about the people of Michigan who work but do not get insurance through their employer. So, finally, let me just say, doctors know this is a bad bill. Nurses know this is a bad bill. Hospitals know this is a bad bill. Insurance companies know this is a bad bill. I know that even many of my Republican friends know this is a bad bill. Their amendments haven't changed that. Costs go up and care goes down. Preexisting conditions come back. Millions lose their coverage. What we should be doing is working together to stabilize the marketplace, reduce out-of-pocket costs, and lower the outrageous costs of prescription drugs--by the way, not giving a tax cut to prescription drug companies, as is in this bill, and other companies as well. Felicia, Nick, Chelsey, and millions more like them in Michigan and across this country deserve that much. I sincerely hope that when it comes time to vote on whether to proceed to this bill, that the majority of the Members in the Senate will say no. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, on June 29, 2017, the Agriculture Committee reported by voice vote the fourth authorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, more commonly known as PRIA. For nearly 20 years, PRIA has served as an example of bipartisanship, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders in support of a commonsense fee for service programs within the EPA's Office of Pesticides Programs. PRIA provides certainty for registrants; much needed resources to the EPA to ensure regulatory examinations related to human health and environmental safety risks are done properly; and PRIA also provides vital funds for pesticide safety training and information to our Nation's farmworkers. Unfortunately, after several years of carefully revising and finalizing an updated Worker Protection Standard, the EPA decided last month to delay key elements of worker protections, including the much needed revisions to the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule. Without strong and timely farmworker protections, PRIA simply does not make sense for some stakeholders who are a part of the coalition. The funds from PRIA allocated to farmworker protection should be meaningful resources that complement strong, effective protections and should not be undermined by changes to EPA's Worker Protection Standard and the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule that would weaken farmworker protections. Therefore, I strongly oppose any future efforts by the EPA to delay or amend the worker protection rules that the Agency finalized in November 2015 and January 2017, respectively, without undertaking a negotiated rulemaking, which must include all relevant stakeholders, to ensure that all voices are heard. I hope the EPA will take a cue from our recent bipartisan and consensus-based committee action on PRIA and proceed in a similar fashion should they decide that any delays or adjustments to the Worker Protection Standards or the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule are necessary. Should the Trump EPA dismiss the concerns of farmworkers and environmental advocates, I fear that last month's committee vote may unfortunately be the last bipartisan PRIA reauthorization that this panel is able to report out. I hope that is not the case, and I know other members of the committee share my concerns on the matter. Once again, I want to thank Senator Roberts for his leadership. I am glad we were able to move forward in a bipartisan and consensus manner to reauthorize PRIA last month.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment because we have all been so focused, and there has been so much concern about what is going to happen in terms of healthcare in this country. So many people have called me concerned about whether they are going to be able to continue their cancer treatments or whether their child is going to be able to get the operation they need or whether their mom with Alzheimer's is going to be able to continue to get nursing home care and so on, and I thank everyone who has told their story. We have spent 6 months. This debate, this fight, isn't over yet, but it started the day after we were all sworn in, in this Chamber, in January, on January 4. A process was set up intentionally to be a partisan process that took just 51 votes, and instead of the regular committee process and working together, a path was initiated. Great concern went out across the country about what would be happening in terms of healthcare. People have spoken up. They have written letters, emails, and made phone calls, and marched and told their stories. Today, at least for a moment, this Senate will not proceed this week because there are not the votes to proceed to what I believe is a complete unraveling of our healthcare system. That may come. Certainly, I don't underestimate people's abilities to make deals and to create a way to have this happen when we get back from the Fourth of July, but at least, in the short run, I want to thank everybody who has been involved and spoken out about this critically important issue. There are lots of things that have been said on this floor and have been said publicly about the healthcare system. We do have a situation of people buying insurance on the private exchanges where there is a combination of things that have been done to create the situation where people are paying more, but there are also situations where there are problems and not enough competition and areas where people are paying too much, and we need to address that. One of the biggest cost drivers is the cost of prescription drugs, and we desperately need to address that. I hope, when we come back after this next week, the Fourth of July, that we will have a conversation about the real problems we need to address, to build on healthcare, not take away medical care from tens of millions of people but to build on successes and tackle the things that aren't working. I am very concerned about small businesses. I have introduced a bill that would give a 50-percent tax credit for small businesses with 50 or fewer employees to help them cover the cost of their employees. We know most people who don't have insurance work for a small business or work for themselves as a single employer. Let's help them. There are things I know we could work on together across the aisle that would lower costs and tackle the real problems. This is what I also know; that is, when people talk to me about lowering cost and addressing healthcare, they are not talking about another tax cut for multimillionaires or billionaires. That is actually not on their list of healthcare reforms. It is in the bill that is in front of us, but it is not on the list when someone says to me: You know, I want to bring down out-of-pocket costs so I can afford insurance for my kids and, by the way, would you give another tax cut to multibillionaires. That is not on the list. If we could come together and take the two things off the table, tax cuts funded by the second thing, which is cutting medical care for seniors, families, and children on Medicaid--if we could take that off the table and focus on the real cost drivers, the real problems that need to be addressed so that healthcare is more affordable, then we would see enthusiasm on our side of the aisle and probably both sides of the aisle. I know we can come together; the Presiding Officer and I have worked together many, many times on issues. We can do this again, but we have a situation where somehow tax cuts get involved in every debate. Secondly, addressing Medicaid, which is actually saving money for taxpayers, States, and families, is part of this in a way that makes no sense. I have said it before, but just to illustrate it one more time, our Governor and State legislature expanded Medicaid to working families, people making minimum wage, and what has happened as a result of that? Well, 97 percent of the children in Michigan can go to a doctor. What does that mean? That means they cut in half the number of people walking into the emergency room who don't have insurance and can't pay. Uncompensated care is down by 50 percent, and guess what happens. Magically, the State of Michigan is saving money. There is $432 million more in the budget--taxpayers' money--and that savings can be used for something else important in the State, other than paying for people who don't have insurance, can't see a doctor, and have to use the emergency room. For me, this debate gets all smooshed together with all kinds of things that aren't connected to each other. The truth is that Medicaid is saving money. More people can go to the doctor and get preventive care. Fewer people are walking into the emergency room, which is the most expensive way to get healthcare. This is working. For seniors, three out of five seniors in Michigan in nursing homes are there because of Medicaid healthcare. I am not interested in cutting healthcare for seniors, children, and working families. I am not interested in a tax cut that is going to give the top 400 people in the United States a combined $33 billion in tax cuts. But if we want to focus on small businesses, folks who are individually buying insurance and either can't find insurance or it is too high, count me in. Count me in. That needs to get fixed, and that involves making sure that the administration does not continue with actions that are raising people's costs on purpose. We need to fix the things in the system that aren't working. I hope that for the rest of this week, next week, and beyond, we can have some real conversations about working together to solve the real problems that deal with costs, prescription drug costs, out-of-pocket costs for people, and we can do that in a bipartisan way if we are focusing on the real problems in healthcare and how we make healthcare stronger, better, and more affordable for American families. Thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.