Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. My colleague is right. There is a very regressive effort going forward in the House, the House Budget Committee, and, clearly, this is to try to set up tax cuts for the fortunate few. I was struck by the fact that the President has talked about a 15- percent corporate rate. You lose $100 billion for every point you lower the corporate rate. The corporate rate is now 35 percent. If you move it to 15, that is $2 trillion that goes out the door. Yes, I am very troubled that the House effort plus this legislation is really an effort to begin the unraveling of America's social safety net, and the funds that provide for those very vulnerable people would be used for these additional tax breaks.

Mr. WYDEN. I think my colleague is making an important point, as well as my friend from Vermont. Part of the reason that many Republicans want these tax cuts for the fortunate few is arcane to people, pretty complicated. What they really want to do is get them now, to put them in the budget baseline in order to open up the opportunity when tax reform comes along to have even more tax breaks for the fortunate few. So, yes, Medicare and Medicaid are going to face real challenges. In fact, as my colleagues know, the Affordable Care Act had a modest additional tax on people who earn over $250,000 a year, and it was to go just to Medicare. You see your paycheck--everyone gets a paycheck-- and the Medicare tax is right on it. The only people under these Republican plans who would get the Medicare tax cut would be couples who make over $250,000 a year. When my colleague from Vermont asks ``What does this mean for Medicare?'' it isn't necessarily about some bill far off in the future. It is about right now. By the way, taking that money away--the money that comes just from the modest additional tax on couples over $250,000--reduces Medicare solvency by several years. It actually reduces Medicare solvency, which breaks yet another Trump promise not to in any way injure Medicare.

Mr. WYDEN. Two points are raised by my colleague--very good points. First, in the immediate, those people will go to the hospital emergency room, which means that, once again, we are turning back the clock toward approaches that don't provide better care at lower costs. I wish to also mention, when we are listening to folks at home-- because they don't get to testify here in the Senate--people appreciate the part of the Affordable Care Act that ensures their lifetime limits on what they can be charged by insurers. Almost all of these Republican bills create an arrangement where a State could waive that protection. Not only would people who are facing cancer and serious illnesses and probably have to go to the hospital emergency room a fair amount be hurt now, but people who have employer-based coverage are going to be hurt in the future. So 160 million people don't even know what is coming out.

Mr. WYDEN. My colleague has described how the Senate works best when she says: Look, bipartisanship is not about taking each other's lousy ideas. Bipartisanship is about both sides getting together, having hearings, listening to all alternatives and ideas, and often coming up with something no one has thought of. My colleague knows a lot about bipartisanship in healthcare because my colleague was part of our effort in 2008 when we put together the first bipartisan universal coverage bill in the history of the Senate-- seven Democrats, seven Republicans. By the way, a number of those Republicans are still serving in the Senate today. We know that is a better path. To wrap up this portion of the debate, I wish to say to my colleagues that the best way to proceed is with a kind of two-part effort. The first is to say that we all agree the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. We are going to take steps immediately to stabilize the private insurance market. We have a number of our colleagues--Senator Shaheen, with her effort to make sure people can get some help when they have deductibles and copayments; our colleague from Virginia, Senator Kaine, with reinsurance; Senator McCaskill with a fine idea to help areas that are bare in terms of no coverage. We have to move to stabilize the private market quickly because at the end of August, the plans are essentially signing contracts for premiums for 2018. My colleague is absolutely right. We ought to knock off this partisan our-way-or-the-highway approach, move on a bipartisan basis to take steps to improve the Affordable Care Act now after we have hearings, input, and the opportunity to have people in front of the committees of jurisdiction. After that, we then move to the broader array of issues, starting with the immediate challenge my colleague has led on, which is clamping down on the cost of pharmaceuticals. You take steps to stabilize the market immediately, and then you move again in a bipartisan way on what our constituents are talking about at every community meeting, which is that their Social Security checks, the benefits they get, aren't coming close to keeping up with the rise in the cost of prescriptions. I thank my colleague for her very helpful questions and our colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have commented on the secret process that went on in this discussion, but I will close with this: One version of TrumpCare has already been voted down here in the last day. Nobody knows where this debate will wind up, but what is important now is that Senators support the Donnelly motion. The Donnelly motion is going to ensure that the Finance Committee, where Senator Enzi serves so admirably, and all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, is going to be able to look at this issue in a way that is going to bring the Senate together, not divide it, as we would be without the Donnelly motion. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Team Wyden will shortly lose one of its stalwarts, but before John Michels of my Portland office takes his well-deserved retirement after two decades of service to the people of Oregon, I want to take just a few minutes to recognize his many, many contributions. John joined my office in the late 1990s through a work-study program run by the Department of Veterans Affairs. He had previously worked in construction, and he served as a jet engine mechanic in the U.S. Navy before coming to my office, so suffice it to say that he was no stranger to long hours and tough assignments. As a member of Team Wyden, John put his shoulder to the wheel to help other veterans when backlogs, bureaucracy, or red tape held up the care or the recognition they had earned. In his years of service, John has managed thousands of cases for Oregon constituents struggling with one Federal agency or another. John has also always been a practical soul and has a passion for tinkering and fixing things. He brought these skills to bear as our resident IT expert and computer whisperer in Oregon. Anybody who has worked in the government can tell you it can be tough. The pace can be grueling, the cynicism can be frustrating, and the bureaucracy can be maddening, but as John will attest, there are few more rewarding experiences than helping a veteran receive overdue recognition or bringing a new VA facility to a rural community or ensuring seniors and people with disabilities receive the Social Security benefits they so richly deserve. John is not the type of person to trumpet his service from the rooftops, but he has an enormous heart and a passion for public service. The bottom line is that John has found ways to help me help countless people across Oregon. Now, as John knows, we never really let anybody leave Team Wyden, so I am sure we will still call upon his wealth of knowledge and experience. In the meantime, I want to thank him for all the help he has provided over these past two decades. I have been fortunate to have him on my team, and we will all miss him greatly.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the pitch to Republican Senators this afternoon before the first vote was that it was nothing but a little bit of throat clearing--just a first step to get the conversation started. Let's be clear, nobody can pretend the stakes aren't real now. In a few minutes, the Senate will be voting on yet another version of the Senate TrumpCare bill. I call it the BCRA 3.0. It features a special gut punch to consumer protection offered by Senator Cruz. My view is, the Cruz proposal is a prescription for misery for millions of Americans dealing with serious illness and bedlam in the private insurance market. Forget, colleagues, all the talk about bringing costs down. This bill is going to send health expenses like deductibles and copayments into the stratosphere. TrumpCare 3.0, BCRA 3.0, tells insurance companies: Look, you are off the hook for basic consumer protection. You get to bring back annual and lifetime caps on coverage, and those caps would hit people who get their healthcare through their employer, as well as those who buy it for themselves in the individual market. You can forget about essential health benefits. You get to flood the market with bargain-basement insurance plans, as long as you offer one, single, comprehensive option, the kind of plan that actually works for people with preexisting conditions and, by the way, you get to price that through the roof. Under the Cruz proposal, we will be looking at a tale of two healthcare systems in America. The young and healthy are going to opt for the bare-bones insurance plans that don't cover much of anything, but there are millions of people in this country who cannot get by with skimpy Cruz-plan insurance. They are people who have had a cancer scare or suffer from diabetes. They are people who get hurt on the ski slopes or in a car accident. The only coverage that works for them will come with an astronomical pricetag. There was no hearing in the Finance Committee, no hearing in the HELP Committee. Senators are flying in the dark, and as far as I can tell, the proposal is going to be before us without having been scored by the CBO. Let me close with this. It is not too late for Republican Senators to put a stop to this shadowy, unacceptable process. Nobody in this Chamber--not one Senator--has to choose between TrumpCare and straight repeal or any partisan plan. I hope my colleagues will reject TrumpCare 3.0, BCRA 3.0 and say it is time to stop this my-way-or-the-highway process and say, after rejecting this ill-advised amendment, that they would like to return to the regular order, where we look to bipartisan approaches. I urge my colleagues to oppose and to oppose strongly this first amendment that we will vote on tonight, BCRA 3.0. It is a prescription for trouble for millions of consumers, and I think it is going to cause chaos for the reasons I described in the private insurance market. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I want to commend my colleague from Connecticut for a very thoughtful speech. I think he has made the case that the challenge ahead is really a two- part drill--first, to stop something that is especially ill advised, and second, to then move to a better way that really focuses on sunlight and bipartisanship. So I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful comments.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me just commend my friend from Connecticut on a very thoughtful statement. He has worked on these issues for many years since his days as attorney general in Connecticut. He is, in my view, the Senate's best lawyer. So it is great to have a chance to team up with him and our colleagues. I think this issue can really be summed up in a sentence, and that is this: Without net neutrality, you do not have a free and open internet because the essence of the internet--and I will explain what we have today--would simply not be the same. Today--and this is what net neutrality is all about, in a sentence-- after you pay your internet access fee, you get to go where you want, when you want, and how you want, and everybody is treated the same. From the most affluent person in America to those who are walking on an economic tightrope every single day, they all can use the internet to get access to those fundamental opportunities that are so essential to increasing the quality of life for our people. This, for example, is how a young person will have a chance to learn. If they are in a small, rural community in Colorado, Oregon, or elsewhere, this is how they get access to the kind of information that affluent kids get, who might live in Beverly Hills or Palm Beach or in any one of a number of communities where there are affluent people. This is what puts that youngster on the same plane as the affluent person. This is how, for example, those who are searching for jobs can go to the net and quickly get access to information where they will have a chance to get ahead. The internet--and a free and open internet--is particularly important to our startups, the innovators, and the small businesses that we are all counting on to have a chance to grow big. When you talk, particularly, to the small tech startups, they will say: Our goal is to be Google or Facebook. Innovation is what makes it possible to have those kinds of dreams. If you are starting small, with real net neutrality, as I have described it, you have the same chance to succeed as everybody else in America. Now the challenge here is that very powerful interests--the cable companies, for example--want to change that. They want to change what I described as net neutrality. They would like to set up what they call priority lanes, special lanes, or toll lanes, where, if you pay more, you can get access to more. You can get access to more content, and you can get access to data and information more quickly. What this really does is that it means those other people I was talking about--that startup trying to come out of the gate and be a success in the marketplace, students, and people who need information about healthcare and jobs and the like--are not treated the same way as the people with the deep pockets. All of a sudden their access to data and information is going to be different. It might be slower. Maybe they will not get it at all. The big powerful interests aren't going to tell everybody in America that they are against net neutrality. They will not be holding rallies saying: We have gotten together to oppose net neutrality. They will not be showing up in Denver, Minneapolis, Portland, or anywhere else and saying: We are against net neutrality. The reason they can't is because the public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality, as I have described it. They are going to say things like this: They are for net neutrality, but they just don't want all this government associated with what they have. They will be for voluntary net neutrality. I know the Presiding Officer of the Senate has young children as well. I can tell you that we are about as likely to make voluntary net neutrality work as we are to get William Peter Wyden, my 9-year-old son, to voluntarily agree to limit himself to one dessert with his deciding whether he has met his limit. It is not going to happen. Voluntary net neutrality isn't that different than what we have had in a lot of instances before we had real net neutrality. The big cable companies and others were always looking for dodges and loopholes, and they found ways to tack on fees and the like because that has always been their end game. Boy, it is a lawyer's full employment program because they have the capacity to litigate this. So this idea that people are going to hear a lot about in the next few weeks--that they are really for net neutrality, but we will just make it voluntary--I want people to understand that the history of those kinds of approaches is not exactly sterling. I think it is about as likely to be successful as limiting my kid to voluntarily holding back on dessert. I also want to make clear what our challenge is going to be about because the Federal Communications Commission--Senator Blumenthal talked about it and others--is going to be making decisions on this before too long. We know where the votes are. This is going to be a long battle, but one of the reasons I wanted to come to the floor today is to say that this is another one of these issues that is going to show that political change doesn't start in Washington, DC, and then trickle down to people. It will be bottom-up, as more and more Americans find out what is at stake here. A few years back, I would say the Presiding Officer of the Senate-- and I see my colleague from the Finance Committee here, as well--and my colleagues will remember the PIPA and SOPA bills. These were the bills, PIPA and SOPA, that were anti-internet bills. As with so much, people can have a difference of opinion, and the sponsors said: We have to fight piracy. We have to fight piracy, people ripping everybody off online. To fight piracy, we will use these two bills to kind of change the architecture of the internet, particularly the domain name system, which is basically the phone book of the internet. I looked at it, and I said: We are all against piracy. We are against people selling fake Viagra, or whatever it is online, but why would we want to wreck the architecture of the internet in order to deal with it? There are other kinds of remedies. So I put in a bill with a conservative Republican in the other body to come up with an alternative approach, and I put a hold on PIPA and SOPA. Here in the Senate, at that time, 44 Senators were cosponsors of that bill. That is an army--out of the 100, 44 Senators. Everybody said: You know, Ron is putting a hold on it, and, well, he is a nice guy and, you know, he is from Oregon. Everybody smiled, and I said: OK, I understand that you think this is going to be a slam dunk, but I think I will tell you that you should know that there are more Americans who spend more time online in a week than they do thinking about their U.S. Senator in 2 years, and they aren't going to be happy with a whole bunch of powerful interests messing with the internet, just as we are doing with this situation where people want to unravel real net neutrality. So a vote was scheduled on whether to oppose my hold--in effect, lift my hold--on this flawed bill, and 4 days before the vote, more than 10 million Americans called, texted, tweeted, and logged in to say to their Senator: Do not vote to lift Ron Wyden's hold. About 36 hours after Americans had weighed in, the Senate leadership called me, not very happy, and said: You won. We are not going to have a vote. Your hold has prevailed. I bring this up only by way of saying that it is going to take that same kind of grassroots uprising for Americans who want to keep real net neutrality, which is what you have after you pay your internet access fee, and you get to go where you want, when you want, and how you want, and everybody is treated equally in those efforts. For all of us who want to keep that, we need to understand that we are in for a long battle. We know where the votes are at the Federal Communications Commission, but that is just the beginning. That is just the beginning. So now is the time to make your voice heard. Go to battleforthenet.com so your voices can be heard. Make sure that Donald Trump's FCC Commissioner knows your view that the internet is better and stronger with real net neutrality protections. Americans have only until July 17 to do this. I have already been speaking out in other kinds of sessions. So I think I will leave it at that. I wish to close by saying again that without real strong net neutrality, which is what we have today, we will not have a free and open internet for all Americans to enjoy. So I come to the floor to say this is going to be a long battle. Nobody thought we had a prayer to win the fight to protect the internet that was PIPA and SOPA, and I am sure a lot of people are saying that this is another one where the powerful interests are going to win. I say to the Senate again: Not so fast. You are going to see the power of Americans speaking out. I urge all the people of this country who are following what goes on in the Senate today and in the days ahead to be part of this effort, because I think if they do, if we show that political change isn't top-down but bottom-up, it is going to be a long battle, but we will win, and our country will keep a bedrock principle of the free and open internet, which is real net neutrality. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank Senator Murray, a member of our leadership, for taking this time to talk about accounts from home, what we have heard from those we have the honor to represent, and I think this is exactly what is appropriate at the beginning of this work period. I just come off of eight open-to-all townhall meetings in my home State of Oregon. Five were in counties won by President Trump, three were in counties won by Hillary Clinton, and the single unifying issue that dominated each one is that TrumpCare is a loser. Across the political spectrum--Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives--what I was told is that the Congress ought to set this TrumpCare bill aside, that the one Mitch McConnell has been working on ought to be dropped, and after it is dropped, Democrats and Republicans ought to get together and look for the common ground by trying to show some common sense. I am going to spend a little time talking about what I heard, what people are concerned about, and then briefly talk about, as Senator Murray said, what we would like to do if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will drop this ill-advised, ``our way or the highway'' approach and do what the Senate has traditionally done when we are talking about tackling a big issue, which is find common ground. It doesn't get much bigger than healthcare. We are spending $3.2 trillion each year now on healthcare. It comes to something like $10,000 for every man, woman, and child. We are spending enough money; the real question is whether we spend it in the right place, and this very flawed TrumpCare bill will compound that problem. During those eight townhall meetings over the past week, Oregonians asked me: When is this flawed TrumpCare bill coming to a vote? How are my frail, not physically well, older parents supposed to get by if this bill passes and they lose their health care coverage? As I have talked about with Senator Murray, we know that Medicaid picks up the bill for what amounts to two out of three older people in nursing homes. What often is not mentioned is that it also covers home- and community-based services for seniors. I remember from my days as director of the Oregon Gray Panthers that the whole goal was to create this continuum of choices for older people and, as Senator Murray touched on, the older people who need nursing homes and nursing home benefits. She is absolutely right. We also need to protect the Medicaid guarantee for the seniors for whom care is appropriate in other settings, such as home- and community-based services. At those townhall meetings at community centers and auditoriums, folks knew that I am the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. We have another talented member from the committee, Senator Bennet, here, as well as my knowledgeable colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. I have worked on these issues with respect to taxes and healthcare for some time, and I have really dedicated my professional life to trying to find that common ground, show common sense in the areas of healthcare and taxes. But the fact is, this version of TrumpCare is a tax break for some of the most powerful special interests masquerading as a health plan, and when Oregonians heard that, whether it was in a Trump county or in a Clinton county, everybody started nodding. The secret is out. This is not a plan to fix anybody's healthcare or hold down the premiums; this is one big handout to the most powerful special interests. People heard that Republicans were saying those tax cuts were going to create jobs. That is not very likely when they have made the tax cuts retroactive. What that means--they made the big one retroactive to January 1--is that if you have a capital gain say in March, and if this bill is passed in its present form, if that capital gain is $1 million, you get a tax break of $38,000. That is not creating jobs, it is creating windfalls, and the American people have caught on. Now that the Senate is back in session, the public is reading about the newest proposal on offer. It is a Hail Mary pass from Senator Cruz and Republican leaders, trying to put together $50 billion for their version of TrumpCare. And we know in the Finance Committee, they have billions and billions of dollars that they can use to try to find those extra votes. I will tell you, this Senator Cruz proposal as it relates to healthcare is a prescription for mayhem in the private health insurance marketplace. It is going to mean misery for so many Americans dealing with illnesses. Forget the talk about bringing costs down. This plan is going to send health expenses into the stratosphere. The plan tells insurance companies: You are off the hook as it relates to basic consumer protections. You get to bring back annual and lifetime caps on coverage. Think about that. In the State of Alabama and everywhere else in America under the Affordable Care Act, the 160 million people who get their care through their employer heard about this bill and said: We are home free. It really does not affect us. They got a little extra bonus. The Affordable Care Act gave them a major catastrophic benefit if they had that employer coverage. With this Republican bill, all of those folks who thought they were home free with the employer coverage should know that once again there would be limits on what insurance companies could pay. I will tell you, for anyone who is listening to this, if someone gets cancer at home, they are going to bust that cap in a hurry. This bill means they are not automatically protected. You can forget about essential health benefits. You get to flood the market with bargain- basement insurance plans as long as you offer one comprehensive option, and you get to price that plan through the roof. If you pass this bill--the Cruz fantasy proposal--it is going to be a tale of two health symptoms. The young and healthy will opt for the barebones insurance plans that don't cover much of anything, but there are millions of people in the country who can't get by, can't make it with skimpy insurance that covers nothing but stitches and aromatherapy. There are people who have had a cancer scare or suffer from diabetes or people who get hurt on the ski slopes or slip off a ladder. The only coverage that works for them will come with an astronomical price tag. By the way, the people between 55 and 64, who can get charged five times as much as younger people, get fewer tax credits under this Republican proposal. They can't get by with skimpy coverage. A lot of them have really serious health problems. Skimpy coverage for them is just a prescription for trouble. The fact is, this new proposal basically starts marching America back to the days when healthcare was reserved for the healthy and wealthy. What I will say is that there would be plenty of opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground if this proposal is set aside. Nobody has said the Affordable Care Act is perfect. What we would do is go to work to stabilize the private insurance market. That would be business No. 1. We would look at ideas, as Senator Nelson has just thoughtfully outlined, like reinsurance. Then a special priority of mine is to clamp down on skyrocketing prescription drug prices. I think there are a number of ideas that are teed up for both sides to come together. I recently put in a bill called the SPIKE bill. What it says is that these big drug companies should have to justify their big price hikes. I don't think that is an extreme position to say they ought to have to publicly, justifiably make it part of the public record. In the last few years, we have had a whole new industry emerge. They represent States and companies and labor unions, and they are supposed to be negotiating a good deal for patients. They are called pharmaceutical benefit managers, but we don't know what they put in their pocket and what they put in our pocket. I have said: How about some transparency, folks? Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Those are the kinds of ideas--reinsurance, stabilizing the private insurance market, clamping down on prescription drug prices, particularly using the power in the marketplace--that both sides ought to be able to get together. The recess is over, but the healthcare debate is far from over. What I will say is what I told my constituents. I see my friend Senator Merkley here. We had rallies at home. I said: Folks, in stopping the McConnell bill before the July break, you proved that political change in America is not trickle-down; it is bottom-up. For weeks before that July break, Americans of all ages and political philosophies called and texted and wrote and came to rallies and town meetings. They said: This TrumpCare bill is a loser for us. It doesn't work. Drop it and move on to approaches that involve common sense. Look for common ground that both sides could support. It is absolutely vital. The events of the last few weeks have shown the power of the grassroots. I walked through for my constituents what could have happened if 2 weeks ago the Republican leader had brought his bill to the floor. It was in the morning. I described how the bill could have gotten through the Senate. Maybe the House would have stayed in; maybe the House would have passed it; maybe the President would have signed it. One of my constituents said that morning: If that had happened and we had lost the ACA, even though it is not perfect, that morning we would have been in mourning. Let us show today that we can tackle this in a way that the Senate historically has worked best. Let's block the deeply flawed bill, and then let's turn around immediately to show that we can come together, find common ground. I see one of our colleagues, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has one of the important reinsurance bills here. We have a variety of ideas that we can pursue, that I think would have appeal on both sides of the aisle, but there is a step you have to take before you get on to those commonsense ideas. You have to stop the flawed bill before the U.S. Senate at this point. I ask the people of this country to continue what they have done over the last few weeks and show political change, bottom-up rather than top-down. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Presiding Officer. At this point, we are just going to hear from Senator Warner.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the last few days have proven, once again, that political change in America doesn't start in Washington, DC, and then trickle down. It is from the bottom up. Because millions of Americans called and texted and tweeted their opposition to an abomination of a health plan, that plan is not going to be on the Senate floor this week, thanks to grassroots America. It is so appropriate at this hour. I also want to make clear we have a bottom line for the next 2 weeks. We have an incredible amount of heavy lifting we have to do to make sure working families and seniors get a fair shake from the American healthcare system. I say that because, as we speak, Senate Republicans are at the White House strategizing with the President. The horse-trading has already begun, and the Senate Republicans have a slush fund paid for by working families that contains hundreds of billions of dollars that can be used for sweetheart deals that would get them the 51 votes needed to pass this horrendous healthcare bill in the U.S. Senate. Now I will turn to what we need to focus on in the next 2 weeks at townhall meetings, civic group lunches, discussions with rural healthcare providers. That focus has to be to highlight what this flawed Republican bill really means and how it can't be fixed no matter how much money the Republican leadership throws at these problems. This bill is a healthcare smash-and-grab, designed to benefit the fortunate few, and is paid for by hundreds of billions of dollars in reductions from Medicaid--tax breaks for the wealthy that Senate Republicans are so anxious to dole out, they are willing to make them retroactive. Contrary to what Senate Republicans say, their tax changes don't create jobs. They do create tax windfalls. Exhibit A, under their bill, you have a $1 million capital gain in February, and, if this bill passes, that lucky person would get a $38,000 tax break. Many of these gains go directly into the pockets of America's 400 most affluent families, while disabled kids, those with opioid addictions, and families where a baby boomer has the misfortune of having a stroke and needs nursing home care face the prospect that the crucial health services they need--services that are life and death for them--will not be there because of this flawed healthcare bill. Next, I want to point out that over the next 2 weeks, we are going to lay out how this legislation would send costs into the stratosphere for millions and millions of Americans. Start with older people who are about to get hit by what I call a double-age tax. If this bill goes through, insurance companies will have a green light to charge older Americans more than they charge younger people. As if that doesn't raise their costs enough, older Americans are also going to be forced to pay a higher share of their income on healthcare costs because the Senate Republican bill shrinks their tax benefits as they age. Older Americans need more healthcare. They can't afford to skimp out on bare- bones insurance. So many of our older people are going to see their premiums nearly quadruple. It is not just older Americans who are going to see their costs jump. Right off the top, hundreds of thousands of middle-class families across the country are going to lose tax cuts for healthcare because the Republican bill snatches away their eligibility. When it comes to the private insurance market, this bill is centered on a plan to push Americans into bargain-basement healthcare coverage. After all the talk about deductibles and out-of-pocket costs being unaffordable, this Republican proposal ties middle-class benefits to high-deductible, low- value insurance plans. It is a sleight of hand to make it look like consumers are getting a better deal and lower premiums. Here is the reality. Of course you can make premiums go down if you force people into insurance that only covers bandaids and a bottle of aspirin. When people get sick or suffer an injury, they are going to read the fine print on their insurance. With this legislation, if it were to pass, they would see sky-high deductibles and cut-rate coverage. For working families, they would face the prospect they would get buried under medical debt because their insurance doesn't cover the care they actually need. Finally, not even people who get their insurance at work--those folks probably thought they were home free in this debate--not even folks who get their insurance at work are safe from the Senate Republican healthcare plan. Four million Americans are going to lose their employer-sponsored insurance coverage just next year if this bill goes through. Tens of millions of Americans could once again face some of the worst insurance company abuses--annual and lifetime limits on coverage. Those are limits the Affordable Care Act banned, but Republicans are proposing to bring them back. Let's be real clear. If you bring them back and don't protect people from skyrocketing costs, it means that if they develop cancer, they could bust through their coverage limit, and, once again, we would go back to the days in America where those folks were forced into personal bankruptcy because millions of people without coverage will be unable to pay for the care they need. People with employer-based insurance are going to get hit with a hidden tax in the form of higher premiums. So if an American listening to this is considering early retirement, think again. The cost could well be too high. If you were thinking of leaving your job, becoming an entrepreneur, and starting your own business, you can think again. Your costs could be higher under this plan, especially if you have specific medical needs. Then there is the generation of adults in the workforce today--people who are middle class, who are doing everything they can to support their families and save whenever possible. They may not be thinking about the expense of long-term care, but the fact is, growing older in America really costs a lot. Because of this bill, millions of people will no longer be able to count on Medicaid being there to cover their long-term care in a nursing home or at home where they are most comfortable later in life. I want to close by way of saying that what we have to do now is make sure that--to beat this destructive Republican bill; this is the only way to do it--Americans keep tweeting, keep sending letters, keep finding rallies to attend, tell your stories about how you are going to do worse with this bill. And then tell your friends' stories and your family's stories. It is a virtual lock that this bill is going to come back around. I close today by way of saying that grassroots America, by speaking out--the fact that they did that and did all that work I have described is why this flawed bill is not going to be voted on in the Senate this week. We need everybody over the next 2 weeks, seniors and working families and people all across this country--my message is that we need you to stay loud because that is the only way we will finally stop this bill in its tracks. I yield to our friend from Maryland, Senator Cardin.

Mr. WYDEN. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN. I know my friend from Maryland is a real expert on this whole matter of private insurance, going back to his days in the State legislature, and I was director of the Gray Panthers. I think what you are saying is that it is critically important that we get more predictability and more certainty in the private insurance market. What I am struck by is, of course, this is the private sector. This is not the government. This is the private sector. The President has been basically pouring gasoline on the fires of uncertainty in the private insurance market because he is always in or out on this question of cost sharing, and the private insurers then say: We can't really predict what our rates are going to be, and maybe we have to pull out or we have to raise rates. Could the Senator again highlight his thoughts with respect to more predictability and more certainty? It is such an important point. After my good friend from Maryland has made that point, I know the Senator from Delaware is interested in the same subject.

Mr. WYDEN. Will my friend yield?

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator, as a Governor, really has helped educate me over the years on this whole question of the States being ``laboratories of democracy'' and trying fresh approaches. Delaware has done that and Oregon has done that. I ask the Senator: As a former Governor, what would it mean to you if you are staring at a 20- or 25-percent reduction in Medicaid? Because as you know, that is what is contemplated with the Senate Republicans.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my friend. Would my friend like to add anything else or should we yield to Senator Cantwell?

Mr. WYDEN. Before Senator Cardin leaves the floor and we yield to our friend from Washington, who is also so knowledgeable about healthcare, on this point with the States being the laboratories of democracy, during the debate with my colleagues over the Affordable Care Act, we wrote a provision, 1332. It gives the States the authority to do better, to come up with, as the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, said--it is a chance to do better and try out those fresh ideas on my colleagues. The problem is, with the Senate Republican bill, they are talking about giving the States the right to do worse, to waive out some of these essential protections. Again, I think this is natural for something that could be bipartisan, where Democrats and Republicans could work together to really encourage States to do better. Let's not go the other way and abuse that provision in the Affordable Care Act so States can work.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington State who was for care coordination, moving away from fee-for-service, using bargaining power, locally driven approaches long before it really became a buzzword in American healthcare. I thank her very much for this.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, of course.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Senator Warner.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he yields the floor, I just want to thank Senator Warner for his insightful comments. As a Governor, he really understands why a Medicaid cut of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars is going to permanently damage the lives of so many people in Virginia. I thank him for his comments. Let me yield now to Senator Menendez.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe we are very close to consuming the hour that the Finance Democrats have, so I ask unanimous consent that at this time Senator Casey be recognized for his remarks and at the conclusion of his remarks, I be recognized for some final comments.

Mr. WYDEN. To wrap this up, Mr. President, I was struck when Senator Menendez talked about the Senate Republican health bill being more for less. I think millions of Americans might say it is a classic bait-and- switch. After the horrible House bill was passed, Senate Republicans and the Trump administration promised something new. It would have more heart. It would be less mean. But essentially what they have done is doubled down on exactly what the American people rejected in the House bill--the secrecy, the fact that the breaks went to the fortunate few and the pain went to millions of Americans who needed nursing home care, who have youngsters with special needs, or who are disabled. The fact is that the process Senate Republicans have used on this health reconciliation bill hasn't gone well. That is why they can't go forward with consideration of their healthcare bill this week. And it looks as though--I heard remarks from one of our senior colleagues early this afternoon--it looks as though the same darn thing is going to be used for tax reform. Once again, a bill processed behind closed doors, without any input from the other party--it looks as if that is the route that is going to be taken on tax reform. I think that is unfortunate. I have made it very clear--very clear--to the Trump administration that the history of successful tax reform is bringing both sides in early and finding ways to secure principles that each side feels strongly about that the other can live with. There has been no such consultation--zero--with respect to this administration and Democrats on the Finance Committee. I am struck, because I wrote, over the last decade, what are the only two bipartisan Federal comprehensive tax reform bills--first with our former colleague, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and most recently with the new head of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Senator Coats, and we have had no consultation on the substance of tax reform. That is a prescription for trouble. It is, in effect, walking away from the history that the only way to get a sustainable, bipartisan tax reform plan is to get both sides together, not do what is being discussed now openly in the media: that the Republican leadership and the Trump administration are going to write a tax bill and then just pop it on the American people in the fall. And I anticipate it will be more of the same in terms of stacking the deck dramatically in favor of the fortunate few. I say this because we heard again what appears to be the plan of the Senate Republicans to kind of double down on the flawed strategy of healthcare, which is just to do it in secret and then expect to see if maybe they can get a couple of Democrats to go along. Then they can say: Oh, that is a bipartisan bill. That is not a bipartisan bill. A bipartisan bill is the kind of work that was done in 1986 with my predecessor, Senator Packwood, and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, who was another tall Democrat on the Finance Committee. A big group got together and worked out a bill that made sense, broadened the tax base, and gave everybody in America the chance to get ahead. My hope is that over the next 2 weeks, in terms of defeating a flawed healthcare bill and showing that there needs to be a different path for tax reform, the American people will keep making those calls, keep tweeting, keep texting, keep going to rallies, keep going to meetings where healthcare providers get together and say: Look, this healthcare bill that Republicans are talking about does not work for us, and it does not work for our parents and our grandparents and youngsters and the disabled folks and those who need opioid services. Again, I thank my colleagues from the Finance Committee. We have had something like eight colleagues participate in this over the last hour. I would just say to the American people that the reason we have been able to hold off this horrendous Senate Republican healthcare bill is that grassroots America showed again that political change does not start at the top and trickle down but comes from the bottom-up. It was all of that citizen involvement that caused the Republican leadership to put this bill off, but it is a lock--an absolute lock--that it is going to come up again in a couple of weeks. As I wrap up my remarks this afternoon, I hope that over the next 2 weeks, the American people will be loud, will come out to their elected officials' events, and will tell them what they are for and what they are against. On behalf of the Senate Finance Democrats, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kimberly Koops-Wrabek, Alexander Floyd, Jeremy Jones, and Justin Abbasi be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.