Floor Statements

Mr. President, on another matter--taxes--it is clear that our economy would benefit from a bipartisan package of changes to our Tax Code that would focus laser-like on increasing wages for working families, improving middle-class job growth, and promoting domestic investment, while modernizing our outdated business and international tax system.

From what we have heard from the White House so far, its plan would not do any of that. We Democrats are open to a bipartisan discussion on those issues, but we also believe that, in an economy in which wealth is seemingly funneled to the already wealthy, it is working Americans who deserve tax relief, not those at the very top. The wealthiest Americans have seen outsized benefits from recent economic gains. Now is not the time to shower millionaires and billionaires with another tax break while working Americans continue to struggle to make ends meet.

Today, 45 Members of the Democratic caucus sent a letter to our Republican friends, writing that we are open to bipartisan discussions on tax reform but that we will not support any effort to rewrite the Tax Code to give another tax break to the top 1 percent or add even more to the deficit and the debt.

Here are our three principles outlined in the letter:

First, no new tax breaks for the top 1 percent.

Second, it must not increase the debt and must be fiscally responsible.

Third, we must use a regular order process that will ensure true bipartisan input in the product, not the reconciliation process that was used in healthcare, which excluded the Democrats from the get-go and, in part, led to the failure of the Republicans to

pass repeal or repeal and replace. Ramming tax cuts through under reconciliation--the very same partisan process that failed for healthcare--is the wrong way to do business for this country.

Again, the Democrats are open to a bipartisan discussion on tax reform, but it has to be truly bipartisan, not under reconciliation, and tax reform cannot be a cover story for delivering tax cuts to the wealthiest or result in a ballooning deficit and debt.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a brief moment?

Mr. President, I will have a statement in support of Mr. Wray after the Senator from Georgia finishes speaking.

I am in full support of Mr. Wray, and I thank my colleague for the courtesy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, shortly we will take a vote on the nomination of Christopher Wray to be the next FBI Director.

The job of FBI Director has always been a crucial one. The responsibility is great and so are the expectations, and the demands facing our next FBI Director are perhaps greater than any time in our history.

This a serious time for the FBI, and for the Nation. The firing of Director Comey, the shifting explanations from the White House as to why Mr. Comey was fired, and the disdain this White House has shown for the rule of law mean that now, more than ever, the Senate has an obligation to critically evaluate any potential FBI Director.

Now more than ever, we need an FBI Director who is independent, impartial, fearless, and has the strength of will to occupy a job that has been put under enormous political strain by the White House.

No doubt, Christopher Wray has been put up for a tough job. In considering his nomination, it was important to me to take the measure of the man and determine whether he was up to the challenge. I met with him privately for an hour, and I closely studied his record and his performance in his hearings.

Based on his career in public service and the commitments he made to me in our meeting and to the Judiciary Committee in his confirmation hearing, I believe that Christopher Wray deserves the approval of the Senate.

He committed to informing the Judiciary Committee of any attempts to interfere with Special Counsel Mueller's Russia probe and said he would consider any attempted interference to be unacceptable and inappropriate.

He committed to impartiality and independence, pledging that the FBI will follow the facts, the laws, and the Constitution, without regard to partisan political influence.

After a sterling career at the Justice Department, and based on the recommendation of hundreds of U.S. Attorneys who have validated his integrity, there is no reason not to believe that Mr. Wray will live up to these commitments as Director of the FBI.

I will vote yes on his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

First, on the matter of healthcare. I sincerely and truly hope the events of last week are a turning point. I hope they steer this body toward a period of greater bipartisanship. We sure could use it because the problems in our healthcare system did not end last week. We Democrats know that the Affordable Care Act wasn't perfect. We want to keep what works--and there are a lot of good things in it--and we want to fix what doesn't. We have a lot of work to do on that front.

Our first order of business should be to stabilize the individual market and then both parties should work together through regular order through committees to discuss other improvements. Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray have indicated they want to work together, have public hearings, and do this the right away. I am hopeful Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Wyden, both of whom have proven themselves willing and able to work across party lines, also will be willing to work closely together to address broader problems with our healthcare system.

Let me repeat. The first order of business should be to stabilize the individual market, which has been racked by uncertainty.

Right now, as insurers prepare to lock in their rates and plans for 2018, the Trump administration is dangling a massive sword of Damocles over the heads of millions of Americans, threatening to end payments the administration is supposed to make that would lower deductibles and out-of-pocket costs for so many Americans. These payments are critical to keeping healthcare costs down and keeping the markets stable. Remember, AHIP--the largest trade group of insurers--has said the uncertainty about these payments is ``the single most destabilizing factor in the individual market.'' That is not Chuck Schumer or some Democrat saying it, it is the insurers saying it. Make no mistake, by refusing these payments, President Trump is sabotaging our healthcare system. He is actively trying to make it collapse, taking out his political loss on the American people. That is not being Presidential; that is small, it is vindictive, and it will hurt millions of Americans he has sworn to help.

In Pennsylvania and North Carolina, insurers have filed two separate sets of possible rates for 2018; one if the payments are made and one if they are not. If the payments are not made, premiums would be 20 percent higher.

Let's repeat that. If the payments are not made, if President Trump follows through on his vindictive idea of not making the payments, premiums will be 20 percent higher for the people of North Carolina and Pennsylvania. So if President Trump does not guarantee these payments permanently, Americans will have to pay a Trump tax on their premiums next year.

Let me say that again. If President Trump does not guarantee these payments, Americans will be paying a Trump tax of 20 percent higher premiums.

President Trump has a responsibility to make our healthcare system work, and millions of Americans will hold him accountable if the system implodes on his watch, if insurers leave the markets on his watch, or if their premiums go up 20 percent or more on his watch.

Of course, we in Congress could remove the uncertainty hanging over the market and take the decision out of the President's hands. We can and should guarantee these payments as soon as possible, before the insurers set their rates for next year. I urge my Republican friends to join us on Senator Shaheen's bill to guarantee these payments and prevent President Trump's premium tax from going into effect. Republican Senators Alexander, Collins, Hatch, Portman, and Johnson have all spoken about the need to do this. I hope they will help us move forward. We could get this done very quickly and show the American people that we are able to work together on healthcare in a very bipartisan way, to help keep costs down for so many ratepayers.

Now, Madam President, on the matter of Russia sanctions. I was very proud last week, as nearly every Member of Congress, save five, voted to pass legislation for sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea; that there was such bipartisanship on that issue. According to reports, the President will sign the legislation.

These are tough sanctions. They will have a real effect on Russia, and they are more than justified. President Putin violated the sovereignty of Ukraine, aided and abetted human rights abuses in Syria, and attacked the very foundation of our democracy by meddling in the 2016 election.

Just as importantly, the sanctions bill gives Congress the ability to review any decision to weaken, dilute, or lift sanctions on Russia. President Putin will not be able to get out from under the sting of these sanctions without the consent of Congress.

Let this be an unequivocal message to Mr. Putin and any other nation that is thinking of interfering in our elections: If you interfere with our elections, which we hold sacred, you will be sanctioned. Those sanctions will be severe.

First, let me thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Delaware, not only for his remarks but for his constant, conscientious concern about this country in just about every area. Whenever he speaks, he has a great deal of thought behind it because he is always thinking. My guess is, he is thinking while he sleeps at night. He has so many thoughts. It also comes from a good soul and a good heart because he really cares about making this country better and is working together in a bipartisan way to do that whenever he can. I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, it is likely, at some point today, we will finally see the majority leader's final healthcare bill, the bill he intends to either pass or fail. Thus far, we have been going through a pretense, defeating Republican bills that never had enough support even within their own caucus to pass. Repeal and replace has failed. Repeal without replace has failed. Now we are waiting to see what the majority leader intends for the Republican plan on healthcare. If the reports in the media are true, the majority leader will offer a skinny repeal as his final proposal.

As I mentioned last night, Democrats will offer no further motions or amendments until we see this skinny bill, but make no mistake, once we do see the bill, we will begin preparing amendments. In the event the bill fails, we can move directly to the NDAA, and out of deference to my dear friend Senator McCain, we will work to move that piece of legislation quickly.

If the skinny bill passes, remember, Democrats have an unlimited right, after it passes, to offer an unlimited amount of amendments. Now, many of my colleagues have many amendments on healthcare. They have just been waiting to see the final bill Leader McConnell will bring to the floor.

I want to put my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on notice, my Democratic and Republican colleagues, that they should prepare for numerous Democratic amendments if the skinny bill passes. With the skinny bill passing--I hope it doesn't, but if it does--it will not be the last vote. There will be many more after that to change it and to modify it. I want everyone to understand that.

I also want everyone in this body to understand the consequences of the skinny repeal. We Democrats asked the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to score the skinny repeal based on the four or five provisions of the bill that seem to be what the majority leader is considering: get rid of the individual mandate, get rid of the business mandate, get rid of the Cadillac tax, get rid of the tax on medical devices, and get rid of some of--I believe they considered getting rid of some of the essential healthcare provisions as well. Even if the bill is slightly different from the one we asked to be scored, the score will be pretty much the same.

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are thinking of voting for this skinny bill, listen to what the CBO said, which is nonpartisan and headed by a Republican whom Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan agreed to appoint. The Congressional Budget Office said that a skinny repeal would cause 16 million Americans to lose insurance, and millions of Americans would pay 20 percent more for their premiums starting next year. Premiums would go up 20 percent--not 3 years from now but in January--according to the CBO.

Let me repeat that.

A skinny repeal means 16 million fewer Americans with insurance and premiums up 20 percent next year and will stay there. It is not that they go down later, as in one of these CBO estimates of one of the other Republican bills. They stay there, getting higher every year, with people paying more and more. The premiums will go up immediately, as early as January 1, as I mentioned--not 3 years forward but on January 1. One of the promises our Republican friends have made over and over is to bring down premiums, but a skinny repeal would break that promise, and the American people would see it in just 5 months.

Yesterday, a bipartisan group of Governors sent a letter that urges us away from a skinny repeal--these are the Governors, bipartisan-- warning that it would ``accelerate health plans leaving the individual market, increase premiums, and result in fewer Americans having access to coverage.'' Republican Governors Sandoval and Kasich and a few other Republican Governors were on that letter.

Now, the argument from the Republican leadership is for Republicans to vote for this bill because they made a campaign promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Yet I ask my Republican friends: Did you

promise the American people that you would raise premiums on everyone? I didn't hear that in the promises. That is what a skinny repeal does. Did you promise the American people that you would take healthcare away from tens of millions? I didn't hear that. That is what the skinny bill does.

No, the Republicans not only promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they promised to replace it with something better. I do not know why, but, somehow, the first promise is more important than the second. The skinny plan manages to anger everyone--conservatives, who know it is a surrender and know it does not come close to the full repeal they promised, and moderates, who know that it will be terrible for their constituents.

Is this the one plan that finally unites the Republican Senate--a plan that angers everyone--conservatives, moderates, and, perhaps, most of all, the American people? I cannot believe that, and I hope it would not.

If the Republicans pass such a devastating plan, either one of two things could happen. The House could simply take up the skinny bill repeal, making all of those terrible possibilities a reality--premiums would go up in January, and insurance markets would collapse. In fact, if the House passed this skinny bill, our entire healthcare system could well implode. Everyone who voted for it, regardless of motivation, will regret it.

Or they could take it to conference, which is a pathway to full repeal. In conference, the Freedom Caucus will demand a full repeal--or something close to it--with all of the associated cuts to Medicaid and tax breaks for the wealthy, which so many here in the Senate have labored months to undo.

So this thing is turning into a game of hot potato. The House passed a bill that they do not like. They had to hurry it up. They had to do it twice and pass the hot potato to the Senate. Senator McConnell is juggling that hot potato. He cannot get the repeal, and he cannot get repeal and replace. So he comes up with this plan that no one likes, but they say: OK, we can send the hot potato back to the House.

How many more months is this going to go on, when we could be sitting down, in a bipartisan way, as my good friend from Arizona has recommended, and work together in the committee process?

In the gym this morning, I saw Lamar Alexander, the head of the HELP Committee. We see each other just about every morning in the gym. I was wearing, I think, my Syracuse T-shirt, and he was wearing his Tennessee Volunteers T-shirt.

I said to Lamar: If this skinny bill goes down, as it should--and I spoke to Patty Murray, our ranking member--we will sit down and work in a bipartisan way to improve ObamaCare. We know that ObamaCare needs some work. We do not deny that. Let's do it in a bipartisan way instead of passing this hot potato back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, and not getting anything done.

While our leaders are passing this hot potato, insurers will be setting their rates for 2018. That means that insurers will lock in rates for the next year with this massive uncertainty hanging over their heads, leading to huge rate increases or decisions to pull out of markets. A skinny repeal as a way to get to conference is a recipe for disaster. Beyond that, it is a shameful way of legislating.

My Republican friends should listen to the wonderful speech that the man whom we admire gave--John McCain--when he came back. We should be working in a bipartisan way. My Republican friends, you should not be passing a bill that you do not support or believe in, that you pray will not become law. If you believe that this bill should become law, vote yes, but if you do not believe that the bill should become law, you vote no--plain and simple. Then we can resume in the Finance Committee and in the HELP Committee a bipartisan process of making the present healthcare system better, which needs to be done.

You do not vote to advance terrible legislation and hope that it will magically get better in conference. Let's not forget that, months ago, many House Republicans justified their voting for their nightmare bill because they thought that it would get better in the Senate. It has not gotten any better. In fact, it has only gotten worse, and a conference will be no different. Voting yes on a bill that you do not support just to get it to conference is an unserious way of legislating, particularly on this issue, but that is, so far, what the Republican leader is doing.

There may be no better example than the amendment offered by Senator Daines, which favors Medicare for all. I cannot believe that this is happening, because all of the Republicans are going to vote against it. It is just pure cynicism, pure politics, and is not a serious effort to legislate and make things better when people need help. Senator Daines does not support the bill. He just wants to get Democrats on the record. The majority leader has made pending an amendment that both he and the author of the amendment will oppose, and that is the very definition of a political game.

We Democrats are not going to go along, because this is not a game. This is not a joke. It is not hot potato. We are talking about people's lives. We do not have time for phony amendments or phony bills. You do not play games with the healthcare of the American people.

As I said, anyone who listened to the eloquent words of my dear friend from Arizona should blush at this process. His was a clarion call that both sides of the aisle can do better. He criticized his side for being partisan, and he criticized our side for being partisan. He is right on both counts. We all can do better. Let's start. The Daines amendment does not do that. That is for sure. The only answer is to start over together, to work together through regular order, and to get some legislation that we can all live with.

Russia Sanctions

Mr. President, I have one other point, on Russia sanctions. It is apropos. I didn't know, when we read all of this stuff, that my good friend from Arizona would be here. Even as we debate other items on the floor, we should not delay this legislation on the Russia sanctions any longer.

Last night, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee here in the Senate said that he was ready to move the package quickly. That is what Senator Corker said, and I am glad he did. I will work with the majority leader to send this legislation to the President's desk before the recess. We have already cleared this legislation on the Democratic side. We are prepared to move it by unanimous consent at any time.

I hope the White House signs this. This morning, the White House Communications Director said that President Trump may veto the legislation so that he could make a tougher deal with Russia than could Congress. The idea that the President would veto this legislation in order to toughen it up is laughable. I am a New Yorker, too, and I know bull when I hear it. If the President vetoes this bill, the American people will know that he is being soft on Putin, that he is giving a free pass to a foreign adversary who violated the sanctity of our democracy by meddling in our election and who seeks to undermine democracy and American life in any way he can. I hope and expect, if the President decides to use the first veto of his Presidency on this bill, that Congress will swiftly override it.

I see my friend here, the majority leader. I appreciate his work on making this Russia sanctions bill happen and being available. I hope that we will get the House bill to the President's desk, and I hope the President signs it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will just clarify, the Republican leader and the chair of the Armed Services Committee want to discuss NDAA. They will not make any motion to move to it. I have no problem with them discussing it.

Will my colleague from Arizona yield so that I can answer him before the majority leader speaks?

First, I wish to express our respect for the Senator from Arizona. My dear friendship--really love for the man is unbounded.

I am repeating in my head, as many of us have, the speech our friend from Arizona gave when he came back, and we were all so joyous that he did. He talked about going to regular order. He talked about working in a bipartisan way. He talked about doing this healthcare bill the right way--with hearings, with debate, with amendment. Even I accepted his chastisement that we passed a partisan bill. He knows the record shows I didn't want to do that. But we did have debate and amendments. We had a process where six people--three from each party--spent 6 months trying to come to an agreement. They did not.

But I must say the reason that we must ask unanimous consent to go to the bill is because we are in reconciliation--the very process that has prevented us from debating, from having hearings, from having some kind of bipartisan input. I would say to my colleague, if you want to get rid of this reconciliation, fine. Let's recommit the bill to committee and start on a fair process, and we can go to NDAA immediately--in an hour--if we were to do that.

The reason we can't do that is our dear friend the majority leader is insisting on the reconciliation process. And you can't say--we can't, because we feel defense is important and we feel the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans is equally important. And we can't say you can turn on and turn off the reconciliation process when you want to and when you don't. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If reconciliation is poor and prevents NDAA from coming up immediately, it is equally poor--maybe more so--when it comes to healthcare.

So my plea and suggestion: Let's not go forward with this bill. We don't even know what it is yet. Let's go back to committee.

I spoke to Senator Alexander, I spoke to Senator Murray this morning. If this bill fails, they will go back and try to negotiate bipartisan improvements--just as my good friend from Arizona recommended when he came back and gave his moving speech.

But my caucus--I have spoken to a few--feel very strongly that this process on healthcare has been awful, and it is because of reconciliation, and now reconciliation has put NDAA in a bind as well. Let's get rid of reconciliation, and we can do what the Senator from Arizona wants and what I think the American people want--a fair process.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks count against leader time.

Mr. President, I would simply say once more to my colleague briefly--

We can do both. We can do both. It is very simple. It is just what my dear friend from Arizona asked about 2 days ago: regular order on both. We can have both.

You can't ask--it is unfair, in my judgment--and I have great respect--to ask for one and then continue to tie our hands on reconciliation on healthcare.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on leader time.

Mr. President, last year, we know the United States was victim of an attack by a foreign power on the very foundation of this dear democracy--the right of the people to a free and fair election.

The consensus view of 17 agencies is that Mr. Putin interfered in the 2016 election. For that alone, the United States has more than just cause to sanction President Putin and the intelligence apparatus he directs. To date, Mr. Putin and his allies have not suffered serious repercussions for this stunning breach of our right as a sovereign nation not to have our elections disturbed by a foreign capital. That all changes today.

Congress has drafted this sanctions bill to hold Mr. Putin accountable for his actions and to send a message to him and the rest of the world that any further attempts to degrade our democracy will meet further sanctions and action. We will not stand by idly as this is done.

There is no process more sacred in a democracy than the guarantee of free and fair elections. That fundamental right was attacked by Mr. Putin. With this vote, let us finally--finally--officially condemn and forcefully respond to that attack on our country. Let us send this bill to the President's desk for his signature.

We still don't know if President Trump will sign this legislation. I say to my colleagues: If the Congress speaks loudly enough and strongly enough and we send this bill with a veto-proof majority, it will not matter what President Trump decides.

Before I yield the floor, I wish to thank my colleagues. At the top of the list are Senators McCain and Graham, who early on had the idea to do this. Their strength against transgressions against this country is wonderful.

I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He had to pursue this legislation through ups and downs. He didn't relent, and here we are today because of his efforts.

I thank his ranking member, Senator Cardin. They are a great bipartisan team.

Similarly, Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Brown, again, in a bipartisan way, not letting partisan politics get in the way--they passed this legislation.

I would like to thank leader McConnell because when he and I talked about bringing this legislation to the floor, he didn't blink. He didn't hesitate. He was forthright and said: Let's do it.

This piece of legislation proves that when this body works the way it should, when both parties talk to each other, work with each other, and the committee chairmen and ranking members negotiate legislation through proper procedure, we can produce good, strong bipartisan legislation.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention, in this moment of bipartisanship, the same thing could happen with healthcare.

With that, I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that before the next amendment each side be given 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, first on the issue before us, most Democrats--the vast majority--are for repeal of the Cadillac tax. We are not for many of the other provisions being put forward. This requires the two to be tied together. We are for repealing the Cadillac tax but not harming the healthcare of millions of Americans.

I want to make another point, especially to my friends, Senators McCain, Graham, Johnson, and Cassidy, who said correctly that the skinny bill was totally inadequate and they would require assurances from the House.

Let me first read what Mr. Ryan said: ``If moving forward requires a conference committee, that is something the House is willing to do.'' That is not worth anything--only if moving forward is required.

But I make another point that makes the case proof positive that this bill could pass and there is no assurance from the House. The House Rules Committee. There was a motion to limit the waiver of clause 6(a) of rule XIII--

I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

To limit it just for motions to go to conference; rejected 4 to 9.

If the House was intent on going to conference, they would have voted for this rule. It means they want to pass this bill, this skinny repeal, and send it to the President.

I would urge my four colleagues and all the others to vote no until they get that assurance.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Cornyn can conclude, but I be given 5 minutes and the Senator from Oregon be given 5 minutes.

Senator Cornyn is to speak after us.

No. I ask 5 minutes for the Senator from New York, 5 for the Senator from Oregon, and 5, finally--or however much time the Senator from Texas wants.

I would simply say to my friend, this is a huge bill. We have not had a huge amount of time to debate it. We have just seen it for 2 hours. To ask for another 5 minutes on our side for the ranking member of Finance, in addition to mine, is not too much to ask.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be given 5 minutes to the Senator from Oregon, 5 minutes to myself, and, in conclusion, 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, let me thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for yielding us time.

This august body has been around for over 220 years. It has rules. It has traditions we are very proud of. In recent years--both parties to blame--many of those traditions have been eroded. What happens when you erode the traditions--the bipartisanship, the ability to work through the regular order--is very simply that the product that emerges is not very good. There is a reason this body has been the greatest deliberative body in the world, and it is because it had those traditions. Now we don't have them.

We have a bill that we have seen for 2 hours. It affects the healthcare, perhaps the lives--almost certainly the lives--of millions. It affects the daily lives of men and women and children. We haven't even had a chance to explore all the ramifications. There is a lot of anger on the other side at the ACA. I understand that, but you are repeating what you claim are the same mistakes.

Just as maybe ObamaCare could have been made better if it were a bipartisan proposal, this one certainly would have been made better. This skinny repeal, CBO tells us, will kick 15 million people--16 million people--off care. This skinny bill, after all the cries of reducing premiums as the major reason that ObamaCare needed changes, will raise premiums 20 percent a year, ad infinitum. The average working family is going to struggle to get healthcare even more than they have now.

Why is this being rushed through this way? Why is this being done in the dark of night? I can't believe my colleagues are proud of it. If they were, there would be brass bands down the streets of smalltown America celebrating this bill. That is not what is happening. It is midnight. Debate is curtailed. We can't amend it in the open. We can't do what is needed.

So I would plead once more with my colleagues, let's start over. We are the first to admit that the present law needs some changes. We are the first to want--maybe having learned our own lessons--that it should be done in a bipartisan and sharing way. Let's start over.

We can do better. We can do better for all those people who are going to be hurt. We can do better for the traditions of this great institution. We can do better as Americans who love our country and love our democracy and love our process. It is not too late to turn back from this proposal ideologically driven and do better because we all are not proud of this product. I don't think there is hardly anyone in this body who is proud of this product.

Let's make this a turning point, not just on healthcare but in how we function together. We plead with you, let us commit this bill. Let us vote against skinny repeal, and let's work together to improve our healthcare system in the way our Founding Fathers intended us to improve it.

I yield the floor

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, first, let me say that it has been a long, long road for both sides. Each side had sincere convictions, and we are at this point.

I want to say three things. First, I suggest that we turn the page. It is time to turn the page.

I say to my dear friend the majority leader that we are not celebrating. We are relieved that millions and millions of people who would have been so drastically hurt by the three proposals put forward will, at least, retain their healthcare, be able to deal with preexisting conditions, deal with nursing homes and opioids that Medicaid has paid for.

We are relieved, not for ourselves, but for the American people. But as I have said over and over again, ObamaCare was hardly perfect. It did a lot of good things, but it needs improvement. I hope one part of turning that page is that we go back to regular order, work in the committees together to improve ObamaCare.

We have good leaders--the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Utah, the Senator from Oregon. They have worked well together in the past and can work well together in the future. There are suggestions we are interested in that come from Members on the other side of the aisle--the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Louisiana.

So let's turn the page and work together to improve our healthcare system, and let's turn the page in another way. All of us are so inspired by the speech and the life of the Senator from Arizona, and he asked us to go back to regular order, to bring back the Senate that some of us who have been here a while remember. Maybe this can be a moment where we start doing that.

Both sides will have to give. The blame hardly falls on one side or the other, but if we can take this moment--a solemn moment--and start working this body the way it had always worked until the last decade or so, with both sides to blame for the deterioration, we will do a better job for our country, a better job for this body, a better job for ourselves.

Finally, I am glad that the leader asked us to move to NDAA. We need to do it. I can say that on this side of the aisle, we will move expeditiously. I know that the Senator from Rhode Island has worked with the Senator from Arizona on a list of amendments that can be agreed to, and we can finish this bill up rather quickly. As I mentioned to the majority leader, there are some other things we can do rather quickly, including moving a whole lot of nominations.

We can work together. Our country demands it. Every place in every corner of the country where we go, the No. 1 thing we are asked--and I know this because I have talked to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle--is: Can't you guys work together? Let's give it a shot. Let's give it a shot.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my speaking time be taken from leader time, not the debate time.

Mr. President, as the Senate continues the debate on the Republican healthcare bill, it seems the Republican majority is no clearer on what the endgame is because there is no good way out of this.

Last night, the Senate Republican TrumpCare bill--after months of backroom negotiating and provisions aimed at all kinds of individual States and Members--died, with nine Republicans voting against the measure and many others who voted for it gritting their teeth unhappily.

Later today, we will vote on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act without replacing it. I know that you, Mr. President, have championed that bill. Based on public comments and public criticism from the other side of the aisle, repeal without replace will fail as well. It is becoming clearer that in the end, the majority leader might push a much scaled-back version of repeal in the hopes of passing something--a so- called skinny repeal--just to get to conference. My colleagues, make no mistake about it, skinny repeal is equal to full repeal. It is a Trojan horse, designed to get the House and Senate into conference where a hard-right flank of the House Republicans, the Freedom Caucus, will demand full repeal or something very close to it. They will demand all the things--deep cuts to Medicaid, generous tax breaks for the wealthy, elimination of preexisting conditions, slashing the kinds of things people need for nursing homes and opioid treatment and disabled kids-- that many of my Republican colleagues in the Senate have very sincerely tried to undo.

There is no such thing as skinny repeal. It is a ruse to get to full repeal, with all the concomitant cuts to Medicaid and tax breaks which are so unpopular and which so many of my Republican colleagues here on the other side have opposed. It is clear House and Senate Republicans are miles apart. They are divided on major issues--on Medicaid, tax breaks, and preexisting conditions. The differences between House Republicans and Senate Republicans are virtually irreconcilable. So what is the point of a conference?

You can imagine a conference that turns into an endless game of hot potato; the Republican leader and the Senate passing the potato to the House; the Republican leader of the House passing the potato back to the Senate because neither wants to be responsible for what is inevitable: the demise of TrumpCare. Of course, it is likely a conference could probably produce no agreement at all, keeping the incredibly toxic and unpopular TrumpCare bill the topic of conversation for another 3 months, stalling the legislative agenda for another 3 months, and in the end getting nothing done.

My Republican colleagues should consider that. Many of them want to work with us on so many issues. Above all, NDAA, which my dear friend John McCain, who we pray for every day, wants to get to right away, and the Energy bill, which my colleague from Washington and her chair, the senior Member from Alaska, could bring to the floor and get moving in a bipartisan way. Leader McConnell has made it clear he wants to move nominations.

If we stop playing this game with TrumpCare and send it back to committee and do regular order, as John McCain preached so well yesterday, we could move on to all these other things in a good, strong bipartisan way and start to get things done. My Republican colleagues should consider that carefully.

We Democrats want to start working with our Republican colleagues on the issues I mentioned. We also want to work on improving ACA. No one has ever said ObamaCare was perfect. I have called five or six of my Republican colleagues on the other side and said if we stop this effort with TrumpCare--with repeal or repeal and replace with something far worse than the present--we can go back to committee and improve the present healthcare system and get premiums lower, make healthcare better, and stabilize the system so there is more competition. We will do that.

My good friend the Senator from Wyoming, not the Senator sitting here but his colleague--I heard he was saying to some Members: Oh, the Democrats will never negotiate. Schumer will never negotiate. I saw him last night on the floor, and I assured him we will. That is our goal. He accepted that in good faith, which I very much respect.

So the bottom line is simple. I say to my Republican colleagues, when you find yourself in a hole, the first rule is stop digging. By continuing this process--trying to send something, anything, to conference with the House--Republicans are just digging a deeper and deeper hole for themselves and for this body. I implore my Republican colleagues to stop digging and come work with Democrats. We can work to improve our Nation's healthcare system, but Republicans have to turn back soon, and they are running out of chances.

One more thing I would add. I heard my friend the Republican leader say we are going to have a full amendment process. He is trying to convince the folks on the other side that, oh, we will do a bunch of amendments, and then we will have no choice, we will have to send something to conference because we couldn't get anything major done. That is a lot of bunk. We have had no hearings, we had no amendments, we had no bipartisan discussions, and we will not even be able to have debate on many amendments on one of the most major bills affecting us, that affects tens of millions of people's health, and affects one-sixth of the economy. Don't fall for this, oh, we are having a full process. I like my friend the Republican leader. We get along well, but sometimes he says things that when I hear them, I get a little twinge in the stomach. We have a full and open amendment process, he said three or four times. Everyone in this Chamber knows that is not the case. Don't be deluded into thinking, well, we tried. We haven't tried until we go back to regular order.

Comments of the President on Attorney General Sessions

Mr. President, on another matter, President Trump continues to find new ways to humiliate his own Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, a man who stuck his neck out for the President before any other Senator would. I heard President Trump say: I was already popular. As I remember it, when Jeff Sessions supported him, he was an underdog, and everyone said: Wow, Jeff Sessions is doing that out of loyalty and friendship with Donald Trump, not because he was jumping on a train that was headed down the track. Maybe he saw that, but no one else did, and now the President humiliates him.

I would say to my fellow Americans--Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative--every American should be troubled by the character of this person who humiliates and turns his back on a close friend after only 6 months. We are already far beyond the dangers of a chilling effect at the Department of Justice. The President is taking almost every opportunity in public to demonstrate an open hostility toward the Attorney General. It seems clear the President's intention is to make life unbearable for the Attorney General, hoping to prompt his resignation. All Americans should be wondering why the President is publicly demeaning and humiliating such a close friend and supporter--a member of his own Cabinet. They should wonder if the President is trying to pry open the office of Attorney General to appoint someone during the August recess who will fire Special Counsel Mueller and shut down the Republican investigation. Let me say, if such a situation arises, Democrats will use every tool in our toolbox to stymie such a recess appointment.

Second, I can't imagine my friends on the Republican side, particularly my friends in the Republican leadership, the majority leader and Speaker Ryan--I can't imagine they would be complicit in creating a constitutional crisis. They must work with us and not

open the door to a constitutional crisis during the August recess.

Sanctions Bill

Mr. President, one final point because I know my colleagues are waiting: sanctions--finally, a word on them. Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed nearly unanimously, 419 to 3, a sanctions bill that was a product of bicameral, bipartisan negotiations and includes strong sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The Senate must act quickly on the legislation from the House.

I understand that earlier today the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee indicated he plans to strip out a section of this package that relates to North Korea. This is yet another delay generated by Republicans to prevent this bill from landing on the President's desk before we leave for the recess. Even as we debate other items here on the floor, we shouldn't delay this legislation any longer.

I will work with the majority leader to schedule another vote on the sanctions bill so that we can send the legislation to the President's desk before the recess, and I expect the vote will constitute a veto- proof majority, just like the vote in the House.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise this evening to announce the Democrats will offer no further amendments to the pending legislation until the Republican leader shows us what the final legislation will be.

Clearly, the Senate bill--repeal and replace--has failed. Senator Paul's bill--repeal without replace--has also failed. We know the Republicans are not going to take a final vote on the underlying House bill, which is still the pending legislation.

Now the Republican leadership team has been telling the press about a yet-to-be-disclosed final bill. If the reports are true, the Republicans will offer a skinny repeal plan.

We just heard from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that under such a plan as reported in the press, 16 million Americans would lose their health insurance and millions more would pay a 20-percent-- 20-percent--increase in their premiums--at least 20 percent.

I thank Senator Murray and Senator Wyden for working with CBO so that we could figure out what exactly is going on, if this skinny bill is the bill that is brought to the floor.

My Republican friends come to the floor every day to assail the problem of high premiums. If the reporting is accurate and skinny repeal is their plan, it makes premiums far higher than they are today. We don't know if skinny repeal is going to be their final bill, but if it is, the CBO says that it would cause costs to go up and millions to lose insurance.

In the meantime, Democrats are not going to continue to try and amend the House plan that is already dead. Certainly, we are not going to do that while there is some secret legislation--skinny repeal it is reported--waiting to emerge from the leader's office.

The Republican leader has said that this is a robust amendment process. No, it isn't--far from it. We don't even know what bill to direct our amendments to. Certainly, a process that bypassed the committees and public hearings was never an open and transparent process. There was never a robust amendment process to this bill, but now it has gotten even worse. Since the beginning of this debate, we have just been taking votes on amendments to a piece of dead legislation.

What kind of process is this? Anyone who listened, as we all did, so intently to Senator McCain's wonderful speech yesterday and applauded the sentiment that he mentioned--getting back to regular order and proper procedure--anyone who listened to that speech would blush at this sham of an amendment process thus far. We don't even have a final bill to amend. The idea that this is a robust amendment process, I would say to my dear friend the leader, defies credulity. No one believes it. I bet not a single person on either side of the aisle believes it. So Democrats are not going to participate in this one- sided and broken process.

Once the majority leader shows his hand, reveals what his bill will actually be, Democrats will use the opportunity to try to amend the bill. But we have to see it first, and we ought to see it soon in broad daylight, not at the eleventh hour.

Until we see the real bill, Democrats will offer no further amendments.

Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bruce King, Charlie Ellsworth, Veronica Duron, and Matthew Fuentes of my staff be given all-access passes to the floor during the consideration of H.R. 1628.

Mr. President, in a few short hours, we will vote on the motion to proceed to the House Republican healthcare bill. I will have more to say on the matter prior to the vote.

At the moment, no one knows the plan that is being cooked up in the Republican leader's office, but it seems to be his intention to do whatever it takes to pass anything, no matter how small, to get the House and Senate Republicans into a conference on healthcare.

Surprisingly, I have heard that my friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky, will vote yes on the motion to proceed. He announced it himself. It is true he will likely get a vote on the motion to repeal without replace, but surely he knows that will fail. Why then would the junior Senator from Kentucky--a man who has preached the repeal of the Affordable Care Act root and branch, a man who proselytized that Republicans should stop at nothing short of full repeal--why would the junior Senator from Kentucky vote on the motion to proceed knowing he will not get what he wants? It is because, I believe, he and some of the others in this body know that if the Senate manages to pass something to get to conference in the House, the likely compromise in the conference is either a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act or something close to it. It will certainly mean drastic cuts in Medicaid, huge tax cuts for the rich, no healthcare for those with preexisting conditions, and millions and millions losing healthcare, particularly in our poorer and more brutal States. That is the only thing our Republicans have been able to agree on.

The hard-right Freedom Caucus in the House would never accept a Republican bill that only repeals a few regulations in the ACA but leaves much of it in place. No, they want full repeal, and, at minimum, deep cuts to Medicaid, huge tax breaks for the wealthy, and millions in every State in this Nation losing their healthcare.

To my Republican friends who have repeatedly said that full repeal without replace would be a disaster and to my Republican friends who have opposed the deep and drastic cuts to Medicaid, I say: Don't be fooled by this ruse. A vote in favor of the motion to proceed will mean deep cuts to Medicaid, maybe even deeper than in the House bill. It will mean people with preexisting conditions will be left high and dry. It will mean huge tax breaks for the wealthiest of Americans. It will mean millions will lose their coverage.

So with all the complaining, why are we here at this late moment? Because even the House bill was too drastic for many of the Members here, and it is now being ignored on this motion to proceed, and because we all know the ruse that is going on. The ruse is this: Send it back to the House; then, we will see what they send us. We know what they will send us. We may not know every detail. It will either be full repeal without replace or something far too close to that, and all of the work and all of the anguish that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have shown in the last several weeks will be wasted because they know darn well what is going to happen when there is a conference.

There are no Democratic votes in the House. The Freedom Caucus calls the shots. They will either ask for full repeal or something very close to it. Make no mistake about it. A vote in favor of the motion to proceed this afternoon will be a permission slip to slash Medicaid, hurt millions, and give huge tax cuts for the wealthy--something the vast majority of Americans in every State, a large percentage of Republicans and Trump voters, abhor.

One last plea to my colleagues: Do not fall for the ruse that the majority leader is putting together. We know what is going on. We all know. Our constituents will not be fooled--oh, no. We on this side are not fooled--oh, no. I hope my colleagues who, out of compassion and care for the people in their States, have made such a fuss up to now will not be fooled either.

Comments of the President on Attorney General Sessions

Mr. President, in recent days, President Trump has gone out of his way to undermine his own Attorney General, his first supporter--what has been reported to be his best friend in the Senate. He has tweeted scathing criticism of Attorney General Sessions and chastised him publicly for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and several other perceived failures, in the eyes of the President.

We should all take a moment to think of how shocking these comments are on a human basis. This is the first person who stuck his neck out for Donald Trump and who was with him through thick and thin. Now, even if the President has disagreements with him--which I think are ill- founded and self-centered and wrong--you don't ridicule him in public-- someone who is your close friend. That speaks to character.

But I would like to speak to the major issue before us, which is related. It is clear that President Trump is trying to bully his own Attorney General out of office. How can anyone draw a different conclusion? If President Trump had serious criticisms of his Attorney General, why not talk to him in person? Why air his grievances so publicly? He wants him out. Here is the danger. Many Americans must be wondering if the President is trying to pry open the Office of Attorney General to appoint someone during the August recess who will fire Special Counsel Mueller and shut down the Russia investigation.

First, let me state for the record now, before this scheme gains wings, that Democrats will never go along with the recess appointment if that situation arises. We have some tools in our toolbox to stymie such action. We are ready to use every single one of them at any time, day or night. It is so vital to the future of the Republic.

Second, I cannot imagine that my friends on the Republican side, particularly in the Republican leadership--my friend the majority leader, who I have great respect for, and Speaker Ryan--would be complicit in creating a constitutional crisis. They must work with us and not open the door to a constitutional crisis during the August recess.

Sanctions Bill

Mr. President, on one last item, I know there is a lot going on today, but I just want to mention one item from the House of Representatives. Later, the House is going to take up and, hopefully, pass with near unanimity a sanctions bill that includes strong sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. It is critical that the Senate act promptly on this legislation.

I will work with the majority leader, as I have in recent weeks, to ensure its swift passage so we can get it to the President's desk before we leave for recess.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a short time, we will vote on the motion to proceed to debate the House Republican healthcare bill. Several months into this new process, with Republicans in the majority in both Chambers, the American people have not been treated to a high- minded debate or to much debate at all.

The very first action of this Congress was for the majority to pass reconciliation instructions on healthcare--a process which has locked out Democrats from the very beginning. The very first thing this Republican Congress said to the American people is that healthcare is going to be a partisan project, undertaken by Republicans and Republicans alone. Right out of the gate, Democrats were locked out. The majority leader elected to forge a bill in secret and bypass the committee process entirely--no public hearings, no open debate, no opportunity for the minority to amend the bill or even to read it before it emerged from the leader's office. Their plan all along was to keep their bill hidden for as long as possible, evade scrutiny, hide the truth from the American people, and then jam the bill through in the dead of night on a party line.

Now, here we are, after so much cloak-and-dagger legislating, about to vote on proceeding to a debate on one of the most important issues of our time--one-sixth of the economy and tens of millions' health and even lives affected without knowing exactly what we will be debating on. Perhaps nothing could sum up the process that has gotten us here quite as well as this. The best the majority leader has been able to cook up is a vague plan to do whatever it takes to pass something-- anything--to get the bill to a House and Senate conference on healthcare.

My colleagues, plain and simple, it is a ruse. The likeliest result of a conference between the House and Senate is the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act or something very close to it. It will, certainly, mean drastic cuts in Medicaid, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, no help for those with preexisting conditions, and tens of millions losing healthcare, particularly in poorer and more rural States.

The hard-right Freedom Caucus in the House would never accept a Republican bill that only repeals a few regulations in the ACA but leaves much in place.

I would say to my colleagues, particularly those on the other side of the aisle who have heartfeltly fought hard for not cutting Medicaid drastically, for keeping preexisting conditions, for not giving tax cuts to the rich while you are cutting healthcare for the poor, do not go along with this motion to proceed, because you know and I know what it will lead to. All of the things that you have been trying to avoid will emerge from that conference, and you will hurt the people of your States dramatically.

We all know what is happening here. The leader could not get the votes on a full repeal because it is so damaging to America. He could not get the votes even on his own bill. Instead, the plan is to come up with a proposal that is simply a means to repeal, a means to dramatic cuts, a means to getting us in conference, and we all know what the result of that conference will be.

I would plead one last time with my friends on the other side of the aisle--and I know you have sincerely tried to modify and change things--to turn back. We can go through regular order. We want to work with you. We know that the ACA is not perfect, but we also know that what you have proposed is much worse. We can work together to improve healthcare in this country. Turn back now before it is too late and millions and millions and millions of Americans are hurt so badly in ways from which they will never, ever recover.

I yield the floor.