Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, there is no one I have more respect for on either side of the aisle than the Senator from Arizona. He said some nice words about me, and I extend them back to him five times over. He is a fine man. He has great integrity, great courage, great service to our country, and no one has helped defend America more--both when he was in the Armed Forces and here on the Senate floor--than the gentleman. I respect that.

I respect that you always try to put yourself in the other person's moccasins. That was one of the great Indian proverbs.

I know he is doing that, as he mentioned in his remarks.

I would like to make a couple of quick points.

First, our Republican leader has chosen this week to proceed with three nominees under regular order. He could have advanced this nominee and a few others from the DOD but instead chose a district court judge in Idaho, a nominee to OMB, Ambassador to Japan. So I say to my good friend from Arizona, given the frustration he remarked on that our side has on healthcare, which is so important to so many--as is keeping a strong and fully staffed Defense Department--I would say to the gentleman that we would be happy to consider the nominee in the regular order. And maybe once things change a little bit on healthcare, with the consent of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, we can move a lot of things quickly. But at this point, despite my great respect for my dear friend, I must object.

Reluctantly, again, I must object. But I would say to my colleague from Arizona, I would like very much to sit down and work out these other problems. I think that if he and I sat in a room together, we could figure these things out ourselves pretty well, and it would be our job to persuade our colleagues to try to do the same. I understand. I used the same words--``train wreck''--earlier this morning. If we don't come to a good agreement, for instance, on appropriations and the budget, the defense forces that he so dearly holds and so many of the issues on our side would be hurt dramatically--the country would. So I promise him, I will endeavor to work with him in the most good-faith way.

I think if it is filed--it will be up to the Republican leader. If it is filed tonight, the cloture motion would be voted on Monday night, and then maybe we could talk about--with the permission of my colleagues from the other side--speeding it up after that.

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

Madam President, yesterday my friend the majority leader announced he would be extending this work period by 2 weeks so the Republicans can have more time to finish their healthcare bill. With all due respect, time is not the issue. Two more weeks will not help Republicans fix this bill. Remember, the Republican leadership told everyone they would vote on the bill before July 4. Two weeks have gone by, and they don't seem any closer to having a bill that would actually improve healthcare in America. They seem even further away.

When you have a rotten product, time is not on your side. The longer you wait, the more people know about it, the fewer people like it, the less popular it is, and the harder it is to pass it. I don't even have to tell my good friend the leader that. He knows it.

I know why our colleagues are not so unhappy about what the leader said. We know why our Republican colleagues don't want to go home. They don't want to face the wrath of their constituents. If I were a Republican, I wouldn't want to go home either. I wouldn't want to face my constituents and try to defend this deeply unpopular and damaging bill.

Now, the most significant change proposed to their legislation over the course of 2 weeks is an amendment by the junior Senator from Texas that would actually make the bill worse. By allowing insurers to sell cutrate plans that cover very few services, the Cruz amendment creates a very dangerous bait and switch. The bait is that the premiums would come down for a bit for some because insurance will not have to cover very much, and the switch is that deductibles and copays go way up to make up even more than the difference. Under the Cruz amendment, you could be paying a monthly premium for a healthcare insurance plan so threadbare, with a deductible so high that you will not get any benefit. For many, a Cruz policy could be worse than none at all. The Cruz policy leads to junk insurance, something nobody really wants, except maybe a few insurance companies.

Ironically, the Cruz amendment would cause exactly the kind of death spiral my Republican friends keep talking about. A group of patient advocates, including the AARP, the Cancer Action Network, and the American Heart Association--these are hardly political groups; these are patient advocates--said that if the Cruz amendment passed, ``younger and healthier individuals would be allowed to purchase non- ACA compliant plans that have lower premiums but fewer benefits.''

Without the younger, healthier people in the risk pool, the

premiums for ACA-compliant plans would rise quickly and

significantly. This same kind of risk pool segmentation

occurred prior to the enactment of the ACA when 35 states

operated high-risk pools . . . In that experience, most of

those states . . . were forced to limit enrollment, reduce

benefits, create waiting lists, and raise premiums and out-

of-pocket costs to the point of unaffordability. Millions of

patients lacked access to care and treatment.

That is not Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, talking. That is the AARP, the Cancer Action Network, and the American Heart Association. Again, those groups said about the Cruz plan that it would ``limit enrollment, reduce benefits, create waiting lists, and raise premiums and out-of-pocket costs to the point of unaffordability,'' because the Cruz plan is very similar to what we had before the ACA. Even the conservative American Action Forum said the Cruz amendment is ``the definition of a death spiral.'' Higher costs, less care, waiting lists, death spirals--that is the Cruz amendment in a nutshell. How many are going to vote for that?

That is the most significant change Republicans came up with after an extra 2 weeks on the bill. Imagine, if they have another 2 weeks, what they will come up with.

My friends on the other side of the aisle should have no illusions. They can't distract our attention from this bill by phony complaints over nominations or any other issue. More time is not going to solve their problem on healthcare. It is much deeper than that. The problem is the substance of

the bill, which so cruelly exchanges healthcare for working Americans for a massive tax cut for the very wealthy.

The idea is so backward that the American people have revolted against this legislation. Even in the deeply conservative parts of my State, where I have met with my constituents, there is a revulsion to this bill. I am not surprised that some polls say that only 12 percent of Americans support it.

There is no fixing a bill as broken as this one. There is no tweaking a bill as fundamentally flawed as this one. An amended bill that only kicks 15 or 17 or 20 million Americans off their insurance, though less than the last CBO estimate, would still be a moral travesty. An amended bill that gives a slightly smaller tax break to the wealthy while still cutting Medicaid to the bone would still be gravely worse than the status quo. The only answer for my Republican friends is simple: Start over. Abandon cuts to Medicaid, abandon tax breaks for the wealthy, and abandon this one-party approach.

Democrats want to work with our Republican colleagues to actually improve our healthcare system, and, it turns out, that is what the American people want as well.

The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 71 percent of Americans favor a bipartisan effort to improve our healthcare system, as opposed to the Republican's partisan effort. That is, again, that 71 percent favor a bipartisan effort--72 percent of Independents and even 46 percent of Trump supporters.

When will my Republican colleagues start listening to the American people? Start over, drop this partisan process and this devastating bill, and work with us. We are willing to stay 2 weeks, 2 months, or 2 years to get a good healthcare bill for the American people, but we should be included in the process.

Madam President, today is the net neutrality day of action. So I wanted to add a few words to this issue.

We depend on a free and open internet to spur innovation and job creation, and our economy works best when innovators, entrepreneurs, and businesses of all sizes compete on a level playing field. Net neutrality, very simply, says that everyone--consumers, small businesses, startups--deserve the same access to and quality of internet as big corporations.

When I was growing up in Brooklyn, my father owned a small exterminating business. If his competitor down the street had received preferred electricity service, he would have been rightly outraged, and the law would have protected him from that unfair treatment. We don't reserve certain highways for a single trucking company, and we don't limit phone service to hand-picked stores. We shouldn't reserve high- speed internet for a favored few corporations, either, and that was the basis of the FCC's decision to preserve net neutrality back in 2015.

Now, of course, conservative and industry interests see an opportunity to roll back these protections and free access to a free and open internet in order to favor powerful corporations. That seems to be what they want.

President Trump's appointee to the FCC, Chairman Ajit Pai, has already taken several actions to undercut fair internet access. In his first 2 weeks on the job, Chairman Pai stopped nine companies from providing discounted high-speed internet to low-income individuals, and he jammed through nearly a dozen industry-backed actions, including some to begin curtailing net neutrality.

Once again, this administration favors the big, wealthy, special corporate interests over the average American. The American people should realize that is what the Trump administration is doing time and again. They talk like they are for working people, but when it comes to actions like this one on net neutrality, they favor the big special interests that, Mr. and Mrs. American Consumer, are going to make sure that in many instances you pay more. It is another example of the Trump administration sticking up for big corporations and special interests to the detriment of the people and small businesses--exactly the opposite of what President Trump promised in his campaign.

The Open Internet Order is working well, and it should remain undisturbed. If President Trump and Chairman Pai proceed down the path of dismantling net neutrality, they can expect a wall of resistance from Senate Democrats. We will fight tooth and nail to protect fair and equal internet access for all Americans. President Trump, our Republican colleagues, and Chairman Pai can expect a wall of resistance from the American people, as well, who are already making their voices heard in record numbers. So far, over 6 million--6 million--Americans have sent comments to the FCC on this issue. The fight has just begun, and we will not let up until the FCC abandons its wrong-headed plans.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, first, I thank my good friend from Florida for his inspiring words. He is always trying to work together on bipartisan solutions. He represents one of the largest and most diverse States in the country--a State that very much depends on having good healthcare. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will heed his words.

Mr. President, first, I send my sincere condolences to the Marine Corps, which lost 15 of its finest today, as well as 1 Navy corpsman, in a plane crash in Mississippi. It was the deadliest crash in the Marine Corps family since 2005. According to reports, the aircraft that crashed this morning was based at Stewart Air National Guard Base in my home State of New York.

Our hearts break for the families of these sailors and marines. We mourn their loss and wish comfort to their families and their loved ones in this time of tragedy.

May they rest in peace.

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

Mr. President, as Senators continue to return from the State work period, we return here in the Senate to the topic of healthcare, which everyone in America should continue to focus on.

Even after weeks of work, it seems my friends on the other side are no closer to having enough votes to proceed to their bill--which, of course, they insisted on doing with no Democratic votes or input.

The biggest challenge proposed to the legislation during the break was an amendment offered by the junior Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, which would remove crucial protections for sicker Americans and unbalance the marketplace. The Cruz amendment is a hoax. Under the guise of lowering premiums, the Cruz amendment would actually make healthcare more expensive because deductibles and copayments would be so onerous that many Americans would pay more, not less, in out-of- pocket expenses than they pay today. These lower premium policies will have such high deductibles and copays that the policies themselves would be virtually worthless. Imagine you have a $2,000 premium and a $1,000 deductible in your policy. Imagine now that, under the Cruz amendment, an insurance company is allowed to offer a cheaper policy because they aren't required to cover very many services. That policy might have a premium of $1,000 but a deductible of $10,000. You would be paying less monthly, but you would have to put down a huge amount of money for your policy to even kick in. In that way, a Cruz insurance policy is worse than no policy at all because the vast majority would pay a monthly premium and never hit their deductible, so they would be getting no health insurance benefit at all. You would pay the premium, but the deductible is so high, your insurance never kicks in. What good is that? In effect, for many, it is a policy that would have a premium but no insurance.

In addition, Americans with preexisting conditions will almost certainly be left without access to affordable and quality healthcare, making the Senate bill even meaner than the House bill on this issue. Even the Republican Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, said that about the Cruz amendment. Here is what he said:

There's a real feeling that [it's] subterfuge to get around

pre-existing conditions. . . . If it has the effect of

annihilating the pre-existing condition requirement that we

have in the existing bill, then obviously I would object to

that.

Those are the words of Senator Grassley.

Members of both parties agree that the most significant potential change to the Republican TrumpCare bill is an amendment that would make the legislation even worse. So make no mistake about it--the Cruz amendment is a cruel, mean hoax.

Let's not forget that even without the Cruz amendment, the substance of the base Senate Republican bill is devastating. The CBO reports it would cause costs to go up, care to go down, and force 22 million Americans off their health insurance. It would end Medicaid as we know it.

This weekend, I had the good experience once again to go to the Utica Boilermaker, a famous 15K road race in my dad's hometown, the largest in the country. People from 45 States participated.

As usual, I walked through the crowd afterwards, congratulating people on a great race. They were sweaty, but they were happy. I came upon three men in wheelchairs. Here they are. Just after they crossed the finish line, the first thing they said to me was this: ``Senator, please protect Medicaid; we'd be lost without it.''

These were proud men, and they deserved to be proud for finishing a difficult race made harder by their disability. They could be forgiven for taking a moment to celebrate. Instead, they wheeled up to me to talk about how important Medicaid was to them.

These are not slackers. They wouldn't be in a race like this if they were. They needed some help. They are disabled. I don't know how their disabilities came about--probably from work. They look like really strong guys. Are we going to take away their Medicaid so we can give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America? I hope not.

These folks know that Medicaid is a lifesaver for Americans with disabilities. They want it maintained and strengthened, not dismantled so our Republican friends can give another tax break to the very wealthy.

These three should remind everyone that dismantling Medicaid is the wrong way to go. It is time to move on from the failing Republicans- only approach and start over in a bipartisan way in healthcare.

Republican leadership has been trying to cajole their Members into voting for this bill by saying that if Republicans fail to pass this bill, they will have to work with Democrats. Republican leadership is not telling their Members: Vote for this bill because it is a good bill. No, they are saying: Vote for this bill or you will have to work with Democrats.

When you can't defend the substance of the bill at all, it is time to move on. When using bipartisanship as a threat is your only argument, it is time to move on.

My Republican friends should not be so afraid of working with Democrats that they are bullied into supporting a terrible bill. The Senate--we all know this--was intended as a forge for bipartisan consensus--a cooling saucer, as the Founding Fathers said. In the Senate, bipartisanship should be the first option, not the last resort.

I repeat: We Democrats are willing to work. We are ready to work with our Republican colleagues on healthcare. Today Democratic leadership sent a letter to my friend the majority leader again offering to work with him on specific legislation to stabilize the marketplaces and improve the quality and lower the cost of care.

The majority leader said over the break that he may be forced to work with Democrats to stabilize marketplaces. Democrats say: Let's do it. Let's do it now.

We sent the majority leader four specific proposals, led by Senator Shaheen's amendment to guarantee cost-sharing reduction payments--the most important thing we can do to stabilize the marketplace and even lower premiums for many right now. Whatever your views on healthcare, we should agree that we need to stabilize the marketplaces. I look forward to a response from the majority leader to our letter.

When will my Republican friends realize that their partisan approach to healthcare is a dead end, that the only way to truly improve our Nation's healthcare system is to finally heed Democrats' requests to come together and work in a bipartisan way? I hope our Republican colleagues realize this sooner, not later.

Mr. President, there was the G-20 and President Trump's bilateral meeting with President Putin. While a few good things came out of this summit, overall, it was an embarrassment to our country and our ideals. Clearly, the lowest moment of all was President Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin, on several counts.

As our intelligence community has concluded, the President of Russia deliberately interfered in our elections and sought to undermine our democracy. That is not Democrats making it up. That is 17 intelligence agencies--men and women, many of whom risk their lives for us every day, people we look up to, people we admire. They are the ones who said there was interference--not Democrats, not politicians. I wish President Trump would stop saying it was Democrats who came up with this idea. It was our own intelligence community. Rather than decisively confront the Russian President on these actions--the Russian interference--the President reportedly acquiesced to Putin's denial.

To give equal credence to the findings of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies and an assertion by Mr. Putin is disgraceful. They are not equal. Our 17 intelligence agencies are far more important to us and far more credible to us than Vladimir Putin. Every American--every American--no matter their party affiliation, should take umbrage with the President of the United States equating our own hardworking, dedicated intelligence community with Mr. Putin, who has shown contempt for our democracy and has spent his professional and political career trying to undermine it.

This almost certainly paves the way--the President's actions almost certainly pave the way--for future Russian interference on our elections. If Russia feels there will be no punishment for interfering in our elections, no reprimand at all from the United States, surely they will try and try again.

President Trump went so far as to float the absolutely absurd possibility of a joint cyber security unit with the Russians. Then he backtracked after he was hailing it as one of the great things about the summit. When he got such reaction--particularly, from Senators McCain and Rubio, from his own party--he backtracked.

The thought of working with our adversary on cyber security should send chills down the backs of all Americans. It is clear that President Trump is not willing to be the guardian of American interests when it comes to Vladimir Putin. The House of Representatives must step in and fill the void by passing the Senate's tough, bipartisan sanctions bill to finally punish Russia for their intrusions in our 2016 elections.

The Founding Fathers established Congress as a check and balance on the executive branch when necessary. The House must be that check and balance now.

Given the President's actions at the G-20, there is now even more reason for the House to pass the Senate sanctions bill, which passed 98 to 2--overwhelmingly bipartisan.

Given President Trump's casual dismissals of the findings of our intelligence community and face-value acceptance of Mr. Putin's word, there is even greater cause to tie the hands of this administration with a tough Russia sanctions bill.

Now more than ever, it is clear that President Trump should not have the final and only authority to lift sanctions on Russia. He has shown that he is willing to turn a blind eye to the direct assault on our democracy and did so this weekend in his meeting with Mr. Putin.

Congress should step up and say: President Trump, if you are not going to punish Russia for meddling with our democracy, we will.

The American people are wondering: How can the President of the United States fail to stick up for our democracy? How can the President fail to seriously challenge the man responsible for violating the sanctity of our elections?

Candidly, I am dismayed that the Republican leadership in this body and in the other has been so quiet in the wake of these events. The Republican Party's foreign policy for decades was predicated on opposition to the Soviet Union and now Russia. It was the linchpin of their foreign policy. Now, when a President of their party is soft on Russia--even after Russia blatantly interfered in our elections--we hardly hear a peep from the Republican leadership.

I certainly acknowledge, respect, and admire the words of my friends, Republican Senators McCain, Graham, Sasse, and Rubio, who have spoken out and should be recognized and applauded for it. They have been the exception, not the rule. We need to hear more from the Republican leadership because this situation is getting ever more troubling.

Mr. President, finally, a word on the revelation that President Trump's son, his son-in-law, and his campaign manager met with a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin with the pretext of discussing information that would be damaging to Secretary Clinton's campaign.

This revelation should be the end of the idea pushed by the administration and the President that there is absolutely no evidence of an intent by the Trump campaign to coordinate or collude. It is certainly not proof positive--we don't know what was said in the meeting--but these reports in the press at least demand further investigation.

It defies credulity that the President's campaign manager, his son, and his son-in-law, at the height of a very, very heated campaign-- three people very close to the President and at the helm of that campaign--were all going to a meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss Russian adoption. Indeed, Donald Trump, Jr., has now admitted--after he first said the purpose of the meeting was adoption--that he agreed to meet to get potentially damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has already indicated that it will look into the possibility of coordination or collusion as part of their broader investigation. This meeting and the background behind it should be included in future document requests and additional lines of inquiry.

After providing documents to the Intelligence Committee, Donald Trump, Jr., must also testify before the committee to explain why three of the highest level members of the Trump administration thought it was appropriate to meet with a Russian source to receive information about a political opponent. We are talking about the wellspring and pride of our democracy--free and fair elections without foreign interference.

When the President of the United States is unwilling to forcibly defend our democracy, a violation of our sovereignty, face to face with its chief adversary, when we continue to learn of additional meetings between his campaign and Russian sources, when we hear that the White House is actively working to water down or stall a bill of tough Russia sanctions, we in Congress need to step up and defend the vital interests of our country. Both parties should be united in that effort because, at least for now, the President seems unwilling to do so.

Mr. President, finally, on nominations, which were just mentioned in a noncamera briefing at the White House, I understand the White House is complaining about the pace of nominations, citing the obstruction of Senate Democrats. If the White House is looking for a cause of the delay, they only need to look in the mirror.

No administration in recent memory has been slower in sending nominees to the Senate. In the last few weeks, the administration has sent several nominees without all of their paperwork or their ethics agreements complete. We can't go forward until that happens.

The White House has sent nominees for the Cabinet on down without the paperwork or ethics agreements completed. That is almost unprecedented in its degree. Time and again, they have stalled on providing committees with the information they need to proceed on nominations.

After campaigning on ``draining the swamp,'' the Trump administration has

sent the Senate a slew of nominees with a myriad of conflicts of interest and ethics entanglements. It is our duty in the Senate to vet these nominees properly because the American people are entitled to ethical government. Yet the White House blames the delay on obstruction in the Senate.

It is typical of the Trump administration to do something wrong and blame someone else for their problem.

Mr. President, I yield the floor for my good friend and colleague from the great State of Florida.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Florida.

In answer to my friend, I absolutely would because I have experienced the same thing. I was in my State in many areas that are Republican, many areas that Donald Trump carried. The same thing happened. I have not previously seen this depth of concern from people of all different backgrounds, all different economic levels, all different races, religions, creeds, colors saying the exact same thing. People are so afraid of this TrumpCare bill that they are begging us, almost, to please stop it. In answer to the Senator's question: No, I am not surprised because I have experienced the same thing in some of the most conservative, rural, Republican parts of my State during this break.

The Senator is exactly correct. It affects people across the board, including these fine people whom I met at the Utica Boilermaker 15K race.

I thank my colleague for his, as always, astute questions.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

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