Floor Statements

Mr. President, from all indications, our Republican friends continue to negotiate amongst themselves, behind closed doors, to revive the healthcare bill they had to pull from the floor on Tuesday.

I would suggest to my friends on the other side that there is no tweak or change or modification that will fix what is wrong with this Republican healthcare bill. The core of the bill is the problem. The American people are opposed to tax cuts for the wealthy and the reduction of the social safety net of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

The Republican TrumpCare bill is built on a crumbling, decrepit foundation, and that is because it is based on the premise that special interests and a very small number of wealthy Americans deserve a tax break while millions of Americans--middle class families, older Americans in nursing homes, folks with a preexisting condition--ought to receive less healthcare at a higher cost.

That idea is so backward, so out of step with what America wants and what actually works, it can never succeed, no matter how it is tweaked.

The one thing my Republican friends are latching on to--that their bill will bring down average premiums several years down the line--is really a bait and switch. The bait is lower premiums, but the switch is higher deductibles and copays so that, in the end, the average American pays more than they would have otherwise. They are luring people in with a lower premium, but then they have to pay such a high percentage of their medical costs, the insurance policy is virtually worthless.

The Republican TrumpCare bill tells insurers they can offer much less generous healthcare plans than under the current system, even allowing States to opt out of covering essential benefits like treatment for opioids, mental health coverage, prescription drug coverage, and maternity care.

The result of these changes is that insurers may charge smaller premiums on some plans, but they will cover way less and, in fact, the deductibles and copays will go up--way up--in order to make the difference. So this isn't: Oh, you are not paying for some esoteric item; your insurance policy will pay for virtually nothing at the beginning if you have a high deductible.

The CBO report estimates that for an average 40-year-old with an income of $26,500 a year, looking at insurance on the marketplace, deductibles would increase by thousands. If that 40-year-old decided on a ``bronze'' plan, for instance, their deductible would be $6,000 a year, the CBO estimates. That is $5,200 more than under current law. So we know what that means: They have to pay the first $6,000 of healthcare, no matter what your insurance policy is. What good is that? Not much. Good for the insurance industry, maybe; not good for the average citizen. Some of my colleagues on the other side are claiming they want lower premiums, but if those lower premiums come with higher deductibles and higher copays, nobody benefits. It is a bait and switch.

What the Republican bill gives with one hand in this area, it more than takes away with the other because the lower premiums are made up for by higher deductibles and copays, so the average person pays more, not less, even when their premium goes down.

Who in America believes that folks should have higher out-of-pocket costs than before? Who in America believes that folks making over $1 million a year--God bless them; they are doing well--deserve another $57,000 tax break? Who in America believes that we should be making it harder to afford nursing home care or maternity care or opioid abuse treatment? Who in America believes a child born with a preexisting condition should hit their lifetime insurance limit before they even leave the hospital for the first time? Who believes in that in this America?

It turns out, almost no one. A poll yesterday showed that only 12 percent of Americans support the Republican bill. No amendment or compromise or tweak or adjustment in formula can solve that.

So I repeat the offer I made to President Trump and my Republican friends yesterday: Let's start over. Drop this fundamentally flawed approach--abandon cuts to Medicaid, abandon tax breaks for the wealthy--and we can discuss the problems that Americans are actually concerned about: the cost, quality, and availability of healthcare.

I suggested that President Trump invite all Senators to Blair House to begin anew on a bipartisan approach to healthcare. Unfortunately, the President said I wasn't serious. Mr. President: Try me. The minute you make the invitation, we will take it in a very serious way. It is not that audacious of an idea. President Obama did the same thing early in his Presidency to discuss healthcare with Members of both parties in front of the American people. Our only condition: Drop the wrong-headed idea of slashing Medicaid to give tax breaks to the wealthy. It is perfectly reasonable, and a vast majority of Americans agree with us.

Nonpartisan institutions like the American Medical Association, the National Association of Medicaid Directors, AARP, and America's largest nursing home groups are all against the Republican approach. The Congressional Budget Office and other expert analyses say that it will not actually fix the problems in our healthcare system--high deductibles, high premiums, counties with too few insurance options-- and the American people are as roundly against it as any piece of major legislation I have ever seen.

So I don't believe it is unserious to ask my Republican friends to drop this particular bill and talk to us about actually fixing the problems in our healthcare system.

I don't believe it is unserious to say to President Trump: You campaigned on bringing costs down and providing care for everyone. You campaigned on not cutting Medicaid and controlling the outrageous costs of prescription drugs. These are all your words in the campaign. Well, we Democrats agree with all of that. So let's talk about it.

Fundamentally, I don't believe that seeking a bipartisan solution on the great issues of our time should ever be considered unserious.

President Trump, you have complained about a lack of bipartisanship-- unfairly, in our opinion. We are offering a way to implement bipartisanship, and right now it is you, not we, who are stopping it.

I hope my Republican friends, President Trump, and the majority leader think long and hard before dismissing our offer out of hand. I challenge them again: Invite all of us to Blair House the first day we get back from recess. If you think we are not serious, try us. Democrats are ready to turn the page on healthcare. When will my Republican friends realize it is time for them to do the same?

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

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, my friend the Republican leader announced that the majority would delay the vote on the motion to proceed to this particular Senate Republican healthcare bill. We Democrats take no solace in that fact. Unfortunately, the majority seems intent on continuing their efforts to pass this healthcare bill.

Over the next few days and weeks, I expect to see buyouts and bailouts, backroom deals and kickbacks to individual Senators to try and buy their vote. What I don't expect to see yet is a dramatic rethink of the core of the Republican healthcare bill, but I am hopeful we can get to that point.

So far, every single version of the Republican TrumpCare bill in the House and the Senate has the same basic core to it. The details have changed a bit around the edges, but the core remains the same in each and every version: slash Medicaid to the bone in order to give a massive tax break to a very small number of wealthy Americans, cut support for Americans in nursing homes, those suffering from opioid addiction, and those with a preexisting condition to pay for a tax break for the wealthiest few.

The basic premise of every Republican healthcare bill so far is to cut back on healthcare for Americans who need it most in order to give a tax break to the people who need it the least. There is just no moral calculus to justify it. It doesn't fix any of the problems in our current healthcare system like high premiums, high deductibles, counties where there are not enough insurance options, and it is not what the American people are for. The American people are not for tax breaks to the wealthiest of Americans, nor are they for cutting Medicaid.

A USA TODAY poll this morning showed only 12 percent of Americans support this bill. At a level of 12 percent, even huge numbers of Trump supporters are opposed to this bill. The level of popular support is not going to change one bit with a tweak that wins over this Senator or that. A bill with this twisted idea at its core will fail time and time again. That is why the vote had to be pulled yesterday. You can be sure, if it were popular with the American people, it wouldn't have had to be pulled.

I make my friends on the Republican side and President Trump an offer. Let's turn over a new leaf. Let's start over. Let's abandon more tax breaks for the rich. Let's abandon cuts to Medicaid, and discuss what the American people are really concerned about: premiums, deductibles, the cost and quality of healthcare.

President Obama invited both parties, Democrats and Republicans, to Blair House to discuss healthcare reform in front of the American people early in his first term as President. President Trump, I challenge you to invite us--all 100 of us, Republicans and Democrats-- to Blair House to discuss a new bipartisan way forward on healthcare in front of all the American people. It would focus on what you, Mr. President, have talked about in your campaign: lower costs, better healthcare, covering everybody--not on tax cuts for the rich, not on slashing Medicaid. President Trump, you said you wouldn't cut Medicaid. We don't want to either.

We Democrats are genuinely interested in finding a place where our two parties can come together on healthcare. We want to bring down premiums. We want to bring down deductibles too. We want to stabilize the marketplace. We want to control the outrageous costs of prescription drugs--another thing the President talked about in his campaign.

There is plenty of common ground for us to come together around. We believe our healthcare system has made important progress over the past 8 years, but it still needs to be improved in many ways. We admit the Affordable Care Act isn't perfect. There are ways we can improve on that law and on our entire healthcare system. So let's talk together about how we can achieve that in a bipartisan way.

If my Republican friends abandon cuts to Medicaid, highly unpopular with the American people; abandon tax breaks for the wealthiest few, highly unpopular with the American people, we Democrats are more than willing to meet with them and the White House to talk about how to improve healthcare for the American people, how to lower deductibles, how to provide better healthcare for more people at a lower cost because that is what we Democrats are fighting for: the average American family, not the wealthy few.

Today, we can turn over a new leaf and discuss healthcare legislation the way our Founders intended our government to discuss legislation: as a true debate between all of our country's representatives.

Yesterday, the majority leader reminded Republican Senators that if they failed on their partisan healthcare bill, they would have to negotiate with me, the minority leader, and by implication, our Democratic colleagues. When did the prospect of bipartisanship become a cudgel instead of an opportunity? When did bipartisanship become a threat? That is not how Congress is supposed to work. Negotiations with the minority to seek a compromise should be the first option, not the last resort.

Let's start over and get back to legislating in a way deserving of the grand tradition of the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body. Providing affordable and quality healthcare is an issue we should grapple with, all of us together. It is one of the most important things we can do for our country. We can do it but only if we do it together and put the partisan ideology aside.

So I challenge the President, invite us all to Blair House. Let's see what we can come up with. Let's try. We Democrats have, on several occasions, sent letters to our Republican colleagues asking for bipartisan talks on healthcare. So far we have been rebuffed. Now, with the demise of this bill yesterday--its inability to get enough votes to proceed--we have an opportunity to go back to the drawing board.

We are willing to debate and compromise on healthcare, but we have to be included, and it has to be a discussion on how to actually improve our healthcare system for the American people, not slash Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. We can meet, and we can try or the Republicans can stick to the same partisan approach on healthcare, which so hurts working families and so benefits millionaires.

President Trump, my Republican friends, the choice is yours.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we get our full amount of time and that the time my friend from Wyoming uses be from the Republicans' time at some point later.

Oh. So we have as much time as we need?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Madam President, this week, the eyes of the American people should be and are on the Senate. The Republican majority endeavors to pass a massive remake of our Nation's healthcare system with the votes of only one party and the ideas of only one wing of one party in just 4 short days.

The Republican majority kept their healthcare bill shrouded in darkness for as long as possible, only dragging it into the light last Thursday morning after it was forced to because there was so much outcry over the secrecy. That was only a week before it was set for a vote. There are still no hearings and no opportunity for a robust discussion of amendments. Just a few hours ago, they released a revised version, which, at the moment, is what we will apparently consider on the floor.

There is a reason my Republican colleagues labored in secret. There is a reason they forsook the committee process and regular order and open debate. There is a reason they want to jam this bill through in just 1 week. They are ashamed of their bill. Now that we have seen it, we finally know why.

The Republican healthcare bill--this new TrumpCare--unwinds the healthcare protections and programs that are designed to help the Americans who need it the most in order to give a tax break to the Americans who need it the least.

The bill would gut Medicaid, making it harder for families with a loved one in a nursing home or for families with a disabled child to afford his care, so that they can give a massive tax cut to the wealthy.

This bill would defund Planned Parenthood, making it harder for millions of women to obtain care, so that they can give people who make over $1 million a $57,000 tax cut, on average.

The bill would slash tax credits, which help families afford health insurance, in order to give a nearly $1 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest Americans.

The bill would also punish any Americans who experience a gap in coverage, locking them out of health insurance for 6 months. Every year, tens of millions of Americans have a gap in coverage through no fault of their own. Some lose their jobs, and others have temporary financial problems. It is inhumane to say to those Americans: You now have to wait an additional 6 months without insurance.

Imagine someone who is struggling with cancer, and he has a lapse in coverage. The 6-month wait this Republican penalty imposes could well become a death sentence.

That is why Republicans are ashamed of this bill--it carries a staggering human cost. You do not have to take my word for it; the bipartisan National Association of Medicaid Directors came out today in opposition to the bill, saying it would ``divert critical resources away from what we know is working today,'' particularly for opioid treatment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that their statement be printed in the Record.

Madam President, the nonpartisan American Medical Association--a conservative organization--came out today in opposition to the bill, saying it ``will expose low and middle income patients to higher costs and greater difficulty in affording care.''

I ask unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, even several Republican Senators are expressing concerns.

Republican Senator Heller said: ``The bill doesn't protect the most vulnerable Nevadans--the elderly, Nevadans struggling with mental health issues, substance abuse, and people with disabilities.''

He continued: ``The goal of healthcare reform should be to lower costs here in Nevada, and I'm not confident--not confident--it will achieve that goal.''

Republican Senator Susan Collins said about the bill: ``I'm very concerned about the cost of insurance for older people with serious chronic illnesses, and the impact of the Medicaid cuts on our state governments, the most vulnerable people in our society, and health care providers such as our rural hospitals and nursing homes.''

Even my friend the junior Republican Senator from Texas said that under this bill, ``premiums would continue to rise.''

My Republican friends are right to have these concerns. The bill will not lower costs for working families. It will leave the most vulnerable Americans out in the cold, devastate rural areas, and set us even further back in combating the opioid epidemic.

This week, the Senate will witness a political exercise in that the majority leader will attempt to coerce the votes of these Senators and any other holdouts by adjusting the dials on the legislation a bit. There will be buyouts and bailouts and small tweaks that will be hailed as ``fixes'' by the other side.

The truth is that the Republicans cannot excise the rotten core at the center of their healthcare bill. No matter what tweaks they add, no matter how the bill changes around the edges, it is fundamentally flawed at the center. No matter what last-minute amendments are offered, this bill will force millions of Americans to spend more of their paychecks on healthcare in order to receive fewer benefits simply so that the wealthiest Americans can pay less in taxes. That is why our Republican colleagues are ashamed of this bill and are rushing it through in 4 short days.

Before we vote on the motion to proceed, I would ask my Republican friends to do one simple thing: Reflect on how this bill would impact your constituents. We are all sent here to serve the people of our States--to do right by them, to ease their burdens where possible and make sure our laws reflect a country that gives everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. The first rule of medicine is ``do no harm.'' So it should be with government. So it should be with this healthcare bill.

But this bill will harm the middle-class family with a parent in a nursing home. It will harm the father whose son is struggling with opioid addiction and who is having trouble finding the money to put him through treatment. It will harm the child born with a preexisting condition, who may hit the lifetime cap on healthcare coverage before he or she even enters kindergarten.

As the American Medical Association said today, this bill violates the ``do no harm'' standard on many levels. I believe my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle are men and women of good conscience. I would ask that they think with their conscience before they vote on the motion to proceed on Wednesday.

Any bill that does this much harm to the American people ought to receive a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I just want to salute, on behalf of all of us in the Senate, our great, great Senator from Hawaii. Her courage, her strength, her conviction to help people who need help is just inspiring--that is the only word I could think of, ``inspiring''--to every one of us.

We love you, Mazie. We wish you well, and we can't wait for you to come back and rejoin the fight doubly invigorated.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are beginning to receive the first bits of information about the Senate Republican healthcare bill, which has until now been shrouded in absolute secrecy.

I can see why. Even as we continue to get more details, the broad outlines are clear. This is a bill designed to strip away healthcare benefits and protections from Americans who need it most in order to give a tax break to the folks who need it least.

This is a bill that would end Medicaid as we know it, rolling back Medicaid expansion, cutting Federal support for the program even more than the House bill, which cut Medicaid by $800 billion.

Let me remind everyone in this Chamber, Medicaid is not just a health insurance program for Americans struggling in poverty, though that is an important and necessary part of it. Medicaid is increasingly a middle-class program. Medicaid is how many Americans are able to access opioid abuse treatment, Medicaid foots the bill for two-thirds of all Americans living in nursing homes, and Medicaid provides the cushion, particularly in rural areas, so hospitals can survive and give topnotch healthcare to all of us.

From what is reported, in just 3 short years under the Senate bill, Republicans will take millions off their Medicaid coverage, and then, starting in 2025, the plan will institute even more Medicaid cuts, and each year those cuts get deeper than the year before. Within 10 years of this new funding system, the cuts to Medicaid could total hundreds of billions of dollars above the more than $800 billion the House bill already cuts from the program.

Every senior in America should read the fine print of this bill. It looks as if American seniors could be paying way more. Why do this? Looking at the bill, the answer is, because the Republicans want to give a tax break to the wealthiest Americans--those making over $200,000 a year--and set themselves up to give these folks another, even larger tax cut in their tax bill.

Even though much of the early reporting says that the bill will keep certain protections for Americans with preexisting conditions, the truth is, it may well not guarantee them the coverage they need by allowing States to waive essential health benefits. What the bill is saying to those Americans is that insurance still has to cover you, but it doesn't have to cover what you may actually need. It doesn't have to cover all or even most of your costs.

If you need treatment for opioid addiction, your plan may no longer cover it. If you are pregnant and need maternity care, your plan may have decided that is too expensive. The coverage that Americans with preexisting conditions actually need may well become either unaffordable or even nonexistent under this bill.

Simply put, this bill will result----

Not right now--at the end of my remarks.

Simply put, this bill will result in higher costs, less care, and millions of Americans will lose their health insurance, particularly through Medicaid. It is every bit as bad as the House bill. In some ways, it is even worse.

The President said the Senate bill needed heart. The way this bill cuts healthcare is heartless. The President said the House bill was mean. The Senate bill may be meaner.

The Senate Republican healthcare bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing, but this wolf has even sharper teeth than the House bill.

It is clear that Republicans know that cutting Medicaid will hurt so many people in the middle class, so many in my home State of New York. Republicans know that people want essential health benefits, so they have created a disguise by saying that these changes will not occur for a year. But, in reality, the Senate Republican bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing, only this wolf has even sharper teeth than the House bill.

We are potentially voting on it in a week--with no committee hearings, no amendments in committee, no debate on the floor, save for 10 measly hours, on one of the most important bills we are dealing with in decades. That brings shame on this body. We won't even know the full cost or consequence of the bill until CBO scores it, and that could take a few days more.

How can my friend the majority leader expect this body to fairly consider this legislation, prepare amendments, and debate it in 1 week with only 10 hours of debate? How can he expect his own Members to do the same? Many of them on the Republican side are learning the details of the bill the same way we Democrats are: They are reading it today.

Now, listen to what the majority leader had to say in 2009 when we were debating healthcare--his words:

This is a very important issue. . . . We shouldn't try to

do it in the dark. And whatever final bill is produced should

be available to the American public and to Members of the

Senate, certainly, for enough time to

come to grips with it. . . . And we are going to insist--and

the American people are going to insist--that it be done in a

transparent, fair, and open way.

Is 5 or 6 days enough time for the American people and the Members of the Senate to come to grips with a bill that affects one-sixth of the economy and the lives of every American in this country? I don't think so, neither do the American people and neither do a whole bunch of Republican Senators.

Senator Cassidy: Would I have preferred a more open process? The answer is yes.

Senator Collins: I don't think it gives enough time to thoroughly analyze the bill, but we will see when it comes out.

Member after Member--Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Jerry Moran, Marco Rubio, Bob Corker--has repeatedly said that this process--in their words and now in mine--is unfair, it is truncated, and it is rushed.

For my dear friend the majority leader to say we are going to have an open amendment process is turning truth upside down. I would ask our leader, rhetorically, because I know the answer: Can we allow at least 1 hour on each amendment, not 2 minutes? Will we have more time than 10 hours to debate the bill? I hope so. But, if not, please don't call this an open and fair process. If you want to rush it through, admit the consequences.

The debate over healthcare has been fierce. We know that Republicans and Democrats had differences when we debated the Affordable Care Act. At least we had a debate. At least we had committee hearings and a process. More broadly than that, at least we Democrats were trying to pass a healthcare bill that helped more Americans afford insurance and tried to bring costs down and end some of the most egregious practices of the healthcare industry.

What is this bill--TrumpCare--trying to achieve? It seems designed to slash support for healthcare programs in order to give tax breaks to the very wealthy.

When the CBO score comes out, I believe it will verify that millions of Americans in this great country will be unable to afford insurance or the insurance they can afford won't cover the services they need.

Somewhere in America there is a family who takes a trip each Friday to visit grandma or grandpa at a nursing home, who sacrificed all of their savings to pay for their healthcare until they had no more savings and now rely on Medicaid to help pay the cost of long-term care in a nursing home.

Somewhere in America there is a father who is eaten up inside watching his son struggle with opioid addiction, who knows in his heart that his son will be able to go on and live a healthy and fulfilling life if he could only afford treatment to get him out from under this devastating addiction.

Somewhere in America there is a parent whose child has cancer, a mother and father who stay up late at night worried that their insurance will either not be available or run out when the family needs it most.

In the America that my Republican friends envision with this healthcare bill, those Americans, and many more besides, might not get the coverage and care they need.

We live in the wealthiest country on Earth. Surely, surely, we can do better than what the Republican healthcare bill promises.

Mr. President, leader time.

Mr. President, 142 pages thus far of this supposed bill have been printed online, and that is what I have used.

Would the majority leader yield?

I am the minority leader, at this point.

The question is, Does the majority leader know that a half hour before we came to the floor were 142 pages of the bill listed online? That is what we used in our report.

I would ask the majority leader a further question: If there is anything I said--anything I said--that is not going to be in the bill, could he clarify?

Mr. President, would my dear colleague from Texas yield for a question?

I would like to just then tell my friend from Texas: This is the bill. It was posted online a half hour before we came in. I would ask a page to come over and bring it to my dear friend and ask him if this is the bill which we have read.

I would ask my friend from Texas to yield for another question.

Will we get more than 2 minutes to debate each amendment we ask for or will we be under the reconciliation process, where we have 10 hours of debate and then every amendment only gets 2 minutes? Does he consider that--2 minutes, if that is the case--a full and fair debate on each amendment?

Mr. President, I would ask my colleague a question.

What would be wrong with 1 hour of debate on every amendment to this bill? What is the objection to that, since the majority is proposing no debate on amendments, and then saying it is an open process? What is wrong with 1 hour of debate on every amendment offered to this bill?

Mr. President, I would ask my friend, the majority whip from Texas, a series of questions.

What was the date that reconciliation was added to the budget resolution which said we don't need any Democratic votes? Was it May, was it April, was it March, or was it the very beginning of this session?

I would ask him another question. Where were the meetings held to discuss this bill, and were any Democrats invited?

I would ask him another question. Why did the majority leader not accept our offer to go into the Old Senate Chamber--100 Senators, no press, no anything else--and debate the bill?

How can my good friend--and he is a good friend; we are on the bikes in the morning together--my good friend from Texas say there was a bipartisan process when, at the outset--at the outset--our Republican colleagues said the only thing we will debate is repeal and then replace? There was no discussion of whether repeal was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. Now, overwhelmingly the American people prefer fixing ObamaCare--which we offered to do--than repeal and replace.

It is no wonder, I would say to my colleague as he answers these questions, that this bill is being brought in the dark of night. It is because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are ashamed of the bill--because, believe you me, if they liked this bill, they would have brass bands down every Main Street in America talking about it, but they are trying to sneak it through because mainly their goal is a tax cut for the rich.

I would ask my colleague to answer those three questions, and then he can respond to my rhetoric.

Mr. President, here is the correct analogy: Yes, there has been an accident. Yes, someone needs help. Someone who is not a doctor, not a physician, doesn't know how to help the patient--our Republicans friends go by the side of the road, but they don't know what to do.

So the Democrats come by. We are doctors. We say: We know how to fix this system. We know how to fix this patient, and the Republicans say: No, don't help with us. We will drive right by. Now the patient is ailing.

I would ask my colleagues, let's forget the past for the moment because we have a much better argument than you. We had hundreds of amendments offered by Republicans that became part of our bill. I doubt there will be a

single Democratic amendment that will be--we had hours of hearings, hours of debate. You didn't. So you may not have thought the process was perfect, but it was a lot more open than yours.

I have a proposal to my friend. Let us forget this draft bill. Let us right now, Democrats and Republicans, sit down and try to come up with a bipartisan bill. We are willing to do it today, now, this minute. Will you accept that offer?

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

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

Madam President, we are only a little more than a week away from having to vote on a secret Republican healthcare bill, according to the timelines given by the majority leader to the press-- just 1 week away from voting on legislation that will reorder one-sixth of our economy and impact every single American in this country, and not a soul in America has seen it.

I have never seen a more radical or reckless legislative process in my time in politics--write the bill in secret; discuss it in secret; send it to the CBO in secret; then rush it to the floor with no committee hearings, no amendments, and just 10 hours of debate for the minority.

That is not how America ever got big things done. That is not how we do big things like healthcare in the Senate. That is hardly how we do small things, and my Republican friends know it.

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, of Louisiana, said: ``I've always said I would have preferred a more open process.''

Republican Senator Murkowski, from Alaska, said: ``If I'm not going to see a bill before we have a vote on it, that's just not a good way to handle something that is as significant and important as health care.''

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Republican Senator Moran said: ``My hope is that we treat the bill seriously, that we have hearings, that we have witnesses. I want regular order to work.''

In addition, Republican Senators Rubio, Corker, Gardner, McCain, Collins, Paul, Daines, Fischer, Johnson, and Lee have all complained about the lack of transparency in the process.

Why did they flatly refuse to say to the majority leader: Let's have a hearing. Let's accept amendments in committee. Let's have regular order and real debate on this bill. It is too important.

If they do not want to say it to the majority leader directly, I hope they express their frustration with this process with their votes on the motion to proceed, which looks like we will have next week.

We Democrats had all of the things they had asked for. They did not vote for our bill, those who were here, but at least they had input. They could offer amendments on the floor or in the committees, if they were in the relevant committees. They could debate.

Not today. Not next week.

Now, why is it that my Republican friends have resorted to such secrecy?

There is only one reason: They are ashamed of their bill. They must think

they are better off not talking about the bill publicly. We all know, if my Republican friends believed it was a good healthcare bill, one that actually lowered costs and improved care and helped more Americans afford insurance, they would be preaching it from the mountaintops. There would be a brass band down every Main Street in America that would be announcing this new legislation--but no. They are afraid to even whisper about their bill. They want it out in the open for as little time as possible in order for it to receive as little scrutiny as possible. They do not want the American people to see that their healthcare bill is little more than a vehicle to give another tax break to the wealthy, made possible by cutting care and raising costs on middle-class Americans and those who are struggling to get to the middle class.

They do not want the American people to know their healthcare bill is mean, like President Trump said it was, because they do not think it could survive an open process so they are keeping it secret and leaving almost no time for its review. If a bill cannot survive scrutiny or public debate, if a bill cannot survive a committee process or the threat of a single, open hearing, it should never become law--plain and simple.

Now, for months, we Democrats have tried to reach out to Republicans to bring an end to this dangerous game and move toward a bipartisan process. We want to improve our Nation's healthcare system. If Republicans were serious about wanting to improve our healthcare system, too, they would get the President to guarantee the cost-sharing payments, stop sabotaging our healthcare system, and come talk with Democrats about bipartisan solutions. Instead, they are just sabotaging the bill.

As for the insurance companies which are pulling out of some exchanges and raising premiums, ask them; the No. 1 reason: no permanent cost sharing. Who is standing in the way of permanent cost sharing? The President and our Republican colleagues. They are the reason people are pulling out of exchanges and premiums are going up. They cannot escape that.

We Democrats were willing to try to work with our colleagues. We asked to have a bipartisan meeting in the Old Senate Chamber so we could discuss this--just the 100 Senators--among one another. We were rejected on that. We have been rebuffed overall, but the invitation and sentiment remains. I would remind my Republican colleagues that time is getting short for them to change their minds.

Madam President, now, on another matter, Russia sanctions.

Just last week, the Senate approved a package of Russia sanctions that would lock in existing sanctions, give Congress the ability to review any sanctions relief, and implement tough, new sanctions to punish Mr. Putin and his allies for meddling in our election.

The importance of this legislation is reflected in the overwhelming bipartisan vote of 98 to 2. Now we are hearing that the House of Representatives is under pressure from the White House, and they might blue-slip the bill, which could delay or prevent it from passing.

Never mind the fact that the Senate bill was written to avoid such a problem, as my friend, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, said when he heard the news. Never mind that, and make no mistake about it, the blue-slip threat is nothing more than a procedural excuse by House Republicans who dredged it up to cover for a President who has been far too soft on Russia. This administration has been far too eager to put sanctions relief on the table. That is what this is about.

Many people, from one end of America to the other, are asking: Why? Why is he afraid of tough sanctions on Russia?

Just yesterday, the White House spokesperson said that he had never spoken to the President about Russia's interference in our election. What has Russia concluded from all of this? Putin now knows he will not suffer any consequences for disinformation campaigns, for buzzing our ships and planes, for threatening our European allies, for cyber hacks, energy coercion, or his ongoing support for Russian separatists in Ukraine.

Now, in a short time, the Trump administration is sending one of our most senior diplomats to Russia to meet with his Russian counterpart.

Is the White House encouraging House Republicans to delay this bill so they can offer the Russians something in their upcoming talks? We do not know. It sure seems possible, even likely, and it is a flatout wrong approach, as Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber agree.

The United States should not be afraid to engage with Russia, but we cannot look the other way or, worse yet, reward Putin after he directed an assault on our democratic institutions. That is why the Senate passed this package of sanctions, sending a powerful message to President Trump that he should not lift sanctions on Russia.

Responding to Russia's assault on our democracy should be a bipartisan issue that unites both Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate. The House Republicans need to pass this bill as quickly as possible. Their blue-slip excuse does not hold water.

Madam President, finally, a word on China and North Korea.

Yesterday, the President tweeted: ``While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi and China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!''

We will wait to see if this tweet actually signals a shift in U.S. policy--you never know with these tweets--but no doubt it is a confession that the President's conciliatory approach toward China has failed.

Just months after he was elected, President Trump said he was willing to offer a better trade deal if China worked with us on North Korea-- going back on years of campaign rhetoric about getting tough on trade with China, which is something I have fully supported and opposed, frankly, both President Bush and President Obama for being too weak on trade with China. When I heard that President Trump, during the campaign, was going to be tough on China, I was glad. I thought this was an area in which we could work together.

Yet the minute he sits down with Xi, Xi sort of wins him over, and he says: Well, we will get something out of North Korea.

I told the President on the telephone that China will not back off and help us with North Korea unless they feel the sting of economic sanctions for their illicit, unfair trade practices which have robbed millions of American jobs.

The idea that China would suddenly start to cooperate with the United States after President Trump dropped his threats to get tough on China was always unrealistic and misguided. China has been unwilling to cooperate with the United States in the economic or foreign policy spheres for decades. China puts itself first. That is what it is doing now.

Let's not forget that millions of American workers have been hurt by China's rapacious trading practices over the decades. Selling out those American workers and simply hoping that China, out of its good graces, would start working with us on North Korea never made sense.

The best approach to dealing with China is to be clear and consistent and tough about America's foreign policy and economic interests. President Trump, rather than going soft on trade with China, should get tough on trade with China. That is the best way to get China to work with us on North Korea, and it is the right thing to do for the American worker.

I have some hope that President Trump's tweet yesterday means he has come to this realization and will work with us to get tough on China on trade.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I listened to the majority leader this morning saying that ObamaCare was collapsing and Republicans are on a rescue mission. Honestly, the gall it must take to say, after Republicans and President Trump have spent all year sabotaging the marketplace, that ObamaCare is collapsing. They have threatened to stop critical cost-sharing payments that help keep deductibles and premiums down, hurting millions of people and sowing uncertainty in the market.

There is an easy way to fix it. Instead of crying crocodile tears, Republicans should guarantee that the cost-sharing payments will be made. That is not just Democrats saying it. That is the insurers. Listen to the insurers. What do they want? They want to keep premiums down and prevent them from leaving the exchanges. They want cost- sharing, which our Republican colleagues refuse to do, and, then, in a cynical ploy, they try to blame ObamaCare.

Listen to AHIP, the Nation's largest trade group of insurers. It is nonpartisan. It is a business group. Listen to what they said about the uncertainty about cost-sharing payments. They said it was ``the single most destabilizing factor in the individual market.'' A series of insurance companies, including Blue Cross Blue Shield and Anthem, have said explicitly that uncertainty caused by President Trump and Republicans about cost-sharing is causing them to pull out of certain markets.

So this idea, this cynical ploy--after sabotaging the bill and then blaming someone else other than themselves--is pitiful.

The House bill, of course, was so bad--TrumpCare was so bad--that our Republican friends are trying to switch the blame to ObamaCare. It is not true, and it will not work.

Now, last night, Democrats held the floor well into the night to discuss the Republican plan to pass a healthcare bill in just 2 weeks that no one in America has seen, without holding a single committee hearing or a robust debate on the floor. They want to bring the bill to the floor and rush it in the dark of night for a simple reason: They are ashamed of their bill. They don't want anybody to see it, least of all the public.

Last evening, I asked the majority leader if the minority would have more than 10 hours to debate and amend the final bill. He replied that ``there will be ample opportunity to debate and amend the bill.'' So I asked again: Will we get more than 10 hours? Ten hours is the maximum the rules allow us under reconciliation. He could only reply that ``There will be ample time.''

I have a feeling the majority leader and I disagree on the definition of ``ample,'' because 10 hours of debate time--a total of 10 hours of debate time on an issue this important--is a sham. It is a farce. We would have to read the bill, prepare amendments, and consider its consequences, all in 10 hours.

This is a bill that affects one-sixth of our economy, millions of Americans. For them, it is life and death, and we are supposed to rush it through.

The Affordable Care Act, for the sake of comparison, was debated for 25 consecutive days of Senate session and 169 cumulative hours of debate time, and that was after a robust hearing and committee process. Yesterday, the majority leader basically confirmed that we Democrats might only have 10 hours total--no committee hearings, no committee markups, no airing the bill--10 hours of debate. Can my colleagues believe it? This is supposed to be a democracy where we debate the greatest issues of our time.

I asked another question of the majority leader, and I ask him now and I hope he will answer: Will our 10 hours of debate time be on the House bill or will it be on the new Senate bill that he is crafting behind closed doors? Will he let us debate the full 10 hours on the new Senate bill--hardly enough--or is he even being more cynical and doing

the 10 hours of debate on the existing House bill and then putting a substitute in--the Senate bill they have written behind closed doors-- and have no debate on that? With everything terrible that is happening, that could make it even worse. So I am asking the majority leader to publicly state what his plan is in that regard.

I have never heard of a more radical or a more reckless process in my entire career in politics--10 hours of total debate on a bill that would affect one-sixth of the American economy and millions of Americans. If the Senate bill, like the House bill, results in 23 million fewer Americans with insurance--23 million Americans losing their insurance--each hour of debate time would represent 2.3 million Americans losing their insurance. Each minute of debate time would represent 40,000 Americans losing their insurance. One minute, and 40,000 people's lives are changed; 40,000 people don't have the coverage they need.

It boggles the mind that the Republican leader is moving forward this way without letting anyone but Members of the Republican Senate caucus see the bill, and even many of them have said they haven't seen it. There is only one possible reason why my friends on the other side are going along with this process--only one reason: They are ashamed of the bill they are writing.

If they were proud of the bill, they would announce it. They would have brass bands going down Main Street America, saying: Look at our great bill. They can't even whisper what it is about, they are so, so ashamed of it. That is why they are hiding it. They must be ashamed that, just like the House bill, the Senate TrumpCare bill will put healthcare out of the reach of millions of Americans just to put another tax break into the pockets of the very wealthy.

President Trump likes to end many of his tweets with one word, almost like punctuation: ``Sad,'' ``unfair,'' ``wrong.'' It turns out the President has one word to sum up his healthcare plan as well: ``Mean.''

Last week, at a White House lunch with Republican Senators, the President reportedly told them he thought the House-passed healthcare bill was mean. That is what Donald Trump said on June 13, 2017.

For once, on the topic of healthcare, I find myself agreeing with the President. His healthcare bill is mean. Cutting Medicaid to the bone is mean. Cutting treatment for opioid abuse is mean. Cutting support for families with someone in a nursing home is mean. Allowing insurers to once again discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions is mean. Charging older Americans five times or more for their health insurance is mean.

Passing a law which would cause millions of Americans to lose their health insurance in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest among us is pretty much the textbook definition of a mean bill--a mean bill-- and even the President thinks so, but just like the Republicans in the Senate, President Trump doesn't want the American people to know what he really thinks of their healthcare plan. That is why he said it was mean behind closed doors at the White House, while in public a few weeks earlier he said it is a ``great plan,'' ``very, very incredibly well-crafted.'' Those are his words, the same bill--the same bill--out to the public: Great bill, great plan; while behind closed doors, what it really is: mean.

All the plaudits the President gave the House bill turned out to be flimsy salesmanship. Speaking candidly to fellow Republicans, the President didn't say: Take up and pass the House bill. He didn't say it was a great plan or that it was very, very incredibly well-crafted. He said it was mean. My Republican friends ought to take this to heart. Even President Trump thinks what Republicans are doing on healthcare is a cruelty to the American people.

As we on this side of the aisle have said before, there is a better way. Republicans shouldn't feel like this mean bill cooked up in secret is their only option. I have invited my Republican friends to meet in the Old Senate Chamber to discuss a bipartisan way forward on healthcare. The Republican leader seems to have foreclosed that option, but the invitation remains and the sentiment remains.

Democrats are willing to work with our Republican friends on improving our healthcare system. We have significant disagreements, sure, but Republicans haven't even tried to sit down with us to hash them out. We would like to try, but if Republicans continue down this path, ignoring the principles of transparency and the open debate that defined this legislative body, we Democrats will continue to do everything we can to shine light on what our Republican friends are doing.

I yield the floor.