Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, was introduced in the Judiciary Committee for opening statements. We all look forward to today's round of questioning, during which I hope the nominee will be more forthcoming than he was with me. I am very sympathetic to the fact that judges should not offer opinions on cases that could come before the Court lest they bias themselves. Every Senator is aware of that. We know to ask general questions or questions about cases previously decided to get a sense of a judge's philosophy.

In our meeting, Judge Gorsuch refused to even answer those questions. For instance, I asked him a very simple question. I said forget about the case that was then pending in the Ninth Circuit on the Executive order. I said: Let's say Congress passed a law: No Muslim could enter the United States. Would that be unconstitutional?

He even refused to answer that question. So I hope he will be more willing to answer questions in the Judiciary Committee today, particularly about his views of important Supreme Court cases of the past and his own ideology. This idea that judges judge regardless of ideology is totally belied by the fact that there is a coalition right now--four judges on one side, four judges on the other. Four appointed by Democratic Presidents who generally rule one way, four appointed by Republican Presidents who generally rule the other.

If it was just interpreting the law without any input from a person's life and thoughts and ideology, we would not have that stark breakdown, but we do. In my view, the hard right, in trying to populate the bench with people way over, has adopted this philosophy, starting with Miguel Estrada: Don't answer the questions because if the American people knew how you really felt, they would not want you on the bench.

Let's take the case of President Trump. Of course President Trump considered ideology when he selected Judge Gorsuch off a list culled by the far-right Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. He did not pick the judges himself. He went to these extreme groups and said: You make a list. I promise I will pick people from that list.

Do you think organizations--these organizations--dedicated to a certain ideological viewpoint, did not consider ideology when building their list of possible Supreme Court picks? Of course they did.

President Trump said himself, he wanted to appoint a Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The idea that he selected a judicious, neutral judge is belied by the selection process, totally and amazingly. That is how the President considered these judges. So it is not unreasonable for Senators to consider and question the ideology of a nominee in committee. President Trump sure did when he came up with a list. The only way for the Judiciary Committee to do that is if the nominee is willing to answer specific questions. If he is not willing to answer specific questions, what is the purpose of even holding a 4- day hearing?

Before I move on to another topic, I would like to point out that it is the height of irony that Republicans held this Supreme Court seat open for nearly a calendar year while President Obama was in office but are now rushing to fill the seat for a President whose campaign is under investigation by the FBI.

Even Representative Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the investigation, confirmed yesterday by FBI Director Comey, puts a ``big gray cloud'' over this administration. You can bet if the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic President was under investigation by the FBI, the Republicans would be howling at the Moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances.

After all, they stopped the President who was not under investigation from filling a seat with nearly a year left in his Presidency. It is unseemly to be moving forward so fast on confirming a Supreme Court Justice with a lifetime appointment while this ``big gray cloud'' of an FBI investigation hangs over the Presidency.

Mr. President, the Republicans plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Their bill is such a mess and is proving so deeply unpopular that Republicans are playing a game of hot potato with it. Speaker Ryan does not want to call it RyanCare. The administration does not want to call it TrumpCare. They are pointing at each other and hoping the other one takes responsibility and blame.

President Trump, who has tried to put his name on nearly everything in his career--ties, steaks, water--does not want his name on this bill. Well, the President himself is here on the Hill today to sell the bill to House Republicans. Make no mistake, this is TrumpCare, the President's bill. Every American should know that if Republicans ultimately pass this bill, President Trump is behind it, and Republicans will have helped him every step of the way.

So voters, particularly Trump supporters, who would be hurt most by this TrumpCare should remember that when your premiums start going up, President Trump did that. When your insurance does not cover all the things it used to, President Trump did that. If you are older and insurance companies are now charging you exorbitant premiums, several times what you used to pay, President Trump did that. When 24 million fewer Americans have health insurance while the wealthiest Americans get a huge tax break, you can be sure President Trump did that too.

Even now, the changes House Republicans are making to buy off different factions of their caucus are making the bill more harsh. Some of these changes will further weaken Medicaid and result in even fewer Americans with healthcare coverage. Though Republicans claim they are fixing the bill's unfair tax on older Americans, they are not. The truth is, the Republican age tax is still in the bill. People in their fifties and sixties still stand to lose big time.

The larger truth is, Republicans are not trying to make this bill better. They are just trying to make it pass with all their various factions pulling them in different directions. There is no better evidence of that than the new ``Senate slush fund,'' a $75 billion earmark the House is giving the Senate to buy off Republican Senators who don't want to vote for this bill.

What happened to our fiscal conservative friends in the House--no unnecessary expenditures. A $75 billion slush fund. It doesn't even say what it does. Wow. Unbelievable. Many Republican Senators don't want to vote on the House bill because it is going to crush older Americans with a new age tax, but make no mistake about it, the Senate slush fund is not going to fix that problem at all.

Here is the biggest problem. The consequences of TrumpCare are so bad for working Americans and older Americans that my friend the majority leader may rush it through the Chamber after we get it from the House. He has already said TrumpCare is going to bypass committees and go right to the floor. There is even talk that Republican Senators, under his leadership, are negotiating a substitute bill behind closed doors that would take its place and also go straight to the floor.

That is not how we should do business here on something as important as healthcare. That is not just my view, that is the majority leader's view. Listen to what the distinguished majority leader--then-minority leader--said

about healthcare reform in 2009, when the Affordable Care Act was being debated. He said--these are Mitch McConnell's words:

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 for enough time to come to grips

with it. There should be and must be a CBO score.

Let me repeat that. ``There should be and must be a CBO score.'' I would ask our leader, are we going to have one before he rushes this bill to the floor? I hope so. ``We are going to insist,'' he said, ``that it be done in a transparent and fair and open way.''

Well, the majority leader delights in pointing out instances when Democrats seemed to go back on something they said. So I certainly hope he follows his own advice from 2009 now that he is majority leader. We hope to see a published bill, with Senators given time to review, and a CBO score before anything moves forward--a fair, open, and transparent process, as he said.

I know why he wants to move so quickly. The majority leader knows how bad the bill actually is. In fact, the consequences of TrumpCare are so bad that Republicans are talking about other phases of the plan, promising a second and third prong that will somehow make this bill better for American people down the road. They say to their colleagues: Well, this bill is bad, but we will change it in the second and third prongs.

Well, that is a diversion. If Republicans can't live with this bill, they should shelve it because those other prongs are either not going to happen or will make it worse.

I can speak with some authority on the third prong. It is going to require 60 votes. That is what will be needed for the Republican legislation to make more changes to our healthcare system--60 votes, which means at least 8 Democratic votes.

I warn my Republican colleagues: Once you repeal ACA in this fashion--just ripping it out, having nothing good to put in its place-- our healthcare system is going to be too messed up to resuscitate it with piecemeal legislation down the road. Even my Republican friends, Senators on the other side of the aisle, said as much. My friend, the junior Senator from Texas, Senator Cruz, said: ``Anything placed in so- called bucket three won't pass.'' You are right, Ted. If we want to pass real reforms, we have to do it now and on budget reconciliation. Senator Cruz is right again.

My friend, the junior Senator from Arkansas, Senator Cotton, freely admits that ``there is no three-phase process. There is no three-phase plan. That is just political talk. It's just politicians engaging in spin.'' Senator Cotton, I couldn't have said it better myself.

All Republicans in the House and Senate should hear this: Democrats will not help Republicans repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act-- in one phase, two phases, or three phases. This TrumpCare bill would cause such immense damage to our country, its citizens, average working families who are going to be paying more and getting less, we are not going to be complicit. But we will work with our Republican colleagues to improve the existing law.

If the President and the majority leader say ``All right, we are not going to repeal; let's work on some changes,'' we will do it with them. Of course we will listen. But they have to drop repeal first.

Again, I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to drop their repeal efforts, drop TrumpCare--non-negotiated, not a drop of bipartisanship in it--and come negotiate with Democrats on improvements to the Affordable Care Act. Turn back before it is too late--too late for the American people who will be hurt and too late for all of you who will also be hurt as you try to defend TrumpCare in the next few years.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, on the Republican healthcare bill, my good friend the Republican leader says that there should be amendments on the floor. On such an important matter, it would be astounding if we didn't have committee hearings and committee votes on such a bill. I know there is an attempt to rush it through, but if it is such a fine product, it ought to withstand the scrutiny of hearings and of markups in the various committees. To rush it through is an indication that the sponsors of the bill, the supporters of the bill, are not very proud of it, and that is a theme that has continued with the executive branch and the Speaker of the House.

As we know, CBO estimated that it would cause 24 million fewer Americans to have health insurance--I don't hear the Republican leader mention that, of course--while raising premiums in the short term and jacking up the price of healthcare for older Americans.

We have heard from the other side of the aisle that access is what is important. No, it isn't. Access doesn't get you healthcare. I have access to walk into a Lamborghini dealer and look at a Lamborghini, but I can't afford one. That is true of average Americans, and that is true of healthcare as well. Access doesn't get you healthcare, and it is a far cry from what people need.

Because the bill helps so many fewer Americans, because the bill seems to be a tax break for the wealthy above all, it is having its trouble, and nobody seems to really want to embrace it. That is why Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue don't want their name near any end of the bill.

As I said yesterday, Speaker Ryan doesn't want to call it RyanCare, even though he wrote the bill. President Trump doesn't want to call it TrumpCare. If it is so good, why doesn't any Republican want to put their name on it? It is Abbott and Costello: You put your name on it; no, you put your name on it. That is not an indication that people are proud of this legislation, and it is particularly ironic with President Trump. President Trump slaps his name on buildings, ties, steaks, hotels, and golf clubs, but not on a bill that he supports in his daily tweets. He has spent 30 years of his business career trying to put his name on nearly everything, but not this healthcare bill, even though he is inviting wary Republicans to the White House to try and sell them on it.

Today his Vice President is here on the Hill lobbying recalcitrant Republicans. He has dispatched HHS Secretary Price, the person he picked, to lobby for the bill. His own Press Secretary says the White House is in full sale mode. Make no mistake about it, this is the President's bill, and he should be straight with the American people about it. We call it TrumpCare. That is what it is.

Mr. President, next week the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin its hearing on President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch. As I have said before, we in the Senate have a special responsibility to judge whether this nominee, Judge Gorsuch, will tip the scales on the Court in favor of Big Business and powerful special interests over average Americans. The Court has steadily been moving in that direction under Justice Roberts.

My colleague Sheldon Whitehouse and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, have documented in 5-to-4 cases that the Court, over the last decade, has almost always tilted in favor of the powerful and against those who are average Americans. In fact, the Court under Justice Roberts has been judged the most pro-corporate Court since World War II. So this country can ill afford another Justice who will side with the powerful.

Judge Gorsuch may act like a studied, neutral judge, but his record suggests he actually has a rightwing, pro-corporate, special interest agenda. In today's New York Times, this morning we learned that Judge Gorsuch's career

has been nurtured by a far-right billionaire and corporate titan, Philip Anschutz, who has gone out of his way to fund hard-right judicial causes, including the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. President Trump outsourced his choice of a Supreme Court nominee to these organizations, and they recommended Judge Gorsuch.

Neil Gorsuch represented Mr. Anschutz's firm as a young lawyer. He has earned his favor and patronage ever since. It was Anschutz's top lawyer, someone who represented Anschutz here on the Hill, who lobbied for Gorsuch to get the spot on the Federal appeals court. Judge Gorsuch has been partners in an LLC with two of Anschutz's top advisers, building a vacation home together. Of course, there is no problem with that. Anyone can be partners. But it goes to show the longstanding intertwined ties between one of the leading advocates for a hard-right pro-corporate agenda, Mr. Anschutz, and Judge Gorsuch. The long history of ties between Judge Gorsuch and Mr. Anschutz suggests a judge whose fundamental economic and judicial philosophy is favorable to the wealthy and the powerful and the far right.

Judge Gorsuch may sometimes express sympathy for the less powerful verbally, but when it comes time to rule, when the chips are down, he has far too often sided with the powerful few over everyday Americans trying get a fair shake. He has repeatedly sided with insurance companies that want to deny disability benefits to employees. In employment discrimination cases, Bloomberg found he sided with employers 66 percent of the time. In one of the few cases where he sided with an employee, it was a Republican woman who alleged she was fired for being a conservative.

On money in politics, the scourge, the poison of our political system--undisclosed dark money--Judge Gorsuch seems to be in the same company as Justices Thomas and Scalia, willing to restrict the most commonsense contribution limits.

Judge Gorsuch's record demonstrates he prefers CEOs over citizens, executives over employees, corporations over consumers.

Later this morning, I will be meeting with people who have personally experienced the real-life implications of Judge Gorsuch's decisions: Alphonso Maddin from Michigan, a truckdriver who was fired because he left his vehicle when freezing; Patricia Caplinger from Missouri, who sued Medtronic after being injured by a medical device implanted in a non-FDA-approved manner; David Hwang and Katherine Hwang, whose late mother, Proffer Grace Hwang, sued Kansas State University after being fired following a 6-month leave for cancer and requesting to work at home because of a flu epidemic. Their stories illuminate the real-world effects of a judge who sides with Anschutz-like interests over everyday Americans like Mr. Maddin, Ms. Caplinger, and the Hwang family.

My colleague, my friend, the Republican leader, said there is no principled reason to be opposed to Judge Gorsuch. Yes, if your principles say the law should be used time and time again to support powerful corporate interests over average Americans, maybe there is no principled objection. But for most Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom want the Court to bring justice to the people who have less power--and the Court is their last resort--there are plenty of principled reasons to vote against Judge Gorsuch.

Because of starkly unequal concentrations of wealth and ever- increasing corporate power, aided and abetted by decisions like Citizens United, because they have skewed the playing field even more decisively to special interests and away from the individual citizen, we need a nominee who would reverse that trend, not exacerbate it.

Donald Trump campaigned on helping average people. His nominee sides with corporate interests against average people like Mr. Maddin, Ms. Caplinger, and the Hwang family over and over again. From all indications, Judge Gorsuch is not the kind of nominee who has sympathy and helps average Americans when it comes to judging and the law.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, since coming to office, the President's National Security Council has experienced more turmoil than any in history at this stage in a Presidency. The President's first National Security Advisor and head of the NSC, Michael Flynn, was fired after only a month in his position. The Council itself has been reshaped in ways that concern all of us. Permanent postings for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of the National Intelligence Agency have been removed and a permanent seat has been installed for White House Political Adviser Steve Bannon.

This organization is a disturbing and profound departure from past administrations. On the most sensitive matters of national security, the President should be relying on the informed counsel of members of the intelligence and military communities, not political advisers who made their careers running a White nationalist website.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the President's primary military adviser and, along with that of the Director of National Intelligence, is the only independent, apolitical voice on the NSC. President Trump's move to strip them of their seats is baffling and potentially endangers our national security. The President has installed in their stead one of the most strident, ideological voices in his orbit.

On the most sensitive issues of national security, we have to have fact-based decisions. The President has to get the most dispassionate and accurate advice. With all due respect, that is not Mr. Bannon's forte. His installation on the principals list of the NSC moves it further away from what it needs to be and closer toward a shadow council of a dangerously ideological West Wing.

The bottom line is, this decision was poorly thought out and ill- conceived. It puts a filter on the information going to the President and will make us less safe. My concerns are shared by Members on both sides of the aisle. I know that from conversations I have had with some.

It has special relevance today because we are about to vote on reappointing H.R. McMaster to lieutenant general, who will be the next head of the NSC. General McMaster, by all accounts, will have a grounding presence in the national security apparatus of the White House. I have met him. I have a great deal of respect for both his integrity and his abilities, but I remain deeply concerned that General McMaster's judgment may not be followed and instead the fevered dreams of Mr. Bannon will influence the most sensitive national security discussions and decisions. It has been reported he doesn't want to see NATO exist or the European Union. Those are political decisions in a body charged with giving the President advice on security.

So this should concern all of us, especially Lieutenant General McMaster.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to first thank my colleague from Michigan for her outstanding presentation. It was succinct. It was on point. It showed all the problems with TrumpCare. I hope we will see a lot more not only of her speaking about this--and I know we will--but those great charts she put together.

I, too, rise this afternoon again on the Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. There has been some confusion about what to call it. Speaker Ryan, one of the principal authors of the bill, doesn't want it called RyanCare. President Trump doesn't want it called TrumpCare. President Trump slapped his name on buildings, ties, steaks, hotels, and golf clubs, but not on a bill that he says he supports. If it is so good, why doesn't any Republican want to put their name on it? I think the reason is because every single day, as we learn more and more about the bill, more and more Americans are turning against it. Doctors don't like it. Patients don't like it. Hospitals don't like it. Women don't like it. Millennials don't like it. Seniors don't like it. More and more Republicans don't like it. And Democrats are totally united against it.

So I just want to ask one question. TrumpCare has been public for 1 week now. Is there any group left in the country who actually likes it? I am not sure there is. So Republicans have resorted to their usual talking points.

They like to talk about access to healthcare. That is what Dr. Price said over and over again. He didn't talk about people getting healthcare, just having access to healthcare.

They say they want universal access to healthcare. Well, every American has universal access to a Lamborghini. You can walk into the Lamborghini showroom and say: I would like to purchase one. The proprietor says: Well, that will be a couple hundred thousand dollars. And you can't buy it. Access is not enough. Access is not enough.

Every single American would like a huge mansion worth $10 million. They have access. They can go to a real estate agent and say: Show me a list of $10 million mansions in my community. That is access, but they can't afford it. We know when Dr. Price and others talk about access, they are trying to actually verbally trick the American people because people can't afford this healthcare. They will not have the healthcare, but they can inquire about it. That is all access is.

Americans are smarter than that. They know having good health insurance is what leads to affordable healthcare. Access to care will not make us well and will not save our lives if we can't afford it.

So what is the real effect of this TrumpCare bill? Last night the Congressional Budget Office made clear that 24 million fewer Americans will have health insurance if TrumpCare becomes the law of the land. It is one of the biggest broken promises that this President has made, and he has broken a lot of them. In an interview with the Washington Post, here's what the President said: ``We're going to have insurance for everybody.'' President Trump: ``We're going to have insurance for everybody'' that is ``much less expensive and better.''

Well, the CBO report confirms that TrumpCare does not even remotely come close to that pledge. The President was off by only 24 million Americans. That is more than the population of my entire State.

Seniors will also get crushed with higher premiums. Americans of all ages will have to pay more out-of-pocket costs with deductibles and copays. Let me give you one example from the CBO report. A 64-year-old American not eligible for Medicare who makes maybe $26,500 a year would have to pay a premium of $14,600. That is more than half of that senior's entire income. How is that even possible? If there were ever a war on seniors, this bill, TrumpCare, is it.

The CBO report also showed that TrumpCare spends more on tax breaks for the very wealthy and for insurance companies than it does on tax credits to help middle-class Americans afford health insurance. In the final tally, TrumpCare would erase more than $1 trillion from programs that help poor and middle-class families in order to fund an almost $900 billion tax break aimed largely at the wealthy and corporations. That would constitute one of the greatest transfers of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich in the last few decades. As my friend Leader Pelosi said this morning: It is reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor and giving it to the rich. I would say that this bill, TrumpCare, is reverse Robin Hood on steroids.

Rather than going back to the drawing board to solve these problems, what are our Republican friends doing? Attacking CBO, the messenger. There is just one problem: This messenger they are attacking is their own messenger. Who appointed Dr. Hall as the head of CBO? Who was the person most responsible? None other than Secretary Price, now the head of HHS, handpicked him.

Dr. Hall has great conservative Republican credentials. Not only was he picked by Dr. Tom Price, but he worked at the Mercatus Center, which we all know is funded in good part by the Koch brothers. He is a man chosen by one of the most conservative Republicans in the House, who is now HHS Secretary. He taught at an institute funded by the Koch brothers, the leading funders of the hard right, and they are attacking him. They don't like his honest answers.

Republicans are attacking the referee because they are losing the game, plain and simple. Everyone from second grade on was taught by their parents not to attack the referee because it is unsportsmanlike. In this case it is a lot worse. It has life and death consequences, unlike a softball game for a second grader.

If we look at the CBO's score, it is hard to call this a healthcare bill. A healthcare bill actually intends to provide insurance to more Americans; this bill results in 24 million fewer Americans with health insurance. A healthcare bill would help people afford health insurance; this bill would likely increase costs on middle-class and working families while making it cheaper for the top 1 percent and much cheaper for the top 0.1 percent. They get the biggest benefit. They get a huge tax break. A healthcare bill would seek to protect older and sicker Americans who need health insurance the most; this bill jacks up the price on older Americans the most. A healthcare bill would make it easier for Americans to shop for health insurance, but the CBO says that under this bill, plans would be harder to compare, ``making shopping for a plan on the basis of price more difficult.'' That is their quote.

By no measure can we call TrumpCare an actual healthcare bill. The only thing this bill makes healthier is bank accounts for the wealthiest Americans. People who make above $250,000 would get an average tax break of $200,000. People who make $1 million would get an average tax break of $57,000. That is what this bill is all about.

Our Republican friends have cut taxes on the rich. That is what their tax reform bill will be about. That is what this is all about. At a time when Donald Trump was campaigning to help the middle class, the working people, he gets into office, and boom: The first big, big, big proposal reduces taxes on the wealthiest people. This is not going to play well in Peoria, Brooklyn, or Charlotte.

We Democrats are going to stand strong, stay united, and fight tooth and nail against TrumpCare until our Republican friends drop their repeal efforts for good.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, let me thank the attending physician for quickly coming to the aid of one of our stenographers. They all do an amazing job. They are the unsung heroes, and we wish the stenographer a speedy recovery.

Mr. President, as the House continues to rush through its plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, I just want to point out once again how different this bill is from what the President has promised. For a while now, I have spoken about how the President talks like a populist and promises one thing but governs from the hard right, delivering something entirely different.

President Trump talked tough on Wall Street but appointed Wall Street insiders to his administration and started to try to roll back Wall Street reform. He said he would stick up for working people, but just about an hour after his inaugural address where he said that, one of his first actions as President made it harder for average families to afford a mortgage.

The President plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and that is the most recent and most glaring example of this trend where the President speaks one way and does another. There is a stunning gap between how the President talks about healthcare and what his bill TrumpCare would do. The bold promises of better care for everyone at lower costs come from an alternative reality to his legislation, which studies show will cover fewer people at higher costs--higher costs, less care.

Like much of his administration thus far, TrumpCare is another game of say one thing, do another: Say you will protect the working people of America and then go forward in ways that hurt them and hurt them severely.

Let me offer a few examples about TrumpCare and how the words the President has stated are so different from the reality. During the campaign, the President said he was not going to cut Medicaid ``like every other Republican.'' He tweeted that he was ``the first and only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.'' These are President Trump's own tweets.

He said on his tweet that he will be the first and only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; however, directly contrary to the President's promise during the campaign, TrumpCare takes an ax to Medicaid, which covers 68 million Americans. Instead of having the Federal Government match a percentage of each State's Medicaid costs, which can rise and fall according to how much the State actually needs, TrumpCare would give States only a fixed amount of money per enrollee each year. If costs are higher than expected, TrumpCare wouldn't cover the gap. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this change would amount to a $370 billion cut to Medicaid over 10 years. The President said he was the first and only GOP candidate to promise not to cut Medicaid. His bill cuts it by nearly $400 billion.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans in nursing homes rely on Medicaid. This cut goes right after seniors and could make it more difficult if you are a 45- or 50-year-old with a parent in a nursing home. You would be faced with a horrible choice: Take your parent out of the home and not give them the care they need or shell out huge amounts--thousands and thousands of dollars out of your own pocket, which you may not have. So much for the President not cutting Medicaid; it is a broken promise to so many poor people, elderly people in nursing homes, and their children.

The President also said we are going to have a much better healthcare plan for much less money, but studies have shown that if you are in the middle class, TrumpCare will cost you about $1,500 more a year. If you are an older American between 55 and 64, your costs would increase by over $5,000 a year. The 55- to 64-year-olds may be the most vulnerable. Their healthcare costs tend to be higher than others, and their costs would go up by $5,000 a year. That is another promise by President Trump broken when it comes to TrumpCare.

The President also said: ``We are going to have insurance for everybody.'' Those are his words, not mine. ``We are going to have insurance for everybody.'' Some estimates of TrumpCare suggest that it will kick roughly 15 million Americans off the insurance rolls. The CBO will likely have a more definitive estimate this evening, putting an exclamation point on what we already know: TrumpCare will cost millions of Americans their health insurance--another promise by Donald Trump broken.

The President spoke repeatedly on the campaign trail about expanding treatment for Americans suffering from opioid addiction, but TrumpCare would end the Affordable Care Act's requirement that addictive services and mental health treatment be covered under Medicaid in the 31 States that chose to expand Medicaid. The President promised more help for those suffering from opioid addiction. The President's action in TrumpCare cuts it.

Even on drug prices, the President says one thing and does another. Just a few weeks ago, he stood in the well of the House of Representatives and said: ``We should work to bring down the artificial high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.'' So you would think TrumpCare would have something that does that. Unfortunately, it does not. TrumpCare does absolutely nothing to address the high cost of drugs. In fact, drug prices might start going up faster.

TrumpCare eliminates a current requirement that insurers actually give patients the value of the health insurance they are paying for. This is a blank check to insurers to cover less and charge more out-of- pocket for a whole host of services. Most experts agree that insurers could charge much more for prescription drugs or even ration care. So that is another Trump promise broken. He was going to work on getting costs lowered immediately, but not in his bill he introduced a few weeks later. It might, indeed, raise prices for the cost of drugs for average Americans.

In a broader sense, TrumpCare violates what this President promised to working Americans. He promised to be a champion for working Americans. He promised to be their voice. That is how he presented himself in his inaugural address. But TrumpCare would hurt working Americans the most, making them pay more for less care.

It seems the only people who really benefit, the only group who benefits financially--if you are in the top 0.1 percent of earners, TrumpCare gives you a nearly $200,000 tax break, on average. This is the group who benefits. They may not be the only group, but they are the group who benefits the most, far and away. If you are in the middle class, if you are struggling to make it into the working class, if you are older or from a rural area, your costs are going to go up by thousands of dollars a year. So many of these people voted for Trump for President, but the only people who get that huge tax break of an average of $200,000 a year are the top 0.1 percent. In a very real sense, Donald Trump is giving a huge tax break to the wealthy and then making working Americans, average Americans, pay for it. To some, it might seem that the whole purpose of TrumpCare is to give that huge tax break to the wealthy.

In his inaugural address, President Trump spoke of an America where for far too long a small group has reaped the rewards of government, while the people have borne the cost. TrumpCare seems designed to fulfill that vision, not alter it. It makes it even easier on that small group, shifting even more costs onto the people.

So the first few months of the Trump administration have been broken promise after broken promise to working families. Trump's words: We are going to help working America, middle-class America. Trump's action: Take the burden off the shoulders of the top 1 percent and put them on the shoulders of all other Americans.

TrumpCare might constitute the greatest broken promise of them all. That is why I expect our Republican leadership in the House is rushing this bill through the Chamber. They don't want the American people to see it and learn what is in it. I don't think they want their own Members to have much time to consider it. That is why it was released on a Monday and a vote in committee was scheduled just a few days later. Already the bill has gone through one committee markup in the House without a score from CBO.

After years of criticizing Democrats for rushing through healthcare, after chanting ``read the bill'' over and over again, Republicans are trying to pass their healthcare plan in 2 months, when Democrats took almost a full year to debate and pass the Affordable Care Act.

Even Republican Senators like my friend from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton, are telling their colleagues in the House to pause and start over. The Republicans in the House ought to listen because this mess of a bill will badly hurt millions of Americans. Even though we disagree on the substance, I would echo my friend from Arkansas, Senator Cotton, in saying to House Republicans: Stop and think about this. You can drop ``repeal'' and come talk to us Democrats about reasonable fixes to the Affordable Care Act instead of blindly moving forward with this sham of a bill. That would be a much better way for your party and for our country.

Mr. President, one final point on another matter. Today, the Democratic leadership of the Senate sent a letter to Leader McConnell and Chairman Cochran. We, of course, laid out our concerns about the budget and reiterated the guiding rules that helped us pass a budget for the first time in a while last year. We believe that we should stick to the spending levels that were agreed to in December, that we should maintain a parity between defense and nondefense, and that there should be no poison pill riders.

It is rumored that one of those poison pill riders might be a supplemental added to the CR that would call for paying for President Trump's wall. That will not stand.

The President wants a wall but has not answered so many questions about it. What about eminent domain and the procedures to acquire land from private landowners? What is the design of the wall? Where is it going to be located? How is it going to be paid for, and how much will it cost? Don't you think we ought to give the President some time to have Mexico pay for the wall? That is what he said throughout his campaign, that Mexico will pay for it.

That is why both Democratic and Republican Members of Congress who represent the border States object to this wall. It will be inappropriate, in our judgment, to insist on the inclusion of such funding in a must-pass appropriations bill that is needed for the Republican majority in the control of Congress to avert a government shutdown. It is truly a poison pill. We would urge our colleagues not to allow the President to include this in a must-pass bill that avoids a shutdown of the government.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I just came from speaking with several Americans about how TrumpCare would affect them. Universally, these folks were scared. They are worried their costs will go up. They are worried their benefits will go down. One of the concerns that came up, an issue that is on the minds of many Americans, was the high cost of drug prices.

During the campaign, the President talked the talk on drug prices. As President-elect, he said in December he would ``bring down drug prices.'' In January, he said pharmaceutical companies were ``getting away with murder.'' He repeated the refrain in his joint address to Congress last week. ``We should,'' he said, ``work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.'' Immediately.

Well, the immediate is here. TrumpCare, the repeal and replacement of the ACA, has been introduced. TrumpCare does absolutely nothing to address the high cost of drugs. In fact, drug prices might start going up faster. Once again, the President is talking the talk, talking like a populist, but not walking the walk, not helping average Americans. He is helping the wealthy, special interests but not the average folks he was talking to during the campaign.

The President met with a couple of Congressmen yesterday and talked about drug prices. Why not put something in TrumpCare? Why not let them negotiate, bring down costs? Instead, TrumpCare does the opposite. TrumpCare eliminates a current requirement that insurers actually give patients the value of the health insurance they are paying for. Under the ACA, insurers had to pay at least 60 percent of the cost of care provided--for some plans, more. That requirement would be gone. So that, again, hurts average folks.

That provision in TrumpCare is a blank check to insurers to cover less and charge more out-of-pocket for a whole host of services. Most experts agree that insurers could charge much more for its prescription drugs or even rationed care.

TrumpCare takes the shackles off the insurance companies and lets them decide how or if they are going to cover your prescription drug costs. Letting the insurance companies decide what to charge and cover has never been, and never will be, a recipe to bring down prices. So on drugs as well as other issues, TrumpCare: higher costs, less care.

What is particularly galling, of course, is the fact that the President talks about reducing the cost of drug prices and negotiating but does nothing.

He said he would do it immediately. The immediate is here. TrumpCare is here. TrumpCare makes it very likely that the cost of drugs could go up for average Americans. It is just another example of this President doing one thing but saying another. He promises the Moon and the stars, but his policies make them even further out of reach.

He says: ``I'll bring drug prices down.'' His bill does the opposite, and it is just another way in which this is a healthcare handout for the insurance companies and the wealthy but a raw deal for average Americans.

TrumpCare is really just a tax break for the rich. It is not really a healthcare program. Its No. 1 motivation is to reduce taxes on the top 0.01 percent. If you make above $250,000, your prices are going to come down. If you are in that 0.01 percent, your average reduction in taxes is $200,000--more than most Americans make. So this bill is not going to help average Americans; it is going to hurt them, unless you are in the top 0.01 percent.

As more and more people read the bill, the louder the chorus of opposition grows. The AARP, a very cautious organization--usually they don't like to take political stands--a few weeks ago, they had ads on TV praising President Trump for saying he will not cut Social Security or Medicare. They came out strongly against the bill yesterday. Why? Because it would hurt seniors. They believe seniors--many average seniors whose income is $15,000--could pay up to $8,400 more. The people who might be hurt the most with this bill are average Americans between 50 years old and 65 whose costs inevitably will go up, whose healthcare will not be as good.

The AMA, another cautious organization, not known to be a big Democratic organization, came out against the bill. Doctors know how bad this will be for their patients and for America.

The Club for Growth, on the other side, has also opposed the bill. Hospitals, doctors, senior citizen groups have all come out against the bill. The hard right comes out against the bill, as do more moderate and liberal groups. That is because this bill is one big mess, done quickly in the dark of night. It is no wonder Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell don't want a lot of debate. They are embarrassed. This bill is an embarrassment to those who put it in because it doesn't do what it is supposed to do. That has led even Republican Governors such as John Kasich of Ohio and Brian Sandoval of Nevada to express concern over the destruction of the Medicaid Program. As we know, it is shifting the costs to the States.

Governor Kasich said that TrumpCare ``puts at risk our ability to treat the drug addicted, the mentally

ill, and the working poor.'' It is almost certain that under this bill, treatment for opioids will be less available because Medicaid is going to be cut and Medicaid helps pay for it. It is almost certain that if you are a young person, a young family--say you are 30 or 40 years old, but you have mom or dad in a nursing home; Medicaid has been paying for most of that, and it is going to be cut. What are you going to do? Maybe they will have to move in with you. That is not so easy in a growing family with kids. Maybe you will have to pay a lot of money out of your pocket. So this bill hurts Americans up and down the line.

The ideological fervor of ``TrumpCare must cut back the role of government, whether it hurts people or not'' is motivating this bill. That in the abstract would be fine, but it hurts Americans. It hurts middle-class Americans who are young, it hurts middle-class Americans who are middle-aged, and it hurts maybe most of all middle-class Americans who are 50 to 65 years old. As people learn about this bill over the next few weeks, there will be rebellion in the land of Adam.

So I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle to listen to the voices of the average Americans whom I met today, who care about bringing down the unreasonable cost of drugs. They should listen to the voices of experts who say just about the only winners in this bill are the very wealthy, and they should listen to the voices coming from their own party who say this bill will hurt their States and hurt the country.

TrumpCare is a mess. If this Congress, if this House, if this Senate is smart, they will defeat TrumpCare, keep the ACA, and then we can work together on making it better--plain and simple.

China and Trump Trademarks

Mr. President, on another matter, I am concerned about a recent report that the Trump business interests have been granted approval on a number of trademarks in China.

The President spent most of his campaign talking tough on China. He said China was ``ripping us off . . . and killing our companies.'' He promised to label them a currency manipulator, a cause near and dear to my heart, on day one. The President promised many times over, saying: We are going to label China a currency manipulator. There is nothing stopping him from doing it. He could have done it with a stroke of a pen.

My views on trade, particularly with respect to China, might be closer to the views President Trump expressed in his campaign than those of either President Obama or President Bush. But since the election, President Trump has been remarkably soft on China.

As the Acting President pro tempore knows, I was the original person--Senator Graham and I--who came up with the idea that China was manipulating its currency. We discovered it. I did, when I went to Crucible Steel near Syracuse and they told me how their business was being hurt by China manipulating its currency. At first, when Lindsey and I talked about it, people said: Oh, no, it is not happening. I was sort of proud of the fact that in those days both the New York Times, liberal, and the Wall Street Journal, conservative--their editorial pages both stated that China doesn't manipulate its currency; Schumer is off base. Now, of course, everyone knows they do. President Trump in his campaign said over and over again he was going to label them a currency manipulator which would have consequences to them on day one, the first day he took office. Now he has backed off his threats. He has been in office more than a month. He has not labeled China a currency manipulator.

Amazingly enough, in his first week he said he was no longer going to honor the One China policy. He was sending a shot over the bow to Beijing, that they can't keep getting away with what they have been getting away with in trade, in geodiplomacy, in cyber security, stealing our intellectual property, and everything else. When he did that, I was pretty pleased. Now he has backed off.

On the two issues where the President could have been really tough with China, currency manipulation and backing off on One China, he reversed himself within the last few weeks. Now, all of a sudden, we learn that China has granted preliminary approval to 38 new trademarks, allowing the Trump brand to market several different business ventures there, including hotels and golf clubs. Before he assumed public office, Donald Trump had been working to get trademarks from China for a decade without success. These particular trademark applications, filed during the campaign, just sailed through earlier this week.

It raises troubling specific questions: Did the Chinese Government and the Communist Party, who likely had a hand in granting these approvals, see some type of benefit from doing so now that Donald Trump is President? Did the President and his network of businesses personally gain from his office, and will that incline the President to make policy decisions that benefit China and hurt American workers?

We don't know if there is a link between the two. We don't know what was in the minds of the Chinese Government or the Communist Party when they all of a sudden granted these 38 licenses. It surely raises troubling questions.

It raises a bigger question. The wisdom of our Founding Fathers proves true day in and day out. Over 220 years after they wrote the Constitution, their wisdom is coming through now with President Trump because they wrote in the Constitution that anything of value--any emolument--to U.S. officials from foreign governments should be prohibited. U.S. officials should not be allowed to accept anything of value from any foreign government. In those days, one of the greatest worries of the Founding Fathers was that they wanted to prevent foreign governments from trying to curry favor with the United States by offering potential financial gain to our officials. This issue has been largely forgotten for a century or so, but the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is shining through now because President Trump, unlike just about any other President I can remember in recent history, has failed to completely separate himself from huge financial interests.

Now the questions arise. Is there a relationship? Are foreign governments seeking to curry favor? Is it affecting Donald Trump's decisionmaking? No one knows the answers to these questions, but the fact that the questions can be asked is extremely troubling.

The President has flouted all tradition and precedent, and I worry if the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution has been broken when President Trump retains a financial interest in his business empire. It leads to troubling questions like the ones raised by these trademarks.

As my colleague from Connecticut, who is an expert on this issue, a brilliant lawyer, Senator Blumenthal, said yesterday: I think the circumstances surrounding the approval of these trademarks ought to be looked into by this Congress for a potential emoluments clause violation. He is right, and I am glad he is going forward.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time consumed during a quorum call be charged equally to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the House Republicans have finally unveiled their healthcare plan after nearly 8 years without a plan of their own.

TrumpCare is finally public, and each hour that goes by brings a new set of concerns and new groups that oppose the bill, from all places along the ideological spectrum. Even a growing number of conservatives are expressing their distaste for the legislation.

The fact of the matter is that TrumpCare is a mess. It will mean higher costs and less care for most Americans. When you look at the details, you can see that TrumpCare amounts to two separate systems of healthcare in America: cheaper healthcare for the rich, more expensive healthcare for everybody else.

Under TrumpCare, if you make more than $250,000 a year, you will get a huge tax break. The average is $200,000 a year, because most people are way above that $250,000. If you are in the middle class, the cost will increase by $1,500 annually, and by 2020, over $2,000 a year.

Let me repeat that. If you make over $250,000, your average tax break is $200,000. If you are in the middle class, your average increase in costs is $1,500 up. What kind of plan is that?

Donald Trump has talked about helping working America. The plan he has embraced, TrumpCare, helps the rich and hurts the average American. That is not surprising given all the other things they are doing the same way. This administration continues--and healthcare is part of that--to talk like populists but act like those helping the wealthy special interests time after time.

Let me repeat that. Under TrumpCare, if you make more than $250,000, you will get a tax break on average of $200,000 a year. If you are in the middle class, the cost will increase by about $1,500 annually, and after 2020, by $2,000 a year.

TrumpCare is a healthcare handout for the wealthiest Americans and fake healthcare for everybody else. Under TrumpCare, if you are a member of the Trump Cabinet--stocked with billionaires--you are going to get a tax break, but if you are 60 years old, on the cusp of retirement but still waiting because you are not yet eligible for Medicare, TrumpCare would allow insurers to charge you more simply because of your age--discrimination against the elderly, against those 50 to 65, who have worked so hard but don't yet have Medicare. That is wrong.

If you are between 55 and 64, the total cost for you will increase $5,269 a year. Let me repeat that. If you are between 55 and 64, the total cost would increase by $5,269 a year. That is only the next 2 years. By 2020, it goes up to $6,000 a year.

For a working family, they can't afford that. What is this all about? They said it would be better care and cost less. It is worse care and it costs more.

How about this? Under TrumpCare, a wealthy insurance executive making over $500,000 a year is allowed a tax break. If you are struggling to make it into the middle class with an income of 250 percent below the poverty line, your costs are going to go up by nearly $3,000 a year, and by 2020, $4,000 a year--once again, helping the wealthy special interests, in this case insurance executives, and hurting those struggling, climbing the ladder to get into the middle class.

If you are a working mother and you get healthcare from Planned Parenthood, too bad, TrumpCare cuts all Federal funding for Planned Parenthood for a year.

I am wearing my red tie today to honor the Day Without Women. Unfortunately, TrumpCare is the healthcare bill that forgot about women. Women are an essential part of our workforce in America. They ought to be able to go to the doctor or provider of their choice, even if that is Planned Parenthood.

When you look at the fine print of this bill, it has jagged edges. TrumpCare shifts the costs and burdens from the wealthy to the poor, from the insurance executive to the middle-class family.

The more Americans hear about this plan, the less they are going to like it. They were already against repeal before this plan came out. Can you imagine what is going to happen now as they read the details? I believe the Congressional Budget Office, when they score it, will ultimately show America everything America needs to know--how this bill would likely hurt overall coverage numbers and affordability and, at the same time, explode the deficit.

You are getting worse healthcare and increasing the deficit. What kind of combination is that? No wonder the Republican leadership in the House is trying to rush through the bill even without a score. They don't want the American people to see it. I don't think they even want their own Members to have a chance to study it because it is a near certainty that this bill will cause millions to lose insurance as well as blow a gigantic hole in the Federal budget.

In conclusion, it is reckless for Republicans to make Congress vote on this mess of a plan before we have those answers from CBO. Simply put, TrumpCare is a mess for the American people. We Democrats will fight it tooth and nail.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this morning the Judiciary Committee will have a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Rod Rosenstein to serve as the Deputy Attorney General. During the hearing, Mr. Rosenstein should commit to naming a special prosecutor to look into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia.

There is a strong legal rationale for a special prosecutor. A special prosecutor, by the Department of Justice rules, would be free of day- to-day supervision by anyone at the Department of Justice, would be free to follow the investigation where it leads, and would be subject to an increased level of congressional oversight. Moreover, it is the right thing to do to ensure that this investigation remains impartial, nonpartisan, and truly gets to the bottom of the matter. The bottom line is very simple. The special prosecutor can only be fired for cause, but a line person in the Justice Department could be fired at will. We saw that happen when President Trump didn't like what Sally Yates said about his Executive order. He simply fired her.

Mr. Rosenstein is a very fine man, an excellent, longtime prosecutor in the Justice Department, but this is when we call for a special prosecutor. It is not an aspersion against him in any way. We are worried the White House will not let an investigation within the Justice Department, without the insulation of a special prosecutor, go forward.

So if Mr. Rosenstein is unwilling to commit to naming a special prosecutor or says he needs to be confirmed, and in his position he can make an assessment, that is insufficient. The need for a special prosecutor is clear enough today to make that call.

Of course, we don't need to wait for Mr. Rosenstein. Mr. Boente, the Acting Deputy Attorney General, can make the call today, but if neither will commit to a special prosecutor, Congress will have to consider bringing back a narrower independent counsel law to see that this investigation is conducted properly.