Floor Statements

Mr. President, on another matter, last night we saw the House Republicans plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. After 70 years of talking about the same thing over and over again, you would think the Republicans would have been able to come up with a better plan than this. This plan is a mess.

First, it will cost average Americans more money for their healthcare, while providing fewer benefits; second, it will cut taxes for the very wealthy, making average Americans pay more for their healthcare; third, it will raise premiums and costs for older Americans; and, fourth, it will remove the guarantee that ensures Americans with preexisting conditions can get coverage.

TrumpCare will make health insurance in America measurably worse in just about every way and leave more Americans uninsured. It does, however, greatly benefit the very wealthy and special interests. Let's quickly look at each of the items I just mentioned.

First, TrumpCare will cost more and you will get less. By eliminating minimum coverage for healthcare plans and decreasing the availability of tax credits, the cost for average Americans will increase by at least $1,000 annually. That is a huge increase, like a tax increase for average Americans who need healthcare. It cuts and caps Medicaid, which has expanded health insurance to over 20 million Americans, and affects poor people, as well as many elderly who are in nursing homes, as well as their children who might have to pay for their care with the kinds of cuts we are seeing.

The bill would greatly decrease coverage for maternity care, preventive screenings, mental health, opioid treatment, and more. With respect to women, TrumpCare would send us back to the Dark Ages. Gone are the protections for maternity care, mammograms, and more. Gone is all the funding next year for Planned Parenthood, where 2.5 million women a year get healthcare. The ACA finally made it

the case that you no longer had to pay more for coverage just because you are a woman. TrumpCare rips that away, undoes the progress we made just a few years ago.

Second, TrumpCare would be a boon to the wealthy, while making working Americans pay more. The bill is a winning lottery ticket for wealthy Americans. It removes an investment tax and a surcharge on the wealthiest Americans, folks with incomes of above $250,000 a year, saving them an average of $200,000 a year, and it allows a tax break for insurance executives making over $500,000 a year.

Third, TrumpCare will raise premiums and costs for older Americans. It would repeal the Affordable Care Act's premium subsidies and replace them with refundable tax credits that could be worth thousands of dollars less than what was provided under the ACA. Under this plan, a senior without Medicare might receive only $4,000 a year in tax credits, an inadequate sum for someone of that age. One illness or a bad break, and the value of their tax credit would evaporate. It also allows insurers to charge older Americans more simply because of their age.

Finally, TrumpCare would remove the guarantee of coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions. TrumpCare is breathtakingly irresponsible. It shifts the costs and the burdens from the rich to the poor and middle class, from the government to the people, and raises premiums on older Americans. It seems designed to cover fewer Americans and make that coverage less affordable and less generous. It seems designed to make America sick again.

We don't even know how large a negative impact this bill will have because Republicans are irresponsibly rushing forward before this bill even receives a score from the Congressional Budget Office.

After years of howling at the Moon, at Democrats for rushing through the Affordable Care Act, the mantra they said over and over again on the floor here and in the House was ``read the bill.'' Republicans are having committee votes 2 days after the bill is released.

No wonder they don't want anyone to know what is in the bill. They are rushing it through because it is very hard to defend what they have done, and the longer it is out there, the harder it is going to be for their colleagues, Republicans, to vote for it. Lawmakers will be voting blind, without a final analysis of how this bill will affect overall coverage and affordability. I know this affects a lot of my colleagues on the other side.

We have no knowledge of how this affects the deficit. It is removing a lot of the revenues for healthcare without replacing them. In all likelihood--we will see what CBO says--the deficit is going to go way up.

The President is already throwing his arms around this plan, and ultimately he and his party will bear the responsibility for its passage and implementation. At this time, I would like to remind President Trump that he said repeatedly in the campaign that he would expand treatment for Americans suffering from opioid addiction, but this mess of a replacement bill would rip treatment away from hundreds of thousands of Americans dealing with opioid addiction. President Trump said he would ensure Americans with preexisting conditions would continue to have access to coverage, but this bill makes that harder in several ways. President Trump, in his campaign, said:

Everybody's got to be covered. . . . I am going to take

care of everybody. I don't care if it's going to cost me

votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of, much

better than they're being taken care of now. . . . They can

have their doctors. They can have their plans, they can have

everything.

``They can have everything.''

Well, if you read the bill the way it reduces funding for Medicaid and replaces the Affordable Care Act subsidies with much smaller tax credits, there is just no way this bill meets the President's standard.

Was the Affordable Care Act perfect? No. It could use some improvements, but Democrats spent a long time thinking about it and crafting the policy to achieve two very real and specific goals, expand coverage, lower costs.

TrumpCare will do the very opposite. If it has any one coherent positive goal, it is to limit the tax burdens on the very wealthy, and in the process it will badly hurt millions of Americans and throw our healthcare system back into chaos.

If the final product out of the House looks anything like this draft, the Senate should consider it a moral duty to reject it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon on a few matters: first, Russia and the continuing investigation into Russian interference in our election and the ties between the Trump campaign, transition team, and Russia.

The events of this weekend, which included another troubling, baseless tweet from the President, highlight and, in fact, strengthen the argument for a special prosecutor to conduct the investigation. And the American people agree. A CNN/ORC poll this morning showed that about two-thirds of Americans think a special prosecutor should conduct the investigation--67 percent of the Independents and even 43 percent of the Republicans. The trend line suggests these numbers will continue to grow.

So my Republican colleagues should understand that what they know in their hearts is the right thing to do. Do a strong, impartial investigation and get to the bottom of this. That is where the American people want them to go. The American people disagree with President Trump and want a thorough and impartial investigation--even 43 percent of Republicans. They are right.

A special prosecutor is the best way to ensure that an investigation proceeds impartially for several reasons.

First, by Department of Justice guidelines that are set up for this purpose, a special counsel is not subject to day-to-day supervision by the Attorney General--now recused--or anyone else at the Justice Department. That means the special prosecutor would have much greater latitude in whom he can subpoena, which questions he can ask, and how to conduct the investigation. Second, the prosecutor can only be removed for good cause, such as misconduct, not to quash the investigation. So there is an insularity there. He or she is protected if they are moving forward on the investigation. Third, there is built in congressional oversight. Congress is notified whenever a special counsel is appointed, removed, or finished with the investigation. Last, the special counsel has the independence to prosecute not only the subject of an investigation but anyone who attempts to interfere.

This is the right way to go. Let me quote Attorney General Jeff Sessions on this issue. Here is what he once said: ``The appropriate response when the subject matter is public and it arises in a highly- charged political atmosphere is for the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel of great public stature and indisputable independence to assure the public the matter will be handled without partisanship.''

If there were ever a case that fit exactly what then-Senator, now- Attorney General Sessions called for, this is it.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to have a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Rosenstein to serve as the Deputy Attorney General. During that hearing, Mr. Rosenstein should commit to naming a special prosecutor to look into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. Mr. Rosenstein, by reputation, is a fair man. He is a career prosecutor. Now that the Attorney General has recused himself, Mr. Rosenstein, pending confirmation, will have the duty to appoint a special prosecutor. If he will not appoint a special prosecutor, he will need a darn good reason. It is hard for me to see one right now.

Whether Mr. Rosenstein will appoint a special prosecutor will be front and center tomorrow at the Judiciary Committee's hearing and far and away the most important question he needs to answer. As I mentioned last week, if, pending confirmation, Mr. Rosensetin delays or refuses to appoint a special prosecutor, Congress should consider reviving a narrower version of the independent counsel law.

Also, we should make sure, certain, that the investigation has not been interfered with thus far. I sent a letter today to the inspector general of the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz, which was made public today, urging him to open an immediate investigation to determine if anyone has interfered with this investigation up to now, either attempting to influence the direction of the investigation or those conducting it.

The Attorney General should have recused himself on day one. I asked him to do it almost 3 weeks ago, on February 14. We need to know if he or anyone else has meddled in this investigation in any way. His misleading statements to the Judiciary Committee about his meetings with the Russian Ambassador only add suspicion.

Attorney General Sessions has been in charge of this investigation for 3 weeks. We need to know if he or anyone else did anything in that time to

hinder the investigation because it is absolutely critical that we protect the integrity of this investigation. That means ensuring that it is completely independent going forward and that nothing has already occurred that could compromise it. The good news is, the inspector general can take this investigation on his own and go forward with what we asked for in the letter on his own. I would urge him to do so.

Mr. President, the second issue I would like to discuss is the travel ban, the recently issued Executive order on immigrants and refugees. Now that we have the details, it is clear that while the administration has made some very minor changes, it has done nothing to alter the core thrust of the order, which I believe is terribly misguided and does nothing to address the core concerns of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled the original order was potentially unconstitutional.

Moreover, we know that the administration delayed its announcement and implementation so President Trump could bask in the aftermath of his joint address. That should be all the proof Americans need to know that this Executive order has everything to do with optics and nothing to do with national security. If national security were at stake, it should not have been delayed a single day.

The truth is, there is very little new or improved about this Executive order. It is barely a fresh coat of paint on the same car that doesn't drive. It is still a travel ban. It is still a refugee ban. It still makes us less safe, not safer, according to not just me but to Republicans like Senator McCain. It still attempts to turn innocent immigrants and refugees into scapegoats and still does not do the things that would actually make us safer, like going after lone wolves and closing the loopholes in the Visa Waiver Program.

The new Executive order is still mean-spirited, misguided, and, in my judgment, goes against what America is all about, being a country that accepts and cherishes immigrants, not disdains them. I fully expect the President's new Executive order will have the same uphill climb in the courts that the previous version had.

Mr. President, finally, on the Affordable Care Act. My Republican friends have repeated the mantra for 7 years, ``Repeal and replace, repeal and replace.'' It turns out, during those 7 years, they never came up with a coherent plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. It was all slogans, no policy.

Now they are scrambling to come up with something. The problem is, every draft, every leaked detail or outline or list of principles we have seen is tied together by one common thread: It will raise costs on average Americans and cut back on their benefits. Average Americans, under the Republican plan, will pay more and get less.

No wonder they are hiding the plan somewhere in a basement room, even as they are scheduling markups on the bill for a week from now. They don't want the folks to see it until the very last minute; just rush it through. I don't blame them. It is going to be very hard for Republicans to be proud of this plan, which hurts average Americans, raising their costs and taking away benefits.

It is the absolute height of hypocrisy to be hiding this plan. My Republican colleagues complained bitterly, day after day, week after week, month after month, about not having enough time to read the Affordable Care Act when it was being debated. At the time, my friend, the distinguished majority leader, said:

Americans want us to slow down, and Congress is putting its

foot on the accelerator. Americans want to know what this

bill would mean for them, and Congress won't let them read it

before a vote . . . [on a] piece of legislation that will

affect one of the most significant aspects of their lives.

Americans [he continued] have concerns about what they're

hearing, and they are being told to shut up, sit down, and

take the health care we give you.

By keeping their replacement bill under lock and key, only a week before potentially voting on it, the Republicans are engaging in enormous hypocrisy--exactly what the majority leader complained about only a few years ago. Their mantra in past years was always ``read the bill.'' Now they will not even let us glance at it. Why are they hiding it? I think I know why. They are not very proud of it. They know it is not going to work.

They are being pushed blindly forward by their ideologues and their incessant campaign promises. The American people ought to know how Republicans plan to drastically reshape this Nation's health care policy. I suspect Americans will not like it much. I suspect it will raise costs and cut benefits. I suspect far fewer Americans will get coverage. I suspect their plan will put the insurance companies back in charge.

Whatever it does or doesn't do, the American people and their representatives in Congress, after 7 long years of slogans, ought to know the true face of ``replace.''

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Washington State who has been such a leader on issues like this, throughout this session of Congress and throughout her entire career.

I want to add a few comments on H.J. Res. 37, which I strongly oppose. More

than one in five Americans is employed by a company that has at least one Federal contract. Unfortunately, every year tens of thousands of workers are denied overtime wages, not paid fairly because of their gender or age, or have health and safety put at risk by corner-cutting contractors. Those contractors who obey the rules are put at a disadvantage by those who cut corners, and that is what this proposal that President Obama put into effect was supposed to curb. That was the rule.

What do we find President Trump and our Republican colleagues doing? Once again, favoring the special interests, Big Business, over the working people. As my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Warren, just said: ``This is a debate about whom Congress actually works for.'' The President tries to present himself as a populist favoring working people. That is in his speeches, but in all of his actions, just about every single one, when there is a special interest, a business interest at stake versus a worker interest, he sides with the special Big Business interests.

The President promised to be a champion for working people in his inaugural address. An hour later, he signed an Executive order making it harder for working people to get a mortgage. Last week, the President made a whole host of claims about what his government would do only 24 hours after releasing a budget blueprint that would take a meat ax to the Federal agencies he was talking about. He had this beautifully sympathetic moment about medical research, and his budget is going to slash it. He talked about education as a major issue in America. His budget will slash that.

Again, less than a week after another populist speech to Congress, the President is doing exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do--stick up for working men and women--by signing this resolution. President Trump promised: I will deliver better wages for the working class. Well, President Trump, more than 300,000 workers have been victims of wage-related labor violations while working under Federal contracts during the last decade. Are you now going to sign a bill, President Trump, that would make it easier for recidivist Federal contractors to skirt wage standards and hurt their workers? It sounds like it to me. This administration's hypocrisy knows no end. It is not populist. It is not for the working people, not in what they do.

In his joint address to Congress, the President said, he would ``ensure new parents have paid family leave.'' Now is he going to sign a bill that makes it easier for companies that violate family leave laws to win contracts from the Federal Government? If the President was true to his populist rhetoric, he would say this resolution is dead on arrival because it hurts the working people. But if past is prologue, he will not. He will think that his tough talk about standing up for the working class is enough to cloak a hard-right, pro-corporate, pro- elite agenda.

So I challenge the President: If Republicans pass this resolution, show some courage and veto it because you are not going to get away with constantly, constantly saying that you are in favor of working people and signing legislation that hurts them.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, before I get into the substance of my remarks, I was listening to our Republican leader talking about compromise--not that he ever engaged in very much of it when he was leader last year--but compromise requires something to compromise over. We have nothing from the administration, nothing on infrastructure, nothing on trade, nothing even on ACA.

You want to sit down and talk? Let's see what your plans are. See if you can get your own act together before you are pointing the finger at Democrats.

The President's speech--let me say this: This President's speech was detached from this President's reality. The President, in this speech and in so many others, talks like a populist. He talks to the working people of America and promises them things. When he governs, it is nothing like that at all. He is favoring the very powerful special interests, making their lives easier, and putting more burdens on the backs of the middle class and people trying to get to the middle class.

A metaphor for this was his speech at the inauguration. He gave a speech--also aimed at the working people--and within an hour after that, he signed an Executive order that helped the banks and added about $500 to the mortgage of every new homeowner.

You can't just talk the talk, Mr. President. You have to walk the walk. On issue after issue, we haven't seen anything--or negative things for the working class.

We heard about infrastructure. A month ago, the Democrats put together an infrastructure plan of $1 trillion. It was a strong plan. It has a lot of support throughout the country.

Where is the President's infrastructure plan? We haven't heard a peep about it. Some of his White House folks leaked that we will not get to infrastructure until next year. Mentioning it in a speech-- infrastructure--is not going to employ a single new worker.

What about trade? The President talked about trade, putting America first. My views tend to be closer to President Trump's than they were to President Bush's or President Obama's on trade. Again, what we hear in the speech and what the President actually does are contradictory.

Throughout his campaign, the President took an issue near and dear to my heart and to the heart of Senator Graham of South Carolina--China manipulating its currency. He had said over and over again in the campaign: On the first day I am President, I will sign an Executive order that labels China a currency manipulator.

They are. We know they manipulate their currency, and it has cost America hundreds of thousands, if not millions of good-paying jobs and caused a load of wealth to flow from our country to theirs.

This one didn't require congressional approval. This one didn't require a single Democrat to join in. All the President had to do was sign the order. We are now 40 days into this administration. Not only has he still not signed the order, but he is saying he may back off.

Last night, the President talked about research, wiping out rare diseases. Yet with the budget they proposed, given that they want to slash domestic discretionary spending by tens of billions of dollars and exempt veterans and Homeland Security, there is no alternative to the fact that the President in his budget, at the same time he is talking about medical research, is going to slash it.

Education. He talked about the great issue of education. The same thing: His budget is going to slash education to smithereens, hurting our students, hurting our teachers, hurting our schools.

Perhaps the most hypocritical of all was draining the swamp. That was one of the President's main themes when he was President-elect: Drain the swamp. Look who is in his Cabinet. His Secretary of Treasury, his Secretary of Commerce, and his NEC adviser are from Wall Street.

Is this the same man who said that we are going to go after Wall Street if we get elected? Wall Street is running the economic show. The Cabinet is filled with bankers. The Cabinet is filled with billionaires, not people who feel for the average American. In fact, if you add up the net wealth of his Cabinet, it has more wealth than one- third of the American people total--close to 100 million people. That is cleaning the swamp? Give me a break.

The problem with the President's speech is very simple: His actions don't match his words. His words in the campaign are not matched by his actions. His words in his inaugural speech are not matched by his actions, nor are his words in his speech last night.

It was so funny that he spoke to a bunch of cosmopolitan news anchors, and he mentioned that maybe he will change his views on immigration. The media got into a buzz about that. Then, the speech he gave was one of the most virulently anti-immigrant speeches that we have heard any President ever give. He is saying one thing, doing another.

It is not the hypocrisy that bugs us, although it is there. It is the fact that he is not helping middle-class America. It is the fact that he is not making it easier for more people to travel and get into the middle class because he seems to have governed from the hard, hard right. The hard right is very far away from where the average American is.

Mr. Mulvaney's idea of a budget--maybe 10 percent of America, mostly ideologues, would support it. It is even far away from where the average Republican is. Yesterday, when the President proposed his budget, we had one of my colleagues on the Republican side saying it is dead on arrival. We had the majority leader saying that you can't cut the State Department foreign aid in half. He is far over, and that is hurting him and hurting us, hurting the American people.

The first 40 days have been a pretty rough 40 days for President Trump. It hasn't worked out very well. Why? It is not because he hasn't given a few good speeches. It is because he is governing from the hard right. He is governing far away from what the American people want. He is governing way off to the extreme.

A speech isn't going to change that. A speech isn't going to create one job or one infrastructure plan or one trade law that makes our trade laws, which need to be changed, fairer. No, no, it takes action. Unfortunately, when the President takes action, it is quite the opposite of what he says in the speech on the issues that affect the middle-class and working-class people.

If President Trump does not change how he governs--how he governs, not what speeches he gives--in the near future, then these 40 days, which have been of tumult, of contradiction, of turning one's back on the working class, will be 6 months and then will be a year and then will be 2 years.

The problem with the Presidency does not lie in the speeches the President gives, even though I might object

to a lot of the things he puts in them. It lies in how he governs, and he is not governing well. He is not governing down the middle. He is not governing in a way that lends itself to compromise. We Democrats will continue to hold the President accountable. That is our job. That is what the Constitution says we should do, and we will continue until we see the President change his course in governing. No speech is going to change that or affect that.

Mr. President, one other issue is our nominee today, Mr. Zinke. I want to spend a minute on him. He is the nominee for Secretary of Interior. One of the most important issues handled by the Interior Department is the stewardship of our national parks. These are some of the great national resources of our country.

When my children were younger, my wife and I would take them to national parks, and we would go hiking. We loved it. We so looked forward to going out West. I remember the reward at the end of a big hike was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I probably wanted it even more than my kids did. I loved peanut butter and jelly.

From Niagara Falls to the Erie Canalway, to places like Seneca Falls, Stonewall, and Ellis Island, my dear State of New York is home to some of our country's most famous national parks and monuments. They are places I have visited and treasured my whole life. I have been concerned in recent years about the reluctance on the other side of the aisle to properly care for these great national beauties, these great national resources. Currently, there is a $12 billion maintenance backlog for our national parks. Our Republican majority has not seen fit to address them.

Now, adding insult to injury, the new administration's hiring freeze across Federal agencies has already affected parks like the Women's Rights National Historic Park in Seneca Falls, which I have visited many times. It has had to cancel tours due to insufficient funding.

Most troubling, our Republican colleagues want to make it easier to sell off or give away public lands and expand the footprint of the oil and gas industries on public lands--as usual, helping those narrow special interests, hurting the average American. That seems to be the trademark of this administration, which our friends on the other side of the aisle are happily going along with.

That is the context in which I approach Congressman Zinke's nomination. He claims to be a conservationist in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, a great New Yorker. He has demonstrated support for rules, however, that would make it easier to sell off public lands. It is the opposite of what Teddy Roosevelt wanted.

Congressman Zinke claims to be a conservationist, but he said he would revisit actions taken by the last administration to use the Antiquities Act to permanently protect endangered places of cultural, tribal significance. He claims to be a Roosevelt conservationist but pledged his support for the Trump administration's energy agenda--once again, centered on efforts to expand drilling and mining on Federal lands and waters. A few big oil companies would be made happy, but America would lose a great resource that is an economic resource as well as a beautiful natural resource.

I would say to Mr. Zinke: You can't be a Roosevelt conservationist when you vote to make it easier to sell off public lands. You can't be a Roosevelt conservationist when you support opening up public lands to increased extraction and drilling. You are not much of a conservationist when you downplay the authority of the legislation that allows the President to create national monuments.

In sum, Congressman Zinke says he is a dyed-in-the-wool conservationist but doesn't have the record to back it up. That should concern every outdoor enthusiast, every lover of our great and grand national parks.

Unfortunately, because of his record, I will vote no on Mr. Zinke's nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this evening, the President will give his first address to a joint session of the House and Senate. We look forward to hearing from him. Tonight's speech from the President will be far less important than past Presidential addresses for one very simple reason, this President has shown throughout his campaign for the Presidency and now his first month in office that there is a yawning gap between what he says and what his administration actually does for working Americans.

He talks like a populist but governs like a pro-corporate, pro-elite, hard-right ideologue. He promised to be a champion for working people in his inauguration, and then 1 hour later signed an Executive order making it harder for working people to afford a mortgage. He told raucous crowds that he would tear down the power structure in Washington and drain the swamp, but he has spent his first month in office appointing bankers and billionaires and titans of Wall Street to fill his administration. He ran a campaign against the elites, promising to stand up to Wall Street, but as soon as he was in office, he started to try to roll back Wall Street reform and consumer protections designed to prevent another economic crisis and protect the interests of hard-working Americans.

In his inauguration, he said that Washington and the special interests have enriched themselves while ``the people did not share in its wealth.'' Then, one of the first bills he signed made it easier for large oil, gas, and mining companies to hide payments--potentially bribes--they make to foreign governments.

That is the swamp. He is not cleaning it; he is making it worse. Despite all his talk, he seems to be full steam ahead on a program to help big business, the special interests, and Wall Street. Meanwhile, a massive infrastructure proposal, a centerpiece of his pitch to working America, is nowhere to be found. A program to stop jobs from moving overseas--not just tweeting about a few hundred jobs at Carrier plants staying in the United States--is nowhere to be found.

President Trump ran as a populist and still talks like one, but his first month has been a boon for corporations, the wealthy, and the elite in America and has provided absolutely no relief to folks who are struggling to make ends meet--no relief to the middle class and those struggling to get there. In fact, many of his proposals shift the burden off the backs of the special interests and keep it on the backs of working families. He likely isn't finished yet.

Tonight, the President might discuss his tax plan. He said that every decision on taxes would be made to ``benefit American workers and American families.'' It is another grandiose promise. But every indication we have gotten about the administration's plan is that it would give tax breaks to the wealthy and shift the burden onto the middle class and working class.

So no matter what the President says tonight, we will have to look at the details of his proposal and see who it really helps, and every American should, as well.

Tonight, if past is prologue, the President will use populist rhetoric in his speech, but he won't back it up with real actions. He will use populist rhetoric in his speech to hide what he is actually doing, which is helping the special interests and making it harder to stay in the middle class. He talks like he favors working people, but his actions ultimately desert them.

He will present himself as a President for the forgotten man, but he will forget him the moment it comes to governing. So while I hope the President offers a message of inclusivity and talks about some issues where Democrats and Republicans can perhaps find common ground, his speech tonight will mean nothing the very instant after it is delivered unless he backs up his words with real actions.

His speech tonight will be nothing if his Cabinet of billionaires and bankers, his main advisers who seem to favor the wealthy, and an agenda far away from what America wants, continue to govern from the hard right, which is very far from the American mainstream and even the Republican mainstream. His speech tonight will mean nothing if he continues to do as he has done these first few months since being elected--breaking promises to working people and putting an even greater burden on their backs while making it easier to be wealthy and well-connected in America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Now for the ACA, Mr. President. This past week, Republicans across the country in both Chambers were greeted in townhalls by angry constituents who waited in long lines and packed high school gyms, auditoriums, and community centers wall to wall to question their Republican representatives about their plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Americans are speaking loudly and clearly that their jobs, their hospitals--particularly rural hospitals--and their health care is on the line and want to know how Republicans plan to replace the law. On Friday, we saw the outline of the Republican plan. Like every single draft plan that Republicans have come up with, the outline we saw on Friday would raise costs and provide fewer benefits to average Americans and put the insurance companies back in the driver's seat. Average Americans under this Republican plan will get less, and they will pay more.

Today, President Trump is meeting with the insurance companies about this plan. What happened to the President we saw on the campaign trail railing against the special interests? It

turns out that the special interests are getting their way at the expense of working Americans--less coverage, higher premiums, fewer sick people insured.

My Republican friends listened to the outcry from their constituents: Don't repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a threadbare health insurance plan that puts insurance companies back in charge. Keep the law and work with Democrats on reasonable fixes.

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

Mr. President, I welcome the majority leader and everyone back after the first district work period of the year. Tomorrow night, the President will give his first address to a joint session of Congress. I will have more to say later this afternoon at the National Press Club about the first month of the Trump administration and what we can expect from the speech. For now, I will just say that if past is prologue, the President will come to Congress with a populist message in an attempt to cloak what has been a hard- right, anti-working person administration.

His words are populist. He talks as though he favors the working men and women of America, but his actions are straight out of the hard- right playbook, which makes it easier for the special interests and puts greater burdens on the backs of the working class and the middle class.

Every American should be looking at what this President is doing, not saying, because, thus far, the two have been vastly different.

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

Madam President, I rise to echo the concerns expressed by my colleague from Florida, Bill Nelson, about the White House's refusal to provide written testimony relevant to Mr. Ross's nomination prior to the vote this evening.

Mr. Ross was a key economic adviser to the Trump campaign, and he has had business ties with the Bank of Cyprus, a bank with significant Russian investors. I understand that the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, of which my friend from Florida is the ranking member, sent a letter to Mr. Ross to get more information about those ties. That is a perfectly reasonable request, especially given the circumstances. This information is particularly relevant to the Senate since, in recent days, questions about connections between the Trump administration and Russia have proliferated.

While Mr. Ross told my friend from Florida that there is nothing to worry about, the White House is sitting on Mr. Ross's written response to Senator Nelson's letter. So the Senate will not get written answers to these important questions before voting on this nomination.

This is just another example of this administration's abandoning transparency and trying to jam nominees through without making all of the relevant information public and available. They have not enjoyed a good few weeks with these nominees. They have gotten them through but with a lot of pain and a lot of public disconcert, and here we have another example.

We are getting to the end of the Cabinet nominees--a nominee with ties to Russia. There is a document that states what they are. As is so typical of this administration, which stonewalls and despises transparency, they do not let the letter be freed and be made available until after the vote on a sensitive issue and one that is important to national security--Russia and this administration's relationship to it. This is another black mark on this Nation's administration.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.