Floor Statements

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

First, Mr. President, let me thank my dear friend and colleague from New York, not only for her

great remarks today and her amendment but for her passion, intelligence, and success in fighting for equality for women. I very much appreciate those efforts.

Senator Booker's Testimony Before the Judiciary Committee

Right now Senator Booker, my friend from New Jersey, is beginning his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Booker sought to testify before this panel, and it was unprecedented. My friend Senator Booker is a leading voice, not just in this caucus but in this body, on civil rights and so many other issues. He speaks with a passion and eloquence and intelligence on these topics and with a knowledge and depth from which we all benefit.

I regret that a sitting U.S. Senator has to fight to earn the right to speak at the Judiciary hearing on Thursday, and I regret the manner in which he was treated--he and his colleagues from the House--being placed on the last panel today. Traditionally, Senators want to speak early on. That was the case, and I am glad he is testifying.

He is speaking right now, and I would urge my colleagues and all of America to tune in and watch because what Senator Booker has to say will be very important for all of us to hear.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I wish to speak briefly and pointedly about the budget resolution before us which will, at some late hour, culminate in a final vote. Whether that vote is tonight or in the dark hours of early morning, with it, Republicans are taking their first step into a box canyon.

Now, I hear my Republican colleagues talking more and more about doing repeal and replace together, but let me be very clear. This budget resolution is not repeal and replace. It is one thing and one thing only: the first step of repealing the Affordable Care Act, ripping health care away from tens of millions of Americans, and throwing our health care system into chaos. It will, as many have repeated across the land over the last few weeks, make America sick again.

Over the past few weeks, this fact has made some of my more thoughtful colleagues nervous. I understand that. I would be nervous if I were them too. My friends, the Senators from Maine, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, have all quite forcefully voiced their concern with repealing health care reform without a scrap of a plan of what to do next.

Now the President-elect has tweeted that they should do repeal and replace at the same time. Today he said Republicans would repeal and replace the law essentially simultaneously, but that is not what this budget resolution would do.

We are here because the Republicans are flummoxed. It is a bit like an

Abbot and Costello show. Republicans in Congress and the President- elect are pointing at each other, waiting for the other one to come up with the plan--``You do it. No, you do it''--because no one can come up with a repeal plan that keeps the benefits of ACA.

This confusion of the Republicans makes sense because the Republicans are in a pickle and driving into that box canyon. They promised every conservative group and audience in the country for the past 8 years that they would repeal health care reform ``root and branch,'' but actually it is only their base that wants repeal. Most Americans want us to keep the law and work to improve it.

In a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll, only 28 percent of Americans support repealing the law if there is no current plan for replacing it--less than one-third. This is the Republican base.

Two-thirds of Americans support the provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to patients with preexisting conditions, 63 percent support letting kids stay on their parents' plan until they are 26, and there are similar numbers on the other major benefits of health care reform. Those are the key features. Those aren't extraneous. Those are the heart and soul of the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans are in a pickle. They cannot please their base and the broader public at the same time so President-Elect Trump says to Congress: You come up with replace.

The Congress says to the President: You come up with replace.

Abbot and Costello.

No replace. We haven't seen one yet, and it has been 6 years.

From a policy perspective, our Republican friends can't repeal a law and keep in place the provisions that are overwhelmingly popular with the majority of Americans. That is why they are in such a pickle.

The Affordable Care Act is not despised by the American people, only the hard right of the Republican base, which is fervently anti- government. It is an ideology. It doesn't matter how much ACA helps people. If the government did it, we don't want it. They oppose health care because they oppose everything that government does. They oppose Medicare, Medicaid, even Social Security.

If Republicans go forward with this plan, they may mollify their base--the base will stop complaining--but they will ostracize and hurt the American people and ultimately lose in the court of public opinion.

There is a much more responsible course of action that I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to consider: abandon repeal.

We Democrats are willing to work with our Republican colleagues on improving the existing law. We will even look at a comprehensive replacement plan if they can come up with it. We don't care about credit. You can call it McConnellCare or RepubliCare or RyanCare or TrumpCare. It doesn't matter so long as it covers as many people as the ACA, so long as it helps bring health care costs down, and so long as it doesn't move our health care system backward.

We haven't seen one so far. I am skeptical that we ever will, but we will look at one if they can come up with it. Unfortunately, that is not the road we are on. The vote tonight is the first step on the road to repeal, which leads straight into that box canyon.

I just want to sincerely urge my Republican colleagues, especially those who have rightly expressed concern about the very serious consequences of repealing without replacement: Vote against this resolution. Put this irresponsible and rushed repeal plan aside. Work with us Democrats on a way to improve health care in America, not set it back 8 years. Don't make America sick again. Don't put chaos in place of affordable care, which is what you will do if you follow through on this resolution.

The consequences of throwing our system into chaos, which the Republican plan will do, are enormous: denying 30 million Americans health coverage, blowing a $1 trillion hole in our deficit, depriving the college graduate from staying on their parent's plan, preventing women from getting fair treatment, and telling the family whose daughter has a preexisting condition that they can't get coverage, and they will have to watch her get sicker.

That--all of that--falls entirely on the shoulders of my Republican colleagues. I think that is a scenario we all would like to avoid. So turn back before it is too late because you will regret going forward.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will my friend from Wyoming yield for a question?

Since the amendment by Senator Coons from Delaware is not going to be offered, I believe that the Hatch amendment was a side- by-side to Coons and we don't need that. Is that true?

Mr. President, on behalf of the tens of millions of Americans who will have their costs go up--

--whether they are in the exchange or not, if ACA is repealed, I vote no.

Mr. President, as hearings for the President-elect's nominees get underway starting today, I want to reiterate that a fair and thorough vetting process is a top priority, not only for my caucus but for the American people.

Chief to achieving that is a fair hearing schedule and process. First, it means hearings that are sufficiently spaced out so Members who sit on multiple committees can actually attend all the hearings. It means only holding hearings after the full committee paperwork--OGE review, FBI background check, and a full divestment plan--has been received and Senators have adequate time to review the information. That means, if there are Senators with remaining questions that weren't covered in a first hearing, they can have the nominee come back for a second day.

Our caucus and much of America was alarmed and disappointed by the announcements of the hearing schedule this week, which did not meet these basic courtesies and best practices that have always been extended in the past. However, I am happy to say that after negotiating with my friend the majority leader and his respective committee chairs, we have been able to make some progress on a fair hearing process.

I appreciate the majority leader's openness and efforts to accommodate our caucus in the last few days. Originally there were six hearings scheduled for this Wednesday, all especially important Cabinet posts: State, Attorney General, Education, Transportation, Homeland Security, CIA. That was largely unprecedented. We have looked back in history and can only find one instance where there were that many hearings of important Cabinet members on one day like that.

After negotiations with the majority leader, we have moved things around so

that there are now only three hearings scheduled for Wednesday: Secretary of State, Transportation, and the second day of the AG hearings. All of these nominees have their paperwork in. The nominee for Secretary of Education, who does not yet have a signed ethics agreement and whose paperwork is not close to complete, was moved. That hearing will take place next week, pending her paperwork being submitted with time for Senators to review.

It is still a busy week. It is a little too busy for my personal taste, but it is a good first step. I hope we can continue to negotiate in good faith, to sort out the schedule in a way that is acceptable to both of our caucuses.

I also want to make clear that this progress does not mean our caucus is any less intent on having the President-elect's nominees complete the standard ethics forms, questionnaires, and FBI background checks required of every nominee. To have all this information come in after the hearing is sort of like ``Alice in Wonderland''--it makes no sense and has things upside down. I am still concerned, for example, that we don't have a completed FBI background check for the nominee for Secretary of State. His hearing starts tomorrow. And today there are reports in the media that under Rex Tillerson's leadership, Exxon conducted business with Iran, potentially in violation of U.S. sanctions law. There are serious questions that need to be answered.

In this particular case, Mr. Tillerson should release all his tax returns and promise to answer any questions on the Iran dealings that members ask. This is too serious a subject to have questions ducked. It demands a completely open airing of all relevant information. Did Mr. Tillerson go around our Iran sanctions simply to line Exxon's pockets? That would be a very bad thing. The American people ought to know about it before the Senate has to vote to confirm. For Rex Tillerson to answer the questions, and particularly questions about Exxon setting up a separate subsidiary to get around our Iran sanctions, is what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do when they enumerated in the advise and consent process.

This is not a partisan game. We are not doing this for sport. These aren't obscure procedural complaints. This is standard process. As I reminded my friend the majority leader yesterday, this is the same exact process my counterpart demanded in 2009 when the shoe was on the other foot. Just as then-Minority Leader McConnell laid out in his 2009 letter to then-Majority Leader Reid, Democrats expect each nominee to have all the prerequisites, with time to review, before we move forward with the hearings. President Obama's nominees completed all of their paperwork in 2009 before the hearings. We expect nothing less from President-Elect Trump's nominees. Particularly, we expect the paperwork to be all in with time to review. Having the paperwork in at 7 a.m. and holding a hearing at 10 a.m. is unacceptable. We expect there will be adequate time for followup questions on a second day of hearings if Senators are unable to finish their questions.

Today my colleague the majority leader said: Well, most of the Cabinet nominees were in already when this letter came out. But the letter doesn't specify who. It includes Cabinet members, and there were future Cabinet members who would come forward. It is a good standard. We are all for it. We are asking our friends on the other side of the aisle to stick with it. What was good for them in 2009 is good for the country in 2017.

We are insistent on the process because it is the right thing to do; it is the American thing to do. We don't hide nominees and rush them through. They have huge power. If the President-elect and our Republican colleagues are as proud of the nominees as they state, then they should be happy to have them answer a lot of questions in a hearing that is not rushed. It is how we will ensure that Cabinet officials, who are imbued with an immense power in our government, are ethically and substantively qualified for these positions.

If there is any group of Cabinet nominees that cries out for this process, it is this group of nominees. This proposed Cabinet is unlike any other. It is wealthier than any other. It has complex webs of corporate connections--so many of the nominees--that pose huge potential conflict of interest problems. Frankly, it is the most hard- right Cabinet in its ideology. It is quite different from the way President-Elect Trump campaigned. The potential conflicts of interest for multimillionaires such as Rex Tillerson or Betsy DeVos or Steve Mnuchin are enormous.

As I said, the nominees have views far to the right of what the President campaigned on. The most glaring example is Representative Price. His whole career has been focused on ending Medicare as we know it. My colleague the majority leader said the American people want us to move forward and give President-Elect Trump his nominees. If they knew that one of the nominees had been dedicated to basically getting rid of Medicare, would they want us to vote for him? I will bet not. It sure explains why they want to rush these nominees through.

They don't want all of these things brought to light, but that is the wrong thing to do. We are going to fight to get to the right thing to do. The American people have a right to know if they voted for a President who might be going back on one of his key campaign promises. They deserve nothing less than open and deliberate hearings going forward. Will Representative Price stick with what President-Elect Trump said--no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid--or will he pursue his lifelong dream of privatizing and limiting them? We shall see, but we need answers at hearings before we vote. The American people are entitled to it.

Once again, I thank the majority leader for dealing in good faith and trying to address our concerns. I hope for the sake of the national interests that our two parties can come together on an agreement for the remainder of the process, as we have for the process so far.

Mr. President, last night the Senate Democrats held the floor late into the night to demonstrate our solidarity and commitment to defending ACA, to defending the tens of millions of Americans who have been afforded the opportunity to access care for the first time and the tens of millions more whose coverage is fairer, more generous, and more affordable because of the law.

More than 35 Members participated on the floor or on Facebook Live, Snapchat, or Twitter. I thank each and every one of the Members on my side--the vast majority of our caucus--for participating. Many of them discussed the threat the Republican plan to make America sick again poses to the health care of 300 million Americans. Beyond that, the Republican budget resolution calls for a massive increase in the Federal debt.

Yesterday Shaun Donovan, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, released a letter explaining that this budget resolution would allow publicly held debt to increase by $9.5 trillion, from $14.2 trillion in 2016 to $23.7 trillion in 2026.

Our colleagues have talked about being deficit hawks. Democrats bring up ideas. They say: Can't do it; it increases the deficit. Well, is that going to apply to this, which increases the deficit by massive amounts? The deficit would exceed $1.3 trillion in 2026. That is almost as high as the $1.4 trillion at the depths of that recession and financial crisis President Obama had to meet. Are my colleagues now going to do a 180-degree reversal and say that now a debt increase of such dramatic numbers is OK? I hope not. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be fair. It wouldn't be consistent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of Director Donovan's letter.

Mr. President, many of my Republican colleagues like to claim they care about the deficit. During President Obama's administration, there was an obsession over deficit and debt reduction--and, by the way, no praise for the President for reducing the deficit by a dramatic amount. Now many of those same Members who chastised President Obama for much smaller deficits than proposed in their budget are supporting this budget resolution.

I wish to say to my colleagues, you can't claim to be a fiscal hawk and support a budget that piles on trillions in additional debt. That is not being fiscally conservative; it is being fiscally hypocritical in the extreme. So far, my friend Senator Paul of Kentucky has made this point forcefully. My question is, Will other Republicans stand with him and stand up against this fiscal hypocrisy?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, I expressed my sincere hope that the majority leader and I could come to some agreement on the process of nominations. He has negotiated in good faith, and we have made some progress. I sincerely appreciate his willingness to work with us so far. I do want to clarify why Democrats are doing this.

Yesterday, my friend the majority leader went on television and suggested that we were raising concerns about the nominations out of pique or anger. He chalked up these ``little procedural complaints'' to ``sour grapes,'' and he suggested that Democrats ``grow up.''

We are not doing this for sport. Democrats feel very strongly that pushing for a thorough and thoughtful vetting process is the right thing to do. Here is why. The Democratic minority was and is concerned about the hearing schedule, which is so jammed right now that several high-importance hearings will fall on the same day, depriving Senators and the American people a chance to properly participate in the vetting process of these nominees.

Our caucus was and is concerned about the timely completion of the standard paperwork and ethics clearance for nominees before proceeding full steam ahead with confirmation hearings and votes. Bear in mind, President-Elect Trump's nominees pose particularly difficult ethics and conflict-of-interest challenges. Many of them come from enormous wealth. Many have vast holdings in stocks, and very few have experience in government so they have not been appropriately vetted for something like a Cabinet post before.

What had been standard practice for the vast majority of nominees-- the completion of a preliminary ethics review before their nomination-- was skipped over for the vast majority of President-Elect Trump's nominees. In fact, the independent Office of Government Ethics went so far as to send a letter warning that ``their [the Republicans] schedule has created undue pressure on OGE's staff and agency ethics officials to rush through these important reviews.''

The OGE office is nonpartisan. It has never been political so this has nothing to do with politics. ``I am not aware,'' wrote the Director, Walter Schaub, ``of any occasion in the four decades since OGE was established when the Senate held a confirmation hearing before the nominee had completed the ethics review process.''

The very same majority leader, my friend Senator McConnell, who suggested that Democrats were raising concerns out of pique or resentment, in fact, raised the same concerns in 2009 when he was minority leader. In fact, then-Minority Leader McConnell sent then- Majority Leader Reid a letter laying out his prerequisites for time agreements on the floor for President Obama's nominees. They are almost exactly what Democrats requested.

I don't bring this up to play gotcha. I am doing it to show that our requests are eminently reasonable and, in fact,

have been shared by leaders of both parties. I am going to read the letter because it is amazing how it mirrors our requests. It was sent to Harry Reid from Mitch McConnell in 2009, just as President Obama became President.

Dear Harry:

The Senate has the Constitutional duty to provide its

Advice and Consent on Presidential nominations, a duty which

we take seriously. In consultation with our Ranking Members,

we reaffirm our commitment to conduct the appropriate review

of these nominations, consistent with the long standing and

best practices of committees, regardless of which political

party is in the majority. These best practices serve the

Senate well, and we will insist on their fair and consistent

application.

Therefore, prior to considering any time agreements on the

floor on any nominee, we expect the following standards will

be met:

1. The FBI background check is complete and submitted to

the committee in time for review and prior to a hearing being

noticed.

2. The Office of Government Ethics letter is complete and

submitted in time for review and prior to a committee

hearing.

3. Financial disclosure statements (and tax returns for

applicable committees) are complete and submitted to the

committee for review prior to a hearing being noticed.

4. All committee questionnaires are complete and have been

returned to the committee. A reasonable opportunity for

follow-up questions has been afforded committee members, and

nominees have answered, with sufficient time for review prior

to a committee vote.

5. The nominee is willing to have committee staff

interviews, where that has been the practice.

6. The nominee has had a hearing.

7. The nominee agrees to courtesy visits with members when

requested.

8. The nominee has committed to cooperate with the Ranking

Member on requests for information and transparency.

There will be additional requirements, honoring the

traditions of the Senate, for judicial nominees. These common

sense standards and long standing practices will ensure that

the Senate has had the opportunity to fairly review a

nominee's record and to make an informed decision prior to a

vote.

Sincerely,

Mitch McConnell,

Republican Leader.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter.

Mr. President, I plan to return the exact same letter to my friend, the majority leader, with the same requests. In 2009, the then-minority leader called these benchmarks ``common sense standards'' and ``long standing practices.''

I agree with him. These standards do not indicate a lack of maturity. They show an abundance of common sense, just as his letter said. I remind the majority that several, if not most, of the nominees have actually failed to meet the qualifications laid out by this letter given the hearing schedule.

The majority leader is fond of mentioning that many Obama nominees passed quickly in 2009 and he asks that we do the same, but there is a big difference between 2009 and today. President Obama's nominees met all the standards laid out in then-Minority Leader McConnell's letter. President-Elect Trump's nominees have not.

In 2009, every Obama Cabinet nominee had an ethics agreement in before their hearing. Every Obama Cabinet nominee underwent a full FBI background check before the Senate considered their nomination. President-Elect Trump's nominees are way behind that mark.

I only ask, respectfully, that the Republican majority follow the same set of standards they had in 2009 when the shoe was on the other foot, especially because these nominees raise particular concerns. The standards we have laid out as leaders of both parties address conflict of interest and security concerns.

Of course, those are prime concerns, but there is another concern as well. These nominees have, even collectively, very little experience or record in government. Many of them have taken positions quite different from the President-elect. They need to be thoroughly vetted, not just before the U.S. Senate but before the American people. If, for instance, Representative Price is for the privatization of Social Security, but President-Elect Trump said he is not, what position is nominee Price going to take? Jamming all these hearings into 1 or 2 days, making members run from committee to committee makes no sense. After all, these nominees are going to hold incredibly powerful positions for potentially the next 4 years. To spend an extra day or two on each nominee, even if it takes a few weeks to get through them all in order to carefully consider their nominations, is well worth it. It is only fair that they are given a thorough and thoughtful vetting and they abide by the ``long standing'' ethics practices that were established--and laid out quite clearly by the majority leader himself--to ensure Cabinet officials were in good standing to work on behalf of the American people.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, first, let me thank my good friend from Maine for his usual eloquent remarks.

I thank my colleague from Connecticut, who is one of our great speakers and mainstays, who has let me sneak in ahead of him. So I will be brief.

My Democratic colleagues are holding the floor tonight to demonstrate our solidarity and our commitment to defending the Affordable Care Act. It is not just defending some abstract law. It is not about protecting President Obama's legacy or Democrats' legacy. It is about people. It is about the American people and their access to affordable health care. It is about defending a health care system that has been made fairer, more generous, more accessible, and more affordable for the American family. It is about men and women and children whose stories we have heard tonight from Member after Member, one part of the country to the other, and their lives have been changed. In many cases, their lives have been saved by health care reform.

That is why Democrats have held the floor tonight. Though the hours have waned on, we will fight this repeal with every fiber of our being. We will not go gently into that good night.

The history of health care reform has been cast and recast by both parties, but there is a truth to be told amidst a lot of fiction. Here is a truth. Before the Affordable Care Act, our health care system was a mess. Health care costs were growing at a rate much faster than they are today, eating into workers' paychecks, dissuading them from taking risks and changing jobs lest they lose good coverage. A debilitating illness could wipe away a lifetime of hard-earned savings because insurers could put limits on how much treatment they would cover. Women were charged more for the same health care coverage. Many couldn't get insurance if they had a preexisting condition. Some insurance companies would simply delete you from the rolls if you got sick; in short, premiums spiraling up, spotty coverage, discriminatory practices, a marketplace out of balance. I remember the days before health care reform, before ACA. Everyone was complaining about the system. This idea that everything was hunky-dory and then ACA came in is fiction.

I was involved. We knew health care reform would be difficult. It is a $3 trillion industry with complicated rules and procedures. The politics were arduous. For that reason, health care reform had bedeviled Congresses and Presidents for decades. We knew in 2009 that we had a rare opportunity and that it was too important to let politics or lobbyists or special interests or fear stand in the way.

In the past, Democrats were able to make progress on smaller slices of the overall pie. The CHIP program, my dear friend who is no longer here, Senator Jay Rockefeller, championed it. Getting generic prescription drugs on the market, I was involved in that, along with the Senator from Utah. Never, never was a Congress able to pass a comprehensive package of reforms to the health care system until the ACA--the greatest leap forward in American health care, certainly since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid.

You can measure the results. The law has helped bend the health care costs curve down, insured more Americans than any time in our Nation's history since we started measuring the uninsured rate, all while providing higher quality health care.

Is the act perfect? No, no one ever said it was. I have listened to my friend the majority leader and our Republican colleagues on the floor these past few weeks. They used quotes from President Obama saying the law could use improvements as proof that it is failing.

That doesn't hold up. Go look at the full quotes. No one ever said the law would be perfect. We all know it could use some fixes. I, for one, am for a public option--we nearly had it in 2009--to increase competition in marketplaces where there is still too little. But scrap the whole thing and go back, back to a chaotic marketplace, inconsistent coverage, skyrocketing premiums? No way. Back to 40 million uninsured Americans, back to discriminating against women and Americans with preexisting conditions? No way.

Democrats don't want to make America sick again. We don't want to repeal the largest expansion of Affordable Health Care since Medicare and Medicaid and leave chaos in its wake--chaos instead of affordable care. That is what the Republican plan would do, sure as I am here tonight.

This evening, as colleague after colleague has come to the floor to describe how the ACA is helping their constituents, helping nurses, helping rural hospitals, helping students, helping seniors, I hope my Republican friends may have listened to them. The American people certainly are. They have been watching this debate. We have been talking to them on the phones, and they will carefully consider the consequences of repealing this law, and I hope our Republican colleagues will--particularly without a viable comprehensive replacement.

With the close of this long night, I make a simple plea to my Republican colleagues: Turn back. It is not too late. You are already hearing the grumblings from Members on the left side of your caucus and the right side of your caucus.

Well, they are starting to say, now that you have some power here, you are in the majority, maybe we shouldn't repeal without replace, even though for 6 years you have been unable to come up with a replacement.

The Republican Senators from Maine, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, former Senator Rick Santorum, even the President-elect says that maybe we should replace and figure out how to replace before we repeal, but with this vote, it would just repeal it.

My simple advice to my Republican colleagues is turn back. The health care of Americans hang in the balance. Affordable care for every American hangs in the balance. If Republicans repeal the ACA without a detailed comprehensive plan to replace it, not a mere framework, not a set of principles, not a bunch of small-ball policies cobbled together, they will create utter chaos, not affordable care.

It is not too late. Work with us Democrats. If you tell us tomorrow you are giving up on repeal, we will work with you to improve it. We know there

needs to be some improvements, but don't scrap the law, leaving all those in the lurch and then come to us and say: Now let's fix it.

You better have a replacement. Something you haven't been able to do for 6 years. It is not too late. Work with us Democrats on improving the law. Work with us on making it better. Don't scrap it and make America sick again. Turn back before it is too late. It will damage your party. It will hurt millions of Americans, far more importantly, and hurt our great country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 8, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Thank you, Mr. President.

We have just agreed to the committee resolution numbers on each committee. I would make just a couple of points, if I might.

Our caucus has some serious concerns about letting the Intelligence Committee and Armed Services Committee exclusively handle the issue of Russia's interference in the election.

While much of the information relating to Russia's interference in our election can be pulled together by the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, the legislative actions that

will be required to respond fully to Russia's interference need to be a wide-ranging endeavor that can only be done by a select committee.

I have spoken with Leader McConnell. I have told him that we will let the committee organizing resolution go forward, but I did put the majority leader on notice that if the work of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees is deemed insufficient or incomplete or taking too long, this matter may well need to be revisited before the committee funding resolution comes up in February.

Also, I understand additional information with respect to Russia's interference in our election will be released in the coming days, and that could also change our view as to the way we ought to proceed.

I have spoken to the majority leader about these concerns. He carefully listened, and we will keep a careful eye on how things are going in the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees with regard to Russia's interference in the election.

Mr. President, this approach met our needs for the last three Congresses, and I too would like to see it continue. In addition, special reserves have been restored to its historic purpose. We should continue to fund special reserves to the extent possible in order to be able to assist committees that face urgent, unanticipated, nonrecurring needs. Recognizing the tight budgets we will face for the foreseeable future, it is necessary to continue to bring funding authorizations more in line with our actual resources while ensuring that committees are able to fulfill their responsibilities. I look forward to continuing to work with the majority leader to accomplish this.

Mr. President, first, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague the Republican leader. I understand the Republican leader's discomfort. There is a cry from his side to repeal, but it has been 6 years and they have no plan to replace. Repeal without replace leaves 20 million Americans who have had health care in the lurch; leaves college students who are 21 to 26 and have been on their parents' plan in the lurch; leaves women who are now getting equal health care treatment to men in the lurch; and leaves those who have families who have preexisting conditions, and now can get insurance but without ObamaCare couldn't, in the lurch.

I understand the Republican leader's discomfort. Replace is not available because they can't come up with a plan. I appreciate his request to work with us. He has two choices. Our Republican colleagues have two choices: Either, once they repeal, come up with a replacement plan, and we will give it a look--they haven't been able to do it for 6 years; they are squirming right now because they don't have one; they are leaving so many Americans who need health care in the lurch--or don't repeal and come talk to us about how to make some improvements. We are willing to do that.

I will note that yesterday the vote to repeal without replace was totally partisan. My colleagues decried that the vote originally for ACA was partisan. This is equally partisan, and it is going to create huge trouble for our colleagues. Again, I will say to my Republican colleagues, your job is not to name call but to come up with a replacement plan that helps the people who need help--people who are now helped by the ACA but who will be left in the lurch once it is repealed.

Mr. President, I have another subject I wish to talk about, and maybe this one will be a little more constructive right now in terms of my Republican leader's response because he and I yesterday had a constructive meeting on the matter of processing the President- elect's nominations to the Cabinet. We are still working out several details, but on this issue I want to express my appreciation for the majority leader's willingness to have a dialogue and work in good faith toward a process both sides of the aisle can live with.

Our caucus thinks it is absolutely essential that the Senate has a chance to appropriately vet the nominees, and the American people deserve to hear their views and qualifications in public hearings, especially for the most powerful Cabinet positions. We all know Cabinet officials have enormous power and influence over the lives of everyday Americans. They run massive government agencies that do the actual work of implementing our laws, keeping our Nation safe from terrorism, protecting the environment and civil rights, promoting clean energy and affordable housing--on and on. Every facet of public life is governed by a very powerful Cabinet official.

It is only right that we in the Senate--and by extension the American people--get to thoroughly vet their baseline acceptability for these jobs. That means getting their financial records to make sure they don't come into public office with standing conflicts of interest, and if potential conflicts of interest are found, making sure they have a plan to divest the assets in question, making sure the FBI has had the time to complete a full background check. It means making sure the independent ethics officers of each agency can sign off on them.

All of these benchmarks are standard protocol. All were done by about this time 8 years ago by the Obama administration. They are not onerous requirements. They are necessary requirements to prevent conflicts of interest.

I remind my colleagues again, every Obama Cabinet nominee had an ethics agreement in before their hearing. Every Obama Cabinet nominee underwent a full FBI background check before the Senate considered their nomination. For such positions of influence in our government, it is the responsibility of the Senate to guarantee that we have all the information we need on each nominee and in a timely fashion.

Truth be told, the slate of nominations selected by President-Elect Trump has made this process--standard for nominees of Presidents of both parties--immensely difficult. There are several nominees who have enormous wealth and own stock of enormous value. We have a CEO of one of the largest oil companies in the world, a billionaire financial services executive financier--oh, and another billionaire financial services executive.

Leaving aside for a moment what that says about the President-elect's priorities for his incoming administration, these nominees have potential conflict of interest challenges of epic proportions. At the very least--at the very least--they owe the American people the standard paperwork, and in fact we believe many of these nominees, given their financial holdings, should go one step further and provide their tax returns.

The minority only has ethics agreements in for four of the nominees so far. We only have financial disclosure forms from four of the nominees so far. We only have tax returns for four of the nominees so far. None of our committees has been notified that any nominees' FBI background check has been fully completed. Briefings have started, but they are far from complete.

As I said earlier, I hope the majority leader and I can work out an arrangement that works for both of our caucuses to process these nominees in a fair but thorough fashion. It certainly shouldn't be the case, as seems to be planned now, that six hearings--several on very important nominees--all occur on the same day and on the same day as a potential vote-arama. That is mostly unprecedented in the modern era of Cabinet considerations, happening only once in history. That is not the standard, but right now that is the case on January 11.

There are Members who sit on multiple committees. One of our Members chairs one of the committees, Judiciary, but has been very active on the Intelligence Committee--both nominees in a single day. That is unfair, not only to her, with her great knowledge, but to the American people. Each member deserves plenty of time to question each nominee, and if questions remain, they should be brought back for a second day of hearings.

After all, they are going to hold incredibly powerful positions for potentially the next 4 years. To spend an extra day or two on each nominee, if it takes a few weeks, several weeks, to get through them all in order to carefully consider their nominations, that is certainly worth it to the American people and, I would argue, to the new administration.

I have made these points to the majority leader, and I must say he has respectfully listened. I am hopeful we can find an agreement that alleviates the crunch and gives Senators and committees the opportunity to process these nominations with the proper care and oversight, with all of the proper paperwork in place, thoughtfully and thoroughly.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I just want to add my commendation. It was such a well done, brilliant, articulate, carefully thought out speech. But it is not a surprise because our new Senator, the junior Senator from Maryland, is like that. We are so excited to have him and our freshman class--some of his colleagues came here today. We wish it had been larger in quantity, but they sure make up for it in quality, as Senator Van Hollen's speech showed. And parenthetically, maybe he will be able to increase that quantity in one of his other new jobs.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I apologize to my good friend the Republican leader. I couldn't be here for his remarks. I intended to be, but our President stayed longer and then I was meeting with the Vice President-elect. I apologize for that.

I also wish to recognize the distinguished majority leader and reiterate what I said yesterday: I sincerely hope, just as I heard he hopes, that we can find common ground in the Senate. While we at all times inevitably disagree on the right way forward for our country, I know he is a patriot who cares deeply about this institution. That matters a lot to me. I learned that through a meeting set up by my friend from Tennessee. We had a dinner, and I walked away convinced that Leader McConnell cares a lot about making the institution function. That matters, and that can maybe help us through some of the rougher times. We know it has grand principles, grand practices, and a grand tradition in our national life, something we both want to preserve.

Yesterday, in my opening remarks as a Senate leader, I did remind our Republican majority and the President-elect that there would indeed be places where we can work together, and I named a few of them, but let me be perfectly clear, kicking millions of Americans off their health care and throwing the entire health care system into chaos is not one of them.

I am deeply troubled that the Republican majority and seemingly the President-elect are plotting, as one of their first campaigns in the new Congress, a full-scale assault on the American health care system, not just the Affordable Care Act but Medicare and Medicaid as well because they are inextricably bound. Those are the pillars that support the American health care system, but as its first order of legislative business, the Republican majority has decided to put forward a budget resolution to repeal health care reform. Although he promised not to cut Medicare in the campaign, the President-elect has nominated a man who spent his career strategizing health care's demise, and he chose him to be Secretary of HHS. I don't think that is something a vast majority of Americans or even Republicans believe in.

It is too clear that President-Elect Trump and the Republican Congress are intent on making America sick again. Republicans seem determined to create chaos, not affordable care, for the American people.

Today, I would like to focus on the budget resolution on the Affordable Care Act. I understand why the majority thinks they have to do it. Over the past 8 years, they promised every group--conservative group and audience in the country, they would repeal the law, ``root and branch.''

For a long time, it has been only a conservative fever dream. Republicans knew they could make extreme promises about replacing it with something better without ever having to consider the consequences or even come up with a reasonable plan to replace it because they knew the Democrats or President Obama would ultimately block their attempts to roll back the law.

Now things are different. The consequences of repealing the Affordable Care Act are real. I sincerely urge my colleagues to deeply consider the consequences. It is no longer just a game or a political line to say ``repeal'' because now you have to replace. So far, it has been 5 years of repeal, repeal, repeal; not one replace plan has garnered

a lot of support even on the Republican side of the aisle, let alone in America.

What will it mean for average Americans if you repeal the law without any viable replacement? Not just the 30 million who might lose coverage right away--that is a staggering number, many of them in very red and poor States and rural areas. What will happen to the overall marketplace if you rip away all the safeguards of the ACA and have put nothing in its place?

It doesn't matter if you repeal and delay, as some of my friends on the other side of the aisle call it, for 1 year or 2 years--however long. Folks will lose a lot of benefits, and the insurance marketplace could fall apart long before repeal goes into place. As insurers raise their prices because they have to with repeal, costs to the average American who has employer insurance will go up as well. My colleagues will own that, just as we owned everything that happened previous to this election.

Let me tell you, if Republicans pull the plug on health reform, on Medicaid, and privatize Medicare, it could mean absolute chaos, not affordable care. It would likely increase prescription drug costs, premiums, and out-of-pocket costs to American families--not, as I said, just for the families that got coverage on the exchanges but for all American families, even if you get insurance through your employer. I repeat that to America. Everyone who has employer-based insurance and is not part of the ACA should worry about this repeal with no replace because their costs will go up, sure as we are here together. It would put insurance companies back in charge. It would allow them to discriminate against individuals with preexisting conditions.

We all know of people. Parents--their kid has cancer. They would look for an insurance company. Oh, no, your son has cancer, your daughter has cancer, you can't get it. What are our colleagues going to do about that one? No answers yet. I doubt they have good ones. It would cause premiums to skyrocket. It would unravel the insurance market.

I would ask my colleagues before they jump into this repeal to talk to their local rural hospitals. In my State, rural hospitals are a mainstay of our rural economy. They are the largest employer in many of our towns and villages. Remember, New York has New York City, but we are the third largest rural State in the Nation, only behind Pennsylvania and North Carolina. In those areas, merely repealing the ACA and not doing anything else is going to hurt those hospitals dramatically. In fact, today, in 11 State capitals, rural hospitals-- many of them in red States--protested a repeal of the ACA.

It could also exacerbate--I don't want to forget--the opioid epidemic by ripping away coverage from 1.6 million newly insured individuals struggling with substance abuse disorders. We worked so hard in the Cures Act to cover people. Far more would be undone by this act of repeal in terms of fighting opioid abuse.

For all my deficit-hawk friends, your proposal causes a trillion- dollar hole in the budget--at least a trillion. My colleague from Washington thinks it might be even higher, and I rarely doubt her. What are you going to do, deficit hawks, once you repeal and that hole in the budget becomes enormous?

This is not conjecture. My Republican colleagues would be wise to remember how the American health care system operated before health care reform. Health care costs were growing at a much faster rate than they are today, eating into workers' paychecks and dissuading them from taking risks and changing jobs lest they lose a good coverage plan. A debilitating illness could wipe out a lifetime of hard-earned savings because there was no cap on health care costs. Women were charged more than men for the same health coverage. It was outrageous. We will go back to those days with repeal.

Many couldn't get insurance if they had a preexisting condition. Some insurance companies would simply delete you from their rolls if you got sick. You want to go back to those ``good old days''?

Today, because of health care reform, those things are no longer true. Health care costs are rising much more slowly than before, and the uninsured rate is the lowest it has ever been. I don't think any American would want to go back to the health care world of yesteryear where insurance companies wrote the rules and costs spiraled up unchecked, but Republicans seem all too eager to dial back the clock and make America sick again.

Democrats are united in our opposition to cutting Medicare, to cutting Medicaid, and to repealing health care reform, and we will hold the Republican majority and the President-elect accountable for the consequences of repealing health care reform.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are running out of time until the Department of Homeland Security shuts down, and the majority doesn't seem to have any real plan to avoid it.

There are 17 days left--with a week of recess in between--until tens of thousands of DHS workers are furloughed, fire grants to local fire departments are no longer sent out, and training local first responders in handling terrorist attacks stops dead in its tracks. Yet each day comes with a new round of finger-pointing from Republicans eager to pass the buck to the other Chamber.

The distinguished majority leader, my friend, Senator McConnell, and my friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, and many other Republicans in this body have said it is time for the House majority to come up with a new plan. The House of course says it is the Senate majority that needs to act again. This morning Speaker Boehner, astoundingly, said the House would not pass another DHS bill. He is tied in such a knot he can't move, even though he knows his failure to move risks a government shutdown.

The House of course says it is the Senate majority that needs to act again, and yesterday the majority leader said the onus was now on the House to fund DHS. This morning the majority leader said the onus is now on the Senate. We have all kinds of Abbott and Costello behavior going on. The funny thing is the finger-pointing is not at the Democrats. They are pointing at each other as to who is to blame.

The American people are getting whiplash from listening to the Republican leadership on this issue. The Republicans need to sort out the divisions within their own caucus before they deflect any blame on Democrats, because while Democrats remain united in both Houses in support of a clean bill, the Republican majority is busy playing a game of hot potato with national security funding.

The disunity and delay has led a few Republicans to start talking about a continuing resolution that would guarantee another cliff and more brinkmanship and underfund DHS in the meantime. Delaying this same standoff by a few weeks or months isn't a very good plan B. It is hardly a plan at all.

Secretary Jeh Johnson described the CR for DHS this way: ``It's like going on a 300-mile trip with a five-gallon tank of gas.''

Let me give a few examples of why a Republican continuing resolution is a very poor plan B.

I will yield for a question when I finish my remarks, just as he was nice enough to yield to me a few days ago.

First, without a bipartisan full-year bill, the Secret Service cannot move forward with the critical reforms recommended by an independent panel of experts made after the White House fence-jumping incident.

Second, we can't upgrade the biometric identification system that prevents terrorists from coming into the country. Republicans and Democrats negotiated an additional $25 million for DHS to upgrade the system that allows them to stop terrorists from coming through an airport or on a cargo ship and into the United States. A CR does not provide that funding.

Third, Secretary Johnson has said the Department will be constrained by a CR from improving security along our southwest border and maintaining the resources we added to deal with last summer's border crisis. Some say, Why does a CR constrain all of this? Because it is just ratifying last year's funding, and when new situations have emerged--new terrorist threats, new trouble on the border--we can't change the budget. It makes no sense. No company would simply pass last year's budget when they are experiencing new challenges; neither should our government.

In short, a CR just doesn't work. It is not how we should be funding the Department of Homeland Security.

So we implore our Republican colleagues: Don't shut down the Department of Homeland Security, don't set up another shutdown, and don't underfund the men and women who work 24/7 to keep us safe. Pass a clean appropriations bill and give the people on the frontlines of defending this country the tools they need to get the job done.

I will be happy to yield for a question to my good friend, the Senator from Texas.

I thank my friend for the question. It is nice to see him standing on the Democratic side. I hope he tries it again. If he likes it, he might do it more often.

I would say this: We all know what Speaker Boehner did. The hard right in the House said we want to force the President to undo his Executive order. They know if they put it on the floor alone, the President might veto it, so they attached it to Homeland Security and they basically say to the President, the only way we will fund the Department of Homeland Security is if we include these unpalatable riders, which the President has said he would veto.

So there is a simple solution.

That would force a shutdown. What the House did is say if we don't do it our way, we are shutting down the government. That didn't work 2 years ago--and that effort was led by the junior Senator from Texas, not my friend, the senior Senator from Texas--and it is not going to work today. Everyone knows what our colleagues in the House did. They are playing hostage. They are holding a gun to the head of America and saying unless we do it their way, they are going to shut down the government. That is why they attached it.

Let me repeat to my dear friend from Texas: No one objects to debating what the President did on Executive orders. We welcome that debate. It is the act of tying it to funding the government--the same thing they did with ObamaCare a few years ago--that says we are going to shut down the government unless we get our way.

So the logical solution--and I will yield in a moment--is very simple: Pass the Department of Homeland Security bill. If they don't want to shut

down the government, pass a clean Homeland Security bill and then the majority can put immigration on the floor and we can debate it.

I thank my colleague from Texas for his good question. I agree with parts of what he said. First, I agree that we disagree on the President's Executive order.

Second, I agree we ought not debate it in a hostage-taking situation. Our colleagues in the House may not have used the word ``shutdown.'' It doesn't matter. Their actions speak louder than words. When they attach these proposals to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill and say we are not going to fund Homeland Security unless we get some of these proposals, that is saying we will shut down the government unless we get our way. Sure, they will not shut down the government if we vote for all of their extraneous immigration provisions, and then next time they will attach something else and then something else. But they are using the threat of a government shutdown to try and get their way. That has not worked in the past and it will not work today.

So we Democrats are not blocking any debate. We are happy to debate funding the Department of Homeland Security. We are happy to debate immigration. Challenge us. Pass Homeland Security, put immigration on the floor, and see if any Democrat tries to block that debate. We welcome that debate. We think we will win that debate. I know my good friend from Texas disagrees with that.

But that is not the issue. The issue is again that unless Democrats do it our way, we are shutting down the government. That is what the House did and so far that is what the Republican majority in the Senate is going along with. That is government shutdown. That is hostage- taking. That hasn't worked in the past and it will not work now.

It is unprecedented. The junior Senator from Texas came up with this kind of thinking, and unfortunately too many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle go along with him, either out of conviction or for some other reason.

Of course. I enjoy these debates.

I would just ask the rhetorical question--and I thank my colleague--why did they attach these provisions, inimicable to the President, inimicable to us, to the Department of Homeland Security bill, which has nothing to do with it? It was not because they wanted a debate, not because they wanted to fund Homeland Security. There are easy ways to do that. They wanted to say that unless we do it their way, they are not going to fund Homeland Security and they are going to shut down a major portion of the government.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue. The Senator from Mississippi.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act, which my good friend Senator Orrin Hatch has requested a vote on this afternoon.

First, I thank Senator Hatch for his work on this important legislation. I was proud to work alongside him as the Democratic cosponsor of his bill, and he has been an absolute force in pushing this bill in the Judiciary Committee and to the floor today. We have had a great partnership and have worked on many things together, and I think I join every one of my 99 colleagues in telling the Senator from Utah how much respect we have for him.

Our bill does one important thing. It fixes a flaw in our restitution system for pornography victims. You see, in this day and age, victims of child pornography face ongoing harm every time a video or picture of them is shared and viewed on the Internet. As the Supreme Court explained about a victim:

These sexual abuse crimes are compounded by the

distribution of images of her abuser's horrific acts, which

meant the wrongs inflicted upon her were in effect repeated;

for she knew her humiliation and hurt were and would be

renewed into the future as an ever-increasing number of

wrongdoers witnessed the crimes committed against her.

The horror of sexual abuse can be long lasting. It can constitute the loss of income, medical care, psychiatric counseling, and therapy. The victims of sexual abuse, therefore, are absolutely in the right to seek restitution from those evil criminals who perpetuate the original crime by sharing and viewing images of the crime.

A 2014 Supreme Court case, Paroline v. United States, placed a heavy burden on the child pornography victims trying to recover restitution. The tragic effect of the Supreme Court's decision in the Paroline case was this: The more widely viewed the pornographic image of a victim and the more offenders there are, the more difficult it is for the victim to recover for her anguish and her damages.

For the perpetrators of child pornography, there should not be safety in numbers.

Now, the bill that Senator Hatch has led on and I was proud to cosponsor rights this wrong. Our bill provides a method for these victims to seek restitution for the total harm they endured from this horrific victimization. Specifically, the Amy and Vicky Act does three things that reflect the nature of these crimes. First, it considers the total harm to the victim, including from individuals who may not yet have been identified. Second, it requires real and timely restitution. And, third, it allows defendants who have contributed to the same victims' harm to spread the restitution cost among themselves.

These specific changes are supported by the attorneys general of 43 States and countless national victim advocacy groups, such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and they have wide bipartisan support in the Senate.

Once again, I commend my colleague Senator Hatch for the great work he has done on this and other things.

As I said while he was not in the Chamber, I look forward to our working on many other causes together. He is a great leader and very well respected by me and all of his colleagues.

I urge my colleagues to pass this important measure to give more power to the victims of sexual abuse to seek redress, closure, and justice for the crimes--the dastardly crimes--committed against them.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.