Floor Statements

Mr. President, the judges Donald Trump appoints to lifetime positions on our Federal courts will be a lasting legacy, and he is determined to do whatever it takes to place as many nominees with an ideologically driven agenda on the bench as possible.

Today the Senate is debating whether to give Gregory Katsas a lifetime appointment to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Throughout his career, including as Deputy White House Counsel under Donald Trump and as a senior official in the Justice Department under George W. Bush, Mr. Katsas has demonstrated a profound conservative bias that is inappropriate for service on the country's second most important court.

As Deputy White House Counsel, Mr. Katsas has been deeply involved in crafting the legal justification for many of the Trump administration's most controversial policies. He also played a key role in deciding which court cases the administration would support or oppose and recommending candidates for various executive and judicial appointments.

The legal issues he has managed, the advice he has given, and the appointments he has recommended raise serious concerns about whether he should receive a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.

In the early days of the administration, Mr. Katsas participated in crafting the legal justification for the President's Muslim ban, a policy at odds with the Constitution and our values as a nation. Mr. Katsas has also been involved in orchestrating the administration's opposition to LGBTQ rights in the courts. In particular, he openly admits his role in the Justice Department's decision to argue in a case before the Second Circuit that title VII in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This position is inconsistent with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 2015 guidance and with a recent en banc decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Katsas testified that he was involved in the administration's decision to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Civil Rights Commission. He thus supports the position that a private business

should be able to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

By elevating a corporation's religious views over the rights of their customers, Mr. Katsas and the Trump administration argued that businesses should be able to say that their work is an expression of their religious beliefs. This would allow them to discriminate against certain customers and turn our system of antidiscrimination protections in public accommodations on its head. These actions and positions should disqualify Mr. Katsas from serving on the DC Circuit.

But there is more.

We can also trace his record of pushing a partisan, ideological agenda during his time in the Bush Justice Department. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Mr. Katsas argued that the military commissions the Bush administration established after 9/11 were legal and consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. In Boumediene v. Bush, Mr. Katsas also argued that people deemed enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo could not challenge their detention on habeas corpus grounds. The Supreme Court repudiated these arguments in their landmark decisions in both cases.

Mr. Katsas was also the public face of the Bush administration's opposition to the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the Akaka bill. As the Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General in the Bush administration, Mr. Katsas testified in Congress that the Akaka bill was unconstitutional. He went so far as to say that it would ``create a race-based government offensive to our Nation's commitment to equal justice and the elimination of racial distinctions in law.''

What was really offensive was that his testimony was legally wrong and insulting to a Native people, the Native Hawaiians. In rebuttal, a bipartisan trio of highly respected former DOJ officials said in written testimony that Mr. Katsas failed to provide a credible and coherent legal argument against the Akaka bill. They argued that his testimony presented ``a caricatured view of the text of [the bill] and the governing law, and should not be considered an authoritative guide for resolving legal disputes in this area.''

I agree. The Akaka bill did not confer status to a group of people based on race and ancestry. It did so by virtue of residency and sovereignty. With no grounding in fact or law, Mr. Katsas advocated treating Native Hawaiians differently from other indigenous people.

Mr. Katsas' position on Native Hawaiian rights is of particular concern at a time when the DC Circuit could hear legal challenges to the 2016 Interior Department rule through which the Native Hawaiian community could reestablish a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government.

Mr. Katsas has a disturbing record of pushing a partisan conservative agenda not based on sound law that has no place in the DC Circuit. We cannot simply ignore his record and decouple his past actions from the person responsible for them. Mr. Katsas has clear policy preferences that are red flags as to how he will decide cases should he be confirmed to this lifetime position.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, Donald Trump has consistently made promises to the American people that he refuses to keep. He says one thing and does the exact opposite. His empty promises have already hurt millions of people across the country, from our seniors who depend on Medicare and Medicaid, to the LGBTQ community he promised to protect and Dreamers living in fear of deportation.

Now, with the nomination of Peter Robb to serve as the General Counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, Donald Trump has broken yet another promise--this time, to fight for and protect American workers. As an independent agency, the NLRB has an important mission to enforce our Nation's labor laws, protect American workers, and safeguard their right to organize collectively.

The NLRB's mission is not to ignore our Nation's labor laws, to go after American workers, or to weaken their right to organize. Yet Peter Robb's career has been dedicated to doing all the things that NLRB is not about.

Joining the anti-union, anti-worker forces, President Trump has consistently nominated people to the NLRB who are best positioned to destroy and undermine the core functions of the agency itself. Earlier this year, President Trump forced through two management-side lawyers to create an anti-worker majority on the NLRB.

Today the Senate is debating the nomination of someone who has spent his entire legal career fighting to screw over the very workers the NLRB is supposed to protect. If confirmed as General Counsel, Mr. Robb will be responsible for supervising nearly 1,500 agents investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases and overseeing elections where workers decide whether or not to unionize. This is a position

of great consequence for millions of workers across our country, and they deserve someone much better than Peter Robb.

Mr. Robb has spent his career defending management and employers from workers fighting to form a union, unionized workers on strike, and workers who brought forward discrimination and disability claims. You don't have to take my word for it. Mr. Robb's biography on his own law firm's website tells the story clearly:

[His] extensive experience includes advising on mergers/

acquisitions, plant closings, labor contract negotiations

(both large and small), managing lockouts and strikes,

securing labor injunctions, discrimination issues and

disability claims.

His litigation includes defending employers from unfair

labor practice charges, age and sex discrimination charges,

class action age claims, and wage/hour claims as well as

bringing suits against labor organizations. With such vast

experience and a no-nonsense approach, Peter's clients look

to him for sharp advice, rigorous representation and powerful

litigation.

That is a description on his own law firm's website.

Mr. Robb cut his teeth busting unions and retaliating against workers as lead counsel at the NLRB in the early 1980s when President Reagan decertified the air traffic controllers union, fired 11,000 air traffic controllers, and barred them from Federal service. More recently, he represented Dominion Energy's successful attempt to defeat a union organizing campaign at a power station in Connecticut.

Management and corporations have a right to hire lawyers like Mr. Robb who will vigorously represent their interests, but Mr. Robb is certainly not the right person to lead an agency whose mission is to protect workers' rights, not to go after those rights tooth and nail. Mr. Robb's record clearly demonstrates that he will side with powerful corporations and special interests over workers who lack the resources to defend themselves.

Unions built the middle class in Hawaii and across our country. Instead of confirming another management protector at the NLRB, we should be working together to protect workers and make it fairer for them to form and to join a union, which is their right.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nominee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the American people depend on the Federal judiciary to be fair and unbiased. A judge should decide a case based on the facts at hand and the law, not in service of a particular ideology.

Over the past 9 months, I have been deeply concerned that President Trump is nominating judges to lifetime appointments on the Federal bench, people who share his ideology rather than judges who apply the law fairly and follow precedent. President Trump has made his ideology very clear during his first months in office: He is anti-immigrant, anti-union, anti-worker, and anti-woman. He prioritizes the interests of corporations over the rights of individuals. I am not often given to hyperbole, but in this case I am so alarmed by Donald Trump's nominees to the Federal bench that calling them extreme is not extreme.

Congress has a constitutional obligation, through advice and consent, to fight back against these types of appointments. This is particularly important for circuit court judges, but under Republican leadership, the Senate is shirking its responsibilities. Too often, we are forced to consider too many judges at one hearing.

The Judiciary Committee has already had nearly as many hearings with two circuit court nominees on the hearing agenda in 9 months as the Obama administration had in 8 years. Sometimes they even add district court and Department of Justice nominees to an already crammed hearing agenda. That is not right. Each circuit court nominee should be considered in a separate hearing.

There was a time when there was consensus that controversial nominees needed more scrutiny. Apparently, this President is sending us who he deems the best and the greatest nominees, and we are supposed to trust him that they will safeguard our rights and treat all Americans fairly. In short, this I cannot do.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has an obligation to vigorously vet and question these nominees, and we expect them to be honest, candid, and complete in their replies. We have had a number of very frustrating exchanges so far at these nomination hearings.

On several occasions, nominees have disavowed direct quotes of their past writings and comments, even when members of the committee repeat them word-for-word and follow up with specifics to the contrary. Sometimes the nominees will acknowledge their past statements, but they think we are naive enough to believe them when they say that, if confirmed, they will ``follow precedent.''

Give me a break. As circuit court judges, they will be involved in setting or rewriting precedent if the judge goes in that direction-- which a judge could very well do. Some have even written that they think that is what lower court judges are permitted to do. I am talking about district court judges.

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

Mr. President, Donald Trump and the Republican Congress have spent most of the past year pushing their misplaced priorities, no matter the direct and collateral damage it causes for millions of Americans across the country.

There are many examples to choose from to illustrate this point. Just last night, the Vice President had to come in and break a tie to protect huge corporations from the victims of the frauds they perpetuated. Now they are putting together a huge tax cut for the wealthiest people in our country, and they are trying to sell it as a raise for the middle class. In Hawaii, we call this shibai--or B.S.

But there is perhaps no issue in which Donald Trump's dangerous agenda has caused more harm than his quest to deprive millions of Americans the healthcare and the health insurance they need. His first attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act would have thrown as many as 30 million people off of their health insurance. Thanks to the combined efforts of so many people--active people, engaged people across the country--we defeated this proposal.

A few months later, continuing the assault on healthcare, Donald Trump renewed his attack on our healthcare system under the so-called Graham-Cassidy bill. But once again, the combined outrage of millions kept the bill from coming to the floor.

In the time they spent on their single-minded, unrelenting quest to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have allowed authorization for the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, to lapse. Nearly 30,000 children in Hawaii and more than 9 million across the country depend on CHIP for their healthcare. You heard just now my colleague from Ohio tell you stories about the children in Ohio--children with asthma. In Hawaii, we have children with asthma, children with diabetes.

Nearly 30,000 children in Hawaii who rely on CHIP for their healthcare are being affected by our inaction. Primarily covering children from low-income families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, CHIP provides critical and much needed care for children with complex medical conditions.

Although existing funding has allowed States to stretch budgets to keep the program in place, money is quickly running out. If we don't take action soon, as many as 4 million children could lose their health insurance entirely--4 million children.

Congress cannot and should not be complicit in what I would call gross negligence. It is not negligence; it is gross negligence.

CHIP has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. In fact, it emerged from the committee with bipartisan support. I am glad Senators Wyden and Hatch have come together to create the KIDS Act, which I have cosponsored. This bill would extend CHIP's authorization and funding through 2022 and provide much needed certainty to millions of families across the country.

If we brought this bill to the floor right now, it would pass. It would clearly have the votes to pass. The only question is, Why don't we do it? Why don't we provide healthcare to millions of children in our country, for Heaven's sake?

I cannot believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid to risk incurring the wrath of a vengeful President. I cannot believe that is what is keeping them from doing the right thing.

I encourage the majority leader to bring this bill to the floor for a vote as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the resolution we are debating today demonstrates the lengths Donald Trump and the Republican Party will go to protect the special interests that contribute billions of dollars to their political campaigns.

Earlier this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, issued a rule to prevent certain financial service companies from forcing consumers to sign predispute arbitration clauses that block class action lawsuits. This might sound like a boring, technical change, but it is not. At stake is nothing less than the right of millions of Americans to be heard in a court of law.

Contracts mandating forced arbitration can be found in virtually every contract someone signs these days. Every time you agree to an update to the iTunes terms of service, purchase a Fitbit, or open a credit card, you are signing away your right to join together with others to sue in a court of law if something goes wrong.

In 2010, President Obama and Democrats in Congress created the CFPB to protect the American people from predatory business practices by consumer finance companies. And while the

CFPB can't do anything about the iTunes terms or service, it can protect you, through the rule we are debating today, from companies that sell products and services related to consumer credit, automobile leasing, debt management, credit scores, payment processing, check cashing, and debt collection--industries that serve some of our most vulnerable communities.

The resolution we are debating today would eliminate these protections and expose millions to the tyranny of forced arbitration. This is particularly relevant in light of two major news stories this year in which the negligence, fraud, and malfeasance of major financial institutions harmed consumers across the country. This rule, for example, would protect the 805 Hawaii residents who had fake bank accounts opened in their names by Wells Fargo. These people suffered real and material harm, but the fine print in their agreements explicitly prevents them from banding together in a class action lawsuit. This rule would prevent banks like Wells Fargo from doing this now and in the future.

In the wake of the massive Equifax data breach, the company initially forced consumers who registered for credit monitoring to forgo their right to join a class action and instead force them into private arbitration. These are high-profile examples of the problem but aren't the only ones. Hundreds of Hawaii residents have filed complaints with the CFPB about problems with credit reporting agencies and credit report errors that can increase the cost of a loan or result in the denial of credit.

Under a recent class action settlement, Hawaii customers falsely matched with someone on the terrorist watch list can receive over $7,000 from TransUnion. Is it really any wonder why TransUnion and other credit bureaus have fought so hard to block class action lawsuits with forced arbitration?

This rule would also protect consumers from predatory payday lenders that are extorting over $3 million in fees a year from Hawaii consumers alone. Over 98 percent of storefront payday lenders use forced arbitration clauses in their contracts.

Hawaii is home to more than tens of thousands of Active-Duty servicemembers, reservists, and veterans. This rule protects them too. In 2016, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency fined Wells Fargo millions of dollars after they illegally foreclosed on homes or repossessed cars in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Without the CFPB rules, similarly affected servicemembers would be restricted from banding together to sue. It is why the American Legion, in announcing their support for the CFPB's rule and opposition to this resolution, said it would be ``extremely unfair to bar servicemembers, veterans, and other consumers from joining together to enforce statutory and constitutional protections in court.'' It isn't difficult to understand why. Big banks and megacorporations want to force their customers to adjudicate disputes through arbitration.

According to the CFPB, companies win claims in arbitration 91 percent of the time. The deck is stacked against the consumer in these forced arbitration situations, and after these judgments, consumers were forced to pay an average of over $7,000 to companies to even engage in the proceedings. Talk about a major imbalance of power.

Director Cordray and the entire CFPB spent years developing this essential consumer protection regulation, but I am not at all surprised that the President and his allies in Congress desperately want to eliminate this consumer protection rule. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking Senator Murkowski for her leadership as chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, on which I also serve, in addressing some of the long-term needs of Puerto Rico.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Makan Delrahim to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. While I voted in favor of that nomination, I would like to explain my expectations for Mr. Delrahim and express my deep concerns about the Trump administration's approach to antitrust policy, such as it is, as he assumes that important position.

As a former antitrust lawyer myself, I know these are complex issues that benefit from a rigorous and nonpolitical assessment, which is best done by the talented career professionals at the Department of Justice, but I am also concerned that, in what has become a much politicized Department of Justice, such an independent review may not be respected and the recommendations of career lawyers and economists can be overridden.

At every turn, the Trump administration has catered to the interests of big business over those of the American consumer, and I am very concerned about what their approach to antitrust enforcement will be. In the past, the President has made remarks about supporting or opposing particular mergers that are deeply troubling and highly political. I am particularly concerned about this haphazard approach from the President because there are a number of major proposed and rumored mergers that will be coming before the Antitrust Division in the coming months and years, particularly in the telecommunications industry, and they will require very careful and professional review independent of politics. I am also deeply concerned about the possibility that this administration will use antitrust laws as a weapon against companies it perceives as somehow unfair to it.

For example, Sinclair Broadcast Group's proposed merger with the Tribune Media Company would give Sinclair control of stations in 42 cities, expanding its reach to a total of 108 communities. In the past, Sinclair has drawn criticism for programming that benefitted then Republican Presidential candidates Donald Trump and George W. Bush. Given reports of the President's continued attacks on the press, including reports of his threats to jail journalists, it is imperative that consumers retain access to a diversity of news sources. The Department of Justice, through its Antitrust Division, must ensure that their review of this merger is free of political considerations.

However, despite those concerns, I believe Mr. Delrahim has the qualifications necessary to lead the Antitrust Division, which does the important work of preventing unlawful anticompetitive conduct and upholding our Nation's antitrust laws. Mr. Delrahim has served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the division he would now lead, as well as chief counsel and staff director for the Judiciary Committee under then-Chairman Hatch, and as an attorney in private practice working on complicated antitrust cases. He has a remarkable personal story and has received the support of many of his peers, both Democrats and Republicans.

During his nomination hearing on May 10, Mr. Delrahim promised to protect competitive markets and consumers, vigorously enforce the antitrust laws, and to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan manner. I will hold him to these promises. Importantly, he told the committee that he would follow the law and his ethical responsibilities to recuse himself in cases involving his former clients. I support his nomination with the expectation that he will honor these commitments.

Mr. Delrahim also made a number of assurances in response to written questions for the record that I submitted after his hearing, questions that were based on my concerns about the anticompetitive impact of corporate mergers, as well as about actions taken by President Trump.

In response to my question about President Trump holding private meetings with the CEO of AT&T, which is planning on merging with Time Warner, and the CEOs of Bayer and Monsanto, which are planning on merging, Mr. Delrahim promised that he would conduct antitrust investigations ``in a fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to political considerations.'' He promised to comply with

Department of Justice policies intended to ensure only appropriate communications with the White House.

This concern is particularly pressing because during his campaign, President Trump singled out the proposed AT&T-Time Warner merger, promising to block it. The President has also repeatedly attacked CNN, which is owned by Time Warner, and it was even reported that White House advisers have discussed the proposed merger as a ``potential point of leverage'' over the network. Mr. Delrahim specifically stated that he had no preordained outcome in mind for that merger investigation. He can be certain that the Department of Justice will receive particular scrutiny in its treatment of this merger. Leveraging antitrust laws to coerce or intimidate a media company goes against the foundational protections for a free press.

While Mr. Delrahim expressed that he shared my concerns about consolidation in the media and agricultural sectors, I regret that he refused to address my specific concerns about the proposed merger of Sinclair Broadcast Group with the Tribune Media Company and the effect of the proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger on prices for Hawaii farmers. I would have welcomed his comments about these types of mergers and I expect him, as head of the Antitrust Division, to give concerns about the impact of these types of mergers the attention they deserve.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I will continue to exercise oversight of the Department of Justice, and of the Antitrust Division in particular, to ensure that it is meeting the commitments Mr. Delrahim made during his nomination, especially as to his independence and his ability to be a fair, active, and nonpartisan ally of consumers and competitive markets. With this in mind, I supported his confirmation.

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

Madam President, 2 months ago, millions of Americans rose up and defeated TrumpCare. In doing so, we reaffirmed that, in the wealthiest nation on Earth, healthcare is a right and not a privilege that is reserved only for those who can afford it.

The President and the Republican Party believe the opposite. To them, healthcare is just another commodity to be bought and sold, but we all know that this is not like buying a new car or a big screen TV. The Republican position shows no heart, no care, and no compassion. It is the exact opposite of what so many of you showed me when I was diagnosed with kidney cancer.

Although we successfully defeated TrumpCare in July, we face fresh assaults to deny every American's right to healthcare, but it does not have to be this way. In July, so many of us were moved by Senator John McCain's impassioned plea for the Senate to return to regular order in order to debate how to strengthen our healthcare system on a bipartisan basis. Since then, Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray have worked to build consensus for a bill that would strengthen insurance markets and reduce out-of-pocket costs for consumers. They have done this the right way--through committee hearings, bipartisan meetings, and careful deliberation.

Instead of embracing and endorsing this effort, the President and the majority leader have now chosen to double down on their obsession with depriving healthcare to millions of people across the country through the Graham-Cassidy bill. Let me be clear. This bill is not a compromise. It is not a new and better idea for delivering healthcare in this country. It is just a new version of TrumpCare and, I might say, an even worse proposal than the one we defeated in July.

The details matter. This version of TrumpCare eliminates the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, and that threatens the coverage for more than 110,000 Hawaii residents who are now receiving such coverage. There are millions all across the country who now get healthcare coverage thanks to Medicaid expansion in their States.

This bill establishes a healthcare block grant, including a per capita cap on Medicaid spending that would severely limit Federal funding for healthcare--funds that States rely upon. Republicans, including the cosponsors of this bill, argue that this approach would provide more local control over healthcare. This, however, is what we in Hawaii call ``shibai''--or BS. Local control through a block grant is just an excuse that Conservatives and Republicans use as a pretext to make deep cuts to programs that Americans depend upon. You see them resorting to block-granting everywhere--from education to healthcare.

A new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reveals the cost of this latest version of TrumpCare firsthand. Under the proposal, Hawaii would lose $659 million in Federal funding for Medicaid over 10 years--part of some $80 billion in cuts across the country. This is a lot of money for Hawaii to lose--money that is being put to great use across our State.

Last month, I visited the Bay Clinic in Hilo, on the Big Island, where the Medicaid expansion under the ACA has improved health outcomes in poor

rural communities across that island. Bay Clinic is the primary healthcare provider to 6 of the 10 poorest ZIP Codes in the entire State of Hawaii, where many residents went years without having health coverage. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the Bay Clinic has successfully enrolled thousands more people in Medicaid and decreased the number of uninsured patients who have gone through their doors. It is astounding what the numbers show.

The number of patients who have gone through their doors has been cut from 29 percent in 2010 to only 10 percent in 2015. That is how many more people on the island of Hawaii are able to get healthcare coverage. Over that same time period, the Bay Clinic has seen an almost 20-percent increase in the number of patients it has served every year.

In the years following the passage of the ACA, the Bay Clinic and community health centers all across Hawaii have hired more doctors and nurses, and they have expanded the types of services that they provide. The Bay Clinic, for example, has expanded its Mobile Health Unit, by which doctors go to rural communities, such as in Keaau, where residents would otherwise not have access to primary care providers.

This program and others like it in Hawaii and across the country face an imminent threat from this newest version of TrumpCare. Unfortunately, this bill's devastating cuts to Medicaid are only part of what makes it so mean and so dangerous.

It eliminates all premium subsidies that allow lower income Americans to afford coverage, and it eliminates cost-sharing subsidies that reduce out-of-pocket expenses for consumers. These are the very issues relating to the Affordable Care Act that Chairman Lamar Alexander and Ranking Member Patty Murray are addressing through regular order--how to provide healthcare for more people in our country.

The Graham-Cassidy bill creates a process by which States can receive waivers to roll back essential health benefits and eliminate important consumer protections, like guaranteed coverage for millions of Americans who are living with preexisting conditions--people like me.

I have said many times on the floor of the Senate that we are all only one diagnosis away from a major illness. Every day, 6,540 people are diagnosed with cancer in our country. There are 4,109 who are diagnosed with diabetes. There are 1,309 who are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease every day in this country. We are all one diagnosis away from a major illness. These are people like me--many of them-- going about their business when, wham, suddenly, you get a devastating diagnosis. Not all of these people will have health insurance, and under this version of TrumpCare, even more of them will not have access to it.

When I was diagnosed with kidney cancer, I had insurance. Instead of worrying about how to pay for my treatment, I could focus on fighting my illness. No one facing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or any other chronic or life-threatening medical condition--or, I should say, any kind of circumstance in which one needs to have access to a healthcare provider--should have to worry about whether one can afford the care that might, one day, save one's life--not in the richest country in the world, not where healthcare should be a right and not a privilege.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it would have taken moral courage-- something he doesn't have--for President Trump to stand in front of the American people to say why he was going back on his word to ``deal with DACA with heart'' and help these ``absolutely incredible kids'' in a way that is going to ``make people happy and proud.''

Instead, he sent out his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, long a foe of immigration reform, to break the bad news to 800,000 young people and their families that he was rescinding DACA. This was bloodless, heartless, and completely unjustifiable. In his remarks, the Attorney General composed an elaborate fiction about DACA, a program that has transformed the lives of 800,000 young people, and the Attorney General actually thought the American people would fall for his made-up remarks. He not only claimed that DACA was unconstitutional but also falsely claimed that Dreamers were taking hundreds of thousands of jobs away from Americans and that they deserved to be punished.

The fact is, a strong majority of the American people are siding with the DACA participants. The American people aren't threatened by these inspiring young people. They are not criminals. They aren't causing trouble. They are students, doctors, nurses, teachers, and entrepreneurs making real and meaningful contributions to our society. They are simply asking for the opportunity to pursue their dreams-- hence, they are called Dreamers--in the only country they know, the United States of America. It is why so many people across the country are speaking out forcefully against the President's decision to end

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motions to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, so many of us have spoken so many times now against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which would hurt millions and millions of people in our country and especially the sickest, poorest, and oldest among us.

I would say that I am probably the only Senator here who was not born in a hospital. I was born at home in rural Japan. I lost a sister to pneumonia when she was only 2 years old in Japan. She died at home, not in a hospital, where maybe her life could have been saved.

It is hard for me to talk about this. I think you can tell. Give me a moment.

When I came to this country as an immigrant, my mother brought me and my brothers to this country so we could have a chance at a better life. We came here with nothing. She had low-paying jobs. There was no health coverage. Growing up as a young girl in Hawaii, my greatest fear was that my mother would get sick and, if she got sick, how were we going to pay for her care, and how would she go to work? If she didn't go to work, there would be no pay, there would be no money. I know what it is like to run out of money at the end of the month. That was my life as an immigrant here.

Now, here I am, a U.S. Senator. I am fighting kidney cancer, and I am just so grateful that I had health insurance so that I could concentrate on the care that I needed rather than how the heck I was going to afford the care that is going to probably save my life.

Guess what. When I was diagnosed with kidney cancer and facing my first surgery, I heard from so many of my colleagues, including so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who wrote to me wonderful notes sharing with me their own experience with major illness in their families or with their loved ones.

You showed me your care. You showed me your compassion. Where is that tonight?

I can't believe that a single Senator in this body has not faced an illness or whose family member or loved one has not faced illness who was not so grateful that they had healthcare. I cannot believe there is a single Senator who has not experienced that in their family or their lives.

I know how important healthcare is. What is in here? Why doesn't every single Senator know that? Why are we here tonight voting on a bill that has not had a single hearing? Why are we here tonight voting on a bill that would eliminate healthcare coverage that could save lives for 16 million people? Why are we here voting on a bill that would probably mean that people like me, millions in this country, who are now in the ranks of those receiving care with preexisting conditions will not get the healthcare we need? Why are we here tonight? Where is your compassion? Where is the care you showed me when I was diagnosed with my illness?

I find it hard to believe that we can sit here and vote on a bill that is going to hurt millions and millions of people in our country. We are better than that.

I listened to John McCain calling on us to have hearings and to do the right thing, and I am so saddened he was unable to move us in that direction. I would call on him tonight to vote his conscience, to vote for us who say we are going to stand for the millions of people in our country who will be hurt by what we are contemplating tonight.

Mr. President, I will yield the floor by asking my friends to show the compassion to everybody in this country that you showed me. We all should be voting to send this bill to committee.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, it is unconscionable that the U.S. Senate will soon be voting on a measure that would force between 22 and 32 million people to lose their health insurance. This vote is particularly unconscionable when you consider that each Member of this Chamber has high quality health insurance that will be there whenever we need it--and we all will, as I recently found out.

I know as well as anyone that we are all one diagnosis away from a serious illness. When I was diagnosed with kidney cancer not too long ago, I had the peace of mind of knowing that I was covered and that insurance would make the cost of treating my illness more manageable. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have found comfort in having high quality health insurance as they confront serious illnesses and injuries of their own.

Every American deserves that same peace of mind. That is why I am fighting for universal healthcare that is a right for every American, not a privilege reserved only for those who can afford it. This is something we can and should be working on in a bipartisan fashion. There are a lot of great ideas we could be debating and considering to move us toward this bipartisan goal.

Instead, the majority leader and his allies are forcing a vote on TrumpCare, a mean, ugly bill that will deprive tens of millions of people across our country of the healthcare they deserve.

Although some have argued over the past week that this vote is doomed to fail, we can't be complacent. We have to keep fighting because if TrumpCare becomes the law of the land, it would be devastating for tens of millions of people across the country, harming the poorest, sickest, and oldest members of our society. It would undermine protections for Americans living with serious and chronic conditions, who could face a reimposition of yearly and lifetime caps on their care. It would impose an age tax on people 50 to 64 years old, which would allow insurance companies to charge them up to five times more for insurance because of their age. I could go on.

For hundreds of thousands of people in Hawaii and tens of millions more across the country, TrumpCare is not an abstract proposal that would have no relevance to their lives. I have heard literally from tens of thousands of people from across Hawaii about the devastating consequences TrumpCare would have on their lives. Hawaii is a small State. To think that literally over 20,000 people in Hawaii have contacted my office to tell me the devastation that TrumpCare will bring to their lives--this is because insurance is personal. They have spoken out against this bill loudly and clearly because healthcare is personal.

Keith Moniz from Maui has a particularly compelling story to tell. Keith's brother, Lester, after working as a custodian for more than 40 years at St. Anthony School, lost his job and his health insurance. Only a few short months later, Lester had a debilitating stroke that left him permanently disabled. Fortunately, Keith's brother was able to obtain Medicaid coverage and is now a long-term resident at Hale Makua Health Services on Maui, where nearly 80 percent of all patients and residents rely on Medicaid to pay for their necessary care.

Keith was very clear about what would happen if TrumpCare succeeded in making large cuts to Medicaid.

I quote Keith:

It would be devastating. We had a difficult time taking

care of him--

His brother, Lester--

when he was at home, and he's gotten the care that he needs

at Hale Makua. It would be a big loss . . . I don't know what

we would do, where we would be able to move him to.

Alvin, another resident at Hale Makua, was paralyzed in a car accident in 2006. Alvin lived with his aunt and uncle for a short time after his accident, but the complexity of his care was too much for them to handle on their own. Alvin has lived at Hale Makua for almost 11 years now. He gets daily physical therapy and receives the supportive, life-sustaining care he needs. He would not be able to afford to live at Hale Makua without support from Medicaid.

When asked, Alvin had a simple message for people in Washington, DC, who are trying to make huge cuts to Medicaid.

I quote Alvin:

I'm not a politician, but I know that these programs really

help those who are in need. I really hope that they would

take a longer look at it and realize that these are programs

the elderly and disabled need.

People like Lester and Alvin are depending on us to keep up the fight against this mean, ugly bill until it is defeated for good. As we contemplate what is next, I hope we can come together across party lines to stabilize insurance markets and continue our work to provide universal healthcare for every American.

I should think that each and every one of us who represents some 800,000--well, our entire State. I used to be in the U.S. House. There, you have districts, and I represented about 800,000 people. Of course, as a Member of the Senate, I represent the whole State. I should think that all of us who represent literally the 300 or so million people all across our country would care about the healthcare of every single one of our constituents, and TrumpCare is not the way to ensure that.

The fight continues.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dee Williams, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the nomination of John K. Bush to the Sixth Circuit--someone who should have no place on the Federal bench.

Mr. Bush is one of the most outspoken and blindly ideological judicial nominees I have seen in my time in the Senate. A longtime Republican Party

activist and donor in Kentucky, Mr. Bush is also a political blogger whose incendiary comments are beneath the dignity of the office he aspires to hold. On this blog, Mr. Bush hid behind a secret online identity to denigrate people with crude language and to question the very foundation of our country's legal system. Mr. Bush has been a champion of the racist birther conspiracy about President Obama.

When asked about these posts during his hearing, Mr. Bush appeared to regret that his posts presented problems during his confirmation process and did not demonstrate any remorse for the views he expressed in his blog.

In another post, Mr. Bush equated abortion and slavery, calling them ``two of the greatest tragedies in American history.''

In Dred Scott, which is widely considered to be the worst decision in Supreme Court history, the Court held that African Americans were property, not people, and that they were not entitled to citizenship under our Constitution. The American people rejected this holding in the Civil War and in the constitutional amendments passed in its aftermath.

In contrast, the core holding of Roe, as reaffirmed in Casey, is the law of the land and based on the Constitution's protections for individuals to make intimate and personal decisions.

Comparing a constitutionally protected right to slavery--a crime against humanity and one of the deepest stains on the moral conscience of this country--is unconscionable. I question how a judge holding this kind of view would rule on any number of cases coming before him that force him to confront his strongly held ideological beliefs.

Mr. Bush made repeated attempts to downplay these outrageous statements and tried to convince us that he would simply follow precedent. Saying ``I will follow precedent'' should not shield this extreme nominee from legitimate scrutiny of his ideology.

Should he be confirmed, Mr. Bush will likely be presented with cases that provide opportunities to push the precedent envelope. This is particularly evident when examining Mr. Bush's own writings. For example, in a 2008 blog post, he supported statements made by the majority leader, whose campaigns he supported, that judicial appointments could preserve ``the anti-abortion agenda.'' If confirmed, we have every reason to believe that Mr. Bush will take every opportunity to pursue a radical, anti-woman, anti-choice agenda.

Statements like these raise serious questions about whether litigants appearing before potential circuit court judge Bush could trust in the fairness that is the hallmark of our judicial system.

Mr. Bush's inability to understand why his past writings are such a big problem only deepens my concern about his nomination. As a private citizen, Mr. Bush has every right to express his opinions in any way and on any platform he chooses. But he does not have the right to be confirmed to the Federal bench, and he doesn't have the right to demand that we set aside the clear pattern of extremism evident in his writings when considering his lifetime appointment.

There is no question that elections have consequences for who is appointed to be judges and Justices. That is part of our system. With a Republican President and a Republican majority in the Senate, many deeply conservative nominees will be confirmed to the judiciary. But the Senate cannot and must not become a rubberstamp for nominees who do not demonstrate the ability to be fair and impartial in the cases that come before them.

We are reminded every day why fair and impartial judges are so important for our country and for our democracy. Just last week, Judge Derrick Watson from Hawaii tossed out the narrow limits the Trump administration placed on who counts as close family when enforcing the President's discriminatory Muslim ban. Judge Watson's decision shows the importance of ensuring we have Federal judges who understand the rule of law and also have an appreciation for the impact of the court's decisions on ordinary Americans.

Nothing I have heard or read provides any reassurance that the American people can trust that Mr. Bush will put his views aside to render fair and impartial decisions.

I urge my colleagues to oppose his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.