Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have seen the chaos and confusion created by the President's rescission of DACA that has created a humanitarian crisis in our country. That statement may seem like an exaggeration, but, for me, it is very clearly a statement of fact. I know it because I have seen it.

I held an emergency field hearing on Monday morning, and I listened to the stories of Dreamers--young people brought to this country, many of them before they could even say their own names, let alone know where they were going. This country has given them education, a place to live, a sense of freedom, and a sense of future. That future now is cut short. They have been threatened with deportation in just 6 months. Their employers, their universities, their communities have no idea whether they can stay and continue their lives, productively and importantly to them and their communities, those workplaces and schools where they currently give back. They not only live and work here, but they give back.

Maybe, most importantly, there is the promise that has been made to them--the promise that was made to them when they came forward and they provided the United States of America with information--some of the most personal information that exists--about their Social Security number, their birth date, their address, and their family. The promise to them was that information would never be used against them and that they had a place here for the time that DACA guaranteed it. That promise now is about to be broken.

Great countries do not break promises. The United States is the greatest country in the history of the world. It should not be breaking promises to innocent young men and women who know only this country, speak only this language, have friends here alone, and actually families here. This rescission of DACA threatens to tear apart families, decimate lives, and create disarray and derailed futures. We are a country that is better than this rescission. We are and remain a country that keeps its promises.

At our hearing, I heard from young men and women like Carolina Bortolleto, originally from Brazil, brought to the United States when she was 9. She has lived in Connecticut for 19 years. She knew she was undocumented, but what she didn't know was that getting a job after school, a driver's license, applying for scholarships and financial aid for colleges would be out of bounds for her.

Seven years ago, she graduated from college with a degree in biology, but she was stuck. She had a diploma but couldn't use it. To fight for others like her, she cofounded CT Students for a DREAM. That organization has grown and become a formidable and powerful advocate for Dreamers.

When DACA was adopted in 2012, it changed the lives of young people like Carolina. It opened a new vista. She could get a driver's license and a job at a nonprofit where she was volunteering. She testified that she finally felt free and independent. She could be the person she wanted to be and the person the United States wanted her to be because she was contributing to our great Nation.

What we know of the Dreamers is that there are many like Carolina and like Alejandra. Alejandra Villamares was brought to the United States from Mexico at age 1. She and her family first settled in a small town in Colorado. She recounted in her testimony difficult memories of growing up undocumented. She remembers her older sister coming home from first grade crying because she had been bullied by other students. She was bullied because she couldn't speak English. Her teachers also couldn't understand or help. She remembers her mother's anguish and pain when she heard about this bullying. Alejandra later encountered the same problems as her sister did.

When she was 11, her father was deported to Mexico. Her mother ran into the threat of financial problems, and the threat of deportation always lingered. She told us at this hearing about this life story, powerful and moving, but with a seemingly happy ending because she was able to go to Wesleyan, one of the best colleges in the country, and major in film studies with a certificate in international relations.

President Trump has put a target on the backs of these young people. Alejandra's happy ending will be dashed. It will be a nightmare and a tragedy if this order truly goes into effect.

President Trump has thrown this ticking timebomb into the lap of Congress. It has potential real effects on real lives like Alejandra's and Carolina's and 10,000 like them in Connecticut--800,000 around the country--people whom the President has described as incredible and terrific, people whom he said he loves.

It would be the height of hypocrisy and inhumanity to deport them. It would be unprecedented in our history to have this kind of massive ejection from this country by plane, by boat, by car, by walking. It would be shameful and shocking for America to force this massive deportation, but it would also be an absolutely reprehensible and unforgivable violation of our promise,

breaking our word, and violating certainly morality, if not law, and there would be legal claims based on due process and other rights that could be violated.

As I said, Carolina Bortolleto is originally from Brazil, but she was brought to the United States when she was 9. She has lived in Connecticut for 19 years. Growing up, she knew that she was undocumented, but she didn't know what that meant until high school, when she saw the opportunities that her classmates could have and that she couldn't--things like getting an after-school job, a driver's license, applying for scholarships and financial aid in college.

Seven years ago, she graduated from college with a degree in biology, but she felt stuck. She had a diploma but couldn't use it. To fight for others like her, she cofounded Connecticut Students for a DREAM, which has grown into a formidable organization that advocates on behalf of immigrants.

When DACA was enacted in 2012, it changed Carolina's life. She got a driver's license, a car, a job at a nonprofit where she had been volunteering. She told me that she finally felt free--that she finally felt independent. She told me that she could be the person that she had always wanted to be. Finally, she could plan for her future with certainty. Excited about what was to come, she went to graduate school for a Master's in Public Health.

She was on cloud nine--until last week, when President Trump made the decision to rescind DACA, threatening to take away all that Carolina has worked for--if we don't act.

In New Haven on Monday, I also heard from a girl who has requested that I don't mention her name here. She is from Canada. When she was 4 years old, her mother passed away in a terrible car accident. She was brought here with her grandmother, a hard-working nurse, who later also passed away. She has had to endure unimaginable loss at such a young age.

She was tremendously lucky that her aunt and uncle took her in as one of their own. She has grown into a leader at home who helps take care of her cousins, acting like a second mom to them. Her dream is to become a lawyer, and she works hard every single day toward that goal.

If Congress doesn't act, this ambitious young girl--who has already endured so much pain and suffering in her life--will be torn from everyone she knows. The children she helps to take care of will lose a mother figure. America will be robbed of a bright new lawyer.

I have heard some people treating Dreamers as bargaining chips in a political battle between the two parties. I have also heard that this is just about ``handouts'' for a particular group of people.

That is simply not true. Let me tell you what I know: The Dreamers I have met represent some of the best of America--young men and women who have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, eager to build bright futures, and prosper, and give back to the only country that they have called home. They want to stay here, and we need them.

The statistics reinforce this point: If Congress doesn't pass the Dream Act, we will lose nearly $500 billion over 10 years. We will lose $25 billion in Medicare and Social Security taxes. In my home State alone, we stand to lose over $300 million a year.

It is time to do away with the myth that the Dreamers work on the sidelines of American society. They are woven into the fabric of this Nation. They drive our economy.

As I said, Alejandra Villamares was brought to the United States from Mexico at age 1. She and her family first settled into a small town in Colorado.

Alejandra recounted difficult memories of growing up undocumented. She remembers her older sister coming home from the first grade, crying because she had been bullied by other students because she could not speak English. Her teachers did not understand her either and couldn't help. She remembers her mother's anguish at the pain and bullying her daughters endured. As Alejandra entered kindergarten, she began to go through the same struggle.

When she was 11, her father was deported to Mexico. Her mother ran into financial problems. The threat of deportation was always lingering in the back of her mind. Things weren't looking good.

And yet, she told me on Monday, ``I wanted this to be my country so badly. One thing I knew from the bottom of my heart was that I wanted to stay here, and that I was an American.''

In 2012, when DACA came into effect, she got her chance. She earned admission to Wesleyan, one of the best colleges in Connecticut, and she followed her artistic passions by majoring in film studies with a certificate in international relations.

She felt more empowered to speak up and help others. She held sessions for her peers at her high school to tell them about the college application process, and later became a program coordinator of an educational non-profit to mentor over 200 kids to navigate the college application process.

President Trump is putting a target on the backs of Alejandra and others like her. They will be deported if we do not pass the Dream Act.

In just a week, the President's decision has already sown confusion and chaos. There have been reports of ICE temporarily detaining DACA recipients, including reportedly 9 in Texas on Monday. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma have devastated Texas and Florida, but the White House has not announced any extension to the DACA renewal deadline.

The administration has also been torn between two messages. The President has toed an apologetic line, telling Dreamers that they have ``nothing to worry about'' and that he will ``revisit the issue'' if Congress doesn't act--and yet his Department of Homeland Security has said that Dreamers should prepare to leave. If Congress does not pass the Dream Act, Alejandra, Carolina, and others will be at the mercy of a fickle administration. Their lives will be thrown into chaos.

In the stories of the Dreamers, I see my father, who fled Nazi Germany when he was 17 with little more than the clothes on his back. He didn't know anyone, and he didn't speak English. He still believed in the promise of this country. These Dreamers believe in the promise of America, too.

The character of our Nation is at stake. We must act now.

Mr. President, I am convinced these stories are evidence that will be persuasive and convincing to my colleagues and that we cannot shirk our responsibility. We have a public trust to make America worthy of the American dream, to make that dream a reality for these young people, to make sure the Dreamers are protected against this cruel and irrational action that has threatened them.

We are the greatest Nation in the history of the world. We do keep our promises. We must enable the Dreamers to stay. We must pass the Dream Act, without encumbrances or poison pills or extraneous amendments. We must pass the Dream Act now.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, Margaret Read, be granted floor privileges for the length of the current debate on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, we are here to stand this afternoon for close to 800,000 young men and women--10,000 of them are living in Connecticut--who have relied on a promise, not just any old promise but a promise from the United States of America.

The promise to them was that they could come forward, share information about their cell phones, their addresses, their relatives, their workplaces, their tax information, and they would be permitted to live here, study here, work here, and give back to their communities.

Now America is breaking that promise and betraying its values in the decision by the President of the United States to end the DACA Program. This decision is repugnant to the basic ideals of America. It is repulsive to the values that underlie the rule of law.

I heard a commentator last night saying: You know, these DACA people, when they came here, they broke the law. Think of it for a moment. A 2- year old, a 3-year old brought by their parents, maybe by a stranger, maybe by other relatives, is breaking the law because that relative then failed to go through the steps necessary for documentation. Or there may have been a variety of other circumstances, such as persecution, threatened death and injury in the country where that young man or woman was born.

But we know--because it is part of the DACA Program--that they were minors when they came here. They made no decision to break the law. They have been here for their entire lives, except for a few months or years.

We know also that, for almost all of them, this country is the only one they know, and English is usually the only language they speak. Their lives are here. Their friends are here and families as well. But most important for the United States of America that made that promise, their futures are here. They are, as the President of the United States said, terrific people. We love them, as he also said.

The announcement that he would end their legal status here, that they would be deported, that they would be ejected from this country is the height of hypocrisy and inhumanity. It is cruel and irrational, it will deprive our economy of hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years, it will mean disruption in workplaces, and that is why employers are protesting the decision. It will mean schools will be uncertain about how many students there will be, and that is why university presidents and administrators are condemning it, but, most importantly, it will betray who we are as Americans--a nation of immigrants, a nation that keeps its promise.

Now, let's be very clear. When the Attorney General of the United States says there will be an orderly wind down--I think those are the terms he used. There is no such thing as an orderly wind down of DACA. There is disruption and destruction, already chaos and confusion, terror among the young people who are living their lives now seemingly on borrowed time. It is borrowed time because the President of the United States has thrown a ticking timebomb into this body, in effect playing chicken with their lives. They are the ones whose lives will be blown up if that timebomb explodes. They are, indeed, voices and faces who have come to us in the last day or so, two of them from Connecticut I met with or saw.

The first is Mirka Dominguez-Salinas. She has been in the United States for 16 years. She is pursuing her dream at Southern Connecticut State University of becoming a teacher. She was student teaching last week, but her future career in education has suddenly been jeopardized.

Jonathan Gonzales, too, is a student at Southern. He has a double major in economics and applied mathematics. He also mentors other students at public schools in New Haven. He has the freedom basically to live as anyone else in this country, to drive to work, and his freedom, too, is in jeopardy.

They have come to Washington, DC, today not only to share their stories but to raise their voices and represent those 10,000 others in Connecticut, like Vania, who was born in Mexico and brought to Willimantic at age 3. She thinks of Connecticut as her home. It is the only home she knows, where she went to school and made her friends. Would she be sent back to Mexico, where she knows no one, has no job or connection? Will she go by plane or will she be forced to walk to the border or maybe by car? We are talking about deportation--physical ejection from the country--not a vague concept of maybe in a few years. We are talking about deportation of 800,000 people, beginning in 6 months, on a scale, a magnitude, and scope that is unprecedented in the history of the United States of America--the same country that welcomed my father at the age of 17, when he fled Germany to escape persecution and knew virtually no one, had not much more than the shirt on his back and spoke almost no English. Just as many of them came to this country at a much younger age, and this country gave them, as it did my father, a chance to succeed.

There is no orderly way to wind down this program. There is only grief, pain and suffering for those 800,000 Dreamers but also for the rest of us, for our economy, for our sense of self and morality.

As far as the rule of law is concerned, these young people are not the lawbreakers. It is the Attorney General of the United States who is wrong about the law but, more importantly, wrong to decline to defend the law and prejudging, instead, what the result would be if this case went to court, if those 10 attorneys general went to court on DACA to prove their case, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Where does Attorney General Jeff Sessions have the power to prejudge what the Supreme Court of the United States would do?

So we have a decision ahead of us, which is to rise to the challenge, to diffuse that timebomb, to pass the Dream Act, to enable these young people who are faced with terror and anxiety to have a chance to continue productive and important lives and to avoid the economic nightmare for employers and job creators who depend on them.

We have the opportunity and obligation now to make sure these young people are protected, not punished, because their futures are at stake, our future as a nation is at stake, and I am here to say to Jonathan, to Vania, to all of the Dreamers that we will fight as long and hard as possible to make sure the American dream is alive and well for you. That dream was promised to you by a great country, and great countries keep their promises.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, sometimes bipartisanship and comity do work. They have in the last 24 and 48 hours on two measures that are critically important to help our Nation's veterans have access to benefits and healthcare that they vitally need, that they deserve, and that they have earned. Those measures relate to appeals reform and to the Choice Program.

Last night the Senate passed by unanimous consent--which means without any objection--H.R. 2288, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017.

I am proud to have worked on this measure with the chairman of the VA Committee, Senator Isakson, when I was the ranking member of that committee during the last session. I thank him for his leadership, his vision, and his commitment to this very important cause.

This bipartisan measure now goes to the President. It provides a significant step toward securing benefits veterans have earned. Once these reforms are fully funded--and they should be--our Nation's veterans will no longer be bogged down by a cumbersome, time-consuming, irksome, and, in fact, aggravating process that denies them fair and full consideration when they appeal their claim's denial. This reform will begin--it is only a beginning--a better system involving transparency and communication for veterans and their families.

As ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I heard testimony that the Department of Veterans Affairs' appeals process desperately needs updating and reform. We all in this body have heard from our constituents again and again and again about the antiquated delay and burdensome process that exists today. The average wait time on an appeal today is 5 years. Let me repeat that. The average wait time on an appeal is 5 years. Nearly half a million veterans are caught in a quagmire--often a quicksand--of repeated consideration, unable to claim benefits because of the VA's existing backlog.

Between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2017, the number of pending appeals increased from about 380,000 to 470,000. That is an increase of more than 20 percent. The increase in those appeals was the ``bad news'' side of improvements in the process to consider the initial appeal. There were more appeals because more claims were disposed of, but that is no excuse for that kind of delay in appeals.

We worked with the VA and veterans groups to devise a new appeals system that allows veterans to choose an option that is right for them. The bill that passed yesterday will create three separate paths. They can choose among them for veterans seeking redress from a decision by the Veterans Benefits Administration. This reform is vitally important because it gives Secretary Shulkin the authority to test the new system before its full implementation.

I know it will take time to implement these changes. It should take less time than is predicted because the Veterans Administration owes it to our heroes--the men and women who have served and sacrificed for our Nation. My constituent caseworkers in Hartford have tried to assist many individual veterans with their claims, and these efforts must continue around the country in all of our offices even as these new reforms are implemented.

The second area where we joined together in a bipartisan way relates to the Choice Program. We have agreed to continue funding by providing $2.1 billion and authorizing 28 new leases for medical facilities across the country to improve access to the high-quality care provided at VA hospitals. Make no mistake, this action is a down payment, not the final word. I am going to continue to champion further reforms to

make sure we improve VA healthcare and enhance access to VA medical facilities.

I am particularly concerned by recent findings made by the VA inspector general, Michael Missal, about a troubling lack of health information sharing between VA and non-VA providers relating to chronic pain treatment. To put it very simply and bluntly, the lack of information sharing makes opioid addiction far more likely than it should be, especially among veterans who seek care from private providers through the Choice system.

Connecticut was one of the first States in the country to have a statewide prescription drug monitoring program. I urged Secretary Shulkin at a hearing last year to make sure the VA prescription drug monitoring program exchanges information with the State system, which has data from private providers. The sharing of information is vital to prevent doctor shopping and excessive prescriptions. Without it, veterans potentially are susceptible to weaknesses and gaps that enable them to seek excessive prescriptions of opioid pain killer treatment that can lead to addiction and worse.

We cannot allow the Veterans Choice Program to exacerbate opioid addiction. We must do everything we can to stop the opioid epidemic that is ravaging our communities. As Senator Manchin of West Virginia and other colleagues have made clear, the VA must close the information gap on opioid prescriptions through improved opioid safety initiative guidelines and enhanced prescription drug monitoring programs. While we work in Congress to reform the Choice Program, I call on the VA to immediately take certain commonsense steps, none of them novel or original. They have been identified by the inspector general:

First, require all participating VA Purchased Care providers to receive and review evidence-based guidelines for prescribing opioids.

Second, implement a process to ensure all Purchased Care consults for non-VA care include a complete, up-to-date list of medications and medical history.

Third, require non-VA providers to submit opioid prescriptions directly to a VA pharmacy for dispensing and recording in the patient's VA electronic health record.

Fourth, ensure that if facility leaders determine that a non-VA provider's opioid prescribing practices conflict with the guidelines, immediate action is taken to ensure the safety of all veterans receiving care from that non-VA provider.

These are basic protections for our veterans. They are protections against overprescribing opioids or negligent misconduct--and worse--on the part of non-VA providers and others.

My hope is that we are beginning on a path to better information sharing between those prescription drug monitoring programs at the State level for non-VA providers and the VA facilities and providers who care for our veterans directly. That information sharing is not a luxury or convenience; it is a necessity.

We must help veterans of every era with their need for prompt appeals dispositions and effective healthcare that also protects them from opioid addiction. I am hopeful the Senate will quickly pass the Harry Walker Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act, which has been unanimously approved by the House, to make comprehensive improvements to the GI bill. I helped to draft this measure and lead it, and I am proud the House has approved it.

We must also help veterans of all eras suffering from toxic exposure and make sure we award a Congressional Gold Medal to the American Legion and make USERRA protections for our servicemembers meaningful and enforceable. These steps are part of an unfinished agenda that we owe our veterans. We cannot shirk that duty. We cannot postpone it. It is an obligation, not a convenience.

I look forward to moving forward with these efforts, as we have done with Choice and with the appeals reform, and to learning what we know already--that we can work together across the aisle when it comes to keeping faith with our veterans and making sure that no veteran of any era is left behind.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know that later this afternoon, we are going to vote on the nomination of Christopher Wray. I am proud to support him, as I was during the Judiciary Committee, voting for him, as did every other member of the Judiciary Committee. The reason is quite simply that he is a professional, as nonpolitically associated as anyone can be going into this position.

Like the FBI itself, he is known for his independence and integrity. There are two qualities needed today for the FBI and its Director, and those are independence and integrity. The FBI is

one of the most important law enforcement agencies and certainly one of the most important in the country.

The FBI Director doesn't serve the President. He serves the Constitution and the people of the United States. He must be independent of political interference, and his or her integrity must be unquestioned. The FBI deserves a leader with the integrity and strength necessary for that solemn mission, and Mr. Wray has shown himself to be that kind of leader. Those qualities are especially important because never before have the rule of law and our law enforcement been so threatened by political interference, and it begins at the very top.

The reason Christopher Wray has been nominated to serve as FBI Director is that the vacancy was created by the firing of Jim Comey for reasons that have led to an aspect of the ongoing investigation by the special counsel.

The reason that position is vacant is because 3 months ago Jim Comey was fired by the President because of ``the Russia thing.'' The Russia thing was very much on the President's mind, more so than any of the reasons given in the memos done by Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, according to the President himself.

``The Russia thing'' is the FBI and special counsel investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian Government to influence our election.

There is no question that there was a campaign of interference and meddling through cyber attacks, disinformation, propaganda, and other means, and there is no question that the Russians will do it again unless they are made to pay a price. Others may well collude or conspire with them--Americans--unless they are compelled to pay a price.

We have only to look at the morning headlines to see how far-reaching and significant this investigation may be. The news that the President himself wrote a statement to be issued in the name of his son about a meeting with the Russian who promised ``dirt'' on Hillary Clinton and directly misled about that meeting shows what is at stake.

The misleading words put into the President's son's mouth by Donald Trump himself are potential pieces of evidence relating to criminal intent fitting the mosaic that the special counsel has assembled. They add weight and color to that mosaic; they are not alone proof.

The report today is proof that certainly describes a pattern of conduct--pieces of a pattern that fit together into a mosaic providing evidence of intent concerning potential obstruction of justice.

So the likelihood of a threat is increasing--the threat of political interference, the threat of firing Bob Mueller, the threat that Attorney General Jeff Sessions may be used as a vehicle to lead to Bob Mueller's firing.

Even before Jim Comey's dismissal, I called for an independent special prosecutor at the Department of Justice. In fact, I was the only member of the Judiciary Committee to vote against Rod Rosenstein's nomination as Deputy Attorney General because he failed to commit to appoint a special prosecutor, and I believed a special prosecutor was necessary not only to determine the full extent of Russia's meddling in our democracy but also to protect that investigation from the President's efforts to shut it down. This belief was brought into stark relief by Jim Comey's firing, and it precipitated the appointment of Bob Mueller.

The firing of Special Counsel Mueller would precipitate a firestorm on both sides of the aisle. It would put the President over a precipice that likely could lead to the most drastic action possible in this democracy. That precipice can be avoided, and Congress must play a role in avoiding it. We are in talks across the aisle about action that can be taken to provide a check and a firewall against that kind of firing--drastic action that would put the President over that precipice politically and morally and legally. Also, my hope is that the new Chief of Staff, General Kelly, will add a voice of reason and wisdom, perhaps, to check some of the more rash and impulsive action that might otherwise be taken by the President.

The special counsel was given a clear mandate to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. I believe that Special Counsel Mueller has the guts and backbone, as well as the expertise, to uncover the truth, to follow that evidence, and to bring charges if they are appropriate and necessary, if he is assured the resources and independence to do the job.

That is why Christopher Wray's nomination is so critically important. He will be a key decision maker in providing those resources and investigative agents necessary to do the legwork and the review of documents and other hard work--challenging work--that is necessary so that the special counsel may have the facts and the evidence. The FBI Director is also going to be important in assuring the independence of that special counsel. As an ally and a source of support, the FBI Director will be critical.

The most important priority, in fact, for Christopher Wray will be to protect the independence and integrity of that special counsel investigation just as he must protect the FBI's, because they are intertwined and identified at the core. They involve the rule of law-- the essence of our democracy--and the belief and trust that wrongdoing will be investigated and prosecuted no matter how powerful the target and no matter how wealthy or powerful the wrongdoer. That investigation has expanded appropriately to include financial dealings on the part of the President of the United States. Any attempt by the President to set limits on that investigation is inappropriate and potentially illegal and further evidence of criminal intent.

In short, the mandate for both Director Wray and Special Counsel Mueller must be unconditional. There must be no limits set by political interference. The nominee whom we vote to confirm today must sustain and secure that ongoing independent investigation from any interference no matter how powerful the source, including the President of the United States. No one can set limits, because no one is above the law, and the special counsel must have the freedom to decide where the investigation will lead because he will follow the facts where they lead.

The FBI Director has a broad and inclusive mandate. In addition to protecting the United States against corruption and wrongdoing involving misuse and abuse of power, he must also protect the United States against terrorism and foreign intelligence threats. He is charged with providing leadership services to State, Federal, and municipal agencies and partners, and he is responsible for protecting civil rights.

On Friday, July 28, 2017, President Trump gave a speech in Selden, NY, in effect encouraging law enforcement to use or misuse excessive force. More specifically, he directed law enforcement not to be ``too nice,'' and he described, graphically, how officers should potentially allow arrestees to be banged on the head or otherwise mistreated. With his comments, President Trump did a disservice to countless law enforcement officers who work hard to keep our neighborhoods safe while maintaining good relationships with the communities they serve.

I will be joining with colleagues and working with the very distinguished senior Senator of California, who has joined us on the floor, in asking that our law enforcement leadership take action to express its disapproval of that kind of misconduct, and my hope is that, specifically, the Department of Justice will express its disapproval of such misconduct.

The FBI has a special obligation to condemn such violations of standards and laws, and I hope that the new Director, Mr. Wray, will join dozens of law enforcement leaders across the country in making clear that the President's remarks have no place at the FBI. I believe that Christopher Wray has the experience and credibility and the expertise to lead the FBI in that effort, as well as in protecting the special counsel.

Based on his career and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I believe that he will bring that leadership to the FBI. I regret that he will be the FBI Director only because it is the result of an abusive and improper firing of James Comey. The special counsel's investigation of that firing as a potential obstruction of justice is well warranted, and I know that Mr. Wray will do everything possible to enable it to be fair and effective, comprehensive

and thorough, and to do justice. He will help the special counsel to do justice just as he will help prosecutors and law enforcement agencies across the country to do justice. The future of the FBI and our Nation are truly at stake.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I had previously submitted to the Record my intention to submit a motion to H.R. 1628 regarding the Prevention and Public Health Fund. That motion was also supported by Senator Nelson.

Mr. President, we are here at a historic moment, and we listened to a historic speech just within the last 48 hours from our colleague, Senator John McCain. All of us welcomed him back and were inspired and overjoyed by his return and then by his speech asking that we go back to the regular order, that we have committee consideration of a bill, with hearings and markup and the democratic process really working.

What threatens us tonight is the democratic process being brought to new lows.

If this bill is passed with the assurance that it won't go to conference--and there are conservatives, and I could quote them.

Senator Lindsey Graham said earlier today:

There's increasing concern on my part and others that what

the House will do is take whatever we pass--the so called

``skinny bill''--not take it to conference, go directly to

the House floor, vote on it, and that goes to the President's

desk with the argument, ``This is better than doing

nothing.'' Here's my response. The ``skinny bill'' as policy

is a disaster. The ``skinny bill'' as a replacement for

Obamacare is a fraud. The ``skinny bill'' is a vehicle to get

in conference to find a replacement. It is not a replacement

in and of itself. The policy is terrible because you

eliminate the individual and employer mandate which we all

want eliminated but we actually want to have an overall

solution to the problem of Obamacare, so you're going to have

increased premiums and most of Obamacare stays in place if

the ``skinny bill'' becomes law. Not only do we not replace

Obamacare, we politically own the collapse of healthcare. I'd

rather get out of the way and let it collapse than have a

half-assed approach where it is now our problem.

Senator John McCain said earlier today:

I'm not supportive of the legislation as it stands today. I

am in close consultation with Arizona governor over the so-

called ``skinny repeal.''

Senator Ron Johnson said earlier today:

Virtually nothing we're doing in these bills and the

proposal are addressing the problems and challenges and the

damage done to people.

We will see, in effect, a betrayal of our trust, and I say that very seriously.

I hope this body will keep faith with our democracy and make sure that a bill that is regarded as a bad bill--and rightly so because it will eliminate insurance for 16 million people, it will raise premiums by 20 percent in less than a year, it will drive up costs, and it will bring down the number of people who are insured by catastrophic numbers. We owe it to the American people to vote against this so- called skinny bill, which is really a sham repeal. It is a skeletal version of TrumpCare 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 7.0. We can do that.

With that, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from the State of Delaware.

Mr. President, I want to say that the field hearings I had have shown me that people not only fear but will be justifiably hurt forever by this sabotage of our exchanges and by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Whether it is called a skinny repeal or any other name, it will fundamentally decimate Medicaid, it will put Americans who are in nursing homes out on the streets, and it will mean that people who need treatment for opioids--the consequences to them and many others whom I have seen in Connecticut and around the country will be absolutely devastating.

This shameful and senseless step toward gutting the Affordable Care Act has left millions not only in fear but in potential real jeopardy. We can do better, and the people of Connecticut and around the country know we can do better.

We owe it to our democracy to go through the regular order, as Senator McCain urged us to do, and to make sure that we fulfill our promise, our oath that we will uphold the Constitution and do what is right for the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues across the aisle accommodating me for 3 minutes, and I ask that--

Mr. President, we have seen in the course of this debate some very high points and some points that I think in some ways we regretted. One of the high points for me was the return of Senator McCain, and I want to join all of my colleagues in saying how heartfelt our gratitude is for his return and his eloquence here about the need for us to work together.

Yet yesterday we also saw, in my view, a shameful and disgraceful mockery of our democracy when Senators proceeded, in effect, to a slogan, a shell of a bill, not a really substantive measure. Yet that shell itself will undermine the exchanges and insurance coverage for millions and millions of Americans by creating uncertainty, and this process itself will aggravate that fear.

I have now held five field hearings in Connecticut, and at each one I have heard from countless people with tears in their eyes telling me what the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid have meant to them, what repeal of it will mean to them, and how devastating and cataclysmic the damage will be.

Thousands of constituents have written, have called, and have also contacted others of my colleagues, as I have urged them to do, and I want to say how grateful I am to them for their continued activism and advocacy. We need to maintain this fight. I have heard from moms and dads about what would happen to their children. One said to me: We can't thrive as a nation or as individuals if we can't afford to be healthy.

So I ask my colleagues to listen to their constituents, to the people in their States, people like Conner and Mackenzie and Amelie and Evan and Amanda and Michelle and Jennifer and Gay. I described them on the floor in my previous talks. These voices and faces need to be brought here because there have been no hearings, no regular order, no democratic process, as we have an obligation to do.

If at some point my colleagues abandon this effort to repeal and decimate the Affordable Care Act, I stand ready to come across the aisle to work together to drive down the costs of healthcare-- particularly pharmaceutical drugs--and to open the exchanges to more competition and create more choices for consumers among insurance companies. There are steps we can take together to improve this process. As Senator McCain urged us so powerfully, we need to go back to regular order, come together, and work across the aisle. There is no panacea. There is no instant solution. But we need to work together.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion, Conner's amendment, to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senator Shaheen.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion, Sean and Frank's amendment, to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion, Justice's amendment, to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion, Gay's amendment, to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend off the following motion, Amelie, Amanda, and Evan's amendment, to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senator Shaheen.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion, Michelle's amendment, to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Carper, Brown, Reed, King, Coons, Warren, Stabenow, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Markey, Durbin, Casey, Franken, Shaheen, Cardin, Udall, Van Hollen, Hirono, and Murray.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Julia Rhodes and Kyle Wesson, fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate.

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

Mr. President, I am here to oppose the nomination of John Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee since I was sworn in as a U.S. Senator 6 years ago. I have participated in dozens of confirmation hearings. Over time, I have become accustomed to hearing nominees attempt to dodge our questions. I have rarely come across a nominee who was as reluctant to respond to my questions as John Bush, and I have rarely felt so unsure and concerned about how a nominee would assume the responsibility of a Federal judgeship if confirmed.

I should emphasize to my colleagues, as well as to the people of Connecticut, there is no nomination I take more seriously than a Federal judgeship, having been before numerous Federal judges, district court judges, courts of appeals judges, and the U.S. Supreme Court on four cases. Having seen as a law clerk, as well as a practicing lawyer, the enormous impact and profound importance of this position, I take no job more seriously and regard no more steadfastly any responsibility that we have.

Mr. Bush has previously stated that originalism was the ``only principled way'' to interpret the Constitution. When our ranking member, Senator Feinstein of California, then, very reasonably, asked Mr. Bush if judges should always use originalism to interpret the Constitution, his response was this: ``My personal views on constitutional interpretation will be irrelevant if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed to the 6th circuit.''

With all due respect to Mr. Bush, I could not disagree more strongly. Asking judicial nominees about how they would approach the task of interpreting the law is extraordinarily relevant to this job. First, judges are not robots. They have views regarding how to interpret statutes and the Constitution. Applying those views is not inconsistent with judicial impartiality, but, especially for a judge on the U.S. court of appeals, those views matter greatly. The American people have a right to know what those views are for an appellate judge, who often cannot simply follow the letter or the exact words of the Constitution or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. There are all kinds of gaps that may be left and questions that may be unanswered. Circuit court judges are routinely asked to address constitutional questions that the Supreme Court has never addressed or has answered incompletely, and, sometimes, yes, incorrectly. It changes its constitutional view because of a circuit court judge who has the temerity to say that the Supreme Court either hasn't spoken to the issue or, perhaps, has spoken decades ago, at a time when that interpretation of the constitutional law had relevance and correctness, but not now.

To do our job reviewing judicial nominees of the President, we need to know how Mr. Bush plans to do his job. His refusal to answer causes me extraordinary concern, particularly because, in light of his previous comments, I have a pretty good idea how he intends to continue to apply what he believes to be the original philosophy. It is one thing to say forthrightly and honestly: ``That's my philosophy originally.'' It is another to completely dodge the question.

I am pleased to be on the floor today with one of my really great colleagues, Senator Franken, who will speak after me, and to have followed two other extraordinarily distinguished Members of this body, Senators Murray and Hirono, to focus on these concerns regarding Mr. Bush's approach to the question of women's healthcare and constitutionally guaranteed reproductive rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Let me note at the outset that our Republican colleagues have referred to a letter of support for Mr. Bush from someone who is on the board of the Kentucky Planned Parenthood affiliate. That letter in no way represents the position of the organization as a whole. In fact, the president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky has stated that Mr. Bush ``lacks the independence and temperament necessary for a Federal judgeship.'' That's the position of the President of Planned Parenthood for Indiana and Kentucky: He ``lacks the independence and temperament necessary for a federal judgeship.'' The issue of a woman's right to make decisions about when she becomes pregnant and whether she has an abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed, protected right of every woman, regardless of where she lives and what her background is and any other circumstances. She has that right. I need to know that any person I vote to confirm to the Federal bench will approach cases involving reproductive rights with the utmost care and respect for decades of hard-won precedent.

In coming years, judges will have to determine what constitutes an undue burden--and that is a term of law, ``undue burden''--as States continue to pass new laws that try to restrict women's reproductive rights. They will have to probe the boundaries of the Court's Hobby Lobby decision on how religious and reproductive freedoms might conflict. These issues are far from easy, and the Supreme Court has spoken to them in many respects incompletely or unclearly.

So when a nominee will not tell me how he plans to approach constitutional interpretation--even though his record strongly reflects a hostility to reproductive rights--how can I evaluate? How am I to do my job when I don't know how he is going to do his job? How am I supposed to take seriously his pledge to faithfully apply Roe v. Wade and related precedent?

All I have left in evaluating the Bush nomination is what he said outside the confirmation process before he was nominated for this position. As many of us know, Mr. Bush was a blogger, authoring hundreds of posts over several years under a pseudonym. I have read his blog. In the words of one of my colleagues, I am not impressed. He once wrote:

The two greatest tragedies in our country--slavery and

abortion--relied on similar reasoning and activist justices

at the U.S. Supreme Court, first in the Dred Scott decision,

and later in Roe.

Never mind that this statement is absurd on its face. Never mind that the NAACP called it ``offensive and dishonest.'' What concerns me at this moment is how this is the best statement of his views on the constitutionality of

women's reproductive rights that we have heard. In light of that statement, how can we expect anything else from this nominee other than the narrowing of reproductive rights?

Then along with the question of how John Bush might act as a judge comes the question of how the public perceives him. When you search the internet for information about his nomination, here is what you find on his blog: a post suggesting that someone ``gag the House Speaker,'' referring to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, not current House Speaker Ryan; two posts suggesting that a reader of the blog from Kenya must somehow be connected to President Obama; a post applauding former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's statements that he believes ``life begins at conception'' and ``strongly disagrees'' with ``the idea of same-sex marriage''; and a whole collection, a menage of partisan and inflammatory language--to use some euphemism for what can be found here.

Reporters who covered this nomination have used words like ``provocative,'' ``controversial,'' and ``not normal.'' This nomination is, indeed, not normal. It is different and profound, not in a good way. The Courier-Journal, Bush's hometown newspaper, chose this headline for their coverage: ``Trump's judicial nominee from Louisville ducks questions about his controversial blog posts.'' The article went on to quote lawyers describing his answers to Judiciary Committee members as ``laughable,'' ``absurd,'' and ``dishonest''--all quotes.

The Judiciary Committee heard from 27 LGBT advocacy organizations and 14 reproductive rights groups, and they told us, in no uncertain terms, ``no'' to this nominee. I agree with them.

Finally, Mr. Bush wants us to believe that his political views can be separated from his law practice or his prospective service on the court. When asked why he cited unreliable news sources like World Net Daily in his writings, he repeatedly shrugged off the question and declined answering, saying political analysis is different from legal analysis. There is truth to that point. Prior political activity is no disqualification, in and of itself, for serving as a judge, but the importance of public confidence in the judiciary is profound. The confidence of people in the fairness and impartiality of our judges is profoundly important and necessary. The courts have no army. They have no police force of their own. Their rulings are credible and enforceable because of confidence in the fairness and objectivity of our judges.

Someone who is so clearly unqualified, by virtue of his record, I cannot support. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting against Mr. Bush's nomination.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank and commend Joe Kaliko for his extraordinarily valuable commitment and service in aiding and advocating for our most vulnerable throughout the community. His many deeds of generosity and caring have made him a go-to person when people need help. His life is a real inspiration for all of us.

Joe Kaliko is founder of the Needs Clearinghouse, a private nonprofit organization. He has actively partnered with governmental agencies, in helping provide necessary--sometimes lifesaving--resources to people through programs such as Hug a Hound and the Refugee Assistance Project. He has helped raise funds and contributions to a myriad of charitable causes, touching many, many lives. I have seen those people and the powerfully positive effects on their lives, disabled people who now have ramps for access to their homes, veterans who now have housing, ill people who now have better healthcare, and numerous others.

Joe Kaliko is all about making a difference. He is a true hero.

Mr. President, I want to build on the last point my colleague--a great advocate and champion of net neutrality--made about the rule of law and about the need to go to court when there is utter disrespect and contempt for the rule of law, which is reflected in the prospective plan of the Chairman of the FCC to undo that agency's net neutrality rules. It reflects an astonishing lack of respect and care for that agency's rules--in fact, the rules that apply to all agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Chairman Pai wants to overturn a rule that was established after a factfinding--an elaborate process of comment and response--without going through that same process that is required under the Administrative Procedure Act, a fact-based docket that requires him to show that something has changed--not a little bit; something significant has changed--in the market since the Open Internet Order was established in February 2015. The burden is on the FCC to make that finding. That finding is impossible, which is why they are avoiding the attempt to do it.

The fact is, the Open Internet Order was established based on 10 years of evidence about how internet access service provides people with broadband. It has been upheld by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals twice over the last year. The thicket of law that the Chairman wants to simply leap over--it is not within his discretion to do.

The most recent evidence shows that net neutrality has not inhibited network investment at all, in contrast to Chairman Pai's claims. According to statements this year by the internet service providers-- AT&T, in fact, is expanding fiber deployment and calling fiber a growth opportunity. Comcast is saying that it doubles its network capacity every 18 to 24 months. Verizon is announcing a new $1 billion investment in cable. That is why we are here saying we will not and we cannot allow Chairman Pai to succeed in this plan to gut neutrality at the behest of big cable companies.

I am proud to speak today in support of the Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality and against the FCC proposal to undo the Open Internet Order because it is really a consummate pro-consumer measure. The Open Internet Order serves the best interests of consumers directly but also the best interests of competition in promoting innovation, new ideas, and insights--an open platform that is necessary for innovation and insights that benefit consumers, as well as the products and services that companies generally provide.

The Open Internet Order created three bright-line rules: No blocking, no throttling, and no pay prioritization. These rules apply to both fixed and mobile broadband service, which protects consumers no matter how they access the internet, whether on a desktop or a mobile service. Consumers deserve equal access, an open platform--no walls benefiting the companies that may want their gardens walled in. The walls are against consumer interest, and breaking down those walls is what the open internet rule sought to do.

It also has real First Amendment significance. In one of the most recently proposed megamergers--AT&T and Time Warner--clearly content, access, and neutrality are at stake. This merger gives the combined company, if the merger is approved, both the incentive and the means to throttle First Amendment expression. There have been reports that the White House will use this merger, in fact, to throttle the First Amendment rights of CNN, which is owned by Time Warner. This would be a direct threat to all First Amendment liberties.

Using antitrust policy and power to diminish or demean the rights of free expression would be a grave disservice to this country, as well as the rule of law. That is why I have written to the nominee for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division chief, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Makan Delrahim, and asked for a meeting so he can ensure us that, in fact, antitrust policy will be independently enforced, that these reports do not reflect his view or the administration policy. I want him to assure us that this merger will in no way be used to influence or impede any media outlet.

But access and an open internet are principles that go beyond the enforcement of antitrust law; they are principles enforced by the FCC for the public good. That is why this Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality is so critically important, because the grassroots movement here is what will save the day. The grassroots and consumer-driven impetus to make sure that the internet remains a free and open platform for consumers and innovators, not a walled garden for wealthy companies, is what we seek today.

That is why I am proud to stand with other colleagues who have spoken and to continue this battle and to say to all of our colleagues that we will go to court, because the rule of law and the Administrative Procedure Act are not technical, abstruse, arcane, unimportant rules; they are at the core of fairness and administrative regularity, not just regulation, the rule of law.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor to my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today after a fourth field hearing in Connecticut. Every one of those field hearings has been packed. I spent time at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Hartford, as well as having visited others over the past year. I have spent time with numerous providers and at community health centers and heard firsthand from the people of Connecticut as to why the Republican health bill, which has been unveiled after having been concocted behind closed doors, would devastate the health and finances of Connecticut's families and their communities.

The bill that we expect to be disclosed later this week will almost certainly be defective in the same ways as the bills that we have seen. To call these proposals mean or heartless, as the President has, is a gross understatement. The bill, very simply put, would cost both dollars and lives, eroding not just our ability to save money by investing in a healthier future but causing death and despair when neither term is really necessary. This wound would be self-inflicted, but it is a wound that is preventable and avoidable.

I pledge to the people of Connecticut that I will fight as long and as hard as necessary to stop this grotesquely cruel and costly proposal.

It is not, in fact, a healthcare bill. It is a wealth care bill. It decimates Medicaid, saving, supposedly, close to $1 billion so that those savings can be used for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. As Warren Buffett has said--and he is one of them--``I don't need it.'' He would rather see it be used for better healthcare and coverage, and that is what the majority of Americans want. That is why this proposal is so deeply unpopular.

Now, after weeks of secrecy, followed by chaos, we are back to secrecy again, with Republicans retreating away from their constituents and going behind closed doors. Even over this past week, when we were back in our home States, they were crafting another bill. We have not seen it. We have not debated it. We cannot even say that we know anything about what is in it, and my Republican colleagues know little more than we do on this side of the aisle. We know for sure, despite the secrecy, that the devastating effect would be overwhelming on people across income strata, geographic boundaries, and cultural backgrounds.

I am here not to talk in abstractions. I am here to talk about real people in real life and to share the stories that I heard at these field hearings--people's stories that they have entrusted me to bring to you. Many of my colleagues have refused to hear these stories from their constituents because they would hear how repugnant and repulsive this bill is and how deeply angry the people of the country are. The people of Connecticut and the country are outraged.

The reason is people like Ariella Botts, and here she is. Ariella is 4 years old. She came to my field hearing last week with her mom, Rachel. Ariella, as her mom told me, has nemaline myopathy, which is a rare form of muscular dystrophy. Their family relies on Medicaid for her care. I want to tell you exactly what Rachel said about Ariella and their family, because her words are far more eloquent and powerful than mine.

Rachel said:

The fact of the matter is that my daughter's care would

cost over $20,000 a month out of pocket between her food, her

medication, her care, and the breathing machines that keep

her lungs clear. There is no average American family that can

pay $20,000 a month of medical costs. We do our part. We have

two jobs a piece. We do everything we can do. This is the

only thing we ask for help on.

Rachel went on to say:

Supporters of the Trumpcare bill want you to believe that

costs are high because there is this nameless and faceless

abuser of the system, but I have spent hours in the waiting

rooms of Yale New Haven Hospital and Connecticut Children's

Medical Center. I have spent hours in the neonatal intensive

care units and the emergency rooms, and I can tell you that

the people who are accessing care on my level--they're not

abusers.

I am going to continue quoting Rachel. I cannot really speak with the same power and authenticity that she has, but we are not allowed to show videos here on the floor.

She continued:

We're mothers and fathers who know that there's more for

our children to achieve. We're tax-paying, community-

investing, voting, involved warriors for our families.

I asked Rachel what would happen to her family if Ariella did not have Medicaid, and Rachel said: ``It would bankrupt us in less than a month.''

I want to tell you what it is like to spend just a little bit of time with Ariella. She is the most vivacious, animated, beautiful girl, and you would not know anything about her condition but for this apparatus, which is there so she can lead a normal or a near normal life and be the wonderful young lady that she is. I smile when I think of

her at this hearing because she brought smiles to all of our faces. I understand the joy and pride that she brings to her family because she is one courageous, strong child, and we are proud of her.

Rachel and Ariella were not the only people I heard from whose lives have been made not just better but, truly, whose lives have been made possible by Medicaid.

Jeff Pabon was also at a hearing that I held, and he told me about his family when he was growing up. As a single mother, his mom raised him and his four siblings. As a member of the working class, Jeff told me ``she needed as much assistance from the system as the system could provide.'' Years later, as an adult, Jeff proudly served our country in the U.S. Navy during Operation Desert Storm. He now has a family of his own, including a son with autism. He spoke out at my hearing because, as he said, ``I've fought for this country before.''

What Jeff told me touches the core--the heart--of this debate, and I want to read it here on the Senate floor because he said it so powerfully:

The healthcare bill being crafted in secrecy by a minority

of Republican Senators now threatens Medicaid protections and

aims to provide tax breaks for the ultra wealthy, top 1

percent of America. I would like to see sensible, bipartisan

legislation which serves the majority of Americans, like the

other 99 percent. Let's repair the provisions of the

Affordable Care Act that need reparation. We need to be

moving forward, not backward.

Jeff is right, and so is Rachel. How absurd and reprehensible that costs will rise astronomically while Medicaid funding and the number of those with insurance coverage will go down, just so our Nation's richest can see billions of dollars in tax cuts--laughable, if it were not so deadly serious. ``Deadly'' is the word because this bill will cost lives. We rarely deal in life and death issues in this Chamber. This issue is one of them.

It will decimate the lives and livelihoods of so many and threaten not only Ariella but many like her of all ages--the senior who goes into a nursing home after exhausting her life savings and depends on Medicaid, the woman who goes to a Planned Parenthood clinic to be screened for cancer and finds that this pernicious disease has been detected because of that preventive step and the availability of healthcare at Planned Parenthood, the opioid addict who suffers from that disorder or disease--it is a disease, not a moral failing--and seeks recovery through the medicine that is made available by Medicaid. Forty-four percent of all of the medication for opioid addiction treatment comes from Medicaid in the State of Connecticut. All of them are at risk. It is not just their convenience or their comfort. Their lives are at risk.

I heard their stories, and I am haunted by them. I can hear their voices, and I can see their faces. I want my colleagues to do the same. I am ready to do what Jeff asked of me. I am ready to work with all of my colleagues--Democrat and Republican--to move us forward, not backward. Let's work together in a bipartisan way to fix the parts of our healthcare insurance system that need repair. Let's go forward, not backward.

I am eager for the call from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that offers solutions--not repeal but real solutions--as to what the American people need, want, and deserve.

First, we must bury the efforts to decimate Medicaid, to defund Planned Parenthood, and to repeal the Affordable Care Act. We have a chance right now to improve healthcare--a moment, an historic opportunity--and we must seize it. I feel that we are on the cusp of that dramatic and historic moment, and I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, over the last 10 days, I have conducted

emergency field hearings, giving my constituents in Connecticut an opportunity to be heard, a chance for their voices and faces to be part of considering the Republican healthcare or really, more accurately, wealth care bill. Indeed, that label or characterization of the bill came from one my constituents who said: This plan is not healthcare, it is wealth care because it produces a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and middle-class Americans, whose healthcare would be deeply harmed, to the richest Americans, who would enjoy the benefits of hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts.

That kind of voice and criticism deserves to be heard here. Yet my Republican colleagues and their leadership have gone from total secrecy to total chaos. They are in chaos because they have refused to heed the voices and faces of ordinary, average working people--middle-class people, the most vulnerable people--who would be deeply harmed by this proposal.

One woman at one of my hearings in Connecticut, knowing what would happen under this bill, said to me:

Do the right thing. Save the Affordable Care Act and save

our lives.

She was not exaggerating when she said lives are at stake. She is right. This very eloquent woman, Amy Etkind, knows all too well what this bill means for Americans like her, and the man she described, literally, as the ``love of her life.'' She told me about him during a hearing in New Haven Friday afternoon--about how he has struggled with addiction, mental health issues, and now diabetes. He is alive today because of Medicaid, and he has access to the services he needs. As she said, ``If Medicaid were to go away, he would be literally dead in a very short period of time.''

When we say the Republican plan would cost lives--it would kill people--it is no hyperbole, no exaggeration. It is plain, simple fact. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' The fact is, this bill would cost the State of Connecticut nearly $3 billion in Federal funding over the next 10 years. These cuts, mainly to Medicaid, cannot and will not be replaced, as the CBO has predicted. It would leave States like Connecticut in an impossible position: either raise taxes to pay the difference or cut Medicaid enrollment to insurers, putting people like Amy's husband at risk, literally, of death; putting out on the streets the senior citizens living in the Monsignor Bojnowski Manor in New Britain, where they are enjoying great care--a high-quality environment because of Medicaid. Many of them are middle-class folks who worked hard, played by the rules, and exhausted their savings. They are vulnerable now because of the cost of healthcare and their care, in particular. The focus ought to be on them, on the people who are affected, not so much the numbers, but we know from the numbers that the Republican plan would disastrously raise premiums by 20 percent and would cut enrollment impact on the individual market--premiums and enrollment, apart from Medicaid, on the individual market. These numbers are from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. They are fact. Facts are stubborn things.

We know also what the effects would be--what the numbers are for people who are middle income. The elimination of the tax credits for middle-income people paying their premiums would be nothing short of disastrous.

We focused on Medicaid. I talked to you about Amy and the love of her life and what the effects would be of the decimation of Medicaid, but here we are talking about the elimination of tax breaks that help middle-income people. I don't need to explain this graph. For someone with $26,500 in income, their premiums under the Senate plan would jump to $6,500 from the present $1,700. For somebody earning in the midfifties, the jump is even greater, and it is true even for people who are earning $68,200. They will have to pay more, a larger share of their income, and receive less. It is not only that the Senate plan is disastrous because it is more costly, it is also going to impact the quality of care by reducing the standards; eliminating the strict requirements on preexisting conditions, the protections on annual and lifetime caps for coverage, defunding Planned Parenthood, continuing the war on women's healthcare. The long and short of it is that this measure is bad for America.

Tia spoke to me at these hearings about the opioid epidemic. If there is one example that breaks our hearts and wrenches our guts, it is the effect on people who are trying to recover from opioid addiction and abuse. Their recovery would be shredded--maybe stopped--by gutting Medicaid coverage.

Another woman who spoke at my hearing, Donna Sager, called herself ``the perfect example as to why our healthcare plans must include preexisting conditions and not punish people like me with high premiums.'' Donna, as she told me, is 63 years old and not yet eligible for Medicare. When she was 36, she was diagnosed with a rare form of hereditary colon cancer. For 27 years she has been undergoing major surgeries, constant screening, doctor visits to make sure she can remain as healthy as possible. Then she told me about her husband, a man in his seventies, and she said this:

He would like to retire, but how can he with all my medical

expenses? I am frightened what I will do if the Republican

healthcare bill gets passed. Changes to preexisting coverage

will be extremely damaging to me, how will I pay these costs

and high premiums? The republican healthcare plan wants to

punish me for having cancer.

She closed by saying:

It is as though Washington wants to punish me again for

having cancer and being older. . . . I never would have

expected that the greatest country in the world would treat

me like this.

There is a path forward, and it requires our Republican colleagues very simply to start over, to work with Democrats, to abandon this misguided, myopic effort to repeal, repeal, repeal. That mantra simply is not a policy for American healthcare.

What is needed is to build on the Affordable Care Act, to improve it, to correct its defects. We can do it if we work together and if we focus on the rising costs of medical care and try to bring them down, if we focus on the regulatory barriers to entering insurance markets and seek to eliminate them, if we focus on the FDA drug approval process and seek to responsibly and safely expedite new drugs coming to market, if we enable Medicare to negotiate drug prices as the VA does. Those examples of improving the present system are doable. They require leadership, which has been lacking and most particularly lacking at the White House.

Yesterday, we saw a picture that is worth a thousand words: the President of the United States sitting with Members of this body, but only Members of this body from the other side of the aisle--only Republican Senators. It was almost the entire membership on the Republican side. Not a single Democrat was invited, not a single Democrat consulted, not a single Democrat involved in the continuing process now of producing yet another plan behind closed doors in secrecy.

The majority leader announced it just today. The effort is to have another version to be submitted to the CBO by Friday, but that process simply continues the present fatal flaw in my Republican colleagues' thinking, which is that they can do it with only one party. I want to give credit to our Republican colleagues who had the courage and strength to say no because they saw it was bad for America.

In closing, I want to say that my Republican colleagues will be going home this weekend. They have been looking at themselves in the mirror, at their consciences, and they have been seeing something they don't like--a moral failing in this bill, not just a political failing or a policy defect but a real moral failing.

Healthcare is a right, and even if my Republican colleagues disagree on that point, they have to recognize that taking away healthcare, decimating Medicaid, waging war on women's health, depriving children of the preventive care they need so they can go to school and learn properly, evicting seniors from nursing homes, putting the burden of billions of dollars on my State of Connecticut and every State represented in this body, and other grotesque, cruel, costly impacts of this bill are the wrong ways to go. They know that when they look in the mirror, but they will know it even more powerfully when they look in the eyes of their constituents this week--if they have the guts and courage and heart to do so.

This wealth care plan is doomed to failure. Even if it passes, it is doomed to fail America. It is a moral failing, not just a policy failing. The health of our consciences, as well as our physical well- being, hangs in the balance.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.