Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am proud to be on the floor today, proud to stand with my colleagues, and I hope that at the end of this week, I will be proud of all of my colleagues when we vote to defeat this measure, or at least to delay it, because we owe the American people the right to be heard.

Our responsibility as elected representatives is at the very least to listen. I have been listening over the last week but really over the last year to constituents of mine in the State of Connecticut and over the last week at two emergency field hearings that I conducted because no hearings were held by the Senate and no markups and no votes in committee. What we saw here in Washington was complete secrecy, a bill produced behind closed doors, only seeing the light of day for the first time last Thursday.

Our Republican colleagues have gone from total secrecy to total chaos. The reason for the chaos is the facts that were most dramatically revealed today--just hours ago--when the Congressional Budget Office told us, not surprisingly, that 22 million Americans would be thrown to the wolves as a result of this measure--thrown to the wolves of no healthcare coverage--and eventually 49 million Americans would be without healthcare insurance by 2026.

Next year alone, 15 million more people will be uninsured under the Republican plan, TrumpCare 2.0. Low-income Americans would be unable to afford any plan at all, and anybody who does would be paying higher costs for fewer services of lesser quality. Americans will pay a higher share of their income and receive less as a result. A 64-year-old making almost $57,000 will go from paying $6,800 under the Affordable Care Act to $20,500 under the proposal before this body. This jump in cost is absolutely staggering.

It will destroy the financial well-being of middle-class Americans who also, when they need nursing home care, after they have exhausted their savings, will be thrown to the wolves. I visited one such facility just last Friday, where two-thirds of its 60 beds will be unaffordable when those middle-class families find their savings will no longer cover it.

These facts are the reason for the Republican chaos. One of our former colleagues, my mentor, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, famously said: ``Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.'' The administration's statement that the CBO is not to be blindly trusted--nobody has to trust the CBO blindly. Those facts are driven by reality. Their report speaks truth to power and to the American people, and the American people get it.

None of us can look our constituents in the eye, look ourselves in the mirror, look inside ourselves, in our hearts, and justify a vote for this bill. The American people are angry, many of them because we are even considering it. It is not an anger that is kind of a shrug of the shoulders; it is a deep, vocal, vehement, vitriolic anger. I have seen it and heard it at those hearings, where I listened to people coming forward and talking about this bill, recognizing it for what it is. It is not a healthcare bill; it is a massive tax cut for the wealthy.

Just Friday afternoon, one of the folks who attended the hearing came to the microphone and said: Don't call it a healthcare bill; it is a wealth care bill. In fact, she is absolutely right. This bill cuts hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes for the richest so that they will do better, but it also cuts $800 billion in Medicaid spending and investment to provide for that kind of tax cut. It is not a healthcare bill; it is a wealth care bill. And for most Americans, it is a catastrophic, cruel, and costly insult to their intelligence, their health, and our American values. It is a sham and a charade, making possible those cuts for the rich--tax cuts for them--at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. And it has been the result of a profoundly undemocratic process--secrecy and speed.

Despite the best efforts of our Republican colleagues to keep Americans in the dark about what this proposal would do, I have seen growing awareness, again, not only at these hearings but as I walk through the airport, as I march in parades--twice over this weekend--as I attend public gatherings. Whether it is Boys State, sponsored by the American Legion for 16- and 17-year-olds, or nursing facilities for elderly citizens, there is a growing awareness that this bill is bad-- profoundly bad--for the American people.

The people I have heard from have prescriptions to fill, appointments to make, lives to live, but they have come to these hearings on very short notice in Hartford and in New Haven, literally filling rooms so that there was standing room only.

I challenge my colleagues to hold the same kinds of hearings, to delay this vote so that they can go home at the end of this week and hold hearings in their State and listen to their constituents about what they have to say and what the consequences will be.

Nearly 1 in 10 veterans has Medicaid coverage, meaning that a staggering 1.75 million veterans, including 18,000 veterans in Connecticut, would be impacted by these reckless cuts. Let me repeat that number for all of us who rejoiced in the recent Accountability and Whistleblowers Act. Some 1.75 million veterans--18,000 of them in Connecticut--will be harmed by this reckless and needless insult and injury.

Put simply, this bill would make it hard for veterans with mental health disorders like post-traumatic stress disorder to get care. Nearly a quarter of all veterans receive care for mental health disorders outside the VA system, meaning they rely on protections that guarantee their access to affordable care. Under this proposal, those protections would be severely threatened, and the veterans who need that care would see that care at risk.

Here we are talking about a choice program that enables veterans to seek care outside the VA system, privately, and we are endangering care for millions of Americans--veterans--who need and seek it by using Medicaid.

If my colleagues listen to their constituents, they will hear from many of the people who have come to my townhalls, like Christine Girassi. Christine has two beautiful 4-year-old twins named McKenzie and Cameron. McKenzie was born with Prader-Willi syndrome, a rare genetic disorder that her mom described as ``including low muscle tone, seizures, temperature instability, sleep apnea, infertility, OCD, intellectual disabilities, and developmental delay.''

In the first few weeks of her life, McKenzie was in the hospital for 57 days, accounting for $2 million in costs. Their family was spending $30,000 a year to help their daughter thrive. So when Christine learned that her daughter had received a waiver to become a Medicaid beneficiary, she was overjoyed.

Christine told me:

When we received McKenzie's diagnosis, we were told that

she wouldn't do a lot of things, and at only 4 years old

she's already defying the odds. I have no doubt in my mind

that if we are able to continue down our current path of the

proper therapies and doctors, McKenzie will be able to have

her fruitful life. I am terrified if the rug comes out

beneath her that she will become just another statistic.

Another statistic? There are enough statistics in that CBO report. We will hear a plethora of statistics on the

floor, but a picture is worth a thousand words and many more than a thousand statistics, and no one--no one should be consigned to being a statistic.

This family is one of the many faces and pictures and stories of Medicaid. They deserve to be heard. If we gut this program, if we strip away the important services it provides, we know all too well what will happen to McKenzie and her family as statistics. Like her mother said, Medicaid has been the path to success for them, and that rug will be pulled from that family, from beneath McKenzie.

At the hearing on Friday in New Haven, I heard from Kent O'Brien, who told me about the eight prescription medications he takes--four for psychiatric reasons and four for medical reasons.

Of course, mental health parity has been one of the crusades of my life. When I was State attorney general, I worked with Senator Ted Kennedy and Congressman Patrick Kennedy to help advocate for that bill. As a Senator, I advocated for the regulations that were necessary for its enforcement, and we finally got it done.

I want to quote what Kent said directly. He told me:

Hi, everybody, how are you today? I'm going to keep this

brief, because I know the senators are on a very strict time

constraint and I respect that. So I'm just going to talk very

quickly about my prescription medications; there are eight of

them. Four of them are for psychiatric reasons and four are

medical. And if I lose my Medicare and Medicaid, I will be

unable to pay for them obviously, which in turn I will end up

in the hospital.

Kent went on:

Now, for the Republicans who are seeing this in Washington,

can you please listen to me carefully?

I am speaking to an empty Chamber. Let nobody make any mistake that Republicans are hanging on Kent's words as I speak now, but every one of them should go to the Record. Every one of them should be listening in their offices. Every one of them should go to the Record.

Kent goes on:

If I lose that medication, I will end up in the hospital,

and it's going to cost the state and the federal government

much more money than it would be to simply let me go to the

pharmacy and pick up my medication.

If there were ever a message that Washington should hear, it is from Kent O'Brien, who closed by simply saying:

So I'm just going to close up with that, and don't hurt the

American people. Help them!

If you met Kent, you would wonder how he was capable of that eloquence. He is an ordinary American, someone who looks like all the rest of us. He has said to this body what it means to hear: ``Don't hurt the American people.'' He couldn't be more right. This proposal would cost our Nation so much, not just financially--Kent had it right--but morally. It will lead to a weakening of what makes our country strong and great in the first place: our ability to care about our neighbor, to fight for what is right, and to listen to the people who represent here in the Senate.

First, do no harm. That is what the ethos of the medical profession is. It ought to be our mantra as well. It ought to be what my colleagues, if nothing else, heed as we reach this decision to listen to people who sent us here and hear their stories. Listen to the anxieties and fears and value of America. They will tell you all you need to know about this bill. Kent told me. As he said, the cost will be staggering--not just in financial terms but in human terms.

This bill--written behind closed doors, away from the light of day, away from the realities of medical care in the United States of America, away from the voices and faces I have brought to the floor today, and which I will continue to bring to the floor--ignores the most important thing we can do this week. As Kent said, don't hurt the American people. As the doctors tell us: First, do no harm.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, earlier this week, on Monday morning at 9 a.m., I held a last-minute emergency field hearing on healthcare. With our colleagues on the other side of the aisle refusing to hold any official hearing on the bill and refusing to even show us the bill-- what almost certainly is almost bad policy that is contained in the bill--I wanted the people of Connecticut to know that their voices and their faces would be heard and seen here in Washington, DC, and their stories would be told with or without an official committee hearing.

When I say this emergency field hearing was last minute, it was truly last minute, with many people having not even days but hours of advance notice to come and speak and share with me and others what the Affordable Care Act has meant to them, to their families, to their communities, and what losing it would mean to them.

To say the room was full would be a gross understatement. Every seat was filled, and when those seats were gone, people lined the wall two or three deep and squeezed in through the door. They were so anxious to be heard, and they were loud and clear. They were heard by me, and now I want their voices to be heard here.

We are continuing this hearing. In fact, we are having a second hearing on Friday afternoon at 1:30 in New Haven. We are sending out notices, blasting them to the people of Connecticut. We will have a third, if appropriate and necessary.

The people who came to this emergency field hearing in Connecticut were no different from millions of other people around the country, and they were speaking, in a sense, for all Americans. In my mind, they were speaking for parents who are suffering, providers who are healing, kids fighting back against dreaded diseases. They came because the closed-door discussions held in secret here by a small number of colleagues across the aisle will impact them every single day for the rest of their lives. My constituents and the people of Connecticut and the people of the country are unrepresented in those discussions. That is a travesty and a betrayal of our trust and our job.

So, on Friday, we are going to do the same thing. We are holding another emergency hearing in New Haven so people of my State can be heard, despite this disgraceful process that has left them and so many others on the outside looking in. They are excluded from democracy, and that is unconscionable.

If nothing else, I hope my colleagues will realize one thing. This is what democracy looks like. This is how we are meant to make decisions with many opinions--much debate, diversity of viewpoint, sometimes messy but always transparent, open, and clear to people whose lives are affected by it. That is what this emergency field hearing was designed to do.

Since it is becoming increasingly clear that this bedrock principle of our democracy--the right to open and honest debate--is being denied, I want to share some of the stories I heard on Monday, just some of them, and I will be sharing more of these stories over the coming days.

Justice Brianna Croutch was described by her mother as a beautiful free spirit, as you can see from this side of the photo. She was filled with compassion and at 21 years old had a beautiful and meaningful life ahead of her, all of her life ahead of her. She was a full-time student in a dental program, and she had a 4.0 average.

Justice, like far too many people, particularly young people in Connecticut and around the country, had a substance use disorder, and she needed effective, long-term treatment to begin that road to recovery. For Justice, this treatment came too late, and on August 23, 2015, she overdosed on heroin. It led to a brain injury. It is likely she will never recover from that injury.

``More likely than not,'' her mother said, ``I will have to make the decision to bring my daughter home with hospice care. No parent should be faced with these decisions.'' That is what Jennifer Kelly said at the hearing on Monday.

That is a picture of Justice as she is today.

I want to read exactly what Jennifer Kelly said because her words are far more powerful and meaningful than mine could ever be.

The American Health Care Act--

The House version of the so-called replacement for the Affordable Care Act--

would reduce Medicaid funding by $800 million, which provides

coverage to an estimated 3 in 10 adults dealing with an

opioid addiction. This will be so devastating to those

seeking treatment for an opioid addition. In a system where

families are already seeking help, this will be a tremendous

step backwards.

So here I am, almost two years later, pleading for life,

fighting once again for families I have never met, because I

believe that no one should have to fight to get help for

addiction in this country like my daughter did. So my

question is, Mr. President and the members of the Senate,

what number of lives lost will be enough? What is the magic

number of sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, aunts and

uncles that we as a nation will have to lose before you

realize this country needs help?

I ask that same question of my colleagues today. I ask the question that Jennifer, a brokenhearted mother, asked. What number of lives will be enough? How many is enough? When will others in this body realize that gutting our healthcare system and stripping millions of care will simply make this opioid epidemic worse?

Jennifer was unfortunately not the only person who came to speak about the opioid epidemic. For me, the most moving and powerful among those moments came from Maria Skinner, who runs the McCall Center for Behavioral Health in Connecticut, who was there to give her thoughts and share the stories of two young people. I was actually lucky enough to meet both of them. Once again, I am going to share her words directly:

What I want to do is talk to you about two people and make

that a real, personal, granular, human story. . . . And you

know these two people very well; it's Frank and Sean.

She was speaking to me.

[You] have met Frank and Sean, who were able to access care

and get clean and sober because of the Medicaid expansion,

because they were able to have coverage.

And they've come here, to these rooms, to speak

courageously and publicly about their struggle and about

their recovery, and about how grateful they are to be able to

be clean and sober because of the access of care afforded

them through their insurance coverage.

We went to Sean's funeral on Saturday, and . . . Frank

would be here today if he wasn't as brokenhearted as I am.

Sean was 26 and had been doing really well, was on

Naltrexone, was taking a Vivitrol shot, and he had to have

surgery for a hernia, because

he raced motorbikes professionally and the hernia hurt him.

He wanted to go back and was doing so well, he was speaking

publicly to youth and was anxious to go back into doing what

he loved. So he had that surgery and had to come off of his

medication to do that. He was very vulnerable after his

surgery, and he slipped once, and he used.

I've been to too many funerals and seen too many mothers

and fathers brokenhearted at the coffins of their sons and

daughters. We can't make this any harder than it already is.

To me, it is unconscionable.

Maria is right, and so is Jennifer. Gutting Medicaid would be unconscionable. Weakening the protections afforded to those with mental health or substance use disorder would be truly unconscionable. Repealing the Affordable Care Act and the provisions within it that have meant more coverage, more healthcare, and more healing for those suffering from substance use disorder and struggling to break the grip of this opioid epidemic would be unconscionable and costly beyond words.

Alternative funds, as some reports say Republicans have considered, will never replace a permanent insurance program like Medicaid because Medicaid guarantees that coverage is there when families need it. No alternative can do that.

In Connecticut, nearly half of all medication-assisted treatment for people with substance use disorders is paid by Medicaid. My fear is that the Republican bill in place will mean that these people would have no place to go. They would have no support for medications, counseling, and help, no chance to get better, no place to go. I refuse to let us find out the answer to what would happen to them if Medicaid were gutted. I refuse to allow it to happen, if I have anything to do with it.

People with substance use disorder are not the only ones who will see their coverage threatened by a weakening of protections for those with preexisting conditions. In Connecticut on Monday, Shawn Lang of AIDS- Connecticut expanded on what this bill would mean for the people living with HIV in this country.

Some of us lived through the early days of the plague when

we went to funeral after funeral, memorial service after

memorial service, week after week, month after month,

watching our friends wither away and die. The healthcare bill

that is currently secretly weaving its way through Congress

would bring us back to the early days of the plague.

HIV is a preexisting condition. Over half of the people

living with HIV in the country and in this state are over the

age of 50 and rely on Medicaid as their primary source of

insurance. Most of those people also have other co-

morbidities like substance abuse disorders and mental health

disorders. What little we know about this bill would be

devastating to people with HIV and AIDS, and it essentially

would amount to a death sentence. Once again, having lived

through those early days, we don't want to go back there.

Shawn's story is one of many I heard about the fear of losing coverage due to a preexisting condition.

Gay Hyre, a 60-year-old breast cancer survivor, has similar concerns about what gutting the Affordable Care Act would mean not just for her but for everyone around her. She said this about why she came to speak at the hearing:

I'm not just worried for me about my own care, although I

will be on the receiving end of a lot of bad parts of this. I

care passionately about the other 23 million Americans who

are my fellow citizens of every age, type, and need. It's

about the future, it's about our kids, it's about our

grandkids who won't have access to treatments, who won't have

access to doctors.

I know my colleagues across the aisle don't want to hear these stories. If they wanted to hear these stories from people in Connecticut and around the country, millions of stories, we would have hearings--not just emergency field hearings; we would have hearings here in Washington before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and before the Committee on Finance and other committees that have jurisdiction on the House side as well as in the Senate. We would be having a real debate, a robust discussion, and everyone of us here would have a chance to review this bill, if there is a bill, and comment on it and hear from the people we represent. But unfortunately my colleagues across the aisle don't want to hear about the details of repealing the Affordable Care Act.

One witness at my hearing, Ellen Andrews of the Connecticut Health Policy Project, really summed up the reason. Here is what she said:

We have been working on expanding health coverage, high-

quality, affordable coverage to everyone in the state and now

everyone in the nation. I looked back, actually, at 2010, how

many people were uninsured in this state before the

Affordable Care Act, it was 397,000 people, almost 400,000.

Last year it was down by 262,000. That is 262,000 fewer

people living in our state without insurance because of the

Affordable Care Act.

I want to share one final story. It is about a little boy in Connecticut who has a lot to lose if the Affordable Care Act is secretly gutted behind closed doors, as is now happening in real time right before our eyes, in secret, invisibly, in this body. I want to tell you about Connor Curran.

Two years ago, when Connor was 5 years old, his parents noticed that he was lagging behind his twin brother. They brought him to a doctor. Rather than receiving a simple diagnosis, they learned that Connor has Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a degenerative terminal disease that has no cure. Most people with the disease don't survive past their midtwenties. Connor's family wrote that their sweet boy, who was just 5 and full of life, would slowly lose his ability to run, to walk, to lift his arms. Eventually, they said, he would lose the ability to hug them at all.

Connor needs complex care from multiple specialists, costing an estimated $54,000 a year. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, he cannot be denied coverage and has the coverage he needs to receive care. His family also wrote that any elimination of lifetime caps or elimination of essential health benefits will hinder his family's ability to access the care that Conner needs.

This is Conner in a picture that has been provided by his family.

The ACA removed barriers to Conner's care, and they are concerned-- and so am I--that this reckless, reprehensible bill will put them back to the place that they were when they first learned about Conner's diagnosis.

Should Conner's disease progress, he will very likely need access to Medicaid in order to offset the costs of living with a disability, but for his family, the question now is, Will Medicaid even be there? If that devastating day comes, will he continue to receive the care he needs?

Conner's family is not about to give up. They have come to my office annually since he was diagnosed in order to fight for a cure and to fight for the Affordable Care Act--sometimes with tears in their eyes. They raise awareness, and they fight for their little boy. I know they would do it a million times over again if it meant that Conner could get better and live a long and healthy life.

Conner and others like him are why I am here. Conner and others like him are why I will continue this fight against any attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a shameful, disgraceful bill that has been written behind closed doors--destroying lives and degrading the quality of life for millions of Americans.

The people whom I have met in Connecticut who came to this hearing-- and countless others who have talked to me about the Affordable Care Act--are fighting for their lives and their health and for others who need it as well.

Those people whom I met in Connecticut and the others who will come to our hearing on Friday and, perhaps, afterward are the reason I am fighting for better coverage for all of the people of Connecticut and our country.

Those people are the best of our country with their fighting spirit and dedication to the people they love, and they deserve to be heard. They are the voices and faces of the Affordable Care Act who have been turned away at the door of this Capitol. I refuse to allow them to be silenced.

As I have mentioned, we will be back at it again on Friday because hearing from our constituents is part of our job. It is the bedrock of democracy. It is the fundamental core of what we do--listening to the people whom we represent. Failing to do so is unconscionable just as destroying the Affordable Care Act would be unconscionable, just as denying Conner what he needs would be unconscionable, just as ignoring Justice and Sean and Frank would be unconscionable. I hope my colleagues will listen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed by the secrecy that has been employed by my colleagues in their reckless attempts to gut the Affordable Care Act. It is clear to me that, in the absence of hearings,

of public debate, and of any bill text at all, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will go to any length to suppress the undeniable successes associated with the Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately, that now includes blocking a noncontroversial resolution to promote and bring awareness to National Minority Health Month simply because the text contains facts about the Affordable Care Act. They have decided that concealing the reality of what the Affordable Care Act has brought to minority communities is more important than promoting minority health.

I am proud to help lead this resolution with Senator Cardin and my colleagues here this afternoon because raising awareness and finding ways to promote minority health is critically important to the future of our Nation and should be a shared priority amongst my colleagues. As of last year, over half of nonelderly Americans who lacked insurance were people of color and minorities face increased barriers when trying to access the care that is available to them.

In the past, our Republican colleagues worked with us on this resolution, which is why it has seen bipartisan and unanimous support. Now, however, like the secret healthcare bill they are drafting behind closed doors, they have turned an important and commonsense resolution into a political football, refusing to pass it unless it is stripped of any and all facts that don't fit their false narrative on the Affordable Care Act. The fact of the matter is that the Affordable Care Act has worked for minority communities. The Affordable Care Act has reduced the uninsured rate for minority communities by at least 35 percent.

It has led to a 7 percent drop in the uninsured rate amongst African Americans and has cut the uninsured rate for Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders in half. It has provided new protections for American Indians and Native Alaskans while cutting the uninsured rate amongst those communities by nearly 10 percent. The facts show that minorities have seen some of the largest gains in health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act and, despite the work we still have before us, have more access to affordable coverage than ever before.

Still, many in minority communities struggle to obtain coverage and receive quality care, despite chronic diseases disproportionately impacting many minority groups. That is why the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which was created to address and prevent chronic disease under the ACA, is so critical to minority health. That is also why these same communities will yet again feel the brunt of these callous and misguided cuts should the prevention fund be eliminated along with the ACA.

African Americans are twice as likely to die from diabetes as White Americans. Thankfully, the prevention fund has invested $291 million in diabetes prevention. Latino women are 44 percent more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than White women. Therefore, the prevention fund has invested $218 million in breast and cervical cancer prevention. Overall, the prevention fund has invested $227 million to the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health Program.

But eliminating the prevention fund wouldn't just negatively impact minority communities. In Connecticut, the Fund has invested over $27 million in our communities since 2010, improving the lives and well- being of people there every day.

This strong investment has provided more Connecticut women with screenings for cancer. It has given our State health department the ability to better prevent diabetes, heart disease, and stroke and fight obesity through improved physical activity. It has allowed Connecticut to address school health more successfully, enriching our children's lives and inspiring a new generation of more healthy and happy citizens. It has provided the Connecticut Immunization Program with nearly half of its funding, with the program stating they ``don't know how we could continue to exist without this funding.''

Should the Affordable Care Act be repealed and the Prevention Fund eliminated, with TrumpCare cruelly and inadequately thrust upon our Nation in its place, the consequences would be devastating, not only for minority communities, but for the country as a whole. Bottom line: the Affordable Care Act has improved access to quality and affordable healthcare for all Americans and particularly for those that need it the most.

I sincerely hope that my Republican colleagues stop denying, ignoring, and concealing that the Affordable Care Act--and the minority communities that benefited from it--has helped our Nation's health. I stand ready to build upon the great strides made in improving minority health since the Affordable Care Act, and I hope my colleagues are ready to do the same. Thank you.

Mr. President, I am proud and honored to follow my colleague from Oregon who has been such a steadfast leader when it comes to our Nation's healthcare and insurance and particularly when it comes to women's healthcare. I have been really proud to stand side by side with him, Senator Murray, and other colleagues who have been here today.

I must say, sometimes on the floor of the Senate, at this hour of the day or night, we can feel alone, as though no one is listening, but I know millions of Americans are listening because of the voices like my colleague Senator Wyden. I would join him in urging our fellow Americans to make their voices heard, to be loud, and we are going to be loud in Connecticut this Friday, at 1:30 in the afternoon, when I continue the emergency field hearing we began on Monday, giving the people of Connecticut an opportunity to make their voices and their faces known, seen, and heard because, unfortunately, that opportunity has been denied by a process that has been secretive and hasty. Secrecy and speed are a toxic recipe for any democracy. They can disguise deception and mistakes.

I am here to call attention to one of the profoundly mistaken courses that this new bill is expected to take. There is no doubt in my mind that the Republican bill will contain language to defund one of the most respected and accessible and significant of our healthcare providers in the United States; namely, Planned Parenthood.

I have been an advocate of women's healthcare and reproductive rights and choice since my days as a law clerk for Justice Blackmun in the 1970s. Our Nation has made progress--halting and sometimes it steps back--but Planned Parenthood has helped to improve, enduringly and profoundly, women's healthcare.

In my home State of Connecticut, Planned Parenthood has 17 sites and services for more than 60,000 women and men, and they have been covered by the Medicaid Program. That coverage will be decimated under the measure we expect to see. Defunding these clinics could do irreparable damage to the communities that Planned Parenthood clinics serve.

As a nurse practitioner at Planned Parenthood in Southern Connecticut told me, patients trust the services they receive at Planned Parenthood because they rely on them, and they know Planned Parenthood clinics have

one interest and only one interest in mind, which is the well-being of their patients and clients. Planned Parenthood has, therefore, expanded into primary care. Not only does Amina provide family planning services and STI and cancer screenings, she now screens for and treats patients for chronic medical conditions that disproportionately impact low- income patients, such as depression, diabetes, asthma, and hypertension.

In her clinic, my friend who is a nurse practitioner there, Amina, has seen her primary care practice grow from 8 patients initially to 112 a few months later. Her clinic offers these services, in addition to the contraceptive services that are so important to many patients. Patients who will simply go unseen and uncared for have this care at Planned Parenthood, but they will not have it if Planned Parenthood is defunded.

In Connecticut, other kinds of healthcare providers, like health centers and hospitals, would need to increase their capacity to provide contraceptive care, and they would have to increase it by 228 percent to overcome the care deficit left by defunding Planned Parenthood. With these craven attempts to immediately and completely defund Planned Parenthood as a part of TrumpCare--really TrumpCare 2.0--it will be even more challenging for so many women to get the healthcare they need and deserve.

Defunding of Planned Parenthood also jeopardizes gains our Nation made for women of color and patients who are served in areas where there are few, if any, other options.

Planned Parenthood centers and clinics are nothing short of a lifeline for quality healthcare in the underserved communities. The fact is, the Affordable Care Act has worked for women and particularly women of color. Planned Parenthood and other women's healthcare providers are an integral part of that success story, but it isn't only women of color, it isn't only women in underserved communities, and it isn't only women. It is families who have benefited--men, women, and children--because the quality of healthcare and preventive healthcare, particularly, has been raised immeasurably.

To decimate that network of care would be profoundly destructive to our Nation. I hope my colleagues will think again before they side with the forces of degrading and demeaning women who seek those protections. We need a national effort and appreciation to make sure our conscience prevails because the repeal of these provisions would mean they are gone, and all women--including healthy women--will see insurance costs rise. It is absolutely clear to me that the Affordable Care Act repeal would be cruel. It would be mean and most particularly to the women who depend on Planned Parenthood for so many of the services that help them and their families.

I hope my Republican colleagues will cease to ignore and deny these benefits. We stand ready to work with them to improve the Affordable Care Act, not to repeal it, not to decimate or destroy it, to improve it, to mend its defects, to preserve Planned Parenthood, to make sure the women of America and their families have the healthcare they need and deserve.

Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues tonight because this Nation stands at a precipice--on the verge of a tragic mistake, about to embark on a travesty that mocks the democratic process. Truly, the combination of secrecy and speed are a toxic recipe in our democracy. Secrecy and speed will bring us recklessly over the edge of that precipice to tragic mistakes that belie and betray the people of America and the values that we all share in this Chamber, because they are basic to the American way of life.

Healthcare is a right, and it should be recognized as a right. The goal of extensive and comprehensive insurance coverage has to be, ultimately, a goal that we share in common, but, right now, we are speeding secretly toward a betrayal of American values and even of our constitutional duties. I am deeply disappointed that the secrecy employed by my colleagues has brought us, recklessly and reprehensibly, to the verge of gutting the Affordable Care Act.

The absence of hearings before the committee, the absence of public debate, the absence of any text of a bill that can be debated and offered for public comment leaves us without the democratic bedrock principle of listening to the people of America and listening to the people who are most affected, who know the most--the experts and the patients. In fact, it is the patients who deserve to be heard here perhaps most of all. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seemingly will go to any length to suppress the cruelty that lies in their alleged healthcare bill. President Trump has called it mean, and that is an understatement. It is cruel beyond words and costly in lives and in dollars and cents because it will deepen and worsen healthcare issues that can be prevented and made curable or more palatable.

Let's be clear. This secrecy--a small group of men making decisions about our entire healthcare system, with no input from women, from Medicaid beneficiaries, from people with substance use disorders, from patients struggling with mental health illness, or struggling with any disease at all--is irresponsible and deadly and truly cruel and costly to our democracy.

The way these discussions have been done are a stain on this body and a slap in the face to every American who relies on us to make decisions that are in the best interests of their family as well as themselves. My colleagues seemingly would prefer to ram and rush a deeply flawed and unpopular bill through this body, ignoring the needs and will of the people they represent. That is a sad day in this Chamber.

We need public hearings, not for their own sake, not for our sake but for the individual recovering from substance use disorder thanks to Medicaid; for the mother of a little girl with a preexisting condition, terrified of how she will pay for her care and able to do so now because of the Affordable Care Act; for the woman who is at a Planned Parenthood clinic today receiving a mammogram and other cancer screenings and other preventive healthcare testing, as well as men, because of the coverage provided to them by Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. Defunding Planned Parenthood, risking, again, preexisting conditions, eliminating the guarantee of essential health benefits, such as maternity care, is a war on women's healthcare and a disservice to our democracy done in secrecy.

My colleagues across the aisle may succeed in gutting our Nation's healthcare system, but the people who pay the highest price will be ordinary Americans, working men and women and their families who now have healthcare coverage to prevent more serious illness and who will now go without it.

Secrecy is the reason I convened an emergency field hearing on healthcare today in Connecticut, on very short notice--literally 24, 48 hours--and people came from across Connecticut at 9 a.m. on a Monday morning. My staff did yeoman's work putting together the logistics. The outpouring of anxiety and anger was remarkable, as was the eloquence and power of the insights offered by people about their own situations as well as about others whose interests they advocate. Many decided to stay and stand, even though the room afforded inadequate numbers of seats for everyone. It was standing room only, and they literally streamed out the door. The stories they told are worth hearing, and we have an obligation to listen to these Americans.

I told them I would personally bring their voices and their faces to this Chamber, to the floor of the U.S. Senate. In the coming days, that is exactly what I will do because people need to hear the story of a beautiful young woman who now is incapacitated because she suffered from an overdose after seeking treatment, and the effect on others similarly seeking treatment will be so dire and damaging if coverage for addiction treatment and abuse treatment is eliminated.

They need to hear the story of Sean, who similarly sought to overcome a substance abuse problem. They need to hear about individuals who would suffer from preexisting conditions. Those stories are what I will be recounting in the coming days, as I share word for word their fears, their anxiety and apprehension, and their worry for America about what will happen if the Affordable Care Act is repealed and gutted.

We must build on that act. We must improve its defects and make sure it is worthy of the great goals we share but not destroy it or decimate it, and building on it, acting constructively, coming together is what we owe the American people.

The folks who came today to the State capitol in Hartford at my emergency healthcare hearing recognized that if they fail to stand up for Planned Parenthood or mental health or those people with preexisting conditions or Medicaid or their loved one who is battling a dreadful disease, no one will.

I am so proud of them and the people of Connecticut who have spoken up and stood up for the Affordable Care Act, and I am proud to bring their voices to the U.S. Senate--literally bring their voices here, as I will do over the coming days, as I read into the Record and put in the Record their testimony. I will hold a second hearing, probably later this week, because we couldn't hear from everyone who came to speak out and stand up.

I hope my Republican colleagues will stop their denial, cease ignoring and disregarding those voices, and come to listen to them instead and recognize they cannot conceal the fact that the Affordable Care Act has helped our Nation's health.

Gutting it without any hearings or public debate is unconscionable and reprehensible. It is a move they will regret. I stand ready to build on the great strides made by the Affordable Care Act, and I hope my colleagues are ready to do the same.

If this Chamber proceeds down this reckless and reprehensible path of secrecy and speed toward repeal and gutting the Affordable Care Act, I promise to do everything in my power and use every tool at our disposal to stop this process. We cannot go about normal business in the U.S. Senate while so many back in our States demand that we fight, and we must fight.

I will stand with hundreds of thousands in Connecticut who will lose their insurance--more than 220,000. I

will stand with the people of Connecticut who will lose billions of dollars in investment in healthcare. I will stand with more than 20,000 people in Connecticut and 1 million around the country who will lose jobs. According to a study recently done by the Commonwealth Fund, job losses are inevitably the result, at some point in the future, of gutting this program. I will stand with the people of America and my colleagues who will resist--indeed, resist--this secrecy and speed that so disserves the values and betrays the ethos and traditions of this body.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about healthcare, but I wanted to be here on this occasion to join my distinguished colleague from Texas in supporting this measure because it is so vital to protecting children.

Like the distinguished Senator from Texas, I, too, was attorney general, and we in Connecticut have been at the forefront of fighting this internet and cyber threat to the welfare of our children.

So I want to express my thanks to him for working in a very bipartisan way. At a time when the public, many commentators, and media question whether we work together across the aisle, this bill is a very apt example of how we can and we must work together to protect our children, to advance our national interests, and to make sure that criminal justice is effectively enforced in this country.

I look forward to working with my colleague in making sure this measure becomes law.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, this body has a dual obligation--to ensure that there are sanctions against Iran for its destabilizing activity around the region and, indeed, the world but also sanctions against Russia for its interference with our election--one of the core democratic institutions of our Nation--as well as other acts that are hostile to the world order and to world peace.

I support S. 722, the Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act, but I strongly believe it should have Russian sanctions included as well.

As the Senate proceeds to this urgently needed measure, Iran's own Parliament has suffered an ISIS-claimed terrorist attack in Tehran. I condemn that act of terror--one of many the world has suffered because of ISIS. We are at war with ISIS as we are with terrorists--extremism-- around the world. It intentionally targets civilians. It uses violence to spread terror and destabilize the Middle East. ISIS has been a world terror organization.

The fact that Iran's leaders themselves direct and glorify terrorism against Israel and the United States does not diminish the horror of what has occurred. People of all faiths from an increasingly diverse number of nations have become victims of this terror spread by ISIS and Iran. What occurred today is, sadly, more evidence that Iran's unconditional support for Bashar al-Assad is directly counter to the interests of the Iranian people and our ongoing efforts to defeat ISIS.

We must hold Iran accountable. We must hold it accountable for its many malign activities through increasing and enforcing strong, targeted sanctions. I thank my colleagues, including Senator McCain, who just spoke so forcefully on the floor, Senator Menendez, Senator Corker, Senator Cardin, as well as other colleagues who have worked on this cause. We must hold Iran accountable for the threat its acts of terrorism pose to our national security. We must hold it accountable to the threat its missile program holds to our allies, including Israel-- our major strategic partner in that region. We must hold Iran accountable for the gross violations of human rights and war crimes that it and Russia together are perpetrating in Syria.

In the last few months, Iran has tested and fired ballistic missiles, tested a new Russian-made air defense system against missiles, and harassed U.S. ships. It continues to arm and enable the Hamas terrorist organization, the despotic Assad regime, and the supply of weapons to Hezbollah. It has enabled Hezbollah to amass 150,000 rockets and missiles--all aimed at civilians in Israel.

Last month, the State Department released a report on Iran's human rights violations. It continues to show a troubling trend of abuse and notes that Iran has more than 800 political prisoners and that it executed at least 469 people just last year.

We know that sanctions must be targeted and continually strengthened to deter Iran. This legislation will impose sanctions on Iran for its support of terrorism, human rights violations, and ballistic missile development. That includes sanctioning any person who knowingly violates arms embargoes or materially contributes to Iran's ballistic missile program. It also includes terrorism-related sanctions on members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliates-- going beyond members of the Quds Force, who are already sanctioned.

In no way does this sanctions program contradict or undermine the nuclear agreement with Iran. That agreement provided us and our allies the time and space to now push Iran to end its malign activities without the imminent threat of a nuclear weapon.

Congress must do everything it can to authorize new measures against Iran and ensure that this new administration effectively enforces them. We must also seize this opportunity to hold Russia accountable as well for its egregious, aggressive behavior and ongoing violations of international law.

Russia's cooperation with Iran, including providing Iran with an S- 300 air missile defense system that it recently tested, strengthens Iran as it fuels and finances a network of terrorism. Under Putin's direction, Russia both enabled and tried to cover up crimes in Syria. It invaded Ukraine. It illegally annexed Crimea. It attacked and interfered with our democracy.

Enough is enough. That is why I urge this body to adopt Russian sanctions as part of S. 722. Sadly and dangerously, our President has proven time and again to be unwilling to hold Vladimir Putin accountable. Congress must ensure that he does so. It must ensure that Russia receives a clear, unequivocal signal through this measure, Senator Cardin's Counteracting Russian Hostilities Act, and Senator Graham's Russia Sanctions Review Act, as an amendment to be adopted by this body to the Iran legislation, which I helped author. These measures are critical to sending a message that we will hold Russia accountable for its lawbreaking, its support of terrorism, its interference in our elections, its annexation of Crimea, its invasion of Ukraine, and its violation of the INF Treaty. I can accept nothing short of including these Russia bills to move forward to a final vote. I will support S. 722, but I believe there is a track and a path for this body to do both, and we must do it.

The imposition of mandatory sanctions codifying former President Obama's Executive orders regarding Ukraine and malicious cyber activity, as well as targeting individuals and entities contributing to Russia's oil and gas industries, should be part of this final passage. We cannot afford to wait any longer to take action.

I am disappointed that the President has seemed disinterested or at least unwilling to join in these sanctions against Russia. Unfortunately, the testimony that former Director Jim Comey will deliver tomorrow provides evidence as to possible motive and intent in his discussions with Comey that reflect on his apparent willingness to tolerate this aggressive conduct by Russia without holding it accountable.

This testimony from Director Comey is an explosive corroboration of the facts that have been reported--that the President asked for loyalty, threatening Jim Comey's job, and tried to influence the FBI's ongoing criminal investigation on multiple occasions. This conduct shows unequivocally the disdain the President has for the rule of law and clearly demonstrates that he believes he and his friends and family are above the law. I am saddened and I am chilled that this harrowing account will be given to the Senate Intelligence Committee rather than, in fact, in a fictional spy novel.

Director Comey deserves credit for his willingness to come before the committee, for his apparent candor and truthfulness, and for his resistance to those demands for a pledge of loyalty and an end to the Flynn investigation, even when it meant his firing.

His testimony should serve as evidence in the investigation led by Robert Mueller but also as evidence that Mr. Mueller must have unimpeded space, resources, and independence to conduct his investigation. I will take action as a member of the Judiciary Committee to seek oversight simply to ensure that those resources are independent and are safeguarded. With this documented proof, clearly the White House has sought to derail our law enforcement officials in their enforcing of the law. We must ensure an end to such conduct, and we must send Russia a signal that, in fact, it will be held accountable; that the investigation into its meddling in our election will be pursued vigorously and aggressively; that anyone in this country who colluded with or aided and abetted that meddling will be held accountable; and that there will be no obstruction of justice. This goal should unite us across the aisle on a bipartisan basis.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from New York in expressing the special respect and passion that we all feel in honoring this great holiday that remembers the service and sacrifice of great Americans, to make sure we sustain and preserve and enhance our democracy. Part of that democracy is indeed the rule of law, as well as protecting the institutions that make us great as a Nation, including our elections system and its integrity.

Today should also be a time to observe and commemorate the continued respect for the law that makes us great. Part of that respect was demonstrated recently when the Deputy Attorney General appointed a special counsel to investigate possible coordination between the Trump administration and the Presidential campaign with the Russians as they interfered with those democratic institutions. Make no mistake, there is consensus and unanimity in the intelligence community, and more broadly among us in this body, that the Russians purposefully and relentlessly interfered in the 2016 election through a cyber attack on this Nation. In my view, it was an act of cyber warfare.

The questions now are who and how in the Trump team may have colluded with the Russians in that illegal, outrageous activity and, indeed, whether there has been obstruction of justice since then. Mounting evidence indicates that there has been.

I have joined many of my colleagues in praising the appointment of a special prosecutor because it is vitally necessary for a fair and impartial, as well as aggressive, investigation. The special prosecutor must follow the evidence wherever it leads, and I have confidence that Bob Mueller is the right person for this assignment. He has the grit and backbone to stand up to pressure. He has the prosecutorial experience and expertise to conduct a truly professional investigation.

I called for a special prosecutor back in February. I was one of the first, if not the first, among our colleagues to do so because the conflicts of interest raised by the recusal of the Attorney General and the potential involvement of the Deputy led me to think that such an appointment was absolutely necessary.

I now call on the President to support this investigation. With the utmost respect for the Office of the President, it should be unnecessary to call for that cooperation and support. My hope was that the President would say as soon as the appointment occurred that he would indeed cooperate. But, instead, he has continued to characterize this investigation as a witch hunt and a charade. He has demeaned and disrespected it and indicated that, if anything, there will be less than full cooperation. That would be a grave disservice to our democracy and to the American people.

The integrity of our electoral system is bigger and more important than any single electoral contest or even any occupant of the White House. It is about the freedom and independence of this Nation, something we cherish and celebrate on this Memorial Day weekend.

I urge President Trump to demonstrate his adherence to the rule of

law by cooperating and articulating fully his cooperation with this investigation. I hope that not only President Trump but all of his associates will do so and that they will provide whatever testimony and documents are necessary to complete this investigation as quickly and effectively as possible.

I also believe that the Attorney General of the United States owes the American people his adherence to the rule of law by committing himself to follow the guidelines that respect the press. Indeed, we would know very little, if anything, about many of the events that prompted the appointment of a special prosecutor without the free press reporting development after event after development that have led to this day.

There are guidelines and regulations that protect the President against any kind of compulsory process or punishment. If there is punishment to be accorded to lawbreakers, the press should be recognized for the special role they have in our democracy and the special protections, the constitutional guarantee they enjoy under the First Amendment. There are guidelines under 28 CFR 50.10 that provide legal guidance and regulations that should be observed, and I hope that the Attorney General will demonstrate in deed and word his adherence to those guidelines rather than threatening to lock up reporters--as the President has unfortunately done currently in conversations with Director Comey--or punishing them.

Whatever the violations of government officials may be, there should be an articulate, clear, and explicit adherence to those regulations by the Attorney General.

Let's take a moment to go through where we are right now.

Last July, after a disturbing series of reports suggesting the attempt by a foreign power to influence an American election, the Federal Government began to investigate the Russian Government's interference in the Presidential election.

We learned just yesterday from a published report that this activity included conversations among Russian officials regarding how best to sway individual Trump officials and that the FBI's early handling of this matter may have been influenced by an unreliable document traceable to Russian intelligence--a form of interference in our justice system that is stunning.

In December of 2016, U.S. intelligence officials concluded that the Russians had orchestrated the theft of electronic materials from the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta in an attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign. The Obama administration responded by implementing sanctions on the Russian Government.

Shortly after President Trump took office, Attorney General Sally Yates warned the White House that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had lied to officials about discussing sanctions with the Russians and was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. The White House waited 2\1/2\ weeks to take action and did so only after a March 9 Washington Post report and, in fact, days after Sally Yates' warning, fired her.

We also know that Director Comey was warned or asked--in fact, demanded by President Trump that he pledge his loyalty and that he would be in jeopardy of losing his job if he did not. Shortly thereafter, the President clearly expressed to Director Comey his sense of that warning when he asked Director Comey to shut down, in effect, the Flynn investigation. As we all know, Director Comey resisted both of the President's requests.

In early March, following sharp criticism about his failure to disclose meetings with Russian officials under oath, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Department of Justice investigations.

Later that month, President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, became the third high-ranking Trump administration official caught misrepresenting potentially his ties to an admitted meeting with Russian officials from his security clearance application.

On May 9, President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, a stunning event amidst these unprecedented revelations. After clumsy and contradicting explanations seeking to advance a false narrative that the firing was a result of Director Comey's handling of the Hillary Clinton email matter, the White House essentially abandoned that conflicting series of stories, and President Trump admitted publicly that he was thinking about the FBI's Russia investigation when he decided to fire Comey. He boasted the next day in his meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister that he felt greatly relieved of pressure resulting from that investigation.

The New York Times has reported that Comey was seeking increased funding and resources to expand the Russia probe. The Times also subsequently revealed that Director Comey had discussed with others and wrote memos detailing how President Trump asked him to pledge his loyalty and shut down the Federal investigation into Mr. Flynn.

We must wait for all the facts to emerge, but even if only some of these reports are accurate, the conclusion is almost inescapable that the President of the United States fired the FBI Director in an attempt to shut down the investigation into ties between his associates, including Michael Flynn, and the Russian Government. The names of these associates have been well documented--Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Carter Page, as well as Michael Flynn.

There is, unfortunately, more. Just in the past few days, additional disturbing facts and press reports have surfaced, including testimony by former CIA Director John Brennan before the House Intelligence Committee. He said that before he left office, he became deeply concerned that Russian intelligence services were attempting to manipulate Trump associates to influence the Presidential campaign. He noted that many Russian contacts of individuals linked to the Trump campaign emerged in those reports. The Washington Post reported that Comey had informed Congress about the FBI Russia investigation late in March and that Trump had asked Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Director Michael Rogers to push back on that investigation--in effect, to clear the President--and deny Trump campaign collusion with the Russians. According to this report, both officials, to their credit, refused to do so.

In the Armed Services Committee, I asked Director Coats whether he discussed with Director Rogers any attempts by the administration to interfere with the investigation. He refused to answer--a pause and silence that spoke volumes.

Revelation after revelation shakes our confidence in this administration's truthfulness and confidence. This investigation by the special prosecutor is vitally necessary.

We must not lose sight of the damage that has already been done. These reports paint a deeply disturbing picture of possible obstruction, a mosaic pieced together by facts that show not only events and conversations but also motives. After a series of these events and conversations, they can no longer be seen as isolated or accidental or inadvertent. The cumulative effect, like threads in a fabric, is to establish a picture of motive, intent, mens rea, and criminal activity.

Special Counsel Mueller must have the mandate and all of the funding and resources that he needs to follow the facts wherever they may lead--resources, independence--but also support.

That is why, again, I call on the administration to express its support and its intention to cooperate.

This kind of investigation can mean the difference between the upholding of our democratic institutions and placing them in jeopardy. Therefore, I urge that we as a body remain vigilant and continue the Judiciary Committee's oversight, inquiry, and investigative activity so as to assure that we know the reasons then-FBI Director Comey was fired--we have that responsibility as a matter of oversight--and continue that kind of scrutiny in order to assure the independence and resources the special prosecutor needs. Likewise, the Intelligence Committee's activities are absolutely necessary.

Almost certainly, the special prosecutor will produce no report or elaborate public explanation. He will bring criminal charges if they are warranted by the evidence. He will seek convictions in court if those prosecutions are

justified under his finding. A report with recommendations and finding as to how we can avoid this kind of interference with our democratic institutions in the future must be the work of the Intelligence Committee and of an independent commission, which I have supported. An independent, bipartisan commission can do the kind of public, transparent, vigorous, and independent work that is necessary, just in the way that we have done in the wake of other crises.

I urge that we proceed on all of these fronts. They are vital to our democracy. They are an essential, inextricable part of freedom, the rule of law, and freedom of the press.

I hope that the press will continue its unfettered use of its First Amendment freedom to give us the truth and to continue those reports that have brought us to this day, because the truth will be uncovered in the course of the criminal process. It will be uncovered by the Intelligence Committee and, hopefully, by an independent commission. The essential role of the free press in fostering government accountability is recognized by existing regulations, and the Attorney General of the United States should leave no confusion that the Department of Justice will adhere to those regulations.

Indeed, 28 CFR 50.10 recognizes the ``essential role of the free press in fostering government accountability'' and, therefore, sets parameters and procedures, for approval by the Attorney General of the United States, under standards that are set forth for any government action that may, in any way, inhibit or impede the press.

We will probably never know the real impact of Russia's intervention in the outcome of the 2016 election. These investigations are not about assessing the impact. They are about determining who participated criminally with the Russians in that interference. The American people deserve a thorough and impartial investigation into the Trump team's ties to that interference and the effort by President Trump and others to cover it up.

In the wake of Watergate, the saying arose that the coverup was worse than the crime. It was then, and it would be worse--or at least as heinous--in the crime here. Make no mistake that the crime is, actually, a theft of our democracy--an interference by the Russians in our democratic institutions--which they will repeat if we do not make them pay a price and, likewise, if we do not make the Americans who cooperated with them pay a price as well. This principle is central to our democracy and our rule of law.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for the cooperation of the Trump administration as well as for recognizing the importance of the investigation--its independence, its resources--for the free press and the rule of law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate has under consideration the nomination of Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General of the United States, one of the very top positions in the Department of Justice and in law enforcement. It is a position of consummate trust and responsibility, requiring full public confidence. I will oppose this nomination, and I will oppose all nominations for the Department of Justice until public trust and confidence in the rule of law is restored and sustained by appointment of an independent special prosecutor to investigate Russian interference in our last election and potential links to the Trump campaign and Trump associates.

I opposed Rod Rosenstein's nomination. In fact, I was the only member of the Judiciary Committee to vote against it and one of six on the floor to oppose it for exactly the same reason. I stated to him publicly and privately that the only way to preserve his own reputation--well established over many years--and the trust and confidence in the Department of Justice was to appoint an independent prosecutor. So far, regrettably, he has failed to do so.

That question will be the first of my priorities when the full Senate meets with him tomorrow. We will demand to

know from him what the timeline was for the firing of Director Comey, who said what to whom, why his memorandum was written, and whether he will now commit, after these most recent startling revelations just yesterday that the President of the United States suggested--indeed, explicitly demanded--that Director Comey stop his investigation involving potential ties of Michael Flynn to Russian interference in our election.

Chilling facts raised in the last several days now raise serious questions about obstruction of justice by the President of the United States. So we consider this nomination at a truly unusual, very likely unique and unprecedented time in our country.

The revelation last evening that President Trump asked the FBI Director to shut down the Federal investigation into his then-National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, is evidence of severe political interference and possibly criminal wrongdoing in an ongoing criminal investigation. The evidence of obstruction continues to mount. We are witnessing an obstruction of justice case unfolding before our eyes in real time. Revelation after revelation continues to shake this country's confidence in our government and in this administration's competence. The need for an independent special prosecutor has never been so clear and convincing and so unquestionably necessary.

I call on my Republican colleagues now to rise to this challenge, to shine in the light of history, and to commit that an independent special prosecutor will be appointed to uncover the truth and hold accountable anyone who has committed wrongdoing.

Because so far we have no such special prosecutor, I will oppose this nomination. But I also have disagreements with Rachel Brand. I respect her record of public service. I believe she is simply not the right person to serve as Associate Attorney General because of her longstanding, apparently deeply held philosophy on the use and proper application of government power. When the Federal Government engaged in actions that threaten the privacy rights of innocent Americans, Ms. Brand has advocated nonaction. I believe the United States must protect the privacy of her citizens, and that fact is only one among many that cause me to disagree with her.

The failure to nominate and appoint an independent special prosecutor will lead me to oppose all of the nominations that are set forth by this administration, including anyone nominated for the FBI. I think it should now be clear, if it was not before, that such an independent prosecutor is necessary.

Parallels have been drawn by Members on both sides of the aisle to the Watergate scandal. To this day, we don't know whether President Nixon ordered the Watergate break-ins or simply was a beneficiary of the crime, just as we don't know now whether Donald Trump colluded with Russian interference in the 2016 election or simply benefitted from Russia's criminal aggression. The Watergate scandal gave rise to the saying that ``the cover-up is worse than the crime.'' In this instance, what we know is that the Russian interference was aimed at a wholesale theft of our democracy, far more serious than the Watergate break-in. What we do know about Nixon--and these facts became the basis for the first article of impeachment--is that he attempted to indirectly interfere with an FBI investigation into that break-in. Put very simply, while Nixon may not have directly threatened to fire the FBI Director if that Director continued to investigate Nixon associates, he made clear that his preference as head of the executive branch was that any such investigation should cease.

``History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.'' That is a saying that has profound truth here. We now have credible reports that President Trump attempted to do directly what President Nixon sought to do indirectly. He stopped a lawful, ongoing criminal investigation. Nixon ordered his staff to work through the CIA to pressure the FBI to drop the Watergate investigation. President Trump simply summoned Director Comey into the Oval Office, according to reports that certainly need to be verified, and ordered everyone else to leave the room, suggesting then that the Director drop his investigation. He did so just 2 weeks after having told Director Comey that he might not have a place in the Trump administration and making clear that Director Comey's loyalty to him might well determine whether Comey would keep his job. When Director Comey rejected Trump's suggestion, in effect, he was fired. That is the line of facts established by this mounting evidence. It is a serious charge.

We should be cautious. If Director Comey did not write that memo or if, for some reason, there is a question about the truth, perhaps the suspicions are unfounded, but there is credible and significant evidence. Director Comey has established--to both his critics and his friends--that he is a man of probity and dedication to public service and to this Nation.

We cannot feel confident about nominations for any of these positions--whether it be Director of the FBI or Associate Attorney General--from a President who has demonstrated such contempt for the rule of law and for law enforcement, which is the job of the Department of Justice. The White House's timeline and justifications for the decision to fire Director Comey certainly now, at this moment, fail to meet the test of credibility.

We know from the President's own words in interviews he conducted late last week that the FBI investigation into possible collusion between individuals in the Trump campaign and the Russian Government was on the President's mind when he decided to fire the FBI Director. In at least two conversations, the President asked the FBI Director about this investigation and the related investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Late last night the Times revealed the details of one such conversation. It occurred in the Oval Office the day after Flynn resigned. The account written by Director Comey, which seems to meet fully the test of credibility, is absolutely chilling. ``I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,'' Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo reported in The New York Times. ``He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.'' When the FBI Director continued to pursue the investigation, President Trump fired him.

We are witnessing this obstruction of justice in realtime, and these revelations are shaking our country's faith in the independence of our Nation's highest ranking law enforcement agency, our rule of law, and our national security. It is a theft of our democracy--literally, a threat to our national security--from Russian meddling in the election, potential Trump ties, and links to that interference in our democracy-- the core, foundational exercise of our democracy being voting--and then waiting for 2\1/2\ weeks when then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates warned that Michael Flynn was vulnerable to blackmail as National Security Adviser--blackmail from the Russians. She was fired only days later.

When the investigation into that Russian meddling and Trump's ties to it continued, Director Comey was summoned to be told that the investigation should be shut down, and he was fired when he refused to do so. Very likely, part of that decision related to the request for additional resources that Director Comey made to Rosenstein shortly before he was fired and his refusal to rule out the President as a target of that investigation when he came before the Judiciary Committee.

The facts will eventually form a mosaic, and that mosaic may dramatically show a picture of criminal conduct. That is the process of investigating and prosecuting criminal wrongdoing. Right now, that activity requires a fidelity to the rule of law in one's getting all of the evidence, including transcripts, tapes, memos, and other documents. They must be subpoenaed immediately so that they are not destroyed or concealed, so that they are preserved and produced. That must be done without delay, including there being testimony under oath, in public, from Comey, Attorney General Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Don McGahn, White House Counsel. They should be called to testify by the Judiciary Committee, under oath, and in public.

I hope that my colleagues will, indeed, rise to this challenge and shine in the light of history and commit now to

an independent special prosecutor who can ensure that the truth is uncovered and that accountability is imposed for any criminal wrongdoing so that we will prevent any obstruction of justice because the American people deserve it, they need it, and they demand it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague and friend Senator Schatz for his extraordinary leadership in this area that has brought us to the floor. I am proud to speak against the Federal Communications Commission Chairman's proposed order that is in fact slated for a vote at the open commission meeting tomorrow morning. That vote would undo the open internet order.

What is at stake here is, really, First Amendment rights to free speech. Those rights are threatened. Net neutrality has never been more important. Allowing broadband providers to block or discriminate against certain content providers is a danger to free speech and the freedom of our press. These principles are fundamental to our democracy. We should safeguard them by stopping this proposed repeal of the open internet order.

The internet's astonishing economic success is due to its being open and the access that it provides as an open platform. Anyone with a good idea can connect with consumers. Anyone who wants to reach across the globe to talk to others or to pitch and promote ideas and products encounters a level playing field, and that ought to be the reality.

On February 25, 2015, the FCC adopted the open internet order to preserve that open nature of the internet. The order, essentially, embodies three rules--no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization. Those principles are now at risk. In fact, they are in grave jeopardy. Those principles guarantee people, within the bounds of the law, access to different web content regardless of the political views expressed and regardless of the wealth of a site. They assure that the internet is open--that it is not a walled garden for wealthy companies. A lot is at stake here, and consumers and others should prevail because their interests are, ultimately, what is involved.

Ultimately, the Administrative Procedure Act requires, in my view, that Chairman Pai prove, through a fact-based docket, that something has significantly changed in the market since the open internet rule was established in February of 2015. Without that change in facts, the decimation of this rule cannot be justified. We cannot allow Chairman Pai to succeed in this plan to gut neutrality at the behest of moneyed internet service providers. Chairman Pai's proposal, if it succeeds tomorrow, will deprive the American people, startups, and businesses of important bright-line net neutrality rules. For that reason, I will fight it, and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there is a saying, an old adage, that history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

Over the past week, the dramatic firing of James Comey has recalled past events--history that involved one of the major scandals in our Nation's past--the Watergate scandal.

In Watergate, the saying originated--another very common saying--that the coverup is worse than the crime. The danger now in the United States--the greatest country in the history of the world, with the most effective and fair justice on our planet--is that, in fact, there may be a coverup, and that the truth will be stifled, and people who should be held accountable will not be. That is the danger.

In this instance, in comparison to Watergate, actually, the crime is extraordinarily serious. In Watergate, there was a two-bit break-in or burglary, and the coverup, in fact, involved obstruction of justice. What we have here is a deliberate, purposeful assault on our American democracy by the Russians through a cyber attack that involved, really, in effect, an act of war--a combination of cyber, propaganda, and misinformation spread deliberately; it involved hacking into both major parties and the spread of the results of that hacking for one of those parties--possibly influencing the outcome of the election.

The issue of whether and how the outcome of that election may have

been influenced will be discussed and contended through the annals of history. Regardless of your point of view on what the impact was, the fact is, the criminal action by the Russians interfering with our election must be investigated aggressively and impartially, and the Russians, and anyone who aided and abetted them, must be held accountable. That is what the American people want. They want the truth uncovered, and they want to hold accountable anyone who colluded with the Russians in this attack on our Nation, anyone who aided and abetted or assisted them, anyone who bears a responsibility and should be held criminally culpable.

The Watergate scandal was eventually successfully prosecuted. It took years to do so. The appointment of a special prosecutor was key to that effort. In fact, Elliott Richardson was not only requested, he was required to appoint a special prosecutor as a condition of his confirmation. He was specifically directed by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate, and he agreed to do so. Archibald Cox was appointed, and then President Nixon fired Elliott Richardson as well as his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, because they refused to dismiss Archibald Cox.

The principle here--the rhyming of history if not its repeating--is that sometimes investigations come so close to power and the truth about the power that there is an effort to stifle them.

Watergate involved a two-bit burglary. This crime involves the theft of our democracy by the Russians and by others who may have colluded with him. So a successful investigation here goes to the fundamental principle that our elections will be free and credible, that they will be honest, without foreign interference or meddling by anyone.

The firing of James Comey as FBI Director is reminiscent of what happened with the dismissal of two Attorneys General and then a special prosecutor because it raises the possibility that an investigation will be catastrophically compromised and undermined by the President of the United States.

Just last week, I asked James Comey whether the President of the United States might currently be a target of the criminal investigation. Director Comey would not and could not rule out that possibility because he cannot speak about targets freely and openly, but we know some of the individuals implicated are close associates of the Trump campaign, including Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort. Each had different roles; for example, Paul Manafort was a leader of the campaign.

We know that subpoenas have been issued from a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York for materials relating to Michael Flynn and to his associates. We know that then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates went to the White House and warned that he might be vulnerable to blackmail because he had lied to the Vice President.

We know also that very possibly he lied to the FBI. He deceptively omitted from materials or responses he gave in his security clearance information about payments to him from the Russians and the Turkish Government and that he may have committed other very serious violations of criminal law, punishable by years in prison. That investigation is ongoing now.

As I speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate, my hope is that agents of the FBI are doing their work, as they have done for decades, with integrity and determination and dedication. I know the work the FBI does, having worked with them as the U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. It is not only one of our premier law enforcement agencies, there is none finer in the world. I have confidence that they will continue this investigation successfully, meaning that they will achieve a just result, if there is the right leadership.

That is why I believe now there is no question that an independent special prosecutor must be appointed. There is no longer any doubt that an independent special prosecutor is necessary for the appearance and credibility, the appearance of integrity, and the credibility and objectivity of this investigation.

The different contradictory stories surrounding the firing of James Comey emphasizes this point. Initially, the decision was made by Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney General, but of course it involved also the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who never should have been involved because he was recused from the investigation. The reason given by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein involved the Hillary Clinton emails and statements made by Jim Comey 10 months ago--an explanation that defied belief, a pretense that was laughable and especially unfortunate--even tragic--from a career professional prosecutor like Rod Rosenstein.

Well, that explanation now has been supplanted; in fact, as recently as this morning, in an interview the President gave to Lester Holt of NBC, acknowledging that he made the decision because he had lost faith in Jim Comey. Never mind that he reaffirmed that faith shortly after his inaugural. Never mind that he praised Jim Comey on the campaign trail. His reasons for dismissing Jim Comey also defy belief.

This set of incidents shakes to the core the trust all of us should have in our justice system, in the integrity of our public officials, in the capability of that system to uncover the truth and hold accountable anyone who has violated the law.

President Trump has now fired not one but two high-ranking Justice officials after they told him about suspicions that he or his associates have broken the law; first, Sally Yates and now Director Comey.

Attorney General Sessions has shown through his role in the Comey firing that even after he has recused himself from an investigation, he will help the President punish Justice Department officials who are pushing that investigation forward.

Maybe most disappointing, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein--the man now responsible for the Trump-Russia investigation--has permitted himself to become a pawn in President Trump's game. His credibility and integrity may well have been irredeemably sacrificed. The only way for him to restore it now is to appoint a special prosecutor. That power is his alone. The rules and regulations of the Department of Justice not only permit it, in my view, the standards of ethics require it because he now is irrevocably conflicted.

President Trump, Attorney General Sessions, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein want Americans to believe Comey was fired because he publicly discussed his investigation into Hillary Clinton. That kind of statement betrays contempt for the intelligence of the American people because we remember President Trump applauding Director Comey's decision to discuss the Clinton investigation. He even used his letter firing Director Comey to publicly discuss the details of an FBI investigation, saying he has been told three times that he is not under investigation--albeit details I find very hard to believe.

He has called this investigation a charade. He has called the allegations of Russia meddling and Trump associates' collusion with it a hoax. He has belittled and demeaned not only the judges of our Federal bench, but, by implication, the hard-working men and women of the FBI who are doing an investigation which he says is ``a taxpayer- funded charade.'' That statement is a disservice to the FBI--a nonpolitical, nonpartisan law enforcement agency without superior in the world. They deserve and need a special prosecutor who can lead them in this moment of crisis.

Make no mistake, we face a looming constitutional crisis. The case of United States v. Nixon, which involved enforcement of subpoenas against the President, is no longer a matter of idle speculation; it is a real possibility.

What the FBI also needs now are resources to make sure this investigation is conducted fairly, impartially, objectively, and independently, with sufficient agents, staff, and other support. In fact, in my view, one of the precipitating factors in the firing of James Comey was his going to the Deputy Attorney General and asking for more resources. As a prosecutor, I know resources are the lifeblood of a successful investigation. An investigation deprived of resources cannot reach a just result; it will be strangled, stifled, and stopped. And that is clearly the purpose of some in this administration, perhaps because it is coming close to people whom they want to protect.

Congress can and must use every tool at our disposal to make sure the investigation of the Trump administration's and campaign's ties to Russia and the potential ongoing coverup of those ties is affirmed. The true and independent special prosecutor is the only one who can assure. Our Intelligence Committees can produce findings and recommendations. An independent commission, which I support, can hold hearings in public and also produce a report. But only a special prosecutor can bring criminal charges and hold accountable anyone and everyone who should bear a price.

On both sides of the aisle, we have said the Russians must pay a price or they will do again in 2018 what they did in 2016, but so should the people who aided and abetted and colluded with them. If they fail to pay a price, they will do it again, too, corrupting our system, undermining the rule of law, and imperiling our democracy.

If the President continues to object to an independent investigation or special prosecutor, people of good will on both sides of the aisle must stand up to him and demand one. I am encouraged by some of what my Republican colleagues have told me over the last 24 hours.

I believe we are at a rhyming moment when the integrity of our justice system and our democracy is at stake. People, regardless of their political affiliation, owe it to our democracy to come forward, to recognize the gravity of this moment, and to stand up and speak out. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do so.

We may disagree about a lot of things, but on this point, we should agree fundamentally. Part of our obligation is to call before us Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and, separately, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as well as former FBI Director Jim Comey, to hear from them their views of this tragic and terrifying episode in our history. This firing must be a subject for our investigation. We owe it to the American people.

I thank my colleagues in advance for proving that this investigation is no charade. It is no hoax. It is deadly serious, and the failure to appoint an independent prosecutor could be deadly to our democracy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here to talk about 55 million Americans who presently lack the authority to save for retirement directly from their paychecks. I am here to talk about preserving, protecting, strengthening retirement savings for all Americans, and I am here to talk about providing State and local governments with the tools they need to expand access to retirement savings accounts in order to reach that goal.

I am here to oppose H.J. Res. 66. This misguided proposal would tear down ongoing efforts at the State and local levels to help families achieve financial stability in retirement after years of hard work and sacrifice. These ongoing efforts at the State level should be encouraged, not deterred.

The numbers here tell a dramatic story. Many private sector employees have the option to set up and contribute to their own individual retirement accounts, often called IRAs. We know them well. But fewer than 10 percent of workers without access to a workplace plan contribute to a retirement savings account. This lack of retirement savings often leads to ruins--life-transforming disasters at ages when nobody deserves them, jeopardizing access to adequate meals, housing, healthcare, and other necessities for older Americans across the country.

In response to this catastrophic possibility for so many Americans, in August of 2016, the Department of Labor promulgated what has become known as the State-sponsored auto-IRA rule. This rule provides basic, critical guidance for States on how to administer programs designed to improve access to retirement accounts among private sector employees. These State-facilitated programs allow State governments to provide automatic enrollment in State-sponsored IRAs, with the opportunity, importantly, to opt out at any time.

The rule that has been promulgated by the Department of Labor, which was also expanded to include a limited number of larger cities and counties, made it clear that any auto-IRA program established by a State or municipal authority must limit the employer's role in the program. In addition, the rule clarifies any ambiguity regarding the application of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. It makes clear the conditions under which ERISA does not apply.

The misguided proposal before us today seeks to overturn all of this critical rulemaking, carefully devised and developed. If it is passed, the resolution will cripple efforts at the State level to ensure that retirement savings opportunities are more readily available for all workers.

I have always assumed that my colleagues across the aisle were in favor of State initiatives and State authority and State experiments and States addressing the issues of their citizens directly. These are basic States' rights--but not so much in this case.

H.J. Res. 66, in fact, will be particularly harmful in States like Connecticut, which has already begun to bridge the retirement savings gap for nearly 600,000 people who lack access to employer-based savings for retirement in our State. The Connecticut Retirement Security Authority has pioneered this effort. I am very proud to say, Connecticut is among several States that have made real progress toward expanding secure pathways to retirement savings for their private sector employees.

By leveraging State facilitation with private providers, these plans allow workers access to secure, low-cost retirement savings which, in turn, allow more workers to adequately prepare for retirement, improving life for those workers and also reducing the burden on taxpayer-funded services. In fact, encouraging increased retirement savings yields important savings for Federal and State budgets in the future, not just now.

Studies have shown that expanded retirement savings programs could potentially reduce Medicaid expenditures in Connecticut by over $65 million in the first 10 years after implementation. That $65 million in savings on Medicaid is for Connecticut alone. Think of the whole country. Think of the savings in Medicaid and other critical service programs that go to aid our seniors. They would much rather save for themselves.

I ask my Senate colleagues who believe we ought to be spending our time expanding, not limiting, access to secure retirement solutions to join me in opposing this legislation. There are many of our Republican colleagues who have long called for reduced government spending and in increased autonomy for State governments. They should be joining in opposing H.J. Res. 66.

There are many of our Republican colleagues who have long advocated giving people the freedom and the opportunity to plan for their own future. They ought to be joining in opposing H.J. Res. 66.

I ask all of us now to join me in voting no on H.J. Res. 66 because States ought to have the flexibility and the opportunity to implement proven strategies to support hard-working Americans who wish to prepare themselves for retirement. Give them that opportunity. Do not destroy it in H.J. Res. 66.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, one goal we share in this body, which is a very bipartisan goal, is keeping faith with our veterans, making sure no veteran is left behind.

I had the great honor to work as ranking member with Senator Isakson, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, on a bill called the Veterans First Act that unfortunately failed to cross the finish line during the last session. One of the major goals of that bill was to ensure accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs so employees of the VA who fail to do their job are held accountable. That goal of accountability is one of a number that must be pursued and will be sought during this session, including ending the backlog of appeals and providing better healthcare, ensuring skills training and job opportunities for our veterans.

Today the President signed an Executive order at the Department of Veterans Affairs to designate an individual responsible for accountability and whistleblower protection, a worthwhile first step. It is a commendable step toward accountability. But that individual and the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection must have real responsibility and power and must be insulated from any kind of political interference through establishment through statute. That office should be established by statutory authority. That is why I will be advocating and likely introducing legislation that involves supporting and training employees and listening to veterans about what they want from the VA through that Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection, to provide real accountability to the Congress by requiring reporting to Congress about what it finds and real whistleblower protection, so that anybody who complains about the VA's misdirected or misguided action is assured protection against any kind of revenge or retaliation, which is the essence of whistleblower protection, and a Senate-confirmed director so that the accountability function is, again, accountable to us. That kind of statutory embodiment is necessary to make sure that the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection has power and reporting requirements so that it is accountable to us as elected representatives and advocates for our veterans.

My hope is that the Senate and House will adopt that provision, one that was contained in the Veterans First bill that Senator Isakson and I championed during the last Senate and which I hope we will pursue again in a very bipartisan way.

I also hope that the Senate will take up and pass S. 12, the Increasing the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability to Veterans Act of 2017. My colleague, Senator Moran, a cosponsor with me, spoke about it earlier today. It would provide reduction of benefits for senior executives and certain healthcare employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs if they have been convicted of a felony in connection with their work. VA employees who commit serious crimes in connection with their employment should not be receiving pensions. That is one of the key provisions to activate a deterrent to misconduct and also to assure that misconduct is adequately punished.

Accountability for leaders who manage the Department of Veterans Affairs Employee Affairs would be another goal of this legislation, S. 12, so that the men and women who hire and fire are themselves evaluated when they do those jobs.

These kinds of details are important--as important as any new office with an individual whose unspecified powers may include them or not. Right now they do not, under the Executive order, specifically include such enumerated powers. That is our job, to make sure that this office of accountability is real in its responsibility, is clearly assigned in its functions, is held accountable for its performance and has real teeth, not just rhetoric.

I am hopeful that we will move ahead with this very, very important office to make sure that our veterans receive what they deserve--real accountability, a genuine assurance that the people who serve them will do their jobs, not just adequately but excellently. That is the goal that I believe we will share.

I welcome this Executive order. I believe we can and must do more to make sure that the VA keeps faith with our veterans and leaves no veterans behind.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on Monday morning I stood with workers and fellow public officials in Bridgeport, CT, to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the L'Ambiance Plaza disaster. Thirty years ago last Sunday, L'Ambiance Plaza collapsed, 28 families lost loved ones, and 22 others were seriously injured in the collapse. Their worlds collapsed as the lift-slab construction used as the device for building L'Ambiance Plaza, in effect, imploded.

The workers were constructing a 16-story apartment building when that disaster happened. The lift-slab construction method used at that site subsequently was banned. It was banned because it was unsafe.

That disaster was preventable, as so many workplace injuries and deaths are preventable. That was a tragedy in the modern American workplace 30 years ago--L'Ambiance Plaza. It is an urgent and great need for this Nation to confront. L'Ambiance Plaza collapsed, literally, within seconds, and when it was over, the 28 workers who woke up that day and left their homes never came back. Their families, who said good-bye, never saw them again alive. They were victims of workplace dangers that day, but so many others have followed them since.

Those families are still affected, still grieving. One of them spoke at that ceremony on Monday morning, and it provides for many of us the memories of that day when literally hundreds of workers from throughout Connecticut went to that site, digging, often by hand, through the wreckage, trying to find the living survivors. On that day, and every day since, I have sought to increase the safety of our workplaces and avoid those kinds of tragedies. That is why I am here today, because that pledge would be, in my view, inconsistent with voting for the nomination of Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor.

I will state at the outset that I commend Mr. Acosta for his record of public service during the Presidency of George W. Bush, serving as a National Labor Relations Board member and holding two positions at the Department of Justice, as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division and, later, as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. I want to thank him for his willingness to serve again. I say that in all seriousness, as a former U.S. attorney myself.

I believe that, as Secretary of Labor, he will have important responsibilities if he is confirmed in the area of enforcement, and I am constrained to oppose his nomination because I believe, No. 1, that this administration needs a champion, not simply a bystander, and Mr. Acosta has given me no reason at his hearings and in his record to assure me that he will overcome what I see as a bias against enforcement in this administration.

Last month President Trump proposed a budget that guts the Department of Labor. The budget admittedly is short on specifics and boasts little more than one page about the agency that is tasked with ensuring the safety of tens of millions of American workers. Let me make clear: It would slash resources at the Department of Labor by 21 percent. That is $2.5 billion. That means 21 percent fewer inspectors, 21 percent fewer investigators, 21 percent less enforcement. That is one-fifth less enforcement, when, in fact, five times more enforcement is appropriate. The budget, although short on details, singled out programs that helped to train workers and employers in ways to ensure avoidance of hazards on the job.

President Trump has proposed the elimination--the zeroing out--of that program. At his confirmation hearing last week, Mr. Acosta demonstrated neither a willingness nor an interest in challenging the budget or the President's priorities, stressing that his soon-to-be boss, President Trump, guides the ship. I find that view and perspective alarming. There is an old saying that budgets are ``moral documents.'' It is a saying frequently repeated, but it has a real meaning when it comes to enforcement of worker safety. It has a real meaning to real people in their lives or loss of lives. It is a matter of life or death. Where you put scarce dollars and resources reveals moral values and moral priorities.

President Trump has put his values on clear display in this budget. He believes in building a wall, a needless show project that he mentioned repeatedly in his budget, but he has given short shrift or no shrift to efforts that protect people who go every day to workplaces where they are in serious jeopardy, and where--as in L'Ambiance Plaza-- they can lose their lives. Voting for Mr. Acosta would mean failing to keep that pledge that I believe I made to the families of L'Ambiance, to the workers who lost their lives there, and to countless other workers in danger every day in workplaces that must be made safer--and can be--through vigorous enforcement of rules and laws that exist now and improvement of those laws.

One of the greatest challenges facing our Nation today is fairness in the workplace, particularly fairness in pay for women, fairness concerning pay disparity between men and women, with women making a fraction of what men make for the same work. On this critical issue also, this nominee is silent. On other issues critical to the modern workplace--overtime pay, minimum wage, protecting workers' retirement, fighting discrimination, matters that affect women and minorities more than others--he has said little or nothing, certainly little to indicate that he will be an enforcer of laws that protect minorities and women and others who may be the victims of discrimination.

There is no question that this nominee is far better than the President's first proposed person to fill this job, Andy Puzder, who rightly and fortunately withdrew, but the standard we should use is not whether he is better than his predecessor, who was found wanting even before the vote was taken, but rather whether they can be trusted to protect workers, to enforce rules vigorously and fairly, and to fight for a budget and a set of priorities that are critical to the future of American workers. On that score, unfortunately, I answer this question with a clear ``no,'' and I will vote against this nominee.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.