[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 82 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2906-S2912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Russia Investigation
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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
[[Page S2907]]
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.
[[Page S2908]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Healthcare Legislation
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, before us as the Senate right now, aside
from issues Mr. Blumenthal referred to, is the repeal and replacement
of the Affordable Care Act.
I am a physician, and I have been practicing in hospitals for the
uninsured for the last 25 years. I would like to in one sense say that
gives me special standing to speak about this issue, but in reality, it
does not.
Senator Moran from Kansas spoke up the other day at our lunch. He
said that healthcare is like no other issue. He spoke of a friend of
his approaching him at church with tears rolling down her face. Her
mother had a preexisting condition, and she was so concerned that we
get this right.
I don't need to say I have special standing, being a physician. We
all have special standing from living, having families and friends
who--sooner or later, healthcare will affect the family.
The Affordable Care Act for many is not working. Premiums are going
sky high.
Two or 3 days ago, I had communication with someone from San
Francisco. Her young family has a $20,000-a-year premium, a $6,000
deductible for each member of the family--in San Francisco, already
paying so much for housing, food, and transportation, and $20,000 on
top of that for a family of relatively modest income.
Then I spoke to someone in Washington, DC. His family's premium is
$24,000; they have a $13,000 deductible. He said: I am out $37,000
before my insurance kicks in. I reassured him that his colonoscopy
would be for free. I don't think he thought that funny.
Then a friend of mine who last year in Louisiana--his quote for a
policy for himself and his wife, 60 and 61, was $39,000 for 1 year--
$39,000 for 1 year--with a deductible.
Now we are being told there will be premium increases this coming
year. In Connecticut, they just announced they are going to be 15 to 35
percent higher. In my own State, I have been told they may approach 30
to 40 percent higher, although that is not definite.
The reality is that premiums have become unaffordable. President
Trump campaigned on this. There were four things he told the American
people. He said he wanted to cover all, care for those with preexisting
conditions, eliminate the Affordable Care Act mandates that people hate
so much, and lower premiums.
I would like to say I think it is part of President Trump's intuitive
genius. Whatever you say about the fellow, he certainly has an
intuition sometimes about how things work. Of course, the way you would
lower premiums is that you would cover all, and by covering all, you
expand the risk pool, which then lowers premiums for those with
preexisting conditions but keeps them lower for the rest of us.
Folks ask how you can do that without mandates, and I say you can do
it through the mechanism of the Cassidy-Collins plan, the Patient
Freedom Act, which is to say you have an auto-enrollment feature.
By the way, here is President Trump. He said it many times, but here
he is in the Washington Post on January 15, 2017, just before he takes
the oath of office:
``We're going to have insurance for everybody,'' Trump
said. ``There was a philosophy in some circles that if you
can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to
happen with us.''
You cannot have a stronger statement from a fellow who is about to
rise to be inaugurated and gives a speech in which he speaks
passionately about the forgotten man and the forgotten woman. President
Trump pledged to remember them.
The question is, How do you lower premiums? How do you fulfill
President Trump's goals?
There are several ways to lower premiums. I just described one, where
you fulfill the other parts of his contract with the voter, which is
you cover all, and by doing so, you increase the size of the risk pool,
and therefore you lower premiums. There is another mechanism. You can
put in price transparency and do other things to lower the cost of
medical care, which in turn lowers the cost of healthcare premiums. But
there is one way which is not so good. One way that you can lower cost
is to have a crummy policy that hardly covers anything. You think you
are getting a deal in the front end because premiums are low, and then
you or someone in your family gets sick, and it is not such a great
deal after all.
I was asked about this on a Sunday morning show and spontaneously
came up with something called the Kimmel test. Jimmy Kimmel, the late-
night comedian, spoke of his son being born. We can all imagine--this
happened 2 weeks ago--his child was born. I suspect somebody is
videoing it. It is going to be a moment of celebration. As the child
emerges and everybody wants to lean forward and hand the child to the
mother and the father to hold and cuddle, instead, the doctor and the
nurse notice that the child is blue--``blue'' meaning he is not getting
enough oxygen. It is quickly realized that something is profoundly
wrong. Instead of mother and father hugging and bonding with the child,
they are pushed to the side. They hear a code blue call, which means
this child will die if something is not done immediately.
I was not there, but I have been in similar situations.
They are being asked to sign forms which would allow this child--
their child whom they have not yet held--to be transported by
helicopter across Los Angeles to have emergency surgery that day and
being told that if they do not sign this form, that child will die.
Now, Jimmy Kimmel pointed out that he is a millionaire, he could
afford it, but he also pointed out: Others, not so much.
I think that brings us back to what President Trump said. President
Trump said:
``We're going to have insurance for everybody. There was a
philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you
don't get it. That's not going to happen with us.''
The Jimmy Kimmel test: We will protect those with preexisting
conditions, but we will do it by lowering premiums and not by giving
crummy coverage but, rather, by having adequate coverage. So if our
approach passes the Kimmel test, then we feel it is a way to go.
[[Page S2909]]
Now, how do we go from here?
We can recognize that premiums are too high for middle-class
families. They can no longer afford it, and that is before the premium
increases, which are about to occur.
I will also say that as to the way the Affordable Care Act was
passed--not blaming or praising anyone--that only one party was engaged
is not the path forward. History says that any time there is
significant social legislation that has an enduring effect in the
United States, both parties engage.
I want this to change. I would challenge my Democratic colleagues to
become engaged. Some have said: Oh, my gosh, Republicans are doing this
through reconciliation; isn't that terrible?
I would say it presents opportunity. We don't need 12 Democrats; we
don't need 8 Democrats. We could have three Democrats or four
Democrats. Anyone who cares enough about the people in their State and
their premiums, which are rising 20 to 40 percent a year, will put
aside all the pressure from a political base and say: The people of my
State are more important than the political pressure I may feel. They
will step forward to influence the final product.
We know that if folks come in from the other side of the aisle, we
will have a different product than if it is only among Republicans. If
Republicans had participated in the passage of the Affordable Care Act,
we would have had something perhaps a little different than the
Affordable Care Act.
I am not pointing fingers. I am just observing that it would only
take three or four Democrats to break ranks, to step across the aisle,
and to ask for what they would need. This is not: You come to us, and
you don't get it--no. We have a meeting of the minds so that we can
come to the policy that fulfills President Trump's pledge--his pledge
to cover all, caring for those with preexisting conditions, eliminating
mandates, and lowering premiums.
We have an incredible opportunity before us to bring relief to those
middle-class couples struggling with premiums that they can no longer
afford and deductibles that they will never meet. If they don't meet
and can't afford them and if they do not purchase the insurance, they
are being fined and are accumulating resentment toward Washington
because they are stuck with this. We can address that issue and at the
same time fulfill President Trump's pledge that all will have coverage.
Some said you can't get it if you can't pay, but that is not going to
be the case with us. It will provide them that coverage with something
that passes the Kimmel test. I look forward to working with our Senate
to come to this solution.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am proud to take the floor, and I am
especially proud to take the floor after my colleague from Louisiana,
whom I believe has offered a very good-faith proposal, both in the
specifics of the bill that he has introduced but also in his
encouragement that Democrats should participate together with
Republicans as the Senate takes up the House-passed American Health
Care Act. I do applaud my colleague, and I find much in his
presentation to support. I find some points of difference, which I will
get into, but much to support.
I am strongly opposed to the House-passed American Health Care Act,
TrumpCare. I found that one of the sets of reasons really crystalized
yesterday. The Democrats had a hearing, and we invited patients to come
from around the country to talk about their healthcare experiences.
There were six witnesses in the hearing. One was a Virginian, a man
named Michael Dunkley, from Alexandria. His story was a common one but
a tough one. He has been the caretaker for his wife, who has had
multiple sclerosis for many years and then got diagnosed with cancer.
He talked about trying to deal with being a full-time caregiver for a
wife with multiple sclerosis and dealing with cancer before the
Affordable Care Act and the unsustainable cost that it led to with his
family. But after the Affordable Care Act, he was able to afford
coverage for himself and his wife.
We heard from a mother from Indiana whose daughter was born with Down
syndrome and how the medical bills connected to her child's treatment
forced her, first, to stop working because she needed to be a full-time
caregiver. She described the pain of cuddling her newborn in her arms
and going to the mailbox and pulling out a $64,000 bill and knowing
that this is what the rest of my life is going to be like and the rest
of my child's life. Then she talked about how her family got relief
because of the Affordable Care Act.
We heard from a witness who has multiple sclerosis, a woman who is
now a substitute teacher. Because the State she lived in, Texas, didn't
expand Medicaid, she had to move to another State because she couldn't
afford health insurance to deal with a medical problem. So she chose to
move to a State that had done Medicaid expansion, Maryland.
We heard other stories as well. These were painful stories.
(Mr. CASSIDY assumed the Chair.)
I say to the Presiding Officer, I give you credit for modesty. You
are too modest. You do have an expertise in this. You do understand
this. You have heard these stories before, and I had heard some of
them, too, even without a medical expertise. What I found so
troubling--and during the testimony of this mother from Indiana about
her child with Down syndrome, I could feel tears rolling down my face--
was this. I had heard stories like this before, but what struck me was
that the House voted on this bill without caring about any of these
stories, without listening to any of these stories, without allowing a
process to address any of these stories. I blurted out: The folks who
voted for this bill in the House don't care about the challenges you
are facing. They don't care about this or they would have listened to
you.
I beg my Senate colleagues to treat this differently, to treat it
seriously, to take these stories seriously, and to work together. I
hope the Senate takes a different course on this.
Let me explain what I mean when I say the House Members who voted for
this didn't care about these people and the challenges they were
facing. When the House bill was taken up, there was a version of the
bill taken up before March 24, and there were three hearings held. At
those hearings--at two of the hearings--no patients were invited to
speak. Nobody representing patients was invited to speak.
One of the hearings had one witness from the American Cancer Society
and one witness who was a State insurance commissioner. Now, that bill
came to nothing on March 24, and the bill was rewritten.
It was the rewritten bill that was passed by the House. There were no
hearings on the rewritten bill. There were no hearings. There were no
opportunities for patients to talk about the bill and what it would
mean to them. There were no Democratic amendments that were accepted.
No patients or providers were given any opportunity to share their
concerns in a hearing or in formal discussion about the bill. No expert
witnesses were allowed to testify about the bill.
The House rushed to pass the bill without a CBO score--the
Congressional Budget Office--which would have said what would have been
the premium effect on people, how many people would have lost
insurance, and were folks with preexisting conditions going to be
covered or not. The House rushed to pass it before the score came
about.
When they passed it by the narrow margin of 217 to 213, they boarded
a bus and went to the White House and had a big celebration. It was the
kind of celebration that happens at the White House when they invite
the Super Bowl winning team or the NCAA football champions to come to
the White House. It was a celebration.
Imagine if you are the mom with a kid with Down syndrome and you are
getting a $64,000 bill in the mail and you are saying: This is what the
rest of my life is going to be like. And the House passes a bill
without listening to you, that by some estimates could take health
insurance away from 24 million people and could reimpose deep penalties
on folks if they have preexisting conditions. And you watch people
celebrating that--celebrating it like it is a sports victory?
This is what I found so very troubling during the hearing yesterday--
these
[[Page S2910]]
folks' stories, which are not the only stories to be told about the
Affordable Care Act. There are good stories. There are challenging
stories. But the stories weren't even important enough for the House to
even listen to them.
I do think the Senate process should be different.
Where I am going to disagree slightly with the comments you made is
that I am going to compare that process in the House to the process
that was undertaken in Congress before the Affordable Care Act was
passed in 2010, because sometimes it is said: Well, that was just a
one-party thing.
Actually, that is not the case. In 2009, before the Affordable Care
Act passed, the Senate Finance Committee held not one or two hearings.
No, 53 hearings on health reform were held. The committee spent 8 days
marking up the legislation, which is the longest markup in 22 years,
and it considered 135 amendments.
In the Finance Committee, the then-Democratic chair, Senator Baucus,
worked for months with a bipartisan group of three Democrats and three
Republicans trying to find a compromise on healthcare reform. While
they couldn't find a compromise ultimately on the floor vote, Democrats
and Republicans wrote the bill together and considered amendments in
that committee offered by both Democrats and Republicans.
The HELP Committee, where you and I serve, was every bit as active.
They had an additional 47 bipartisan hearings, roundtables, and walk-
throughs on health insurance. HELP considered hundreds of amendments
during a monthlong markup, which is one of the longest in congressional
history, and many Republican amendments were accepted as part of the
process.
When the bill came from the two committees to the Senate floor in
2010, the final Senate bill that was passed in this Chamber included
not one or two, not a few dozen but 147 amendments that were proposed
by Republicans. This bill, the Affordable Care Act, was shaped by the
Republicans.
The Republicans decided, for their own reasons, to vote against the
final product, but they offered amendments in good faith--147 of them
were accepted. The Senate spent 25 days consecutively in session on
healthcare reform, the second longest consecutive session in history.
The House did something similar in 2009: bipartisan hearings, 100
hours of hearings, and 181 witnesses from both sides testifying. Some
239 amendments were considered, and 121 by both Democrats and
Republicans were adopted.
Again, in the House on the floor, there were no House Republican
votes, but the bill was shaped by Republicans, amended by Republicans.
There was a process that included two parties.
I would suggest to you that the difference in the processes--an ACA
process that included hearings, hearing from patients, the
opportunities to have committee hearings, the opportunities for both
parties to amend--led to a situation in 2010 where many stakeholder
groups supported the Affordable Care Act: the American Medical
Association, the AARP, the American Hospital Association, and numerous
other groups, providers, consumers, businesses, and other groups.
Compare that to what is the level of support for the bill as it
passed out of the House. Patients oppose this bill: the American
Association of People with Disabilities, AARP, the American Cancer
Society Cancer Action Network, the American Diabetes Association, the
American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American
Public Health Association, the American Society of Hematology, the
Children's Defense Fund, Families USA, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation,
the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the Muscular Dystrophy
Association, the National Disability Rights Center, the National
Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the National Organization for Rare
Disorders. All of these groups represent patients. All of these groups
oppose the House bill that contained no input from patients and no
meaningful bipartisan process.
Doctors and nurses oppose the House bill: the American Medical
Association, the American Nursing Association, the American Osteopathic
Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy
of Family Physicians, the American Congress of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, the American College
of Rheumatology.
Hospitals oppose the House bill: America's Essential Hospitals, the
American Hospital Association, and the Federation of American
Hospitals.
There are groups fighting for women's health access: the National
Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association and Planned
Parenthood.
All of these groups oppose the bill that came out of the House
without patient input, without a meaningful committee process, without
the ability of Democrats to offer amendments.
Mr. President, I think that points us to a lesson, and I do think it
is the same lesson that you spoke about a few minutes ago. Democrats
have called for a transparent and bipartisan process to engage in fixes
to the Affordable Care Act. I had been on the committee with you no
less than a week. I have been trying to get on the HELP Committee since
I came into the Senate. I finally achieved my goal in January, and
within a week or 10 days of being on committee, I led a group of 13
Democrats. We wrote to our chair, Lamar Alexander, the Finance chair,
Orrin Hatch, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and said
that we are ready to sit down and talk about improvements and fixes.
I say to the Presiding Officer, my heart soared when I read your
comment last week: Any final bill must fulfill President Trump's
promises to lower premiums, maintain coverage, and ensure protection
for those with preexisting conditions--the same items that you put up
on your board just a few minutes ago--because that is the same set of
three goals I have. That is the same set of three goals, I think, all
my colleagues have.
If we can hold that up as the standard, we will work on a bill
together, and the bill should meet three promises: to maintain coverage
so people don't lose, to maintain costs so people don't pay more, and
to maintain compassion so those with preexisting conditions aren't
kicked to the curb. If we can find that bill, we will do it as
Democrats and Republicans. We will do it in a way that we can build
something that will last. I agree with you on this point.
But I deeply believe this: No bill will achieve those aims if it is
purely done by one party. No bill will achieve those aims if it is
cooked up and put on the floor without a meaningful committee process
in HELP and Finance, without hearing from expert witnesses, without
hearing from stakeholders, without hearing from patients, without
hearing the kinds of stories we heard yesterday. If we wall ourselves
off from the public presentation of this kind of information as we are
grappling with the most important spending decision anyone ever makes
in their life, as we are grappling with the largest sector of the
American economy, if we just rush to get this to the floor and try to
make it a one-party product, we will not achieve the three pillars that
you and I share and that President Trump has promised to the American
public.
So this is my hope. We want to work together, and the right way to
work together is this: Send the House bill or a preferable bill, if you
have it--your bill or a consensus bill that the group of 12 on the
Republican side has. Put that bill in the two committees. Why not have
this bill in the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee? Why not hear
from patients and doctors and hospitals and nurses and insurance
companies and small businesses that struggle to buy insurance for their
employees? Let's hear from some expert witnesses about what they like
about the status quo or like about the new proposals, what they don't
like about them, and how we can fix them. Give us the opportunity to
ask some questions. Give us the opportunity to offer some amendments,
hopefully some bipartisan amendments, to make this better. Let's treat
this at least with the seriousness it was treated in 2009.
You are right to critique that the final vote--save the vote of Arlen
Specter, who at the time he voted was a Democrat--that the final vote
was partisan. You are right to critique that. We would want to go
beyond that, but we can't go backward. We can't eliminate the
opportunity for public input, eliminate the opportunity for committee
action and amendments. We
[[Page S2911]]
should be doing that in a full and robust way.
So I just stand on the floor today to say amen to the boards that you
put up there--amen to those three pillars that should be the test of
the work that we do in this body--and to pledge that if you put this in
the committees where we serve and we have the opportunity to work
together, that is the most natural place for us to work in a
transparent and bipartisan way.
To ask Democratic Members just to cross the aisle to work on
something that will be rushed to the floor with no committee process--
that is not really engagement; that is not really meaningful. But
putting it in committees, where we can do our work in the light of day
and hear from people like Michael Dunkley and the mother from Indiana
and do it with the American public watching--now that is engagement. I
guarantee if we do that, we will get to a better result, a result that
will be better for people, a result that will be more likely to meet
your criteria and mine, and a result that will be more likely to last.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All-Senators Briefings
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before the Senate adjourns for the
weekend, I wish to address a few things related to the dismissal of FBI
Director James Comey.
The story coming out of the White House about why Mr. Comey was fired
continues to change and there are no good explanations for the change.
For 2 days, the White House implied that the decision to fire Mr.
Comey either originated or was largely influenced by the
recommendations from the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney
General. The Vice President of the United States spoke to reporters
here on Capitol Hill and said that it was the President's ``decision to
accept the recommendation of the Deputy Attorney General and the
Attorney General to remove Director Comey.''
Those accounts, by the spokespeople of the President and the Vice
President himself, were just blatantly and completely contradicted by
the President himself on national television.
President Trump told NBC News that it was his decision to fire Mr.
Comey, and he had made up his mind to do so before hearing from either
the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, in direct
contradiction to what his own Vice President and his own press people
were saying.
Well, which one was it? Did the Vice President mislead the public or
did the President? When was the decision made to fire Mr. Comey, and
what was the reason? And why did it take so long for the White House to
get its story straight?
These are all critical questions, and the American people deserve
answers. We need to understand the true nature of the events that led
to Director Comey's dismissal, why it happened, and what it means for
the investigation into the potential collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russia as we move forward.
This morning, I made a request of the majority leader to call an all-
Senators briefing with Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney
General Rosenstein. Given the events of this week, and particularly
after what the President said this afternoon, a briefing from these two
officials before the whole Senate, where Senators from both parties can
ask and get answers to the serious questions hanging over us, is
imperative for this body and for the American people. The all-Senators
briefing with the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General
should be separate and partially classified, if necessary.
The need for these briefings is even greater now than it was this
morning, given what the President said this afternoon. The rule of law,
the separation of powers, and their strength--hallmarks of American
democracy--are at stake.
Now, I have just heard from the majority leader that he will invite
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to an all-Senators briefing next
week. I asked the majority leader to do the briefing early in the week.
It is a good first step, and I thank the majority leader for consenting
to this request.
Mr. Rosenstein was here on the Hill today meeting with Members. He
requested to meet with me, and I said I wanted to meet with him along
with my 99 colleagues so Members of both parties were given the
opportunity to question him. I am glad he has a willingness to come
talk to Congress, and I hope he will accept our bipartisan invitation
from Leader McConnell and from me to brief the entire Senate next week.
My caucus still believes that Attorney General Sessions must be made
available to the Senate in a similar capacity, given his reported role
in firing Director Comey and helping select his replacement.
Considering his recusal from the Russia investigation, his close
involvement in these events warrants the Senate's questioning as well,
but I thank the majority leader for trying to set up the briefing with
Mr. Rosenstein. It is very likely, I believe, that it will happen, just
pending Mr. Rosenstein's consent, and I hope the majority leader soon
comes to the right decision and grants our request to question Mr.
Sessions as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Remembering Leo Thorsness
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I am speaking tomorrow at an Air Force
ROTC commissioning ceremony at the University of Arkansas. As I have
been preparing my remarks, I have been thinking a lot about the airmen
who have left more than contrails behind them--the men and women who
served with such distinction that we still remember them to this day,
those great Americans, the heroes of the sky.
The first name that came to mind, the name that resounded louder than
almost any other is the great Leo Thorsness, so you can imagine how
saddened I was to hear about his passing last week. Whenever you hear
such a legend has left the Earth, it is like a sudden crack of thunder
in the dead of night. It wakes you up. It sobers you. It reminds you of
what we have lost because Leo Thorsness was an American classic.
Born in Walnut Grove, MN, his childhood sounds as idyllic as his
hometown. He joined the Boy Scouts and later rose to become an Eagle
Scout. He met his wife Gaylee in the freshman registration line at
South Dakota State College. They married 3 years later and had one
daughter, Dawn. He joined the Air Force, went to flying school, and
became a pilot.
Soon, he was a fighter pilot in both the Strategic and Tactical Air
Commands. Looking back on his life, we can see Leo Thorsness was part
of an era--those burly, self-confident, middle-class families who,
after the Great Depression and the greatest of wars, put down roots and
built the booming America of the mid to late 20th century.
Of course, Leo was not simply a part of his generation; he inspired
it with his courage and self-sacrifice. For many Americans, the only
number they remember from the Vietnam years is their draft number. But
for Leo Thorsness, there are two numbers that stick out: 88 and 93.
It was on his 88th mission for the Air Force that he performed the
noble deeds for which he would later receive the Medal of Honor. He was
flying an F-105 Thunderchief with his weapons specialist, Harold
Johnson. They were escorting fighter bombers targeting a North
Vietnamese army barracks. They shot down a MIG, roughed up another, and
hit two missile batteries. They were low on ammo and fuel, but they
fought on. He continued to scare off MIGs and instructed a tanker plane
to refuel another fighter. When he finally landed 70 miles south in
Thailand, the fuel tank was on empty. It was a stunning act of bravery.
It was on his 93rd mission, just seven shy of completing his tour of
duty,
[[Page S2912]]
that Leo Thorsness was shot down. He was captured and spent 6 years in
the ``Hanoi Hilton''--6 years in the darkness. It was there that he met
his cellmate, our colleague and future Senator, John McCain.
Imagining 6 days in such a terrible place is more than most people
can handle, never mind 6 years. But Leo Thorsness endured; he saw the
mission through. When he returned in 1973, it was to an astonished and
grateful nation, but the man himself was unfazed. He called his wife
after being released and said: ``I would have called sooner, but I've
been all tied up.''
He later went on to serve in the Washington State Senate and run for
other offices. But his legacy is not one of the titles he won; it is
the example he set.
He was quite a man, Leo Thorsness. And though we have lost him, we
will keep his memory for a good long time to come.
Leo Thorsness, rest in peace.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________