[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2984-S2986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Healthcare Legislation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to share real 
stories of real hardships from hard-working families in my home State 
of Iowa. Seven years ago, Americans were promised that the Affordable 
Care Act would make health insurance cheaper and healthcare more 
accessible. Well, I won't pretend to break any news here; the facts 
speak very much for themselves. ObamaCare is not living up to its 
promises. When passing the law, the other side made promises that they 
knew wouldn't be kept.
  The irony here is that, at the end of the day, the so-called 
Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable. Let's look at the word 
``affordable'' in the Webster dictionary. It says ``having a cost that 
is not too high.'' I have heard from many Iowans who tell me in no 
uncertain terms that they cannot afford to buy health insurance because 
ObamaCare is unaffordable. Ever since ObamaCare was enacted, I have 
received letters and calls and emails from Iowans who are frustrated 
about the soaring costs of their health plans.
  Here is a prime example. One farmer's insurance premium went through 
the roof. It jumped 43 percent in 2017 from 2016. If somebody can 
explain how that is more affordable, I have an oceanfront property in 
my home county of Butler County, IA, to sell you.
  Now, we have a chart here about another Iowan. This constituent from 
Garner, IA, wrote about her financial hardships. She said:

       We are going to be paying over $1,300 a month on premiums, 
     plus a $6,000 deductible. We don't have that much longer 
     before we qualify for Medicare, but my concern is that until 
     then, we will have to use so much of our hard-earned savings 
     just to pay for healthcare. My fear is that those of us in 
     the middle class will struggle with paying so much that it 
     will wipe out our retirement savings accounts.

  Another constituent nearby Garner, in Buffalo, IA, wrote to me 
saying:

       I am forced to pay $230 a month for a healthcare plan that 
     covers nothing until I reach $11,000 in deductible. So on top 
     of paying 100 percent of my medical bills anyway, now I have 
     to pay for insurance I can't use.

  So the question is, How did we get to this point? Seven years ago, I 
stood right here on the Senate floor and predicted what would happen to 
the cost of insurance if ObamaCare passed. Let's take a walk down 
memory lane for a moment. Here is what I said October 2009:

       And while some of the supporters of these partisan bills 
     may not want to tell their constituents, we all know that as 
     national spending on healthcare increases, American families 
     will bear the burden in the form of higher premiums. So, let 
     me be very clear. As a result of the current pending 
     healthcare proposals, most Americans will pay higher premiums 
     for health insurance.

  Now, I am not Nostradamus. I don't have a magic crystal ball, but it 
was easy to read the writing on the wall. I knew that layers of new 
taxes and, more importantly, burdensome new mandates in ObamaCare would 
lead us to where we find ourselves today: a broken healthcare system 
that is not better off than it was 7 years ago. For millions of 
Americans, it is much worse.
  So where do we go from here? After 7 years of rapidly rising 
premiums, soaring deductibles, and climbing copays, Republicans are 
committed to fixing the damage caused by the Affordable Care Act. 
Instead of joining us in an effort to fix what is broken, the other 
side is doing their best to scare the living daylights out of 
Americans.
  From the way they tell it, the House bill is ``deadly.'' What is 
truly fatal is the death spiral the ObamaCare marketplace is in. Not 
only is it unaffordable for too many people, it is simply 
unsustainable. ObamaCare is unable to fulfill its promises to the 
American people. Here is what every lawmaker in Congress ought to agree 
on: Insurance is not worth having if patients cannot afford to use it.
  The facts are very clear. A one-size-fits-all, government-run plan is 
driving insurers out of the exchanges, driving up premiums, driving 
away customers, and driving up the tab to the tax-paying public. I 
spoke 2 days ago about the impact of Obamacare in Iowa. Next year it is 
possible that 94 of our 99 counties will not have insurance plans on 
the Obamacare exchange.
  So even if you benefit from the subsidy of ObamaCare, you are not 
going to have an insurance company to go to. All of this because 
ObamaCare has overregulated, overtaxed, and oversold its promises to 
the American people. ObamaCare has not healed what ails the U.S. 
healthcare system. It is time to move forward.
  I urge my colleagues to drop the partisan charade and join us for the 
good of the American people. I will continue coming to the floor to 
share how ObamaCare is not working for Iowans, but in the meantime, the 
Senate will continue working to rescue our healthcare system that is 
sinking under this broken law.
  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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1144 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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

[[Page S2985]]

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

[[Page S2986]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Maine.