[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7732-7737]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 7733]]

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.
  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

[[Page 7734]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 7735]]

  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 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

[[Page 7736]]

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 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

[[Page 7737]]

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, 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.

                          ____________________