Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues and all Americans in celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month and the innumerable contributions of the Hispanic American community. There is much to celebrate. Although Hispanic Americans comprise 18 percent of the U.S. population, Latino-owned businesses, by some estimates, are responsible for approximately 86 percent of this country's small business growth. What is more, their economic influence is unrivaled by any other demographic since the baby boomers, representing a $1.5 trillion segment of the consumer market, according to a recent Stanford University state of Latino entrepreneurship, and perhaps, most notably, Hispanic Americans play an increasingly important role in our democracy, with a record 27 million Latinos eligible to vote in last year's election.

It has never been clearer that Hispanic Americans represent an impressive cultural and economic force. Ultimately, however, their value to this country is not in their statistics. It is in their character. A love for family, a commitment to community, and an unparalleled penchant for hard work are the tenets of Hispanic heritage. They are also the building blocks of America. This is no coincidence: Hispanic Americans helped build and sustain our Nation. They are an irreplaceable thread in the fabric of American society. With their knack for innovation, with their fearless pursuit of better lives, and sometimes with their bare hands, they have shaped this country from the ground up, and we are all the better for it.

While we use this month to reflect on their dignity and importance to this country, this year, in particular, the Hispanic American community is best served through actions not just words. Congress must pass the Dream Act. President Trump's order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, Program has shaken the Hispanic American community and most American to their core. Dreamers were brought to this country as children, with no decision in the matter. More importantly, they are quintessentially American in every way, except for their immigration status. They have lived, played, worshipped, and gone to school alongside our children most of their lives. They are our children's classmates and neighborhood friends and teammates. They are the college students studying at the library. They are the young serviceworkers at our favorite restaurants, studiously saving up for next semester's tuition. They are young men and women in uniform, serving in harm's way, defending our freedoms.

Dreamers were raised here, and most know no other home except the United States of America. If Congress does not act to protect them, the President's actions will force many of them out of work, into hiding and into poverty. This will not make America stronger. What makes America stronger are the Dreamers themselves. Their spirit, character, and will to overcome represent what is best about our country. We should be proud to call them our own. We shouldn't be sending them underground or into exile.

There is another urgent matter demanding our full attention: hurricane relief for Puerto Rico. The pictures coming from Puerto Rico are heartbreaking. The devastation that has hit the island as a result of Hurricane Maria deserves the same commitment and support that would go to any other location in the United States. Puerto Rico's 3.4 million residents are American citizens, and they should be treated just the same as residents of Florida, Texas, and Louisiana. The Senate should quickly take up the emergency supplemental appropriations request as soon as possible after the Columbus Day recess.

Voting rights, access to quality, affordable healthcare, higher education, tax reform, these are also issues critically important to Hispanic Americans because they are the issues important to the country. There is no breathing room between the two. Our national interests are their personal interests, so their interests must also be ours.

Americans are a diverse group; we do not all look the same or worship in the same way. We are, each and every one of us, united by far more profound things: a love for the freedoms this country affords us; respect for the power and peace we derive from our diverse communities; and an unshakable belief in every person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What makes us Americans is our moral fiber and our shared love for the United States. Any other litmus test is a discriminatory one; yet every day, and sometimes at the hands of our own government, Hispanic Americans are tested and questioned, profiled, and met with suspicion, out of sheer ignorance and baseless prejudice. Still, they march on. They meet the challenges of systemic discrimination with grace, grit, and courage. Indeed, the Hispanic American community often reflects the best of America, even when America offers less than its best in return.

Now more than ever, Hispanic Heritage Month must be about standing up and declaring support for Hispanic Americans. Now more than ever, Congress must use its collective voice to magnify their voices, to affirm Hispanic Americans' rightful place in this Nation and to proclaim a commitment to representing their interests right here in this Chamber.

We must begin fulfilling that commitment by immediately passing the Dream Act. But our commitment must extend further. We must support more equal representation of Hispanic Americans in our society, including in Congress. We must address the healthcare disparities that disproportionally affect the Hispanic community, an issue that begs Congress to work together toward more universal, affordable coverage. We must acknowledge the difficulties Hispanic American students face in affording college. Finally, we must stand firm against the tidal wave of bigoted rhetoric that has flooded the national dialogue in recent months. Whenever and wherever Hispanic Americans are degraded, belittled, or oppressed, basic morality demands that we speak up and speak out. Tolerance and respect, like a muscle, require effort and exercise. We must not allow these values to atrophy on our watch. Diversity and inclusion are American virtues and proud features of Hispanic heritage alike; we must now, and always, be their steward.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a Marylander, John Gabriel Smith, whose courage not only broke barriers for himself but also advanced the cause of the betterment of humanity. We celebrate and honor Mr. Smith, known as Gabe, because he was the very first African American to graduate from Gonzaga College Preparatory High School, located just a few blocks from the Capitol Building, with the class of 1954.

Gabe was born in the turbulent times of the early 1940s in St. Mary's County,

MD, where he and his two sisters were introduced to the ugly world of racism. His hard-working parents committed their children to a Catholic education and religious fellowship at St. Peter Claver, a predominantly African-American church in rural Ridge, MD. As an eighth grader, Gabe decided to serve as an altar boy; little did he know that it would change his life and place him in the annals of American history.

The head pastor of St. Peter Claver was a humble man by the name of Father Horace B. McKenna, S.J., a White Jesuit priest who had been serving the segregated and neglected African-American community in Southern Maryland for two decades. Father McKenna would later found So Others Might Eat, SOME, a ministry which continues to feed the hungry here in Washington, DC. One day, Gabe listened intently as Father McKenna described the spiritual journey many men had taken on the way to priesthood. Gabe, who was interested in pursuing this vocation, asked Father McKenna how he could become a priest too. Father McKenna told Gabe that he would, at a minimum, need to learn Latin. Unfortunately, there were no schools in St. Mary's County or the surrounding areas that Gabe could attend which taught Latin, let alone provide the other instruction necessary to launch his vocation, so Father McKenna told him about a school in Washington, DC. where he could learn Latin and all the other requisites. That school was Gonzaga College High School.

Racial segregation was the barrier that would have prevented Gabe from attending Gonzaga, but that was about to change. Gabe often speaks about the angels who have been in his life, including Father McKenna, football coach Joe Kozik, and Archbishop Patrick A. O'Boyle, a man who quietly but diligently worked to break the racial divide here in the Nation's Capital. Several years before the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 to end segregation, Archbishop O'Boyle ordered the integration of all Catholic schools and churches in the Archdiocese of Washington. Thus, in 1951, John Gabriel Smith was one of the first African Americans to enter Gonzaga, one of the Nation's elite prep schools.

Gabe moved in with his sister, who lived around the corner from the school. He had observed and experienced abusive conditions under segregation in St. Mary's County; thus, he was on guard among his peers at school. Fortunately, during his time at Gonzaga, his classmates welcomed him in the classroom and stood with him in the face of adversity and strife when they walked outside the school's walls.

As a member of the Gonzaga Purple Eagle football team, he encountered yet another angel in his life, a football coach named Joe Kozik, who stood by Gabe, along with his teammates. Whenever the Eagles played an opponent opposed to integrated teams, Coach Kozik and his teammates always stuck together like a family to overcome hate and ignorance.

In June of 1954, the year of the Brown decision to end segregation in public schools across the Nation, Gabe completed his education at Gonzaga College High School as the first African-American graduate. Poised with a thorough education, including a command of Latin, he entered Howard University, where he choose to pursue a different vocation and graduated with a degree in pharmacy. He became a pharmacist and worked for over 40 years, retiring just this past spring with Shopper's Food Warehouse in Fort Washington, MD, where he spent most of his career.

Gabe has been married to Mrs. Jeanette Graves Smith for 50 years and has five children; his eldest, Pamela, passed away several years ago. Gabe is a proud Marylander and a proud resident of Prince George's County. He has long led his neighborhood association as president and served as an active member in good standing of the Mt. Ennon Baptist Church Men's Ministry.

Even though more than 60 years have passed since Gabe attended Gonzaga, he still comments, ``I had angels who helped me through and they continue to be with me today.'' To this day, Gabe sees his life as an example of the power of love in the pursuit of the greater good. Gabe's life shows us that, despite dark times and dark moments, where there is light through our good deeds and good intentions, there is hope.

John Gabriel Smith was the first of over 1,100 African-American students to graduate from Gonzaga College High School so far. He will leave an outstanding legacy for the State of Maryland, the halls of Gonzaga, and for the United States as an example of what happens when we seek inclusion and love for humanity. He shows us that living by faith and love, everyone can succeed. I commend Gabe Smith for his leadership and life of service.

Mr. President, first, I want to compliment Senator Portman for his leadership on this issue of ending modern-day slavery and trafficking. The United States is taking the leadership globally in fighting trafficking.

We had the Trafficking in Persons Report that is looked upon as being the most authoritative document on how well every country is doing in fighting modern-day slavery and trafficking, but we must make sure we take care of issues here at home.

I applaud Senator Portman's efforts to make sure we do everything in this country we can to protect those victims who are being trafficked for sex or labor. We need to redouble our efforts. I compliment my colleague for his leadership in this area. I can tell him that all of us here want to work with him to make sure America continues to lead in our fight to end modern-day slavery.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan Chronic Kidney Disease Improvement in Research and Treatment Act of 2017, which I am introducing with Senators Blunt and Nelson today. This legislation seeks to make a real difference in the lives of Americans suffering from kidney disease and end-stage renal disease.

Kidney disease is the 9th leading cause of death in the United States, and unfortunately, more than 1 in 10 Americans today suffer from some form of kidney disease. More than 661,000 Americans are living with kidney failure or end-stage renal disease, which is an irreversible condition that can be fatal without a kidney transplant or life-sustaining dialysis. Of these, 468,000 patients in our Country rely on life-sustaining dialysis care to survive and roughly 193,000 live with a functioning kidney transplant.

This legislation seeks to promote research, expand patient choice, and improve care coordination for these hundreds of thousands of patients. Specifically, it would identify payment disincentives that create barriers to kidney transplants. The bill would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit a comprehensive report on how and to what extent palliative care is utilized in treating individuals with advanced kidney disease and the effect of palliative care on the quality of life and treatment outcomes of individuals with ESRD. It would also direct the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to evaluate and report on the biological, social, and behavioral factors related to kidney disease and efforts to slow the progression of disease in minority populations disproportionately affected by this disease.

This legislation would improve access to pre-dialysis kidney education programs to better manage patients' kidney disease and even prevent kidney failure in some cases. Nephrologists and other health professionals would be incentivized to work in underserved rural and urban areas, and current payment policies would be modified to encourage home dialysis, which is not incentivized under the current Medicare payment structure. Patients with acute kidney injury would also be allowed to receive treatments through dialysis providers, therefore reducing costs associated with care provided in the more expensive hospital outpatient setting. Perhaps most importantly, our legislation would guarantee access to Medigap policies to all ESRD Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of age. Currently, Medicare patients under 65, whether disabled or ESRD beneficiaries do not have access to Medigap plans, even though Medicare is their primary insurance.

Lastly, the bill would expand the options for patients by allowing individuals diagnosed with kidney failure to enroll in the Medicare Advantage program starting in plan year 2020 and reauthorizing on a permanent basis the Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plan for patients with kidney failure.

I urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Blunt and Senator Nelson in supporting the Chronic Kidney Disease Improvement in Research and Treatment Act of 2017, which will improve the care of patients who suffer from kidney disease and end-stage renal disease.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan Chronic Kidney Disease Improvement in Research and Treatment Act of 2017, which I am introducing with Senators Blunt and Nelson today. This legislation seeks to make a real difference in the lives of Americans suffering from kidney disease and end-stage renal disease.

Kidney disease is the 9th leading cause of death in the United States, and unfortunately, more than 1 in 10 Americans today suffer from some form of kidney disease. More than 661,000 Americans are living with kidney failure or end-stage renal disease, which is an irreversible condition that can be fatal without a kidney transplant or life-sustaining dialysis. Of these, 468,000 patients in our Country rely on life-sustaining dialysis care to survive and roughly 193,000 live with a functioning kidney transplant.

This legislation seeks to promote research, expand patient choice, and improve care coordination for these hundreds of thousands of patients. Specifically, it would identify payment disincentives that create barriers to kidney transplants. The bill would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to submit a comprehensive report on how and to what extent palliative care is utilized in treating individuals with advanced kidney disease and the effect of palliative care on the quality of life and treatment outcomes of individuals with ESRD. It would also direct the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to evaluate and report on the biological, social, and behavioral factors related to kidney disease and efforts to slow the progression of disease in minority populations disproportionately affected by this disease.

This legislation would improve access to pre-dialysis kidney education programs to better manage patients' kidney disease and even prevent kidney failure in some cases. Nephrologists and other health professionals would be incentivized to work in underserved rural and urban areas, and current payment policies would be modified to encourage home dialysis, which is not incentivized under the current Medicare payment structure. Patients with acute kidney injury would also be allowed to receive treatments through dialysis providers, therefore reducing costs associated with care provided in the more expensive hospital outpatient setting. Perhaps most importantly, our legislation would guarantee access to Medigap policies to all ESRD Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of age. Currently, Medicare patients under 65, whether disabled or ESRD beneficiaries do not have access to Medigap plans, even though Medicare is their primary insurance.

Lastly, the bill would expand the options for patients by allowing individuals diagnosed with kidney failure to enroll in the Medicare Advantage program starting in plan year 2020 and reauthorizing on a permanent basis the Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plan for patients with kidney failure.

I urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Blunt and Senator Nelson in supporting the Chronic Kidney Disease Improvement in Research and Treatment Act of 2017, which will improve the care of patients who suffer from kidney disease and end-stage renal disease.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Arnold Solamillos, who is a Brookings Fellow on my staff on loan from the Social Security Administration, during today's session of the Senate.

Mr. President, today I wish to voice my support for the eighth annual Climate Week NYC, which took place in New York City from September 18 to 24. The 2017 Climate Week brought together businesses, governments, academics, civil society, and other stakeholders to advance international action and cooperation to better understand the science and challenges of climate change and to plan and execute actions to address this ever-evolving crisis facing humanity. Climate Week traditionally occurs during the U.N. General Assembly in support of enhanced dialogue to advance international cooperation between nations and, since 2015, to ensure the success of the Paris agreement.

As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I strongly believe climate diplomacy must be a top priority for U.S. foreign policy. Climate change poses an imminent and long-term threat to not only our national security and economic success, but also the long-lasting prosperity of this country. Addressing this crisis requires collective action and cooperation by local and national representatives, small and large businesses, and every one of us. If the U.S. is to maintain our status as the world's superpower, it is in our best interest to lead the global effort to address the serious challenges posed by climate change. When America leads, we not only protect and enhance our own interests, but we have the unique ability to bring others along and help forge consensus, but regardless of whether the U.S. continues to lead or if we retreat, as the President's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement suggests he is interested in doing, the rest of the world has made it quite clear that they plan to press ahead with or without us.

That is a sad day for America's global leadership. Moreover, it is foolish to believe that the collaborative policies and multilateral efforts around reducing global emissions will not affect the United States simply because we choose not to participate.

For example, the Trump administration refused to participate in the development of the G20's ``Hamburg Climate and Energy Action Plan for Growth,'' which outlines a global economic partnership plan for a clean energy future. This week, Canada, the EU, and China are hosting a climate ministerial meeting of 30 major and emerging economies in Montreal to develop multilateral actions to advance the implementation of the Paris agreement. Fortunately, the administration will be represented at this ministerial event, but not at the same levels of power as most other countries participating. Moreover, the U.S. is merely participating, when it would best serve of our interests to lead an engagement like this, where we could be steering the agenda, as opposed to ceding such leadership to China.

Increased global demand for clean energy and the incorporation of carbon accounting into world markets are clear signals that the global economy is on a low-carbon trajectory. If we stand on the sidelines as these changes in international economics take shape--with Syria and Nicaragua as the only other nations not party to the agreement--we will be the loser.

Denying the scientific and real world evidence of climate change is irresponsible, and it is equally irresponsible to deny or ignore the economic shifts occurring around the world as a result of international efforts to combat climate change.

Climate change is real. The science is indisputable. While hurricanes have always happened this time of year over the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, changes in the global climate--because of increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere from human activity--have created warmer atmospheric and surface water conditions that are increasing the likelihood of intensely powerful hurricanes.

We have seen the destruction caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria and the devastating effects they have brought to millions of Americans. My thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected. First and foremost, our country must assist and provide relief to those affected. That includes our citizens and their neighbors in the Caribbean.

As we come together as a nation to help survivors in need now, we must also act to reduce future risks and protect more people from becoming victims in the future. That means acknowledging the reality of climate change and acting to reduce pollution that has been scientifically proven to be changing our environment and causing the increased intensity of extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires.

In addition to the rises in sea levels, record-breaking droughts are plaguing regions in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and East Africa. NASA's ongoing research on climate change shows the significance of human-induced climate change, threatening our national security and our socioeconomic and diplomatic ties across the world. Reviewing the evidence we are presented with, it is clear the only way we can tackle climate change is through global leadership and action based on science and based on the urgency of preserving our way of life.

Here at home, every city and State bears some risk from the effects of climate change. Fortunately, many State and local and private sector leaders recognize this reality. Despite the absence of leadership from the Trump administration, these individuals and the States, localities, and businesses they represent across many sectors are taking a stand against the national security threats posed by climate change.

Even though the President's actions on the Paris agreement are demoralizing, this by no means equals defeat for our Nation and the rest of the world.

One way to show other nations we are indeed committed to this global cause is to join them by building on the progress we have made here in our own country from the local to national level. Domestic climate change and clean energy policy, including substantial investments in clean energy research, development, and production, have made the U.S. an incubator for investment and entrepreneurship. Creating a robust domestic market helps companies develop credible track records, skilled workforces, and scalable products to export around the world to a market hungry for clean energy solutions. This is where domestic action intersects with U S. ``climate diplomacy.''

We should look toward U.S. corporations that are shifting to cleaner technology as an illustration of our continued fight against climate change. U.S. political leadership in innovation and technology combined with increased global demand for clean energy technology can help create transformational job growth opportunities across the United States. Each day we dither on making the right political choices on clean energy is a day we lose global clout to China, India, and other nations who are racing to fill the void our current retreat has created.

As we look to be more resilient to climate change, our global partners have already started to combat the issues through innovation and adaptation. For example, Holland's recent shift to innovate against flooding is a good example of how other nations are actively working to adapt to climate change and create financial opportunities.

Holland's shift to high-tech water management systems will protect against future flooding and scarcity of freshwater sources. These are technologies that the Dutch will likely export to other nations and regions at risk of flooding, so the Dutch will profit from the investments they have made and the experiences they have gained taking prudent measures to protect themselves against the effects of sea level rise.

This strategic measure sets an example for how the U.S. should work collectively with businesses and local governments to set aside funding proactively for future climate change mitigation and adaptation. Taking this sort of action would not only benefit my home State of Maryland because of its low coastal geography, but also States like New York and South Carolina.

According to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Manhattan and the other boroughs have experienced a significant increase in flooding events, attributable to local sea levels having risen an average of 1.2 inches per decade since 1900, a trend that will only worsen without decisive action to stabilize Earth's climate. There is no doubt that adapting our infrastructure to withstand the effects of climate change will provide substantial benefits to our communities and our economy.

We are fortunate that some corporations such as the members of the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable, BIER, are stepping up to reduce carbon emissions. BIER's commitment to reduce energy consumption and better manage water resources are important examples of how U.S. industry is demonstrating leadership in advancing environmental sustainability and addressing environmental challenges.

More than 900 U.S. businesses support keeping the U.S. in the Paris agreement, including more than 20 Fortune 500 companies. American businesses need the U.S. Government at the negotiating table to represent their interests. Acting to prevent the worst effects of climate change holds tremendous economic and job growth opportunities for Maryland and our Nation. Such an ambitious global goal can only be achieved through strategic action starting at the local level, supported by a Congress and President through policy and political courage.

Fighting climate change is essential to U.S. national security interests and to growing U.S. economic opportunities. Meanwhile, the world continues to look to us for leadership. I remain motivated to join my colleagues and people across the country to fight global climate change so that we can demonstrate our Nation's commitment to leading climate diplomacy and to maintain the American private sector's strength in a changing global economy.

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

Mr. President, there are reports that we may be having a vote next week, under reconciliation, dealing with the healthcare system of this country. We know that colleagues have filed a new bill, but it is basically the same bill we have seen in the past but this time even more consequential to our healthcare system and the people of this country.

I mention first the process because this bill has not gone through any regular order. It has not been referred to a committee for consideration. It has not been marked up or debated in our committees. It is going to supposedly be

brought up as an amendment but with us returning to reconciliation.

Let me first explain what that means. That means there will be no chance for us to offer amendments to the legislation. That means there will be no opportunity in our committees to mark up legislation or to get the cost of the legislation or the technical help to do any bill, let alone a bill that affects a large part of our economy.

The Presiding Officer and I both serve on the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over healthcare. We are not going to get the opportunity to get the expertise and help from our staff to look at the consequences of the Cassidy bill and have a chance to work on it to make it work. Instead, what is going to happen if the game plan goes forward is that this bill is likely to be on the floor next week during budget reconciliation, where a simple majority will be able to pass it. There will be no chance for debate on the floor because it is what is known as a vote-arama, and it will affect one-sixth of our economy. That is not the way we should be operating.

I am also told that it will be done without a Congressional Budget Office score. That is unconscionable. We know from previous Congressional Budget Office scores on the other proposals that have been brought out that tens of millions of Americans would lose their health insurance coverage. Premiums would increase by, in some cases, 20 to 25 percent. It was certainly information from our objective staff that caused many of us to say: What are we doing? But at least we had that information before we voted.

We are now being told that we may get a one-liner from the Congressional Budget Office giving us the bottom-line impact on the deficit but not the specific information as to how many millions of Americans are going to lose their coverage and what is going to happen, for those of us who currently have insurance, with our premium increases.

This is not the way we should be proceeding. It retreats from the progress we have made against the abusive practices of the insurance industry.

Under the Cassidy bill, as I understand it, each State could basically set up its own rules for how they wish to have coverage. The entire Medicaid system of this country would be block-granted and would be capped. So the Federal Government could be getting out of the Medicaid business. The States would be given greater flexibility on how to operate the exchanges in their State and would no longer be subject to the same national requirements.

We all pride ourselves that we eliminated preexisting conditions. But, in reality, if the State determines what benefits are going to be covered and under what conditions, preexisting conditions come back. That is something we should not ever allow to happen. Yet, under the Cassidy bill, we are going to be telling people that we may not be covering their mental health needs. We may not be covering the opioid addiction problems. We may not be covering maternity benefits. We may not be covering pediatric dental coverage.

We don't know what plans will be offered. Today we know that under the Affordable Care Act we have the national protections so that everyone is on a level playing field. So a State could design a plan that would be totally unaffordable for people who need the coverage because they isolate the group into such a small number. That is not what we should be doing. That strategy would provide inadequate coverage.

Let me explain what I mean. I have a young family that came to me and told me about the circumstance of their child being born prematurely with significant challenges. They said that, if that child had been born before the Affordable Care Act, the parents' policy would have reached their lifetime cap within the first year. Then, the family would have had to make some horrendous decisions on how to take care of their child. That is why we passed the protection against annual lifetime caps. That could return again under the bill that could be brought to the floor next week.

I know circumstances where families have been able to get preventive healthcare and discover cancer at an early stage. That coverage wasn't there before the Affordable Care Act. There is no guarantee that coverage will be there afterwards.

We could return again to bankruptcies. Healthcare costs were the leading cause of bankruptcy before we passed the Affordable Care Act. Now we are going to say that because of inadequate coverage and lack of coverage, American families are going to be faced with taking care of their family, running up bills, and ultimately facing bankruptcy.

We are going to be affecting people's lives. Make no mistake about it.

But the real tragedy of this proposal, and why it is so different from some others, is that it is an abandonment by the Federal Government of the Medicaid system. It would institute draconian cuts to the Medicaid system, to the extent that it would cripple it and make it ineffective. The States would be unable to respond.

It is interesting that we just got a letter from 10 Governors in our country--five Democrats and five Republicans. All of these Governors said: No, don't do this. We can't do what you are asking us to do. We would have to make horrible decisions on whether we are going to continue to provide long-term care to our seniors, whether we are going to expand coverage, whether we are going to narrow benefits, whether we are going to cover prescription drugs, or whether we are going to cut providers who may not be able to treat Medicaid patients. These are decisions the States are going to have to make if this bill ever becomes law.

It affects so many. Some of the things that maybe are misunderstood about the Medicaid system is that 1.75 million veterans are in the Medicaid system. Quite frankly, their coverage has never been enough, and the Medicaid system has helped fill the gap. That is going to cause a problem for our veterans.

I will just give one example. We pride ourselves on federalism, and federalism, to me, is very important. I served for several years in the State legislature. I am the former speaker of the Maryland General Assembly. I take pride in the fact that Maryland has been an innovator in healthcare. They have been able to do that because of the partnership between the Federal Government and the States. That is federalism. It has worked.

If this bill were to become law--the Cassidy bill--it would prevent the States from innovating. It is not giving them more flexibility if you don't give them the resources and tools to deal with this because you can't.

For example, in Maryland we have what is known as an all-payer rate structure for hospital costs, regardless of who covers your insurance. Whether you are Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance, or you pay on your own, you pay the same rate in my State for hospital care at the same hospital. It is an all-payer structure. We don't have cost- shifting, and we don't have charity hospitals. Therefore, we have hospitals that are located in all of our communities. It saves the Federal Government money, it saves the State government money, and it has proven to be more cost-effective. The State experimented and it worked, and the Federal Government has partnered with us.

Can we continue that program if we get these draconian cuts in Medicaid? The answer is no. Can we continue this program if we see the uninsured rates go up in Maryland because of people losing their health coverage under this bill? The answer is no. You can't do this if the uninsured rates go from 6 percent to 12 percent to 15 percent of uncompensated care in our hospitals. That is what is at risk with the Cassidy bill.

To me, it really is also an affront to federalism in that you are creating States versus States. I am in a State that did Medicaid expansion. As the Cassidy bill has been scored, it will cost my State $2.1 billion. I know that our legislature doesn't have that money. I know the Governor doesn't have it. He just recently went to the Maryland Board of Public Works and reduced the State budget because they were running a deficit and they are not allowed to run a deficit. They can't possibly cover the $2.1 billion.

Here is another tragedy of this bill. The tragedy is that some States do much worse than other States. Why? Because Maryland expanded Medicaid,

as did many other States and, therefore, we got more Federal funds because we had more people in the program. That seems fair. We are covering more people. But the Cassidy bill takes away from those States that expanded coverage, and we lose more.

I thought this was the United States. I thought we were all in this together. The people of Maryland are proud to help the people of Texas or Florida because of the hurricane, and now you are coming back and saying you are going to hurt the people in Maryland because we did the right thing on Medicaid.

Is that what this country is all about? Is that the United States? Is this body going to condone that type of discrimination against States? I hope that is not the case.

So I hope, for many reasons, on substance and on process, that this bill is not brought up. Let's return to regular order. I heard Senator McCain say that so eloquently on the floor of the Senate.

For the last two weeks I have been working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues to come up with bipartisan ways to improve our healthcare system. We have made progress. We have some good ideas that stabilize the individual marketplace and bring down the cost of healthcare, working together. Guess what. If we succeed in regular order and bipartisanship, we will not only do the right thing so people have stronger protections, but we will also have policy that will stand the test of time and give predictability to the healthcare system of this country. That is what we should be doing, in the best tradition of the Senate.

So I urge my colleagues: Let's work together, and let's reject this proposal. Let's not bring it up. Let's continue our work on a bipartisan basis. Certainly, don't use reconciliation. Let's work together for the people of this country.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to address one of the most pressing and most challenging national security issues facing our Nation: North Korea's growing nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its continued belligerent behavior.

North Korea has developed an active nuclear weapons program and is making considerable progress in developing nuclear-capable ballistic missiles that can reach our allies and partners in the region, including South Korea and Japan, U.S. territories like Guam, and, likely, the continental United States as well.

The time for illusions about North Korea's programs, or wishful thinking about our policy options, is past.

With each passing day, North Korea's continued defiance of the international community makes it clear that the Trump administration's policy of maximum pressure is yielding minimal results.

If the United States continues on the path laid out by President Trump, there are only two realistic outcomes, both bad: North Korea becomes a nuclear power or a large-scale conventional war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula that would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of lives.

If our policy options leave us with only capitulation or war as possible outcomes, those policies are deeply flawed. There should be a lot of space between war and capitulation on the Korean Peninsula.

I strongly believe that we must therefore adjust our strategy to fill that space with an all-out ``diplomatic surge,'' one that results in serious, hard constraints on North Korea's nuclear ambitions and a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous Northeast Asia for all.

The initial objective of this surge would be to begin a diplomatic process, with Pyongyang first verifiably halting

their nuclear and ballistic missile testing and the United States and our allies taking steps to deescalate the current tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

We have not arrived at the current situation with North Korea overnight. Where we are today is an outgrowth of two decades of steady progress by North Korea's nuclear and ballistic programs. The tense situation on the Korean Peninsula highlights the failure of the international community and multiple administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, to end North Korea's nuclear and missile programs and to promote greater security and stability in the region.

This year alone, North Korea has conducted at least a dozen ballistic missile tests, including ICBM tests, and now a nuclear test of what is likely a thermonuclear weapon.

We may not like this reality, but we must face the fact that North Korea already has a small but nonetheless operational nuclear arsenal.

At this critical moment, the President, instead of providing responsible leadership, has engaged in bluster and provocative statements about nuclear war with North Korea. He continues to show he lacks the temperament and judgment to deal with this serious crisis. He continues to increase tensions rather than reduce them and to issue threats when it is far from clear he is willing to back them up.

President Trump's dangerous rhetoric has painted the United States into a corner.

The President has zig-zagged from one extreme to the other, as the Washington Post recently put it, veering between bellicose tweets aimed at North Korea, threats to our allies and partners, efforts to flatter Beijing, offers of diplomacy, and then strident rejections of it at the same time. He has created an environment of uncertainty amongst our allies and partners, emboldened our adversaries, and confused and deeply concerned the American people about their safety.

I therefore feel a solemn responsibility as the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to put forward an approach to North Korea that I believe represents the type of responsible bipartisan leadership the world has come to expect from the United States.

When the United States leads with our values and interests at the fore, others follow, but when we abdicate or purposefully cause doubt, well, that kind of uncertainty makes the world less safe.

Therefore, the United States should put its full weight into creating and executing a comprehensive policy that includes the immediate imposition of additional sanctions, active engagement with our allies, vigorous support for human rights and the pursuit of principled multilateral measures to shape the regional environment.

Most urgently, we should begin immediate and direct diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang, guided by strategic clarity, to curtail North Korea's nuclear ambitions, protect our allies, and bring stability to the Korean Peninsula.

Underlying our current North Korea policy--or lack thereof--are a series of assumptions, which I believe must be reconsidered in light of our decades-long failure to achieve our strategic objectives.

First, will China, ever really ``carry our water'' on economic sanctions?

My assessment is China prioritizes its own interests in maintaining North Korea stability over denuclearization and will never place enough pressure on North Korea to force them to give up their nuclear program. That said, and as I will discuss further, China has a crucial role to play as a partner in this process, both imposing costs on North Korea up front and providing security and economic guarantees on the back end, but we should not expect that China will solve this issue for us.

Second, do we still think that North Korea wants and needs to rejoin the international community?

In other words, do they need us more than we need them? Based on its current actions, one would have to conclude no--and that holding out that possibility is not in fact an incentive for Pyongyang because it does not interest them.

We should also be clear about North Korean intentions. Indeed, for all the talk about how irrational and unpredictable North Korea is, they have pursued these weapons--and developed tactics to evade international sanctions and pressure--with clarity and determination. They have not hid their intentions, the reasons why they believe they are seeking these weapons, or their vision for the peninsula.

Even so, I believe Pyongyang will respond to incentives and to pressure, but we must get both the pressure and the disincentives right to be effective.

Third, is time still on our side?

The regime continues to move forward with its nuclear and missile programs, defying consistent predictions since the end of the Cold War that North Korea was on the verge of immediate collapse. All signs indicating that Kim Jung-Un is firmly in control and faces no serious challenges. He has even had members of his own family murdered to keep his iron grip on the country firm and in place. So while time has not run out, it is not on our side, either.

Finally, are negotiations with North Korea pointless because they will always renege on their commitments?

I recognize the history of numerous efforts to engage with North Korea that have ended in failure and acrimony, but it is also important to remember that while the 1994 framework agreement had many problems, it did limit and constrain North Korea's stockpile of plutonium for an 8-year period.

Yes, North Korea continued with a part of its nuclear programs in secret, but there is no question that, during this period, the United States and our allies were safer and more secure than they would have been given the alternatives, which were war or acquiesce to North Korea's nuclear program.

While it is certainly possible that the agreed framework would have fallen apart regardless, it is also possible, if the agreement had been maintained, it would have provided options for bringing the North's nuclear ambitions to a more permanent end.

So while the Agreed Framework was far from perfect, it does suggest there are pathways by which a diplomatic surge can succeed in constraining and binding North Korea and in creating a more stable security environment in the region.

I want to be very clear--I have no illusions about North Korea or about the low chances of success for even the best strategy for dealing with this regime.

Nevertheless, it is incumbent on those of us in Congress, as well as our colleagues in the executive branch, to think through a policy that gives us the best chance of success and to take the necessary steps to see if this approach might lead to a better outcome.

So, what would a policy geared for success with North Korea look like?

First, we must immediately begin a sustained diplomatic effort with the goal of first constraining and then ultimately eliminating Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs. Working with China is critical to these efforts.

We can't expect China to solve North Korea for us. However, that does not mean that there is no space to make common cause with Beijing to contain North Korean's nuclear and missile programs and thereby reduce tensions in East Asia, which would benefit our mutual national security interests.

At the end of the day, China understands that it, too, benefits from a denuclearized peninsula and that increased military tensions in the region, let alone war, do not serve China's interests well. So we can work with China to assure that sanctions are fully implemented-- especially those which China has already signed up for at the United Nations but has been slow to bring into force, an immediate test being the unanimously passed Security Council sanctions just this week. We can encourage China to take necessary measures that can force Pyongyang back to the negotiating table.

To make this strategy work, we must indicate to China and Russia that we are ready and willing to engage in negotiations with North Korea.

As we turn the screws on North Korea and strengthen our alliances, we need to be open to wide-ranging talks. We should be willing to discuss measures to deescalate the conflict on the Korean Peninsula, ways to improve the lot of the downtrodden people of North Korea, and ultimately a pathway forward for a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

To begin this process, Pyongyang will first have to verifiably halt their nuclear and ballistic missile testing, and the United States and our allies must indicate a willingness to take steps to deescalate the current tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

China's assistance will be necessary not only in getting talks started but also in helping them reach a successful conclusion. Only China can provide North Korea with certain kinds of security guarantees which likely will be necessary to enhance Pyongyang's confidence that any agreement will be enduring.

Second, it is worth emphasizing that an ``America Alone'' approach is not a formula for success in dealing with North Korea--or anything else for that matter. A complex threat like North Korea can't be successfully confronted without assistance from our allies and partners in the region--and any successful approach must start by strengthening our alliances and partnerships with Japan and Korea.

The scope and range of partnership with our allies--starting with Japan and Korea--is both dynamic and comprehensive and has been critical for maintaining peace, stability, and economic prosperity throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

This stability and prosperity has also made the United States more secure and more prosperous. It is why the United States, after the devastation of the Second World War and the Korean war, built partnerships with Japan, South Korea, and other Asian nations. These actions turned the region into one of the greatest foreign policy success stories of the past 70 years. Any successful policy toward North Korea must be built on this foundation and recognize that our strategic alliances combine not just military but also diplomatic and economic elements.

The election of Moon Jae-in as President of South Korea and our partnership with Prime Minister Abe in Japan have created new opportunities to reconsider and recalibrate our approach and encourage us to align and coordinate our approach with that of our regional allies. Nations such as Australia, Singapore, and our other ASEAN partners also have important roles to play.

The United States has worked diligently for the past several years, starting under the Obama administration, to strengthen our alliances and partnerships in the region by enhancing our defense and deterrence capabilities in light of emerging North Korean threats. This has included missile defense, extended deterrence, counterprovocation planning, and a suite of other capabilities relevant to the new security environment.

We must continue and deepen these defense efforts to assure that we can stay ahead of North Korean threats, to provide leverage for diplomacy, and to maintain an insurance policy for the sort of ``containment'' that will be necessary should diplomacy fail.

Third, the United States has an important opportunity to set the broader regional context for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula by engaging in forward-leaning, principled, multilateral diplomatic engagement.

Over the years, there have been numerous proposals for multilateral architecture in Northeast Asia proposed by the nations of the region, as well as by the United States.

While there is ample room for discussion and debate over which model might be best, it is clear we need a forum to draw the nations of Northeast Asia together to engage in confidence-building measures and to address outstanding diplomatic, security, and political issues so that the right context exists for a stable Korean Peninsula. When President Trump travels to Asia this November, he has an important opportunity to move the multilateral architecture debate forward as a necessary supporting element of a broader North Korea strategy.

Fourth and finally, the administration must seek to fully exercise our economic leverage, not incrementally but robustly and to the maximum extent feasible, and should immediately impose additional economic sanctions on Pyongyang.

Secondary sanctions imposed upon firms that trade with North Korea, along with other targeted sectoral and financial measures through the UN Security Council, are essential to make it more difficult for the Kim Jong Un regime to support its prohibited nuclear and missile programs, including the financing that fuels its illegal activities.

The administration must also rigorously implement and enforce the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enforcement Act of 2016, the relevant sections of the recently passed Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act and UNSC resolutions 2270 and 2321 on North Korea.

I know several of our colleagues, including Senators Gardner, Markey, Toomey and Van Hollen, also have legislation to impose new and additional sanctions.

Critically, while many past efforts have been targeted at imposing costs on North Korea by curtailing trade leaving North Korea, to be truly effective a sanctions regime must have as its primary purpose halting the flow of goods, finances, and material into North Korea. We know that when oil shipments have been curtailed in the past or when we threaten the ability of North Korea to use the international financial system to bring its ill-gotten funds home, we have gotten Pyongyang's attention.

We will get their attention again if we cut off North Korean elites' ability to continue to enjoy luxury goods. By cutting off access to these goods, through existing sanctions that are often not seriously enforced, we will provide an opportunity to focus minds in Pyongyang.

China plays a key role in bringing this sort of pressure to bear on North Korea, but so do others. Russia, for example, houses some 30,000 North Korean slave laborers, a key source of regime income, and has also supplied North Korea with oil and aviation fuel in the past, sometimes illicitly. Other partners, including Singapore, have been key hubs for North Korean activity. Robust implementation of current sanctions to address these activities is crucial across all members of the international community.

What I have laid out today are lofty goals to be sure, but we should stand up and try to reach them. Let's try to stop North Korea through diplomacy while watching to make sure North Korea will not cheat during negotiations or on any final agreement, as they have in the past.

While imperfect in the short term, a freeze on North Korea's nuclear and missile program serves our national security interests. If nothing is done to slow North Korea down, its nuclear program and delivery systems will continue to grow, imperiling our allies and the American people. Diplomatic engagement that allows us to constrain and eventually reverse North Korea's nuclear ambitions may not be ``perfect'' security, but it is enhanced security and by far the better option available.

Time is no longer on our side, but the clock hasn't run out yet. The United States and the international community have an opportunity to test the proposition of what a robust diplomatic surge to North Korea's aggression might look like. It is critical that we take the opportunity now.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators Collins, Brown, Blumenthal, Markey, Portman, King, Warren, Menendez, and Klobuchar to recognize the week beginning September 10th, 2017-- this week--as National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week. The Senate has passed a similar resolution for the past nine years. Direct Support Professionals are an invaluable part of our Nation's health care system, caring for the most vulnerable Americans, including the chronically ill, seniors, and those living with a disability. With the help of Direct Support Professionals, these individuals can perform daily activities that many people take for granted, such as eating, bathing, dressing, and leaving the house. The work of Direct Support Professionals ensures that these individuals can be active participants in their communities.

In our Country, we are incredibly fortunate to have millions of service-oriented Americans who are willing to rise to the task of becoming a Direct Support Professional. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the employment of DSPs is projected to grow by an average of 26 percent from 2014 to 2024, compared to a 7 percent average growth rate for all occupations during that period. Unfortunately, direct support professionals are often forced to leave the jobs they love due to low wages and excessive, difficult, work hours. Many Direct Support Professionals rely on public benefits, and some must work multiple jobs in order to provide for themselves and their families. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we work to ensure that these hard-working individuals have the income and emotional support they need and deserve.

I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing appreciation for the critically important work of our Country's Direct Support Professionals, in thanking them for their commitment and dedication, and in supporting the resolution designating the week beginning September 10, 2017, as National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week.

Mr. President, earlier this week, we commemorated the 16th anniversary of the attack on our country on September 11. It was a day that I think none of us will ever forget. We were attacked, and we wanted to take all necessary action to protect our country and go after those who perpetrated this attack against America.

I was part of the Congress at that time and was part of the Congress that passed the 2001 authorization for the use of military force that was targeted toward Afghanistan, and I was part of the Congress that when we took up the 2002 authorization for use of military force against Iraq, I voted against that authorization.

It has now been 14 years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the end of the Saddam Hussein regime. Yet we still have the authority for the use of military force against Iraq, and it is still being used. It is time for that authorization to end. I take this time to support Senator Paul's efforts to put a termination date on the 2002 authorization and to put a termination date on the 2001 authorization.

The 2001 authorization was the first we passed. It was done virtually unanimously. There was some objection, but very few, because we wanted our country to hold those responsible in Afghanistan for the attack against America. That authorization is now 16 years

old. Let me read for my colleagues exactly what that authorization said, what we passed 16 years ago:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and

appropriate force against those Nations, organizations, or

persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or

aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,

2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to

prevent any future acts of international terrorism against

the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

That is the authorization. It is pretty specific. It is pretty specific to go after those who were responsible for the attack against the United States that was centered in Afghanistan, and it was used for that purpose. Our military took action against Afghanistan as a result of the attack against our country, and that was authorized by Congress.

It is hard to understand how you can get from the reading of this authorization of the use of military force today as congressionally authorized against ISIS in the Middle East, in Africa, or anywhere in the world, but that is the interpretation that has been given to the action of Congress in 2001. I think that interpretation cannot be defended.

Congress has a responsibility to act. We have a responsibility to specifically authorize the new threats that we have against our country and what military force is appropriate. That is our responsibility. This is a different threat than we saw 16 years ago. It is our responsibility to give congressional authorization for the use of military force. Some say it cannot be done. Well, if it can't be done, then we don't agree on the authorization of force.

Let me just remind my colleagues that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, over 3 years ago, passed an authorization for the use of military force. We came together in our committee, and I know Senator Kaine and Senator Flake have worked on a proposal that is certainly much more focused toward the current circumstances. Some of us may have amendments to that, some of us may disagree with it, but that is the debate we should be having. There should be no debate that the 2001 authorization does not apply to our current circumstances.

We should pass an authorization that is tailored to allow the President to effectively go after the direct threats to the United States. That is our responsibility. We owe it to the American people and we owe it to the men and women who serve in our military to give them clear authority from Congress in their military operations. There clearly needs to be direction given by Congress. We have seen an abuse of the 2001 authorization, so we need to be pretty clear.

I must tell you that I have heard over and over again from our generals that there is no military-only victory against ISIS. We can't win this by a military victory alone. We need to make sure that there are leaders in countries that protect their citizens, not only their physical security but good governance in their human rights.

We have new challenges we need to deal with--cyber threats against the United States. We are concerned about a physical caliphate; now we are concerned about a virtual caliphate as we take more and more of the territory away from the ISIS forces. So that is what we need to do.

Senator Paul's amendment gives us that opportunity by saying quite clearly that the 2001 and 2002 authorizations need to end--need to end--that we don't today have clear authorization from Congress to pursue the military campaign against ISIS, and we need to have that.

There are some who say: Well, what happens if we don't meet that deadline? Well, let me tell you something. The President has plenty of authority. Read article 2 of the Constitution. He has the inherent power to protect our country and our national security, and he can take action in order to do that.

I was particularly struck as to why we need the Paul amendment when I received a letter in my capacity on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson. You see, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was having meetings, trying to figure out how to proceed on the authorization for the use of military force. During one of those meetings, we had the opportunity to have Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson before us, and we had a candid discussion about what type of authorization would make sense. It was done in a closed setting so we could have a candid discussion, and I am not going to reveal the specifics because I thought that is what we should be doing. But I can tell you, I left with the impression that there was room for Congress to work with the administration on the authorization of force, and I was hopeful that we were going to have an open hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, on the AUMF.

We had similar discussions under the Obama administration. As a result of those discussions, President Obama submitted to Congress what he believed would be an appropriate authorization for the use of military force. That authorization was never taken up, but he asked for it.

Well, just recently, we received notice from Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Mattis that the President does not want Congress to adjust the authorizations because he has adequate authority to do what he wants to do. I understand that. If you take their interpretation--it is not just this administration; it is prior administrations' interpretation of the AUMF--they have a blank check. But that is not our responsibility being carried out.

We are the ones who are responsible for the authorization of force, not the President of the United States, and according to this President, he has blank-check authorization from Congress.

So it is our responsibility to make sure that when our men and women are sent into harm's way, they have direct authorization from the Congress of the United States unless, by the way, there is an urgent situation that requires the President to act, which he can do under article 2.

So I urge my colleagues that we have a chance to start this debate right here and now by supporting the Paul amendment, and I intend to do that.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Donald F. Boesch, who is stepping down as president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, UMCES, a position he has held for the past 27 years.

Since 1990, Dr. Boesch has led an institution with an excellent reputation for Chesapeake Bay science to global prominence in coastal watershed science and its application, building highly capable research facilities at each of the UMCES's four laboratories. Since 2008, he has also served as vice chancellor for environmental sustainability for the University System of Maryland.

During Dr. Boesch's tenure, UMCES went through remarkable transformations. Research grants more than tripled and significantly diversified with multiple agency and private and philanthropic sponsors. This allowed UMCES scientists to expand their research into new and emerging topics critical to understanding Maryland's environment. He also initiated the Integration and Application Network, which is responsible for the annual ``report card'' on the Chesapeake Bay, to inspire and produce timely syntheses on critical environmental issues and identify practical and effective solutions to the bay's problems.

Thanks to Don's unstinting passion and dedication to environmental issues, UMCES has had a profoundly positive impact on improving the health of Maryland's environment, playing a major role in the university's mission to enhance the quality of life in Maryland and our region. UMCES has become recognized as the State's foremost research authority on environmental matters that are critical to Maryland and the Nation, from enhancing the health of the Chesapeake Bay to restoring our State's oyster population.

Don Boesch has been an extremely effective leader of people. He worked with the University of Maryland Baltimore County and the University of Maryland, Baltimore to form a novel research partnership, the Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology, located on Baltimore's Inner Harbor. He spearheaded the effort to design and construct the state-of-the-art research vessel Rachel Carson to help understand and monitor the Chesapeake Bay and coastal Atlantic Ocean. He led UMCES, a longtime partner in graduate education and classroom instruction with the University of Maryland, to receive accreditation to award joint graduate degrees in environmental science.

Don has been involved in research on the Chesapeake Bay for more than 35 years, becoming one of the Nation's most widely recognized and respected experts in applying science to public policies for the protection, sustainable use, and restoration of coastal ecosystems. He has been an official adviser to Federal agencies, the Chesapeake Bay Program, and five Maryland Governors. He is a member of the Governor's Chesapeake Bay Cabinet. He has also served as chair of the Ocean

Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences and member of the National Academies Committee on America's Climate Choices. In 2007, he won the ``Award for Lifetime Leadership in Ecosystem Restoration, National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration.'' In 2010, President Barack Obama appointed Don to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. In 2015, he earned the ``Admiral of the Chesapeake Award,'' which was presented to him by the Governor.

Don's interest in coastal watershed science probably came naturally; he was born and raised in New Orleans, and he received his B.S. in biology from Tulane University in 1967. He went on to earn a Ph.D. in oceanography from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He was awarded a Fulbright postdoctoral fellowship to study in Australia and then spent 8 years on the faculty at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. From 1980 to 1990, he served as the first executive director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium and worked as a professor of Marine Science at Louisiana State University. He returns to the gulf coast frequently to lead task forces and scientific panels on gulf ecosystem protection and restoration.

Dr. Donald F. Boesch has had an exemplary career at the intersection of science and public policy. He has been incredibly helpful to me and the rest of the Maryland congressional delegation; we have all valued his wise counsel. I am comforted by the fact that, while Don is stepping down as president of UMCES on September 17, he will join the faculty and focus his energies on completing several research publications. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating Don on this milestone event and thanking him for his extraordinary contributions to understanding and protecting our environment.

Mr. President, I take this time to share with my colleagues a meeting that I had last Thursday in Montgomery County, MD, with CASA de Maryland. We put together a roundtable discussion to talk about immigration and the need for immigration reform and the concerns we had about the current status of people who are concerned about what is happening with immigration enforcement. That was before the President had made his announcement on terminating the DACA Program, which is the program that provides relief for the Dreamers--those who have been in this country for a long period of time and know only America as their home.

I must tell you that, at that discussion I had last Thursday in Montgomery County, MD, the fear of uncertainty was clear to me. I talked to many families who were concerned about how the Trump administration was enforcing our current laws, what would be the resolution of the temporary protective status, TPS, under which people are here legally, and I had a chance to see firsthand some of the Dreamers who are here under the protection of the DACA Program.

It was very clear to me that what the people in that meeting were looking for was leadership in Washington that recognized that it is in our national interest for us to provide the type of legal protection to these individuals who have made America their home--who took the risk to come here for a better life for their families.

These individuals came to this country--the Dreamers, who are the children, particularly--when they came with their parents. It was the parents' decision to try to find a better life for their children. They know only America as their country. They do not know the countries from which they have come. America is their own home. They have helped to build this great Nation. They have attended our schools. They have joined our military. They have joined our workforce. They are, truly, the future of America.

The DACA Program, which recently celebrated its fifth anniversary, provided protection for these Dreamers against their arbitrary removal. It applied only to those who had come to this country when they were younger than 16 years of age. They had to have been here before January 2007. They had to have gone through a background check to make sure that they had not violated any of our criminal statutes, and they had to have been enrolled in schools or our military. It was really dealing with young people who were innocent with regard to any of the violations of our immigration laws. It really dealt with individuals who had come to this country and had been part of America.

The DACA Program provided not only protection against their removal but gave them protection in the workforce. They were given documentation so that they could legally work here in the United States and get the protection of our labor laws and not be subjected to an underground economy or the abuses in the workforce that we sometimes see among immigrant families. So 800,000 children have taken advantage of the DACA Program. In my State of Maryland, 10,000 are registered under the DACA Program.

Then came President Trump's decision this past week to terminate the program in 6 months--terminate it now, as far as new DACA registrations--but to terminate this program. That immediately created uncertainty and fear for 800,000 individuals in this country and their families.

President Trump's decision is tragic in three ways. First, it has the potential of ripping families apart--800,000 people here in the United States. It creates uncertainty for those who are currently in the DACA Program. It creates fear as to what tomorrow will bring, and it will drive many of these individuals into the shadows, into the underground, into protecting themselves against the enforcement of removal.

This decision by President Trump is tragic for a second reason. It will hurt our economy. The numbers in Maryland I think are somewhere around one-half of $1 billion to our State GDP from the Dreamers alone.

The Dreamers are part of our economy. They are adding to our economy. I got a phone call from one of our major employers in Maryland expressing grave concern about President Trump's decision and the impact it will have on that company and on our economy. These are individuals who have been trained in our schools, who have gone to our colleges, who have served in our military, and who are now adding to the economic strength of America through their employment and their innovation. It makes no sense from the point of view of our economy.

The third reason the President's decision is tragic is one that speaks to the strength of America--what makes America the great Nation it is. Yes, we are proud of those who serve in our military. We know that we have the strongest military in the world, and we are very proud of the way our military protects this country and provides global leadership. Yes, we are very proud of our economy and what it produces and the economic growth it provides for the people in this country and its engagement in the global economy. But what really makes America the unique, strong Nation that it is are our values, including what we stand for, our democratic institutions, the fact that we are the beacon of hope for people all over the world for providing opportunity. People can come to this country with dreams, and those dreams can become reality. That is what America's values are about.

President Trump's decision to end the DACA Program runs afoul of the principles that have made America the great Nation it is--a safe haven for those who are seeking refuge from persecution, a nation that embraces diversity and recognizes diversity as our strength. President Trump's decision to end the DACA Program runs afoul of

America's core values. It weakens us as a nation and certainly weakens our ability to lead globally with our values as we present them to the global community.

So, as a result of that decision, what do we need to do? Each one of us needs to stand up and be counted, to speak out about America and what makes this Nation the great Nation it is. Then, collectively, we need to take action to show the American people that we will stand up not just for the Dreamers--and we need to stand up for the Dreamers-- but we will also stand up for the values that have made America the great Nation it is.

I support S. 1615, a bipartisan bill that has been introduced by Senator Durbin and Senator Graham. I thank both of our colleagues for their leadership in bringing that bill forward. That bill will provide protection for the Dreamers and for the DACA Program so that Congress can say: No, Mr. President, we do not want to terminate this program. This program is in our national security interests. This program is why America is the strong Nation that it is. It is not only right for 800,000 people; it is right for all people in this country.

This body showed great leadership a few years ago when we passed comprehensive immigration reform. I am for passing comprehensive immigration reform. Let's take care of and protect the Dreamers, and then let's work together to pass comprehensive immigration reform that we did just a few years ago that was never taken up in the House of Representatives.

Let me close by telling a few stories about Dreamers in Maryland. One story appeared in the Baltimore Sun. It begins:

Jesus Perez doesn't remember much about his journey to the

United States two decades ago, beyond his parents using a

simple phrase that would change the course of his life:

``We're leaving.''

Perez was 5 when he left Mexico. He's never been back.

Perez [is] now a 25-year-old research assistant at the

Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

For Perez, the DACA program was a ``relief'' that allowed

him to come out of the shadows. It also allowed him to take

the job at Hopkins, and to get a standard driver's license.

``To now have it in limbo means that you either lose it

all, and restart all over

again--'' Perez said, trailing off. ``I'm not going to let

that happen. We will win in the end.''

I want Mr. Perez to know that we are going to fight here in the U.S. Senate, not just for his ability to remain here in the United States but for what that means for the strength of our country.

Our university community in Maryland has strongly supported the DACA Program. Dr. Loh, president of the University of Maryland, College Park, called the decision ``antithetical to the core values'' of higher education. He vowed in a letter to students and staff to ``continue to identify all avenues available for offering support.''

Johns Hopkins University President Ron Daniels and Provost Sunil Kumar reaffirmed the university's support for DACA, saying that Johns Hopkins University students directly impacted by the decision will be given the aid they need to complete their degrees. President Daniels and Provost Kumar said: ``The decision on DACA will not deter us from working to ensure that all members of our community can participate fully in our mission--the pursuit of excellence in education, discovery and service to the world.''

As President Loh and President Daniels fight on behalf of the DACA children, we need to also let the American people know that we are going to fight for what makes this Nation the great Nation that it is.

The Baltimore Sun also told the story of Monica Perez, who is one of dozens of Dreamers from Maryland who rallied near the White House on Tuesday to protest the decision. The 23-year-old Baltimore woman came to the United States from Mexico when she was 7 years old.

Ms. Perez said DACA ``gave us the opportunity to feel safe. We've already been in the shadows for so long.'' Ms. Perez works for CASA de Maryland. ``I'm just scared for my parents, for myself, and for my whole community.''

Mr. President, let us do the right thing and immediately extend the DACA Program. These are not 800,000 faceless individuals. I urge all of my colleagues to get to know the Dreamers and to understand their life story. It is heart-wrenching--the courage that they have shown, the obstacles they have overcome. Let's not put obstacles in their way. Let's allow their dreams to be able to come true. Let's stand up and be counted and fight for the Dreamers. Let's work together to protect their status, and then let's work together to fix our broken immigration system. That is our responsibility. This is our opportunity. Let's work together to get this done

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I would like to congratulate a dear friend of mine, Mr. Ernest ``Ernie'' Grecco, for 55 years of dedicated service to the labor movement and to working men and women and their families in the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area and across the Nation. Ernie recently retired after serving for 20 years as president of the Metropolitan Baltimore AFL-CIO Council, which covers Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Cecil, Harford, and Howard Counties. For the last 15 years, he also served as secretary on the board of directors of the United Way of Central Maryland. Ernie's vocation and his avocation have been to make life better for other people. There is an old saying, ``You make a living by what you get; you make a life by what you give.'' Ernie has given so much to so many for so long. It is why I feel privileged and proud to call him my friend.

Ernie became involved in the labor movement in 1962 while he was working at Calvert Distilleries. He was a member of Distillery Workers Union Local 34 and was elected shop steward. He served as shop steward until 1970, when he was elected secretary-treasurer of Local 34-D. He also served as trustee of the Distillery Workers International Union.

In 1973, then-President Nick Fornaro of the Baltimore Central Labor Council hired Ernie as a job placement officer for the Institutional Training Project. In this capacity, Ernie was responsible for helping find jobs for hundreds of men and women housed at the Jessup and Hagerstown Penal Institutions who were qualified for work-release status. In 1976, he became the director of the Metropolitan Baltimore AFL-CIO Council's Committee on Political Education, COPE. He served in this position until 1983 when he became the COP director for the Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO. He was elected to serve as president of the Metropolitan Baltimore AFL-CIO Council in 1987, and he also served as first vice president of the Maryland State and DC AFL-CIO.

Ernie has held many other leadership positions over the course of his illustrious career. For instance, he chaired the Young Trade Unionists, which was created to bring younger people into the labor movement, and he served as president of the Union Label & Service Trades Council, which promoted the purchase of union services and products. Ernie has also served on the Baltimore Workforce Investment Board, the Maryland Transportation Commission, the Maryland Workers Compensation Commission, and the Maryland Racing Commission.

As president of the Metropolitan Baltimore Council, Ernie established monthly meetings with the mayor of Baltimore City to encourage better communications and collaboration between the city and the unions. The committee consists of all city unions and a representative from the building trades. Ernie also championed the council's community services division. The community services division provides assistance to working people through information and referral advocacy to help them solve personal and family crises. The services include education and training for union peer counselors; Baltimore Works, a job placement program for dislocated workers; and Project LEAP, an adult education literacy program.

It should come as no surprise that Ernie has received numerous awards for his indefatigable service to people. He has the distinction of receiving not one, but two, national awards for community service, the Samuel Gompers Award from the American Red Cross in 1991 and the Joseph A. Beirne Award from United Way of America in 1999. Last year, United Way of Central Maryland gave Ernie its Philip H. Van Gelder Award for Community Services. In 1995, the Baltimore City Fire Fighters Local 734 and Baltimore City Fire Officers Local 964 created the Grecco Labor Award to be given to a firefighter who ``best exemplifies the continuing and complex efforts of the local union membership to build the relationship between labor and management.''

During Ernie's career, he has been much loved and respected not just in Baltimore, but in Annapolis and across the State of Maryland for his steadfast commitment to the labor movement and working people. He is, understandably, an avid Orioles, Ravens, and horse-racing fan. His retirement is bittersweet because his beloved wife Dorothy--``Dot''-- recently passed away, but I know Ernie will spend much of his time with his daughter, Nina Grecco Dukes, and his son, Gary, and Gary's wife, Kelly, and his grandchildren, Ashley, Adam, Katy, and Ben.

I have relied on Ernie's sage counsel on labor matters and other issues over

the years, and I treasure our friendship. I have been a better and more effective legislator because of Ernie's friendship and advice for which I am truly grateful. On behalf of the entire U.S. Senate, I congratulate Ernie on his accomplishments and his well-deserved retirement, but knowing Ernie as I do, he will find new ways to be of service to others; it is simply at the core of who he is.