Floor Statements

Mr. President, at the outset, I say to the Senator from Oklahoma that I agree with his statements with respect to the threat posed by North Korea, its nuclear weapons program, both the development of nuclear bombs and the most recent explosion, which was a larger yield than ever before, plus their missile program, including their ICBMs. I think it is important that this Congress do its part and act quickly by further economically squeezing North Korea.

I know that the Presiding Officer and Senator Markey have a piece of legislation. I, together with Senator Toomey, have a piece of legislation in the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee that would further tighten the economic pressure on North Korea. So I hope that the Congress will move forward quickly.

Yes, indeed. I think that that is exactly right. We have 28,000 American soldiers in South Korea and about 50,000 in Japan.

Mr. President, I came here to the floor to talk about the Dreamers, and I do think that it is important to start by making the point that many of those Dreamers are serving in our Armed Forces today. They have put their lives at risk for the only country that they know, which is the United States of America.

It was just shortly after the November election, when then-President- Elect Trump told Time Magazine, when he was talking about Dreamers:

We're going to work something out that's going to make

people happy and proud.

He was referring to the Dreamers. He continues:

They got brought here at a very young age, they've worked

here, they've gone to school here. Some were good students.

Some have wonderful jobs. And they're in never-never land

because they don't know what's going to happen.

That is what President Trump said right after the election.

Yesterday, he delivered the cruel news about what would happen 6 months from now if this Congress doesn't act, which is that those Dreamers will be at risk of being thrown out of our country. They will be at risk of being deported from the United States of America.

So the very President who said he was going to do something to make people ``happy and proud'' did something that was sad and shameful in our country. A majority of Americans agree that it is wrong to deport the Dreamers. Not just majorities of Democrats or Independents but also majorities of Republicans recognize that it is the wrong thing to do.

As President Trump has acknowledged, these Dreamers were brought to the United States as young children.

Regardless of the acts of adults or their parents, these children have done nothing wrong. They are our neighbors. They attend schools with our kids. They pledge allegiance to the flag every morning at school. They sing the Star-Spangled Banner. They play on the same sports teams.

In fact, many of these Dreamers didn't even recognize that they did not have full legal status until they reached adulthood. It was the DACA Program that provided these young people with at least the assurance that the rest of the country wanted them to stay and that they would not be deported so long as they played by the rules, so long as they did what this country asked of them. That is what they are doing.

Ninety-five percent of the Dreamers are in school or working at American businesses, large and small. They are contributing to our economy. Once they received that stability under DACA, 54 percent went out and bought their first car at local car dealerships around the country. Twelve percent were able to go out and make a down payment on their first home. When they go out to buy homes and buy cars, they are supporting our economy, which is why deporting these 800,000 Dreamers is not only the wrong thing to do from the perspective of humanity and being a fair country, but it is bad for our economy as well.

As I indicated at the outset, these Dreamers participate in our Armed Forces and help protect the national security of our country. In my State of Maryland, we have 10,000 Dreamers who are contributing in many positive ways to our State.

When I think of Dreamers, I think of a young man now whose name is Steven Acuna. He is a Maryland resident. In 2001, he was 8 years old when his family came to the United States from Colombia after they began receiving death threats. Ever since his family arrived 16 years ago, they have lived and worked in this country as productive and law- abiding citizens.

In 2012, they were denied the political asylum they had sought here. So they were actually at that time yanked from their Germantown, MD, home and locked up in a detention center on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. At that time, they reached out to my congressional office, and we joined with advocacy organizations and immigration lawyers and local leaders to make sure that family was not deported.

Then, thanks to the DACA Program, that made it possible for Dreamers like Steven Acuna to stay in the United States legally. He just graduated with a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from the University of Maryland. Steve aspires to be an orthopedic surgeon. Here is a picture of Steve Acuna with his family, celebrating his recent graduation from the University of Maryland and aspiring to go on to become a surgeon.

The message President Trump sent to Steve Acuna and his family yesterday is shameful. The message he sent was this: We don't want you in the United States anymore.

It would be a grave mistake--the wrong thing, morally--and it is also the wrong thing from the perspective of making sure we have a community that works for everybody and a strong local economy.

We have invested in Steve Acuna. He wants to go on to be an orthopedic surgeon. Yet this administration is telling him: If Congress doesn't act in 6 months, you are out of here.

So that brings us to what we are going to do here in the Senate and what we are going to do in the House of Representatives. President Trump did not have to make the decision he made yesterday. It was cruel and it was gratuitous, but he has made that decision. Now it is up to us in the Senate and in the Congress to do the right thing. In fact, President Trump has said to Congress: Go ahead and make sure that Dreamers can stay. So, on the one hand, he took an action he didn't have to. He put them at risk. He lit the fuse on a 6-month detonator, and he handed it to Congress. Now it is up to us to do the right thing, and it is essential that this Senate vote on the Dreamers bill in the coming weeks.

We already have it in front of us. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. Its primary sponsors are Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from the State of Illinois. We have a bipartisan bill that has been introduced in the Senate. Now this is the question: When are we going to get to vote on it? When are we going to be able to take up this legislation?

Because of the action taken just yesterday by President Trump, it is imperative that we act right now to provide stability and confidence to these young men and women who have already done so much to contribute to our country--and many are serving today in our Armed Forces--and to let them and the country know that we can act on a bipartisan basis to do what the overwhelming majority of the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--want us to do.

So let's take up the Dreamers bill. Let's take it up now. There is no excuse for delay. People should vote in the light of day. People should let their constituents know where they stand on this issue. This is a question not just of fairness, but it is a question of political accountability and transparency.

President Trump has told Congress that we should act. In this case, we have an obligation at least to take a vote on this issue. I am absolutely confident that, when this body takes that vote, we will do the right thing. We will vote to protect the Dreamers and, in doing so, protect the commitments we as a country have made to people who have done nothing wrong. As a country, I hope we stand for the principle that people should not be punished when they have done nothing wrong, and when, in fact, they have done everything our country has asked of them.

So let's take up the Dreamers bill with dispatch, and let's pass it and let's have the House pass it. It wasn't absolutely clear, but President Trump, in his most recent tweet, seemed to say that he is ready to sign what we send to him. So let's get it done.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I voted in opposition to the nomination of Marvin Kaplan to the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB. The NLRB has an important responsibility to resolve labor disputes, protect worker rights, and ensure fair access to collective bargaining. Mr. Kaplan does not have experience arguing the law before the NLRB; rather, he has a history of working to erode its authority to protect the workforce.

As a staffer on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Kaplan has worked on legislation to overturn key NLRB decisions and delay and distort the union election process. He has provided no assurance that he would recuse himself from issues pertaining to his prior work that might lead to bias. Throughout his career, he has pursued policies that would undermine worker protections. He should not be appointed to a board that is charged with safeguarding them.

President Trump has repeatedly promised to put the American worker first. The NLRB has a key role to ensure a fair deal for workers. It is unfortunate that the President's nominees for the Board have not demonstrated a commitment to that mission.

Mr. President, I wish to voice my support for Christopher Wray's confirmation to be the next Director of the FBI. After meeting with Mr. Wray and reviewing his record, I believe he possesses the independence and integrity necessary to lead the Bureau through this tumultuous period.

This vacancy arose because President Trump abruptly fired then- Director James Comey. The circumstances surrounding Mr. Comey's firing are alarming and suspicious. Mr. Comey testified under oath that the President not only demanded his personal loyalty on numerous occasions but also intimated that Mr. Comey should stop investigating then- National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

Mr. Wray will face numerous challenges as the new Director of the FBI. He will have to deal with a President who has shown a complete disregard for traditional protocols designed to ensure the agency's independence. During our meeting, Mr. Wray assured me that he would remain independent from the President and would reject any attempts by President Trump to inappropriately intervene in the work of the FBI.

During our meeting, I also impressed upon Mr. Wray the importance of consolidating the FBI's staff in one building. The FBI has long outgrown its current space and the building is deteriorating, which compromises the agency's mission. I look forward to working with him to give FBI personnel the facilities they deserve.

As Mr. Wray takes his position, he will need to work immediately to affirm the FBI's independence and restore the confidence of an agency shaken by the President's inappropriate conduct with respect to Mr. Comey and other matters. This Congress must conduct vigorous oversight to ensure that Mr. Wray maintains the high standard of integrity that he has promised and to respond to any attempts by the President or his political advisors to exert undue influence at the FBI. I pledge to do everything I can to support his important mission and the vital work of the FBI.

I wonder if the Senator would yield for a question.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I voted in support of H.R. 3364, the Countering America's Adversaries Act, which sanctions Russia, Iran, and North Korea. I call on President Trump to sign this package into law, without delay.

This act imposes tough sanctions on Russia for its interference in our elections, its attempts to undermine faith in the democratic process across the West, its support of the brutal regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and its intervention in Ukraine. Critically, the legislation prevents President Trump--who has repeatedly demonstrated his affinity for Vladimir Putin--from removing sanctions on Russia without the approval of the Congress. It sends a clear and unequivocal message to the Kremlin: the United States will not tolerate attacks on our democracy.

The administration has repeatedly certified Iran's compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This landmark, multilateral nuclear accord is a critical part of our effort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and has made our partners and allies in the region safer. However, Iran's ballistic missile tests, its support for regional terrorism, and its human rights abuses merit a strong response. This act codifies executive orders sanctioning Iran for these dangerous, nonnuclear actions.

Our response to North Korea--which U.S. officials now believe will be able to field a reliable, nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile as early as next year--must be bold and comprehensive. While I support the sanctions imposed on North Korea under the Countering America's Adversaries Act, I believe they fall far short of the aggressive sanctions needed to sever North Korea's ties to the international financial system and create the leverage necessary for successful nuclear negotiations. That is why I strongly urge the Senate to pass the Banking Restrictions Involving North Korea Act, which I introduced with Senator Toomey. I look forward to working expeditiously with my colleagues to pass comprehensive sanctions on North Korea in the fall.

Mr. President, I cannot support John K. Bush II's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. Bush does not possess the temperament or discernment required of a Federal judge. He is not only a deeply flawed nominee; he is unqualified for a lifetime judicial appointment.

William Howard Taft, 27th President of the United States, 10th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and a judge on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, once said, ``Don't write so that you can be understood, write so that you can't be misunderstood.'' Mr. Bush's more than 400 blog posts, written under a pseudonym, cannot be misunderstood despite his attempts to distance himself from his writings. In his blog posts, Mr. Bush equated a woman's right to an abortion to chattel slavery, advanced spurious claims based on conspiracy theories propagated by White supremacists, advocated violence and use of force against Democratic opponents, argued that journalist's First Amendment rights should be weakened, and advocated for unlimited amounts of money in politics.

When asked to clarify his past written statements during his confirmation

hearing, Mr. Bush said that his, ``personal views are irrelevant to the position for which [he has] been nominated.'' I do not believe that hundreds of crude, insensitive, and hateful posts, widely shared on the internet, are irrelevant in analyzing a candidate's suitability for a Federal judgeship. Mr. Bush's writings and statements make me question if he could apply the law evenly and without bias.

Every judge takes the oath of justice and swears to ``administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,'' and to ``faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent'' upon them. Based on Mr. Bush's own statements, I am not confident that he will uphold that oath.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I want to start by thanking my friend and our colleague, Senator Joe Donnelly, for standing up for Hoosiers and, in standing up for Hoosiers, standing up for all Americans whose healthcare is threatened if we continue to proceed down this very dangerous road in the Senate.

He talked about the opioid epidemic. Just last week I met with a dad by the name of Rick Warner and the brother and sister of a young man by the name of Jamie Warner who had recently graduated from the University of Maryland. He was a Terp.

Jamie died of an opioid overdose. He was part of the opioid epidemic that is sweeping the country. Rick Warner and his family were here in the Senate asking Senators--in fact, pleading with Senators, Republicans and Democrats alike--not to pass this healthcare bill.

He had lost his son Jamie, and he is determined that other moms and dads not lose their children to opioid overdose. This bill--make no mistake--will make those tragedies much more likely by taking away access to care in the way Senator Donnelly just mentioned.

Yesterday, with the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Pence, the Senate began down a very dangerous path, but we can get off that path. We can make sure we do not reach the end of that very dangerous journey. It was as if yesterday we lit the fuse and the fire is traveling down that fuse and at the end of the fuse is the plan to totally blow up the Affordable Care Act, which will wreak havoc on our healthcare system. That is why we have to put out the fire on that fuse right here in the Senate. We have the power to do that. We have the power to prevent the chaos and harm that will be created in our healthcare system if we continue down this path.

The reality, we know, is that all the healthcare plans that we have seen emerge to date--whether it was House plan 1 or House plan 2, or Senate plan 1 or Senate plan 2, or the proposal to repeal entirely the Affordable Care Act, which would cause great harm--have the same rotten core. All of them have the same nasty DNA, and that is this: They would deny access to affordable care for tens of millions of our fellow Americans in order to give tax breaks to the very powerful and very rich and to big corporations. In fact, the proposal we are voting on very soon, which is entirely repealing the Affordable Care Act with no replacement, will result, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--these are the nonpartisan referees who look at these proposals and tell the American people what the impact will be--in 32 million fewer of our fellow Americans having access to affordable care than today. They also tell us that we will double the health insurance premiums compared to today. And for what? They give a gigantic tax break to the wealthiest Americans.

Warren Buffett, a name most Americans know, said about a month ago: For goodness' sake, I don't need a $670,000 a year tax cut in order to throw tens of millions of Americans off of affordable care. Don't do that. I don't need it.

Make no mistake. This has never been about healthcare. It has been about wealth care. I want people to think about this. If this were really about healthcare, why is it that all of the folks involved in providing healthcare to the American people are against it--the nurses, doctors, and hospitals?

People hear a lot of facts and figures from Senators and from the House. Some people may dismiss those numbers, but why don't we ask the people whose daily business it is to take care of the American people? What the doctors say is that all of these Republican plans violate their Hypocratic oath. What is the Hypocratic oath? It is the oath that every doctor in the country takes and the first principle is to first, do no harm.

Doctors, nurses, and hospitals all want to make people better. They all want to cure us. They all want to improve our health situation, but their No. 1 rule is not to make things worse, and all of these bills make things worse. That is what the numbers show us, and that is what the doctors, hospitals, and nurses show us. I think it is worse to have 32 million fewer Americans have access to affordable care.

What about our colleagues? Don't they think that is worse? I think it is worse when you double health insurance premiums and raise the cost of healthcare to Americans. That sounds like it is worse to me, not better.

It is not just all the folks who provide healthcare. Why don't we ask all of the patient advocacy groups across America about this so-called healthcare bill? What do they say?

The American Cancer Society: Bad bill--don't pass it. It will create harm. It will be a setback in our fight against cancer.

The American Diabetes Association says the same thing: Bad news for patients with diabetes.

The American Heart Association tells us that this will be bad and harmful to people with heart disease.

There is the Alzheimer's association, and we can go down the list. Every single patient advocacy group in America that has taken a position on this bill says it is a bad bill, it is dangerous to our health, and it will do harm.

So I don't know how our Republican colleagues can bring Senate bill 1, Senate bill 2, or Senate bill 3 before this

House and call it a healthcare bill when all the people who provide healthcare to our constituents say it is harmful to their health and when every patient advocacy group that has weighed in says that it is bad for their health. How is that a healthcare bill?

It is good for one group of Americans--those who will get a windfall tax break, but many of them, like Warren Buffett, are saying: Hey, I don't want this.

Now there are some very big corporations that are wanting their tax breaks, and, yes, as corporations, they are going to get this windfall benefit at the expense of everybody else in America and at the expense of our healthcare system.

So let's not go down this path. The way to avoid going down this path is to vote down all of these amendments and make sure that we don't put this bill into the House of Representatives, where they have already passed a bill that is harmful to Americans' health.

In fact, I think people will remember that President Trump had this big celebration in the Rose Garden of the White House after the House passed that bill. They were slapping each other on their backs before the cameras.

Yet, behind closed doors, what did President Trump have to say about the House bill? Behind closed doors, he called it a mean bill, and it is a mean bill. These Senate bills, when it comes to cuts in Medicaid that our colleague Senator Donnelly was talking about, are even meaner than the House bill, with deeper long-term cuts. This is not according to me. It is according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Those cuts get translated into stories of people like Rick Warner, the dad I talked about at the beginning of my comments who lost his son Jamie. Those numbers get translated into harm to people throughout this country who have been crying out. We heard some of them in the Gallery just yesterday. What did they say? ``Kill the bill. Don't kill us.''

The reality is, when you deny access to affordable care to millions of Americans, you are putting their lives at risk, and when you raise premiums and costs, you are putting people's livelihoods at risk. So let's not go down this path.

The motion by Senator Donnelly and others will do what Senator John McCain asked us to do yesterday--to go back to regular order, to go back to the committee process, to go back to the way this democratic institution is supposed to work, which is when we hear from our constituents, we hear from the doctors, we hear from the nurses. We do not cover our eyes and ears to the facts and the truth.

That open process is designed to protect the American people. It is designed to protect the American people from bills just like this one for which this Senate took that dangerous first step down the road on proposals that only 11 percent of the American people think is a good idea--11 percent. I cannot even find that 11 percent myself. I have gone all over the State of Maryland, to those parts of our State that voted for Donald Trump for President and to those that did not. I cannot find 11 percent in Maryland who are for this bill. That is why what we call the regular order around here is supposed to protect the public interest--because when you have a committee hearing on a bill like this and the doctors and the nurses and the hospitals all come out and testify against it, they let people know how bad it is. Instead, we have had this process in secret, behind closed doors. In many cases, we do not even know what the next amendments after this one that is coming up are going to be. We do not know what the Republican leader is cooking up behind closed doors.

Let's do what Senator McCain urged us all to do. Let's get back to regular order. Let's get back to a process that is designed to provide transparency because with transparency comes accountability. It lets the American public know exactly what we are doing and how we are going to impact their lives.

Here is what I do know. Everybody across this country who knows about this bill--everyone I have spoken to and from the phone calls we are getting and the emails we are getting and at the rallies and the townhalls--is catching on. Why would we just steamroll over all of that important public sentiment coming from all political views? The American Cancer Society is not a Republican or a Democratic organization. The American Diabetes Association is not partisan. These groups are crying out and saying: Stop.

So let's get off this path, this very dangerous path. Let's get back to regular order. We all know our healthcare system is not perfect. We all know the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. Senator Donnelly and I and others and many of our Republican colleagues have put forward much more narrow plans that focus on improving our healthcare system, not on blowing it up entirely. That is the path we should take.

I hope all of our Senators will agree not to continue to let that fire burn on the fuse until it gets to the end and blows up our healthcare system. Let's stop now. Let's get together, and let's have a committee process. Let's do something that really improves our healthcare system and not something that destroys it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my motions to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I intend to file a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report the same back to the Senate within 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in Session, with changes that would eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription drugs unaffordable for those with childhood cancer. I am offering this motion because the Finance Committee should review the implications of depriving millions of Americans of health insurance while at the same time providing tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my motion to commit be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription

drugs unaffordable for individuals with Multiple Sclerosis.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription

drugs unaffordable for individuals with Parkinson's disease.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with

instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,

not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,

with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to charge

individuals with diabetes more for preventative health care.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to

report the same back to the Senate within 3 days, not

counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with

changes that would ensure that no individual with income of

more than $1,000,000 annually would benefit from any of the

TrumpCare tax cuts.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to

report the same back to the Senate within 3 days, not

counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with

changes that would ensure that billionaires would not benefit

from any of the TrumpCare tax cuts.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to

report the same back to the Senate within 3 days, not

counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with

changes that would ensure that no individual with income of

more than $500,000,000 annually would benefit from any of the

TrumpCare tax cuts.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage

provided by Medicaid to individuals with blast injuries.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage

provided by Medicaid to individuals with autism.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage

provided by Medicaid to individuals with asthma.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage

provided by Medicaid to individuals with Amyotrophic Lateral

Sclerosis (ALS).

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage

provided by Medicaid to individuals with metastatic cancer.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage

provided by Medicaid to individuals with childhood cancer.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage

provided by Medicaid to individuals with Multiple Sclerosis.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage

provided by Medicaid to individuals with Parkinson's disease.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would weaken coverage

provided by Medicaid to individuals with breast cancer.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription

drugs unaffordable for individuals with congenital heart

defects.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription

drugs unaffordable for individuals with diabetes.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription

drugs unaffordable for individuals with opioid addiction.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription

drugs unaffordable for individuals with a mental health

illness.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription

drugs unaffordable for individuals with Alzheimer's disease.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription

drugs unaffordable for individuals with any rare disease.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to make prescription

drugs unaffordable for individuals with lupus.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that would reduce financial

assistance, such as tax credits, for low- and moderate-income

Americans.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with

instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,

not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,

with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to charge

individuals with breast cancer more for preventative health

care.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with

instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days,

not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session,

with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to charge

individuals with Parkinson's disease more for preventative

health care.

Motion to Commit With Instructions

Mr. Van Hollen moves to commit the bill H.R. 1628 to the

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with

instructions to report the same back to the Senate

in 3 days, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in

session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) eliminate provisions that threaten to charge

individuals with Multiple Sclerosis more for preventative

health care.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, in introducing legislation that would establish a Bicentennial Commission to honor Frederick Douglass in 2018. Douglass was an extraordinary individual who was enslaved at birth in Talbot County, Maryland.

At a young age, Douglass learned to read and write. In 1838 he escaped from Maryland and moved to New York. Then, in 1845, he published his first autobiography called ``The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave''.

He later escaped to Great Britain to avoid being tracked down and returned to slavery in Maryland. Ultimately, British Quakers paid for his freedom, which enabled him to return to United States, settling in Baltimore, Maryland in 1847. Frederick Douglass continued to be a strong Abolitionist who campaigned against slavery and in favor of the right to vote throughout the East and Mid-West. In 1850 he oversaw the Underground-Railroad in Rochester, New York.

As a Freeman he was able to hold significant positions within the Government. He served as an Advisor to President Lincoln. He was appointed to serve as the District of Columbia Legislative Council, the United States Marshall and the Recorder of Deeds. He subsequently became the Ambassador to Haiti from 1889 to 1891.

Despite his extensive travel, Douglass made four trips back to Talbot County, Maryland. He reconciled with Captain Thomas Auld who had enslaved him in the past. He made a pilgrimage to Tappers Corner in search of his grandmother's cabin and his birthplace. As an entrepreneur, he invested in several enterprises, especially those that would benefit the African-American community. These included low-income housing developments in his old neighborhood in Fells Point (named Douglass Place) and at Highland Beach, a summer resort community outside of Annapolis popular with African Americans outside of Annapolis.

Two hundred years after Douglass' birth is a fitting time to reflect upon his work and achievements and pay tribute to a man who fought for his freedom and justice for all. He stated: ``We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future.''

In that spirit, it will be important to honor this man and explore how his legacy can help guide the future of our Country. As Douglass stated, ``The life of the Nation is secure only while the Nation is honest, truthful and virtuous''.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, in introducing legislation that would establish a Bicentennial Commission to honor Frederick Douglass in 2018. Douglass was an extraordinary individual who was enslaved at birth in Talbot County, Maryland.

At a young age, Douglass learned to read and write. In 1838 he escaped from Maryland and moved to New York. Then, in 1845, he published his first autobiography called ``The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave''.

He later escaped to Great Britain to avoid being tracked down and returned to slavery in Maryland. Ultimately, British Quakers paid for his freedom, which enabled him to return to United States, settling in Baltimore, Maryland in 1847. Frederick Douglass continued to be a strong Abolitionist who campaigned against slavery and in favor of the right to vote throughout the East and Mid-West. In 1850 he oversaw the Underground-Railroad in Rochester, New York.

As a Freeman he was able to hold significant positions within the Government. He served as an Advisor to President Lincoln. He was appointed to serve as the District of Columbia Legislative Council, the United States Marshall and the Recorder of Deeds. He subsequently became the Ambassador to Haiti from 1889 to 1891.

Despite his extensive travel, Douglass made four trips back to Talbot County, Maryland. He reconciled with Captain Thomas Auld who had enslaved him in the past. He made a pilgrimage to Tappers Corner in search of his grandmother's cabin and his birthplace. As an entrepreneur, he invested in several enterprises, especially those that would benefit the African-American community. These included low-income housing developments in his old neighborhood in Fells Point (named Douglass Place) and at Highland Beach, a summer resort community outside of Annapolis popular with African Americans outside of Annapolis.

Two hundred years after Douglass' birth is a fitting time to reflect upon his work and achievements and pay tribute to a man who fought for his freedom and justice for all. He stated: ``We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future.''

In that spirit, it will be important to honor this man and explore how his legacy can help guide the future of our Country. As Douglass stated, ``The life of the Nation is secure only while the Nation is honest, truthful and virtuous''.

Mr. President, I wish to honor an outstanding American, Captain Randy Dopp, on his retirement from American Airlines.

Captain Dopp distinguished himself with over 31 years of safe commercial airline flying for Piedmont, USAirways, and American Airlines. He has been well-known for his commitment to airline pilots and to the flying community.

Over the years, I have relied on Captain Dopp's knowledge and insights on issues relating to airlines, pensions, and aviation safety. I know that his wisdom and service will be greatly missed.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Captain Dopp on his accomplishments and congratulating him on his retirement.

Mr. President, I wish to honor an outstanding American, Captain Peter A. Machtel, on his retirement from American Airlines.

Captain Machtel distinguished himself with over 30 years of safe commercial airline flying for Piedmont, USAirways, and American Airlines. In addition, he served the American public as a Federal flight deck duty officer, beginning with that program as soon as it was implemented following the attacks on 9/11. His work for more than 15 years with that vital security program demonstrated his selfless duty and commitment to the safety of the American people.

Over the years, I have relied on Captain Machtel's knowledge and insights on issues relating to airlines, pensions, and aviation safety. I know that his wisdom and dedication to our country will be sorely missed.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Captain Machtel for his distinguished service and congratulating him on his retirement.

Mr. President, like many of our colleagues during the Fourth of July break, I spent much of my time crisscrossing the State of Maryland. On the Fourth of July, I attended many parades. The very first parade of that day was in a part of Maryland outside of Baltimore City, called Dundalk, MD, where Donald Trump had done very well in the past election.

What I found during that parade was a lot of people there who were still supportive of President Trump but not one person at that parade who was in favor of TrumpCare or the Senate Republican so-called healthcare bill--not one.

I was listening to the Senator from Vermont about the most recent polling. The polling I had seen previously had shown 17 percent of the American people in favor of this, which was very low. I am not surprised to hear it is even lower now at 12 percent because my own personal experience in these places in Maryland that had been supportive of Donald Trump, and in many ways still are, were that they were not in favor of this healthcare bill. In many ways, they had felt betrayed by it.

After all, during the last campaign, Donald Trump said he wasn't going to cut Medicaid, and yet the bill before us has dramatic cuts to Medicaid. In fact, the Senate bill has even deeper cuts to Medicaid over time than the House bill.

We all remember the House bill. President Trump had a great celebration in the Rose Garden in public, but behind closed doors he called it mean. Yet the Senate bill, when it comes to Medicaid cuts, will make them even deeper over a period of time, according to the report issued by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, just as we all left town for the Fourth of July break.

It was an interesting experience to hear people, on the one hand, saying let's find ways to work together on many of the challenges we have in this country--and we should find ways to work together--but are strongly opposed to the healthcare bill that is before the Senate right now. The reason is, they are paying attention. They are concluding about this bill the same thing that the AMA, the American Medical Association, has concluded. In opposing this bill, America's doctors say it violates the No. 1 principle of medicine, which is: First, do no harm. That is the Hippocratic Oath. This Senate so-called healthcare violates that very simple proposition. At the very least, we want a healthcare system that doesn't do greater harm than what would otherwise be flawless. Yet we know, from this legislation, in looking at it, that it does do great harm to our healthcare system in the United States of America.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has looked at it and concluded that if you pass this legislation, 22 million fewer Americans will have access to affordable care than if you don't pass the bill. So it does harm compared to where we are today.

It is absolutely true that the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. In fact, the healthcare exchanges specifically can be improved. We need more choices. We need more competition there. Make no mistake, the Senate Republican bill and the bill that passed the House don't improve the Affordable Care Act. They destroy those parts of it that are working and have been of great benefit to tens of millions of Americans.

The Congressional Budget Office also tells us that premiums will go up next year. The Congressional Budget Office also tells us that if you are a senior between the ages of 50 and 64, you are in for a walloping increase in your premiums, which of course is what the AARP calls the age tax and why they are on the warpath against this legislation-- because it will be greatly damaging to those seniors who are in the individual market who are now going to have to pay huge increases in premiums. Those have been documented by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

I would remind my colleagues that the head of the Congressional Budget Office was someone selected by the Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, and the CBO is our referee in this place.

If we all could make up our own facts, which in many cases the debates go in those directions anyway, it would be an even more unruly place. At least we have the CBO to provide that analysis. It is not just the CBO. This is masquerading as a healthcare bill.

I ask the question of my colleagues, Why is it that every single patient advocacy group that has weighed in on this bill has weighed in against this bill? These are not Democratic organizations or Republican organizations:

the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, the National Association on Mental Illness, National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Alzheimer's Association. These are our constituents.

They don't wake up every morning thinking about a Democratic plan or Republican plan or Independent plan. These are organizations dedicated to patient health. They are all against a bill that is parading as a healthcare bill.

How can that be the case, that every single advocacy group that has weighed in on this bill that has a healthcare mandate and is nonpartisan is against it?

I ask my Republican colleagues to go back to the drawing board. This is not a healthcare bill, not when every single patient advocacy group weighed in against it, not when nonpartisan analysis tells us that 22 million people will lose out, not when the American Medical Association says it violates this simple principle of, first, do not harm.

It is not just the doctors. It is the nurses. It is the hospitals. It is the National Rural Health Association. I spent a good amount of time in rural Maryland over the Fourth of July break. Rural hospitals are terrified of the consequences of this legislation, not just because of the harm that will befall their patients because their patients will be denied access to affordable care--but when they no longer have patients who are covered by insurance who come through their doors and there is an emergency so they provide that care anyway, then the hospital all of a sudden is not getting paid for the care it provides. They are deathly afraid they are going to have to scale back their operations and lay off people in a lot of these rural hospitals.

I really hope and believe this is a moment where the Senate can look at this situation and decide let's not go down this road because the American people are asking themselves why are we doing this. It is one of those cases where I think people sort of lost track of why, other than the fact that, as many have said today, there had been this call to get rid of ObamaCare, to get rid of the Affordable Care Act but never a lot of thought as to what was going to replace it.

Now what we are learning is the proposals that would supposedly replace it will do harm. They will do a lot more harm than the place we are at today. Rather than do harm and hurt tens of millions of Americans, let's find a way to improve the current system. There are practical ideas for how we can improve the healthcare exchanges, the marketplaces within the Affordable Care Act. Many of us have put forward ideas, and I would be more than happy to explore with our colleagues ways we can improve upon those exchanges without doing harm.

When you look at this legislation and you realize it is not about healthcare, you have to ask yourself: What is it about other than simply saying we are going to fulfill this pledge of getting rid of the Affordable Care Act? At its core, there are two pillars to this bill. They are rotten pillars, but that is what they are. One is these very dramatic cuts to Medicaid, very dramatic. As I said, the Senate cuts even deeper over a longer period of time than the House bill. In the Senate bill, that cut is around $770 billion, and then there are also cuts to tax credits that help more Americans afford healthcare. So if you cut Medicaid, you get rid of tax credits that make healthcare more affordable. On the other side of the ledger is this whopping tax cut-- whopping tax cut that goes to some very powerful special interests and some very wealthy individuals. Many of us heard Warren Buffett a couple of weeks ago on TV saying: I don't need a $670,000-a-year tax cut as part of a bill that is going to put the health of my fellow Americans at risk.

I think a lot of people are asking the question: If this is a healthcare bill, why is the core of it this huge cut to Medicaid and a huge tax break for the wealthiest Americans? And by the way, if you make $1 million a year, you get a $57,000-a-year, on average, tax break in this so-called healthcare bill.

So let's put aside a bill that is rotten to its core. I heard a lot of talk about trying to fix this. I would just warn my colleagues to make sure our constituents know that cosmetic changes aren't going to fix this. You can't put a little deodorant on this and make it come out smelling great. It is just not going to happen. But if people are genuinely interested in finding ways to improve the exchanges, I am all in. We certainly should work together to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and there are lots of proposals out there to do it. The President at one time even talked about making that a priority, but that seems to have fallen away. We all know there are ways we can smartly save money in our healthcare system by continuing to move away from a system that is based simply on the quantity of care and the volume of care and move toward one that rewards the value and quality of care. Let's do that.

The final thing I want to point out is that I was in Southern Maryland over the break, down in a place called St. Mary's County. I visited one of the substance abuse treatment centers called Beacon of Hope Recovery Center. These are people of great faith coming together to help people who are victims of the opioid epidemic, which has had a devastating impact on Maryland, as it has on so much of the rest of the country. We talked about some of the former patients who were there, people who are now actually part of the operation to help save the lives of other people who are racked with addiction. We met with these dedicated staff members, former patients, and with local law enforcement all around a table, recognizing that if we are really going to conquer the opioid epidemic, we need to provide treatment services. This recovery center was pleading with all of us--with me, asking me to plead with all of our colleagues to not cut Medicaid because they are going to be relying on continuing Medicaid funding in order to provide those treatment services.

I think people around the country are just beginning to learn that Medicaid has been helpful and will become even more helpful in the fight against the opioid epidemic; that it is helping our kids with disabilities and special education in our schools; that it helps low- income working families who may work for an employer who doesn't provide health insurance and who still pays so low that they are at an income level where they qualify for Medicaid. People are also learning that most of the money spent in Medicaid goes to individuals in nursing homes and people with long-term disabilities, people who need long-term care. That is where most of the money goes. And 2 out of 3 dollars spent on nursing home care in the United States are Medicaid dollars.

So we are all in this together. Those deep cuts to Medicaid are going to have a devastating impact, as will the other changes that are going to make health insurance premiums go up for so many people, especially for seniors. And the provisions are going to harm those with preexisting conditions in various ways.

I will end with one of many stories that I have gotten, personal testimonies I received from constituents throughout the State of Maryland.

This one is from Sarah from Arnold, MD, who says:

Without the Affordable Care Act, my family would not have

affordable, reliable health insurance. When my 3-year-old was

2 months old, he had emergency brain surgery for a benign

cyst. Because of this, and even though he does not have any

lingering effects or medical needs as a result of this

surgery, we were denied coverage for him before the ACA.

That, of course, is because before the ACA, people could be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. At the age of 2 months, he had the cyst. He was forever marked as someone with a preexisting condition and therefore could not get affordable coverage.

They wrote:

We were denied coverage before the ACA. In 2014, my husband

opened up his own family law practice. Because of this

decision, we were on our own for health insurance.

So they bought into the exchange.

And we are now in our second year of excellent coverage

thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Having a fixed monthly

payment with the options and privileges equal to those who

work for big companies has been immensely helpful. The

Affordable Care Act has worked for me and my family.

Mr. President, my point is not that the Affordable Care Act is perfect. There are improvements that can be

made. We should work together to make improvements, but let's not do something that violates what the doctors call the Hippocratic Oath. Let's not do something that does more harm in our system. Let's not do something that will result in 22 million fewer of our fellow Americans having access. Let's do something good together that actually builds on what we have, fixes what is broken, because we can make improvements in the Affordable Care Act, not by doing a U-turn and going backward but by looking forward.

Mr. President, I really hope that we will do that together.

Thank you.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to an exceptional faith leader in my own neighborhood in Kensington, MD. After 32 years of gifted service to St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Kensington, the Reverend Richard Lee Buckingham will retire at the end of July and it is an occasion that deserves recognition and celebration.

My own family worships at St. Paul's, and my children have been the beneficiaries of Rick Buckingham's wise counsel and leadership. He has long directed programs at St. Paul's for the benefit of young people, and he is recognized throughout many faith communities as a leader in Christian education and the spiritual nourishment of teens and young adults.

Reverend Buckingham has served in ministry to the local church for 43 years and arrived at St. Paul's United Methodist Church in 1985. He has worked with nine different senior pastors, offering counsel and wisdom to each in his role as minister of education and youth.

Reverend Buckingham has instructed over 350 young people during confirmation classes and watched proudly as they took their vows of faith. He has led eight different trips to witness the realities of faith and conflict in the Holy Land; he escorted young leaders to eight different international gatherings of United Methodist Youth leaders; he organized 20 different youth mission trips to Appalachia, Puerto Rico, and places beyond; he has leveraged his own interest in church history to take students to places where they will learn about their faith and will conclude that work with a trip to Germany later this year to celebrate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's launch of the Protestant Reformation.

Rick Buckingham has always been on the go; always introducing young people to a wider world, mindful of the observation of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, that ``the world is our parish.'' He visits recent graduates of St. Paul's UMC at their colleges, conducts their weddings--34 to date--and takes them to annual rock-faith events in Ocean City, although I suspect he uses an occasional earplug.

The reverend is also recognized for his leadership as a deacon of the United Methodist Church, a designation with specific responsibilities, and he has given to his wider denomination as much as he has given to his own local congregation.

Rick Buckingham teaches us all how to be a ``humble servant'' in accordance with our faith and at a time when we need examples of what true community service, faith, and civility looks like in the public square. It is a personal honor for me to recognize this leader in my own church and a leader in the wider community beyond.

Mr. President, I want to extend my deepest condolences to the family of Alex Villamayor, whose life was cut short 2 years ago in Paraguay. Alex was a son, brother, nephew, grandson, and friend. At just 16 years old, Alex taught us that we should not lead our lives with cynicism and hate, but with love and kindness. Even though Alex is no longer physically with us, he continues to shed light on the unjust and save lives through his story.

I call upon the Government of Paraguay to do everything in its power to guarantee an impartial, transparent, and expeditious trial so that justice is upheld for Alex and his family.