Floor Statements

Madam President, my father served in the Foreign Service at the Department of State, so I spent some of my early years overseas. I was proud to be part of a family that represented our great country. I learned firsthand the critical role of our Nation's diplomats, the risks that they take to serve our country, and the part that they play in spreading American ideals of freedom and democracy around the world.

The cabinet position of Secretary of State is as old as our Nation. Thomas Jefferson served as President Washington's Secretary of State. The Secretary is the President's top foreign policy adviser and our Nation's chief representative abroad. Today the State Department reaches across the world, advancing our interests, shaping our relationships, advocating for human rights, and working to advance peace.

In addition, the Secretary of State will encounter a department of employees who are deeply concerned about the role that they will play and the actions that they may be expected to take in service to the new President. Last week, the Washington Post reported that the State Department's entire senior management resigned, including officials who had worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. This was an unprecedented loss of institutional knowledge.

And by yesterday afternoon, a dissent letter by State Department staff saying that President Trump's executive order to temporarily bar citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries would not make the Nation safer had attracted around 1,000 signatures, far more than any dissent cable in recent years.

President Trump's campaign rhetoric has shaken our allies--wavering on our commitment to NATO, gratuitously escalating arguments with China and Mexico, and empowering an increasingly aggressive Russia. Mr. Trump has made fawning statements about Russian President Vladimir Putin. In October 2007, Mr. Trump said of Putin, ``he's doing a great job.'' In December 2011, Mr. Trump praised Putin's ``intelligence'' and ``no- nonsense way.'' In June 2013, Mr. Trump wondered if Putin would be his ``new best friend.'' And in July 2015, Mr. Trump said, ``I think I'd get along very well with Vladimir Putin.''

And Mr. Trump has questioned the reality of climate change. He tweeted, ``The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.''

The Secretary of State thus must play a crucial role in maintaining relationships between the United States and our allies around the world. In the face of Mr. Trump's statements and actions, the need for a strong Secretary of State is all the more important.

President Trump has nominated Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, to take on this critical role. Mr. Tillerson, who has never served in government, has spent many years building business relationships with Russia and Vladimir Putin, and in 2013, even received the Russian Order of Friendship, an award given to foreigners who work to improve relations with Russia.

Mr. Tillerson has had particularly close dealings with Igor Sechin, the head of a state-owned Russian oil company whom the United States has sanctioned and banned from entering the United States.

In 2014, Mr. Tillerson opposed sanctioning Russia for its actions in Ukraine and reportedly lobbied the government against those sanctions. According to Reuters, ``[Tillerson] added that Exxon does not `generally' support sanctions and has made that view known to the U.S. Government. . . . `We're having conversations such that our views are being heard at the highest levels.' Tillerson told reporters.'' And yet, in his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson denied that he or Exxon directly lobbied against the sanctions.

Given Russia's interference with U.S. elections and Russia's increased provocation of our allies, we need to be able to rely on our Secretary of State to advance U.S. interests above all. Mr. Tillerson's long and close relationship with Russia casts doubt on his ability and inclination to pursue additional sanctions as necessary and on the quality of advice that he will give the President. And despite the active national conversation about Russia, Mr. Tillerson said in his hearing that he and President Trump had not even discussed Russian policy with any specificity.

I am also concerned that Mr. Tillerson does not seem to view human rights as a critical issue for the State Department. In addition to refusing to condemn Russian and Syrian atrocities as war crimes, he did not condemn Philippine President Duterte's extrajudicial killings. This is particularly disturbing, as President Duterte has alleged that President Trump approves of his actions. Mr. Tillerson appeared hesitant to weigh in on human rights abuses. But the State Department cannot be silent and must be an outspoken voice for human rights, even to our allies.

Mr. Tillerson appears not to appreciate America's role as a beacon of light around the world that stands up for the rule of law and human rights. This is especially troubling, as President Trump's order last Friday to suspend America's refugee programs is an attack on everything for which our country stands. President Trump's order has made us less safe by playing into ISIS's propaganda, casting our fight against terrorism as a fight against an entire religion. That is not who we are as a nation. We must remain vigilant and resolute against efforts to sow fear and division, and we must fight together to protect the rights and freedoms of all people.

President Trump's executive order highlights the need for a Secretary of State who will push back against President Trump's worst impulses. Mr. Tillerson, however, seems ready to do

the opposite and reinforce many of President Trump's worst instincts. Mr. Tillerson's lack of focus on human rights and the rule of law indicate that he seems not to appreciate the role of American in the world--particularly dangerous traits when President Trump is retreating from America's 70-year special role in the world, retreating--in the words of a recent article in The Atlantic--to a pre-1941 world of ``closed borders, limited trade, intolerance to diversity, arms races, and a go-it-alone national race to the bottom.''

Finally, I seriously question Mr. Tillerson's commitment to working with our allies and cosigners of the Paris Climate Agreement to confront one of our greatest global challenges. While at certain points, he has acknowledged the dangers of climate change, he has more recently questioned the science and the human contribution. In his hearing, he acknowledged that climate change does exist and that the United States needed to have a seat at the table, but he failed to express any urgency to respond or a clear commitment to the Paris Agreement.

While Mr. Tillerson may be a skilled business dealmaker, the job of the Secretary of State and the leader of our State Department requires the experience and determination to meet our current challenges. Given his extensive ties to Russia and questionable commitment to advancing human rights and combatting climate change, I do not believe that Mr. Tillerson is the right person for this job, and I will vote against his confirmation.

Mr. President, I support the nomination of Elaine Chao to be Secretary of Transportation.

Ms. Chao has proven a capable manager. She has served in several administrations, including as Secretary of Labor and Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Her experience will serve the Transportation Department and the Cabinet well.

At the Department of Transportation, Ms. Chao will be responsible for implementing one of President Trump's most ambitious agenda items--a massive investment in infrastructure. During the campaign, Mr. Trump proposed to invest $1 trillion to rebuild infrastructure over the next decade. And on November 9, 2016, President-Elect Trump said, ``We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.''

While we have received few details on the plan, I hope that Ms. Chao will work closely with Congress to identify needs within our States and invest broadly in roads, bridges, airports, rail, and transit. While I believe that public-private partnerships can be one avenue to drive transportation projects, we cannot rely on them to be the backbone of a transportation plan, as many communities would struggle to assemble the financing necessary to make such projects viable.

Our Nation's public infrastructure has historically been a bipartisan priority. It must remain so.

I appreciate Ms. Chao's commitment during her hearing to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act's requirement to pay fair wages to ensure that our Nation's construction jobs can sustain workers and their families. Commendably, Ms. Chao also emphasized her dedication to safety.

Maryland has a number of critical transportation priorities, including the Port of Baltimore, the MARC commuter rail, and increasingly congested highways like I-270 and I-81. We have also worked closely with the Federal Transit Administration on safety improvements to the Washington Metro, our Nation's subway, and have pushed for the creation of the Purple Line. I look forward to working with Secretary Chao to build a 21st century, multimodal transportation system that works for all of my constituents in Maryland.

Mr. President, in 1945, at the close of World War II, the 50 Allied nations formed the United Nations to help prevent another world war. Since its founding, the U.N. has grown to 193 nations. While it has many serious flaws, it has been an important tool for promoting peace, protecting human rights, providing humanitarian assistance, and safeguarding the environment.

U.S. Ambassadors to the U.N. have included some of America's leading figures, including Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Adlai Stevenson, Arthur Goldberg, George H.W. Bush, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Andrew Young, Madeleine Albright, Bill Richardson, and John Danforth. President Eisenhower raised the ambassadorship to cabinet rank. Although both Presidents Bush removed the position from Cabinet level, President Obama restored it to that level. I am pleased that President Trump has decided to keep it there.

The U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. must advance principles that the United States has promoted over the years--the rule of law, individual liberties, and human rights. Our ambassador must not only maintain, but strengthen our relationships with our allies.

Unlike many past ambassadors to the U.N., Governor Nikki Haley has little experience in foreign policy. But as Governor, she developed important experience building coalitions, and that skill should serve her well as ambassador to the U.N.

Some positions that Governor Haley took during her confirmation hearing give me pause. For example, Governor Haley made some statements about the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement that indicated unfamiliarity with the joint comprehensive plan of action. I am pleased, however, that Governor Haley distanced herself from some of President Trump's most divisive positions, and I will support her nomination.

Mr. President, President Trump has repeatedly called into question the integrity and professionalism of the brave men and women in our intelligence community. In addition, throughout the campaign, his statements revealed a dangerous propensity to ignore important principles of civil and religious liberty.

Under these circumstances, it is especially important that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency be an individual who will implement the Agency's vital national security responsibilities in a manner consistent with our Constitution and the rule of law. The head of the CIA must ensure that the men and women of the Agency are not pressured by the President--or anyone else--to violate important American values and principles.

Congressman Mike Pompeo has impressive credentials; and, should he be confirmed, I pledge to work with him to support the national security missions of the CIA. However, his positions on spying on Americans, the use of torture, and religious minorities cause me to question this nomination.

Modern nations must have intelligence agencies to help keep us safe. Thus, in the 1947 National Security Act, Congress created the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA provides the President and senior policymakers with vital national security intelligence.

But the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies must work within our Constitution. By design, the CIA has no law enforcement role. And the law focuses the CIA on overseas intelligence gathering, limiting what it can do here in the United States.

Our Constitution limits how much intelligence agencies and government generally can intrude into the lives of Americans. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.'' To conduct searches, the Constitution requires the government to have probable cause and get a warrant. Congress passed and the States ratified the Fourth Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights, in response to the abuse of general search warrants issued by the British in pre-Revolutionary America.

Thus, in 2015, a Federal judge ruled that the National Security Agency's program of systematically collecting Americans' domestic phone records likely violated the Constitution. And also in 2015, Congress enacted the USA FREEDOM Act in large part to limit that program. The USA FREEDOM Act represented real progress and a departure from the untenable situation before the law. It ensured that the intelligence community and law enforcement have the necessary tools that they need to protect our Nation, but it does so in a manner that is consistent with the fundamental principles in our Constitution.

Congressman Pompeo, however, has been an ardent proponent of the data collection that the Federal judge ruled likely unconstitutional. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, Mr. Pompeo wrote that Congress should reestablish the collection of metadata and also combine it ``with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.'' And in 2015, Congressman Pompeo introduced the so-called Liberty Through Strength Act II, which would have rolled back the reforms of the USA FREEDOM Act

Indeed, Mr. Pompeo apparently has a troubling bias against privacy. Mr. Pompeo wrote in the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that ``the use of strong encryption in personal communications may itself be a red flag.''

I am also deeply concerned about Congressman Pompeo's position on torture. After release of the 2014 Senate torture report, Mr. Pompeo said, ``These men and women are not torturers, they are patriots. The programs being used were within the law, within the Constitution.'' If Mr. Pompeo's conception of the law and the Constitution would allow the use of the torture that the 2014 report documented, then I am concerned that he reads our Constitution's protections too narrowly. If confirmed, Mr. Pompeo's support for such torture techniques as described in the 2014 Senate torture report could once again harm America's reputation abroad and endanger American troops whom our enemies might capture.

I am also concerned that Mr. Pompeo has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Guantanamo Bay prison. When MSNBC's Craig Melvin asked Mr. Pompeo in 2013 about a hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay prison, Mr. Pompeo said, ``The last thing to say about these folks who are supposedly hunger strikers is that they look to me like a lot of them had put on weight.'' And last year, Mr. Pompeo said, ``The detainees at GTMO are treated exceptionally well--so well that some have even declined to be resettled, instead choosing to stay at GTMO.''

In fact, the Guantanamo Bay prison is a blot on America's reputation in the world. As President Obama has said, ``Keeping this facility open is contrary to our values. It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law.'' If confirmed, Mr. Pompeo's support for the prison would harm American interests in the world.

Mr. Pompeo has also cast aspersion on Muslims generally. In a 2013 statement on the House floor, Congressman Pompeo said:

``When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in

the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single

faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special

obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith.

Instead of responding, their silence has made most Islamic

leaders across America complicit in these acts. . . . But the

silence in the face of extremism coming from the best funded

Islamic advocacy organizations and many mosques across

America is absolutely deafening. It casts doubt upon the

commitment to peace by adherents by the Muslim faith.''

It is unacceptable to smear all Muslims based on the actions of radical extremists who seek to hijack the name of Islam for their evil purposes. That kind of demagoguery has no place in our country.

Placing someone who maligns all Muslims in charge of the CIA would be a propaganda boon to enemies who seek to portray America's foreign policy as a war against Islam. And the expression of such views by a senior government official could discourage Muslim Americans from working with law enforcement here at home.

Run properly, the Central Intelligence Agency makes an important contribution to keeping America safe. But run poorly, the CIA can embarrass the Nation in the world and ultimately endanger our troops, our diplomats, and Americans abroad.

It is thus important that the person who heads the CIA be a person who respects the Constitution and understands the limits that the Constitution and statutes place on the Agency's role. While I hope he will prove me wrong, Mr. Pompeo's statements lead me to conclude that he is not the right person for this job.

Mr. President, I support the nomination of General James Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense.

I voted against enacting an exception to the National Security Act for a recently retired general to serve as Secretary of Defense, but that vote was in support of our Nation's tradition of civilian leadership of the military. Now that General Mattis's nomination is before the Senate on the merits, I believe that he will provide the experience and steady hand that will serve this administration well.

General Mattis has served as a commander of NATO coalition troops. He commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he was commander of the U.S. Central Command, responsible for American military operations in the Middle East, Northeast Africa, and Central Asia. General Mattis has served as a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and Members of both parties who have worked with him have testified to his breadth of knowledge and understanding of key threats and America's role in the world.

I was heartened to hear in the course of General Mattis's hearing and the Senate's consideration of his nomination that he has many views that are more reasoned than those expressed by President-Elect Trump. His testimony made clear that he recognizes the very real challenges posed by Russia, and the importance of reassuring our NATO allies of America's commitment to our common defense and mutual obligations. I am pleased to hear that General Mattis opposes the use of torture and has no intention to reverse Department of Defense policies on women and the LGBT community. I hope that General Mattis's counsel will persuade President Trump on these matters.

I believe that General Mattis's knowledge of and familiarity with international affairs will be of help to the incoming President and the Nation and thus I support his nomination.

Mr. President, President Trump ran a divisive campaign that engaged in fear-mongering against many immigrants and scapegoated Muslim Americans. To the extent that he attempts to act on that irresponsible rhetoric, I will strongly oppose him.

Thus, I appreciated many of General Kelly's comments in his confirmation hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, including his opposition to a registry based on ethnicity or religion and his skepticism of the utility of an expensive massive border wall. I hope that General Kelly will use his voice to advocate for those views in the new administration.

General Kelly has an admirable record of public service, including leadership of the U.S. Southern Command, which is responsible for Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. He has a strong relationship with current Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, which will help support a smooth transition of the $40 billion agency with its 240,000 employees.

I am concerned, however, that at General Kelly's confirmation hearing, Senator Harris repeatedly asked him whether he would honor the commitment made to DACA children and DREAMers not to share their personal information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to protect them from deportation. General Kelly repeatedly declined to say that he would. DACA recipients submitted their personal information to the government on the assurance from the Department of Homeland Security that their information would not be used against them. These families now live in fear that the new administration will tear them apart.

I hope that these concerns prove to be unwarranted, and, should General Kelly be confirmed, I look forward to working with him to both protect our homeland and the values we hold dear. However, his failure to provide assurances that he will meet the commitment we have made to these individuals who came to the United States as children means I cannot support his nomination today.

Mr. President, I oppose changing the law to allow a recently retired general to serve as Secretary of Defense. While I admire Gen, Mattis and I am grateful for his decades of service to our Nation, I believe that, except in a national emergency, we should abide by the longstanding principle of civilian control of the military enshrined in the National Security Act.

Civilian control of the military is a fundamental tenet of our American democracy. It was in Annapolis, MD that General George Washington resigned his military commission in 1783, after leading the Continental Army to secure America's independence. Washington believed that our new Nation could survive only with civilian leadership. Five years later, Washington returned to serve the Nation, as a civilian, as our first President. George Washington's example has been embodied in the statutory requirements of the National Security Act.

George C. Marshall, nominated by President Truman in 1950, was the only Secretary of Defense for whom Congress enacted an exception. In enacting the exception for General Marshall, Congress expressly emphasized that:

``the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of continuing appointments of military men to the office of Secretary of Defense in the future. It is hereby expressed as the sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of secretary of defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.''

Congress should not cavalierly disregard the principle of civilian leadership of our military. I have no doubt that President-Elect Trump was briefed on the National Security Act's requirement, but chose to proceed notwithstanding the law and our Nation's tradition. President- Elect Trump's lack of regard for this law and the principle of civilian control of the military should be a matter of concern.

Our Founders' emphasis on civilian leadership distinguished the young United States from the other nations of the time. It remains an important bulwark of our democracy today.

My vote today is not against Gen. Mattis. It is a vote to uphold an important principle of our American democracy. Should Congress vote to waive this law at this moment in time, I will review the nomination of Gen. Mattis on its individual merits.

Mr. President, how am I recorded?

Because it is wrong to repeal and run--

--I vote no.

Mr. President, I ask that the time I use be charged against the resolution.

Mr. President, this is the first time I have risen to speak on this Senate floor. I want to start by thanking my fellow Marylanders for the honor of representing them in this great United States Senate. I want to thank my colleague Mr. Cardin, the senior Senator from Maryland, for joining us. I thank the new Senator from California, Ms. Harris, for joining us as well. I want to say to my fellow Marylanders that I look forward to working every day for their benefit and for the benefit of our Nation. I want to say to my new colleagues in the Senate--Republicans and Democrats alike--I look forward to working with all of you in the years to come for the good of our Nation.

I understand it is somewhat unusual for a new Member to speak so soon on the Senate floor, but what we are witnessing today in the Senate is not business as usual, and these are not ordinary times. Having served as the lead Democrat on the House Budget Committee, I know that never before has the Senate rushed out of the gate so quickly to enact a budget procedure to deny the minority party--and by extension, hundreds of millions of Americans--their rights in this United States Senate. Yet here we are, speeding to use the budget process to fast-track a so- called reconciliation bill that will destroy the Affordable Care Act and, in doing so, wipe out access to affordable care for over 30 million Americans and create total chaos throughout the American health care system. That is reckless. It is irresponsible, and it violates the traditions of this institution.

I may be new to the Senate, but I am not new to the way this Senate has proudly been described by its Members, both Democrats and Republicans, both current and former Members. My colleague Senator Harris will attest that one piece of advice we all received from both Republican and Democratic Members of this Senate was to read the chapter in Robert Caro's book about Lyndon Johnson entitled ``The Desks of the Senate,'' where Robert Caro talks about the burnished mahogany tops, and he tells the story of the Senate through the Senators who were protagonists in great debates throughout our history. He highlights the idea that this Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body that reflects on issues with a thoughtful exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, that certainly does not describe the Senate of this moment. Having just arrived from the House of Representatives, what we are witnessing today is much more like the tyranny of the majority characteristic of that body.

This Senate is supposed to be different, but at least for now it seems very much like the House I just left.

As a result of the fast-track process in the Senate, we will be overriding and roughshodding over the will of a majority of the American population, and Americans are just now waking up to learn about the bait-and-switch scheme that has been perpetrated on them. For more than 6 years, Republicans in this Senate and in the House of Representatives have said repeatedly that they would repeal ObamaCare but replace it--replace it with something, they said, that will be much better. Now we know, as the clock ticks down, that has been a farce. There is no Republican replacement bill to provide the kind of coverage and benefits of the Affordable Care Act, and the consequences of that failure are going to be devastating for the country.

Let us take a moment to look at the human toll. First, there are the 22 million Americans who previously had no health insurance before the Affordable Care Act but are now covered through the health care exchanges and through expanded Medicaid. These are people who have been denied access to coverage because they had preexisting conditions or their kids had preexisting conditions--whether it was asthma, diabetes, heart conditions--so they were either outright denied by insurance companies or priced out of the market. That 22 million may be a big number, hard to comprehend, but behind that number are many families like Carlos and Isabelle Martins, who live not far from where I live in Silver Spring, MD. They could no longer afford health insurance through their employer. Shortly before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Carlos was told he needed a liver transplant to survive. His wife Isabelle said that without the Affordable Care Act, he would never have received that lifesaving treatment.

There is the case of Diane Bongiorni, who now lives in Hyattsville, MD. She previously had open-heart surgery. When her Cobra expired, it was only because of the Affordable Care Act that she was able to get coverage and not be denied because of that earlier, relevant preexisting condition. Days after she was on the Affordable Care Act, a cardiologist told her one of her heart valves was failing and she would need another surgery immediately, and she has told us that she ``would have died'' had she not had that coverage.

In addition to Diane and Carlos and the other 22 million Americans who would have been denied affordable health care before the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion, there are an additional 7 million Americans on the health care exchanges today who are projected to totally lose that coverage if Republicans pull the plug on the Affordable Care Act. That is over 30 million Americans who will lose access to affordable care directly.

There is no doubt that in those health care exchanges, we have seen increases in premiums and some of the copays, and we need to do something about it, which is why I and many of my colleagues have put forward ideas to address the increases we are seeing in the health care exchanges in terms of costs. We put those ideas on the

table, and we would welcome our Republican colleagues to join us to improve the Affordable Care Act. You don't fix a health care system, you don't fix those problems by blowing up the entire Affordable Care Act. That is not a solution.

I also want to focus for a moment on the tens of millions of Americans who are not included in that 30 million who benefit directly from the Affordable Care Act but who are benefitting right now from ObamaCare. They may not realize it now, but mark my word they are going to face very unpleasant and unexpected consequences if the Affordable Care Act is ripped apart.

First, let us take a look at the overwhelming number of Americans who get their health care not on the health care exchanges but through their private employer--most Members of this body, most Americans. The premiums in those plans have actually risen much more slowly since the Affordable Care Act was enacted than before. The overwhelming number of Americans who are on those plans have benefited dramatically from the reduction of costs. Why did that happen? Because all those people who had been previously denied access to health care who are in the ObamaCare exchanges, they used to show up in the hospital as their primary care provider or, since they weren't getting any care at all because they couldn't afford the bill, they were showing up at those hospitals when there was an emergency, when cost was most expensive. We don't deny people care in an emergency, and then they get the bill and they can't pay the bill. That is why so many people were going bankrupt in America before the Affordable Care Act. But somebody pays. Who pays? Well, everybody else in the system pays. Everybody else who has private insurance through their employer pays or taxpayers in States pay for the uncompensated care that hospitals would otherwise have to carry. In the end, people's premiums were going up really fast, but by providing the health care system through ObamaCare for those exchanges, however imperfect, it has helped those other tens of millions of Americans. Let us look at Medicare beneficiaries, millions of seniors. Watch out. Their costs are going to rise in three and maybe four ways right away.

First of all, their Part B premiums that every senior on Medicare pays are going to go up. Why is that? Because as part of the Affordable Care Act, we got rid of some of the overpayments, the excessive subsidies that were being paid to certain providers, including some of the managed care providers who were paid, on average, 115 percent more than fee for service. We said that makes no sense. That is a waste of Medicare beneficiaries' money. So we reformed that by saving the Medicare system money. We also save the Medicare beneficiaries money in their premiums because those premiums are set partly to the overall cost of Medicare. If you reduce the cost of Medicare in a smart way, you reduce those premiums. That is why seniors have seen such slow increases in their Part B premiums since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. Those will go right back up.

Second, seniors on Medicare no longer have to pay for preventive health screenings, cancer screenings, diabetes screenings, other kinds of preventive health care because we want to encourage them to identify the problems early and solve them for their own health care purposes but also because it saves money in the system. You get rid of the Affordable Care Act, those seniors are going to be paying premium copays for those preventive health services.

Prescription drug costs. Seniors--and there are millions and millions of them who face high prescription drug costs--are benefiting today from the fact that we are steadily in the process of closing the prescription drug doughnut hole. We had an absolute crisis in this country where so many seniors were faced with the difficult choices of getting the medications they needed to live day-to-day and keep a roof over their head. That is why we are closing the prescription drug doughnut hole. You get rid of the Affordable Care Act, all those seniors who, on average, have saved thousands of dollars with the Affordable Care Act are going to see their costs go up.

Finally, if you enact the plan that has been put forward by the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and by the person who President-Elect Trump has nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price--I encourage every American to look at their plan because they want to voucherize Medicare, and they want to save the Medicare system money by raising the prices and the risks on every Medicare beneficiary. That is the result of that plan.

The Affordable Care Act benefits 30 million people directly, and we need to make sure we don't put them in harm's way, but it also benefits all these other people in the system, the people on the employer- provided health plans who have seen historically low premium increases and seniors on Medicare.

Rural hospitals will be particularly hard hit by repealing the Affordable Care Act. So the proposed Republican action is going to hit those 30 million Americans, including my neighbors in Silver Spring. It is also going to hit those other tens of millions of Americans who right now may not realize the extent to which they are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act. Yet our Republican colleagues have not put forward a single plan to help either the 30 million or all the other Americans who are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act. Instead, we see a rush to generate chaos throughout the health care system. That is counter to what the President-elect has said he wants. Here is what Donald Trump said on ``60 Minutes'':

Everybody's got to be covered.

Everybody.

I am going to take care of everybody.

Well, it is really important that the majority in the Senate and the House talk to the President--elect because they are not on the same road when it comes to that commitment. When the President-elect was asked about finding a way to keep the ObamaCare rules that prevent discrimination based on preexisting conditions, he said, ``I like those very much.'' When he was asked about the provision that allows children to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26 years old, he said, ``We're going to very much try to keep that.''

Here is the dirty little secret. Many people--Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber--know there are only a very few ways you can design a health care system that meets those conditions. One way, which many Democrats have historically supported, is the idea of Medicare for all. The other way is the ObamaCare model. It was not always known as the ObamaCare model.

The foundation for ObamaCare actually had its roots in the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank reports. It was an idea long promoted by Republicans, including many Republican Senators, some of them still here today. It is an idea rooted in the concept of personal responsibility, the idea that every American needs to do their part and help pay for their health insurance, otherwise, if they don't pay, they are going to force other people to pay when they go seek that care in the emergency room or wherever it may be. In order for that idea to work, the idea that was put forward by the Heritage Foundation, the idea in ObamaCare, everyone needs to have coverage because it would not make a lot of sense for us to be paying out all the time if we were able to wait until we got sick and then decide to pay. That is the idea of having everyone in the pool have insurance. The idea is, you don't want to use it, but you buy that protection. If other people don't buy the protection, then the rest of the folks feel like they are being taken advantage of, which is why everyone has to be in the pool, which is why it was an idea that came out of the Heritage Foundation.

In fact, I have the Heritage official report right here: Critical issues--a national health care system. This was back in 1989.

I want to read the three elements in the Republican plan.

Element No. 1, every resident in the United States must by law be enrolled in an adequate health care plan that covers major health care costs.

No. 2, for working Americans, obtaining health care protection must be a family responsibility.

No. 3, the government's proper role is to monitor the health market, subsidize needy individuals to allow them

to obtain sufficient services, and encourage competition.

That sounds like a description of ObamaCare. It is--which is why, of course, it was dubbed ``RomneyCare'' when they adopted this model for the State of Massachusetts. He adopted it based on the Republican's Heritage model.

So here is the problem: Republicans can't come up with an alternative. That is why it has not happened for 6 years, because if you are going to come up with an alternative, you have to go to either one of two models. One is Medicare for all. The other is the idea that every American has to be in the system and the idea based on personal responsibility, which at its start was a Republican idea. When President Obama adopted it, for many months, some Republican Senators were willing to go along, but then the politics overtook them, and since then, we have had the Republicans opposing their own proposed model for providing health care. So rather than repeal and replace, since there is no replace, it is repeal and run.

Here is the problem for our colleagues politically, but more importantly, here is the problem for all Americans and all our constituents: No one is going to be able to hide from the devastating consequences of undoing the Affordable Care Act, which is going to hurt not just the 30 million Americans who are directly benefiting through the exchanges and the Medicare expansion, the Medicaid expansion, but also all those seniors on Medicare and the others getting health care through their private employers.

As I said at the outset, it is truly sad to see the Senate at this point and in this state, especially because of the terrible consequences it is going to have on the American people.

You know, the very first time I was ever on the floor of the Senate was in 1985. I was not thinking of running for office myself at that time. It was the farthest thing from my mind. I was actually working-- it was in the middle of the Cold War. I was working on national security and foreign policy issues for a moderate Republican Senator by the name of ``Mac'' Mathias from the State of Maryland.

I talked about the desks of the Senate at the outset of my remarks. Senator Mathias sat right there, one seat behind the seat Senator Booker is sitting in right now.

Great to see you.

That is where Senator Mathias sat. The reason I happened to be sitting next to him that day is he was working with Senator Kennedy that day. Senator Kennedy was at a desk back there, I believe. It was the second from the aisle. It had been his brother Jack Kennedy's desk in the Senate before him. Even though there were many desks between the desk of Senator Kennedy and the desk of Senator Mathias and the center aisle between them, they were able to work together for the good of the country, just as many Senators from both parties have done since. That is the way the Senate is supposed to work. That is the way the Senate was described in the Robert Caro book that Republicans and Democrats alike told us to read as new Members before we came here.

I am really glad to be here. I am excited to get to work on behalf of Marylanders and work for the good of our State and the country. I wish it could have been at a moment when the Senate was not hellbent on breaking the very traditions that have made it great, the tradition of being a deliberative body and not using right out of the gate, the very first thing, a process to short-circuit the will of the minority party. That is not what any of us were taught the Senate was about.

It is particularly troubling that the Senate is engaged in breaking that tradition in order to undermine affordable health care for tens of millions of Americans and generate chaos in our health care system. I will fight every day to prevent that from happening.

I will also fight every day to try to live up to the true tradition of the Senate, which is people trying to work together for the good of the country. It is disappointing to be here at a time when the Senate is embarked on violating that tradition in order to strip Americans of their health care. I hope we will not let that happen. I will fight every day to prevent that from happening and then work with my colleagues to try to make sure we address the real priorities and concerns of the American people.

I thank my colleagues for joining me on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, once again, House Republicans are wasting America's time with another pointless vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. If this bill were to become law, it would rip away affordable health insurance coverage from millions of Americans, allow insurance companies to once again deny coverage based on pre-existing health conditions, and increase costs for seniors with Medicare.

We could spend our time debating and voting on legislation to promote economic growth and ensure that American workers share in the economic gains that they help produce. We could debate and vote on ways to boost middle-class take-home pay through targeted tax reforms, paid for by reducing tax giveaways to special interests and the wealthy. We could have a vote in the House--at long last--on bipartisan immigration reform legislation, or on a plan to replace meat-ax sequestration spending cuts with a smarter deficit-reduction plan.

Instead, we vote for the 56th time on whether to repeal or undermine a law that has already done so much to make insurance companies more accountable, hold down the growth of health spending, and improve American families' economic security by making sure they all have access to affordable health insurance. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. Like Medicare and Social Security before it, the law will benefit from adjustments over time. If Republicans were serious about improving the United States' health care system, we would sit down and hammer out real improvements to the Affordable Care Act based on what we have learned as the law has taken effect. Instead, we are voting on a bill that basically says we can pretend that more than four years' worth of public- and private-sector actions implementing the Affordable Care Act to make affordable health care in this country a reality can simply be swept aside. This is nothing more than a Tea Party talking- point fantasy masquerading as a piece of legislation. And after four years, we are still waiting for the Republican majority to fulfill their promise to develop a replacement for the Affordable Care Act.

Finally, I am very curious to see how Congressional Republicans will square this vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act with their much- vaunted promise to develop a balanced budget. The Republican budgets for the last two years would not have come anywhere close to balancing without the revenues and health care savings generated by the Affordable Care Act. There is a glaring inconsistency here.

Enough is enough. It is time for our Republican colleagues to get over their fixation on bashing the Affordable Care Act and instead get on with the real work of rebuilding a prosperous American middle class.

I thank my friend from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, things are not always what they seem, and this is one of those cases. It is unfortunate because tax incentives for charitable giving are the kind of issues we should be handling in a bipartisan way. We should be working together in a bipartisan manner to reform our Tax Code and this as part of that.

Unfortunately, we are not doing that today, and this bill along with the series of other bills that will be coming to the floor in the days to come will add $350 billion to our deficit over the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, most of the bills that are coming next are permanent extensions of tax breaks to major corporations. In the process, they don't pay for any of that. They don't close a single corporate tax loophole to provide those tax breaks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am holding in my hand the budget that Republicans passed in this House just a year ago. Now we have the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means--he was chairman of the Committee on the Budget, a good friend of mine. In their budget last year, they said they would not do what they are doing today. They passed a budget saying they would not have tax extenders that added to the deficit. I am reading right here from the budget that I think passed unanimously with Republican votes. It says they will only do these tax extenders if such measures would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015 to 2024.

Here we are, less than a year later, throw their budget out the door. Why did it matter? Because last year they wanted to pretend their budget was in balance after 10 years, and they knew that if you had these tax extenders that were unpaid for, they wouldn't have a balanced budget. It wasn't balanced anyway, but no matter, that is why they did it.

Now, why does this matter beyond the fact that the Republican majority did one thing last year and is doing something different today? It matters because when you increase the deficits, our Republican colleagues are going to come right back around to us and say: You know what? The deficits are going to go up, and so we have to cut some of the investments that are supposed to help vulnerable people--the very people our Republican colleagues say they want to help today. They are going to say: Deficits are going up. We have got to cut those programs.

You know how we know that? Even before they increase the deficit like they are doing today, they were cutting those investments last year. In fact, while they are claiming to fight hunger today, here is what the budget from last year did: it would have cut the food and nutrition programs by 20 percent, $137 billion. That would have ended nutrition assistance for 3.8 million Americans.

Now, I heard one of my friends and colleagues, Mr. Roskam from Illinois, saying Democrats are opposing this.

I heard some of our colleagues saying we are opposing this on the basis of process. Really? Cutting nutrition assistance programs for 3.8 million Americans is process?

You know what else their budget did? It cut the category of spending that we use for the Women, Infants, and Children program to the point that 200,000 women, infants, and children would have been cut off of supplemental nutrition assistance under the Women, Infants, and Children program. Process? Really? I thought our colleagues were saying they wanted to fight hunger.

That budget last year, the one I am holding in my hands that passed here, you know what else it did? It did not extend tax credits for vulnerable people. It did not extend the earned income tax credit bump up. It did not extend the child tax credit. At the same time, they had a budget, and I suspect they will again this year, that cuts the top income tax rate for millionaires. That is what they do.

We can do a lot better, Mr. Speaker. That is what Democrats are saying. We can make these reforms to the Tax Code. We can make the charitable deduction permanent, but we can do it in a way that doesn't hurt other programs for hungry people. We can help hungry people through one mechanism without hurting those same people through another mechanism. That is why the President said he was going to veto this bill, not because it helps the deduction for charitable giving. This is a bill that says we are going to help some hungry people. But you know what? We are going to do something else in our budget that actually hurts those same hungry people even more, much more.

Now, I am also holding in my hand the Democratic budget that was presented last year. You know what we do? We permanently extended this charitable deduction--permanently--just like this bill. But you know what we did not do?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend.

So I just want to be clear. In our budget, we extended permanently this charitable deduction to fight hunger, the fighting hunger incentive. We did that.

But you know what we did not do? We did not cut the food and nutrition program, SNAP, by 20 percent. You know what we did not do? We did not cut the part of the budget that funds the Women, Infants, and Children program so that 200,000 people would not have the benefit of that.

You know what we did do? We cut a lot of the corporate tax breaks. We said we should not have a Tax Code that actually rewards American companies that move American jobs and capital overseas, so we would cut down on those. In that way, we were able to pay for them. That way, Mr. Speaker, we were able to extend the charitable deduction permanently, but we were also able to avoid cutting the Women, Infants, and Children program and avoid cutting the food and nutrition programs. That is what we are saying.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today, what they are saying is, by increasing the deficit, yes, we are going to extend this program to fight hunger; but, on the other hand, when their budget comes around next year, they are actually going to pass stuff that hurts those same people even more.

What we are saying is we don't have to help people by hurting people. We can do it all if we are willing to cut some of those corporate tax breaks, tax expenditures, spinning the Tax Code for major corporations that are put there because they have good lobbyists in Washington.

So let's do this the right way. That's the way we did it in the Democratic budget last year. That is the way we will do it in the Democratic budget again this year. Let's not help people by hurting other people or even hurting the people we are trying to help.

Mr. Speaker, I regretfully urge that we reject this bill and do this the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 351, which would create arbitrary and rigid deadlines for Department of Energy (DOE) approval of LNG exports. Rather than speeding up the approval process, this unnecessary legislation would likely force the Department to deny projects because they will not have the time to fully consider their impacts.

The Department of Energy is one of two agencies that must approve LNG export terminals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must first approve the terminal infrastructure, and then DOE must consider whether or not each facility's exports are in the national interest. That DOE review encompasses a number of considerations, including the environmental and domestic energy price impacts.

DOE has been working to refine this process and has approved several terminals, dramatically increasing the amount of LNG that will be exported from the United States. This shift in U.S. energy policy, from import to export, requires a complete review of the cumulative impact. For example, we should carefully monitor and control methane leakage along the natural gas supply chain, which has a potent impact on climate change. And a number of domestic manufacturers have expressed concern about the impact of exports on energy prices here at home.

I am not opposed to some responsible expansion of LNG exports, but it must be done in a way that protects the environment and American taxpayers. The Department of Energy has been charged, rightly, with protecting the public interest in this process. We should not arbitrarily short-circuit that critical effort. I urge a no vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unnecessary legislation, which would place arbitrary deadlines on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decisions, potentially forcing them to deny applications because they simply do not have enough information to make a credible determination.

FERC has received high marks from the Government Accountability Office for its predictable and consistent application process. This bill would needlessly disrupt what is already working, forcing FERC to abide by rigid deadlines no matter how large or complex a project happens to be. If other agencies with permitting authority on a project fail to report to FERC within the bill's timeline, FERC would become a kind of ``super-permitting'' agency, with the ability to issue permits on the agencies' behalf without the expertise necessary to make those decisions.

By rushing a functioning and important process, this bill jeopardizes the environment and public health. With a number of high-profile pipeline spills requiring costly clean-up across the country, we should not needlessly short-circuit the process that is intended to make sure pipelines are built safely. This bill would prevent federal agencies from doing their job to protect taxpayers and communities, and I urge a no vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the misleadingly titled ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.''

This deceivingly-titled bill does nothing more than dramatically restrict the ability of women to purchase affordable health insurance without forfeiting their constitutionally protected right to buy health coverage that includes reproductive services. Federal policy, including explicit language in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), already prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. Existing law in the ACA states that any individual who joins a plan that covers abortions will pay an additional fee that goes into a separate account; this was specifically designed to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on abortions. The fee is only paid by people who knowingly joined a health plan that covers abortions, and any abortion (except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life) coverage is paid out of those accounts--not by taxpayer dollars.

The ACA also provides that individuals purchasing their health care from the recently established exchanges can, depending on their income, access tax credits and ensure that their health care plan is affordable. This bill would deny women access to the tax credits on their health plans even though the tax credit does not cover any of the cost of plans that include abortion coverage. In other words, women will be denied access to affordable health care if they exercise their right to use their own funds for abortion coverage. This is unacceptable and violates the careful balance established in the ACA. Whether women purchase their insurance through the marketplace exchanges or receive it through their employers, millions of American women would be denied their choice of affordable health care coverage.

A woman's right to choose her own health care is a fundamental one, and the Congress should not tell women how to manage their private health or reproductive care. Sadly, this legislation will do just that.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this assault on women. This bill was a mistake the first two times it was proposed, and it remains a mistake today. Instead of attacking a woman's access to health care, we should be focused on accelerating job growth and increasing the paychecks of working Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 240, the FY2015 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which included the adoption of five anti-immigrant amendments. By including these policy riders, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to hold hostage and disrupt funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Failure to promptly fund the Department of Homeland Security puts our country at risk.

At the end of last year, House and Senate Appropriators came to a compromise agreement on funding for the Department of Homeland Security at a level of $39.67 billion, $1.5 billion above the President's request. This agreement contained funding for many important programs vital to our national security interests. Unfortunately, Speaker Boehner decided to abandon that agreement and instead have a negotiation between the far right and the far, far right.

In particular, I strongly oppose the inclusion of an amendment offered by Congressman Aderholt that would deny the use of any funds or fees for the administration to implement the President's Executive Action on immigration that was issued last November. As many legal experts have determined, there is clear precedent for this action, which seeks to further secure our border and prioritize deporting felons over families. In fact, over the last 50 years, every President has used executive authority to take limited action on immigration, including six Republican Presidents.

I was also very disappointed that an amendment offered by Congresswoman Blackburn was adopted in final passage of this bill. This amendment would prevent Dreamers in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) from renewing the two-year Deferred Action they have already received. This would effectively end the DACA program-- which has already provided temporary protection for 700,000 individuals who were brought to the United States as children--and would subject hundreds of thousands of Dreamers to deportation.

If our Republican colleagues want to address immigration issues, they should start by

taking up legislation to fix our broken immigration system. Over 18 months ago, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with bipartisan support. House Republicans allowed that bill to die in the House without allowing it to come to a vote. Republicans should come up with a proposal to reform our broken immigration system. They should not threaten to defund the Department of Homeland Security because of their inaction.

It is especially unfortunate that these anti-immigrant amendments were adopted because the bill that had previously been agreed to contained funding for many critical programs. Specifically, I appreciate the robust funding in the bill provided for the SAFER and AFG fire grant programs which have helped pay for emergency vehicles and increased staffing needs at a time when the numbers of volunteer fire fighters across the country has been declining. Furthermore, in light of this week's cyberattack on the U.S. Central Command's Twitter account, I am encouraged by the bill's funding for cyber security programs. I am also pleased to see the increased funding provided for the Secret Service, which has experienced well reported challenges last year.

Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to play politics with our national security. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 185, the so-called ``Regulatory Accountability Act.''

Today's bill is yet another attempt by House Republicans to limit the ability of federal agencies to enforce commonsense rules and regulations. While supporters of this rehashed bill claim it is needed to curb overregulation, in reality, it would simply prevent federal agencies from doing their jobs and working to ensure there are safeguards in place to protect consumer health and safety. In fact,