Floor Statements

Mr. President, I listened carefully this morning to the statement made by the Republican majority leader, and I was a little bit curious as to what he was trying to say because he talked about a judicial nominee who rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association, who received kudos from Republicans and Democrats alike, including Members of the Senate, who went

through the Senate without a hitch, and then he couldn't understand why there would be more questions asked now for another appointment.

I was puzzled. I thought he was talking about Merrick Garland. We remember him, don't we? Merrick Garland was, of course, President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Senator McConnell this morning said repeatedly: So what has changed since the first time Judge Gorsuch came before the Senate? Senator McConnell, what has changed is you, what you did when Merrick Garland's name was sent up. For the first time ever in the history of the U.S. Senate, Senator McConnell denied a hearing and a vote to a Presidential nominee to the Supreme Court. It never happened before, not once in history. And if you think, well, maybe the Democrats didn't have a chance to show the same steel will, the same political determination, in the last year of his Presidency, Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. He sent the nomination down to the Senate. I believe Senator Biden was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. There was a Democratic majority. In the last year of Reagan's Presidency, a so-called lameduck year by Senator McConnell's description, the Democratic majority in the Senate gave President Reagan the respect of honoring his constitutional responsibility to fill the vacancy and sent Anthony Kennedy to serve on the Supreme Court. So Senator McConnell has asked what has changed. He has changed. He has changed the Senate.

And here is the good news for him. We are not going to forswear our own demands that a Presidential nominee for the Supreme Court is deserving of a hearing and a vote. I said that over and over again when Merrick Garland was being stonewalled by Senator McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate. I will say it again. I do believe the President's nominee has a right to a hearing and a vote. That nominee also has a responsibility to show us that he is not only qualified to serve on an important appellate court but to serve with a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land.

On Tuesday night, President Trump announced he would nominate the Tenth Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. It is important to put that nomination in context. This is not a run-of-the- mill nomination. It is an extraordinary time in America's history. President Trump's announcement was actually supposed to happen today. Why was it sped up? Why did they hurry it up? Well, because of the avalanche of criticism being heaped on the Trump administration for their Executive orders on refugees and immigration. They had to change the subject. After dozens of legal immigrants were detained at airports over the weekend solely because of their country of origin, including children, seniors, interpreters who helped our troops, Federal courts stepped in to block the President's Executive order.

We have done some research, and we are going to do some more. We think this is the first time in the history of the United States that a new President within the first 10 days had an Executive order stopped in the Federal courts. It shows how controversial that order was, that the Federal courts would step in with this brand new President and say: Stop. This has to be weighed as to whether it is legal or constitutional.

Then on Monday there was the unprecedented firing of an Attorney General who refused to defend President Trump's unlawful Executive order in court. President Trump moved up his Supreme Court announcement to try to change the headlines. In doing so, he made it even more clear how critical it is that we have an independent judicial system, not a rubberstamp for the President. It's especially vital at this moment in our history.

President Trump and his agenda are likely to come before the Supreme Court eventually. From his violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause to his unprecedented Executive actions, President Trump is likely to keep the High Court busy. We need Justices on the Supreme Court who are truly independent.

President Trump's announcement came 10 months and 15 days after a White House announcement about another Supreme Court nominee I mentioned earlier, Judge Merrick Garland, perhaps the most well- qualified, mainstream, independent nominee to come before the Senate. Merrick Garland is a son of Illinois, a good man, and an outstanding judge. Judge Gorsuch himself once described Judge Merrick Garland as ``among the finest lawyers of his generation.''

Merrick Garland was subjected to unprecedented obstruction by Senate Republicans and Senator McConnell. Republican Senators simply ignored their constitutional responsibility to consider this nomination, for political reasons. It was worse than a filibuster.

Do you remember the time when Senator McConnell and a number of others in the leadership said they would not even meet with the President's nominee--would not even give him the courtesy of a meeting? Merrick Garland was the first Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history to be denied any consideration by the Senate--no hearing, no vote--nothing. It was shameful.

I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution-- every Senator does--and to bear true faith and allegiance to it. I take it seriously. Even though my Republican colleagues chose to ignore their responsibilities when it came to filling that Supreme Court vacancy in an election year, I know we have a constitutional responsibility to give Judge Gorsuch a hearing and a vote. I will do my due diligence as a Senator and give his nomination fair consideration. That is what the advise and consent responsibility of article I, section 8 of the Constitution requires.

If my Republican colleagues complain about the process for Judge Gorsuch, just remember that no one ran a worse process on a Supreme Court nominee than my Republican colleagues themselves did for Merrick Garland. They really have no right to complain.

Now that President Trump has nominated Judge Gorsuch, Senators will embark on a thorough review of his record. He was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit in 2006, but the level of scrutiny is far higher for Supreme Court nominees and lifetime appointments to the High Court. He now has a lengthy judicial record which we will review carefully.

There are parts of his record that already raise questions and concerns. In recent years, we have watched the Supreme Court transform into a corporate Court, where all too often cases seem to break for the big corporations, regularly against the little guy. We need a Supreme Court that gives the American people a fair shot against corporate elites, corporate special interests. Judge Gorsuch's record as a judge and advocate raises concerns as to whether he would hasten that trend toward a corporate court.

I note that yesterday, Reuters published an article entitled ``As Private Lawyer, Trump High Court Pick Was Friend to Business.'' The article said that while Judge Gorsuch was in private practice, he ``often fought on behalf of business interests, including efforts to curb securities class action lawsuits, experience that could mould his thinking if he is confirmed as a [Supreme Court] justice.''

During his time on the bench, Judge Gorsuch appears to have a consistent pattern of favoring companies over workers in cases involving employment discrimination, worker safety, and other matters. That is why we need to carefully review his record.

Judge Gorsuch must also answer important questions about his views on issues of fundamental importance to American people, such as our right to privacy. Is there anything more important? Almost on a daily basis we are being asked if we are ready to give up a little more of our privacy. We know that corporate interests and business interests are collecting data on us. We can find it every time we log on to the Internet and there is this cascade of ads on the side of the page asking us if we want to buy something that we just happened to buy a couple months ago. We know as well that information is being catalogued carefully and being used by business interests to promote their products and to categorize us as Americans. We also believe--I think there are even some Republicans who

believe--that individuals have a right to privacy when it comes to the overreach of the Federal Government and when it comes to critical decisions so important to our personal lives. At that last heartbreaking moment when a family member has to decide about the medical care for someone who is nearing death, is that going to be subject to a court order or is that going to be a decision made privately by a family? At that moment when a family faces the pregnancy of a teenage girl in the household, is that a family decision or is that a decision where government has the last word? The Supreme Court decides this, and we need to ask Judge Gorsuch what he thinks and understand clearly what he says.

We also believe that when it comes to our security--not just our privacy but our security--the Supreme Court time and again will have the last word. When it comes to the issue of safety, health, and environmental protection, where will this new Supreme Court nominee be? Is he going to bend toward the corporate interests and look the other way as we face climate change, the pollution of streams, the contamination of our drinking water, and dangers to our public health? If he is going to rule consistently for the corporate interest no matter what, he certainly doesn't, as far as I am concerned, represent the values we need on the Supreme Court. He needs to answer questions as well on immigration, privacy, campaign finance, and voting rights.

Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch professes to be an originalist. Let me address that for a moment. I have been with the Judiciary Committee for quite a few years. Time and again, whether it is the nominee for Attorney General or nominees for the High Court, here is the cliche we are given: We are just going to apply the rule of law, whatever the law says. That is what we do. We are originalists. I call that the robotic view of justice; that if you just plug in the facts, a computer can tell you the answer because a computer compares it to the law. Yet we know better. We know judges make decisions based on a variety of concerns, and they weigh some facts more carefully and give some facts more strength than others. This rule of law by robotic justice is a fiction. We know that each nominee, whether from a Democrat or Republican, brings views to the Court that will decide how many cases will lean.

Judge Gorsuch has to answer the questions forthrightly. There is a cottage industry of teaching nominees to give thoughtful nonanswers to important questions. That will not cut it for me or many of my colleagues. The American people want honest, candid candidates for the bench.

We know Judge Gorsuch is the hand-picked nominee by President Trump and has been lauded by rightwing organizations all over the United States. They hope he will be a dependable vote in their favor, but he has to demonstrate--to me and to many other Senators--that he will be prepared to disappoint the rightwing if the Constitution and law require it.

Since the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, Supreme Court Justices have had to show they can pass the threshold of 60 votes to get confirmed. I expect nothing less from this nominee. Justice Elena Kagan, nominated by President Obama, received 63 votes; Justice Sonya Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama, received 68 votes; Justice Sam Alito had a cloture vote where he received 72 votes and subsequently received 58 votes for his actual confirmation; Justice Roberts, 78 votes; Justice Breyer, 87; Justice Ginsburg, 96.

Judge Gorsuch has a burden to bear. He has to demonstrate that he is a nominee who will uphold and defend the Constitution for the benefit of all of us, not just for the advantage of a privileged few.

I take my constitutional responsibility very seriously when it comes to the Supreme Court. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am reviewing the record and preparing questions to ask the nominee. It is going to take some time. It usually does, several months. But my Republican colleagues have kept this seat vacant since February of last year, so they don't have any basis for arguing and complaining that we just have to move on this really fast.

I am sorry we are not considering the nomination of Merrick Garland, an eminently qualified mainstream judge who deserved better treatment than he received from Senate Republicans and Senator McConnell. No one deserved the treatment Merrick Garland received.

With my oath to support and defend the Constitution in mind, I will consider Judge Gorsuch's nomination pursuant to the Senate's role of advise and consent. I will strive to be thorough, fair, and focused on the important principles I have discussed today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is a provision in the law which allows the Congress to review regulations within 60 days after they are written and decide up or down. That is what we are doing here.

This is about the stream rule that has a direct impact on mining operations, particularly coal mining operations. This has been a battle that has been going on for decades--decades--trying to establish a fair environmental standard for those in mining operations. Efforts have been made, some with limited success. Courts have thrown out earlier versions. So the Obama administration decided they would tackle this. They spent 6 years rewriting 380 pages of rules. Over 150,000 public comments were solicited and received.

This is a pretty controversial matter, as you can tell. I have been amused by the critics of this rule who said: Well, Obama just did that as he was going out the door. No. They worked on it for years. There were, as I said, over 100,000 public comments. It is not easy. It is tricky and it is challenging, but they produced it. Now today the Republicans in the Senate and the House want us to wipe it away.

What difference would it make? If you don't live next to a coal mine, do you think, well, what difference does it make in my life?

I listened to Jeff Merkley, my friend from Oregon, talk about the streams and the rivers. Maybe I don't fish, and I don't care. I don't go out camping, either, and I haven't been hiking. Whether the fish are alive or dead or the streams are polluted or not, who cares? I guess some people feel that way. I don't, even though I don't use our natural resources as much as some. But there is a bigger issue here. This is not just about whether there will be fish alive in the stream or the lake.

Let me tell you what that issue is. The issue is the safety of our drinking water. Do you know what is going on when these mining operations dump all this debris into the streams? It rains. Water is flowing. The stream water goes downstream. Now follow the water from the dumping of the mining operations to the chemicals included in that dumping--arsenic, for example. As it goes downstream, it doesn't just kill the fish. In my State, 1 out of 10 people in Illinois depend on those internal river and stream sources for their drinking water. If you don't have honest, realistic, and safe standards when it comes to drinking water, you have decided to up the risk of the people who are drinking the water that comes out of the tap.

I think that is a problem. Have you had a conversation with your family at any point about what is going on? Why do we have so much cancer in this area? Why do we have so many problems in this area? Could it be the drinking water? We have asked that question ourselves in our own area of Central Illinois, and many other families have asked the same.

If we take the approach which we are being asked to today and wipe away the safety standards for the water that is ultimately flowing into the taps where we drink it, shame on us. Shame on us. Is it too much to ask the mining operations not to dump their trash into the streams? Is it too much to ask

them to restore vegetation after they have chopped off the top of a mountain in West Virginia? In Illinois, I can tell you the strip mining, which went on for years and decades left a lot of areas of beautiful farmland in Illinois forever blighted.

Whatever happened to the coal companies that stripped off that land, took the coal, and left the mess behind? Long gone. You couldn't find them if you wanted to.

What Senator Cantwell has said, and we ought to remember, we believe polluters should pay. We believe that the ultimate responsibility, when it comes to keeping our environment clean, our drinking water safe, is on the polluter. The Republicans disagree.

They say: Well, it is just Obama's War on Coal.

All right. If you want to bring it down to that level, then it is Trump's War on Clean Drinking Water. That is what this vote is all about. That is what it is all about. Shame on us if we decide to eliminate this protection for families and run the very real risk that the pollution in those streams could cause public health issues, as well as the death of wildlife and fish downstream. That is why I think this vote is so important.

This is a first. You heard what Republicans have said is the reason American business is not growing--overregulation. You get this picture of some mettlesome, busybody bureaucrat dreaming up some other way to make life more difficult for people who own businesses. I will tell you there is some of that, and I am not going to defend it, but there is also a conscientious effort by people who are scientists to try to make sure that those of us who are not scientists live in a world that is safe, safe for the air we breathe, safe for the water we drink. If we start sweeping that away, rejecting the science that proves overwhelmingly that we are going through global warming and climate change, rejecting the science that says the runoff in these streams and rivers could ultimately hurt not only wildlife but ultimately hurt the American people and the water they drink, shame on us.

Well, we will get rid of regulations, coal mining operations will make more money, and maybe they will continue on--I am sure they will in some respect--but will we be better off as a nation?

This is day 14 of the Trump Presidency. It seems like a lot longer to some of us. Republicans in the Senate and the House have decided to strike a blow for eliminating science-based regulation to protect the public health. It is a shame, but it is going to happen. They have the votes on the Senate floor. They are in control and now the American families are going to ask us: Were you there? Were you standing up for us when the safety of our drinking water was at stake?

I will be voting no on this effort to repeal this legislation.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, during my time in the Congress, I have had the privilege of visiting many other nations, often fragile or new democracies struggling to meet the needs of growing numbers of youth and emerging middle classes.

For example, many of the fastest growing economies are in the developing nations of Africa and Asia. In fact, a few years ago, the World Bank said Africa was on ``the brink of an economic take-off.''

Such economic gains should be welcome news for lifting millions out of poverty, providing better basic services such as education and health care, and improving the lives of women.

They are also opportunities to create more markets for our goods and services, to add to our global allies, and to reverse the conditions that lead to violent extremism.

But for those of us who have visited many such nations, we are also aware of a major impediment to realizing these improvements--namely effective and clean government.

You see, too often, endemic corruption--frequently around lucrative extractive oil and minerals--robs untold sums from generation after generation in many of these nations.

Just look at such oil rich nations as Angola, Venezuela, Nigeria, or Equatorial Guinea, where government after government squandered and stole the oil wealth from its own people, far too many of whom still live in terrible squalor.

Some of you may remember the devastating column Nicholas Kristof wrote in 2015, ``Deadliest Country for Kids.'' Here is how he describe Angola: ``This is a country laden with oil, diamonds, Porsche-driving millionaires and toddlers starving to death. . . . this well off but corrupt African nation is ranked No. 1 in the world in the rate at which children die before the age of five. . . . Under the corrupt and autocratic president, Jose Educardo dos Santos, who has ruled for 35 years, billons of dollars flow to a small elite--as kids starve.''

He continues: ``There are many ways for a leader to kill his people, and although dos Santos isn't committing genocide he is presiding over the systematic looting of his state and neglect of his people . . . Let 's hold dos Santos accountable and recognize that extreme corruption and negligence can be something close to a mass atrocity.''

In 2008, Republican Foreign Relations Committee staff, under then- Senator Richard Lugar, released a report on this scourge, ``The Petroleum and Poverty Paradox.''

The report from Lugar discussed the ``resource curse'' which is a ``phenomenon whereby large reserves of oil or other resources often negatively affect a country's economic growth, corruption level and stability.''

Why is this important? Let me quote from the report: ``This `resource curse'

affects us as well as producing countries. It exacerbates global poverty which can be a seedbed for terrorism, it dulls the effect of our foreign assistance, it empowers autocrats and dictators, and it can crimp world petroleum supplies by breeding instability. . . . This report argues that transparency in revenues, expenditure and wealth management from extractive industries is crucial to defeating the resource curse.''

Wise words from a wise man.

And so, this report became the basis for a very thoughtful, bipartisan law that I was proud to support which tried to tackle this issue in a very commonsense manner.

It simply required that the SEC issue a rule requiring all oil, gas, and mineral companies listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange to disclose royalties, bonuses, fees, taxes, and other payments made to foreign governments as a transparency tool for fighting corruption.

The U.S. law became the catalyst for others: all 28 European Union member states have enacted similar legislation, followed by Norway and then Canada, who are key players in extractive industries--further establishing an international norm.

Moreover, a study conducted by business professors at George Washington University and Catholic University found that increased transparency resulting from disclosures required under the rule lowers the cost of capital for covered U.S. listed firms by up to $12.6 billion.

So claims that this is burdensome and will result in competitive harm to American firms are unfounded and simply untrue.

So here we are, 4 months since our intelligence services disclosed that a former KGB official led a cyber act of war on our Nation and democracy--and what is the priority of the Republican majority?

Establishing an independent commission to look into the Russian attack?

No.

Taking up bipartisan legislation to tighten sanctions on Russia for its attack on our Nation?

No.

In fact, not a single Republican has even come to the Senate floor to discuss these grave matters of national security.

Ronald Reagan, who understood the Russian mentality so well, must be turning in his grave to see this abdication by his party.

Instead, what is the majority party's priority?

Well, repealing health care from millions without an alternative-- and, now, trying to strip this good governance anticorruption law--one led by a member of their own party and subject to years of debate and input--aimed at addressing corruption that robs so much from the world's poor--not exactly draining the swamp.

This isn't an onerous rule. It is simply a matter of disclosure, transparency, and good governance. It is hard to understand opposition to greater transparency.

As such, I will vote against his measure and I urge my colleagues, especially my Republican colleagues who have made helping the world's poor one of their endeavors to do the same, don't vote to put more money in the pockets of the world's worst autocrats at the expense of the world's most vulnerable.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on the motion to proceed to legislative session and the motion to procced to a joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule, H.J. Res. 38.

On vote No. 41, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to proceed to legislative session.

On vote No. 42, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 38.

Mr. President, what is the issue before the Senate?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil has been nominated to be our Secretary of State. We are going through a procedural 30 hours of debate, moving to that issue. As we can tell, many speeches are being given on the floor on a lot of different topics, but the underlying order of business is the next Secretary of State of the United States of America. His nomination comes to us at a particularly challenging time. We live in a dangerous world. We know that. We learned it on 9/ 11, and we learn it every day when men and women in uniform are risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives for this great Nation.

We also live in a complicated moment in time with the changeover in Presidents and clearly a changeover in foreign policy. We note that in the first 12 days--the first 12 days of the Trump Presidency--how many serious foreign policy issues have arisen, some the creation of the new President of the United States.

It is customary, it is traditional, for the President of the United States to make one of his first major visits to Mexico, or Mexico to the United States. The reason, of course, is they are our third largest trading partner, and in so many different areas, we work together closely with Mexico. We certainly work together with them on issues of security, issues of terrorism and narcotics and trade issues that go on, on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this new President Trump is off to a rocky start with the President of Mexico, to the point where the President of Mexico canceled his visit to the United States.

Strong statements were made during the campaign by President Trump about building a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it. How many times did we hear that? Over and over again, the Mexican Government has said: We will never pay for it. So that standoff over a campaign threat or promise is at this moment inhibiting a relationship which traditionally has been strong for generations.

Secondly, since being elected President of the United States, President Trump has said that NATO is obsolete. NATO is the alliance created after World War II to protect Europe against aggression from outside, particularly from the Soviet Union. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has expanded to include many other countries--the Baltics, for example, and Poland. As a result, these countries have become dependent on NATO for their security.

The theory behind NATO is very basic. If one of our NATO allies is attacked, we will all defend. So we can understand why a small country like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, even Poland, realizing that they are vulnerable to Russian attack, count on NATO. When the President of the United States says that NATO is obsolete, people living in those countries wonder: What about tomorrow? What happens tomorrow if Vladimir Putin, who has been guilty of aggression in Georgia, as well as Ukraine, decides to pick a Baltic country next?

So the uncertainty created by President Trump's statement on NATO is one that haunts us to this moment.

But the one that is really overwhelming over the last few days is President Trump's Executive order when it came to refugees and immigration. The story of refugees in the United States does not have a good start. Going back to World War II, a man named Breckinridge Long was in charge of immigration into the United States during that war. He worked in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Sadly, his view on refugees was harsh, and as a result, the United States was caught up many times denying access to the safety of the United States to people who were vulnerable to persecution and genocide. The most noteworthy example was the

SS St. Louis in 1939, which brought 900 people from Nazi Germany to the United States to escape the Holocaust. They were turned away. They were forced back into Europe, and hundreds died as a result of it. That was the policy of the day.

When Robert Wagner, the Senator from New York, asked that we allow 10,000 German children to come into the United States to escape the Holocaust, that measure was defeated in committee in the U.S. Senate-- children coming to the United States.

After World War II, when we saw 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust and so many others whose lives were compromised and lost, we decided to change the U.S. approach when it came to refugees. Instead of pushing back against them, we began to embrace them. And do you know what has happened since? We developed a reputation around the world as the safe place to be, the country that cared. Ask over 600,000 Cubans who came to the U.S. shores to escape Castro's regime. Remember, at that time, Castro had allied with the Soviet Union, our mortal enemy of the Cold War. Yet, without vetting--without extreme vetting--we said to these Cubans: You are welcome to be safe in the United States, and they came in the thousands. Are they an important part of America? You bet they are, and there are three Cuban-American U.S. Senators to prove it.

Today, a question has been raised by the Trump regime as to what our view is going to be toward refugees in the future. Thank goodness we didn't raise it with Cuba, nor did we raise it when Jews in the Soviet Union were facing persecution. They asked for a chance to come to the United States. Synagogues and communities across the United States opened their arms and gave them a chance, and over 100,000 came to our shores. We are better for it. We really have demonstrated that our ideals and values as a nation apply to those who came to our shores.

The list goes on and on, from Yugoslavia to Viet Nam, to Somalia, and many other places where the United States has shown that we are a caring nation. Now comes this new President who says: It is America first; we are going to redefine this refugee policy.

Well, this redefinition of America around the world is something that many of us believe is just plain wrong. These Executive orders were issued by President Trump without consultation with even his own Cabinet members who have been appointed. Those in the area of national security, for example, weren't consulted before these Executive orders went into effect. When I talked to the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, it turns out they were given instructions at the last minute as to how to treat passengers coming into international terminals over the weekend.

I know what happened at O'Hare. Over 130 people were stopped and detained and questioned, and some were never allowed to board planes in other countries, and some were returned to those countries. It was chaotic. It didn't show basic competency in running a government, and it was fundamentally unfair.

Let me say it wasn't just a matter of an uncomfortable situation. It wasn't just a situation of people being inconvenienced. One of our priorities when it comes to refugees, even from those seven countries that President Trump noted, were those who were in desperate medical conditions. So when the President said: I just wanted a pause--a pause for these seven countries--let me ask what we think that pause means to that 9-year-old Somali child in an Ethiopian refugee camp with a congenital heart disease that can't be treated anymore in that camp and who was finally going to get to come for medical care in the United States. That pause by President Trump could be deadly. A 1-year-old Sudanese boy with cancer. A Somali boy with a severe intestinal disorder living in a camp that doesn't even have medical facilities. A pause. We will get it together. We will get back to you later. That is the kind of human condition that is being affected by these orders issued by our new President. Is it any wonder that so many people around the world have reacted?

First, they should react when it comes to our security. Do we know how many terrorist refugees have come from these seven countries on the list? None. Not one. Not one Syrian refugee has engaged in terrorist activities in the United States. If you watched ``60 Minutes'' over the weekend, you will understand why.

This is not an easy ask. You don't just hold up your hand and say: I am ready to go to the United States. You first submit your name to the U.N. Commission on Refugees. Then we cull the list to find the ones we might consider in the United States, and that is about 1 percent. Then we put them through a vetting process that can go on for 2 years--2 years of being interrogated, investigated, examined, watched, and challenged. Then, finally, after those years, they may have a chance to come to the United States.

So now we are going to move to extreme vetting? What is that going to be--trial by fire? What is left? We are doing the very best. The fact that there has not been one refugee from any of these countries engaged in terrorism is an indication that we have a good process that is stronger than any nation on Earth. Yet the President has said we are going to stop these refugees from coming indefinitely from Syria and for months from these other six countries.

Then he made a statement on a Christian broadcasting show that he was on that really went far over the line. During the course of the campaign, he said repeatedly: This will be a Muslim ban. Then he said: They told me to stop saying ``Muslim ban,'' so he stopped for a while.

It turns out that Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, said: Well, he called me in and said, How do I put together something legal that is a Muslim ban? I think Mayor Giuliani may have been speaking out of school, but it is an indication of what was really going on in the Trump campaign and this administration.

On this Christian broadcasting show, the President was explicit that he would give priority to Christians because he believes they would be persecuted in those countries. That flies in the face of some fundamentals in this country--the fundamentals of our Constitution-- because we have said that when it comes to religion, this government shall not favor any religion. Here we have the President of the United States on a television show saying the opposite.

It is being challenged in court, at least to some extent. It has been slowed down by retraining orders issued by Federal courts and judges around this country.

Last night, the Acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, said that in good conscience, she could not defend President Trump's decisions in these Executive orders. For that act of courage, she was fired. I am sure she expected it. But I want to say that for a woman who has given her life--20 years of it, at least--as a prosecutor and who had an exemplary career at the Department of Justice, my hat goes off to her. I think she did what she thought was right and faced the consequences. History will prove her right and this decision by the administration wrong.

So now we have Rex Tillerson, who wants to be Secretary of State of the United States of America. How would you like to take over that job tomorrow in light of what I have just mentioned--the Executive orders issued by the President without consultation with the Department of State; judging NATO to be obsolete in his Twitter; and then having a relationship with Mexico where the President is cancelling trips to the United States, not to mention other things said about China and other countries. It is an awesome challenge. It is a challenge that we have to ask whether Mr. Tillerson is prepared for. He has had 40 years of success with ExxonMobil, starting as a production engineer and going to the top of the company. Now the question is, Is he ready to give up his loyalty to a company and to have a loyalty to a country even if the decisions he has to make as Secretary of State may be inconsistent with the best business policy for that company?

I am going to yield the floor. I see my colleague from the State of Wyoming is here. I believe this will be ongoing, so I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming from the other side of the aisle is my friend. We spend time in the gym together; I go there regularly--for no apparent reason. But we are friends, and we disagree on some political issues. I just wish to clarify one or two things.

When it comes to Congressman Price, I don't know him personally. He has been chosen by President Trump to head up the Department of Health and Human Services, one of the biggest and most important. He has stated, as a Member of Congress from Georgia, that he believes we should change the Social Security system as well as the Medicare system and privatize Medicare. That is a worrisome suggestion for 50 million or more Americans who count on Medicare and do not exactly look forward to being placed in the loving arms of an insurance company at some point late in their lives. So there are questions there.

But the question at hand was brought to the attention of the American public today, not in some liberal newspaper, but in the Wall Street Journal. It turns out that Congressman Price has been engaged in the purchase of stock that

has a direct impact on the medical profession. Whether he properly filed disclosures in buying that stock or whether he did something improper is still to be resolved.

Part of the reason the nominees for President Trump are taking longer than others is that many, like Congressman Price, have extensive financial holdings. We found that when a billionaire from Chicago-- Penny Pritzker--was nominated for Secretary of Commerce under President Obama, it took literally 6 months for us to gather all the financial information about her and to divest her of any potential conflicts of interest. It turns out that many of these nominees did not have their ethics filings on file in time to be considered in a timely fashion, and, in some cases, information about them was found to be in conflict with reality, and now there is a further investigation necessary. It isn't just a matter of spite; it is a matter of doing our due diligence, as required by the Constitution and required in the U.S. Senate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) is necessarily absent.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

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

Mr. President, this is the 11th day of the Trump Presidency. To say that these have been tumultuous days is certainly an understatement. What happened over this past weekend really was unsettling to many people all across the United States.

Candidate Trump made it clear that he had strong feelings about refugees and strong feelings about immigration, but I don't think anyone anticipated the Executive orders that were issued by the Trump administration, by the President, on Friday. The net result of that we saw across the United States at O'Hare International Airport, JFK, Dulles, many other airports. International travelers, en route, learned that the laws of the United States were being changed because of President Trump's Executive order. As a result, there was a lot of confusion and uncertainty, and hardships were created. Individuals who were coming to the United States as refugees were being turned away.

For the record, this decision to indefinitely suspend the admission of Syrian refugees into the United States is not a decision based on fact. Since 9/11, since the war in Syria began, we have not had a single--not one--instance of terrorism by a Syrian refugee--not one. The United States has not stepped up as other countries like Canada have in admitting Syrian refugees. We have gone to great lengths, extraordinary lengths, to give background checks that are as consuming as one can imagine, to verify their identity and their safety to the United States.

Overwhelmingly, these Syrian refugees are the victims of a deadly war which has gone on for years, and overwhelmingly they are children with their mothers. I have met them. I sat down with them in Chicago. It is heartbreaking to think that they have lived through war, may have been lucky enough to make it to a refugee camp, and then waited for years-- for years--to be cleared by the United States and be given a chance to come to this country.

It has to be a heartbreaking process. Through it all, many of them have endured losses in their families that they will never be able to forget--injuries and deaths of people whom they love. These are men and women in Syria escaping a deadly war and the terrorists who have ravaged that country. They have tried to come to the United States for safety and security.

The history of refugees in America is one that in modern version is very admirable, but unfortunately before--during World War II--it was a sad chapter in our history. Not only did we inter about 120,000 Japanese Americans in camps during the war for fear that they would betray the United States, but during that war, time and again, the administration of President Roosevelt as well as Congress refused to allow those who were escaping the Holocaust in Nazi Germany to come to the United States.

Here on this Senate floor where I stand, an effort was made by Senator Robert Wagner of New York to admit 10,000 Jewish children out of Nazi Germany into the United States so that their parents would have the peace of mind that they would not be killed by the war or the Holocaust. That measure was defeated on the floor of this Senate. Prior to our entry into the war, those who tried to escape Nazi Germany and come to the United States were turned away by the United States.

The most notorious example was the SS St. Louis, which sailed from Germany, came to, first, Havana, Cuba, then to Miami, FL, and was turned away in both places with about 900 passengers who feared for their lives because of the anti-Semitism and the killing that was taking place in Nazi Germany.

They tracked that passenger list. Several hundred of them were rejected by the United States. They were not given refugee status. They were forced to return to Germany. Several hundred of them perished in the Holocaust.

It was after that bitter experience that the United States decided to try to set an example for the world when it came to compassion and humanity for refugees. We stepped up time and again to be that place of security and safety. We can point proudly to the fact that when the Cubans were fearful of a Communist takeover in their country, fearful for their lives and their rights and their liberties, they came to the United States in tens of thousands.

Now Cuban Americans, a proud part of our country not only in Florida but around our Nation, can point to the U.S. refugee policy as the means by which they finally made it to the safety of the United States. Here we were in a Cold War with the Soviet Union; Cuba, 90 miles off our shore was being taken over by a dictator, Fidel Castro, who was declaring his loyalty to the Soviet Union. Yet we were readily receiving tens of thousands of refugees from Cuba in the midst of that Cold War. Talk about a chance--and taking a chance. Those men and women who came to the United States were not vetted for months, years, and in many cases not at all. They were allowed into our country. Thank goodness we did it. It was the right thing to do.

Time and again, whether it was refugees coming in from Vietnam after the end of that deadly war or whether it was Soviet Jews, persecuted by the Soviet Union, trying to escape, coming to the United States, we opened our doors and said: The United States of America will set an example for the world when it comes to refugees. That defined who we were and who we still should be.

Now this new President is ready to walk away from that. If we had one instance of a Syrian refugee coming into the United States after that vetting process who caused harm to our citizens or engaged in an act of terrorism--if we had one--then perhaps this President could start to make his case.

All he has is fear, unreasoned fear, unproven fear. We recall what Franklin Roosevelt said to this Nation, standing right out here on the steps when he was inaugurated in March of 1933: We have nothing to fear but fear itself. It is fear itself that is motivating this President to make decisions inconsistent with more than 50 years of American history and inconsistent with American values.

When you meet these refugees and you hear their heartbreaking stories, how can you say that there is no room for you in this country? Yet that is exactly what he said.

Sadly, he not only came up with this Executive order, he did it in a fashion where the agencies that were supposed to implement the order really were caught by surprise. Now they are priding themselves on the fact that they can turn on a dime when given instructions that are important for national security. But in this case, where national security was not the motive--political security was the motive; I am talking in the crassest terms. In those cases, these agencies were forced to make split-second decisions, and some of them were horrible.

A man who came to the United States from Iraq, from one of the seven countries designated by President Trump, came from Iraq after having risked his life for American soldiers. He was rewarded with an opportunity to come to the United States, was detained at the airport, questioned at length, threatened to be returned to Iraq, and finally-- after 19 hours--allowed to stay.

There is story after story of families coming to see someone who was on the deathbed, their last chance to be together, and families who had gone overseas for what they thought were just casual or really easy trips who were subject to detention and some turned away. Why? It certainly was not in the interest of the security of the United States, and it was not handled in a professional manner. It was impulsive and not decisive. It was ill conceived instead of wise.

Here we are today. As I stand here at this chair and this desk in the Senate, across the street thousands have gathered in front of the Supreme Court to express their outrage over the Executive orders issued by President Trump. I am happy to report that almost one dozen Republican Senators have joined us in expressing reservations about this policy.

It gives me hope that maybe on a bipartisan basis we can rein in some of the excesses of this administration. God forbid we ignore the basic constitutional issue that has been raised by these Executive orders. It is no coincidence that these seven countries are predominately Muslim countries. It is no coincidence that President Trump went on a Christian broadcasting station and said preference would be given to Christians.

The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold and defend, the Constitution which guides this Nation is one that was written at a time when religion was a divisive issue that led to people coming to the United States.

I think in this section, our Founding Fathers probably showed more wisdom and more understanding of our future than any other on the issue of religion. They only said three things in the entire Constitution, three things over 200 years ago. They said that this Congress, this government, will not establish an official religion. They did that, of course, many of them having come from England, where they had a national church. They didn't want that in the United States. Most importantly, they said each person in America had freedom of religious belief, to believe what they wished or to believe nothing if they wished, and that would be an honored freedom under our Bill of Rights. The third element: Religion could not be used as a litmus test for public office. That is it.

When you think of all the wars and all the deaths and all the persecution based on religion, the fact that we have largely escaped it is because of the wisdom of that document.

Now comes this 45th President of the United States who decides to rewrite the book, to ignore this basic constitutional direction and mandate, and to say on the Christian Broadcasting Network: We are going to favor Christian refugees coming to the United States. That, to me, is unacceptable and unconstitutional, and inconsistent with who we are, what we are, and the values we treasure in this country.

My mother was an immigrant to this country. I never knew my grandmother, who brought her over on the ship from Lithuania. I do have one thing now in my office upstairs that my grandmother carried with her to this country. It is a prayer book. We are a Roman Catholic family. She was a Roman Catholic in Lithuania. The Russian Orthodox religion was being pushed by the czar, who was dominant when they left Lithuania, and they banned Catholic prayer books written in Lithuania.

I never knew my grandmother. I wish I had. She risked everything to bring that Catholic prayer book, that contraband from czarist- controlled Lithuania into the United States. I have it upstairs. It means the world to me that this woman with limited formal education but unlimited courage was willing to risk a lot, bringing three small children into this country, carrying with her that prayer book which might have gotten her imprisoned in Lithuania back in her day. So religion means a lot to our family, not just on a personal basis but what America means when it comes to religion.

When this President is so casual with the constitutional guarantees of religion, I don't believe he is serving the United States or honoring the history that came before him.

There have been so many issues that have come up during the 11 days of his Presidency, but President Trump's decision to turn away innocent people fleeing persecution, genocide, and terror and to ban immigrants on the basis of religion is the worst, in my view. This attack is not only un-American, it risks alienating 1 billion Muslims around the world. Some of the most conservative people in this country--I am certain Republicans--have said over and over again: Don't do this. There are Muslim countries that are

allies in fighting terrorism, and if you alienate them, it is going to lessen our ability to stop the spread of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Furthermore, this is a recruiting tool. You know what is going to happen. Those who hate the United States are going to use this action by President Trump to verify their belief and their credo that the United States is anti-Muslim.

There was a Republican President, George W. Bush, whom I disagreed with many times, but thank goodness, after 9/11, he had the wisdom and showed the leadership to come before the American people to say: We are not going to condemn the Muslim religion. We are going to go after those who corrupted it, but we are going to honor it as a religion of peace.

How different President George W. Bush, that Republican President, was to President Donald Trump, this Republican President.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has introduced a resolution, on which I am proud to be one of the original cosponsors, to repeal and rescind these reprehensible President Donald Trump Executive orders on refugees and immigration.

We are in the midst of the worst refugee crisis in the history of the world. More than 65 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes. The brutal Syrian conflict, which is the epicenter of this humanitarian crisis, has killed hundreds of thousands, injured more than a million, and displaced half of the population of that country. In some areas, children literally starve to death in Syria. This conflict has forced more than 4.7 million refugees to flee. Around 70 percent of them are women and children who are looking for a safe place in this world. Half of Syrian children today are not in school because of this conflict and because of the forces that have dispersed them around the world. Millions in and outside of Syria need humanitarian assistance.

Last week--the same week President Trump signed this awful Executive order on refugees--the United Nations issued an appeal for $4.6 billion to meet the basic needs of Syrian refugees and struggling communities hosting them in neighboring countries.

Lebanon is a country where I believe half of the children in school today are Syrian. Jordan, one of our best friends and allies in the Middle East, has made more sacrifices on behalf of refugees per capita than any nation on Earth. What message does it send to our friends in Jordan that while they risk the security and safety and stability of their nation to absorb these refugees from Syria and around the world, that as an official policy of President Donald Trump, the United States no longer will even consider allowing a Syrian refugee to come to the United States? How can we in good conscience ask the King of Jordan to risk his monarchy and his country for refugees when President Trump says they are not allowed in the United States?

Earlier this month, I am happy to report, more than 1,700 Jewish rabbis called on our government to maintain and strengthen the refugee program for refugees of all ethnic and religious backgrounds--not to halt it, pause it, or restrict it. This weekend, I was so proud of the Catholic cardinal in Chicago, Blase Cupich, who came out and said the Executive orders of Donald Trump are not consistent with American values and certainly are not consistent with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Religious leaders all across the country are speaking out. They understand that this is more than a political test; this is a moral test of who we are as Americans.

Many of the refugees who came to this country were fleeing regimes that were hostile to the United States. We gave them safety.

Refugees are the most carefully vetted and investigated of all travelers. Before refugees are admitted into the United States, they go through security screening that is almost unheard of. All of that screening takes place before they can even consider being allowed to set foot in America, and Syrian refugees go through an even stricter review. Extreme vetting? I have news for this President: Syrian refugees and refugees all over the world are already going through extreme vetting.

Shutting down the Refugee Resettlement Program won't protect our security. It plays into ISIS's argument that the United States is waging a war against Islam.

Listen to what Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA and National Security Agency under Presidents Bush and Obama, said about President Trump's Executive order:

It's a horrible move. It is a political, ideological move

driven by the language of the campaign and, frankly, campaign

promises--promises in the campaign that were hyped by an

exaggeration of the threat. And in fact, what we're doing now

has probably made us less safe today than we were Friday

morning before this happened because we are now living the

worst jihadist narrative possible, that there is undying

enmity between Islam and the West. Muslims out there who were

not part of the jihadist movement are now being shown that

the story they were being told by the jihadists--they hate

us; they're our enemy--that's being acted out by the American

government. And frankly, at a humanitarian level, it's an

abomination.

That statement was not made by the Democratic National Committee; it was made by Gen. Michael Hayden, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency under Presidents Bush and Obama.

If we are serious about protecting America, we should be serious about closing the real loopholes that might threaten us. Think of the hundreds of thousands of foreign visitors to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program who go through no vetting, not even fingerprinting, before they get on a plane to come to the United States. Want to close a loophole in security? Let's look at that one seriously.

Instead of real security threats, President Trump is focusing on innocent people--children, women, families who are fleeing terrorism.

Today's refugees, like millions before them from all over the world, will become proud Americans who contribute greatly to our society and economy.

Albert Einstein was a refugee. Thank goodness he came to the United States. Today, so many of the leaders of our major corporations and high-tech companies are immigrants to this country and, in some cases, refugees.

Building walls on our borders and fear in our hearts will not move America forward. Let's not continue the cruelty or deception of blaming immigrants and refugees for our security and economic challenges. Let's work together to build a better America for all Americans, including new Americans, no matter the color of their skin, where their parents were born, or how they pray.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was listening carefully to the comments made by my colleague from West Virginia. I thank her for coming to the floor and expressing her feelings about the Affordable Care Act. It is truly an article of political faith on the Republican side that we must repeal ObamaCare. We have heard that for 6 years, maybe longer, and each and every time, Democrats have asked: And then what?

We have asked Republicans: What would you replace ObamaCare with? Until some of the most recent moments, there was never an answer. Now they are starting to put at least some ideas forward, but repealing ObamaCare and then talking about the possibility of replacement is a disaster. It is an invitation to uncertainty and chaos. We might expect that from a Democratic Senator who voted for the Affordable Care Act, but what I ask my colleagues in the Senate to do is, please go home. Please go back to your States. Do as I did yesterday. I called together the administrators of hospitals in Central Illinois, smalltown rural hospitals and larger hospitals such as Memorial Medical Center in my hometown of Springfield. I asked them, in a nonpressurized setting: What would you do? What is wrong with the Affordable Care Act? How would you change it? What would be the impact of repeal?

I knew, and they did as well, that there had been some reports from the Congressional Budget Office. Just last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office told us exactly what repeal without replace would look like: 18 million Americans would lose health insurance in 12 months, 32 million within 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if they went through with the Republican repeal plan, premiums in the individual health insurance market would increase by 20 to 25 percent the first year and double within 10 years.

Despite this, on his first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive order that began to dismantle our health care system. We still haven't seen the President's secret replacement plan, even though he has repeatedly said he wants to replace the law at the same time he repeals it, and we are going to be so proud of what he does.

Let's talk about what repeal without replace means in Illinois, now that I have taken it home and asked the people who are actually running the hospitals. With repeal, 90,000 young people

in Illinois would be thrown off their parents' health care plans. More than 7 million Illinoisans with health insurance through their employer would once again be subject to discriminatory health insurance practices, like discrimination based on preexisting conditions, annual and lifetime caps on coverage, and discrimination against women. In my State, the Republican repeal plan would have an impact statewide because insurance plans statewide could once again decide not to cover maternity or newborn care, mental health, or substance abuse. Those things are required under the Affordable Care Act. That would be removed with this repeal.

In my State, more than 1 million people would lose their health insurance--in fact, 1.2 million, to be exact. According to the Illinois Hospital Association, my State would lose $11 billion to $13 billion in annual economic activity with Republican repeal, translating to a loss of up to 95,000 jobs. Let me talk about those jobs in towns like Taylorville and Pana, IL, near my hometown of Springfield. Those are good-paying jobs. Sometimes they are the best paying jobs in the community. Those would be the jobs lost by the Republican repeal of ObamaCare.

For years, we have been hitting back against misguided and misleading claims about the Affordable Care Act. Who is hitting back now? Hospitals. And not just hospitals. Health care providers across the board are pleading with the Republicans: We know you have some campaign promise you want to keep, but keep first your promise to the people you represent to provide quality, affordable health care.

Senator Tammy Duckworth and I have sent letters to every single Illinois hospital--over 200 of them--asking about the impact of repealing the Affordable Care Act without enacting a replacement to prevent total chaos. Just yesterday morning, I met with these hospital administrators and heard firsthand. I met at Memorial Medical Center in Springfield, IL, representatives from Hopedale Medical Center, Pana Community Hospital, Carlinville Area Hospital, and Warner Hospital and Health Services.

Memorial Health System is a nonprofit, community-owned health care organization. When I asked about the impact of repealing the Affordable Care Act, here is what they told me: ``Repeal without replacing the ACA would adversely impact patients' access to care and our hospitals' and health systems' ability to provide services as well as potentially result in job losses.'' They went on to say that Memorial Medical Center in Springfield, with Republican repeal of ObamaCare, could lose over $140 million over the next 6 years, and their uncompensated care costs would ``rise dramatically due to both a rise in charity care and decline in Medicaid coverage and reimbursement.''

They cautioned:

We would be forced to cut spending by reducing services,

reducing staff, and delaying investment in new technology and

facility improvements. . . . Losses of this magnitude with

repeal of the [Affordable Care Act] coverage simply cannot be

sustained and would adversely impact patients' access to care

and our hospitals' and health systems' ability to continue to

provide services.

This is not the only hospital telling me in our State. I am from downstate Illinois, proud to represent Chicago, but I have represented in the Congress and in the Senate smalltown rural America, communities where the hospital makes a difference. If you don't have a hospital nearby, you could be an hour's drive--if you are lucky--from quality medical care, not to mention the impact that hospital has on the local economy, keeping and attracting new businesses.

According to the Illinois Hospital Association, the 15th Congressional District of Illinois stands to lose $470 million under Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act. That means 3,400 jobs lost in that congressional district in Central Illinois with repeal of affordable care. We talk about good jobs and creating them in this State. The President goes and makes trips, as he should, to try to save American jobs. Yet the first congressional action by the Republican majority this year is to threaten 3,400 jobs in the 15th Congressional District.

Washington County Hospital in Nashville, IL, is a 22-bed critical access hospital 50 miles from St. Louis. They provide acute care, surgical service, and gynecological services. When I asked them what Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act would mean to Washington County Hospital in my downstate area, they said the following:

To eliminate [the ACA] would be detrimental to the

thousands of people in our county that were previously

uninsured either because of part-time work or serious health

problems.

I guarantee that [repealing the ACA] without a strategic

healthcare replacement plan, will result in more downsizing

and more staff reductions at Washington County Hospital. Our

community cannot continue to lose these good paying jobs and

I believe our county residents will continue to move to

neighboring states with more favorable job markets, better

job security and stable benefits.

They ended their response with this warning:

I truly fear that many Illinois communities will lose their

Critical Access Hospitals--the only sources of healthcare in

many of our rural counties and a vital part of infrastructure

in our communities.

As you know, our rural areas have vulnerable populations of

elderly folks that have many chronic healthcare needs and

limited ability to travel long distances for emergency care.

. . . I sincerely hope that you heed the warnings of our

physicians and hospitals--do NOT repeal the ACA in a hurried

political rush.

Washington County is not a blue county, it is not a Democratic county. It is a county that votes regularly for the other party. It is a conservative-voting populous, representing a lot of farmers and small businesses, and this is their hospital administrator warning the Republicans here in the Senate and the House: Be careful what you do in eliminating the Affordable Care Act.

According to the Illinois Hospital Association, the 16th Congressional District in Illinois stands to lose $453 million under Republican repeal of ObamaCare, and that means the loss of 3,300 jobs.

SwedishAmerican Hospital in Belvidere, IL, in the northern part of my State, provides health care to Belvidere, Boone, western McHenry, and northern DeKalb Counties. When asked how the hospital has fared since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the administrator of SwedishAmerican said the following:

The passage of ACA has afforded our health system with

significant benefit related to [compensation] of patients

with uncompensated care. . . . SwedishAmerican experienced an

average annual increase of $43 million in Medicaid payments,

and a $10 million reduction in uncompensated care.

When asked about the impact of the Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act, SwedishAmerican Hospital of Belvidere, IL, said the following:

The impact would be significant . . . it would create an

unsustainable financial result and we would be forced to make

significant reductions in staff and curtail future plans for

capital expenditures.

Yesterday, at my roundtable in Springfield, I asked some of these hospital administrators: What is wrong with the Affordable Care Act? And they told me. Let me add quickly, I believe--as they do--there are things which need to be changed in that law. It is not perfect, by any means. They talked about the cost of care, and they should. In some areas, premiums have gone up too quickly, and the availability of insurance is not as it should be.

I have talked to the health insurance companies, including the big companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield. They have told me specifically that the method of enrollment now under the Affordable Care Act leaves loopholes for people to jump in and out of coverage as they need it. You cannot run a viable insurance risk pool if people are only forced to sign up when they are facing a health care crisis. You have to have healthy people paying premiums to cover those who get sick and need to be compensated.

So there are things certainly within the Affordable Care Act which need to be changed, and these administrators told us.

So I said: I hear commonly from my Republican friends, if we would just allow people to buy health insurance over State lines, there would be more competition.

They laughed. They said: You mean to say, if you heard that there was a health insurance plan in Alabama and you lived in Illinois, that you would buy health insurance there; is that the idea?

I said: I suppose. I hear it over and over again, if we could just buy policies across State lines.

They laughed. They said: Do you know what is going to happen? Do you know what happens when you buy insurance in Illinois and they tell you the hospitals and doctors who are eligible? You certainly want to have doctors in your home area eligible who may not be eligible under an Alabama plan. That makes sense.

Secondly, they said: If people outside the State who are truly sick start buying into Alabama to get lower premiums, the premiums are going to go up. They are going to engineer the risk pool to make sure that it is viable.

That is a notion that they rejected out of hand. I asked them about health savings accounts. That is another thing you hear over and over again. If people could just set aside nontaxable income and leave that in a pool of money to pay their copayments and other expenses, then there would be a disincentive to overutilize health care. These administrators said: But people who are living paycheck to paycheck don't have money to set aside--even non-taxable money to set aside at that point--and, ultimately, many of them would put off care they desperately need until they become even sicker.

Each one of these approaches has its critics. There are people who think we ought to look at it more carefully. I think that ought to be the bottom line. To my Republican majority, look at this carefully. It is not a matter of keeping a campaign promise; it is a matter of keeping a promise to the people you represent not to leave our health care system in chaos.

I hope President Trump and my congressional Republican colleagues are listening to what my constituents back home told me yesterday, things that they will hear themselves if they will go back home and listen to people who run the hospitals in the communities where the voters they represent live.

I wish to conclude with a quote on the subject from Dr. William Gorski, president and CEO of SwedishAmerican, who wrote to me. He said:

I must also speak forcefully as a former practicing

physician. Irrespective of any financial impact of repeal,

real lives are at stake here. President Obama's vision

recognized a great understanding of the importance of health

care access to the quality and outcomes of care. Any

diminishment of this access threatens the health and well-

being of millions of our fellow citizens. . . . My strong

view is that rather than repealing the ACA, we should be

looking for ways to refine and expand it.

That comes from a doctor. I solicited his view. I don't know him personally, but it represents the feelings of many.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the State Journal-Register article from Springfield, IL, on my meeting yesterday.

Mr. President, it was 16 years ago when I introduced the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was a response to a call I received in my office. A young woman had been brought to the United States as an infant, at the age of 2, from Korea. She lived in the United States and grew up here. When she became an accomplished pianist and was accepted at some of the best musical schools in the Nation, she started to apply but didn't know what to put down in terms of her citizenship. She called and asked, and it turned out that her mom and dad had never filed the papers that would have allowed her to become a citizen of the United States. She was undocumented. Through no fault of her own-- brought to the United States--her papers weren't filed.

She grew up in Chicago, went to school, and did well, despite having a family of modest means. As I said, she developed a skill as a pianist and now had an opportunity of a lifetime and wanted to know what her legal status was. We checked the law, and it was pretty clear. She was undocumented, and the laws of America said you have to leave for 10 years, go outside of the United States, and petition to come back.

It didn't seem fair or reasonable that a child, an infant of 2, would be held responsible for mistakes made by their parents, so I introduced the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act said that if you are one of those kids and you finish school and you don't have a serious criminal record, we will give you a chance--a chance to become legal in America, a chance to become a citizen.

Those kids grew up going to school in our classrooms, pledging allegiance to that same flag we pledge allegiance to. They believed they were Americans, but it was not so in the eyes of American law.

I introduced this bill 16 years ago. It passed the Senate in one form, the House in another. It has never become the law of the land. A few years ago I wrote to President Obama and said: As President, can you find a way to protect these young people until we do what we are supposed to do in Congress?

He did. He created something called DACA. By Executive order, these young people could apply, pay about $500 in a filing fee, go through a criminal background check, and if they had no problems--no threat to this country--be allowed to stay here on a temporary 2-year basis. They could go to school but with no Federal help, no Federal assistance for their education. They could work and renew it every 2 years. That is