Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, like many of our colleagues during the Fourth of July break, I spent much of my time crisscrossing the State of Maryland. On the Fourth of July, I attended many parades. The very first parade of that day was in a part of Maryland outside of Baltimore City, called Dundalk, MD, where Donald Trump had done very well in the past election. What I found during that parade was a lot of people there who were still supportive of President Trump but not one person at that parade who was in favor of TrumpCare or the Senate Republican so-called healthcare bill--not one. I was listening to the Senator from Vermont about the most recent polling. The polling I had seen previously had shown 17 percent of the American people in favor of this, which was very low. I am not surprised to hear it is even lower now at 12 percent because my own personal experience in these places in Maryland that had been supportive of Donald Trump, and in many ways still are, were that they were not in favor of this healthcare bill. In many ways, they had felt betrayed by it. After all, during the last campaign, Donald Trump said he wasn't going to cut Medicaid, and yet the bill before us has dramatic cuts to Medicaid. In fact, the Senate bill has even deeper cuts to Medicaid over time than the House bill. We all remember the House bill. President Trump had a great celebration in the Rose Garden in public, but behind closed doors he called it mean. Yet the Senate bill, when it comes to Medicaid cuts, will make them even deeper over a period of time, according to the report issued by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, just as we all left town for the Fourth of July break. It was an interesting experience to hear people, on the one hand, saying let's find ways to work together on many of the challenges we have in this country--and we should find ways to work together--but are strongly opposed to the healthcare bill that is before the Senate right now. The reason is, they are paying attention. They are concluding about this bill the same thing that the AMA, the American Medical Association, has concluded. In opposing this bill, America's doctors say it violates the No. 1 principle of medicine, which is: First, do no harm. That is the Hippocratic Oath. This Senate so-called healthcare violates that very simple proposition. At the very least, we want a healthcare system that doesn't do greater harm than what would otherwise be flawless. Yet we know, from this legislation, in looking at it, that it does do great harm to our healthcare system in the United States of America. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has looked at it and concluded that if you pass this legislation, 22 million fewer Americans will have access to affordable care than if you don't pass the bill. So it does harm compared to where we are today. It is absolutely true that the Affordable Care Act is not perfect. In fact, the healthcare exchanges specifically can be improved. We need more choices. We need more competition there. Make no mistake, the Senate Republican bill and the bill that passed the House don't improve the Affordable Care Act. They destroy those parts of it that are working and have been of great benefit to tens of millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office also tells us that premiums will go up next year. The Congressional Budget Office also tells us that if you are a senior between the ages of 50 and 64, you are in for a walloping increase in your premiums, which of course is what the AARP calls the age tax and why they are on the warpath against this legislation-- because it will be greatly damaging to those seniors who are in the individual market who are now going to have to pay huge increases in premiums. Those have been documented by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. I would remind my colleagues that the head of the Congressional Budget Office was someone selected by the Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, and the CBO is our referee in this place. If we all could make up our own facts, which in many cases the debates go in those directions anyway, it would be an even more unruly place. At least we have the CBO to provide that analysis. It is not just the CBO. This is masquerading as a healthcare bill. I ask the question of my colleagues, Why is it that every single patient advocacy group that has weighed in on this bill has weighed in against this bill? These are not Democratic organizations or Republican organizations: the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, the National Association on Mental Illness, National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Alzheimer's Association. These are our constituents. They don't wake up every morning thinking about a Democratic plan or Republican plan or Independent plan. These are organizations dedicated to patient health. They are all against a bill that is parading as a healthcare bill. How can that be the case, that every single advocacy group that has weighed in on this bill that has a healthcare mandate and is nonpartisan is against it? I ask my Republican colleagues to go back to the drawing board. This is not a healthcare bill, not when every single patient advocacy group weighed in against it, not when nonpartisan analysis tells us that 22 million people will lose out, not when the American Medical Association says it violates this simple principle of, first, do not harm. It is not just the doctors. It is the nurses. It is the hospitals. It is the National Rural Health Association. I spent a good amount of time in rural Maryland over the Fourth of July break. Rural hospitals are terrified of the consequences of this legislation, not just because of the harm that will befall their patients because their patients will be denied access to affordable care--but when they no longer have patients who are covered by insurance who come through their doors and there is an emergency so they provide that care anyway, then the hospital all of a sudden is not getting paid for the care it provides. They are deathly afraid they are going to have to scale back their operations and lay off people in a lot of these rural hospitals. I really hope and believe this is a moment where the Senate can look at this situation and decide let's not go down this road because the American people are asking themselves why are we doing this. It is one of those cases where I think people sort of lost track of why, other than the fact that, as many have said today, there had been this call to get rid of ObamaCare, to get rid of the Affordable Care Act but never a lot of thought as to what was going to replace it. Now what we are learning is the proposals that would supposedly replace it will do harm. They will do a lot more harm than the place we are at today. Rather than do harm and hurt tens of millions of Americans, let's find a way to improve the current system. There are practical ideas for how we can improve the healthcare exchanges, the marketplaces within the Affordable Care Act. Many of us have put forward ideas, and I would be more than happy to explore with our colleagues ways we can improve upon those exchanges without doing harm. When you look at this legislation and you realize it is not about healthcare, you have to ask yourself: What is it about other than simply saying we are going to fulfill this pledge of getting rid of the Affordable Care Act? At its core, there are two pillars to this bill. They are rotten pillars, but that is what they are. One is these very dramatic cuts to Medicaid, very dramatic. As I said, the Senate cuts even deeper over a longer period of time than the House bill. In the Senate bill, that cut is around $770 billion, and then there are also cuts to tax credits that help more Americans afford healthcare. So if you cut Medicaid, you get rid of tax credits that make healthcare more affordable. On the other side of the ledger is this whopping tax cut-- whopping tax cut that goes to some very powerful special interests and some very wealthy individuals. Many of us heard Warren Buffett a couple of weeks ago on TV saying: I don't need a $670,000-a-year tax cut as part of a bill that is going to put the health of my fellow Americans at risk. I think a lot of people are asking the question: If this is a healthcare bill, why is the core of it this huge cut to Medicaid and a huge tax break for the wealthiest Americans? And by the way, if you make $1 million a year, you get a $57,000-a-year, on average, tax break in this so-called healthcare bill. So let's put aside a bill that is rotten to its core. I heard a lot of talk about trying to fix this. I would just warn my colleagues to make sure our constituents know that cosmetic changes aren't going to fix this. You can't put a little deodorant on this and make it come out smelling great. It is just not going to happen. But if people are genuinely interested in finding ways to improve the exchanges, I am all in. We certainly should work together to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and there are lots of proposals out there to do it. The President at one time even talked about making that a priority, but that seems to have fallen away. We all know there are ways we can smartly save money in our healthcare system by continuing to move away from a system that is based simply on the quantity of care and the volume of care and move toward one that rewards the value and quality of care. Let's do that. The final thing I want to point out is that I was in Southern Maryland over the break, down in a place called St. Mary's County. I visited one of the substance abuse treatment centers called Beacon of Hope Recovery Center. These are people of great faith coming together to help people who are victims of the opioid epidemic, which has had a devastating impact on Maryland, as it has on so much of the rest of the country. We talked about some of the former patients who were there, people who are now actually part of the operation to help save the lives of other people who are racked with addiction. We met with these dedicated staff members, former patients, and with local law enforcement all around a table, recognizing that if we are really going to conquer the opioid epidemic, we need to provide treatment services. This recovery center was pleading with all of us--with me, asking me to plead with all of our colleagues to not cut Medicaid because they are going to be relying on continuing Medicaid funding in order to provide those treatment services. I think people around the country are just beginning to learn that Medicaid has been helpful and will become even more helpful in the fight against the opioid epidemic; that it is helping our kids with disabilities and special education in our schools; that it helps low- income working families who may work for an employer who doesn't provide health insurance and who still pays so low that they are at an income level where they qualify for Medicaid. People are also learning that most of the money spent in Medicaid goes to individuals in nursing homes and people with long-term disabilities, people who need long-term care. That is where most of the money goes. And 2 out of 3 dollars spent on nursing home care in the United States are Medicaid dollars. So we are all in this together. Those deep cuts to Medicaid are going to have a devastating impact, as will the other changes that are going to make health insurance premiums go up for so many people, especially for seniors. And the provisions are going to harm those with preexisting conditions in various ways. I will end with one of many stories that I have gotten, personal testimonies I received from constituents throughout the State of Maryland. This one is from Sarah from Arnold, MD, who says: Without the Affordable Care Act, my family would not have affordable, reliable health insurance. When my 3-year-old was 2 months old, he had emergency brain surgery for a benign cyst. Because of this, and even though he does not have any lingering effects or medical needs as a result of this surgery, we were denied coverage for him before the ACA. That, of course, is because before the ACA, people could be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. At the age of 2 months, he had the cyst. He was forever marked as someone with a preexisting condition and therefore could not get affordable coverage. They wrote: We were denied coverage before the ACA. In 2014, my husband opened up his own family law practice. Because of this decision, we were on our own for health insurance. So they bought into the exchange. And we are now in our second year of excellent coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Having a fixed monthly payment with the options and privileges equal to those who work for big companies has been immensely helpful. The Affordable Care Act has worked for me and my family. Mr. President, my point is not that the Affordable Care Act is perfect. There are improvements that can be made. We should work together to make improvements, but let's not do something that violates what the doctors call the Hippocratic Oath. Let's not do something that does more harm in our system. Let's not do something that will result in 22 million fewer of our fellow Americans having access. Let's do something good together that actually builds on what we have, fixes what is broken, because we can make improvements in the Affordable Care Act, not by doing a U-turn and going backward but by looking forward. Mr. President, I really hope that we will do that together. Thank you.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to an exceptional faith leader in my own neighborhood in Kensington, MD. After 32 years of gifted service to St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Kensington, the Reverend Richard Lee Buckingham will retire at the end of July and it is an occasion that deserves recognition and celebration. My own family worships at St. Paul's, and my children have been the beneficiaries of Rick Buckingham's wise counsel and leadership. He has long directed programs at St. Paul's for the benefit of young people, and he is recognized throughout many faith communities as a leader in Christian education and the spiritual nourishment of teens and young adults. Reverend Buckingham has served in ministry to the local church for 43 years and arrived at St. Paul's United Methodist Church in 1985. He has worked with nine different senior pastors, offering counsel and wisdom to each in his role as minister of education and youth. Reverend Buckingham has instructed over 350 young people during confirmation classes and watched proudly as they took their vows of faith. He has led eight different trips to witness the realities of faith and conflict in the Holy Land; he escorted young leaders to eight different international gatherings of United Methodist Youth leaders; he organized 20 different youth mission trips to Appalachia, Puerto Rico, and places beyond; he has leveraged his own interest in church history to take students to places where they will learn about their faith and will conclude that work with a trip to Germany later this year to celebrate the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's launch of the Protestant Reformation. Rick Buckingham has always been on the go; always introducing young people to a wider world, mindful of the observation of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, that ``the world is our parish.'' He visits recent graduates of St. Paul's UMC at their colleges, conducts their weddings--34 to date--and takes them to annual rock-faith events in Ocean City, although I suspect he uses an occasional earplug. The reverend is also recognized for his leadership as a deacon of the United Methodist Church, a designation with specific responsibilities, and he has given to his wider denomination as much as he has given to his own local congregation. Rick Buckingham teaches us all how to be a ``humble servant'' in accordance with our faith and at a time when we need examples of what true community service, faith, and civility looks like in the public square. It is a personal honor for me to recognize this leader in my own church and a leader in the wider community beyond.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to extend my deepest condolences to the family of Alex Villamayor, whose life was cut short 2 years ago in Paraguay. Alex was a son, brother, nephew, grandson, and friend. At just 16 years old, Alex taught us that we should not lead our lives with cynicism and hate, but with love and kindness. Even though Alex is no longer physically with us, he continues to shed light on the unjust and save lives through his story. I call upon the Government of Paraguay to do everything in its power to guarantee an impartial, transparent, and expeditious trial so that justice is upheld for Alex and his family.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I wish to start by thanking my colleague from the State of Connecticut for bringing those powerful testimonies to the floor of the Senate. It is really important that all of us--all 100 of us--spend time back home in our States listening to people who are telling us those kinds of stories. I have received over 2,500 calls in my office just since Thursday, all of them strongly opposed to this so-called healthcare proposal. Some things improve with time. Some things improve with age, like red wine. Some things get stinkier and smellier the longer they sit out there, like rotten things. That is the case with the series of Republican so-called healthcare bills, TrumpCare 1, TrumpCare 2.0, and now, TrumpCare 3.0. They are all rotten to the core, and the more they sit out there, the stinkier they get, and the American people know it. If you had any doubts, take a look at the most recent Congressional Budget Office report we got today. There is a pretty clear pattern between all of these Congressional Budget Office reports and the first bill we saw and the second bill and now on this latest version. Here is the pattern. Tens of millions of Americans will lose access to affordable healthcare in the United States of America in order to provide tax breaks for powerful special interests and richer Americans. That is the pattern. In this most recent report, we are told by the nonpartisan professionals at the Congressional Budget Office that 22 million of our fellow Americans are going to lose access to affordable healthcare. For what? To give powerful special interests and wealthy Americans a tax break. Insurance companies currently are not allowed to deduct the bonuses they pay to their CEOs. Now you are going to allow insurance companies to deduct the bonuses they pay to CEOs, and while tens of millions of Americans will lose access to affordable care, millionaires in America will get an average annual tax break of $50,000 a year, every year. So make no mistake. You can call this a healthcare bill, but it has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with wealth care and transferring wealth from more struggling vulnerable Americans to the very wealthy. If this were about healthcare, why is it that we have all received in our offices long lists from patient advocacy organizations that are dead-set against this legislation? These are organizations that have been dedicated to trying to improve healthcare for people and patients in our country: the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Breast Cancer Coalition, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society. The list goes on and on from organizations that have dedicated themselves to advancing patient health. On the other side, I haven't seen a single--not one--patient advocacy group that has come out to support this so-called healthcare bill. How can that be? If this is good for the health of our fellow citizens, why is it we have a long list of organizations dedicated to that cause against it and not one for it? How about healthcare providers, the folks who help provide the care to our constituents? They are all dead-set against it: the nurses, the doctors, the hospitals, the people who have that network of care. I was just out on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, a rural part of our State. The National Rural Health Association is opposed to this bill. They know the people they serve are going to be badly hurt, and, by the way, it is also going to hurt the economies in those parts of our State, especially the rural parts of the States, because those hospitals depend heavily on many of the people who get help through the Affordable Care Act, whether through the exchanges or through expanded Medicaid. As those patients come in the door and no longer can pay for their care, those hospitals said they may have to close down operations and lay people off. It is a double whammy--bad for patients and bad for those who provide the care to our patients. That is why AARP has been all out against this, because they know that for Americans between the ages of 50 and 64, before you get on Medicare, this is a total disaster. As they have said, there is an age tax. If you are older, you are going to pay a whole lot more under this Republican bill than you pay today. Many people are just realizing now as they follow this debate that two out of three Americans who are in nursing homes today are supported by Medicaid payments. So millions of our fellow Americans who now get their care in nursing homes, where Medicaid is providing support for two out of three, are going to be put at risk and made vulnerable because of this legislation. Remember, Donald Trump said he wasn't going to cut Medicaid. This cuts it by over $750 billion. Make no mistake, on this issue, this Senate bill is a lot meaner than the House bill. We all know that President Trump out in the Rose Garden celebrated the passage of the House bill. But behind closed doors, what did he call it? Mean. This Senate bill, as time goes on, will cut Medicaid far more deeply than the House bill. As we look at this Congressional Budget Office report, it talks about how you get to the end of year 8 and 9 and 10, and you go beyond that. You are going to have very deep cuts, much more painful, much meaner than in the Senate bill. We have heard a lot about preexisting conditions. The reality is that the Senate bill is very devious in this regard. It is a great sleight of hand. On the one hand, it creates the impression that if you have preexisting conditions, you are going to be all right. But what it pretends to give with one hand, it takes away with the other. It makes those Americans as vulnerable as they were before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. I am not talking about those who are directly benefiting, like those on expanded Medicaid or those in the exchanges. I am talking about those who are benefiting from the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. I just got a note the other day from Mark in my State of Maryland saying: My son was diagnosed with Crohn's disease in 2008, at age 18. He was repeatedly denied insurance and was only able to cover part of the cost of care through the Maryland high-risk pool. Obamacare made it possible for him to be insured and care for this lifelong disease. It was ObamaCare that ``will literally save his life.'' We have many stories like this one from others who were denied access to care because of preexisting conditions before the Affordable Care Act. There is another major sleight of hand in this Senate Republican proposal, and that relates to premiums. I have been listening. We have been hearing a lot from our Republican Senate colleagues about how this is going to bring down the price of premiums. We all know that what Americans care about is what they are having to put out in total for their healthcare. There are premiums. How much is the deductible? Great, I got a lower premium, but my deductible is now $10,000. There are copays. Here is the dirty little secret if you dig into the Congressional Budget Office report, after listening to many of our Republican colleagues talk about premiums. Now, you have to translate a little bit here because this is in the budgetese of the Congressional Budget Office. What they say on page 9 is this: Some people enrolled in nongroup insurance--in other words, in the individual market, the people who are currently in the Affordable Care Act exchanges--would experience substantial increases in what they would spend on healthcare even though benchmark premiums would decline on average in 2020 and years later. So the translation is that in some cases the premium--that sticker price--may go down, but you are going to end up paying a whole lot more when it comes to your deductible and your copays. It goes on to say that because nongroup insurance--in other words, the individual market--would pay for a smaller average share of benefits under this legislation, most people purchasing it would have higher out-of-pocket spending on healthcare than under current law. It goes on and on. In other words, keep your eye on the ball, America, because when someone tells you your premiums are going to go down, watch what happens to all your other healthcare costs. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analysts, are telling you they are going up. This brings me to my final point. I said at the beginning that some things get better with time and some things get stinkier and smellier. We know that the more the American people get a look at this latest Senate Republican proposal--TrumpCare 3.0--the less they are going to like it. The more they see it, the more they will hate it. Just like something that is rotten gets stinkier with time, this will get worse and worse with time. That is why it is so important that we not try to jam this through the Senate. I understand the Republican leader. He knows this is rotten to its core, and he knows the more it sits out there, the more people are going to see what it is all about and the more they are going to hate it. Let's have a full debate, and let's make sure all of us go back to our States over the Fourth of July--to the parades, the barbecues, and the picnics--and look our constituents in the eye and tell them that we are going to take healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans, that we are going to open up the discrimination once again to preexisting conditions. We are going to increase their overall healthcare costs, even though we tell them we are going to be reducing them. Let's look them in the eye and tell them what this bill is all about rather than trying to push it through in 24 or 48 hours or later this week. Our constituents deserve to know the facts, and we need to make sure we vote to protect the interests of the United States of America, not just provide another round of tax breaks to powerful special interests and millionaires.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the United States must send an unequivocal message to Vladimir Putin: we will not tolerate attacks on democracy in the United States or in Europe. That is why I have long pressed for harsher sanctions on Russia, including with Secretary of State Tillerson in his June 13 appearance before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations. I am a strong supporter of amendment No. 232 to S. 722 on Russia sanctions. While I missed the vote on June 14 due to an unanticipated illness, I would have voted yes had I been present. I voted yes on the passage of S. 722 today. The Kremlin's ambitions are clear. It interferes in elections in the United States and Europe, in an attempt to undermine public faith in the democratic process. It wants to erode the cohesion and strength of our NATO alliance. It bolsters the hand of brutal dictators like Bashar al-Assad. It wages wars in Ukraine and Georgia, supporting insurrections against the government. It seeks to reestablish a leading role on the world's stage through an unraveling of the international order. Russia's use of subversion, disinformation, and irregular warfare are nothing new. However, in this last U.S. presidential cycle, Russia launched an unprecedented and multifaceted campaign to undermine our elections--a view corroborated by our entire intelligence community. Russia paid more than 1,000 people--human trolls--to work out of a facility in St. Petersburg. These trolls spent their waking hours creating anti-Clinton fake news reports and disseminating these stories in key States and districts. Russia also used thousands of botnets to echo and amplify these fake news stories. Russia also targeted the election boards of 39 States in our country, successfully infiltrating at least four voter registration databases and gaining access to hundreds of thousands of voter records. They even attempted to infiltrate the Maryland State Elections Board, but were not successful. In response to these attacks, I filed an amendment to S. 722 that would ensure the United States develops a strategic, long-term approach to combat Russia's cyber warfare. My amendment requires a unified strategy developed with our NATO allies and European partners to counter Russia's cyber attacks, including Russia's efforts to undermine our democratic elections. It would also require the FBI to establish a high-level cybersecurity liaison for Presidential campaigns and major national campaign committees, so that the United States is prepared for Russia's next attempt to interfere with our elections. The liaison would share cyber threats as they arise and cyber security protocols with these organizations to stave off cyber attacks. Given the critical importance of shoring up our own cyber defenses, I plan to introduce this amendment as standalone legislation at a later point. I also filed a second amendment to S. 722 that prohibits the President from returning diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York that the United States seized last December, in response to Russian interference in our elections. It is outrageous that President Trump is considering allowing the Russians access to these facilities, which they used to spy on the United States. I am proud to have worked with Senator Cardin to incorporate this provision into the larger Russia sanctions bill. Senator Cardin and I will keep working to hold Russia and the Trump administration accountable. This legislation demonstrates to our allies and partners around the world that the United States will not stand idly when our democracy is under attack. I commend my colleagues for working across the aisle to impose tougher sanctions on Russia. Today the Senate put patriotism over partisanship.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 144 on Senate amendment No. 232 to S. 722. Had I been present, I would have voted yes.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the service of Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. Ms. Lerner's term as the leader of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, OSC, has expired. By many accounts, she has been the most successful leader of that office in the agency's 40 year history. This office has a critical mission, one that is more important now than ever. It protects government whistleblowers and helps to eliminate government waste, fraud, and abuse. It is also responsible for the enforcement of the Hatch Act, which keeps the Federal workplace free from improper partisan politics. Special Counsel Lerner was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in June 2011. During her tenure, she restored the integrity of the Office of Special Counsel after a difficult period. Moreover, she reestablished the OSC as a safe and effective office to defend government whistleblowers. Moreover, I would also like to recognize the exemplary service of her principal deputy, Mark Cohen, who is leaving government service as well. The OSC played a critical role in protecting hundreds of whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs. They worked with these courageous employees to improve care for veterans at hospitals across the country, including efforts to improve conditions for veterans in the Baltimore VA. Under Ms. Lerner and Mr. Cohen's leadership, the OSC worked with Homeland Security whistleblowers to end an improper overtime program, saving the taxpayers $100 million a year according to the Congressional Budget Office. These and many, many other victories for whistleblowers and taxpayers set a new standard in terms of effectiveness for this important office. As my colleague and friend from Maryland, Congressman Cummings, stated in a recent Washington Post article, ``Ms. Lerner turned the Office of Special Counsel `into a model agency and set the bar as the head of that office.' '' I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. As Senator Grassley, a longtime champion of government whistleblowers, stated in the same article, ``Her leadership should be a road map for future leaders of this office.'' Given the office's important good government role, the OSC enjoyed broad, bipartisan support under Lerner and Cohen's leadership. I concur with my colleagues and encourage the next leaders of that office to follow their lead as I pay tribute to their government service.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, as a Member of the Senate who supports efforts to build support for biomedical research and improved public health, I would like to pay tribute to a great public servant and the first woman and first librarian to lead the National Library of Medicine, NLM, the world's largest biomedical library and a part of the National Institutes of Health. Ms. Humphreys recently announced that she will retire at the end of June after 44 years of extraordinary leadership and distinguished public service. On May 9, the board of regents of the National Library of Medicine approved and presented the following resolution to congratulate, commend, and thank Betsy Humphreys for her 44 years of service to the NLM. I would like to share that resolution with my colleagues and join the NLM board of regents in paying tribute to Betsy Humphreys, a public servant who has had a profound and lasting impact on the NLM, the United States, and the global community. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the resolution printed in the Record.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I think we all know that former FBI Director Comey just completed his public testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He testified about how President Trump asked him to pledge his loyalty to him personally and how the President asked the FBI to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. We know that last December, Michael Flynn had a discussion with the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Kislyak, about dropping some of the economic sanctions that the United States has imposed on Russia. We know that Michael Flynn subsequently lied about that conversation. We also know--and former FBI Director Comey discussed it today--that he was fired by President Trump after he refused to pledge his loyalty to the President and did not drop the investigation into Michael Flynn. All of that has led to the appointment of a special counsel, Bob Mueller, who has now taken over the executive branch portion of the investigation--an investigation which will likely go on for some time. It is essential for the good of the country that we get to the truth of what happened and get a full accounting and report. As that investigation proceeds, there is one thing that should not wait, which is really what I want to talk about today. It is the need to take action against Russia for interfering in our democratic process and in our elections. There is no excuse for inaction on that front. We know that starting in 2015, Russia launched an unprecedented and multifaceted campaign to undermine our elections--a view shared by our entire intelligence community. The Kremlin, according to former Director of National Intelligence Clapper, wanted to ``undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process.'' This was and remains the unanimous verdict of the intelligence community. We know that as part of this effort, Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. We know that Russia's military intelligence unit, the GRU, then released those emails to the public in increments which were timed to cause turmoil in the American electorate. Russia paid more than 1,000 people--human trolls--to work out of a facility in Saint Petersburg, Russia. These trolls spent their waking hours creating anti-Clinton fake news reports and disseminating these stories in key states and districts. Russia also used thousands of botnets to echo and amplify these fake news stories. Russia also targeted the election boards of nearly half the states in our country, successfully infiltrating at least four voter registration databases and gaining access to hundreds of thousands of voter records. They even attempted to infiltrate the Maryland State Board of Elections but were not successful. My point here today is not to debate the extent to which those Russian actions impacted or did not impact our elections; my point is that there is unanimous agreement that they interfered in our democratic process and that tomorrow they could interfere in it for other purposes and other means. We know they have targeted Senators and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and we can expect, especially if we do not take action, that these attacks will only grow in pace and sophistication as we head into future elections. We also know that Russia's attacks on democratic forms of government reach well beyond our own borders. The intelligence community has warned us that Moscow will apply the lessons learned from its Putin- ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. Presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against our allies and their election processes. In the months following our election, we have seen Russia use a similar disruption strategy to try to undermine moderate candidates throughout Europe, including elections in France and the Netherlands. The Kremlin has also targeted German Chancellor Merkel's Christian Democratic Party and German State computers. The goal of these Russian attacks against our democracy and those of our allies is clear. In testimony before Congress this year, experts across the political spectrum have stated that Russia's goal is straightforward--to undermine confidence in our democratic process, generate doubt about the legitimacy of our elections, and undermine the unity and resolve of the NATO alliance. They want to undermine confidence in democracy and the unity that has been demonstrated through NATO over many decades. We have seen these unprecedented attacks on our democracy and on the democracies of our allies. The world is looking at us--and I am sure many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are hearing from officials from around the world, including our NATO allies--and is asking: Why is it that the United States has not taken any action to protect its democracy? Why haven't we responded to an attack that goes to the heart of our democratic system of government? Why aren't we working closely and urgently with our allies to prevent these efforts to subvert our elections? Why, instead, are we hearing reports that President Trump is considering giving back the use of properties that the Russians used to spy on us, including one in my State of Maryland, on the Eastern Shore? Following the overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our elections, the Obama administration took some very limited measures to punish the Russians for those efforts, including denying them access to those properties. Those sanctions, of course, are on top of the already existing sanctions with respect to Russia's actions in Ukraine. It is very important that we not talk about unwinding sanctions that have been put in place. That would only reward the Russians for the actions they have taken. Instead, we need to move on and pass legislation to send a clear message that we will sanction Russia for the actions it took to undermine our democratic process right here at home. As our colleague Senator McCain said yesterday on this floor, ``The United States of America needs to send a strong message to Vladimir Putin and any other aggressor that we will not tolerate attacks on our democracy.'' This is the time for all Americans to be patriots and not partisans. So, as the Senate soon considers a measure relating to sanctions on Iran, it is important that, at the same time, we enact sanctions against Russia for its violations of our democratic process. I am a cosponsor of a number of bills that have been introduced to impose sanctions on Russia for that interference, and a number of those proposals are now being converted into amendments that will be offered. In addition to those Russian sanctions amendments that have been proposed, I have filed two additional amendments to ensure that we as a nation are thinking strategically about our long-term approach to combatting Russia's cyber warfare, that we are shoring up our own cyber defenses in advance of our next elections, and that we are not rewarding Putin for these attacks by returning the diplomatic compounds that he used to spy on us. My amendments would ensure that we have a concerted and unified strategy, developed with our NATO allies and European partners, to counter Russia's cyber attacks, including its efforts to undermine our democratic elections. We do not currently have any kind of coordinated, developed strategy here in our own country or with our NATO and other allies. My amendments would require the FBI to establish a high-level cyber security liaison for Presidential campaigns and major national political party committees to ensure that we do not have a repeat of the 2016 elections or at least that we are prepared to confront it. The liaison would share cyber threats as they arise and cyber security protocols with these organizations to stave off cyber attacks. These amendments would also prevent the executive branch from returning the diplomatic compounds that Russia used to spy on us. They would prevent the return of those compounds until the Secretary of State certifies that Russia is no longer conducting cyber attacks against the United States that threaten our national security, our economy, or our financial stability. It is outrageous that this administration is actually thinking of rolling back very modest sanctions that were put in place as a result of its attack on our democracy rather than joining us here in Congress on a bipartisan basis to make it clear that one cannot attack our democracy with impunity. Mr. Comey's testimony today and the work of the committees here and of Special Counsel Mueller are part of an ongoing effort to determine whether there was any collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. That investigation will continue. People will investigate whether there are ongoing efforts to derail or disrupt or obstruct those investigations, and that will be a process which will play out over many months. But there is no reason to wait another moment before we take action on the question for which there is no dispute and no disagreement--the fact that the Russians interfered in our elections. Maybe yesterday they interfered because they had a preference for one candidate. Maybe the next time they will interfere because they have a preference for another candidate or another party. The point is that, on this issue, we need to show unity. Our allies are asking us: How is it that you can sit on your hands and do nothing in response to what is an obvious attack on your democratic process? How can you even be considering relieving sanctions on Russia after its attack on your democracy? I hope we will quickly take up legislation to impose sanctions on Russia, to send a strong signal to Russia and to our NATO allies and others around the world that we will not stand idly by when we have that kind of attack on our democratic process, that we will act, and we will act now. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, in the critical debate about the balance between national security and rights to privacy, the truth must be paramount. Time and again, President Trump has misled the American public about national security matters, including torture, surveillance, and intelligence. Trump has claimed that ``torture works'' and that ``we should go much stronger than waterboarding,'' despite widespread evidence that enhanced interrogation techniques are not effective in acquiring intelligence or gaining cooperation from detainees. Without any evidence, President Trump alleged that President Obama illegally wiretapped the phones of Trump Towers. Former FBI Director James Comey soundly rejected this conspiracy theory, a statement that likely played a role in his firing. President Trump repeatedly dismissed intelligence that Russia interfered in our 2016 elections and derided our intelligence community for its assessments. His rejection of truth, to stoke fear and resentment in the American public, is unethical and dangerous. It is a threat to American freedoms. In this extraordinary environment, the CIA's leadership must not only provide objective and sound intelligence assessments to the President, it must faithfully ensure that the President is adhering to the law. The role of the General Counsel is particularly critical at this moment, when our sitting President has openly denounced or displayed alarming ignorance of existing laws on intelligence matters. As the CIA General Counsel's guidance is provided entirely in secret, with no public transparency, it is imperative that the American public have as clear an understanding as possible of the nominee's prior record of legal interpretation. On this point, Courtney Elwood's history under President George W. Bush is troubling. At the Department of Justice, Ms. Elwood was involved in discussions regarding the legal justification for the ``warrantless wiretapping program,'' in which the Bush administration collected telephonic and email communications of U.S. persons on U.S. soil without a court order. The Bush administration, in memos that are now declassified, argued that the President has inherent constitutional power to monitor Americans' communications without a warrant in a time of war. Given the perennial nature of America's war footing, this argument afforded the President a virtually unlimited authority to surveil Americans. When asked for her views on this legal justification in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Ms. Elwood asserted that the program was ``carefully reasoned'' and that the Justice Department was ``thorough in its analysis.'' Ms. Elwood's record on torture is also cause for concern. While I was pleased with Ms. Elwood's testimony that the reinstatement of torture would be illegal under existing law, I am concerned with her prior work on cases involving the detention of enemy combatants, military commissions, and the constitutionality of national security programs under President Bush. For these reasons, I cannot support her nomination.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, we are all united in support of a strong and effective VA that is able to provide topnotch services and support to the veterans who have served our country nobly. None of us can be satisfied with the current state of the Department, and I share the frustration of constituent veterans who are unable to get the basic care and treatment they need, from widows and families who have lost loved ones while under the care of the VA, and from dedicated VA employees who are frustrated with the waste and inept management that prevent them from providing the care they believe our veterans deserve. The revelations about the continuing problems at the District of Columbia VA medical center should serve as a new wake-up call that immediate attention is needed to make the VA right. I supported the nomination of Dr. David Shulkin to be VA Secretary and gave him my full support to make changes to the organization to address the management problems and lapses in care that plague the VA. There is no question that the VA needs reforms that will make it more responsive to the needs of our veterans, and more accountable when it does not adequately serve them. The VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act attempts to address these issues by making it easier for management to discipline and remove VA employees. It is essential that managers have this authority to remove employees who violate their duty to care for our veterans. It is also important that our removal process be implemented in a fair and impartial manner. The House bill failed to provide those protections, and I appreciate Senator Tester's work on this issue and his efforts to improve the bill that the House passed. I am concerned, however, that some provisions in the bill weaken the worker protections that are necessary to avoid arbitrary or politically motivated disciplinary actions. Our Nation's civil service protections are intended to allow Federal workers to do their jobs free of intimidation or political interference. Employees can be disciplined or removed, but only with due process that exposes the full facts of the case. Reforms that rely on fear of arbitrary discipline or removal are not truly reforms, but will create a toxic environment within the agency. While I have concerns about some of the provisions of this bill, we must provide veterans the care and support they need from the VA. I admire the dedication and commitment of our Federal workers at the VA, many of whom are veterans themselves. Most care deeply and go the extra mile to serve those who have served. I know that Secretary Shulkin recognizes the enormous talent in our Federal workers, and I believe he should strive to create a stronger team by rapidly filling the 45,000 vacant civil service positions currently at the VA and by building on the strong sense of purpose that motivates our VA Federal workforce and cares for our veterans.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I could not support Judge Amul Thapar's nomination to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I was extremely concerned about Judge Thapar's views about how the law applies to the issue of money in politics. According to Judge Thapar, ``there is simply no difference between saying that one supports an organization by using words and saying that one supports an organization by donating money.'' His opinion on the role of money in politics in Winter v. Wolnitzek was so extreme that, even in this post-Citizens United era, it was unanimously overruled by the Sixth Circuit. Judge Thapar's willingness to dismiss ethical rules created to avoid partisanship and to ensure impartiality is troubling and prevented me from supporting his nomination. Ever since the Supreme Court rulings in Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, No. 12-536, our political system has been infiltrated by dark money. The untraceable and unlimited amount of money pouring into elections has changed our political system for the worse, and Americans across party lines agree. Eighty-four percent of Americans think that money has too much influence in politics, and over half of Americans think that politicians only promote policies in support of their donors and not their voters. President Trump has nominated a judge who wants to erode what few protections currently exist to limit money in politics and whose views are outside of the mainstream. Judge Thapar's views on money in politics may be among the reasons why the conservative Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation included Judge Thapar on the short list of possible Supreme Court nominees that they prepared for President Trump. I find President Trump's outsourcing of the judicial selection process to third-party organizations alarming. Traditionally, Presidential administrations have consulted with Senators of both parties as they selected judicial nominees. The Trump administration consults with partisan organizations instead. The very fact that this vacancy existed is another example of Republican obstructionism and the unnecessary politicization of the judiciary. Former-President Obama nominated Judge Lisabeth Tabor Hughes to fill this vacant seat in March 2016. Much like the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Republicans refused to hold a hearing or fill the seat. The seat should have been filled long ago, but regardless, Judge Thapar is not the right person to fill it now.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I stand to pay tribute to a distinguished young man from the State of Maryland: 2LT Richard Wilbur Collins III, a brave, brilliant, passionate, selfless, and kind American hero. Second Lieutenant Collins, a resident of Calvert County, MD, was a 23-year-old student at Bowie State University, where he was a member of the Bowie ROTC Program and was airborne-certified. On May 18, just last week, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army's intelligence branch. Second Lieutenant Collins was scheduled to graduate with a bachelor's of arts in business administration from Bowie State University earlier this week. His future could not have been brighter. Tragically, Second Lieutenant Collins' life was cut short by a horrific act of violence that the FBI is investigating as a hate crime. We must bring the perpetrator of this evil act to justice and directly confront the racism behind it. Second Lieutenant Collins' selfless and courageous contributions to our State and Nation will continue to have a lasting impact on those who knew and loved him and on the broader community who learned of his tragic and senseless death. At the young age of 23, Second Lieutenant Collins raised his right hand to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He was a young man of extraordinary courage and ability and will be deeply missed by all who knew him. Second Lieutenant Collins leaves behind his grieving family: his father, U.S. veteran Richard W. Collins II; his mother Dawn Collins, his sister Robin Collins, and countless friends. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Second Lieutenant Richard Wilbur Collins III and in expressing our deepest condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, as our colleagues know, just yesterday we received the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the most recent version of the Republican health care bill, the bill that passed out of the House of Representatives, also known as TrumpCare 2.0. I encourage all of us, every one of our colleagues, to read the CBO report and to read it carefully. For those who are interested, it can be found online at www.cbo.gov. On the front page you can link to the report, which I have here in my hand. I think it is worth reminding our colleagues that the Congressional Budget Office is composed of professionals, budget experts, and the current Director of the Congressional Budget Office was selected by the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee and the Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Without an umpire on budget issues, this Senate would be in absolute chaos when it comes to determining the impact of many of our major decisions, so it is very dangerous when people start attacking the umpire when it comes to these important issues that can have literally life or death implications for our constituents. What you will find in this most recent Congressional Budget Office report is that the most recent House Republican plan is even worse than the original plan, which also was the subject of a Congressional Budget Office report. What this CBO report tells us is that, like the earlier version, this so-called health bill is really a massive transfer of wealth from working-class and middle-income Americans to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest in our country and some very powerful special interests. Its title would much more fittingly be ``wealthcare,'' not healthcare. Let's take a look at some of the findings that are in this report that can be found online. I turn to page 4 of the report, where the Congressional Budget Office reaches the conclusion that if we adopt this House proposal, if the Senate votes for the House Republican bill, there will be 23 million fewer of our fellow Americans who will have access to affordable healthcare when it is phased in than today. So if we were to adopt this, if this becomes law, we are saying to 23 million of our fellow Americans: Sorry, we are going to take away your access to affordable healthcare. It is right there on page 4. That is because what this so-called healthcare bill does is take away some of the supports that provide access to affordable healthcare. It reduces for millions of Americans the tax credits they use for their premiums in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. As you will find on page 3 of this report, it also cuts Medicaid by $834 billion. Now some people will say: Hey, no problem; that is just going to be sent to the States, and States are going to have more flexibility. The Congressional Budget Office is very clear that when you are talking about Medicaid cuts of this impact, one of two things happen: Either a lot fewer people get access to affordable healthcare or States have to raise taxes on the people in their States to ensure continued access. But this notion that somehow there are all these extra funds floating around and that greater flexibility will allow fewer dollars to go further with no negative impact is a fairytale. In fact, Medicaid already has lots of provisions for flexibility. They have a whole suite of waiver provisions. Our State of Maryland exercised lots of waivers under the Medicaid program to allow it to be creative and flexible. This $834 billion cut we found out about yesterday with the President's budget is just the first round of cuts. They are proposing another almost $610 billion cut to Medicaid. Total cuts are $1.4 trillion to Medicaid. I would remind my colleagues that in addition to helping working- class Americans get access to healthcare, two-thirds of Medicaid money goes to help seniors in nursing homes, and 60 percent of seniors in nursing homes use Medicaid to help pay the bills. Two-thirds of it goes to those seniors and people with disabilities. The Congressional Budget Office is telling us that this TrumpCare 2.0, this latest version of the Republican healthcare bill, is going to result in 23 million fewer of our fellow Americans having access to healthcare. It is going to cut Medicaid, and this is just the first round, by $834 billion. Why do this? Who is benefiting from this? Well, let's look at the very first page of the Congressional Budget Office report. It reduces revenues by $992 billion. There are cuts to Medicaid by $834 billion, and it reduces revenues coming in by $992 billion, essentially transferring revenues that are going to help tens of millions of our fellow Americans get access to healthcare and transferring that to tax breaks. Those tax breaks go overwhelmingly to the very wealthiest Americans--to the top 1 percent, in fact. One of the things we did when we put together the Affordable Care Act to help pay for it was--we said: You know what, we think wealthier households should have to pay a small fee on their unearned income to be devoted to the Medicare trust fund. Everyone in the country knows when they get that pay stub, it tells them how much is taken out for Medicare--3.4 percent. We said: Look, that should not just apply to earned income from hard-working people. If you're in the top 1 percent, if you are a higher income earner, you should also be contributing some of your capital gains revenue to help strengthen Medicare. That is what we did. Yet this bill provides all those households with a tax cut. In fact, for millionaires, the average annual tax cut as a result of this bill will be $50,000--a $50,000 tax cut to millionaires while cutting access to affordable care for 23 million of our fellow Americans. Why all these tax cuts are in something masquerading as a healthcare bill, I don't know, but we now know certainly who benefits the most from this legislation. Beyond those top 1 percent income earners, you also have insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry. They get some tax breaks, as well, under this legislation. Finally, I said at the outset that this TrumpCare 2.0, the most recent Republican healthcare bill, is worse than the original one. The original one was rotten to the core. The original one had most of the provisions I am talking about. So what got added that makes this one even worse? To find that, people should look at page 5 of this report and see what happens to people in States that decide to get rid of the patient protection provisions in the Affordable Care Act. We have heard a lot of talk about how that House bill isn't really going to hurt people with preexisting conditions like diabetes and asthma. We have heard all that, but here's what the Congressional Budget Office report says. This is what the referee, the umpire, has to say about that with respect to those States. It says: ``Community rated premiums would rise over time, and people who are less healthy,'' and then they state ``including those with preexisting conditions or newly acquired medical conditions,'' right? So people who have had any kind of preexisting condition or prior health condition that an insurance company will argue makes them a much greater risk--people who are less healthy and those with preexisting conditions ``would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all.'' They go on to say ``despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628.'' That is the House bill. Despite that additional funding to help reduce premiums, they go on, and I hope our colleagues will pay attention to this conclusion: ``As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs.'' Translation: People with preexisting conditions, people who, because they had diabetes or asthma as a child or they have a congenital disease--any preexisting condition will make it much harder for them to afford any kind of coverage at all, and ultimately the nongroup markets in those States will become unstable for those people. That is why this TrumpCare 2.0, this House healthcare bill, this Republican bill, took a really rotten bill and actually made it worse. It is not enough, colleagues, for people to make a few cosmetic changes to this, to put couple of bandaids on it in the Senate, and say ``Hey, we made this thing better'' because this is rotten to its core. If people really want to address healthcare reform, let's work together to improve the exchanges. There are commonsense things we can do to improve the exchanges, but you don't improve the exchanges by cutting Medicaid by $834 billion. That has nothing to do with the exchanges. You don't improve the exchanges by giving a windfall tax credit to the wealthiest Americans. That has nothing to do with healthcare. TrumpCare 2.0, this Republican healthcare bill, is rotten to the core. Let's throw it out, and let's focus on the question of fixing the exchanges. If people want to do that, we can actually get something done. But let's not pretend we are doing healthcare when really what the goal so far has been is ``wealthcare.'' Thank you.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the Senate is an institution that remembers its giants, its lions--the Senators who have served with distinction, who negotiated critical legislative deals, who fought for their States and their constituents, and who have participated in historic debates on this Senate floor. They have statues and libraries to remember them and portraits in these halls. The Senate has been home to many extraordinary individuals but less frequently acknowledged is the truth that no Senator operates alone. We rely on the counsel and good service of dedicated staff in both our committees and personal offices. Among those staff, there is perhaps no greater giant of the Senate than Bill Dauster, who retires this week after more than three decades of service. With a clear-eyed understanding of the Senate, with all its features and its flaws, a dedication to progressive values and collegiality that has endeared him to Senator and staffer alike, Bill has been an asset to this institution and to all who have served with him. I am very pleased he is with us on the floor today. Senator Harry Reid called Bill his ``utility player'' for his ability to step into any issue or complicated matter and find a solution. I am privileged that Bill Dauster joined my staff early this year to help me set up my office and get it off to a good start in the U.S. Senate. I could not have asked for a better and more knowledgeable guy as I began my service here. There are few major legislative battles that Bill Dauster has not joined in the past 30 years, including the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and the Affordable Care Act. He worked for Senator Feingold when he stood against the so-called PATRIOT Act because of its invasion of privacy, and he helped shepherd Democratic priorities, ranging from the minimum wage to important infrastructure investments. He has written a book on Senate procedure--and I mean literally--and he has been as much a scholar of the Senate as a participant in its daily life. Bill is a leader of what the Washington Post once called ``the whisper brigade,'' the people, the staff who stand with their Senators, from committee hearings to floor speeches, to answer questions and offer suggestions and help make us better and more prepared. In that capacity, Bill Dauster has mentored countless staff and always stayed accessible to answer the most basic questions. With a quote or a quip, he has brought levity to serious policy discussions. He has built a reputation as an honest broker, a brilliant dealmaker, and an incredibly generous soul. Bill's character is shaped by his Jewish faith, which he has studied and sought to illuminate to others. He has devoted free time to analysis of the Torah on Wikipedia and many other places, crafting interpretations that are as detailed, carefully explained, and straightforward as the analysis he has provided on countless Senate bills. Bill Dauster is a devoted family man with his equally accomplished and brilliant wife Ellen and his three children who are his pride and joy. I am very pleased that his wife Ellen and daughter Emma are with us today. He is a science fiction fan, particularly of Star Trek, perhaps seeking stories that are more believable than modern politics. I wish Bill a restful retirement, but given his active mind, I suspect he would sympathize with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' maxim that leisure is ``a chance to do other jobs that demand attention.'' Instead, I will thank him for his service to the Senate and his country and wish him a joyful and fulfilling next frontier. I ask my colleagues to join me in saying: Farewell, but don't wander far.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, President Trump has routinely attacked basic American freedoms--of the press, of peaceful assembly, of religion, of speech. When he lost the popular vote, President-elect Trump assailed the integrity of our electoral process and falsely claimed that millions of people voted illegally. When the press exposed those falsehoods, Mr. Trump dismissed credible reporting as ``fake news.'' When the courts ruled that his travel ban was unlawful, President Trump accused judges of abetting terrorists. These actions have consequences beyond our own borders and embolden dictators around the world. President Trump displays a worldview that favors the military over diplomacy and transactional relationships over strategic alliances. President Trump's uncritical embrace of autocrats like Russian President Putin, Egyptian President Sisi, Turkish President Erdogan, and Philippine President Duterte is a repudiation of every reformer and activist seeking freedom from tyranny. It is a repudiation of America's values and founding principles. President Trump's approach to the world is shortsighted and self- defeating. The greatest threats to U.S. national security come from countries that are corrupt, poorly governed, and fraught with poverty and disease. These countries require sustained engagement and assistance to prevent the kind of threats that could require American soldiers to go into war. These countries require American leadership and the American example to help address the root causes of conflict and to give a voice to the aspirations of their people. That is why President Trump's proposed 32 percent cut to the budget of the State Department, his failure to put forward nominees for leadership positions, and his disrespect for the career employees who serve our country are so dangerous. By undermining American influence abroad, President Trump erodes American strength. While John Sullivan has an extensive career in public service, I am concerned that he lacks experience at the State Department. An understanding of the institution is, in many ways, as important as an understanding of our complex diplomatic terrain. Despite these concerns, I was encouraged by the statements and commitments he made at his confirmation hearing. In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Sullivan committed to promoting American values abroad, saying: ``Our greatest asset is our commitment to the fundamental values expressed at the founding of our nation; the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These basic human rights are the bedrock of our republic and at the heart of American leadership in the world.'' He underscored that our alliances and partnerships ``have been the cornerstone of our national security in the post-war era.'' He commended the foreign service officers, civil servants, and locally employed staff who faithfully serve our country every day. These statements are a rejection of the worldview proposed by President Trump. I hope that Mr. Sullivan honors these statements in office. For this reason, I support his nomination for Deputy Secretary of State.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, the United States' relationship with China is one of our most complicated and consequential in the world. The United States must maintain a constructive partnership with China to address global threats ranging from climate change to North Korea's nuclear program. While our interests are often at odds, our relationship with China must be built on respect, not rebuffs--on tact, not tweets. On the campaign trail, President Trump's rhetoric about China was as caustic as it was hollow. He claimed that climate change was a ``hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.'' He contended that we could not ``continue to allow China to rape our country.'' He declared China was ``our enemy'' and that he would direct the Treasury Department to label China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. He said he would not honor the ``one China policy'' without extracting concessions from the Chinese on trade. None of these threats materialized when Trump assumed office, of course. When rhetoric met reality, Trump retreated. Even while he railed against China during his campaign, Trump simultaneously extolled his deep financial ties with the country. He credited the Chinese for much of his own personal fortune, saying, ``I've made a lot of money with China,'' and ``I do great with China, I sell them condos, I have the largest bank in the world from China, the largest in the world by far. They're a tenant of mine in a building I own in Manhattan.'' Trump is the only President in modern history who has not divested his financial holdings or established a blind trust, and his financial entanglements with China have grown since his inauguration. Earlier this year, China gave the Trump Organization preliminary approval for 38 trademarks, paving the way for the President and his family to develop a host of branded business from hotels, to insurance, to bodyguard and escort services. On the very same night that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner dined with Chinese President Xi at Mar-a-Lago, China granted Ivanka Trump's company three new trademarks. All of this points to the very real possibility that Trump and his family are using the Presidency to increase their personal profit, in violation of the Constitution, and that the-Chinese are accommodating them. Governor Terry Branstad is far from an ideal choice for the U.S. Ambassador to China. His record on labor rights is deeply troubling, including his decision earlier this year to sign into law a bill that dramatically scales back the rights of workers to bargain collectively for their health insurance, evaluation procedures, and supplemental pay. However, in an administration that has put forward few qualified candidates for public office, Governor Branstad possesses some of the experience required for this critical diplomatic post. Governor Branstad has worked with the Chinese and with Chinese President Xi specifically for several decades. In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he alleged he would use this longstanding relationship to press President Xi on the North Korean nuclear threat. He acknowledged the importance of opening Chinese markets to U.S. goods while recognizing the need to hold them accountable for unfair trade practices. He claimed that he would promote American values abroad, including human rights, the importance of a free press, and a rules- based international order. Governor Branstad's recognition of the importance of these basic American values, values President Trump himself does not acknowledge, is vital in our engagements with China and countries around the world. Governor Branstad's longstanding relationships in China suggest he may be more responsible and disciplined in his statements and behavior than President Trump. Given the vast array of global issues that require China's cooperation, I hope Governor Branstad remains faithful to his testimony and attempts to foster a productive relationship with China. For these reasons, I support his nomination for U.S. Ambassador to China.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, after reviewing Rachel Brand's record and testimony during her confirmation hearing, I cannot support her nomination to become Associate Attorney General. Ms. Brand is a fierce supporter of the so-called Patriot Act and the bulk collection of millions of Americans' data. Americans deserve an Associate Attorney General who can properly balance their Constitutionally protected right to privacy against national security interests. Ms. Brand has demonstrated her willingness to abridge those rights. I am particularly disturbed by Ms. Brand's tenure as the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy from 2005 to 2007. Ms. Brand worked at the Department at the time when Bradley Schlozman, a high-ranking official within the Department of Civil Rights, was accused of inappropriately politicizing the Department. Ms. Brand's emails during her time at the Department indicate that she may have been aware of and, indeed, a willing participant in this inappropriate activity. Conservative groups are now urging Attorney General Sessions to ``wash out the progressive liberal activism that infects the agency from top to bottom.'' This Justice Department under Attorney General Sessions is already facing its own ethics crisis. When President Trump flouts protocols and procedures with impunity, I cannot in good conscience vote to allow Ms. Brand to return to the Department of Justice and continue where she left off.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, during this week, National Police Week, I honor all those who serve to keep us safe. I honor three Maryland officers who lost their lives in the line of duty in 2016. Corporal Jack Colson of Prince George's County Police Department, Senior Deputy Patrick Dailey, and Deputy First Class Mark Logsdon, both of Harford County Sheriff's office, all dedicated their lives to making Maryland safe. We thank them for their sacrifice, and we thank their families, friends, and fellow officers. They will never be forgotten, and they deserve to be honored not just this week, but every day.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose Jeffrey Rosen's nomination to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation. Mr. Rosen has a troubling history of standing with industry over consumers and opposing common sense public health and environmental protections. In both his time as general counsel at the Department of Transportation in the George W. Bush administration and his private sector work on behalf of industry, Mr. Rosen advocated for limits on the agency's authority to protect health and safety through the regulatory process. In one case when he was at the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency proposed a weak standard for the required strength of vehicle roofs, which could collapse in rollovers. In addition to the weak standard, the rule would make it difficult for consumers who had been in accidents to seek damages from the companies responsible. Mr. Rosen has also repeatedly questioned the necessity of limiting carbon emissions from vehicles. He opposed efforts to improve fuel economy standards that have spurred innovation, cut pollution, and saved consumers at the pump. Mr. Rosen's ideological approach to regulation appears bent on minimizing rulemaking at any costs, regardless of the need. He has advocated for one-in, one-out regulatory schemes and ``regulatory budgeting'' that place arbitrary limits that would interfere with the ability of agencies to implement the law. Agency leadership must focus on their mission and use the best available science and data to guide implementation of the law. Based on Mr. Rosen's history, I am concerned that he may politicize rulemaking, so I must oppose his nomination today.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I support the nomination of Robert Lighthizer to be the United States Trade Representative. Trade agreements should meet two tests: Does the agreement improve worker wages? And does the agreement add American jobs? For far too long, U.S. Trade Representatives have prioritized profits of large multinational organizations over the interests of the American people and our country as a whole. The USTR should be someone who negotiates on behalf of the American worker and advances labor and environmental protections, and the USTR should be someone who works to enforce agreements. While I don't agree with everything in Mr. Lighthizer's resume, his record suggests that he will be a USTR who will approach trade policies in the ways I have outlined. I hope the approach he takes going forward will reflect the positions he has taken in the past. I expect him to ask: Does it improve worker wages? And does it add American jobs? I believe that Mr. Lighthizer will bring fresh eyes to trade policy. I hope that he will focus on increasing transparency at the USTR. I hope that he will stand up for worker rights, both domestically and internationally. I hope that Mr. Lighthizer will work to enforce trade policies that protect the environment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I oppose this blatant giveaway to the oil and gas industry at the expense of public health and the environment. We are now at the eleventh hour of expedited consideration of resolutions to overturn Obama-era rules, and the majority is bringing forward this legislation to overturn a Bureau of Land Management rule on methane waste. The BLM methane rule is a reasonable, achievable way to limit emissions of methane--a particularly potent greenhouse gas--and save taxpayer money. The rule would prevent the oil and gas industry from excessive venting and flaring of methane into the air and ensure that they work more quickly to address methane leaks. As we have seen in Colorado, which has a similar rule, the technology to meet these requirements exists and is not prohibitively expensive. The BLM rule is a tremendously effective way to address greenhouse gases. Simply limiting these methane emissions would be the equivalent of taking nearly 1 million cars off the roads. Reducing methane leaks also prevents the leak of volatile organic compounds and other pollutants that contribute to ground-level ozone and damage public health. By overturning this rule, the Senate would not just have given the oil and gas industry the green light to keep polluting, it would essentially be paying them to do it. Right now, companies don't pay royalties on wasted gas from public lands. If we allow them to continue their inefficient practices, they will avoid more than $800 million in royalties over the next decade. Because States where operations are located get a large share of the royalties, western States like Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Montana would lose out on millions of dollars. Oil and gas companies will be taking public resources, wastefully venting them into the atmosphere, and avoiding any cost for that behavior. Stakeholders like sportsmen, conservationists, tribal leaders, and consumer groups support the methane rule. The only voices asking for its repeal are the oil and gas industry and the Koch brothers. We should stand for our constituents and taxpayers instead.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I join my colleague in opposing the nomination of Dr. Gottlieb and thank him for laying out the case. The FDA, of course, is an important part of our healthcare system, and just last week we saw the House of Representatives jam through a piece of legislation that would wreak havoc on the healthcare system. In fact, many people are appropriately calling what they did ``wealthcare'' because it represents a huge transfer of wealth away from caring for patients to the very wealthiest in our country, including many powerful special interests. I think everybody understands--Republicans, Democrats, Independents alike--the Affordable Care Act is not perfect and specifically that we need to address the issues within the Affordable Care Act exchanges. We need to address those issues to lower the deductibles, lower the copays, and make it more affordable. There are some very straightforward ways of doing that. One good idea is to create a public option within the Affordable Care Act exchanges, a Medicare-for-all-type choice. What will that do? It will create more competition. That will drive down the price of insurance within the Affordable Care Act exchanges, and it will ensure that you have a provider everywhere in the United States in every community of this country. Even better, the Congressional Budget Office, the last time they looked at it, concluded that it would save taxpayers $160 billion over 10 years, so it would reduce our deficit. The House Republican wealthcare bill doesn't try to fix the exchanges. What it does is blow up the Affordable Care Act and in the process wreaks havoc on our entire healthcare system. You don't have to take my word for it. Just take a look at the long list of groups that have come out strongly opposed to the House bill, starting with patient advocacy groups, such as the American Lung Association, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and the list goes on. These aren't Democratic groups. They don't have only Democratic patients. They have patients who are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and people who aren't participating in the political process. These are groups that care about patients, they don't care about politics, and they are strongly opposed. How about those who are providing care to those patients? Well, here is a partial list of the groups that are strongly opposed: the American Academy of Family Physicians; the American Medical Association, the doctors; the American Academy of Pediatrics, the folks who look after the care of our kids; the American Nurses' Association. Let's look at the hospital groups. The American Hospital Association strongly opposes this; the Children's Hospital Association opposes this, and the list goes on. It is opposed by those who are spending all their time advocating for patients and opposed by those who provide care to patients. Then you have a long list of senior groups, including AARP, that strongly oppose this because the House bill discriminates against older Americans--people over 50 years old--because it allows insurance companies to charge them a whole lot more for their healthcare than they currently have to pay. These groups don't care about party. They don't care about politics. They care about patients in our healthcare system, and it should tell us all a lot that they are opposed and strongly opposed to this bill. Now, why is that? This House bill is rotten at its core. Its foundation was rotten when the Congressional Budget Office first looked at it, and then they made it even worse. Let's look at the foundation of this, which the Congressional Budget Office did have a chance to look at. I do want to remind the Presiding Officer that the head of the Congressional Budget Office was selected by the chairman of the House Republican Budget Committee, the House Budget Committee, the Republican chairman, and the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, a Republican chairman. They took a look at that first foundation of the House bill, and here is what they concluded. This is right in their report; that 24 million Americans would lose their access to affordable healthcare. That is on page 2 of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report. Why is that? It is because they take a wrecking ball to Medicaid and a wrecking ball to the exchanges. They don't make the exchanges better. They don't drive down the prices. They make the exchanges worse, and they take a big whack at Medicaid. In fact, they also take a cut at Medicare. In fact, if you go to the table in this CBO chart, I will just refer people to table 3. Sometimes you just have to dig deep in these reports to get to the bottom line. There is an $883 billion cut that consists of about $840 billion cuts to the Medicaid Program, $48 billion cut to the Medicare Program, and I should emphasize that will actually make the Medicare Program somewhat more insolvent. You add it up, you have $880 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid combined. I remind people that the Medicaid funding not only went to provide more access to people for healthcare through expanding Medicaid, which many States have talked about and Governor Kasich has been talking about recently, but this bill also cuts the core Medicaid Program to the States, and two-thirds of that money goes to care for seniors in nursing homes and people with disabilities. So it puts all of them at risk. That is $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid and Medicare and people who need healthcare. What is the other big number in the House bill? Well, $900 billion is the amount of the tax cuts in what is being described as a healthcare bill. That is why people are calling this a wealthcare bill because you are cutting $880 billion out of Medicaid and Medicare and transferring those dollars that are currently being spent to provide healthcare to tens of millions of Americans, transferring that money back primarily to the wealthiest people in this country and corporate special interests. Under this $900 billion tax cut, if you are earning over $1 million a year, you are getting an average tax cut of $50,000 a year. If you are in the top one-tenth of 1 percent of income earners--we are talking about the wealthiest people in this country--you are getting an average annual tax cut of $200,000. Do you know what they did for insurance companies? They used to say the bonuses that were paid to the CEOs of insurance companies would be taxed, but they took that away. So now insurance companies can essentially pay bonuses and deduct those. They can deduct those now from their bottom line, which drives up the profits of insurance companies by allowing the deduction of CEO bonuses. So we have $900 billion in tax cuts that primarily go to the wealthiest, and $880 billion in cuts to the Medicaid Program and Medicare that goes to care for people. That is why this bill is rotten at its core, because it is going to hurt our healthcare system, according to all those patient advocacy groups and all those patient provider groups, and for what? To give this windfall tax break to the wealthy and powerful interests. That is why it is probably no surprise that when the American people were asked about that original House bill, only 17 percent said: Yes, that is a good idea. Everybody else said: Uh-uh, we don't like what we are seeing. That is the bill I was just describing. Then the House took that rotten foundation and put even worse stuff on top of it. They added a provision that would eliminate the essential benefits package. These are the provisions that ensure that when you are buying an insurance policy, you are getting something that will be there when you need it rather than a junk policy--the policies people used to get, where they found out after they got sick, ``Uh-uh, we are not paying for that,'' said the insurance companies ``because look here at the back of page 100, last paragraph, fine print, you are not covered for that.'' That is why we had an essential benefits package for things like maternity care, mental health care, coverage for substance abuse. I hear a lot of talk about the problems with the opioid epidemic. Those are real problems that are hurting families around the country. That was part of the essential health benefits--not there in the House bill. Then, to add insult to injury, they took out the requirement that you have coverage for preexisting conditions in an affordable way. You know, people can play word games all they want. You can say that you have to provide coverage for someone with preexisting conditions, but if the policy you propose is $200,000 a year, $300,000 a year, we all know that is a false promise. That is a hoax. That is playing games with the American people. So you can write in any kind of requirement you want that preexisting conditions be covered, but if they are unaffordable, it is not real. That is why the Affordable Care Act put everybody into a pool together, to help reduce the costs so we could make sure we protected people with preexisting conditions--asthma, diabetes or whatever it may be. The House bill pulls the plug on that. Maybe that is why the House didn't want to wait for the next Congressional Budget Office report to tell them what their bill would do to the American people. I have already read a little from the original Congressional Budget Office report that was based on the foundation of this House bill. That hasn't changed. That bill is rotten at its core, and as the Congressional Budget Office says, it is going to knock 24 million people off of affordable healthcare, going to apply big tax breaks to wealthy people, but then they added other provisions as well--getting rid of the essential health benefits, getting rid of protections for preexisting conditions. Then it was let's see no evil, let's hear no evil. We are not even going to wait for the next Congressional Budget Office report. I am looking forward to hearing what they have to say. For the American people, I think the greatest danger is that here in the Senate we are going to hear from a lot of Senators that they don't like the House bill just as it is; yes, we are going to have to make some changes. What I would say to the American people is to beware of people who say they are going to make a change that is meaningful to the Affordable Care Act that the House bill passed--their version of the bill. Beware of people who say they are making a change that is meaningful when it is really only a cosmetic change, when it is really only a small change that then provides some kind of rationale or excuse for supporting a House bill that is rotten at its core. For example, someone may say: Well, let's do a little more by way of covering opioid addiction. That would be a good idea. But that doesn't salvage a bill that is fundamentally flawed. That doesn't salvage a bill that at its core cuts $880 billion from Medicaid and Medicare to provide a tax cut of over $900 billion, most of which goes to wealthy people and corporate special interests. I would say to all the other people who are on employer-provided healthcare, which are the majority of Americans: Beware, because that House bill will affect you too. I just want to read a portion from something that appeared in TheUpshot public health section of the New York Times--``G.O.P. Bill Could Affect Employer Health Coverage, Too.'' They write: About half of all Americans get health coverage through work. The bill would make it easier for employers to increase the amount that employees could be asked to pay in premiums, or to stop offering coverage entirely. It also has the potential to weaken rules against capping worker's benefits or limiting how much employees can be asked to pay in deductibles or co-payments. So for someone who is getting coverage through their employer, beware because this is going to have harmful effects on you. I want to close with one of the many stories that I have received-- and I know many of us have received from our constituents--about how that House bill would wreak havoc in their lives. Here is one that I received: I'm 29 years old and was just diagnosed Feb. 24th with breast cancer. . . . I buy insurance myself, and did so with the assistance from the ACA. Without that program in place, I might not have gone in when I felt this lump. I might have waited much longer, just to be told that it was too late. Without this program, I would be bankrupted by the screenings alone just to find out I am dying. . . . Someone told me not to make this political--but this is my life. It will literally be life or death for so many of us. This is a life-or-death issue for tens of millions of our fellow Americans. I urge the Senate to flatly reject the House healthcare- wealthcare bill, which is rotten to its core. Let's focus on fixing the issues in the exchanges. We can do that if people of good faith want to work from scratch to address that issue, but let's not blow up the Affordable Care Act and hurt our constituents and tens of millions of other Americans in the process. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, Heather Wilson was one of the first women to graduate from the U.S. Air Force Academy and the third generation of her family to serve in the Air Force. She was one of the pioneers of gender integration of the modern Air Force. Even so, her track record in public service and the private sector after her Air Force career raises concerns. While serving as the Representative from New Mexico's First District, Ms. Wilson admitted to telephoning the U.S. Attorney in Albuquerque to pressure him on an ongoing corruption investigation of State Democrats, in violation of House ethics rules. Ms. Wilson was paid $450,000 between 2009 and 2013 through a Lockheed Martin subsidiary for consulting work for Sandia National Laboratory. The Government Accountability Office criticized the lab for not having adequate documentation of the work that she performed, and Lockheed Martin ultimately paid $4.7 million to settle charges that it had paid a lobbyist with taxpayer funds. Ethics laws prohibited Ms. Wilson from lobbying within a year of serving in Congress. Ms. Wilson failed to list her business relationship with Sandia Labs in her financial disclosure filings. In spite of this, she claims that she did nothing wrong. During her unsuccessful run for the Senate, Ms. Wilson claimed that legislation intended to reduce bullying of LGBTQ children was a violation of religious freedom. She argued that the correct response was not to punish bullies, but to ``strengthen our children to be more comfortable with themselves.'' She has steadfastly refused to support Federal nondiscrimination protections for the LGBTQ community. The core values of the Air Force are, integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do. In spite of her career as an Air Force officer, Ms. Wilson has not demonstrated the unflinching commitment to integrity that we demand of our men and women in uniform. She has compromised ethics rules in Congress, accepted pay for questionable work that was ill- defined and can't be fully documented, and failed to show that she is willing to stand up for all serving in uniform, regardless of their sexual orientation. For these reasons, I cannot support Ms. Wilson's nomination to be 24th Secretary of the Air Force.